Two people land unconscious on an island via a crashed boat or some shit.
One person wakes up 2 minutes before the other person, and claims all the land on the island as their (sic) own. Accord (sic) to rothbard, that is perfectly fine. The second person wakes up, and is informed that he must choose between being the slave of the first person, or being dead.
Libertarians, do you think this is okay because neither person initiated force?
For starters, the first person would have to transform the land with his labor, an important caveat you conveniently removed from your straw man (perhaps click the link again). I can’t imagine how much land could be transformed in two hours, much less two minutes, but it would not be much.
(As I noted a few days ago, merely claiming ownership is insufficient.)
Second, there’s the matter of the land that the second man is occupying. It would be difficult for the first man to displace the second man for this purpose without committing aggression. After all, the second man was on that land first and did not move freely.
Third, there is no situation in which a man can be made a slave. Even an unambiguous property owner cannot make that demand of an unambiguous trespasser.
- radicaleidoscope likes this
- drunken-rambling reblogged this from anarchowario and added:
- homme-ridicule likes this
- lucidparadox likes this
- planetthorburn likes this
- imaginebaddragons likes this
- freexcitizen likes this
- jobarr likes this
- drweesnaw likes this
- iamnineonefour reblogged this from revolutionist-ism and added:
- lordnyra likes this
- anarchowario reblogged this from anticapitalist and added:
- kawaiisquad said: THE FREE MARKET SHOULD DECIDE WHO OWNS THE ISLAND.
- anarcho-alowisney likes this
- the-flame-imperishable likes this
- existenceandidentity reblogged this from laliberty and added:
- jubliants likes this
- laliberty reblogged this from anticapitalist and added:
- theorthodoxheretic likes this
- oh-noo likes this
- realisenothing likes this
- baseddzerzhinsky likes this
- mamitah said: Why would the second person take the first seriously? The only serious thing to take into account is that person nr 1 is mentally ill, and probably dangerous to himself and others. How do you convive with a mentally ill person? First you have to realize that he is in fact…
- screamingjessopmonkey reblogged this from revolutionist-ism and added:
- revolutionist-ism reblogged this from screamingjessopmonkey and added:
- mutualistrebelnews reblogged this from anticapitalist and added:
- egalitarianscum said: I’m not a libertarian but whether it’s legally fine depends on the island. Does anybody else have a claim on it? Who is the first person claiming it for? Himself, his country, or something different? Morally fine is a different question though
- lepus reblogged this from anticapitalist and added:
- baseddzerzhinsky said: If the second fellow chooses death over slavery but refuses suicide then what, Does the first fellow have to kill him, thus using force and rendering his actions wrong?
- meowmeowparadise likes this
- inkdefense likes this
- theresmorethanjustbeing reblogged this from anticapitalist and added:
- anticapitalist posted this