In defense of Caplan, I think using the term “open borders” is appropriate for the same reason using “free speech” or “right to bear arms” is appropriate. Obviously, private property owners are allowed to restrict these things on their own property but I think its clear that these terms are being used in relation to government policy.
I get what you mean, but the slogan “Everybody carries a gun!” wouldn’t be interchangeable with “right to bear arms.” So I think “open borders” is closer to the former.
Interesting show you ran through a heap of stuff. About the issue of whether people have a “right” to move around, that depends on your theory of what creates “rights”.
My ancestors (quite a while back) were nomadic European tribesmen who moved on foot, or some of them on horseback, through a landscape without walls, and with very loosely defined borders. If you want to start with the basic Libertarian theory that “first use” is the key determining factor, then these tribesmen were using the land primarily for hunting and mobility. Nothing obstructed their movement other than squabbles with other tribes. There’s your “first use” right there.
The guy who built a farm and fenced off land was “second use” although one farm in the middle of nowhere does not significantly impede movement, it does a little bit get in the way. Gradually as more farms and more fences came along the obstruction became more significant, but unter Libertarian theory the “second use” can never delete the right that “first use” created, so the right of mobility would remain supreme ever after.
It was later (though many wars) that hard national borders started to develop and people discovered that keeping the other buggers out was quite helpful in terms of staying alive. Consider the Viking Wars for example.
Vikings were stealth hunters (like cats) who used the sea as their primary medium of mobility, but also took advantage of major rivers to strike by surprise, where possible against unsuspecting and undefended villages. The upshot of this was that people formed small high trust groups for their own defense and looked for ways to block and prevent mobility of others. The toll castles were constructed in order to extract money from trade routes but also to provide a checkpoint for defensive purposes. Tolls got out of hand and the people controlling key trade routes were accused of being the Robber Barons. Groups of people then teamed up against these “Robber Barons” in order to reduce or remove the tolls and encourage the trade routes to flourish again. In many cases the toll castle remained a fixture for centuries, such as the Kronborg providing convenient revenue for Denmark by imposing a tax on passing ships.
I think it’s kind of important to look at the history of why people discovered the idea of borders and what they do, before starting a discussion on what they should be.
“but under Libertarian theory the “second use” can never delete the right that “first use” created, so the right of mobility would remain supreme ever after.”
I would add that creation of paths and removal of obstacles is improving the land for this purpose, so strengthens the apparent right as it is exertion of labor upon natural resources.
Tel, this seems fairly obvious, yet also seems to invalidate all of modern society. How do libertarians get around this?
Modern society is hardly libertarian, so unsurprising that you can find some libertarian principle transgressed… I’m sure there’s many! That said, modern society does allow most people to walk around most places without difficulty, that’s probably the least transgression compared with income tax. If the Pelosi / Schumer plan gets underway then modern society will allow even more people to walk around where they want to go.
From a pragmatic viewpoint, there’s no society that ever 100% follows fundamental principles. Take a look at the Communists claiming that their most fundamental principle is equality, and yet the boss of North Korea eats very well and rules over a strict, hierarchical society where the people at the bottom eat almost nothing. Same is happening in Venezuela. In short, there’s never been a Communist society that delivered equality which is their entire reason for existence in the first place. Has this thrown modern socialists into confusion and doubt? No not really … they just ignore the problem and barge on.
The only completely honest society is Feudalism because it does not pretend to offer any deliverables, and it’s built on tautology rather than principles.
Only those libertarians consistent with “first use” doctrine.
The first use is to be able to travel, so this person would claim ownership of the continued ability to travel in future. This may not constitute full ownership of the land itself (for example mineral resources or other aspects that were not involved) but it would at least involve ownership of the right of passage.
It is a problem for libertarian theory that this kind of first use automatically becomes a communal ownership because many people have traveled over any given square of land, and all people at least claim the right that they once had the ability to travel over any square of land, regardless of exactly which ones they used. In simple terms, fencing land means removing other people’s ability to travel thus taking away a right that they once had.
Can you point me to a libertarian philosopher that has argued that being the first person to travel across land constitutes ownership? I’ve never seen a libertarian make such a claim, so I’m curious if you’ve read someone I haven’t, or if you’re just using first use in a completely different way than libertarians do and just attributing that belief to us.
