tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post2040637259446487834..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rightsgcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger122125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-26470409782187382322014-11-08T13:18:48.475-05:002014-11-08T13:18:48.475-05:00WB: if you ("you") were stupid enough to...<i>WB: if you ("you") were stupid enough to buy land A, knowing that I (B) hated you, you deserve what you get. hey, how did you get into A in the first place, if I own B?</i><br /><br />And libertarians wonder why others see them as jerks.Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-52660630437954036302014-11-08T13:17:02.899-05:002014-11-08T13:17:02.899-05:00Gene, do you still hold the belief that "prop...Gene, do you still hold the belief that "property rights protect all rights" or any residue of it?Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-37702098966692298102014-10-28T10:54:51.782-04:002014-10-28T10:54:51.782-04:00"Sure, he can say "4 sides makes a trian..."Sure, he can say "4 sides makes a triangle" too."<br /><br />Yikes! You say that people can't do X in ancapistan, but you provide no reason for why they can't actually do X. <br /><br />"Simply by definition it isn't."<br /><br />Yikes! It doesn't matter how ancaps 'define' their ideology, what matters is what their arguments actually imply.<br /><br />"You have an odd view of theories then"<br /><br />No, it is obvious that if I say "in cloud cuckoo land no one will be able to do bad thing X" but provide absolutely no reason why they won't be able to do X, then what I am saying is meaningless.<br /><br />"Yes in real life"<br /><br />No, in real life using something does not make it your property. This is a statement of fact.<br /><br />"Instead of saying "land in use" shorten it to "property"."<br /><br />No, the two things are different. "land in use " is not the same thing as "property". Your whole argument, indeed your whole ideology, apparently depends on arbitrarily redefining the meaning of words to mean whatever you want.<br /><br />"A rule of names"<br /><br />No, just a rule.<br /><br />"I wouldn't back the rule up with force"<br /><br />whatever. In anarcho-capitalism, property claims and rules are backed up by force, i.e. they are enforced.<br /><br />"How old is the real world to you?"<br /><br />Not relevant. <br /><br />"You just aren't saying anything new here"<br /><br />As is often the case, you aren't really saying anything here, just trying to sound clever.Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17386123430230365251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-25649415182891423992014-10-28T00:47:58.042-04:002014-10-28T00:47:58.042-04:00"Well, That is interesting. But it is clear f..."Well, That is interesting. But it is clear from his remarks that if you bought some property did not take care to make sure you had an easement, a blockade would be permissible."<br /><br />Yes, absolutely. The "idiot" who moves to ancapistan and buys land without strings attached doesn't have the right to an easement.<br /><br />"Also, in the comments, you said you were not a libertarian. But block regards to as a "committed libertarian." Have you been deceiving him?"<br /><br />No, not intentionally at least. Years ago, back at UofR I got into it with Dr. Block after a lecture he gave, pushing my usual egoist clap-trap, and it was frightening! I'm glad he's forgotten me since.<br /><br />"I guess Block will be king of ancapistan, huh. So he'll make everyone follow his rules."<br /><br />If we're lucky.K.P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10802193565054725900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-43931599213313749022014-10-27T21:10:50.566-04:002014-10-27T21:10:50.566-04:00"Block does forbid imprisoning Jep"
I g..."Block does forbid imprisoning Jep"<br /><br />I guess Block will be king of ancapistan, huh. So he'll make everyone follow his rules.Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17386123430230365251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-39421980926864367192014-10-27T20:45:29.127-04:002014-10-27T20:45:29.127-04:00Also, in the comments, you said you were not a lib...Also, in the comments, you said you were not a libertarian. But block regards to as a "committed libertarian." Have you been deceiving him?gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-83419638222543581122014-10-27T20:40:20.004-04:002014-10-27T20:40:20.004-04:00Well, That is interesting. But it is clear from hi...Well, That is interesting. But it is clear from his remarks that if you bought some property did not take care to make sure you had an easement, a blockade would be permissible.