Comment: The good, the bad, and ugly

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: This would then require (see in situ)

The good, the bad, and ugly

This would then require unanimous founding consent. Here's why: If even one person in the founding group was coerced rather than consented, then the removal of those coming to majority and refusing to sign violated their rights since the 99 did not have the right to prevent the 1 from permitting the refusers. So even years after the this one original died, all those who signed in order not to be removed from his land were coerced; if they were coerced, then their inability to harbor future refusers to sign extends the coercion. So on your view, it is the original unanimity of the founding group that makes all future "sign or leave" statements legitimate for the entire private law community. Even one act of coercion taints the entire future pool, on this particular theory of just property use and transfer.

On the other hand, let's suppose, hypothetically, that the original founding population of some state were in fact in unanimous agreement to its laws, and if everyone was made to understand as they entered the state or came to majority that "not leaving is construed as agreement by our laws," and if those laws included the granting to the government the right to punish law violators, then all of this would be within bounds.

Yes, I think that's all exactly right.

Your characterization of the libertarian concept of property, however, is completely wrong.

In this system, property is:
1) obtained only by title transfer

Property can be obtained in three ways: (a) voluntary transfer (be it sale, gift, whatever), (b) homesteading, (c) as restitution for a crime.

2) homesteading - with no limits on how much you can grab that aren't arbitrary

The rules of homesteading aren't arbitrary, they just can't be defined a priori, because there's too much variation in the possible cases, too many different forms of "use." But in practice, we take a quite narrow view of "first use." We're not suggesting that people be allowed to claim vast tracts of land on the basis of seeing it or walking across it a couple times. To claim a given parcel, a person needs to have done something rather substantial with it: e.g. transformed it from wilderness into plowed farmland. Of course, homesteading is mostly an academic point anyway, there's not too much unowned land left in the world.

)absolute, inalienable

What do you mean by absolute? But libertarian property is certainly not inalienable: inalienable property means property that cannot be transferred to another person.

4) defensible with any force

An owner has the right to defend his property with any force necessary - not any force he wants. For instance, no libertarian would justify shooting a girlscout in the face with a 12 gauge because she cut across your front lawn (lol). The idea is that you may use whatever force is minimally required to stop the violation of your property rights, and anything more than that is itself criminal.

5) one's domain where one can commit any acts whatsoever

That's completely false. Libertarian law is supposed to apply everywhere at all times to all persons. Murdering somebody on your own property is no different than murdering them on the street. You're a criminal and you're fully liable for your crime. The victim (or in this case the dead victim's heir) can come onto your property and get restitution (in this case execute you if that's what he wants to do).

6) one's legal domain where no law holds unless agreed to by contract

Again, libertarian law is supposed to apply everywhere at all times to all persons: regardless of whether they consent to it. See my post at the top of the thread.

7) a place where trespassers can be captured, tortured, etc. since they are criminal trespassers and guilty parties

Again, minimal force to stop the crime is all that's permitted. So what's permitted in the case of trespass? Well that depends entirely on the decisions of the trespasser. If he agrees to leave when asked, then no force is permitted. If he refuses, then maybe you can push him. If he fights back, maybe more force is justified. If he has a knife? Well then maybe lethal force. Certainly torture or imprisonment would never under any circumstances be justified, because it could never be required to halt a trespass.

In such a system, aggression would be trespassing on someone's square 500 mile homesteaded kingdom

As I said above, libertarianism has quite a narrow definition of "first use." What did this guy do with this 500 square mile parcel of land? If he plowed all of it, then alright, he owns it (and I'm impressed). If he just walked around it and shouted at the heavens "It's mine mwahahaha!" ...not so much.

If people bought up the 4 spaces of land around my holding and built a tower of Babel around my property and cut my water off, I would be the aggressive party to climb over the wall.

No, unless you were originally dropped into your property from the sky and never left, you have an easement (i.e. a right of way) to come and go through your neighbors property - or, more likely, the road next door (lol)...not too many houses built without road access.

If I walked by a drowning person in a river and he grabbed onto my leg and pulled himself onto the bank, I could shoot him down as an aggressive trespasser.

No, see my comment above re what levels of force are permitted in defense of property.

A person making gigantic bonfires in their yard sending flaming debris and ash through the sky can't be stopped - that would be aggression. But if the entire town caught fire, he would be sued in a private arbitration... or something.

If the flaming debris and ash is actually damaging anyone's property (or is clearly going to), then he most certainly can be stopped, and is liable for any damages.

If ten adjacent properties that formed a square shared an outer perimeter, and a mob of violent freemasons was descending on the town, and nine property owners told the tenth not to permit access into the defensible square, and tried to stop him, then the nine are aggressors and the one is the victim.

Um, yes.

If one man homesteaded the entire earth except for the city of Fargo, North Dakota, and all the rest of humanity existed inside of Fargo, it would be aggression for them to force a redistribution.

Absurd exaggeration of homesteading, already addressed

If a man was on his property torturing exotic ring tailed lemurs from Damascus for personal amusement every day, it would be aggression to enter his property to stop him

Yep, animals are property. Their owners can do as they please with them.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."