The principles are there. Start with Thomas Aquinas and his requirements for natural property rights (this is his Q66 which is in two parts, first part is regards to capability):
* Ability to make use of (or profit from).
* Intelligent beings have natural dominion over basic material objects.
Then the second part introduces justification for property:
* Necessity for survival.
* Positive incentive (products of labour should benefit those who do the work).
* Appeal to orderly conduct.
* Appeal to more peaceful coexistence.
* Appeal to charity and common good in cases where someone might lay claim to more than they need.
The property right of being able to travel without interference would seem to fit all of the above: we have ability; it is often (not always) necessary; any benefits of mobility (e.g. ability to trade over distance, merchant caravans, etc) are bestowed on the traveler; right of way might or might not be orderly, but let’s suppose the property right only bestows mobility in an orderly manner; it’s more peaceful because if you attempt to imprison someone they might quite reasonably resort to violence.
If Aquinas is not libertarian enough for you, then John Locke is generally considered the father of the “first use” principle. He claims that people start in a state of nature as free and he puts great emphasis on consent:
Sect. 22. THE natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule. The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of
any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in it.
Thus, by nature I have the ability to travel, limited only by my own strength and by whatever natural obstacles might exist. If you put up a large wall or fence then you have taken away something that I previously could do… and without my consent.
Since Locke was working along the lines of a social contract theory, once you stop respecting my rights, I no longer have any obligation to respect yours.
Locke talks about bypassing universal consent in cases of necessity (using very similar argument to Aquinas) pointing out that asking consent of everyone on Earth is too difficult, besides most people on Earth will be unaffected. I’m fine with that idea, if the farmer finds it necessary to fence land in order to keep animals in or out, or keep crops undamaged… however a large wall obstructing movement in every direction goes well beyond what is necessary, and the necessity argument might also equally support the plea of the traveler, if the situation is such that no easy alternate route can be found.
Sect. 27. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.
So there’s similar principles to Aquinas:
* Ability to make use of.
* Positive incentive of return from labour.
* Improvement of the resource.
* Limitation that something be left for others.
Thus anyone who makes a track or path, or removes a tree or hacks away brush for ease has made use of the land (for purpose of transport) and made some degree of improvement for the next traveler (or perhaps himself on the return trip). Since other land is available for farms or what have you, there is something left for others.
But the farmer must also leave resource for others too. Putting up barriers that go well beyond the needs of the farm cannot be considered legitimate. Locke already addresses this precise limitation:
Sect. 31. It will perhaps be objected to this, that if gathering the acorns, or other fruits of the earth, &c. makes a right to them, then any one may ingross as much as he will. To which I answer, Not so. The same law of nature, that does by this means give us property, does also bound that property too. God has given us all things richly, 1 Tim. vi. 12. is the voice of reason confirmed by inspiration. But how far has he given it us? To enjoy. As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy.
Maybe you don’t like invocation of God as authority, but I think an equivalent case can be made out of pure pragmatism here. Perhaps Locke isn’t libertarian enough for you either, but this is the source of most libertarian thinking on property rights.
At any rate, there’s also huge amounts of Common Law regarding land rights and the creation of easements and rights of way, for example …
The legal principle that ancient rights of the traveler must be accepted as superior to the rights of the land owner (because they are the older claim) is not only a very old principle, but it continues today. This Common Law was the building block of the Western culture and the classical liberal philosophy. Many people have put their work into this, and it has been a highly successful approach to society and to property rights.
“Thus, by nature I have the ability to travel, limited only by my own strength and by whatever natural obstacles might exist. If you put up a large wall or fence then you have taken away something that I previously could do… and without my consent.“
That’s fine if you believe that, but it’s not what libertarians have ever argued. At least none that believe in the standard treatment for property rights.
What about “Thus anyone who makes a track or path, or removes a tree or hacks away brush for ease has made use of the land (for purpose of transport) and made some degree of improvement for the next traveler (or perhaps himself on the return trip).”
Walking over most wild land takes more effort for the first traveller. Just by passing through the traveller mixes his labor with the land to improve it.
