Imagine that in a free society, some dictatator decides to move hundreds of tanks and thousands of troops right to the middle of the United States. After all, most of U.S territory is not homesteaded, so according to homesteading principle that dictator has the right to get in. Naturally it wouldn’t be good, but how to avoid it?
Excuse me, how do you have a dictator in a free society?
A dictator that is external to the free society (let’s say someone coming from south America).
Why are we assuming that the dictator is respecting rights?
No, we don’t assume that. He might respect rights and he might not. After all he is a dictator.
Okay… I’m not sure I understand what the problem is. How does the homesteading principle enter into it? I understood the problem as “Since homesteading doesn’t apply to the US, the dictator can just waltz in. How do we stop that?”. But I’m not sure how homesteading is relevant, since if the dictator doesn’t respect rights, even if homesteading applied to the US the dictator would still waltz in…?
So crazy south american dictator drives his tanks into the large un-homesteaded lands in the american west, and sets up a base?
Why on earth would he do that?
TO FIGHT TERRORISM!
-
How does he move his tanks there?
-
A gigantic dictator without help from the US? Sounds unlikely.
-
Libertarians aren’t anti-army…
He’d have to move those tanks across somebodies land. If they don’t like it, they can retaliate. If they are few, form a guerilla corp and inflict death by a thousand cuts, or at least exasperate this dictator so much that he questions the value of homesteading.
The point is that sometimes you need a buffer zone to form defense. Maybe we should add this to the the list of reasons for homesteading. So no longer am I able to homestead because I farm here or build a house there, but also because I need a buffer zone to defend some property down the road.
Where is here even the problem? If he is moving tanks for the sake of it then it is his right and none of your business. If he is moving them in preparation of an invasion then you can attack him preemptively.
I am not sure there is an official list of legitimate homesteading actions, but sure, building the buffer zone appears legitimate, since you are building things on land…
The dictator may bring tanks without the intention to attack, but would you feel safe when hundreds of tanks are parked next to your home, and your safety depends on the whim of some dictator? On the other hand, can you reall homestead all the territory within a 500 km radius for defense?
If they are in a radius of 500km they probably aren’t right next to my home. And no, I wouldn’t feel “safe”, but (provided he has done this without the intent to attack as you say) I actually would be safer than if the dictator had not done this. For one people around me will take note and be more vigilant, and another thing — the dictator will be squandering greater amount of resources for the same military bang. It is far easier for him to maintain the tanks in repair at home than in some un-homesteaded middle of nowhere.
Really your problem isn’t inability to homestead. Your problem is that there is a state on the “borders” of your stateless area. Now does this “homesteading for defense” thing actually affect your ability to deter this state from attacking? I’d say it doesn’t actually do anything to make you safer, it’s just an area declared a no-go zone for states. Even if you declare such a zone, it hinges on the strength of your arms to enforce it. It is not a barrier that will magically keep out state armies, as I doubt dictators really care too much for our analysis of ethics.
So think about it from the military perspective. Do you want to declare such a zone, against a dictator who is not planning an attack? Will it make you safe to attack his tanks in this zone or will it get you into an avoidable war?
Marko, I think its obvious that a dangerous person close to you is worse than a dangerous person far from you. So I’m pretty sure a barrier protected by security firms that will keep away dictators and other dangerous elements will be beneficial. My personal problem with this, is that it will encroach on the freedom of movement of regular folk. But unfortunately I don’t see how it can be avoided. If in a free society some gang of muderers with nuclear weapons gets as close as 500km to my home, I would want them stopped, regardless of Rothbardian ethics.
These metaphysical speculations are a waste of time.
OP is perpetually confused and thinks that “Rothbardian ethics” (liberalism, more generally) constitutes a set of public policy strategic objectives. However, this is not the case. LvMI is not interested in political influence (if it ever becomes corrupted in this regard, as happened to the Mont Pelerin Society, I’m outta here) and liberalism is ultimately a battle for ideas and values.
A freer society can only come about by a change in people’s beliefs, attitudes and mores. The concern of the individual liberal is not to alter society but to alter himself so that he can escape bondage, even if in no other way than by silently thinking in his mind “I will not submit!” Even the pitiable North Korean who is ground daily under the boot heel of the Il regime can do this. Each individual that institutes an act of originary secession in their own mind becomes a beacon of liberty even if they never say a word to anyone else about their private beliefs. The fact that they obey the government only out of prudence and not conviction itself undermines our corrupt rulers.
Clayton -
Romantic thinking Clayton.
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
- Winston Smith