General

Re: Rothbard's Land Theory and... Squares

Solid_Choke — Sun, 04 May 2008 22:56:26 GMT

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?

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.

Re: Rothbard's Land Theory and... Squares

Rodahue — Thu, 01 May 2008 04:21:10 GMT

Thanks everyone for your responses, especially yours Deist. Much appreciated!

Re: Rothbard's Land Theory and... Squares

Deist — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:14:39 GMT

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.

Re: Rothbard's Land Theory and... Squares

Deist — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:02:35 GMT

The right to exit also stems from the individual parachuter's rights to leave and is not related to the inner square owner.

Re: Rothbard's Land Theory and... Squares

Deist — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:52:33 GMT

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.

Re: Rothbard's Land Theory and... Squares

Rodahue — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:00:49 GMT

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 would agree with that.

Re: Rothbard's Land Theory and... Squares

histhasthai — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:31:47 GMT

Rodahue:

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

Re: Rothbard's Land Theory and... Squares

Bostwick — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:36:35 GMT

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.

Re: Rothbard's Land Theory and... Squares

Deist — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:18:11 GMT

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.

Re: Rothbard's Land Theory and... Squares

Deist — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:20:28 GMT

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.

Re: Rothbard's Land Theory and... Squares

Jon Irenicus — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:05:40 GMT

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

Re: Rothbard's Land Theory and... Squares

Ego — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:32:55 GMT

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".

Re: Rothbard's Land Theory and... Squares

MacFall — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:53:20 GMT

Rodahue:

And yes, it would be greatly appreciated guys.

Oh, sorry. I'll be good now.

Re: Rothbard's Land Theory and... Squares

MacFall — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:52:22 GMT

Ego:

That's a silly way of looking at it!

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.

Re: Rothbard's Land Theory and... Squares

Rodahue — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:30:57 GMT

How is it that every online community gets Donahue from Rodahue? And yes, it would be greatly appreciated guys.