This, bolded.
There a disconnect between the bolded part and the non-bolded part.
It is one thing to say: “You must obey what the owner tells you to do or leave.”
It is another thing to say: "If you enter my land, you must give me all of your possessions, including your clothing, and you must have sexual intercourse with me."
Notice that in one case a clause “or you must leave” is present and in the other it is not present. This makes for a world of difference. If one is wrong, it does not necessarily follow that the other is wrong as well.
“You must obey what the owner tells you to do or leave” is exactly right. There is nothing wrong with this. Also there would be nothing wrong with a rule that would similarly say: “If you enter my land, you must give me all of your possessions, including your clothing, and you must have sexual intercourse with me, or you must leave.” The owner sets the price of admission to his property. He is free to set any price he wishes too.
Simply saying “If you enter my land, you must give me all of your possessions, including your clothing, and you must have sexual intercourse with me” (ie regardless of whether you were aware of this rule and regardless of whether you left, or were willing to leave once you learned of it) on the other hand can not be supported by libertarian ethics. But Rothbard tackles this when he talks about contracts already. He explains that a contract is not a contract unless “a meeting of the minds” has taken place. So it is by no means necessary to undermine property rights in order to be able to offer a solution to this ‘fine print problem’.
Unless of course the solving of this problem is a means rather than an end.
I don’t see how any of this counts as an objection to the proportionality theory. Did you read the Long article I linked?
I would argue that such rules, as stated, would count as aggression. For example, if the person was unaware of the rules and wasn’t given a chance to leave, enforcing those rules would be aggression. Furthermore, even it these rules weren’t aggressive, I think that on thickness grounds, libertarians qua libertarians would have good reason to oppose them.
Yeah, who needs reasoned debate?
I didn’t question the theory. I questioned the way you were using it.
they are making aesthetic judgments that, while having merit on their own, are not relevant to law. do i find being mean abhorrent? you bet. should being irrational crank be legally banned, no.
You mean held hostage violating his, the person not given a chance to leave, property rights.
Marko just reiterated this point and you appear to completely (a) glance over it (b) not understand what that means, or is there possibly a (c).
It’s no wonder Congress has to write legislation 1000’s of pages long when the laws are already in the books. They don’t know that the pre-existing laws already exist and cover the issue. If Congress had excess to this forum they would reiterate a closed debate with a new thread and some imagined new twist to the same topic every other day. That’s my hypothetical assumption.
Not who, but what. Quoting from BP’s blog:
In short, there is a contradiction between the absolute nature of the property right and the limit on aggression. The propertarian thus faces a moral dillema between upholding the absolute nature of land property rights and upholding the opposition to initiating force.
[:)]
He’s way off (as usual).
First, “If you do this, then you must do that” is not a contract. Never will be. Contracts are, “If you do this, I’ll do that,” mutually agreed.
Also, law is about consequences. What is the consequence if someone comes on your land but doesn’t submit to being a sex slave? They get kicked out! oh the horrors!
If the owner tries keep the visitor from leaving before having performed this sex obligation, he is a kidnapper. (Duh)
So if I don’t build a fence then who’s going to trespass?
Again, I wonder who BP is referring to when he comes up with stuff like that.
lets consider another scenario. person A and person B consent to a sex act. while making out person A says that person B has to bang his head against the wall or take a hike.
Absolutely absurd. Property is physical. “You’ve homesteaded a peaceful domain for living” - lmao. Not physical, thus inapplicable. Do you support IP as well? No? Then you’re being inconsistent.
You have a right to set forth rules on the use of your property. You (/ builders) homesteaded the land & the house. You don’t own the other persons body though, if they are on your land.
“Libertarians apply similar reasoning in the case of other scarce resources — namely, external objects in the world that, unlike bodies, were at one point unowned. In the case of bodies, the idea of aggression being impermissible immediately implies self-ownership. In the case of external objects, however, we must identify who the owner is before we can determine what constitutes aggression.”
They can either accept your rules and voluntarily stay, or reject them and thus leave. If they don’t leave, then they can justifiably be evicted - as the are trespassing. (committing aggression). They would naturally be evicted as peacefully as possible, unless they resist etc. Seriously, go to a bar or club if someone breaks property owners rules, i.e abusing others, fighting - they are escorted out. If they don’t resist, then they largely go peacefully.. if they do, the necessary force (proportional) is naturally used to get them out, off the premises.
What is with these delusional and fantastical scenario’s, that go along the lines of - “you’re a guest at a persons house, sitting down for dinner. He asks you to leave. He says you have 10 seconds. You’re stunned, and go wtf.. so he pulls out a gun and shoots you dead.” I mean seriously, when has this ever happened? Not that it isn’t possible, but these lifeboat scenarios are largely a joke, except not funny.
Furthermore, property owners (business ones) don’t want you to leave, they want you to stay. It seems to me, in the BP analysis - this whole concept is missing.
Anyway, some things involve implicit contracts, i.e Walter Block example - someone can’t evict you from their plane - at 10,000 feet..
It’s not a solution.
Ah yes, good point. I made a similar argument.
Peaceful can be an attribute of a location. Just as, pollution free, can be.
You planning on getting into easements? So what - “peaceful” is subjective and thus useless. I find rage against the machine to be “peaceful” ([8-)]) and someone else considers it noise pollution.
The above comment stands.
A very good point that I failed to realize. Thanks for bringing that up.
That is a great point. But what he wrote could be easily rewritten as “I allow you to set foot on my land if you…”
What I gather from BP’s position is the following.
-
NAP by itself makes no sense (and no non-thick libertarian would say otherwise: see shooting the bubblegum thief thread for evidence).
-
Land ownership is contingent on whether or not others have the alternative to avoid that land (Basically, no absolute private territory where land is very scarce like an island. To me this is a no brainer and often what would happen in such a situation is that the island’s land would be owned in trust to a publicly traded company of sorts instead of directly owned by any one member of that society.).
-
Rights must have some normative component to them that can justify them (Maybe I’m not grasping this point of his or maybe I’m not getting it at all…Take what you will of it.).
Of the three proposals I agree with 1 & 2, but 3 may be not be necessary even for ‘thick’ libertarianism. But that’s just me.
Is a ‘no non-thick libertarian’ something like a ‘no true Scotsman’?
There is nothing wrong with saying if you come onto my land, you have to have sex with me. I own the land, if you step on to it, there is one of two options. You remain and follow my rules, or at my option, I can force you off of my land.
Onto this ownership of land. Let’s say I till the entirety of the land. I have now put my labor into it and and have homesteaded the entirety of that land, just as if I had planted an apple tree. I own the apples that come out of that tree, and I own the tree. I own the tilled land. I can tell you not to touch my apple’s. And I can tell you to not step on my tilled soil. I have homesteaded all the types of physical interactions that I performed on that land. Notice I haven’t yet sent radio waves out across it, and so the rights to send radio waves to that area which don’t interfere with the physical interactions I’ve already homesteaded, are fair game. So if somebody want’s to set up a radio tower near me, those radio wave rights are still able to be homesteaded.
As for the island, yes I can homestead the entire thing provided I do that before anybody else does. And lets just say that some dude on a life raft showed up. Would I have rights to bar him entrance? Yes. Just as I could deny anybody who was starving some the fruit from my apple tree, I could do the same with anybody showing up to use my island as a refuge from the sea. And I could set any price for him for use of my land to survive.
Well, you’e certainly articulated a theory about ownership, and done a good job at it. But nothing here explains what makes such a theory correct, and most people, including most Lockeans, would hold that what you’ve claimed is positively immoral. Why should I think that your theory is correct?