It says it right here
“Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.”
There are no qualifications – only “removes out of the state of nature”.
Harold, there are entire books spelling out exactly how libertarians believe property rights are derived. Go find me an example of a libertarian saying that the first person to walk across a plot of land is the rightful owner of it.
If all you or Tel has is your own tortured interpretations of what libertarians believe then good for you guys. It’s always easier to knock down strawmen. Much harder to deal with what people explicitly spell out in the numerous books on libertarian property rights theory. Seriously, go find a quote from Rothbard, Hoppe, Block, Kinsella, etc. saying walking on a plot of land constitutes first use.
Yes, I get that you and Tel interpret those words to mean something they don’t. Good for you guys. Can you point to a libertarian that explicitly states the first person to walk across a plot of land owns it? Should be an easy find if that is the libertarian view. I gave you a few names of libertarians who have wrote extensively about property rights.
The question I asked of Tel at the start of this was a real one. I am interested in how libertarians view this, not just arguing for the sake of it. What are the limits of “mixing ones labor with the land”?
To avoid unnecessary disagreement, can we agree that someone who deliberately improves a route with the intention of easier future passage has moved that land out of the state that nature provided?
Harold, beyond the fact that libertarians don’t think the first person to walk across a plot of land is the rightful owner of it, even if they did it wouldn’t mean the second and third person to do so are somehow also owners. Or that this would somehow mean the right to travel from point A to point B can not be impeded.
If libertarians had this silly view of first use it would simply mean that the first person to walk across a plot of unowned land would become the rightful property owner of it, and could do with it as he wishes. He could put up a wall, street, house, business, or whatever else, and nobody would have the right to prevent him from doing so.
So, again, even if libertarians accepted this notion of first use, which we don’t, then it would still not give the second, third, or fourth person the right to travel on it unimpeded. They’d still need permission to travel on the land by the first guy who walked on it, and he’d be under no obligation to grant that to him. Tel is not only wrong about how libertarians use the term first use, but he’s wrong on what his interpretation would imply for us.
If you are genuinely interested in how libertarians deal with this issue I’d seriously recommend reading Rothbard, Hoppe, Kinsella, or Block regarding it. You could email Walter Block and he’d almost certainly respond with a bunch of links to everything he’s ever written on the subject (although half of them will end up being broken links, but you’ll still be able to find them elsewhere.) I don’t want you to think I’m dodging the question by suggesting sources, it’s just I feel it is much more difficult to teach something than it is to learn it. So while I can see when someone is saying something wrong about libertarianism, I don’t always feel I am the best equipped to teach what we actually believe. Especially when we’re dealing with more complex matters about property rights theory. I haven’t been hip deep in the reading material for too long to be able to adequately explain it to you right now. I’d have to go back and reread some books to freshen up to feel equipped. So that is why I just suggest going to the source so much when people say they really just want to learn what libertarians believe. If it is some basic shit I’ll just give my best answer, but if we’re getting into the weeds it’s probably best to start reading some books on it.
Email Walter Block. I’m being serious when I say he’ll likely email you everything he’s ever written on whatever question you have. He was always unbelievably generous with his time when I was hip deep in this stuff.
I share many of your questions and I think it is true that libertarians, in general, don’t have great answers to such questions. Many times when someone asks questions like these, libertarians will (fairly, I suppose) point out that it’s getting into the weeds, that the proposed edge cases aren’t realistic to how society would function in practice, and that the existing real-world system doesn’t have great answers for the proposed question either. But these responses are an evasion of the question, even if they each have some merit to them.
Here is my paraphrase of the best response I’ve seen: In practice, property rights don’t actually matter until they come into conflict. So, if multiple people are using the same plot of land without issue, then no libertarian principles have been violated. If someone builds a house surrounded by a fence on that same plot of land and still no one cries foul, then still no libertarian principles have been violated. However, if someone does claim that he had a better claim to ownership of the land that the man who built the house, then there is a conflict that must be resolved. And it would be left up to an independent arbiter to determine whose claim to the land is best and award the land to that person.
