Here is a thought experiment relating to property ownership.
There is a desert island in the middle of the ocean, where an islander lives and has a just claim to the island and everything on it as his property. A castaway washes up on shore from a shipwreck. The islander has a radio and could hypothetically radio for help.
Does the islander have a right to force the castaway back into the water, likely to drown?
Does the castaway have a right to demand use of the islanders radio?
Does the islander have a right to shoot or incarcerate the castaway?
could hypothetically radio for help.
Why hasn't he used it yet? If he hasn't used it, then he can survive on the island. This means that there is no life-threatening situation on the island, meaning that the second question should be anwered in the negative.
Need to think more on the others.
The islander owns the radio, but for the sake of argument, we will assume that he doesn't allow the castaway to use it. Coercing the man to allow the castaway radio use would be a violation of the NAP.
Rights are societal constructs. So it doesn't look like you're referring to anything. Maybe you're referring to the theoretical propertarian framework? But that doesn't apply because there isn't even a third person who could take sides.
So this situation is just a matter of either conflict or cooperation, and you could wonder what the smartest way of dealing would be for one or the other.
Haha, I was about to link to this:
http://vforvoluntary.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=179
to give another opinion, but Nielsio beat me to it :P
So for property to be considered property, there needs to be at least 3 people present? Doesn't sound like any definition of property rights I have ever heard.
That's why I disagree with Nielsio.
Though de-facto it is true
I also disagree with Nielso on that link you provided, when he implies property is only property once it has been transformed. What if you find a diamond on the ground and pick it up? Is it not your property? You didn't transform it at all.
I think one possible answer might be to ask how the current system would solve this. Well, will we have enforcement agents everywhere? We can't even if we want to. So the scenario remains the same in either case.
Then again, we might want to ask what legal ethics dictates. Then the question still stands.
That is basically the point of the question, it isn't exactly to discover WHAT would happen, but rather what would be legally and ethically correct given the circumstances.
The bummer is that you remove all the free market elements that would prevent this from happening :P
Exactly. It was a question posed by a liberal to me and some fellow ancaps on the NationStates General forums. We all had different answers, so we decided to toss it over to the Mises Forums to get your guys opinions.
If he's using that as an argument, it's irrelevant, as no state can provide a nice solution (unless it injects brain chips).
I agree, and I already tossed him a utilitarian argument along those lines, but he is claiming that libertarian ethics then considers slavery or incarceration to be freedom.
ZombieRothbard,
Extracting something from nature is considered an improvement.
When you pluck an apple from a tree, that's your apple. The tree however is not.
Actually libertarians consider slavery to be immoral even if it is voluntary. I think that they also frown on incarceration (I say they because I have not read up on jail theory). Can I have a link to this?
It may be an improvement, but you aren't altering it like you would if you were homesteading and mixing your labor with the land.
Look up title-transfer theory of contract.
Can I have a link to your discussion with the liberal guy?
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=135200&start=1100
Thats the last page, you might have to go back a few if you want to get the full debate. The guy I am referring to is Free Soviets, but there are others now also.
I am thinking this currently (since desperate times call for desperate measures):
- You cannot kill the man. Or hurt him. That is imperative.
- He must make every effort he can to leave your island without hurting himself.
- As I said, desperate times: the concept of easement is now stretched to give the guy unlimited easement across your property unless he harms you or it.
- He must make every effort to sustain himself by fishing the waters around the island, etc.
I am still unsure whether he can take your food or food from the island in general.
The liberal may now say: what if the guy is allergic to fish?
Well, I am unsure about the origins and extent of homesteading, but you could argue that the man can grow something on a piece of land without violating your property rights.
Another proposed solution:
The property owner has a right to use reasonable force to get the man off his island (and pushing him off is unreasonable).
If he decides to not use the radio, he is implicitly allowing the man to remain on his island. It's like the flag-pole hanger scenario if the apartment owner refused to allow the flag-pole hanger to use his door. The owner, if he dislikes the shipwreck, may take reasonable steps to get the shipwreck off. If he refuses to let him use the radio, he is refusing to let him get off, in a way, and thus allowing him to remain. How so? Well, the scenario is similar to this one:
There is a bridge connecting the island to the continent. However, the bridge is battery operated (it must be extended or lowered or something). If the owner refuses to let the shipwreck use it, he is allowing him to stay implicitly. Of course, the shipwreck must pay the owner back for any battery he drained from the radio.
Thus, by saving himself on the island, the shipwreck implicitly agrees that he will repay the owner for property loss on his part.
Hey, this works out!
Or is this a statist mess?
Also, I'd like to point out that the existence of the radio simplifies the situation. A better question is what if there was no radio? Can the person live on the guy's property forever? At this point I'd look into the legitimacy of the homesteading of the island, as it is likely not 100% homesteaded. Not saying this because this is a tough scenario, just saying that chances are the guy hasn't homsteaded everything on the island completely.
Wheylous, you should register for the forums and share your insights on there! I really like your flagpole hanger point.
ZombieRothbard: Does the islander have a right to force the castaway back into the water, likely to drown? Does the castaway have a right to demand use of the islanders radio? Does the islander have a right to shoot or incarcerate the castaway?
Assuming the islander "has" the above "rights", who/what would have been be the "just" giver of them to him?
If a single human being on a deserted island would not feel extatic about another human being coming on shore, then humanity wouldn't have had the capacity for social coordination large enough to invent agriculture, much less interconnected computers over which we could indulge in hypothetical masturbations of this sort.
Haha. I am assuming the situation is viewed in retrospect after either the guy is rescued or some court comes to the island (idk). The idea of what would be "legally ethical" is still interesting.
Also, forgot to say, call out Free Soviets on his Nirvana fallacy.
This whole question to to be addressed in manner of conflicting claims: namely, the Ludwig Mises & Bruno Leoni framework.
There is no such thing as absolute rights, only "rights" insofar as "opportunities."
The question is, can islander and castaway resolve and reorganize their claims in way that removes conflict to promote division of labour and thus peace.
Whatever is good for division of labour is proper, whatever is against division of labour is not proper way of organizing claims (Mises, Human Action; Leoni, Obligation & Claim).
That is because division of labour is only thing in common that is "good-for-both" despite A and B, or islander and castaway, having different preferences.