Libertarianism is illiberal -- property rights, homesteading, inheritance

[Astaroth]

I strongly believe in freedom and personal liberties. I am opposed to many forms of state surveillance and I am worried by the invasion of privacy as a result of the 'war on terror' in the last decade or so. The long waiting lines at airports annoy me, the inability to take normal water bottles through security can be irritating. I do not approve of (parts of) many problematic pieces of legislation, such as the various terrorism acts in the UK (introducing inter alia control orders, look 'em up).

I am also an individualist. I strongly believe in a meritocracy. I understand the importance of individual rights and liberties and oppose all forms of discrimination by private (!) or public bodies. Ultimately, I even consider the protection of civil liberties and human rights as the most important role of the state and of democracy.

Despite all of that, I am strongly opposed to libertarianism, which I consider an immoral, destructive philosophy that pretends to fight for and uphold rights, while in reality emphasising only a few rights and declaring them absolute (property rights), at the same time disregarding everyone else's rights, including their right to life and human dignity.

I am going to outline my views based on a few basic concepts and examples. I am going to start with the libertarian concept of homesteading and discuss it in the context of (absolute) property rights and also inheritance. As a final introductory remark: I am aware that there are many different libertarians and that their views on topics can differ. In the interest of brevity (also note that I am not paid for this and that this is not a scientific paper) I am going to focus on some broad concepts that tend to be accepted (to a degree at least) by the libertarian "mainstream", as far as such a thing exists. So please, if you are going to nitpick based on individual libertarians -- "Nozick disagrees on this! Rothbard said X!" -- this is not the thread for you. Feel free to create your own one. Now, let's focus on the topic at hand.


------

Libertarianism is a philosophy that claims to emphasise freedom -- this is primarily achieved by focusing on property rights, which are essentially considered absolute. Property rights include everything that a person owns, i.e. personal and real property, including the person himself or herself (self-ownership). Every philosophy that deals with property has to come up with a way of establishing how property can be acquired. Libertarianism does this by emphasising the need for a voluntary transfer of property (via a contract for example).
Libertarians reject 'violence' (non-aggression principle) in the transfer of property. 'Violence' in this context is a fairly broad term, usually taxation is considered violence as well. More of that later.

Libertarianism also deals with the question of first acquisition of previously un-owned property (primarily land). This problem is addressed via the "homesteading principle" (cf. Locke): if a person finds an area that does not belong to anyone yet, he can claim ownership of that land (=make it his property) by mixing the land with his labor. This is a fairly vague definition. It certainly includes building something on the land or growing plants there, but some libertarians even argue that it is sufficient to put a fence around an area of land.

Generally, you can take as much land as you need or even want. However, Locke also included a limitation: you could only take so much that another person coming after you still had something left. This too is fairly vague and controversial amongst libertarians. Some reject it outright.


This very brief introduction into libertarianism and the homesteading principle brings me to my first criticism of the philosophy, which is actually quite obvious: it completely ignores the scarcity of (particularly good and valuable!) land, especially if you reject Locke's above limitation. Additionally, it puts all latecomers or newcomers at a severe disadvantage. A simple example illustrates this problem perfectly. While some might consider the example unrealistic and far-fetched, it is actually not that much different from the real world, obviously aside from the fact that the latter includes many more actors and variables.


A man and his family are the only survivors of a shipwreck near an uninhabited island. The island is quite small, but would have more than enough space for several families. The shipwrecked family cannot get away due to the remoteness of the location and settles all across the island. Although they wouldn't need that much space, they put up fences, houses, walls and towers all across the island so that barely any space is left completely untouched. According to the libertarian homesteading principle, essentially the whole island is now their property.

A few years later, a second family shipwrecks on the island. They would have space to settle there, but... several different scenarios apply, which will henceforth illustrate my criticism of libertarianism:


Scenario #1: The first family refuses them altogether and doesn't allow them to settle anywhere. Only a small area on the beach is left for the second family to settle on (because everything else is fenced and walled up, the "property" of the first family), there is no space to grow crops, to harvest anything or to get any wood. The first family refuses to give up any water from the streams on the island, refuses to give up any wood for a house.
What does the second family do? If they use force to settle somewhere on the island after all, libertarianism considers them immoral aggressors. Their only choice (according to libertarianism) would be to remain on that small beach and soon die due to starvation and thirst.
This simply makes no sense whatsoever.

Scenario #2: The first family allows them to settle on the island. However, they do not grant them part of their property and only let them settle there as tenants. The second family has to pay rent -- first, they have to give up all their possessions as rent (otherwise they'll be "rightfully" kicked off the land and left to perish on the beach). Once they run out of their previous property, the first family tells them that they must work. The second family becomes the first family's servants and de facto slaves. They get no real pay, only barely enough food to survive and have to serve the first family like slaves. The second family works on the entire island, harvests crops, builds houses, hunts animals, catches fish, but all of it goes to the first family.
The second family is unable to save up anything (they only get food as payment and only barely enough to survive), once the children become old enough, they too become servants.
Once the parents die, they have nothing to leave for their children. At the same time, the first family gets richer and richer and once the original parents die, their children never have to work anymore and the second family does it all. They are slaves.
This too, makes no sense whatsoever. This is what happens without any labor law.

Scenario #3: The same as scenario #2, except even harsher. The first family leave the second family a choice: either they perish on the beach, or they do not only have to become slaves to the first family, but all the women have to become prostitutes to the first family's men.

Scenario #4: The same as scenarios #2 and #3, except yet worse: The first family are cruel and evil. They sign a "contract" with the second family -- the second family gets used as slaves and prostitutes and tortured severely for the enjoyment of the first family. In exchange, all they get is a tiny hut to stay and the minimum of food needed to survive for a bit. None of them ever survive very long but their children have no choice but to continue in the arrangement.

Scenario #5: Same as scenarios #2 -- #4, yet worse still: The second family is to become slaves and prostitutes and the father of the family has to commit suicide for his family to survive at all. He "voluntarily agrees" to that and kills himself.

Scenario #6: The first family does not occupy the whole island. However, they do occupy the area where the only stream of fresh water lies. The second family can settle there and even find food, but due to pure chance the first family has a monopoly on the only fresh water supply and can again hold the second family as slaves, or worse.

All of these scenarios similarily apply to the descendants of both families: nobody can realistically leave the island (or, even worse: the first family could leave the island, as they could build a boat with the wood, but they do not allow the second family to have any wood to build a boat), i.e. the second family will "morally" (libertarianism) serve the first family for all eternity. If they ever snap and fight back, THEY are the aggressors. How this can make any sense to anyone on this world, I do not know.

Scenario #7: There is only the first family. The father has 5 children, all of which were minors when they came to the island. This means that almost all of the island "belongs" to the father. Before his death, he decides to give all of his property to the eldest son because he loves him the most. After his death, that son is the "owner" of the island. His siblings have nothing. If he tells them to get off his property, they must, according to libertarianism, even if this means their horrible death in the sun on the beach. If he allows them to become his (de facto) slaves in exchange for a tiny amount of food and a place to stay, this is a valid contract.
The brother now holds all 4 of his siblings as de facto slaves, not even due to his own ingenuity, but due to pure chance of being the lucky son to inherit it all.

