Ok talk to you tomorrow and good luck on your homework. This might be repeated since I posted the same thing earlier and then stated it needed to be reviewed.
If someone told me they are right-“libertarian”, I’d say that he/she isn’t really libertarian. Why not “libertarian”?
The term “left” in the context of “left libertarianism” is not in the same context as the contemporary meaning of “left”. It’s “left” in the classical sense of the political spectrum, I.E. historically speaking libertarianism was always part of the “left”. Terms such as “left libertarianism” wouldn’t be necessary if libertarianism had not become so closely associated with American conservatism. But since this association exists, it becomes kind of necessary for one to distinguish oneself from the conservatarians.
Can this be continued through private messaging or at least in a separate topic? It really doesn’t pertain to the thread.
So, by “left-libertarian”, you mean “not-right-libertarian”?
Seriously, this is completely off-topic and needs to find a new home.
“Left” in the historical sense means “revolutionary”, whereas “right” means reformist/political. That’s all.
Hence, most left-libertarians are anarchists, whereas most right-libertarians are statists. Not “statist” in the perjorative sense, just as a matter of fact.
I say “most” because it is possible for a libertarian to be an anarchist and yet reject revolutionarism in favor of political reform, which would make them “right” in these terms.
You’re right. Sorry for getting into it here. It’s just that Ego seems to have a tendency to insert stabs at “the left” in the middle of many topics.
That’s a silly way of looking at it!
Why not use modern definitions? Modern leftists are the biggest statists around; leftist policies also happen to be the most difficult to undo (and leftists like FDR gloated about that fact).
I believe Donahue wants us to stop derailing his thread with this off-topic debate.
How is it that every online community gets Donahue from Rodahue? And yes, it would be greatly appreciated guys.
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.
Oh, sorry. I’ll be good now.
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”.
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
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.
My above response was in relation to this scenario you provided:
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.
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
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.
I would agree with that.