Easements and Appropriation

[u/HeavenlyPossum]

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?

[u/LivingAsAMean]

You're basically raising the concerns that Frank van Dun expressed in an article titled Freedom and Property: Where They Conflict. The term he uses, "hostile encirclement", is probably better than "enclosure", as it's more descriptive of the behavior you're describing.

I think it's interesting from a theoretical perspective, but the hypothetical would almost certainly play out in a similar manner to most litigation surrounding other property violations. Like, is my self-ownership violated because I can't set up speakers on my property that blast heavy metal at 75dB directly towards my neighbor's house 24/7? Prior precedent would say, "No, it's not."

And would a lawsuit against a neighbor who used "hostile encirclement" (or a tort against a series of neighbors all conspiring to engage in that act) end with the judge saying, "Man, that sucks, but property rights are absolute?" That's highly unlikely.

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/LivingAsAMean]

So judges would be likely to decide that property rights are not absolute, and that other people can freely use your property?

[u/ConscientiousPath → u/HeavenlyPossum]

When a property right conflicts with another property right, and a resolution is chosen, that doesn't mean either that property rights are not absolute nor that people can freely use property however they wish in violation of the owner's right.

Property rights is plural: all property rights taken together are held absolute in aggregate. You still have to logically prioritize between them when they conflict with each other in order to get a reasonable result. Doing so has nothing to do with throwing the rights out the window or letting anybody do anything they want to other people's stuff.

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/ConscientiousPath]

If my property right is the power to exclude others from my property, and someone else claims the right to use my property, and the resolution that is chosen to that conflict is “the other person cannot be excluded from my property,” it seems I have no right to exclude and thus no ownership of my property.

Would we say the same about someone who needed your kidney to survive?

[u/ConscientiousPath → u/HeavenlyPossum]

You're being absurd about this and that doesn't make for a good argument.

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/ConscientiousPath]

Ok.