Right to Roam?

[Autolykos]

@Wheylous

Well, this sort of relies on the belief of the existence of a ring. Instead, it could very well be some patchwork of properties, and someone happens to buy-up what appears to be a ring. You can’t really make contracts with all the people who could form said ring… Well, you can… This is interesting…

An apparently hidden assumption in this land-ring example is that either all of the ways through the land-ring have also been bought up by its owner(s), or there is no way through the land-ring. In the former case, those who live inside the land-ring have already homesteaded a right-of-way through it. In the latter case, this raises the question of how anyone came to live inside the land-ring in the first place.

@Wheylous

Another interesting question is what happens if all land is bought up and you have new people added to the equation and no one wants them on their land. Do they just disappear in a puff of smoke? I know that this scenario is statistically unlikely and the market would likely solve, but what if it doesn’t?

Then it doesn’t.

My point is, the market is not guaranteed to be all things to all people. It won’t magically serve you breakfast in bed or make you a millionaire. People who argue that the market is “flawed” because of this are committing the nirvana fallacy.

[Autolykos]

@Eric080

I don’t think using the line of, “but that would never happen!” is an adequate refutation of the scenario if you’re going to be dealing in an absolutist, rights-based defense of libertarianism. That would have more to do with a utilitarian/consequentialist evaluation of the scenario. I agree that such a case would be unlikely and I believe that society at-large would not respect this man’s private property because his ill-will is so evident.

One thing I like to remind people of is that things are already much worse in today’s world. I’ve used this argument successfully with at least two other people.

@Eric080

On the other hand though, I don’t think finding loopholes in an ethical system necessarily demolishes it. If you follow the guideline as a rule of thumb, society could be better off. I think most ethical systems are kind of ad hoc because it just serves to justify sentiments that either evolved or were conditioned to us by society. Now that’s not to say I think ethical systems are necessarily arbitrary (because I think it hearkens back to human psychology which is often uniform and means that what is good for one person is often good for another), but it basically just reduces to utility or satisfaction or what have you.

With regard to stateless societies, people make an argument from ignorance when they argue the following:

1. It can’t be proven that [insert crazy hypothetical here] could never, ever happen in a stateless society.

2. Therefore, [insert crazy hypothetical here] is inevitable in a stateless society.

3. [Insert crazy hypothetical here] leads to government.

4. Given both 2 and 3, therefore, government is inevitable in a stateless society.

[Dave_Chappell]

I don’t see this scenario as being unlikely at all. Imagine I own a plot of land which happens to sit right in the middle of of an area that some property developer wants to build a new estate on.

I can easily see how he/she might buy up all the land around me and effectively put me in a bind whereby selling up is the only real option for me.

[Autolykos]

Again, you’ve presumably homesteaded a means of exit from your property onto one or more others’ property. If the property developer prevents you from exercising this right-of-way, he’s liable for it. There’s an actual legal term for preventing someone from homesteading something, but I can’t recall what it is.

[Dave_Chappell]

I guess this concept of homesteading would lead to the development of de-facto rights of way then?

[Autolykos]

Yes, I think that’s the idea. This also has historical precedent in various common-law systems (at the very least, those of the British Isles).

[Wheylous]

I don’t think using the line of, “but that would never happen!” is an adequate refutation of the scenario if you’re going to be dealing in an absolutist, rights-based defense of libertarianism. That would have more to do with a utilitarian/consequentialist evaluation of the scenario.

I could not have said it more perfectly.

Again, you’ve presumably homesteaded a means of exit from your property onto one or more others’ property.

Hm, but we assume that there is some property which you are allowed on or have free reign on. Imagine that the only easement you have made, because you’ve led some weird life, is a 2 mile strip which doesn’t exit the ring?

Other interesting questions spring up, such as the conditions for which we morally seem to need to find a way to help this encircled guy. If his property had all that he requires to survive and even thrive quite well, we wouldn’t be having this argument. So the problem for us (or maybe it’s just me) really seems to be that there aren’t enough resources for the guy. But we are runnig under the assumption that no one has inherent rights to supplies… Interesting.

I guess this concept of homesteading would lead to the development of de-facto rights of way then?

Sort of like my question for “right-to-roam”? …

I will post here more after I read up on homesteading and easements.

[Autolykos]

@Wheylous

Hm, but we assume that there is some property which you are allowed on or have free reign on. Imagine that the only easement you have made, because you’ve led some weird life, is a 2 mile strip which doesn’t exit the ring?

Other interesting questions spring up, such as the conditions for which we morally seem to need to find a way to help this encircled guy. If his property had all that he requires to survive and even thrive quite well, we wouldn’t be having this argument. So the problem for us (or maybe it’s just me) really seems to be that there aren’t enough resources for the guy. But we are runnig under the assumption that no one has inherent rights to supplies… Interesting.

Did you happen to see these two posts of mine?