So if the plaintiff were claiming that he owns the land because he cut down a tree ten years ago and the defendant were claiming that he owns the land because he built an entire house and has been living in it for a year, then the arbiter might say that the plaintiff cannot reasonably claim ownership of land when he didn’t even realize that a house had been built on it for over a year. On the other hand, if there were a well respected property arbiter in the area that had dutifully determined that the property was previously unowned and awarded a deed to the plaintiff prior to his cutting down the tree, then the arbiter of this conflict would likely award the land to the plaintiff.
This is my paraphrase of what I learned from listening to an audio book of For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard. I was sort of surprised by how unprincipled the answers for how these kinds of things should be handled is in practice, but I think it makes some sense. What libertarians really want is to remove all institutions of coercion from society. To them, it doesn’t really matter how a conflict is settled, as long as there is a fair system that doesn’t require a coercive state and that attempts to respect the fundamental principles of liberty. These fundamental principles are what truly matter to libertarians. How they apply in all possible edge cases, while interesting as thought experiments, are not essential.
“I share many of your questions and I think it is true that libertarians, in general, don’t have great answers to such questions. Many times when someone asks questions like these, libertarians will (fairly, I suppose) point out that it’s getting into the weeds, that the proposed edge cases aren’t realistic to how society would function in practice, and that the existing real-world system doesn’t have great answers for the proposed question either. But these responses are an evasion of the question, even if they each have some merit to them.“
Andrew, if someone asks me to explain a complex concept to them, that I feel I’d need to spend some time studying again to adequately explain, and I suggest multiple sources that have already done this in the form of books and articles, it’s not an evasion. It’s being humble enough to admit other people are a better source than you on a given subject. If the other person doesn’t want to check out those sources, in my experience, it’s because they were just looking to argue and not genuinely interested in learning.
I wasn’t accusing you of evasion. Pointing people to other sources that adequately answer the questions they’re asking is perfectly reasonable and valid.
I probably gave you that impression by reusing your “getting into the weeds” phrase. But I’ve heard other libertarians use that as a way to shut down a line of inquiry without providing sources that answer the question. And I think that’s frustrating to people who are just trying to figure out how libertarianism would resolve complicated disputes that we currently rely on government to resolve.
In defense of Caplan, I think using the term “open borders” is appropriate for the same reason using “free speech” or “right to bear arms” is appropriate. Obviously, private property owners are allowed to restrict these things on their own property but I think its clear that these terms are being used in relation to government policy.
I get what you mean, but the slogan “Everybody carries a gun!” wouldn’t be interchangeable with “right to bear arms.” So I think “open borders” is closer to the former.
Interesting show you ran through a heap of stuff. About the issue of whether people have a “right” to move around, that depends on your theory of what creates “rights”.
My ancestors (quite a while back) were nomadic European tribesmen who moved on foot, or some of them on horseback, through a landscape without walls, and with very loosely defined borders. If you want to start with the basic Libertarian theory that “first use” is the key determining factor, then these tribesmen were using the land primarily for hunting and mobility. Nothing obstructed their movement other than squabbles with other tribes. There’s your “first use” right there.
The guy who built a farm and fenced off land was “second use” although one farm in the middle of nowhere does not significantly impede movement, it does a little bit get in the way. Gradually as more farms and more fences came along the obstruction became more significant, but unter Libertarian theory the “second use” can never delete the right that “first use” created, so the right of mobility would remain supreme ever after.
It was later (though many wars) that hard national borders started to develop and people discovered that keeping the other buggers out was quite helpful in terms of staying alive. Consider the Viking Wars for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_raid_warfare_and_tactics
Vikings were stealth hunters (like cats) who used the sea as their primary medium of mobility, but also took advantage of major rivers to strike by surprise, where possible against unsuspecting and undefended villages. The upshot of this was that people formed small high trust groups for their own defense and looked for ways to block and prevent mobility of others. The toll castles were constructed in order to extract money from trade routes but also to provide a checkpoint for defensive purposes. Tolls got out of hand and the people controlling key trade routes were accused of being the Robber Barons. Groups of people then teamed up against these “Robber Barons” in order to reduce or remove the tolls and encourage the trade routes to flourish again. In many cases the toll castle remained a fixture for centuries, such as the Kronborg providing convenient revenue for Denmark by imposing a tax on passing ships.