<br /><br />The other interesting point is that this makes "privatizing" the roads very problematical. Let us take the state highway my house is on: literally every person in the world (who can gain entry to the US) can use the road for free. Who is supposed to be paying for the road maintenance?gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-69644544129934444512014-10-27T19:53:36.570-04:002014-10-27T19:53:36.570-04:00"he can say "4 sides makes a triangle&qu..."he can say "4 sides makes a triangle" too"<br /><br />Yikes! What a silly comment. You say "people can't do X in ancapistan" but in fact you provide absolutely no reason why they can't do X. <br /><br />"Simply by definition it isn't"<br /><br />Yikes! Your definitions are BS. I don't really care about how the cranks who write this 'anarcho-capitalist' BS 'define' themselves. I am telling you what their arguments imply.<br /><br />"Yes in real life"<br /><br />No, in real life, using something does not make it your property. This is a statement of fact.<br /><br />"Instead of saying "land in use" shorten it to "property"<br /><br />No, because they are not the same thing. Your whole argument, indeed your whole ideology, is apparently based on arbitrarily re-defining the meaning of words.<br /><br />"How old is the real world to you?"<br /><br />Not relevant.<br /><br />"A rule of names"<br /><br />No, just a rule.<br /><br />I'm not your friend.Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17386123430230365251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-25658577122767336652014-10-27T18:36:45.165-04:002014-10-27T18:36:45.165-04:00Email exchange with Block.
KP: Assuming we start ...Email exchange with Block.<br /><br />KP: Assuming we start in the modern world, not the quasi libertarian one, I own plot of land "A", you own bagel "B" all of the roads within and you happen to hate my guts. Do I still maintain prescriptive rights (an easement) to get to and from "C"? (assume I don't have a helicopter)"<br /><br />WB: if you ("you") were stupid enough to buy land A, knowing that I (B) hated you, you deserve what you get. hey, how did you get into A in the first place, if I own B?<br /><br />KP: I owned (A) first. You purchased (B) (as well as all roads) at a later date(s) and encircled me.<br /><br />WB: you idiot (I hope you realize I'm just kidding about this.) you purchased A, first, without being clear that whoever owned B would let you out?<br /><br />KP: Yes. This was before the ancap revolution you see. I had been using common streets so the idea of clearing it with B fist was never an issue.<br /><br />WB: oh, well, during the transition period, we'll make sure that this entrapment doesn't occur.<br /><br />KP: Here's a quote by Hoppe on a similar situation:<br /><br />"How is it possible that formerly unowned common streets can be privatized without thereby generating conflict with others? The short answer is that this can be done provided only that the appropriation of the street does not infringe on the previously established rights — the easements — of private-property owners to use such streets "for free." Everyone must remain free to walk the street from house to house, through the woods, and onto the lake, just as before. Everyone retains a right-of-way, and hence no one can claim to be made worse off by the privatization of the street."<br /><br />Does that sound more or less correct?<br /><br />WB: yes, I agree with Hans. where does he say this?<br /><br />KP: http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/article/2011/lp-3-1.pdf<br /><br />KP: Can I have your permission to reproduce this correspondence?<br /><br />WB: yes<br /><br />WB: but please make it clear that I'm not calling you an idiot. I certainly didn't mean to do so. I regard you as a very bright and committed libertarian. just add this to our correspondence.<br /><br />I'll forward the entire exchange to anyone interested.<br /><br />It looks clear that according by Block's Law (via Hoppe), Jep cannot be imprisoned in the scenario presented (purely from a rights perspective). Block might have blinders to Rothbard's logic here, but he does forbid imprisoning Jep.K.P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10802193565054725900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-85083050629085922812014-10-27T12:39:54.004-04:002014-10-27T12:39:54.004-04:00"If the landlord has complete dominion over t..."If the landlord has complete dominion over the land and makes all the laws, he could just say that actually, you are obliged to him."<br /><br />Sure, he can say "4 sides makes a triangle" too.<br /><br />"There is no one to enforce these rules that you keep coming up with. You have provided no reason why these rules of yours would have to be abided by. Can Walter Block shoot trespassers on a whim? You might not think so, but who knows? Just ask Walter Block, and he'll tell you whether he has the right to shoot trespassers on a whim or not. That's ancapistan."<br /><br />Simply by definition it isn't. Maybe ancapistan will end up like that, or never get off the ground at all. And therefore isn't an idea to be strived for but that simply is a different matter. If you'd like to discuss that just say so.<br /><br />"It renders the theory utterly meaningless." <br /><br />You have an odd view of theories then, no worries.