Scenario #8: There are multiple families on the island now. There are three families that came at first: they occupy the three only fresh water streams. There are five newcomer families that have no water. Now, the libertarian might think that the 3 original families will compete for the 5 newcomer families by offering them better "prices", i.e. more generous amounts of water in exchange for service. But... that's not what actually happens. The three original families only need so many servants, realistically. They do not have enough space to house more than one family each anyway. In other words, 5 families (newcomers) need the water, but only 3 of them are needed as servants (one each for the 3 original families). As a result, the same scenario as above applies: all 3 original families introduce outrageous prices -- de facto slavery, prostitution, torture, suicide -- for the 5 newcomers who have no choice but to accept anything or face certain death.
In libertarianism, this is a perfectly fair and fine contract, because it is voluntary. Right. That makes perfect sense.


------------------

Back to the abstract level. What can we learn from these somewhat simplistic scenarios? What relevance do they have in the real world?

There are in fact several lessons we can draw from these examples, all of which make a strong case against libertarianism and absolute property rights:

• By declaring property rights as absolute (island example), all other rights are (potentially) put in incredible jeopardy. If your right to occupy the whole island that you do not need to survive is considered more valuable or important than my basic right to life, we have a serious moral dilemma. Not to mention the practical aspect: nobody is ever going to accept that the property rights of a few (island firstcomers) should take precedence over all the rights of everybody else, including the most important right of them all: the right to life.
• Accepting an agreement or contract as valid or just simply because there is no direct force involved doesn't make any sense at all. In the context of the validity of the arrangement, there is no practical difference whatsoever between a rapist raping somebody while holding a gun to the victim's head or a man in the desert (who has plenty of water which is more than sufficient for multiple people) refusing to give any water to a woman dying of thirst (and facing certain death) unless she has sex with them.
• Without any mediating or intervening factor (the state), those who have power or de facto monopolies (which can simply happen due to luck/coincidence, see the fresh water streams on the island) can use pseudo-voluntary and pseudo-consensual arrangements to de facto (or even de jure, according to some libertarians) enslave everybody else. This is particularly obvious in the area of labor/employment contracts, see 19th century. If the factories need X amount of workers but there are X+100,000 people looking for a job, then the people will inevitably be forced to accept disastrous working conditions and horrible pay. That's basic supply+demand -- unless there are labor laws and a safety net protecting those who cannot find a job (yet).
• The homesteading principle simply doesn't make any sense (if there are no limitations) in a world of scarce resources and limited land. Once all the available land has been gobbled up, fenced up, walled up, everyone who comes afterwards will never have any real property and never any real freedom. His only choice will be to work under terrible conditions for the owners of the land. This can only be prevented via taxation, a social net, labor laws, minimum wage etc.
• Inheritance adds to the unfairness. If every generation had a fresh start, a new chance to acquire property and title to land, the unfairness and immorality wouldn't be as bad. But in a libertarian world, the testator can leave all of his property (no taxation) to whoever he wants. This means that just because someone happened to be the first to grab a large area of land somewhere, he and all of his descendants for all eternity (unless one of them gambles it all away - but how often does that really happen?) will have property of the land and be rich whereas the neighbour and all of his descendants for all eternity only have a small area of land without any fresh water and are thus forced to work for their rich neighbour (or move away, give up what little land they have and work for someone else under similarly terrible conditions -- remember, supply and demand, labor - particularly unskilled one - is almost always more abundant than paying jobs).

I could go on and on about this, but I think I have written more than enough already. To conclude, let me re-emphasise that I consider libertarianism a terrible, destructive and immoral philosophy. It is a school of thought that claims to embrace freedom, but in reality it is decidedly illiberal. By considering property rights as absolute, all other rights lose their value, including the most important ones such as the right to life. The truly important values of any society -- taking care of the weak, not letting people die, not letting anyone starve, not forcing anyone into slavery, squalor, prostitution and the likes -- are exchanged for a petty concept of absolute property, a concept that primarily serves to protect those who were lucky and ruthless enough to be the first ones to arrive, the first ones to fence and wall up "their property" and to claim for themselves as much as they could without any regard for anyone else.

Am I arguing for communism? By no means. Am I an enemy of liberty? Certainly not. I am in fact an advocate of freedom and personal liberties, which is why I have no choice but to outright reject the ill-named so-called libertarianism. Libertarianism as a philosophy is incompatible with human dignity. My right to life will always trump your petty desire to keep every dollar to yourself. Fortunately, most societies in the world have understood and adopted this basic principle.

[Copperknickers II]

Property and privacy rights are an essential protection against tyranny, and in an ideal world the government wouldn't need to own property or infringe on our dignity and our liberty, but that is not how the world works unfortunately, and it does need to. So apart from the latter points I agree with you.

[hellheaven1987]

I am under the impression that strong abuse the weak is part of law of nature.

[Denny Crane!]

I am not sure why homesteading is such a big thing in your post. It is quite irrelevant in this day and age so why would you focus on it? Is libertarianism a fixed concept and immutable because if that is the case I think we need to revise democracy way way way back because no way in hell was universal suffrage a thing at any point at any time up until quite recently.

[Astaroth]

I am not sure why homesteading is such a big thing in your post. It is quite irrelevant in this day and age so why would you focus on it?

In a way, it is the basis of the whole libertarian philosophy. Libertarianism focusses on two aspects: non-aggression and (essentially absolute) property rights. This raises the question of how one can acquire property in a libertarian system that condemns any use of 'violence' (in a broad sense, including taxation). The answer: voluntary transfer of property, both via inheritance/wills and inter vivos (i.e. contracts, gifts etc.).

But obviously the party transfering property to another party must have acquired the property somewhere else. You cannot create something out of nothing. If you follow back the libertarian chain of voluntary exchanges, you eventually reach the point of first acquisition: homesteading.

As a result, homesteading is the very foundation upon which the whole system rests. If the very means by which property is first acquired doesn't make any sense, then how can the rest of the philosophy ever be justified?

The fact that homesteading plays such a small role in practice nowadays, as you correctly point out, actually supports my point: if homesteading is almost impossible nowadays, how can the libertarian model as a whole be justified? If essentially nobody can acquire "new" property, everyone is forced to play by the rules of those who have acquired or inherited all of the existing property. In an extreme case, this leads to de facto slavery (see island example).


@Ace_General: I don't really see your point. This thread is aimed at classical libertarianism of (more or less) absolute property rights and the non-aggression principle. If you only believe that there should be less taxes, then I might disagree with you but this thread is not for you nor aimed at you. You are of course free to participate, but I frankly see no connection between my OP and your rambling about charities and whatnot.

And btw, lol@your Americas-justification. So according to you, paying people wages that barely keep them from starving is totally fine because they could give up everything they had, move away from the place of their birth, go on an extremely long, dangerous and difficult trip of several thousand kilometres, cross an ocean on a small ship, many of them dying in the process, to arrive in a 'new land' in which you might easily and quickly succumb to disease or be killed by the natives. Right. That's freedom for you, you got 3 valid choices at least: Die. Work under terrible conditions and get pay. Cross a whole damn ocean and hope not to die on the way or there, both of which quite likely scenarios.
But as long as that poor factory owner is not forced to pay more than 10% of his income as taxes, all is fine, right? His freedom to keep every single one of his pennies is naturally superior to the right of the poor to work for a proper wage. I mean, they are trash after all, right?

[Ace_General]

In a way, it is the basis of the whole libertarian philosophy. Libertarianism focusses on two aspects: non-aggression and (essentially absolute) property rights. This raises the question of how one can acquire property in a libertarian system that condemns any use of 'violence' (in a broad sense, including taxation). The answer: voluntary transfer of property, both via inheritance/wills and inter vivos (i.e. contracts, gifts etc.).

