He states that you have to allow a path through your property in order to allow homesteading of unowned property surrounded by your property (e.g. a fence around property you don’t own). Could this not be a justification for any trespass on any property? Under this theory of homesteading, people who owned roads would have to allow free travel on them if that person was going to homestead anything (extended out to homesteading your work by being employed by someone). I see this as completely undermining property ownership. Am I wrong? I do not have to allow people to enter my property in order to access unowned or even owned property. They can build a helicopter or a bridge over my fence, but I don’t have to allow them to climb my fence. And if I build a bubble around it, then dig under ground. If my bubble extends below the surface, then too bad, it’s my bubble, you can’t dig through it.
Block’s argument is a little sketchy… He says that no one could ever be boxed into their property because they would make agreements beforehand with surrounding owners in the form of “easements”.
This is not a blank check to violate everyone else’s property rights. Block says you have to make the agreement beforehand.
Imo block does not directly address the issue of when everyone is first homesteading their property, since no prior arrangements exist.
Right well, in my view, homesteading just gives you a good claim to your property. It doesn’t mean that you own it forever and ever in an objective sense. Imo, if you can give a good argument as to why I can violate your property despite you having homesteaded it, and as long as I treat you as an end in yourself, that should be moral enough for most libertarians.