Boundaries of Order: Private Property as a Social System with Butler Shaffer With Butler Shaffer

Related Discussions

  • Lincoln Gardner

    Ocean Pollution

    Ok, we understand the tragedy of the commons. And we accept that private property ownership can reduce pollution. But how does that play out for the world’s oceans? Even if the oceans were privatized and you could buy, say an acre of ocean off the coast of California, you only own the water and fish while it and they are within your boundaries. You can choose not to pollute  and not to fish, but what if your neighbors decide to kill every fish that enters their boundaries, or decide to grow some oxygen sucking algae for energy use, that kills fish? Given that there are ocean currents and fish that travel long distances, how does anarchical environmentalism work in the oceans? Is this a different problem than the issue presents for landowners? Does anyone have a hypothetical scenario in which private property rights in the ocean reduces pollution or improves fisheries?

    Jump to Discussion Post 3 replies
  • Ethan Shukis

    Origin of property rights

    What is the origination of property rights? Where do they come from that you can reason their existence as natural? We usually argue for property rights at some point in our discussions as libertarians, but I’m curious as to where we can claim they’re from. Personally, I derive mine from God and my religious beliefs, similar to what Jefferson stated about God given rights. But what about someone who doesn’t believe in a deity? How can they derive property rights in a way that can’t be dismissed as ideals, but derived in nature? This is also (and arguably more so) important for arguing these natural rights to people who won’t accept a divine aspect. It’s important to have property rights, and they’re evidently beneficial, but the argument remains for declaring these as rights, otherwise the NAP is in jeopardy. How do we have a right to property?

    Jump to Discussion Post 11 replies
  • troi+

    iNation is raising seed capital. What do you guys think about replacing the state’s function of storing legal documents? I assume they mean property registration. Unlike some prominent anarchists, I am in favor of this. Real property such as land titles should be on a blockchain. Thoughts? “Founded in February 2015 by David Mondrus (CEO) and Nathan Wosnack (CCO), iNation is one of the world’s first secure, distributed, and cryptographically verifiable store of legal documents. iNation is one of the first companies to address the coming unbundling of the government services market. More information about the platform, its products/services will be available soon.”

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • Concerned Kiwi

    Ownership and libertarians propensity to violence

    I hate getting into these types of discussions:   ” Libertarian principles are based on the simple premise that an individual or group (a), may use violence to exclude an individual or group (b), from a place, a resource, or the necessities for survival. But that for profit they may sell those items that they have used force to “own”. Libertarians love the idea that you are “free to buy” that potato, and no one will make you buy it. And they are free to use violence to stop you planting your own potato. It is after all, their land, you intend to grow the patented seed on. And that would be theft. ”   So, private property rights.  I own myself and the fruits of my labours.  This guy tried to argue a previous time that if others wanted to come onto my property then I had no right to stop them if they wanted to use that land or take resources I owned that they needed. For a start, they’re entering my property without permission. Then they are acting against me with violence themselves, so I have the right to defend myself.   I’ll be asking him: how did I obtain my land through force in the first place, because I don’t recall having done that. Why this group or individual would want to approach me with the intention of using violence against me   I want to be able to explain clearly and simply why I have the right to own my land, defend my land, and not share my resources should I so choose, but also that it wouldn’t be in my best interests to not share my resources in voluntary exchange. As in, sure you can grow your potatoes, but this is my land and you have to exchange something in return for me allowing you to use my land to grow potatoes, such as your labour, or money etc.   I’d really like to put him in his place. Your ideas please. Thanks. First response from me to him: I’ll humour you. How did I obtain this land through the use of force? I own this land. You know it;s my land, otherwise you wouldn’t be wanting to use force against me to enter my property without my permission so you can grow your potatoes. Why do you believe that you have the right to enter my property without my permission and help yourself to its use? Why do you just not ask for permission to enter? Why do you not just ask for permission to use my land? Why do you think that I wouldn’t voluntarily allow you to enter my property and make use of my land?  

    Jump to Discussion Post 9 replies
  • Brian ‘Maverick’ Blum

    Source of Right of Ownership

    I own my house and several investment properties.  I purchased them from people who purchased them from people who purchased them from people.  Earlier on, ownership of them was granted to people after the American revolution took possession by military might.  Prior to that, it was granted by the King of England.  Prior to that, people came into “ownership” by conquest (i.e., militarily taking them by force from prior inhabitants), and prior to that, by exploration (i.e., taking them by force from nature).  Is this “might makes right” the original source of property ownership, or are there some brilliant Libertarian minds, wiser than I, who have postulated grander justification for the original source of the right of ownership of property?

    Jump to Discussion Post 32 replies


What is property, and why is it necessary? Butler Shaffer argues that coercive, top-down central planning is the negation of liberty and property rights, and argues that we need no such overarching institutions. What we need, he believes, is a system built on the respect for boundaries. Far from a solipsistic prescription, property rights are the foundation for cooperation and mutual exchange — the building blocks of society. Come hear the great Butler Shaffer speak on property, and bring your questions!

See More See Less