But obviously the party transfering property to another party must have acquired the property somewhere else. You cannot create something out of nothing. If you follow back the libertarian chain of voluntary exchanges, you eventually reach the point of first acquisition: homesteading.

As a result, homesteading is the very foundation upon which the whole system rests. If the very means by which property is first acquired doesn't make any sense, then how can the rest of the philosophy ever be justified?

The fact that homesteading plays such a small role in practice nowadays, as you correctly point out, actually supports my point: if homesteading is almost impossible nowadays, how can the libertarian model as a whole be justified? If essentially nobody can acquire "new" property, everyone is forced to play by the rules of those who have acquired or inherited all of the existing property. In an extreme case, this leads to de facto slavery (see island example).


@Ace_General: I don't really see your point. This thread is aimed at classical libertarianism of (more or less) absolute property rights and the non-aggression principle. If you only believe that there should be less taxes, then I might disagree with you but this thread is not for you nor aimed at you. You are of course free to participate, but I frankly see no connection between my OP and your rambling about charities and whatnot.

And btw, lol@your Americas-justification. So according to you, paying people wages that barely keep them from starving is totally fine because they could give up everything they had, move away from the place of their birth, go on an extremely long, dangerous and difficult trip of several thousand kilometres, cross an ocean on a small ship, many of them dying in the process, to arrive in a 'new land' in which you might easily and quickly succumb to disease or be killed by the natives. Right. That's freedom for you, you got 3 valid choices at least: Die. Work under terrible conditions and get pay. Cross a whole damn ocean and hope not to die on the way or there, both of which quite likely scenarios.
But as long as that poor factory owner is not forced to pay more than 10% of his income as taxes, all is fine, right? His freedom to keep every single one of his pennies is naturally superior to the right of the poor to work for a proper wage. I mean, they are trash after all, right?

No, if he offers wages below what is the market price, people will just not work there. Otherwise, why would someone choose to change jobs and work somewhere else if it wasnt a better deal then what they already had. But yes, as evil as it makes me sound, an enterpreneur has the right not to pay a living wage. Its not the place of a business to be immoral or moral, but rather an amoral institution aimed at delievering a profit to its shareholders and owners.

I will continue this debate later but I have to go

[Astaroth]

No, if he offers wages below what is the market price, people will just not work there. Otherwise, why would someone choose to change jobs and work somewhere else if it wasnt a better deal then what they already had. But yes, as evil as it makes me sound, an enterpreneur has the right not to pay a living wage. Its not the place of a business to be immoral or moral, but rather an amoral institution aimed at delievering a profit to its shareholders and owners.

What is immoral is not the business, immoral is the philosophy that would allow this amoral business to ruthlessly exploit everyone else.

This really shows just how ridiculous libertarianism is: you fight for the "freedom" not to have to give up a single penny to the "evil govt", a freedom that only benefits a select few who were lucky and ruthless enough to come out on top (see my island example in the OP). At the same time, everyone else's freedom, everyone else's personal liberty, human rights and right to life are considered absolutely worthless.

Libertarianism is truly one of the most immoral and illiberal philosophies of our time, particularly ironic in the light of the name of the concept.

[Ace_General]

What is immoral is not the business, immoral is the philosophy that would allow this amoral business to ruthlessly exploit everyone else.

This really shows just how ridiculous libertarianism is: you fight for the "freedom" not to have to give up a single penny to the "evil govt", a freedom that only benefits a select few who were lucky and ruthless enough to come out on top (see my island example in the OP). At the same time, everyone else's freedom, everyone else's personal liberty, human rights and right to life are considered absolutely worthless.

Libertarianism is truly one of the most immoral and illiberal philosophies of our time, particularly ironic in the light of the name of the concept.

Yes, and that exploitation(rather paying what the market will bear, but this is not about arguing semantics) benefits the economy of the nation and the standard of living of the general population. When a government mandates a higher "living wage" and either employers or government has to pick up the tab on that. Oftentimes, rasing the wages of the lowest workers in the economy will result in less low skilled workers being hired(unemployment), or more often, higher costs being passed on to other related industries and consumers, resulting in inflation. And to kick out these benifits, the governments will raise taxes, often progressvie ones(which remove captial from the economy)

But more insidiously what happens is governments lower interest rates and increase the money supply to help pay down debts and to stimulate an economy that is artificially slower because of government spending and debt. And what happens is inflation and the cost of living rises, eating out of the real buying power of everyones paychecks. If you doubt me, just look at the spread between PPP per capita and Nominal GDP per capita for the Nations of Sweden, Germany and France, vs. the Nations of Russia, Mexico, Poland and the USA.

And the even more ironic thing is the inflationary monetary policy and expationary fiscal policy actually promotes inequality due to(even without officially high inflationary figures)causes stock prices, commidities, and real estate values to expand massivly. And this leads to the top 1-5% gaining a greater amount of wealth, as their income and assets(mostly in non cash holdings whos value is increasing) are making a killing, while the average joe blow whos income is mostly wages may or may not see some pay increases, but his dollars or euros are buying increasingly less and less in real terms. If you want proof of this, just look up what has happened to worker wages in real terms in the past few years, while looking at the housing boom in the US and Europe, the rise in commodity prices, and the returns on stock and other capital investment vehicles in a similar time period

Not to mention this government intervention into Monetary policy(I.E. low and negative interest rates, instead of a at least partially market derived interest rate), and large government deficits and spending have a nasty tendency to cause artifical Economic booms and recessions, and then the even greater government intervention causes the recession to last longer as bad investments and debt cant clear out of the market(which has pretty much been happening in the US and europe since the start of the great recession in '08)

Something to look at with an open mind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria...s_cycle_theory

Personally, I dont give a rat's ass if at a theroetical level if Libertarianism is liberal or illiberal or even another form of Feudalism, or its moral implications taken to its logical extreme. What I care about is my government having a sound, predictable monetary policy, and my government having balanced budgets and a low tax burden and a lack of artifical credit financed booms and recessions. I dont want my paycheck to get eaten away by inflation or rising costs of living, or higher taxes, or having the economic turmoil of a boom bust economic cycle that has been supercharged by government intervention. If that makes me a fascist, or illiberal, or feudalistic, cool. I'll be able to get some cool hats and weaponry and enjoy both keeping more of my paycheck, and having my money go further.

[Denny Crane!]

In a way, it is the basis of the whole libertarian philosophy. Libertarianism focusses on two aspects: non-aggression and (essentially absolute) property rights. This raises the question of how one can acquire property in a libertarian system that condemns any use of 'violence' (in a broad sense, including taxation). The answer: voluntary transfer of property, both via inheritance/wills and inter vivos (i.e. contracts, gifts etc.).

Or there is this tiny little thing called...wait for it...capitalism! You could buy some.

But obviously the party transfering property to another party must have acquired the property somewhere else. You cannot create something out of nothing. If you follow back the libertarian chain of voluntary exchanges, you eventually reach the point of first acquisition: homesteading.

No different to now, so who cares?

As a result, homesteading is the very foundation upon which the whole system rests. If the very means by which property is first acquired doesn't make any sense, then how can the rest of the philosophy ever be justified?

Because it certainly is not how most property was originally acquired unless you go back to the stone age. This entire debate seems based in an utter nonsensical premise.

