Yesterday I saw a video of the conference about interventionism given by Walter Block on the "Mises University 2009". He exposed two ideas about something that is similar to a positive obligation imposed on an individual, but he tries to avoid using that term by refering to the homesteading principle. He said that:- One cannot homestead a large portion of land without letting others pass through it, that is, you have to make roads in order to let other people get to the other side of the large portion of land without having to travel very much (there's nothing quantitative here, just like his ideas of environmentalism). The main idea here is, according to Block, that if you have homesteaded very large portions of land without making roads, you're precluding others to reach the other part. Maybe this is easier to see in the case of a homesteaded land with a donut shape: the landlord is precluding others from homesteading the inner portion of land.- He compared this situation to the situation of a father not feeding his child. He said that as animals keep homesteading their children, as opposed to land, the father is precluding others from homesteading his child, thus is committing a crime.I think that those ideas are quite messy, because he is trying to impose a positive obligation on someone, but justifying it in a supposed homesteading principle. Any ideas?You can watch the video here: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/1885650
The donut shape or dome over someone's house scenarios are easier to understand. I don't see how it is the same for a 400x1 mile rectangle of land though. Keep in mind, that doesn't matter if there are preexisting easements anyhow. I will watch the video in a little bit, but I had been meaning to dig this article out for this passage anyhow:
Finally, and to me most decisive: the libertarian could argue that the parent has various positive obligations to his or her children, such as the obligation to feed, shelter, educate, etc. The idea here is that libertarianism does not oppose "positive rights"; it simply insists that they be voluntarily incurred. One way to do this is by contract; another is by trespassing against someone's property. Now, if you pass by a drowning man in a lake you have no enforceable (legal) obligation to try to rescue him; but if you push someone in a lake you have a positive obligation to try to rescue him. If you don't you could be liable for homicide. Likewise, if your voluntary actions bring into being an infant with natural needs for shelter, food, care, it is akin to throwing someone into a lake. In both cases you create a situation where another human is in dire need of help and without which he will die. By creating this situation of need you incur an obligation to provide for those needs. And surely this set of positive obligations would encompass the obligation to manumit the child at a certain point. This last argument is, to my mind, the most attractive, but it is also probably the least likely to be accepted by most libertarians, who generally seem opposed to positive obligations, even if they are incurred as the result of one's actions. Rothbard, for example, puts forward several objections to such an approach.
from Kinsella's How We Come to Own Ourselves, if it means anything to this topic.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
That throws a little bit of light to the issue, more if we consider that Kinsella and Block are good friends. Nevertheless, it's difficult to justify the position of making roads into a long land which was homesteaded.
I read #5/6/7 a while back and forget the arguments, but they might help you too.
http://libertarianpapers.org/archive/latest-articles/page/2/
5 minutes in and I haven't found what you are talking about yet.
It's in the video link I posted!
I am like exactly halfway through the 54 minute video and it is almost solely basic talk about rent control for the first 19 minutes. Patience young Jedi
There may be some proportionality argument here:
The bigger the area homesteaded, the more likely it could burden others, therefore the more likely the need to provide passage...
Same idea with feeding the child. Maybe the closer they are to starvation, the more you become obligated to feed them. I really don't like the sound of that...
ivanfoofoo:- He compared this situation to the situation of a father not feeding his child. He said that as animals keep homesteading their children, as opposed to land, the father is precluding others from homesteading his child, thus is committing a crime.I think that those ideas are quite messy, because he is trying to impose a positive obligation on someone, but justifying it in a supposed homesteading principle. Any ideas?
Seems sound to me.
If you don't care for your child you have abandoned them, even if you claim otherwise. If you prevent others from excersing their right of homestead, you are a criminal. The only obligation imposed is the demand that I do not attempt to prevent others from accessing what I don't own.
Peace
I have the utmost respect for Block and hold him in extremely high regard, but i dont find his perspective on 'forestalling' correct or useful. If I am ever lucky enough to find myself in his company and felt he would enjoy such a discussion, it would probably be high up on the list of things I would touch on with him.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring