Rothbard's Land Theory and... Squares

[Deist]

@Rodahue

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

Well the right to exit is a momentary right and is not an easement right which is a permanent property right so in this accidental case no. The property owner of the outside square does not have to be compensated unless some damage is done to his property. But the parachuter certainly owes some compensation for the owner of the living room he crashed into. I assume since there is no need for compensation short of property damage for the outside owner that this answers the question about the ignorant or cash poor man in a scenario such as this.

[Deist]

The right to exit also stems from the individual parachuter’s rights to leave and is not related to the inner square owner.

[Deist]

And as far as compensation goes towards the outer square owner if his property is some how damaged by the exiting parachuter the liability lies with the parachuter not the inner square owner and their failure to obtain an easement. This is because why would the inner square owner have to be accountable for the mistakes of the parachuter. How would someone prepare and be liable for an accident that totally originates from another free agent.

[Rodahue]

Thanks everyone for your responses, especially yours Deist. Much appreciated!

[Solid_Choke]

@Rodahue

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?

The most interesting part of this problem is the fact that we theoretically have this same problem in the current nation-state system. If the Vatican invites me to their property and then the Catholic Church tells me to get out but Italy then refuses to let me back into the country I am stuck in the same problem. This isn’t really just a problem with absolute property rights. It’s a problem of nation-states as well.