Ownership does not include a right to imprison. Anyone on your property has the right to leave, it doesn’t matter how you subdivided it.
You can’t invite someone into your home and say, “I give you permission to be in my home, but not to be on my lawn” effectively trapping him in your house. You can forfeit your rights of ownership through your actions and thats what you’ve done when you let someone cross your property, you no longer have the right to deny him egress from your property.
Jon Bostwick, you have got to stop making off-topic comments about me; just because I’m not a radical anti-self-defense anti-victim left-“libertarian” does not mean I’m a neo-conservative.
Absolutely, I’m sure I’d agree with him on the major concepts. I just think that many “Rothbardians” have a view of property and homesteading with which I can’t agree.
You are missing the point. Three separate people are involved. It is not that I am splitting my own property and imprisoning you, but that Jones will not allow you on his property, which surrounds the property you were born on. I am colluding with Jones for this effect. Within Rothbard’s land theory - which is absolutist and has no Duty of Care or Implied Easement - you have no legal standing that I can think of.
Deist: “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.”
Rothbard in no way advocates “Duty of Care.” In fact, in The Ethics of Liberty, he specifically says that a parent may allow his child to starve - that the parent has absolute rights over their property and no one, regardless of moral claims, can force them to feed the child at their own expense. If you are saying that refusal of passage does not warrant loss, than Rothbard would invoke both the disutility of having his property rights “aggressed” against and also the monetary loss from the slave operation.
I do not mean to be condescending but the Rothbardian approach does not actually conflict with the duty of care. It is implicit in nearly all tort which is something Rothbard believed in and applied. Property use has it’s limits when it inflicts physical harm or physical damage.
As far as Rothbards approach to Parent Child relations I view as a contradiction of his overall approach. But he does use the Duty of Care in many cases and does not revoke it.
To say that Rothbard revokes Duty of care would be to say that Rothbard does not agree with common law assumptions of negligence which once again is so ingrained into the common law that it would contradict nearly eveything he had to say about the common law. I just think he was contradictory in his view of Parent Child relations and that this does not branch into or poison his overall legal philosophy which was merely the application and critique of previous developments.
I’m sorry, but I really don’t know of any instances where he invokes Duty of Care. He explicitly states that law should not govern moral. Only the aggression of one against another may be considered crime. But to say that a person is responsible for neglecting “Duty of Care” is to ignore his right to property. If he must act “responsibly”, does he even own the property? Certainately an accidental death from carelessness still requires reparations, but inaction? If a man does not pay for the medical bills for a pauper, and that pauper dies, is he responsible?
This is not a case of inaction but a use of property to confine someone which is the difference. As far as him never mentioning Duty of Care I believe because he either felt he did not need to since it is so essential to the common law or because he may have not known what it would be called since he did not work full time in the legal sphere but he uses the concept repeatedly. Duty of care does not mean you need to take care of a pauper it means you have to use your property and yourself in such a way as to not inflict physical harm on someone else directly or indirectly.
Hence why my landlord cannot shoot me or do whatever is not made explicit in my contract even though I am on his property. Now as far as kids well I think the parents chose to have them and hence they have an implicit duty to take care of the future free agents otherwise they are being what common law would say is negligent. No one else chose to have them so the duty falls on none other unless they give them up to an adoption agency etc etc.
In the case of the pauper vs the type of duty of care applied to children there is a historical difference due to the mental, physical and personal background when it applies to a parent and child vs someone on the street.
My issue is in the ambiguity of indirect harm. Is halting your wheat-producing company indirectly harming a portion of the population?
And I’ve only read a few of Rothbard’s works and am totally new to libertarianism, so all of this unfamiliar to me… Judging by his discussion on children, the only thing I can derive is a disbelief in Duty of Care. If you insist he believes otherwise, I’d really like to see at least one example.
Edit: In response to your new post… I understand that the landlord may not aggress against you, but that is not the case… It is a matter of Jones simply refusing passage, where you are on Smith’s property. He is not shooting you, only excerising his absolute right to property. (According to Rothbard.)
Also, the idea of “obligation” is exactly what Rothbard is addressing. Obligation is a moral concept unless allowed to be regulated by law. I shot him. He struck her. You failed to oblige him? This is different from fraud, where an exchange has occured. I can promise to show up for work - and you may feel I am obligated to - but if no change in goods has occured, what can I be held liable for?
I am sorry I should have clarified what I meant by indirect harm. I mean by lack of intent for instance being negligent while driving your car or letting some litter go and then it travels onto someones property because of the wind.
As far as an example of Rothbard supporting a duty of care you can find it when it comes to his support of tort for negligent actions or any other Tort since the concept is implicit in Tort law. For instance we cannot go walking down a street and swing our fists and expect other to avoid them or what if we drive dangerouslly so the common law came up with a doctrine called Standard of care or Duty of care. It is the basis of people behaving respnisbily to other people. You can find it in Rothbards approach to Liability especially.
Unfortunately I cannot stay on this thread since I have to head out of the house but Duty of care does not mean giving a pauper your money it simply means being responsible enough to avoid physical damage on others be it negligent or not. If you like we can discuss this tomorrow?
But you are blocking them from taking care of themselves. It all goes back to the fact there are certain relations that people owe even to trespassers. For instance someone knocks on your door can you shoot them withouth knowing why they are knocking on your door? Lets say I then through them in the basement and lock them up and alert no one about them. Well that violates duty of care since they are free agents and I am using them to prevent.
When I bring up my landlord preventing me from leaving or getting to my car he could potentially do that withouth being a violation of contract BUT he cannot since I am a rational free agent he has limits with what he can go to me and using a property boundry to inflict harm by not allowing leaving (that does not damage your yard) is a direct use of your land to inflict harm and hence an easement would be granted because your property rights end when they physically harm someone else.
I believe your premises here are rather silly. I’m not anti-self-defense or anti-victim. And I’m a left-libertarian. It seems to me that you specialize so much with anti-leftism that you are blinded to the broader problem of statism. Because the right are a bunch of individualist anarchists, right? Ha!