I think it’s kind of important to look at the history of why people discovered the idea of borders and what they do, before starting a discussion on what they should be.
“but under Libertarian theory the “second use” can never delete the right that “first use” created, so the right of mobility would remain supreme ever after.”
I would add that creation of paths and removal of obstacles is improving the land for this purpose, so strengthens the apparent right as it is exertion of labor upon natural resources.
Tel, this seems fairly obvious, yet also seems to invalidate all of modern society. How do libertarians get around this?
Modern society is hardly libertarian, so unsurprising that you can find some libertarian principle transgressed… I’m sure there’s many! That said, modern society does allow most people to walk around most places without difficulty, that’s probably the least transgression compared with income tax. If the Pelosi / Schumer plan gets underway then modern society will allow even more people to walk around where they want to go.
From a pragmatic viewpoint, there’s no society that ever 100% follows fundamental principles. Take a look at the Communists claiming that their most fundamental principle is equality, and yet the boss of North Korea eats very well and rules over a strict, hierarchical society where the people at the bottom eat almost nothing. Same is happening in Venezuela. In short, there’s never been a Communist society that delivered equality which is their entire reason for existence in the first place. Has this thrown modern socialists into confusion and doubt? No not really … they just ignore the problem and barge on.
The only completely honest society is Feudalism because it does not pretend to offer any deliverables, and it’s built on tautology rather than principles.
Tel, are you saying you think libertarians think the first person to travel across a piece of land owns it?
Only those libertarians consistent with “first use” doctrine.
The first use is to be able to travel, so this person would claim ownership of the continued ability to travel in future. This may not constitute full ownership of the land itself (for example mineral resources or other aspects that were not involved) but it would at least involve ownership of the right of passage.
It is a problem for libertarian theory that this kind of first use automatically becomes a communal ownership because many people have traveled over any given square of land, and all people at least claim the right that they once had the ability to travel over any square of land, regardless of exactly which ones they used. In simple terms, fencing land means removing other people’s ability to travel thus taking away a right that they once had.
Can you point me to a libertarian philosopher that has argued that being the first person to travel across land constitutes ownership? I’ve never seen a libertarian make such a claim, so I’m curious if you’ve read someone I haven’t, or if you’re just using first use in a completely different way than libertarians do and just attributing that belief to us.
The principles are there. Start with Thomas Aquinas and his requirements for natural property rights (this is his Q66 which is in two parts, first part is regards to capability):
* Ability to make use of (or profit from).
* Intelligent beings have natural dominion over basic material objects.
Then the second part introduces justification for property:
* Necessity for survival.
* Positive incentive (products of labour should benefit those who do the work).
* Appeal to orderly conduct.
* Appeal to more peaceful coexistence.
* Appeal to charity and common good in cases where someone might lay claim to more than they need.
The property right of being able to travel without interference would seem to fit all of the above: we have ability; it is often (not always) necessary; any benefits of mobility (e.g. ability to trade over distance, merchant caravans, etc) are bestowed on the traveler; right of way might or might not be orderly, but let’s suppose the property right only bestows mobility in an orderly manner; it’s more peaceful because if you attempt to imprison someone they might quite reasonably resort to violence.
If Aquinas is not libertarian enough for you, then John Locke is generally considered the father of the “first use” principle. He claims that people start in a state of nature as free and he puts great emphasis on consent:
Thus, by nature I have the ability to travel, limited only by my own strength and by whatever natural obstacles might exist. If you put up a large wall or fence then you have taken away something that I previously could do… and without my consent.
Since Locke was working along the lines of a social contract theory, once you stop respecting my rights, I no longer have any obligation to respect yours.
Locke talks about bypassing universal consent in cases of necessity (using very similar argument to Aquinas) pointing out that asking consent of everyone on Earth is too difficult, besides most people on Earth will be unaffected. I’m fine with that idea, if the farmer finds it necessary to fence land in order to keep animals in or out, or keep crops undamaged… however a large wall obstructing movement in every direction goes well beyond what is necessary, and the necessity argument might also equally support the plea of the traveler, if the situation is such that no easy alternate route can be found.
