45 sats \ 2 replies \ @elvismercury 16 Mar \ parent \ on: Tough Questions for Libertarians 3/15 libertarian
Ah, I didn't fully grasp that the first time through. So the idea is that the property owner takes on an additional obligation -- to produce a place to 'relocate' the trespasser that he will find palatable to relocate to?
a place to 'relocate' the trespasser that he will find palatable to relocate to?
Not quite. It needs be somewhere without an owner who objects to the relocation. It's not required that the person being relocated finds it palatable. I'm not sure it's an additional obligation. It's more just a recognition that if something unwanted (person or otherwise) is on your property, your options are to either tolerate it being there or find somewhere to remove it to. The difference between a person and a downed tree, say, is that you aren't allowed to just incinerate the person on site.
I think the relocation needs to be plausibly survivable, because self ownership is the first established principle, with these external property rights coming from subsequent arguments. Basically, you can't just relocate someone to the inside of a volcano or toss them out the airlock, if they're only guilty of trespassing.
reply
As you partially point out above, there will be and has never been any such thing as a society that has zero individuals or orgs willing to help those who are starving to death and have nowhere to go.
reply