Person B can move. Among many other options. You are talking about externalities. Free people can handle externalities amongst themselves.
This may or may not fall under the purview of the necessary evil of government, depending on your opinion of what the role of government is.
Moving isnât free. That would be imposing a cost.
Free people can handle externalities amongst themselves until they canât come to an agreement. And if they do come to an agreement, that doesnât necessarily mean that there arenât costs involved.
Serious question here, so donât think Iâm being sarcastic/asshole/etc. From the above exchange (for arguments sake), we see that property lines fall under the rule of consent in a sense that these property lines were established prior to all of us accepting it, hence itâs an affront to our ârightsâ.
Would/Could this then be logically applied to ALL ownership of everything, as the decision to own âthingsâ and how thatâs determined occurred before our birth? In the sense of a logical extreme.
Ex: my neighbor has a lawn mower in his backyard. As I never consented to his property line, I ignore it. While on this land, that I have every right to be on, I find a lawn mower. This lawn mower and the rights to âownâ it are granted to my neighbor by a government that I never consented to be governed by. As such, I donât recognize the laws or government that would normally tell me I canât take it. Since no structured system (that I recognize) is in place to stop me from taking it, and Iâve never agreed to leave it alone, I mow my yard with it.
Iâm not sure libertarians have an âiron rule of consent.â Consent is usually brought up in regards to issues like taxation, which involve the forcible taking of property. Often, taxation is compared to something like a cable bill, to which consent exists; libertarians point out that no such consent supports taxation.
Libertarianism is solely concerned with the proper use of force. Rights to life and liberty demand private property rights. Property is the product of life and liberty.
âWell, Iâll just claim Jupiter/that mountain/that whatever.â Grand. I guess no one else will be living there.
Natural rights exist before government. You have a right to speech, property, self defense etc⊠in the natural state of the world. Government exists to protect natural rights. It does not grant them.
Can you flesh out the list of natural rights? That is, what other rights are covered by the âetcâ above?
I could try⊠but I couldnât do the concept the justice it deserves. Natural rights were championed most forecefully by John Locke, but the concept is way older than that (like ancient Greece, Bible, Roman Stoics). Aquinas and Hobbes are good reads also.
I would recommend reading Locke to get an understanding of our constitution. The FFâs lifted whole phrases and concepts straight from Locke (blatant plagiarists!). The whole concept of âInalienable rightsâ that âshall not be infringedâ comes straight from Locke. The Bill of Rights was all about enshrining hereâs rights you have the government has no authority to take away. Which is what makes the US so damn unprecedented as a nation.
To answer your question Iâll use Lockeâs often quoted âLife, liberty and property.â Iâm just a guy who read the book a decade ago. Surely guys like @Legalsteel could explain this way better and give you a more exhaustive list
Life:
right to due process
Habeas Corpus
Jury trial/know your accuser
Right to arms and self defense
Liberty:
Speech
Religion
Association
Press
Peaceful assembly
Property:
The right to buy/own/transfer/use property and keep the fruits of your labor (as opposed to fuedalism/slavery)
âPropertyâ includes wealth
No unwarranted search and seizure
requiring just compensation when the state takes your property (eminent domain)
Free exercise of commerce (Smithâs writings allude to Locke)
I appreciate (and respect) your list, along with the fact that you were willing to take a shot at creating it. But something that has always confounded me is the slipperiness of the concept of ânatural rights.â Libertarian-minded folksâwho place a great deal of emphasis on the notion and importance of natural rightsâare not in 100% agreement as to what those rights are. How can a sociopolitical theory be solid if its bedrock assumption is so nebulous?
All statists agree that coercion should be used to accomplish the goals of Leader. Coercion is the cornerstone of statism; however, statists are [supposedly] not in 100% agreement as to the type of force that should be used(e.g., some statists use death camps to accomplish their goals, but most statists openly disagree with that form of coercion). How can a sociopolitical theory be solid if its bedrock assumption is so nebulous?
Whataboutism much? That caricature helps you not at all with your ânatural rightsâ conundrum. If you canât elucidate the list of natural rightsâif you donât know what they are, or how many there are, or even the manner in which they can be/are recognizedâsimply say so.
You own yourself because otherwise you are incapable of making an argument and will need to bring your owner before me to allow him to make his argument. You own your actions because you own and control yourselfâŠbecause otherwise you are incapable of making an argument and will need to bring your owner before me to allow him to make his argument. You own the products of your actionsâŠbecause you own yourself and your actionsâŠbecause otherwise you are incapable of making an argument and will need to bring your owner before me to allow him to make his argument.
Unfortunately, I am, like you, a slave (because taxes). Perhaps I can have my owner contact your owner, and they can discuss the issue in a more productive manner.
You canât even make that statement if you donât own yourself. If you donât rightfully own yourself, you cease to exist. The fact that coercion is employed against one does not make self-ownership any less factual; it just makes that coercion a crime.
I would welcome a presentation of your reasons for opposing slavery while denying natural rights.
If Iâm a slave, by definition I donât own myself. And neither do you. And since (per you) that means neither of us exists, I donât hold out much hope for this exchange becoming more productive (or less absurd).
No. That we own ourselves is evident due to our existence.
100% on board. I was speaking more specifically to Silyakâs comment/logic above that the concept of property lines imposes a cost onto your neighbor in that he canât use the land.
That is exactly why the Bill of Rights was written. They took theory and confirmed âthese things wonât be infringedâ. If your critique is that libertarians present no unified front or speak with one voice⊠thatâs true. They arenât really âjoinersâ.
Is it your opinion that the BoR encompasses every right that could be construed as ânaturalâ? (Sincere question)
Nope. Thereâs even a clause right in the BoR (10th amendment) âThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.â
Iâve read that the FFâs were worried that every silly question of rights would end up before the Supreme Court if they didnât cover their bases on the simple, universally accepted rights. Thatâs why they bothered with the BoR in the first place.
Thereâs a difference between what the political philosophers proposed and we managed to implement in the US constitution and subsequent laws. Of course.
Thatâs a little odd - if the FFs wanted these rights to be universal, why didnât they make them universal?