So there’s similar principles to Aquinas:
* Ability to make use of.
* Positive incentive of return from labour.
* Improvement of the resource.
* Limitation that something be left for others.
Thus anyone who makes a track or path, or removes a tree or hacks away brush for ease has made use of the land (for purpose of transport) and made some degree of improvement for the next traveler (or perhaps himself on the return trip). Since other land is available for farms or what have you, there is something left for others.
But the farmer must also leave resource for others too. Putting up barriers that go well beyond the needs of the farm cannot be considered legitimate. Locke already addresses this precise limitation:
Maybe you don’t like invocation of God as authority, but I think an equivalent case can be made out of pure pragmatism here. Perhaps Locke isn’t libertarian enough for you either, but this is the source of most libertarian thinking on property rights.
At any rate, there’s also huge amounts of Common Law regarding land rights and the creation of easements and rights of way, for example …
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06026/SN06026.pdf
The legal principle that ancient rights of the traveler must be accepted as superior to the rights of the land owner (because they are the older claim) is not only a very old principle, but it continues today. This Common Law was the building block of the Western culture and the classical liberal philosophy. Many people have put their work into this, and it has been a highly successful approach to society and to property rights.
“Thus, by nature I have the ability to travel, limited only by my own strength and by whatever natural obstacles might exist. If you put up a large wall or fence then you have taken away something that I previously could do… and without my consent.“
That’s fine if you believe that, but it’s not what libertarians have ever argued. At least none that believe in the standard treatment for property rights.
What about “Thus anyone who makes a track or path, or removes a tree or hacks away brush for ease has made use of the land (for purpose of transport) and made some degree of improvement for the next traveler (or perhaps himself on the return trip).”
Walking over most wild land takes more effort for the first traveller. Just by passing through the traveller mixes his labor with the land to improve it.
It says it right here
“Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.”
There are no qualifications – only “removes out of the state of nature”.
Harold, there are entire books spelling out exactly how libertarians believe property rights are derived. Go find me an example of a libertarian saying that the first person to walk across a plot of land is the rightful owner of it.
If all you or Tel has is your own tortured interpretations of what libertarians believe then good for you guys. It’s always easier to knock down strawmen. Much harder to deal with what people explicitly spell out in the numerous books on libertarian property rights theory. Seriously, go find a quote from Rothbard, Hoppe, Block, Kinsella, etc. saying walking on a plot of land constitutes first use.
Tel did that above. The quote was from Locke. If you exert labour to improve natural land it becomes yours.
Yes, I get that you and Tel interpret those words to mean something they don’t. Good for you guys. Can you point to a libertarian that explicitly states the first person to walk across a plot of land owns it? Should be an easy find if that is the libertarian view. I gave you a few names of libertarians who have wrote extensively about property rights.
The question I asked of Tel at the start of this was a real one. I am interested in how libertarians view this, not just arguing for the sake of it. What are the limits of “mixing ones labor with the land”?
To avoid unnecessary disagreement, can we agree that someone who deliberately improves a route with the intention of easier future passage has moved that land out of the state that nature provided?
Harold, beyond the fact that libertarians don’t think the first person to walk across a plot of land is the rightful owner of it, even if they did it wouldn’t mean the second and third person to do so are somehow also owners. Or that this would somehow mean the right to travel from point A to point B can not be impeded.
If libertarians had this silly view of first use it would simply mean that the first person to walk across a plot of unowned land would become the rightful property owner of it, and could do with it as he wishes. He could put up a wall, street, house, business, or whatever else, and nobody would have the right to prevent him from doing so.
So, again, even if libertarians accepted this notion of first use, which we don’t, then it would still not give the second, third, or fourth person the right to travel on it unimpeded. They’d still need permission to travel on the land by the first guy who walked on it, and he’d be under no obligation to grant that to him. Tel is not only wrong about how libertarians use the term first use, but he’s wrong on what his interpretation would imply for us.
