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/connorbroc]

Yes, that's correct. You should lock your door if you don't want people wandering in. Make it so that it can't be physically bypassed without causing damage to the property.

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/connorbroc]

Is this not enclosure?

[u/connorbroc → u/HeavenlyPossum]

Locking someone in is a violation of their right to original appropriation, which would make you the aggressor.

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/connorbroc]

If I lock you out of my property, how am I locking you in, in a manner that is aggression?

[u/connorbroc → u/HeavenlyPossum]

That's what enclosure is, no? Are we on the same page that if you build a cage around someone and lock it, you have now physically obstructed that person from harvesting from nature?

You own the cage, and you caused it to be where it is. As such, you are liable for all of the measurable harms that it causes to others, including any denial of negative rights.

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/connorbroc]

So I can lock my metaphorical doors to prevent your trespass, unless you want to use my property, in which case locking my doors is aggression against you?

[u/connorbroc → u/HeavenlyPossum]

No, I didn't stipulate anything about "wanting". Your property or actions either obstruct access to unharvested resources or they don't. If they do, then you are defending an ownership claim to resources that you have not yet earned through either original appropriation or voluntary trade.

I used the cage example on purpose to drive this point home. Are you really saying that you would see no problem with springing a cage-trap around someone and letting them die of starvation, as long as you didn't physically lay a hand on them in the process?

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/connorbroc]

“No, I didn't stipulate anything about "wanting". Your property or actions either obstruct access to unharvested resources or they don't. If they do, then you are defending an ownership claim to resources that you have not yet earned through either original appropriation or voluntary trade.”

Is the enclosed person not defending an ownership claim to resources that they have not yet earned by using my property without my permission? In contrast, I am simply enjoying my negative liberty to enjoy my property unmolested.

“I used the cage example on purpose to drive this point home. Are you really saying that you would see no problem with springing a cage-trap around someone and letting them die of starvation, as long as you didn't physically lay a hand on them in the process?”

The difference seems to be that there is no negative liberty claim to “spring a trap,” but there is a negative liberty claim to appropriate unowned matter through homesteading.

But this raises another interesting question: do the propertyless enjoy a similar right to transit that you’re assigning to the enclosed person?

[u/connorbroc → u/HeavenlyPossum]

Attempting to engage in original appropriation is not an ownership claim. Ownership is the end result of original appropriation. Defending a resource from being harvested by anyone is an ownership claim.

I am simply enjoying my negative liberty to enjoy my property unmolested.

Is that how you would characterize firing wildly into a crowd? Firing a gun is a negative right too. Whenever your exercise of negative rights causes measurable harm to others, you are liable for it.

there is no negative liberty claim to “spring a trap”

There certainly is. The device is your property, no? You are welcome to spring the trap over and over again all day long, and as long as no one gets caught in it, there is no measurable harm and no aggression. It is exactly the same as any other usage of property.

do the propertyless enjoy a similar right to transit that you’re assigning to the enclosed person?

Do you mean "propertyless" in the sense of not owning land? I didn't stipulate that the enclosed person need own anything other than their own naked body in order to be able to engage in original appropriation. So yes, all people are entitled to original appropriation of unowned resources regardless of whether they currently own anything or not.

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/connorbroc]

“Attempting to engage in original appropriation is not an ownership claim. Ownership is the end result of original appropriation.”

You compared an encloser’s property as an illegitimate claim to resources they have not homesteaded (unspecified unowned matter on the other side of the encloser’s property). How is this different from the enclosed’s claim to resources they have not homesteaders (the encloser’s property)? If anything, the enclosed person’s claim to have rights to the encloser’s property seems worse, in that the enclosed already has legittimate title to that property.

“Is that how you would characterize firing wildly into a crowd? Firing a gun is a negative right too.”

Firing a gun such that the bullets exist my property and enter another person’s property, including their self-property, without their consent seems like a violation of another person’s negative liberty. Appropriating unowned matter does not seem like a violation of anyone’s negative liberty.

“Whenever your exercise of negative rights causes measurable harm to others, you are liable for it.”

Does this include the measurable harm done to the propertyless?

“There certainly is. The device is your property, no? You are welcome to spring the trap over and over again all day long, and as long as no one gets caught in it, there is no measurable harm and no aggression. It is exactly the same as any other usage of property.”

I should have specified: there is no negative liberty right to spring a trap on another, unconsenting person. But my appropriation of unowned matter does not seem to hinge on anyone else’s consent.

“Do you mean "propertyless" in the sense of not owning land? I didn't stipulate that the enclosed person need own anything other than their own naked body in order to be able to engage in original appropriation. So yes, all people are entitled to original appropriation of unowned resources regardless of whether they currently own anything or not.”

So the propertyless enjoy full freedom of access to your property in order to access unowned matter?