The fact that homesteading plays such a small role in practice nowadays, as you correctly point out, actually supports my point: if homesteading is almost impossible nowadays, how can the libertarian model as a whole be justified? If essentially nobody can acquire "new" property, everyone is forced to play by the rules of those who have acquired or inherited all of the existing property. In an extreme case, this leads to de facto slavery (see island example).

Except it doesn't because you can buy and sell.

You can create any fiction you want, I'd rather work with the real world as it is right now.

[Astaroth]

Or there is this tiny little thing called...wait for it...capitalism! You could buy some.

*Sigh*. Did you even read my post before responding?

This raises the question of how one can acquire property in a libertarian system that condemns any use of 'violence' (in a broad sense, including taxation). The answer: voluntary transfer of property, both via inheritance/wills and inter vivos (i.e. contracts, gifts etc.).

Inter vivos transfer of property = transfer between living people (as opposed to wills).

No different to now, so who cares?

Mate, this is basic logic. The current system is different from libertarianism. Fact. Now we are going to argue in favour of libertarianism, i.e. a change. A major part of libertarianism is the concept of homesteading, upon which the whole philosophy rests. How can you possibly embrace "libertarianism" yet declare one of its major aspects irrelevant? That just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It helps to read libertarian philosophers if you are going to argue in favour of the philosophy.

Because it certainly is not how most property was originally acquired unless you go back to the stone age. This entire debate seems based in an utter nonsensical premise.

Of course it is how most property was *originally* acquired. That is the very meaning of the word *originally*. How else do you acquire property? Only by receiving it from another person, one way or another. But that was naturally not how the property was *originally* acquired. It also doesn't only apply to the stone age by any means.

To name just a few much more recent examples: Colonisation. Conquest of the Americas. Expansion west (US). etc. Even nowadays, people continue moving to areas that are not claimed by anyone.

Except it doesn't because you can buy and sell.

Jeez. What does buying something mean? It means exchanging one good/item (money) for another. What is money? Complicated question, but money has a value and doesn't grow on trees, particularly not in a libertarian system. So again -- how do you get money in a legal, non-aggressive way? Only in 3 possible ways:

- inheritance (tough luck if you don't have any parents anymore/if they didn't have money)
- selling goods (again, this requires goods, where are you going to get them from? and please don't tell me "buying and selling"; this results in an endless circle)
- earning money in other ways: primarily by working

The last option seems fine enough. However, several problems with that: in a libertarian system, there are no labour laws. This means you have little choice but to work for him under terrible conditions, at least if labour is more abundant than jobs. That is particularly the case for unskilled workers, see 19th century. An employee is almost never in a position of power compared to his employer, it would be illusionary to assume that. Guess why unions came about? Guess why labour laws exist? Certainly not because a large amount of people was bored and thought, why not. And unions without government protection and support are ultimately too weak to really accomplish much, see SE Asia today.

To sum up the moral problems with your "you can buy and sell" argument: For that you need money. If you and your parents are poor, you can only get money by working for someone else. Who do you work for? Mostly people who have premises+money. Problem 1: These people can often basically dictate your working conditions and pay --> squalor. Problem 2: Where did those people get their money and premises from? In a libertarian system without any wealth redistribution and with no taxation, most of it will stem from inheritance, i.e. these people will have done nothing to deserve their position of power over you. Problem 3: The first person who acquired the premises and passed them on did so by dubious means as the concept of homesteading makes no sense.

You now have a position where the property rights of an individual who has often done nothing to deserve his riches will be protected absolutely over any and all rights by everyone else who was not lucky enough to be born into a rich family. All of this ultimately rests on the flawed premise of homesteading and none of the injustices can be (at least partly) corrected via taxes and wealth redistribution, including inheritance tax. As a result, you have an increasingly unfair system (even compared to today) that benefits nobody but the rich heirs and landowners. How anyone can seriously support that is beyond me.

You can create any fiction you want, I'd rather work with the real world as it is right now.

If you are not interested in a discussion about the immoral and fundamentally flawed concept of libertarianism, why bother responding?

[Denny Crane!]

*Sigh*. Did you even read my post before responding?


Inter vivos transfer of property = transfer between living people (as opposed to wills).


Mate, this is basic logic. The current system is different from libertarianism. Fact. Now we are going to argue in favour of libertarianism, i.e. a change. A major part of libertarianism is the concept of homesteading, upon which the whole philosophy rests. How can you possibly embrace "libertarianism" yet declare one of its major aspects irrelevant? That just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It helps to read libertarian philosophers if you are going to argue in favour of the philosophy.

I have read it, perhaps you think this dismissive super arrogant condescension is endearing it isn't.

My point is jeez can you even read the most basic post...if we're posting like this..ffs:

Homesteading was a factor back in the day and under a non libertarian and libertarian society but it is hardly a factor now given there is not much in the way of land or resources unclaimed so it seems odd to be making such a big deal of it. Any libertarian notion isn't going to start in a vacuum it is going to progress from today.

Of course it is how most property was *originally* acquired. That is the very meaning of the word *originally*. How else do you acquire property? Only by receiving it from another person, one way or another. But that was naturally not how the property was *originally* acquired. It also doesn't only apply to the stone age by any means.

Hang on...adopting air of insufferable arrogance...OK

Have you read even a little history of the country you currently reside in? If you had I wouldn't need to have this absolute most basic of conversations. Most currently land in the UK was taken and distributed under a feudal system by grants then parcelled out to tenants. Common land was part of an estate and so still owned.

So in fact there is an entire country where homesteading was never an issue. For whatever reason you think like most Americans the only thing we should be talking about is the americas.

To name just a few much more recent examples: Colonisation. Conquest of the Americas. Expansion west (US). etc. Even nowadays, people continue moving to areas that are not claimed by anyone.

MORE COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD THAN AMERICA MR GERMAN.

Jeez. What does buying something mean? It means exchanging one good/item (money) for another. What is money? Complicated question, but money has a value and doesn't grow on trees, particularly not in a libertarian system. So again -- how do you get money in a legal, non-aggressive way? Only in 3 possible ways:

- inheritance (tough luck if you don't have any parents anymore/if they didn't have money)
- selling goods (again, this requires goods, where are you going to get them from? and please don't tell me "buying and selling"; this results in an endless circle)
- earning money in other ways: primarily by working

The last option seems fine enough. However, several problems with that: in a libertarian system, there are no labour laws. This means you have little choice but to work for him under terrible conditions,

CITATION NEEDED. I love these absolute laws that exist in a libertarian society apparently. YOU WILL BE OPPRESSED, why? Well because I said so of course. You couldn't have unions in a libertarian society? Hell there is nothing saying you can't have governments in a libertarian society but the vision for them is starkly different, does it mean no regulation is possible? Of course not.

at least if labour is more abundant than jobs. That is particularly the case for unskilled workers, see 19th century.

You mean that non libertarian society with landed classes holding all the power and force over the common people. Right.

An employee is almost never in a position of power compared to his employer, it would be illusionary to assume that. Guess why unions came about? Guess why labour laws exist? Certainly not because a large amount of people was bored and thought, why not. And unions without government protection and support are ultimately too weak to really accomplish much, see SE Asia today.

