Ok talk to you tomorrow and good luck on your homework. This might be repeated since I posted the same thing earlier and then stated it needed to be reviewed.
If someone told me they are right-"libertarian", I'd say that he/she isn't really libertarian. Why not "libertarian"?
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
Ego: If someone told me they are right-"libertarian", I'd say that he/she isn't really libertarian. Why not "libertarian"?
The term "left" in the context of "left libertarianism" is not in the same context as the contemporary meaning of "left". It's "left" in the classical sense of the political spectrum, I.E. historically speaking libertarianism was always part of the "left". Terms such as "left libertarianism" wouldn't be necessary if libertarianism had not become so closely associated with American conservatism. But since this association exists, it becomes kind of necessary for one to distinguish oneself from the conservatarians.
Can this be continued through private messaging or at least in a separate topic? It really doesn't pertain to the thread.
So, by "left-libertarian", you mean "not-right-libertarian"?
Seriously, this is completely off-topic and needs to find a new home.
Ego: So, by "left-libertarian", you mean "not-right-libertarian"?
"Left" in the historical sense means "revolutionary", whereas "right" means reformist/political. That's all.
Hence, most left-libertarians are anarchists, whereas most right-libertarians are statists. Not "statist" in the perjorative sense, just as a matter of fact.
I say "most" because it is possible for a libertarian to be an anarchist and yet reject revolutionarism in favor of political reform, which would make them "right" in these terms.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Rodahue: Can this be continued through private messaging or at least in a separate topic? It really doesn't pertain to the thread.
You're right. Sorry for getting into it here. It's just that Ego seems to have a tendency to insert stabs at "the left" in the middle of many topics.
MacFall: Ego: So, by "left-libertarian", you mean "not-right-libertarian"? "Left" in the historical sense means "revolutionary", whereas "right" means reformist/political. That's all. Hence, most left-libertarians are anarchists, whereas most right-libertarians are statists. Not "statist" in the perjorative sense, just as a matter of fact. I say "most" because it is possible for a libertarian to be an anarchist and yet reject revolutionarism in favor of political reform, which would make them "right" in these terms.
That's a silly way of looking at it!
Why not use modern definitions? Modern leftists are the biggest statists around; leftist policies also happen to be the most difficult to undo (and leftists like FDR gloated about that fact).
I believe Donahue wants us to stop derailing his thread with this off-topic debate.
How is it that every online community gets Donahue from Rodahue? And yes, it would be greatly appreciated guys.
Ego: That's a silly way of looking at it! Why not use modern definitions?
Why not use modern definitions?
Because the modern left-right scale is intentionally anti-liberty, and presents a false dichotomy. I am frustrated when English is diluted by lazy people; that's bad enough. But even moreso by people with an agenda. The natural atrophy of my language's effectiveness is something I can't change, but its intentional perversion I feel I can do something about, even if only a small contribution.
Rodahue: And yes, it would be greatly appreciated guys.
And yes, it would be greatly appreciated guys.
Oh, sorry. I'll be good now.
I used to be the same as you; I would argue that "liberal" shouldn't mean "leftist", it should mean "libertarian".
I realized that I wasn't going to change anything, though, and I was just going to give people the wrong impression when I said my policies were "truly liberal".
Rodahue, you are confusing the governing principle with the implementation thereof. Rothbard was strongly in favour of the common law, which included easements and all the like. I do not see a sufficient understanding in anything you've written of Rothbard's theory of property. JonBostwick pretty much answered your objections resolutely.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Well I figure using the term "Duty of care" is kind of confusing so I will resort to another way of phrasing it called "Standard of Care" which might sounds less charitable and more about not harming others. I was thinking about this common law doctrine in depth last night and you are totally right and I am wrong in that it does not apply to this situation when it comes to property easment since that WOULD be no different than being forced to give money to a pauper but it does allow the right to peaceful exits as I will show below. So essentially let me scrap that whole argument since I could not see the forest through the trees.