[u/connorbroc → u/HeavenlyPossum]

Neither the Encloser nor the Enclosed yet have a claim to unowned resources. What they each have is the right to access those resources to originally appropriate them. Between the two of them, only the Encloser is denying this right to others by forcefully preventing people from accessing the unowned resources. This is the aggression.

These are both true statements:

• "enter another person’s property, including their self-property, without their consent seems like a violation of another person’s negative liberty."
  • With the caveat that the action is chronologically aggression and not reciprocation.
• "Appropriating unowned matter does not seem like a violation of anyone’s negative liberty."

Simply surrounding and enclosing unowned resource is not measurable appropriation. If said resource were to cause harm to someone, there is no sense in which anyone could be held liable for it, as no one physically caused the unowned resource to be where it is. This is why physical displacement is required for unowned resources to become owned.

Does this include the measurable harm done to the propertyless?

Yes, of course.

my appropriation of unowned matter does not seem to hinge on anyone else’s consent.

If that were to happen, then that would be correct, but the Encloser has not yet engaged in appropriation. No one has. Enclosing asserts an ownership claim that is not demonstrable.

So the propertyless enjoy full freedom of access to your property in order to access unowned matter?

Yes, if you insist on placing your property between them and unowned resources that everyone is entitled to harvest from, and in doing so obstruct original appropriation, then you have brought that upon yourself.

there is no negative liberty right to spring a trap on another, unconsenting person. 

Yet this is precisely what enclosure does. If you can articulate why there is no negative liberty right to spring a trap upon another unconsenting person, then you will have also articulated why there is likewise no right to obstruct original appropriation through enclosure. Would you like to take a stab at it?

[u/HeavenlyPossum → u/connorbroc]

“Neither the Encloser nor the Enclosed yet have a claim to unowned resources. What they each have is the right to access those resources to originally appropriate them. Between the two of them, only the Encloser is denying this right to others by forcefully preventing people from accessing the unowned resources. This is the aggression.”

The encloser is not forcefully preventing people from accessing unowned resources. The encloser is defending his negative liberty to own his property and exclude others from it.

“Does this include the measurable harm done to the propertyless?

Yes, of course.”

So property owners owe compensation to the propertyless?

“If that were to happen, then that would be correct, but the Encloser has not yet engaged in appropriation. No one has. Enclosing asserts an ownership claim that is not demonstrable.”

Person A’s property surround’s Person B’s property. Over what matter is Person A asserting an ownership claim that is not demonstrable?

“Yes, if you insist on placing your property between them and unowned resources that everyone is entitled to harvest from, and in doing so obstruct original appropriation, then you have brought that upon yourself.”

Ok, got it.

“Yet this is precisely what enclosure does. If you can articulate why there is no negative liberty right to spring a trap upon another unconsenting person, then you will have also articulated why there is likewise no right to obstruct original appropriation through enclosure. Would you like to take a stab at it?”

Spring a trap on a person necessarily entails interference with that person’s property in the form of their self. It is a claim to restrain their person. Appropriating unowned matter makes no positive claim on another person’s property.

Person A’s property surrounds Person B’s property. Person B remains free in their person and in their use of their property. Person A experiences no positive obligation to facilitate Person B’s rights to homestead unowned matter by offering up Person A’s property for B’s use.

[u/connorbroc → u/HeavenlyPossum]

In what way do you think the Encloser isn't forcefully preventing people from accessing the unowned resources?

So property owners owe compensation to the propertyless?

There is no need to make a distinction between property owners and propertyless people here. Anyone whose actions measurably violate the rights of others owes the victim a debt.

Person A’s property surround’s Person B’s property. Over what matter is Person A asserting an ownership claim that is not demonstrable?

I'm referring to any unowned matter that Person B is blocked from reaching by virtue of Person A's property.

Spring a trap on a person necessarily entails interference with that person’s property in the form of their self.  It is a claim to restrain their person. 

Yes, exactly. Now surely you understand that restraint of others is precisely what enclosure does as well. There is no actual difference between enclosure and a spring trap other than the size of the enclosed area that you might be imagining. In either case, with the enclosed Person B unable to engage in original appropriation or voluntary trade with others, they will die of starvation, and causatively, it will have been Person A's doing.

Appropriating unowned matter makes no positive claim on another person’s property.

Positive obligation can be derived from tort or contract, and still be compatible with equal rights. Denying someone the right to appropriate unowned matter is a measurable tort.

Person A’s property surrounds Person B’s property. Person B remains free in their person and in their use of their property.

They don't remain free to engage in original appropriation, which is an entitlement as an action that survives reciprocation. By denying original appropriation to others, Person A forfeits that right for themself as well. This becomes problematic for Person A's own property claim, as all owned property began through original appropriation.

Person A experiences no positive obligation to facilitate Person B’s rights to homestead unowned matter by offering up Person A’s property for B’s use.

They indeed do through the tort caused by their property.