I am seeing SE Asia today. I am seeing largely autocratic societies. But even in China as their freedoms increase and they actually start learning they can ask for things they do, and they have. If you knew anything about it you would know this.

http://www.alternet.org/story/154402...on_protections

To sum up the moral problems with your "you can buy and sell" argument: For that you need money. If you and your parents are poor, you can only get money by working for someone else. Who do you work for? Mostly people who have premises+money. Problem 1: These people can often basically dictate your working conditions and pay --> squalor.

Fantastic proof there I mean you put an arrow in and everything.

Problem 2: Where did those people get their money and premises from? In a libertarian system without any wealth redistribution and with no taxation, most of it will stem from inheritance, i.e. these people will have done nothing to deserve their position of power over you.

Why is that a problem? Are you one of these the world should be "fair" types? That no one should inherit wealth because gee how is that different to now? I'd like to look at Eton School families in the UK and just take a wild guess at how many of their parents also went to Eton.

Problem 3: The first person who acquired the premises and passed them on did so by dubious means as the concept of homesteading makes no sense.

ENGLAND.

You now have a position where the property rights of an individual who has often done nothing to deserve his riches will be protected absolutely over any and all rights by everyone else who was not lucky enough to be born into a rich family. All of this ultimately rests on the flawed premise of homesteading and none of the injustices can be (at least partly) corrected via taxes and wealth redistribution, including inheritance tax. As a result, you have an increasingly unfair system (even compared to today) that benefits nobody but the rich heirs and landowners. How anyone can seriously support that is beyond me.




If you are not interested in a discussion about the immoral and fundamentally flawed concept of libertarianism, why bother responding?

Honestly like most of your random vitriolic diatribes against libertarianism they are so poorly thought out and full of random supposition I respond out of amusement more than a hope of serious debate.

[Symphony]

Astaroth, your entire premise is predicated on homesteading being illogical and immoral in the context of the modern state of property ownership; you've really presented no support to your claim that is not in some way related to homesteading.

However, you acknowledge multiple times that homesteading as the original means of property acquisition is irrelevant:

Mate, this is basic logic. The current system is different from libertarianism. Fact. Now we are going to argue in favour of libertarianism, i.e. a change.

Of course it is how most property was *originally* acquired. That is the very meaning of the word *originally*. How else do you acquire property? Only by receiving it from another person, one way or another. But that was naturally not how the property was *originally* acquired.

Nobody (and certainly no libertarian I know) is talking about retroactively going back and redistributing property based on the homesteading principle now, and time travel is not part of this discussion; libertarians are advocating the integration of the libertarian view of property rights into the existing context of property ownership...this is how they'd like to see things handled now that most questions of real property ownership are settled.

You know this (as above, you've acknowledged it explicitly), so to save your argument, you present a false dilemma.

You set up a binary argument: either homesteading is logical in the modern context of property rights, and therefore libertarianism is supportable, OR homesteading is illogical, and therefore libertarianism is illogical and immoral. Since you've already excluded the former option yourself, you try to push the "I win" button. Unfortunately, there's (at least) a third option: the abstract concept of homesteading may have not actually been morally supportable in the real history of property acquisition, but libertarianism is still logically supportable given the real state of property ownership today.

Your single-support, predetermined attack via homesteading is not compelling...this is what Denny's been trying to point out. You'll need to attack other aspects of libertarianism to have any kind of compelling case.

Mate, this is basic logic.

Yes it is: the false dilemma is a 101-level informal fallacy. You have one supporting your entire position. I point this out as a (relatively) neutral party who is only mildly educated on the libertarian position at best....I'm actually in a good position to treat this as a real debate and be swayed by a compelling presentation. Yours isn't.

[Ace_General]

I strongly believe in freedom and personal liberties. I am opposed to many forms of state surveillance and I am worried by the invasion of privacy as a result of the 'war on terror' in the last decade or so. The long waiting lines at airports annoy me, the inability to take normal water bottles through security can be irritating. I do not approve of (parts of) many problematic pieces of legislation, such as the various terrorism acts in the UK (introducing inter alia control orders, look 'em up).

I am also an individualist. I strongly believe in a meritocracy. I understand the importance of individual rights and liberties and oppose all forms of discrimination by private (!) or public bodies. Ultimately, I even consider the protection of civil liberties and human rights as the most important role of the state and of democracy.

Despite all of that, I am strongly opposed to libertarianism, which I consider an immoral, destructive philosophy that pretends to fight for and uphold rights, while in reality emphasising only a few rights and declaring them absolute (property rights), at the same time disregarding everyone else's rights, including their right to life and human dignity.

I am going to outline my views based on a few basic concepts and examples. I am going to start with the libertarian concept of homesteading and discuss it in the context of (absolute) property rights and also inheritance. As a final introductory remark: I am aware that there are many different libertarians and that their views on topics can differ. In the interest of brevity (also note that I am not paid for this and that this is not a scientific paper) I am going to focus on some broad concepts that tend to be accepted (to a degree at least) by the libertarian "mainstream", as far as such a thing exists. So please, if you are going to nitpick based on individual libertarians -- "Nozick disagrees on this! Rothbard said X!" -- this is not the thread for you. Feel free to create your own one. Now, let's focus on the topic at hand.


------

Libertarianism is a philosophy that claims to emphasise freedom -- this is primarily achieved by focusing on property rights, which are essentially considered absolute. Property rights include everything that a person owns, i.e. personal and real property, including the person himself or herself (self-ownership). Every philosophy that deals with property has to come up with a way of establishing how property can be acquired. Libertarianism does this by emphasising the need for a voluntary transfer of property (via a contract for example).
Libertarians reject 'violence' (non-aggression principle) in the transfer of property. 'Violence' in this context is a fairly broad term, usually taxation is considered violence as well. More of that later.

Libertarianism also deals with the question of first acquisition of previously un-owned property (primarily land). This problem is addressed via the "homesteading principle" (cf. Locke): if a person finds an area that does not belong to anyone yet, he can claim ownership of that land (=make it his property) by mixing the land with his labor. This is a fairly vague definition. It certainly includes building something on the land or growing plants there, but some libertarians even argue that it is sufficient to put a fence around an area of land.

Generally, you can take as much land as you need or even want. However, Locke also included a limitation: you could only take so much that another person coming after you still had something left. This too is fairly vague and controversial amongst libertarians. Some reject it outright.


This very brief introduction into libertarianism and the homesteading principle brings me to my first criticism of the philosophy, which is actually quite obvious: it completely ignores the scarcity of (particularly good and valuable!) land, especially if you reject Locke's above limitation. Additionally, it puts all latecomers or newcomers at a severe disadvantage. A simple example illustrates this problem perfectly. While some might consider the example unrealistic and far-fetched, it is actually not that much different from the real world, obviously aside from the fact that the latter includes many more actors and variables.


A man and his family are the only survivors of a shipwreck near an uninhabited island. The island is quite small, but would have more than enough space for several families. The shipwrecked family cannot get away due to the remoteness of the location and settles all across the island. Although they wouldn't need that much space, they put up fences, houses, walls and towers all across the island so that barely any space is left completely untouched. According to the libertarian homesteading principle, essentially the whole island is now their property.

A few years later, a second family shipwrecks on the island. They would have space to settle there, but... several different scenarios apply, which will henceforth illustrate my criticism of libertarianism:


Scenario #1: The first family refuses them altogether and doesn't allow them to settle anywhere. Only a small area on the beach is left for the second family to settle on (because everything else is fenced and walled up, the "property" of the first family), there is no space to grow crops, to harvest anything or to get any wood. The first family refuses to give up any water from the streams on the island, refuses to give up any wood for a house.
What does the second family do? If they use force to settle somewhere on the island after all, libertarianism considers them immoral aggressors. Their only choice (according to libertarianism) would be to remain on that small beach and soon die due to starvation and thirst.
This simply makes no sense whatsoever.

Scenario #2: The first family allows them to settle on the island. However, they do not grant them part of their property and only let them settle there as tenants. The second family has to pay rent -- first, they have to give up all their possessions as rent (otherwise they'll be "rightfully" kicked off the land and left to perish on the beach). Once they run out of their previous property, the first family tells them that they must work. The second family becomes the first family's servants and de facto slaves. They get no real pay, only barely enough food to survive and have to serve the first family like slaves. The second family works on the entire island, harvests crops, builds houses, hunts animals, catches fish, but all of it goes to the first family.
The second family is unable to save up anything (they only get food as payment and only barely enough to survive), once the children become old enough, they too become servants.
Once the parents die, they have nothing to leave for their children. At the same time, the first family gets richer and richer and once the original parents die, their children never have to work anymore and the second family does it all. They are slaves.
This too, makes no sense whatsoever. This is what happens without any labor law.

Scenario #3: The same as scenario #2, except even harsher. The first family leave the second family a choice: either they perish on the beach, or they do not only have to become slaves to the first family, but all the women have to become prostitutes to the first family's men.

Scenario #4: The same as scenarios #2 and #3, except yet worse: The first family are cruel and evil. They sign a "contract" with the second family -- the second family gets used as slaves and prostitutes and tortured severely for the enjoyment of the first family. In exchange, all they get is a tiny hut to stay and the minimum of food needed to survive for a bit. None of them ever survive very long but their children have no choice but to continue in the arrangement.

Scenario #5: Same as scenarios #2 -- #4, yet worse still: The second family is to become slaves and prostitutes and the father of the family has to commit suicide for his family to survive at all. He "voluntarily agrees" to that and kills himself.

Scenario #6: The first family does not occupy the whole island. However, they do occupy the area where the only stream of fresh water lies. The second family can settle there and even find food, but due to pure chance the first family has a monopoly on the only fresh water supply and can again hold the second family as slaves, or worse.

All of these scenarios similarily apply to the descendants of both families: nobody can realistically leave the island (or, even worse: the first family could leave the island, as they could build a boat with the wood, but they do not allow the second family to have any wood to build a boat), i.e. the second family will "morally" (libertarianism) serve the first family for all eternity. If they ever snap and fight back, THEY are the aggressors. How this can make any sense to anyone on this world, I do not know.

Scenario #7: There is only the first family. The father has 5 children, all of which were minors when they came to the island. This means that almost all of the island "belongs" to the father. Before his death, he decides to give all of his property to the eldest son because he loves him the most. After his death, that son is the "owner" of the island. His siblings have nothing. If he tells them to get off his property, they must, according to libertarianism, even if this means their horrible death in the sun on the beach. If he allows them to become his (de facto) slaves in exchange for a tiny amount of food and a place to stay, this is a valid contract.
The brother now holds all 4 of his siblings as de facto slaves, not even due to his own ingenuity, but due to pure chance of being the lucky son to inherit it all.

Scenario #8: There are multiple families on the island now. There are three families that came at first: they occupy the three only fresh water streams. There are five newcomer families that have no water. Now, the libertarian might think that the 3 original families will compete for the 5 newcomer families by offering them better "prices", i.e. more generous amounts of water in exchange for service. But... that's not what actually happens. The three original families only need so many servants, realistically. They do not have enough space to house more than one family each anyway. In other words, 5 families (newcomers) need the water, but only 3 of them are needed as servants (one each for the 3 original families). As a result, the same scenario as above applies: all 3 original families introduce outrageous prices -- de facto slavery, prostitution, torture, suicide -- for the 5 newcomers who have no choice but to accept anything or face certain death.
In libertarianism, this is a perfectly fair and fine contract, because it is voluntary. Right. That makes perfect sense.


------------------

Back to the abstract level. What can we learn from these somewhat simplistic scenarios? What relevance do they have in the real world?

There are in fact several lessons we can draw from these examples, all of which make a strong case against libertarianism and absolute property rights:

• By declaring property rights as absolute (island example), all other rights are (potentially) put in incredible jeopardy. If your right to occupy the whole island that you do not need to survive is considered more valuable or important than my basic right to life, we have a serious moral dilemma. Not to mention the practical aspect: nobody is ever going to accept that the property rights of a few (island firstcomers) should take precedence over all the rights of everybody else, including the most important right of them all: the right to life.
• Accepting an agreement or contract as valid or just simply because there is no direct force involved doesn't make any sense at all. In the context of the validity of the arrangement, there is no practical difference whatsoever between a rapist raping somebody while holding a gun to the victim's head or a man in the desert (who has plenty of water which is more than sufficient for multiple people) refusing to give any water to a woman dying of thirst (and facing certain death) unless she has sex with them.
• Without any mediating or intervening factor (the state), those who have power or de facto monopolies (which can simply happen due to luck/coincidence, see the fresh water streams on the island) can use pseudo-voluntary and pseudo-consensual arrangements to de facto (or even de jure, according to some libertarians) enslave everybody else. This is particularly obvious in the area of labor/employment contracts, see 19th century. If the factories need X amount of workers but there are X+100,000 people looking for a job, then the people will inevitably be forced to accept disastrous working conditions and horrible pay. That's basic supply+demand -- unless there are labor laws and a safety net protecting those who cannot find a job (yet).
• The homesteading principle simply doesn't make any sense (if there are no limitations) in a world of scarce resources and limited land. Once all the available land has been gobbled up, fenced up, walled up, everyone who comes afterwards will never have any real property and never any real freedom. His only choice will be to work under terrible conditions for the owners of the land. This can only be prevented via taxation, a social net, labor laws, minimum wage etc.
• Inheritance adds to the unfairness. If every generation had a fresh start, a new chance to acquire property and title to land, the unfairness and immorality wouldn't be as bad. But in a libertarian world, the testator can leave all of his property (no taxation) to whoever he wants. This means that just because someone happened to be the first to grab a large area of land somewhere, he and all of his descendants for all eternity (unless one of them gambles it all away - but how often does that really happen?) will have property of the land and be rich whereas the neighbour and all of his descendants for all eternity only have a small area of land without any fresh water and are thus forced to work for their rich neighbour (or move away, give up what little land they have and work for someone else under similarly terrible conditions -- remember, supply and demand, labor - particularly unskilled one - is almost always more abundant than paying jobs).

I could go on and on about this, but I think I have written more than enough already. To conclude, let me re-emphasise that I consider libertarianism a terrible, destructive and immoral philosophy. It is a school of thought that claims to embrace freedom, but in reality it is decidedly illiberal. By considering property rights as absolute, all other rights lose their value, including the most important ones such as the right to life. The truly important values of any society -- taking care of the weak, not letting people die, not letting anyone starve, not forcing anyone into slavery, squalor, prostitution and the likes -- are exchanged for a petty concept of absolute property, a concept that primarily serves to protect those who were lucky and ruthless enough to be the first ones to arrive, the first ones to fence and wall up "their property" and to claim for themselves as much as they could without any regard for anyone else.