But on the other hand the homestead theory totally effects this scenario and nullifies any case of entrapment. The homesteader of the inner square had to pass through what was unowned land to homestead this square. So he automatically has homesteaded his right to passage on the unowned land and any future homestead who then owns that property outright has to acknowledge this homestead easement which becomes the property right and is inherently connected to the property of the inner square. This is how this has been handled in the past to prevent scenarios such as the one you have provided above.
I believe we have already addressed the issue of the free agents born in the inner square as not being capable of being held against their will by the inner square owner and not being bound. Now as far as being prevented from crossing the other owners property well it is the "standard of care" approach since they are there by accident and not their choice much like a parachuter who lands in my living room I cannot keep him from leaving my property and even if he landed on an abutting property such as the inner square I cannot prevent him from peacful exit and it would not become a property easement, just a right to exist with no inherent property in the use of my land to migrate. So if they come back voluntarily then they will be trespassing on my land.
Now if the owner of the outer square had already owned that square (for some odd reason not the inner square) before the inner square was homesteaded it would be up to the homesteader of the inner square to obtain an easement maybe by offering somce compensation otherwise he would be an idiot because he purchases a blocked property which is his own fault.
My above response was in relation to this scenario you provided:
Rodahue: Ok, let's say... Smith and Jones are working together on this. Smith hikes out into unowned land and clears a plot. Jones then creates the blue barrier of his property around it. Anyone born on Smith's land - say, Smith's or Jone's children - can be refused passage by Jones. Smith, who now has persons on his property, has every right under Rothbard's absolutist property rights to extract rent, just as Jones can refuse passage. Thus, Smith can sustain himself on the forced labor of his renters and provide a cut for Jones. I realized it is an incredibly contrived example... But it still uses Rothbard's logic fully and works well enough for discussion. Using this, though, the "slaves" could only be kept legitimately if a) They were decendants of Jone's or Smith's children or b) Someone else agreed to "seed" the land with renters.
Ok, let's say...
Smith and Jones are working together on this. Smith hikes out into unowned land and clears a plot. Jones then creates the blue barrier of his property around it. Anyone born on Smith's land - say, Smith's or Jone's children - can be refused passage by Jones. Smith, who now has persons on his property, has every right under Rothbard's absolutist property rights to extract rent, just as Jones can refuse passage. Thus, Smith can sustain himself on the forced labor of his renters and provide a cut for Jones.
I realized it is an incredibly contrived example... But it still uses Rothbard's logic fully and works well enough for discussion. Using this, though, the "slaves" could only be kept legitimately if a) They were decendants of Jone's or Smith's children or b) Someone else agreed to "seed" the land with renters.
Rodahue:You are missing the point. Three separate people are involved.
No, I'm telling you that who owns the interior of the parcel does not change the outcome.
You're claiming to have created an unsolvable problem. However, it can be, and has been, solved. If its impossible to resolve the problem without infringing on someone's ownership then the least intrusive infringment is chosen, and the burden is carried by whoever is most responsible.
Lets say that I parachute from my crashing plane and land in the middle of Smith's cornfield. If I attempt to leave the cornfield I will damage even more of Smith's crops. Smith can not refuse to let me leave the spot where I landed in order to protect his crop, because that would cause damage to the ownership of my person that outweighs the damage to his crops. I am allowed to leave through the least instrusive route, but I must compensate Smith for his property. This provides the most fair outcome that recongizes the property rights of both individuals.
But now that I have escaped Smith's cornfield I'm still not home. I've still got to cross Jones' cornfield to get to the public highway. Do I just lay down and die on the border of Smith's and Jone's property? Of course not, I am allowed to cross Jone's cornfield for the same reason I crossed Smith's. If Smith can not trap me on his property to protect his corn, Jones can not trap me on Smith's property to protect Jones' corn. I have an easement from where I landed to whereever I need to be to end my trespass. Doesn't matter if its one parcel or one hundred.
If in your scenario the entrapment is intentional, I'd say thats grounds enough to transfer responsibility off of the trespassers.
