In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights."
I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement."
Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the nearest charitable homeless shelter is located.
Or consider the position of a lone poor person, owning a shack and a small patch of land, in the midst of an area that has attracted many rich people: let's call him "Jeb." (When I lived in Weston, CT, I saw such situations: despite Weston being one of the wealthiest towns in the nation, there were still little patches of "Swamp Yankee" housing remaining from the days when Weston was a poor backwater.) The wealthy landowners want Jeb gone, since his shack is an eyesore and brings down property values. But Jeb likes where he lives, and doesn't want to sell. Under standard ancap doctrine, per say, Rothbard or Block, the wealthy landowners literally have the right to starve Jeb to death should he fail to sell, since once they have him surrounded, they can refuse to let him off of his land. (We can even imagine that Jeb's land abuts a privately owned road, but even then, the wealthy landowners can simply pay the road owner to refuse Jeb passage on his road, unless he agrees to sell his land to them. Further, we can note that Rothbard and Block think that as a practical matter, this won't happen [often? ever?], since people will own easements off of their land. But the fact is, if a person does not own such an easement, others do have the right to blockade him.)
It is very strange to characterize such a regime as embodying "freedom of movement"!
UPDATE: I removed "Block" from the sentence with "standard ancap doctrine," as KP notes that Block forbids this.
UPDATE II: Put Block back in, as when I checked the passage KP was citing, it has nothing to do with this problem at all! It is, instead, about others having the right to get in to a piece of fenced but never homesteaded land. I also added the bit about the role of easements for Block and Rothbard.