Am I arguing for communism? By no means. Am I an enemy of liberty? Certainly not. I am in fact an advocate of freedom and personal liberties, which is why I have no choice but to outright reject the ill-named so-called libertarianism. Libertarianism as a philosophy is incompatible with human dignity. My right to life will always trump your petty desire to keep every dollar to yourself. Fortunately, most societies in the world have understood and adopted this basic principle.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

You pretty much described the views of David Ricardo and what would happen in a Primarily pre-industiral, agricultural society, with no Common law system of law or courts, or enumerated rights. The whole Island example was pretty much an explanation of Serfdom as opposed to the functioning of the modern world.

And you also assume that to be a 'Libertarian", you must apply your views about the state to your whole life, absolutely, or that all libertarians want to be militantly atheist anarchists. Just because I think that it is wrong for the STATEto extract 1/3-1/2 or more of peoples income doesnt mean I want to become a feudal lord or watch the poor suffer and die. In fact, I would rather have 2/3rds of the money that flows to the state in the name of "Social Welfare" instead go to charity and Religious institutions. I personally have noting against a group based outlook, or sharing resources with those in need, I just am not comfortable with giving so much money and power and moral authority to the central government.

ALso, your example of 19th century factories is just total garbage. While conditions in industrial centers were horrible by modern standards, compared to a hand to mouth, subsistence level of farming in the countryside, it was most definitely an improvement. Not to mention if there was a glut of labor in one area, people would move to other areas where pay was better, for example, the 10s of millions of those very same people you spoke about in your example that moved to the Americas. And oftentimes, wages were kept artifically low in that period because governments, nobles, and other rulers passed laws limiting the migration of people to ensure a steady supply of cheap labor in elite favoured industries and areas. And its no wonder either that people from these regions Emigrated En Masse to America in the 19th-early 20th centuries.

[Stavroforos]

I strongly believe in freedom and personal liberties. I am opposed to many forms of state surveillance and I am worried by the invasion of privacy as a result of the 'war on terror' in the last decade or so. The long waiting lines at airports annoy me, the inability to take normal water bottles through security can be irritating. I do not approve of (parts of) many problematic pieces of legislation, such as the various terrorism acts in the UK (introducing inter alia control orders, look 'em up).

I am also an individualist. I strongly believe in a meritocracy. I understand the importance of individual rights and liberties and oppose all forms of discrimination by private (!) or public bodies. Ultimately, I even consider the protection of civil liberties and human rights as the most important role of the state and of democracy.

Despite all of that, I am strongly opposed to libertarianism, which I consider an immoral, destructive philosophy that pretends to fight for and uphold rights, while in reality emphasising only a few rights and declaring them absolute (property rights), at the same time disregarding everyone else's rights, including their right to life and human dignity.

I am going to outline my views based on a few basic concepts and examples. I am going to start with the libertarian concept of homesteading and discuss it in the context of (absolute) property rights and also inheritance. As a final introductory remark: I am aware that there are many different libertarians and that their views on topics can differ. In the interest of brevity (also note that I am not paid for this and that this is not a scientific paper) I am going to focus on some broad concepts that tend to be accepted (to a degree at least) by the libertarian "mainstream", as far as such a thing exists. So please, if you are going to nitpick based on individual libertarians -- "Nozick disagrees on this! Rothbard said X!" -- this is not the thread for you. Feel free to create your own one. Now, let's focus on the topic at hand.


------

Libertarianism is a philosophy that claims to emphasise freedom -- this is primarily achieved by focusing on property rights, which are essentially considered absolute. Property rights include everything that a person owns, i.e. personal and real property, including the person himself or herself (self-ownership). Every philosophy that deals with property has to come up with a way of establishing how property can be acquired. Libertarianism does this by emphasising the need for a voluntary transfer of property (via a contract for example).
Libertarians reject 'violence' (non-aggression principle) in the transfer of property. 'Violence' in this context is a fairly broad term, usually taxation is considered violence as well. More of that later.

Libertarianism also deals with the question of first acquisition of previously un-owned property (primarily land). This problem is addressed via the "homesteading principle" (cf. Locke): if a person finds an area that does not belong to anyone yet, he can claim ownership of that land (=make it his property) by mixing the land with his labor. This is a fairly vague definition. It certainly includes building something on the land or growing plants there, but some libertarians even argue that it is sufficient to put a fence around an area of land.

Generally, you can take as much land as you need or even want. However, Locke also included a limitation: you could only take so much that another person coming after you still had something left. This too is fairly vague and controversial amongst libertarians. Some reject it outright.


This very brief introduction into libertarianism and the homesteading principle brings me to my first criticism of the philosophy, which is actually quite obvious: it completely ignores the scarcity of (particularly good and valuable!) land, especially if you reject Locke's above limitation. Additionally, it puts all latecomers or newcomers at a severe disadvantage. A simple example illustrates this problem perfectly. While some might consider the example unrealistic and far-fetched, it is actually not that much different from the real world, obviously aside from the fact that the latter includes many more actors and variables.


A man and his family are the only survivors of a shipwreck near an uninhabited island. The island is quite small, but would have more than enough space for several families. The shipwrecked family cannot get away due to the remoteness of the location and settles all across the island. Although they wouldn't need that much space, they put up fences, houses, walls and towers all across the island so that barely any space is left completely untouched. According to the libertarian homesteading principle, essentially the whole island is now their property.

A few years later, a second family shipwrecks on the island. They would have space to settle there, but... several different scenarios apply, which will henceforth illustrate my criticism of libertarianism:


Scenario #1: The first family refuses them altogether and doesn't allow them to settle anywhere. Only a small area on the beach is left for the second family to settle on (because everything else is fenced and walled up, the "property" of the first family), there is no space to grow crops, to harvest anything or to get any wood. The first family refuses to give up any water from the streams on the island, refuses to give up any wood for a house.
What does the second family do? If they use force to settle somewhere on the island after all, libertarianism considers them immoral aggressors. Their only choice (according to libertarianism) would be to remain on that small beach and soon die due to starvation and thirst.
This simply makes no sense whatsoever.

Scenario #2: The first family allows them to settle on the island. However, they do not grant them part of their property and only let them settle there as tenants. The second family has to pay rent -- first, they have to give up all their possessions as rent (otherwise they'll be "rightfully" kicked off the land and left to perish on the beach). Once they run out of their previous property, the first family tells them that they must work. The second family becomes the first family's servants and de facto slaves. They get no real pay, only barely enough food to survive and have to serve the first family like slaves. The second family works on the entire island, harvests crops, builds houses, hunts animals, catches fish, but all of it goes to the first family.
The second family is unable to save up anything (they only get food as payment and only barely enough to survive), once the children become old enough, they too become servants.
Once the parents die, they have nothing to leave for their children. At the same time, the first family gets richer and richer and once the original parents die, their children never have to work anymore and the second family does it all. They are slaves.
This too, makes no sense whatsoever. This is what happens without any labor law.

Scenario #3: The same as scenario #2, except even harsher. The first family leave the second family a choice: either they perish on the beach, or they do not only have to become slaves to the first family, but all the women have to become prostitutes to the first family's men.

Scenario #4: The same as scenarios #2 and #3, except yet worse: The first family are cruel and evil. They sign a "contract" with the second family -- the second family gets used as slaves and prostitutes and tortured severely for the enjoyment of the first family. In exchange, all they get is a tiny hut to stay and the minimum of food needed to survive for a bit. None of them ever survive very long but their children have no choice but to continue in the arrangement.