<br /><br />"Yikes! Using land does not make it property. Not in real life, not according to existing law, not in theory. "<br /><br />Nonsense. Yes in real life, maybe in some famous theory, not sure there. <br /><br />"There isn't some sort magical process which occurs when you use land which somehow turns it into 'property'. Land in itself is just land. We attach labels to it, such as 'property'. We make something 'property' by pointing at it and saying "that is my/your property" and backing up our claim with enforcement, not by using it. "<br /><br />Magic? It's just a naming convention, calm down. Instead of saying "land in use" shorten it to "property". Easy.<br /><br />"This should be obvious. What you are actually doing here is making or proposing a rule. You are saying that "using land makes it your property". This is a rule. And you would back this rule up with force. It is actually this rule, and its enforcement, which would make land 'property', not the act of using land."<br /><br />A rule of names, sure. Just like giving birth to a fetus makes it your "child". I wouldn't back the rule up with force, call it "land-in-use" and "former womb occupier" if you prefer. It's still the same thing no matter what you call it.<br /><br />"In the real world, things such as parents and corporate boards are subject to the laws created by the governments of the jurisdictions in which they live or operate." <br /><br />How old is the real world to you?<br /><br />"Whoever makes these laws in the imaginary world of ancapistan would be a de-facto government… the most obvious and likely candidates would be large corporations, 'private armies' etc. Any large organisation with power and the means to enforce their rules over a given area, basically."<br /><br />Sure, I don't even necessarily disagree with you. You just aren't saying anything new here, friend. K.P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10802193565054725900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-8276758312870195282014-10-26T22:07:01.113-04:002014-10-26T22:07:01.113-04:00"You aren't obliged to a land lord or eve..."You aren't obliged to a land lord or even your parents unless you make an agreement"<br /><br />If the landlord has complete dominion over the land and makes all the laws, he could just say that actually, you are obliged to him.<br /><br />There is no one to enforce these rules that you keep coming up with. You have provided no reason why these rules of yours would have to be abided by. Can Walter Block shoot trespassers on a whim? You might not think so, but who knows? Just ask Walter Block, and he'll tell you whether he has the right to shoot trespassers on a whim or not. That's ancapistan.<br /><br />"Couldn't say, possibly no one... but that says nothing on what theory itself says."<br /><br />It renders the theory utterly meaningless. <br /><br />You say: 'people can't do X in ancapistan". Reply: "why not, what's to stop them?'. You: 'possibly nothing... but that says nothing about the theory... because in theory people can't do X in ancapistan. So there's no problem!'<br /><br />"Land you use isn't "just land", the very act of using is what makes it property."<br /><br />Yikes! Using land does not make it property. Not in real life, not according to existing law, not in theory. <br /><br />There isn't some sort magical process which occurs when you use land which somehow turns it into 'property'. Land in itself is just land. We attach labels to it, such as 'property'. We make something 'property' by pointing at it and saying "that is my/your property" and backing up our claim with enforcement, not by using it. <br /><br />We might give a reason or justification for our claim by saying "I used that land", but that in itself does not 'make' the land property - it is simply a justification for claiming the land as property.<br /><br />This should be obvious. What you are actually doing here is making or proposing a <b>rule</b>. You are saying that "using land makes it your property". This is a rule. And you would back this rule up with force. It is actually this rule, and its enforcement, which would make land 'property', not the act of using land. <br /><br />"I'd say that decision and rule making groups are all indeed "governments"<br /><br />In the real world, things such as parents and corporate boards are subject to the laws created by the governments of the jurisdictions in which they live or operate. <br /><br />Whoever makes these laws in the imaginary world of ancapistan would be a de-facto government… the most obvious and likely candidates would be large corporations, 'private armies' etc. Any large organisation with power and the means to enforce their rules over a given area, basically.Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17386123430230365251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-40674413300915799952014-10-26T20:39:53.511-04:002014-10-26T20:39:53.511-04:00"Yikes! If 'landowners' have complete..."Yikes! If 'landowners' have complete dominion over their land and make the laws on their land, why couldn't they potentially decide to have serfs, or slaves even?"<br /><br />Nope. According to libertarians, people aren't born apart of the land. You aren't obliged to a land lord or even your parents unless you make an agreement. In stark contrast to feudalism, someone should argue the problem with libertarianism is that children risk being *kicked out of* their ancestral homes!<br /><br />"You say 'people aren't born with positive obligations', but who is there to enforce this rule?"<br /><br />Couldn't say, possibly no one... but that says nothing on what theory itself says.<br /><br />"All you're really saying is that you think people shouldn't be born with positive obligations. But you have provided no reason for why they wouldn't or couldn't be born with positive obligations in ancapistan."<br /><br />Indeed, I'm only speaking theoretically. That's also true of every political theory ever though. Checks and Balances *should* work, doesn't mean it necessarily will.<br /><br />"No. Things in themselves are not 'property'. Land is just land, water is just water, cows are just cows, etc. When we declare something to be 'property' we are claiming that someone has the right to control something in a particular way. We are making a rule, or in a more formal case a law, usually backed up by the threat of some form of enforcement. By making such rules or laws regarding things in the world, we are creating 'property'. "<br /><br />You and I will have to part ways then. As we simply disagree as to what constitutes "property". Land you use isn't "just land", the very act of using is what makes it property. (Robert LeFevre goes even further, that is everything even if it hasn't been used, like Mars is property.)<br /><br />"'governance' can refer to all forms of decision-making and rule-making in different contexts, such as 'corporate governance' or 'family governance' for example. The term is different to 'government' which is what we were discussing."<br /><br />Indeed it can, it's certainly a broader term, of coarse "government" is broader term than "state" too (which was the spark of all of this). I'd say that decision and rule making groups are all indeed "governments".K.P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10802193565054725900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-64105664277824356502014-10-26T19:39:52.864-04:002014-10-26T19:39:52.864-04:00"Read up on libertarianism. Generically, you&..."Read up on libertarianism. Generically, you're born without positive obligations."<br /><br />Yikes! If 'landowners' have complete dominion over their land and make the laws on their land, why couldn't they potentially decide to have serfs, or slaves even? <br />You say 'people aren't born with positive obligations', but who is there to enforce this rule? <br /><br />All you're really saying is that you think people <i>shouldn't</i> be born with positive obligations. But you have provided no reason for why they wouldn't or couldn't be born with positive obligations in ancapistan.<br /><br />"my phrase is correct"<br /><br />No. Things in themselves are not 'property'. Land is just land, water is just water, cows are just cows, etc. When we declare something to be 'property' we are claiming that someone has the right to control something in a particular way. We are making a rule, or in a more formal case a law, usually backed up by the threat of some form of enforcement. By making such rules or laws regarding things in the world, we are creating 'property'. <br /><br />"are forms of governance other than the state?"<br /><br />'governance' can refer to all forms of decision-making and rule-making in different contexts, such as 'corporate governance' or 'family governance' for example. The term is different to 'government' which is what we were discussing.Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17386123430230365251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-81570625767195059992014-10-26T16:25:44.310-04:002014-10-26T16:25:44.310-04:00Oops, my apologies then, carry on with your sillin...Oops, my apologies then, carry on with your silliness.K.P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10802193565054725900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-91068921381140457252014-10-26T16:24:42.523-04:002014-10-26T16:24:42.523-04:00"No, no dodging. You asked about 'governa..."No, no dodging. You asked about 'governance'. Governance is a much broader term than 'government'. Asking whether there are 'other forms of governance' is changing the subject from the specific issue of government."<br /><br />Yet you answered neither and I even though I disagree with that assessment, I took the time to avoid the contested word simply so we could establish where you stand. Can't really communicate if you keep yourself in the dark. Can you state, for the record, whether there are forms of governance other than the state?<br /><br />"You then asked me whether there are institutions such as the church or family which 'govern'. And I told you that these institutions are all subject to the laws of governments in the territories in which they operate, which is a fact."<br /><br />Yes, *today* it's true, but has that always been so? Were bands a state?<br /><br />"Why not?"<br /><br />Yikes! Read up on libertarianism. Generically, you're born without positive obligations.<br /><br />"If it did, you could just rephrase you sentence to say 'land is the foundation of the law', or 'food is the foundation of the law', or 'water is the foundation of the law', or 'cattle is the foundation of the law'. None of which would make sense."<br /><br />You could indeed, those things are all happen to be property so my phrase is correct, sensible (and succinct!)<br /><br />Samson,<br /><br />"Yes, a fight's winner sets who gets what. But what of it? Of what relevance is this? That two countries fight a war over oil says nothing about what the law ought to be"<br /><br />Agreed. I never stated what I think it ought to be, just what it happens to be.<br /><br />"On the contrary, it is very relevant. Conflict has been over many things and this falsifies the reason you cite for making property so central. Does this mean property is irrelevant? No, but it means it's not particularly interesting. (I've never found the Founding Father's writings (or anyone's writings) on property to be of much significance.)<br /><br />Squabbles over property is where it began, otherwise we'd still be in the position of animals.<br /><br />"Hayek himself may not have been correct which is what is being disputed."<br /><br />I'm not arguing that he, or libertarians are correct at all. Sheesh, I thought the inclusion of air quotes and the preface would have made that clear.<br /><br />Are you at the Sound and the Fury levels of confusion here? Is there a way to write text in different colors or something here? Maybe that would help keep everyone on point.K.P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10802193565054725900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-50146867175894761442014-10-26T13:50:44.188-04:002014-10-26T13:50:44.188-04:00What exactly was the conflict over? Property! It o...<i>What exactly was the conflict over? Property! It obviously comes first.</i><br /><br />Well, no that isn't obvious. But perhaps my problem is with the way you phrase this. <br />Yes, a fight's winner sets who gets what. But what of it? Of what relevance is this? That two countries fight a war over oil says nothing about what the law ought to be.<br /><br /><i>Yes, Samson it *may* be over many other thing, but that's not relevant.</i><br /><br />On the contrary, it is very relevant. Conflict has been over many things and this falsifies the reason you cite for making property so central. Does this mean property is irrelevant? No, but it means it's not particularly interesting. (I've never found the Founding Father's writings (or anyone's writings) on property to be of much significance.)<br /><br /><i>"Legislation is law? Yes or no?"<br /><br />Yes, legislation is law, law isn't necessarily legislation though.<br /><br />Again, What should Hayek have titled his book?</i><br /><br />Hayek himself may not have been correct which is what is being disputed.Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-33204114742532138292014-10-26T13:45:33.474-04:002014-10-26T13:45:33.474-04:00"What exactly was the conflict over? Property..."What exactly was the conflict over? Property! It obviously comes first."<br /><br />The fact that things exist and that people fight over them does not mean that 'property is the ultimate foundation of the law'. If it did, you could just rephrase you sentence to say 'land is the foundation of the law', or 'food is the foundation of the law', or 'water is the foundation of the law', or 'cattle is the foundation of the law'. None of which would make sense.<br /><br />Say you are inhabiting a piece of land, and I come along with my tribe and kill you, then pronounce myself to be the ruler of the land. I then set down a whole set of rules for the land - what people can and can't do on it. Then I declare that certain parts of the land are a thing called 'private property' which people can buy from me. I determine the rules governing this 'private property', including the fact that I retain ultimate legal authority over it. <br /><br />It's obvious here that property is not 'the foundation of the law'. Rather it is my law which determines what property is.Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17386123430230365251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-36269811021910228372014-10-26T13:32:03.786-04:002014-10-26T13:32:03.786-04:00No, no dodging. You asked about 'governance...No, no dodging. You asked about 'governance'. Governance is a much broader term than 'government'. Asking whether there are 'other forms of governance' is changing the subject from the specific issue of government.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance<br /><br />You then asked me whether there are institutions such as the church or family which 'govern'. And I told you that these institutions are all subject to the laws of governments in the territories in which they operate, which is a fact.<br /><br />"The difference? God only knows how many there are, here's another easy one. No one could be born a serf or villein (if be one at all)."<br /><br />Why not?Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17386123430230365251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-80605933243248809342014-10-26T12:22:43.037-04:002014-10-26T12:22:43.037-04:002nd Attempt.
"I haven't been dodging que...2nd Attempt.<br /><br />"I haven't been dodging questions. You asked me one question ("Is there *any* form of governance other than the state?) which wasn't even relevant."<br /><br />Haha, that one has been repeatedly asked, so yes, major dodging. And no it's not even the only one! Even more hilarious, in a comment calling out your laziness you still didn't even answer all the questions within it. Get it together, pal.<br /><br />"So what is the difference between ancap lands and feudal states, given that feudal monarchs claimed to own all their territory?"<br /><br />The difference? God only knows how many there are, here's another easy one. No one could be born a serf or villein (if be one at all).<br /><br />Let's try this a different way, is the monarch's claim to the land the only thing that distinguishes fuedalism from the Modernity?<br /><br />"If winning a conflict by force determines who gets to make the rules (law) regarding an area of land and the things in it, how can 'property' be the ultimate foundation of that law? Property is determined by that law."<br /><br />What exactly was the conflict over? Property! It obviously comes first. <br /><br />One can theoretically conceive of property without law at all, it's just an ugly sight. For the non-theoretically inclined, just look at animals and how they maintain their property.<br /><br />"I'm not sure what it means to say it was the "logical" foundation, but conflict be over many more things than just property: animal rights, religion, freedom of speech, etc."<br /><br />Yes, Samson it *may* be over many other thing, but that's not relevant.<br /><br />"Legislation is law. Yes or no?"<br /><br />Yes, legislation is law, law isn't necessarily legislation though.<br /><br />Again, What should Hayek have titled his book?K.P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10802193565054725900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-30816251335831797992014-10-26T10:55:39.462-04:002014-10-26T10:55:39.462-04:00I love how he predicts what everyone would do. Did...I love how he predicts what everyone would do. Did he have a crystal ball or something? And why is he calling contractual terms "easements"? Where the hell did he get his ideas on law from? Did he ever familiarize himself with actual law at any point in his life?Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-627951985079373062014-10-26T07:13:06.420-04:002014-10-26T07:13:06.420-04:00More hand-waving from Rothbard!More hand-waving from Rothbard!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-30509432036105518622014-10-26T04:53:21.890-04:002014-10-26T04:53:21.890-04:00"Conflict arose over property, so obviously p..."Conflict arose over property, so obviously property is the logical foundation."<br /><br />I'm not sure what it means to say it was the "logical" foundation, but conflict be over many more things than just property: animal rights, religion, freedom of speech, etc.Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-88452347033746656932014-10-26T03:10:53.964-04:002014-10-26T03:10:53.964-04:00The answer is that everyone, in purchasing homes o...<i>The answer is that everyone, in purchasing homes or street service in a libertarian society, would make sure that the purchase or lease contract provides full access for whatever term of years is specified. With this sort of “easement” provided in advance by contract, no such sudden blockade would be allowed, since it would be an invasion of the property right of the landowner.</i><br /><br />What the? Rothbard's mangling contracts and easements <i>badly</i> in this passage. Easements are not contractual. And a blockade is certainly <i>not</i> classifiable as a property rights violation. It's a bit hard for me to entertain this idea of "free market roads" because it seems nonsensical to paint them as a good or a service. Does that mean I think private roads can't exist? No, but I think such a view requires one to see a market where a mess is.Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-57147186362683946082014-10-26T03:00:55.948-04:002014-10-26T03:00:55.948-04:00K.P., I'm being silly on purpose with the prec...K.P., I'm being silly on purpose with the precedence thing. I'm using my admittedly cranky example to show that property rights reductionism doesn't pan out.Samson Corwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148822362930969284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-32109047450986406052014-10-25T19:27:56.929-04:002014-10-25T19:27:56.929-04:00Bob, your Rothbard quote does not address any of t...Bob, your Rothbard quote does not address any of the problems raised by Gene in his post. <br /><br />In Gene's example Jeb's surrounding neighbours want him gone. They will not want to provide a contract for full access to him.<br /><br />Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17386123430230365251noreply@blogger.com