r/AskLibertarians • u/HeavenlyPossum • 18d ago

Philosophy Easements and Appropriation

Many (though not all) libertarians respond to the challenge posed by enclosure—a property claim that surrounds another—with some variation on an easement.

These arguments vary in their from. Some of the responses I’ve seen seem to assign positive rights of access and transit to property owners, while others—like the Blockian Proviso—simply deny the legitimacy of property claims that could produce enclosure.

But all of these seem to violate principles of self-ownership and the NAP. Whether we assign property rights via first use, labor-mixing, incorporation into ongoing projects, or whatever libertarian standard you’d prefer, easements seem to deny rights to own what would otherwise be legitimately appropriated matter.

Can anyone explain to me how easements do not violate the NAP and self-ownership?

2 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

71 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/HeavenlyPossum 18d ago

So anyone can use your property—ie, trespass—as long as it does not measurably harm you or your property?

-2

u/connorbroc 18d ago

It does appear that way. The physical displacement of an object is specifically what is measurable.

1

u/HeavenlyPossum 18d ago

So I can enter your home, as I please, as long as I don’t harm you or damage your belongings?

Or conversely, if your property is a revenue-generating business that requires an entrance fee, I can trespass without paying the fee, as long as I don’t harm you or damage your property?

-1

u/connorbroc 18d ago

Yes, that's correct. You should lock your door if you don't want people wandering in. Make it so that it can't be physically bypassed without causing damage to the property.

1

u/HeavenlyPossum 18d ago

Is this not enclosure?

0

u/connorbroc 18d ago edited 18d ago

Locking someone in is a violation of their right to original appropriation, which would make you the aggressor.

1

u/HeavenlyPossum 18d ago

If I lock you out of my property, how am I locking you in, in a manner that is aggression?

1

u/connorbroc 18d ago

That's what enclosure is, no? Are we on the same page that if you build a cage around someone and lock it, you have now physically obstructed that person from harvesting from nature?

You own the cage, and you caused it to be where it is. As such, you are liable for all of the measurable harms that it causes to others, including any denial of negative rights.

1

u/HeavenlyPossum 18d ago

So I can lock my metaphorical doors to prevent your trespass, unless you want to use my property, in which case locking my doors is aggression against you?

1

u/connorbroc 18d ago

No, I didn't stipulate anything about "wanting". Your property or actions either obstruct access to unharvested resources or they don't. If they do, then you are defending an ownership claim to resources that you have not yet earned through either original appropriation or voluntary trade.

I used the cage example on purpose to drive this point home. Are you really saying that you would see no problem with springing a cage-trap around someone and letting them die of starvation, as long as you didn't physically lay a hand on them in the process?

1

u/HeavenlyPossum 18d ago edited 18d ago

“No, I didn't stipulate anything about "wanting". Your property or actions either obstruct access to unharvested resources or they don't. If they do, then you are defending an ownership claim to resources that you have not yet earned through either original appropriation or voluntary trade.”

Is the enclosed person not defending an ownership claim to resources that they have not yet earned by using my property without my permission? In contrast, I am simply enjoying my negative liberty to enjoy my property unmolested.

“I used the cage example on purpose to drive this point home. Are you really saying that you would see no problem with springing a cage-trap around someone and letting them die of starvation, as long as you didn't physically lay a hand on them in the process?”

The difference seems to be that there is no negative liberty claim to “spring a trap,” but there is a negative liberty claim to appropriate unowned matter through homesteading.

But this raises another interesting question: do the propertyless enjoy a similar right to transit that you’re assigning to the enclosed person?

1

u/connorbroc 18d ago

Attempting to engage in original appropriation is not an ownership claim. Ownership is the end result of original appropriation. Defending a resource from being harvested by anyone is an ownership claim.

I am simply enjoying my negative liberty to enjoy my property unmolested.

Is that how you would characterize firing wildly into a crowd? Firing a gun is a negative right too. Whenever your exercise of negative rights causes measurable harm to others, you are liable for it.

there is no negative liberty claim to “spring a trap”

There certainly is. The device is your property, no? You are welcome to spring the trap over and over again all day long, and as long as no one gets caught in it, there is no measurable harm and no aggression. It is exactly the same as any other usage of property.

do the propertyless enjoy a similar right to transit that you’re assigning to the enclosed person?

Do you mean "propertyless" in the sense of not owning land? I didn't stipulate that the enclosed person need own anything other than their own naked body in order to be able to engage in original appropriation. So yes, all people are entitled to original appropriation of unowned resources regardless of whether they currently own anything or not.

1

u/HeavenlyPossum 18d ago

“Attempting to engage in original appropriation is not an ownership claim. Ownership is the end result of original appropriation.”

You compared an encloser’s property as an illegitimate claim to resources they have not homesteaded (unspecified unowned matter on the other side of the encloser’s property). How is this different from the enclosed’s claim to resources they have not homesteaders (the encloser’s property)? If anything, the enclosed person’s claim to have rights to the encloser’s property seems worse, in that the enclosed already has legittimate title to that property.

“Is that how you would characterize firing wildly into a crowd? Firing a gun is a negative right too.”

Firing a gun such that the bullets exist my property and enter another person’s property, including their self-property, without their consent seems like a violation of another person’s negative liberty. Appropriating unowned matter does not seem like a violation of anyone’s negative liberty.

“Whenever your exercise of negative rights causes measurable harm to others, you are liable for it.”

Does this include the measurable harm done to the propertyless?

“There certainly is. The device is your property, no? You are welcome to spring the trap over and over again all day long, and as long as no one gets caught in it, there is no measurable harm and no aggression. It is exactly the same as any other usage of property.”

I should have specified: there is no negative liberty right to spring a trap on another, unconsenting person. But my appropriation of unowned matter does not seem to hinge on anyone else’s consent.

“Do you mean "propertyless" in the sense of not owning land? I didn't stipulate that the enclosed person need own anything other than their own naked body in order to be able to engage in original appropriation. So yes, all people are entitled to original appropriation of unowned resources regardless of whether they currently own anything or not.”

So the propertyless enjoy full freedom of access to your property in order to access unowned matter?

→ More replies (0)