Peace
Rodahue: Consider [...] It is set up as such
Consider [...] It is set up as such
No.
That setup is pathological, impossible (in full context), and need not be considered at all.
Debating the moral status of unicorns is a potentially infinite time and energy sink.
--ηιστηαστηαι
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
Deist: Now if the owner of the outer square had already owned that square (for some odd reason not the inner square) before the inner square was homesteaded it would be up to the homesteader of the inner square to obtain an easement maybe by offering somce compensation otherwise he would be an idiot because he purchases a blocked property which is his own fault.
Right, but the Inner property holder does this on purpose. Is he liable for not purchasing an easement if a paratrooper falls into his living room? And what about the man who never buys an easement, not because of ill intent but just ignorance or lack of funds? He cannot stop you from falling onto the property nor can he prevent the Outer owner from allowing passage.
JonBostwick: I am allowed to leave through the least instrusive route, but I must compensate Smith for his property. This provides the most fair outcome that recongizes the property rights of both individuals.
I am allowed to leave through the least instrusive route, but I must compensate Smith for his property. This provides the most fair outcome that recongizes the property rights of both individuals.
I would agree with that.
Rodahue:Right, but the Inner property holder does this on purpose. Is he liable for not purchasing an easement if a paratrooper falls into his living room? And what about the man who never buys an easement, not because of ill intent but just ignorance or lack of funds? He cannot stop you from falling onto the property nor can he prevent the Outer owner from allowing passage
Well the right to exit is a momentary right and is not an easement right which is a permanent property right so in this accidental case no. The property owner of the outside square does not have to be compensated unless some damage is done to his property. But the parachuter certainly owes some compensation for the owner of the living room he crashed into. I assume since there is no need for compensation short of property damage for the outside owner that this answers the question about the ignorant or cash poor man in a scenario such as this.
The right to exit also stems from the individual parachuter's rights to leave and is not related to the inner square owner.
And as far as compensation goes towards the outer square owner if his property is some how damaged by the exiting parachuter the liability lies with the parachuter not the inner square owner and their failure to obtain an easement. This is because why would the inner square owner have to be accountable for the mistakes of the parachuter. How would someone prepare and be liable for an accident that totally originates from another free agent.
Thanks everyone for your responses, especially yours Deist. Much appreciated!
Rodahue: I have a quick question for the community to wax over. Consider a society where you have absolute land rights. You are invited to a friend's property for a visit and must pass through his neighbor's land in order to get there (and are allowed to do so). It is set up as such (it could be many things, but just for simplicity): Now, the reason why is not necessarily important. But what if landowner Green attempts to expel you from his property, but Blue refuses to let you pass? I suppose the easiest solution would be that Blue agrees to a two-way passage, and is therefore held to his word. But Rothbard suggests that promises may not be enforced, so that I would have to pay Blue for two-way passage just to keep him to his word. The idea of paying someone a small amount, even if it is garunteed back, everytime you need access to "locked-in" areas seems knd of contrived. Thoughts?
I have a quick question for the community to wax over. Consider a society where you have absolute land rights. You are invited to a friend's property for a visit and must pass through his neighbor's land in order to get there (and are allowed to do so). It is set up as such (it could be many things, but just for simplicity):
Now, the reason why is not necessarily important. But what if landowner Green attempts to expel you from his property, but Blue refuses to let you pass? I suppose the easiest solution would be that Blue agrees to a two-way passage, and is therefore held to his word. But Rothbard suggests that promises may not be enforced, so that I would have to pay Blue for two-way passage just to keep him to his word.
The idea of paying someone a small amount, even if it is garunteed back, everytime you need access to "locked-in" areas seems knd of contrived. Thoughts?
The most interesting part of this problem is the fact that we theoretically have this same problem in the current nation-state system. If the Vatican invites me to their property and then the Catholic Church tells me to get out but Italy then refuses to let me back into the country I am stuck in the same problem. This isn't really just a problem with absolute property rights. It's a problem of nation-states as well.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay