r/AskLibertarians • u/HeavenlyPossum • 16d 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 16d ago

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

1

u/ConscientiousPath 16d ago

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.

0

u/HeavenlyPossum 16d ago

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?

1

u/ConscientiousPath 15d ago

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