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?
Jon: But what if none existed? As in, Blue and Green were conspiring. I guess, though, you should just not enter any land without an easement.
Stranger: Keeping with Rothbard, doesn’t he say that property extends into the sky and that air routes would have a market like any other? Or were they seperate from land ownership?
Another note… What if you were birthed in the locked territory? Theoretically, a system of “legal” Rothbardian slavery could be established. Once it was achieved, the system could continue until Blue decided to opt out. Blue will not allow passage on any condition, and Green excises a rent through labor. Then, he simply pays Blue his share and the system continues.
According to what? Certainately not Rothbard’s absolutist view. And I’m sorry that everything is going back to Rothbard, but he is the only libertarian I am really familiar with right now. If anyone can sum up other popular / relevant land theories, it would be greatly appreciated.
Edit: Sorry, these are my first posts in this community so I’ll have to adjust.
I became a libertarian from listening to neo-conservative radio, so I can’t say that I know anything about famous libertarian thinkers. From what I’ve read about Rothbard on these boards, I don’t really like what he had to say.
I find it a bit curious that people revel in these sort of counterfactual scenarios. Either way, green allowed you in to his/her property, presumably. Had there been no easement, they must’ve allowed you in some other way; the owner of the green square has every obligation to allow you some sort of exit - that is the implicit presumption involved in your being invited there in the first place. Had he lied about there being an easement to his/her property, then he/she is guilty of fraud.
Right, both Green and Blue allowed entrance at Point A in time. But at Point B, once you had entered Green’s property, Blue no longer allowed passage. Yet, if you are born on Green’s property, and Blue will not let you pass, then what are you to do?
Stranger: Thanks for the welcome! I am definately a libertarian, and on the fence about minarchy vs. anarchy.
If there’s an easement, Blue has no option to refuse you. If there isn’t, again it was implicit in Blue’s agreement to let you in through. If you’re born on Green’s property the obligation to allow you exit in the absence of an easement falls squarely on them.
Actually, I’m more anarchist than minarchist. My father in unconvinced of market provided national defense, so he still holds a tiny amount of government as necessary.
Jon: The responsibility of Green? He is the one maintaining the system of “slavery”.
That is Green’s attempted aim - if Green wants you off their property but is responsible for you being there in the first place, that individual is still obligated to allow you an exit.
It is Blue’s decision. You are saying that there is an expressed easement that obliges Blue to provide an exit. I disagree with that, but it is beside the point if you were born on Green’s land. When it is not Blue’s intention to let you leave, under Rothbardian Land Theory you could not. Not that Green could refuse your exit, but that he cannot force you on to Blue’s property. And Green could rightfully extract a rent. In the case of lifelong debt, it would be extracted through forced labor.
How did Green and Blue come about? Without knowing that we can not solve this.
Did Blue sell the interior of his parcel to Green? A Common Law implicit easement exists if that the case. Blue can’t own it if he can’t get to it.
Did Blue homestead around Green? If thats the case then Blue could not completely surround green as Blue could not homestead the road Green already uses for access.
Did Green sell the outside of his parcel to Blue? Common Law grants Green no implicit easement, so he better have a contractual one.
Did Blue buy all the parcels around Green? A Common Law easement also exists, for the same reasons as when Blue sold the interior of his parcels.
Common Law’s justification is simple: You can’t trap someone within your property.
Well, don’t judge Rothbard by what other people say about him. Read his work yourself before you judge.
Whether or not one agrees with his theories, the late resurgence of individualist anarchism and libertarianism in general can be credited in major part to him, and his economics have provided some clarity and depth to Austrian theory that is not recognized nearly enough by the mainstream.
I would strongly advise you to read For a New Liberty and The Ethics of Liberty, both available on mises.org in text and audio formats. I’m sure you’ll agree with most of his general conclusions, even if you disagree on the finer points. And he would have (did, in fact) welcome dissent over the fine points - as he said of Konkin’s theory (agorism), it makes the movement polycentric.
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.
Well in this example Jones still has to follow the common law doctrine called “duty of care” meaning he has to act in a reasonable manner with himself and his property to not inflict bodily harm or property damage which preventing them from leaving certainly would since they could starve etc etc. You cannot use your property rights to harm another which blockading them definitely is. This extreme scenario would most certainly fit this old precedent. Obviously it would not allow the Smith’s the right to do whatever they wanted on the Jones property but it might demand an easment with restrictions.
I know you said this is an incredibly contrived example but I am still trying to think of an example of this happening in reality.
Also the fact that Smith had to travel through Jones land (before it was his) to homestead his property would lead to alot of legal issues for Jones who might find it far easier to grant an easment since a court might already demand such.
Also the issue of the descendants born on the Smith land well the contractual relations dont apply since they are their own soveriegns and they did not make any contract themselves that could be binding. And an easement is also a permanent condition unless revoked.
On top of that even if my contract did not specify my right to exit from my landlords property (which it does not) I am protected by the limitation of force placed upon my landlord since I am not his property but a free agent who demands a Duty of Care.