If you are genuinely interested in how libertarians deal with this issue I’d seriously recommend reading Rothbard, Hoppe, Kinsella, or Block regarding it. You could email Walter Block and he’d almost certainly respond with a bunch of links to everything he’s ever written on the subject (although half of them will end up being broken links, but you’ll still be able to find them elsewhere.) I don’t want you to think I’m dodging the question by suggesting sources, it’s just I feel it is much more difficult to teach something than it is to learn it. So while I can see when someone is saying something wrong about libertarianism, I don’t always feel I am the best equipped to teach what we actually believe. Especially when we’re dealing with more complex matters about property rights theory. I haven’t been hip deep in the reading material for too long to be able to adequately explain it to you right now. I’d have to go back and reread some books to freshen up to feel equipped. So that is why I just suggest going to the source so much when people say they really just want to learn what libertarians believe. If it is some basic shit I’ll just give my best answer, but if we’re getting into the weeds it’s probably best to start reading some books on it.
Ok Dan, thanks for the effort. I have read some of the above but have not found answers to the questions.
Email Walter Block. I’m being serious when I say he’ll likely email you everything he’s ever written on whatever question you have. He was always unbelievably generous with his time when I was hip deep in this stuff.
I share many of your questions and I think it is true that libertarians, in general, don’t have great answers to such questions. Many times when someone asks questions like these, libertarians will (fairly, I suppose) point out that it’s getting into the weeds, that the proposed edge cases aren’t realistic to how society would function in practice, and that the existing real-world system doesn’t have great answers for the proposed question either. But these responses are an evasion of the question, even if they each have some merit to them.
Here is my paraphrase of the best response I’ve seen: In practice, property rights don’t actually matter until they come into conflict. So, if multiple people are using the same plot of land without issue, then no libertarian principles have been violated. If someone builds a house surrounded by a fence on that same plot of land and still no one cries foul, then still no libertarian principles have been violated. However, if someone does claim that he had a better claim to ownership of the land that the man who built the house, then there is a conflict that must be resolved. And it would be left up to an independent arbiter to determine whose claim to the land is best and award the land to that person.
So if the plaintiff were claiming that he owns the land because he cut down a tree ten years ago and the defendant were claiming that he owns the land because he built an entire house and has been living in it for a year, then the arbiter might say that the plaintiff cannot reasonably claim ownership of land when he didn’t even realize that a house had been built on it for over a year. On the other hand, if there were a well respected property arbiter in the area that had dutifully determined that the property was previously unowned and awarded a deed to the plaintiff prior to his cutting down the tree, then the arbiter of this conflict would likely award the land to the plaintiff.
This is my paraphrase of what I learned from listening to an audio book of For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard. I was sort of surprised by how unprincipled the answers for how these kinds of things should be handled is in practice, but I think it makes some sense. What libertarians really want is to remove all institutions of coercion from society. To them, it doesn’t really matter how a conflict is settled, as long as there is a fair system that doesn’t require a coercive state and that attempts to respect the fundamental principles of liberty. These fundamental principles are what truly matter to libertarians. How they apply in all possible edge cases, while interesting as thought experiments, are not essential.
“I share many of your questions and I think it is true that libertarians, in general, don’t have great answers to such questions. Many times when someone asks questions like these, libertarians will (fairly, I suppose) point out that it’s getting into the weeds, that the proposed edge cases aren’t realistic to how society would function in practice, and that the existing real-world system doesn’t have great answers for the proposed question either. But these responses are an evasion of the question, even if they each have some merit to them.“
Andrew, if someone asks me to explain a complex concept to them, that I feel I’d need to spend some time studying again to adequately explain, and I suggest multiple sources that have already done this in the form of books and articles, it’s not an evasion. It’s being humble enough to admit other people are a better source than you on a given subject. If the other person doesn’t want to check out those sources, in my experience, it’s because they were just looking to argue and not genuinely interested in learning.
I wasn’t accusing you of evasion. Pointing people to other sources that adequately answer the questions they’re asking is perfectly reasonable and valid.
I probably gave you that impression by reusing your “getting into the weeds” phrase. But I’ve heard other libertarians use that as a way to shut down a line of inquiry without providing sources that answer the question. And I think that’s frustrating to people who are just trying to figure out how libertarianism would resolve complicated disputes that we currently rely on government to resolve.