Scenario #5: Same as scenarios #2 -- #4, yet worse still: The second family is to become slaves and prostitutes and the father of the family has to commit suicide for his family to survive at all. He "voluntarily agrees" to that and kills himself.

Scenario #6: The first family does not occupy the whole island. However, they do occupy the area where the only stream of fresh water lies. The second family can settle there and even find food, but due to pure chance the first family has a monopoly on the only fresh water supply and can again hold the second family as slaves, or worse.

All of these scenarios similarily apply to the descendants of both families: nobody can realistically leave the island (or, even worse: the first family could leave the island, as they could build a boat with the wood, but they do not allow the second family to have any wood to build a boat), i.e. the second family will "morally" (libertarianism) serve the first family for all eternity. If they ever snap and fight back, THEY are the aggressors. How this can make any sense to anyone on this world, I do not know.

Scenario #7: There is only the first family. The father has 5 children, all of which were minors when they came to the island. This means that almost all of the island "belongs" to the father. Before his death, he decides to give all of his property to the eldest son because he loves him the most. After his death, that son is the "owner" of the island. His siblings have nothing. If he tells them to get off his property, they must, according to libertarianism, even if this means their horrible death in the sun on the beach. If he allows them to become his (de facto) slaves in exchange for a tiny amount of food and a place to stay, this is a valid contract.
The brother now holds all 4 of his siblings as de facto slaves, not even due to his own ingenuity, but due to pure chance of being the lucky son to inherit it all.

Scenario #8: There are multiple families on the island now. There are three families that came at first: they occupy the three only fresh water streams. There are five newcomer families that have no water. Now, the libertarian might think that the 3 original families will compete for the 5 newcomer families by offering them better "prices", i.e. more generous amounts of water in exchange for service. But... that's not what actually happens. The three original families only need so many servants, realistically. They do not have enough space to house more than one family each anyway. In other words, 5 families (newcomers) need the water, but only 3 of them are needed as servants (one each for the 3 original families). As a result, the same scenario as above applies: all 3 original families introduce outrageous prices -- de facto slavery, prostitution, torture, suicide -- for the 5 newcomers who have no choice but to accept anything or face certain death.
In libertarianism, this is a perfectly fair and fine contract, because it is voluntary. Right. That makes perfect sense.


------------------

Back to the abstract level. What can we learn from these somewhat simplistic scenarios? What relevance do they have in the real world?

There are in fact several lessons we can draw from these examples, all of which make a strong case against libertarianism and absolute property rights:

• By declaring property rights as absolute (island example), all other rights are (potentially) put in incredible jeopardy. If your right to occupy the whole island that you do not need to survive is considered more valuable or important than my basic right to life, we have a serious moral dilemma. Not to mention the practical aspect: nobody is ever going to accept that the property rights of a few (island firstcomers) should take precedence over all the rights of everybody else, including the most important right of them all: the right to life.
• Accepting an agreement or contract as valid or just simply because there is no direct force involved doesn't make any sense at all. In the context of the validity of the arrangement, there is no practical difference whatsoever between a rapist raping somebody while holding a gun to the victim's head or a man in the desert (who has plenty of water which is more than sufficient for multiple people) refusing to give any water to a woman dying of thirst (and facing certain death) unless she has sex with them.
• Without any mediating or intervening factor (the state), those who have power or de facto monopolies (which can simply happen due to luck/coincidence, see the fresh water streams on the island) can use pseudo-voluntary and pseudo-consensual arrangements to de facto (or even de jure, according to some libertarians) enslave everybody else. This is particularly obvious in the area of labor/employment contracts, see 19th century. If the factories need X amount of workers but there are X+100,000 people looking for a job, then the people will inevitably be forced to accept disastrous working conditions and horrible pay. That's basic supply+demand -- unless there are labor laws and a safety net protecting those who cannot find a job (yet).
• The homesteading principle simply doesn't make any sense (if there are no limitations) in a world of scarce resources and limited land. Once all the available land has been gobbled up, fenced up, walled up, everyone who comes afterwards will never have any real property and never any real freedom. His only choice will be to work under terrible conditions for the owners of the land. This can only be prevented via taxation, a social net, labor laws, minimum wage etc.
• Inheritance adds to the unfairness. If every generation had a fresh start, a new chance to acquire property and title to land, the unfairness and immorality wouldn't be as bad. But in a libertarian world, the testator can leave all of his property (no taxation) to whoever he wants. This means that just because someone happened to be the first to grab a large area of land somewhere, he and all of his descendants for all eternity (unless one of them gambles it all away - but how often does that really happen?) will have property of the land and be rich whereas the neighbour and all of his descendants for all eternity only have a small area of land without any fresh water and are thus forced to work for their rich neighbour (or move away, give up what little land they have and work for someone else under similarly terrible conditions -- remember, supply and demand, labor - particularly unskilled one - is almost always more abundant than paying jobs).

I could go on and on about this, but I think I have written more than enough already. To conclude, let me re-emphasise that I consider libertarianism a terrible, destructive and immoral philosophy. It is a school of thought that claims to embrace freedom, but in reality it is decidedly illiberal. By considering property rights as absolute, all other rights lose their value, including the most important ones such as the right to life. The truly important values of any society -- taking care of the weak, not letting people die, not letting anyone starve, not forcing anyone into slavery, squalor, prostitution and the likes -- are exchanged for a petty concept of absolute property, a concept that primarily serves to protect those who were lucky and ruthless enough to be the first ones to arrive, the first ones to fence and wall up "their property" and to claim for themselves as much as they could without any regard for anyone else.

Am I arguing for communism? By no means. Am I an enemy of liberty? Certainly not. I am in fact an advocate of freedom and personal liberties, which is why I have no choice but to outright reject the ill-named so-called libertarianism. Libertarianism as a philosophy is incompatible with human dignity. My right to life will always trump your petty desire to keep every dollar to yourself. Fortunately, most societies in the world have understood and adopted this basic principle.

Sounds better than having a nanny state.

[Denny Crane!]

Oh right it is one of those conversations where you want to bring up examples in the real world that help your case but don't want to discuss the obvious differences because we are talking theoretical - only theoretical when it doesn't help you I see.

And no mainstream libertarianism doesn't reject governance in the form of voluntary associations, regulations in these it is more like competition between governments. But honestly I don't see the point in the conversation because it is all theoreticals and you'll discuss how in your crystal ball it would obviously all go wrong and someone else will discuss how in their crystal ball it would all go right.

The only practical way of discussing anything is how it would relate to the real world today, right now. Everything else is fantasy. Homesteading at the time it was discussed was an issue but it isn't now. Unless you want to discuss homesteading then! All homesteading was, was an idea of how libertarianism is at that current time. Libertarianism now is different, it is not a standalone immutable philosophy.

[Denny Crane!]

If you really wanted to discuss foundational common principles the one true one is the Non Aggression Principle. Funny that you focused seemingly on everything but. Everything after that is bumph.

[Phier]

I think the funny thing is the whole purpose of homesteading in the US was to give people every incentive to MOVE out of nice established civilization and populate the wilds.

[justicar5]

I think the funny thing is the whole purpose of homesteading in the US was to give people every incentive to MOVE out of nice established civilization and populate the wilds.

The other irony was that homesteading was 'the initiation of force', being the straight up theft of tribal lands (usually).

[Phier]

The other irony was that homesteading was 'the initiation of force', being the straight up theft of tribal lands (usually).

Never trust immigrants.

[justicar5]

Never trust immigrants.

especially European ones.