The government versus freedom problem

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
What if I know someone down the street who owns a plot of land. He has no relatives or heirs. I kill him and take his plot. There is no one around to make a "legit claim" against me, so am I entitled to keep the property?

If I'm not, who gets it?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good question. You are certainly not entitled to it. Who is, however, is not clear. Escheat is a difficult concept, and I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it.

I may have to consult my barber. (man, that's twice this week, you guys are asking some really good questions!)

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]

What if I know someone down the street who owns a plot of land. He has no relatives or heirs. I kill him and take his plot. There is no one around to make a "legit claim" against me, so am I entitled to keep the property?

If I'm not, who gets it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Ed. Thanks for all these great questions, btw! I was away from a computer for awhile, and when I returned, I noticed pvn has been doing such a good job that I didn't feel like restating his comments.

This is a difficult question. Tentatively, I'm going to propose that the house is up for grabs to the first person who makes use of it, much in the same way that a group of settlers colonizing previously unused land would be able to make claims on the parts of it they can put to use.

[Spladle Master]

[ QUOTE ]
As a libertarian, I believe that the initiation of force, fraud, or coercion is morally wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do not.
[ QUOTE ]
I also believe that we need a government to provide us with protection against those who would otherwise use force against us. Essentially I think the government's job should be to maintain an army, police force, and justice system.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do not.
[ QUOTE ]
The catch-22 of it all is that in order for a government to exist, it needs to employ some kind of compulsory payment system in order to stay in business, be it taxation, tariffs, or what have you. This system, unfortunately, needs to be backed by the threat of force.

I justify the government's use of force in this specific area because I believe it is necessary to keep us free from others in the world who pose greater threats to our liberty. I think my position would be best described as minarchistic. In an ideal world we would have no government and no threats to our lives or liberty. But seeing as how there are people who wish to attack and rob us, I think a small government, while necessarily forcing us to make a few sacrifices in liberty, maximizes our liberty overall.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is some pretty tortured logic. You sound like one of those Christians in a David Sklansky thread.
[ QUOTE ]
Please comment. I am especially interested to hear from other libertarians, and what their conclusions are in reconciling the need for both government and freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do not think either government or freedom are necessary.

[OtisTheMarsupial]

Ed,
Don't you have a book to write?

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if I know someone down the street who owns a plot of land. He has no relatives or heirs. I kill him and take his plot. There is no one around to make a "legit claim" against me, so am I entitled to keep the property?

If I'm not, who gets it?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good question. You are certainly not entitled to it. Who is, however, is not clear. Escheat is a difficult concept, and I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it.

I may have to consult my barber. (man, that's twice this week, you guys are asking some really good questions!)

[/ QUOTE ]

To make the question stickier, I'll add an inheritance aspect. I kill the guy and take his plot. Then I give the property to my son, and I die. Is my son entitled to keep it?

Judging from your previous answers to questions, I'll assume the answer is no. If that's the case, then I question your assertion that people living on stolen Indian lands can stay there until an individual heir files a grievance or claim. For even if no heir exists to file the claim, the land is still ultimately stolen land, and the present claim to it is unjust.

[Ed Miller]

Again, I don't have time to address everything, but I did want to ask you something before bed.

You named a whole lot of rights. The right to labor. The right to profit from labor. The right to profit from non-labor. The right to bequeath property after death (which is not nearly as self-evident as you seem to think it is, by the way... as bequeathing is not equivalent to giving, for bequeathing requires the giver to be dead... so you have implicitly extended absolute property rights to dead people, a notion I personally find troubling). The right to expression. The right to free association, etc.

Where do these rights come from? Thomas Jefferson thought we were endowed by our Creator with a few rights, but what of someone who doesn't believe in a creator? Does man have rights in a world without a creator?

If rights are derived from a social contract, then surely everyone should agree that a rights-based framework is best. It's hard to imagine, however, that the poorest, least well-off member of society would agree that the rights-based framework was best serving his interests.

Why should we respect rights at all? Why shouldn't we use a utilitarian calculus to choose the action with the greatest net good? Or why don't we use some hybrid calculus where generally we try to respect rights and liberties, but where we sometimes compromise them if doing so will give a much greater good? Why is it so important that these rights be respected absolutely (or quasi-absolutely in the minimal state example)?

And another quick question (though one a bit sanguine for my tastes). Recently in New Orleans, we saw people breaking into grocery stores for food. Presume that these people would die if they did not take this food (probably not the case in NO). Furthermore, it was the only food available, and the people taking the food were absolutely penniless. Is taking the food just or unjust? Should they be forced to repay the store? And if so, is that not equivalent to indenture?

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
I question your assertion that people living on stolen Indian lands can stay there until an individual heir files a grievance or claim. For even if no heir exists to file the claim, the land is still ultimately stolen land, and the present claim to it is unjust.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the whole thread, but using terms like "stolen indian lands" is problematic. Most lands were bought by treaty. While you may dispute the terms of such treaties, there is a legal basis for the government acquiring lands and then reselling or gifting to citizens.

Other lands were acquired after wars. The claims to these lands have sustained court challenge many times, and there is no valid reason to give cash to descendants of the former owners, any more than I should be compensated a second time for a house I sold years ago.

"Stolen indian lands" is largely a myth pushed by those who want to profit from a disbursement of "free" money.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Thomas Jefferson thought we were endowed by our Creator with a few rights, but what of someone who doesn't believe in a creator? Does man have rights in a world without a creator?

[/ QUOTE ]
By contract, people are free to give up their rights and transfer them to other people -- so if someone doesn't believe in a creator, and is uncomfortable with the source, they could transfer rights to a third party. The founders were quick to notice though -- that if I don't want to give up my rights, that third party will have to take it up with my Creator. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

The arrangement had nothing to do with a Creator -- it had everything to do with ensuring that no man or govenment was the source of rights. You don't have the power to not give what you don't have the power to give.

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
The arrangement had nothing to do with a Creator -- it had everything to do with ensuring that no man or govenment was the source of rights. You don't have the power to not give what you don't have the power to give.

[/ QUOTE ]

So that again begs my question, where did these so-called rights come from in the first place? Do chimpanzees have rights? If not, what is different about humans that creates these rights?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming people get no health care or garbage taken away unless they pay for it, there will be areas that are full of disease, it would go unchecked and uncured ...

[/ QUOTE ]
In Portland you can't get garbage taken away unless you pay for it -- they have no public collection service, all private -- and your fears have not materialized.

[/ QUOTE ]

No public trash here either, its two competing companies. And there are no piles of trash all over nor rampant disease. Nice try at fearmongering, though.