"it becomes harder to see how B-Y are not committing aggression by refusing to allow passage to resources they have a duty to not prevent people from accessing."
I don't see why you have a duty to "not prevent" people from accessing unowned land that your land blocks access to. In general obligations or duties are those that correspond to negative rights only. There are not positive obligations. You can't make something look like a negative obligation by clever wording-- by saying "a duty to not prevent people from accessing" instead of "a duty to [let people use your property to access]" But then this way of wording it would show that it's just an assertion and question-begging. There is no "contradiction' entailed by not letting someone use your property to access remote unowned property. Even if there is, "contradicting" is not an act of aggression. In any case, you can't just say that because an unowned tract is unowned, "homesteading it is permissible," and thererefore, there 'is a duty" not to prevent it. Saying it's permissible only means that (a) the property has no owner, and that (b) IF someone is able to reach and possess and control and emborder it, then they would have established a link to it and become its owner.
So I think the error may your sneaking in the loaded term "permissible" e.g. "If no one has a duty to not homestead the interior, then it is permissible to homestead the interior." You are reading 'is permissible" to imply that there is a duty not to allow it to happen. Look you can say it's permissible for people to "eat food" or to "have food" and then you could say positive welfare rights are justified because otherwise you are "allowing them to starve" or "preventing them from having that which it is permissible them to have." But saying it is permisisble for someone to have food only means that "having food" is not per se a rights violation--that if you are able to get food without violating rights, you have the right to do it. It doesn't mean anymore than that.
Same with saying it's permissible to homestead unowned land in the middle of the donut. Saying it's permissible only means that if you can do it, it would be legitimate. It's like saying it's permissible for you to travel to Alpha Centauri and homestead an unowned tract of land on a planet there. SAying it's permissible is just a way of saying "if you do X, then it doesn't necessarily violate others' rights" or "if you are able to possess X, then you own it". So if you are clear about what it means to say "it's permissible to hometead X" then it does not not imply a duty on the part of a third party "not to prevent it from happening by failing to provide the means to make it possible." Because this is simply just a restatement of Block's ridiculous position that "libertarianism abhors unowned property," whatever this weird metaphorical statement is even supposed to mean.
I think one has a duty to not prevent people from accessing the unowned land because the unowned land is permissible for homesteading. It's permissible even on your own terms as (a) it has no owner, and (b) IF it were reached, the person who reached it would establish an objective link and become the owner (though I hesitate that there might be some circularity there; that sounds dangerously close to "it being permissible only means if someone reached it and took it under their control, then it would be permissible." — and certainly here people could reach the interior by crossing the owner's property. You take the view that this would be aggression, so do you conclude that even though it's aggression, they are now the just property owner? If not, it seems you would have to further modify it to "permissible means that if you permissibly reached it, then it's permissible to use," which is problematic).
And if it's permissible for A to do X, then A has no duty to not do X. Agreed, some third party has no positive obligation to aid or assist A in performing X, but the issue here is that the donut owner's property arrangements don't just make it much harder to reach the interior if we assume no easements, but literally make it impossible. If he is not going to claim that unowned land, then he is allowing it to still be permissible to be homesteaded.
So I agree ordinarily no one would have the authority to cross my land to reach some other land. Others have a duty to respect my property rights and not enter my land without permission. However, they have no duty to not homestead the interior, or, in other words, it is permissible for them to do so, and thus I have a duty to not prevent them from doing what is permissible for them to do. I think unowned land is land where no person presently possesses a property claim capable of imposing on others a duty to refrain from original appropriation. If there is unowned land and my property provides a shortcut, I have not imposed on others a duty to not homestead the interior by preventing them access; I have just imposed on them a duty to not use my land to do so, even if it makes it harder to homestead the interior. But in this scenario, my arrangements are causing the act of homesteading the unowned land to be intrinsically linked to the act of crossing my land. My land does not merely provide a shortcut; it is, by stipulation, the only means to access the land which is permissible for homesteading and for which I have no duty to prevent others from homesteading. But by the way I have drawn up the property arrangements, me imposing on them the duty to not enter my land (which I typically would have the ability to do) would impose on them the duty to not homestead land permissible for homesteading.
So they have a duty to not enter my land, but no duty to refrain from homesteading the interior, but because of the donut homestead, those acts are merged into one, which causes a contradiction between duties. I agree that a contradiction is not aggression; it's not even an action nor something that can appear in reality. My point was that the no-easement conception of libertarianism was resulting in a contradiction, which would imply libertarianism is false (oh no!), and that adopting a pro-easement conception resolved the contradiction, which is good.
And I agree with you that Block is wrong that "libertarian property theory abhors unowned property" and would not group my argument alongside his. If you do, I hope you can see how mine is less metaphorically weird than attributing preferences to a theory.
Lastly, I would agree the donut-shaped homestead is actually the most controversial of the ones I discuss and is the one I could most see myself being convinced against, but I'm curious what your thoughts are on the 2nd and 3rd examples and whether you think easements are valid in those cases.
"it becomes harder to see how B-Y are not committing aggression by refusing to allow passage to resources they have a duty to not prevent people from accessing."
I don't see why you have a duty to "not prevent" people from accessing unowned land that your land blocks access to. In general obligations or duties are those that correspond to negative rights only. There are not positive obligations. You can't make something look like a negative obligation by clever wording-- by saying "a duty to not prevent people from accessing" instead of "a duty to [let people use your property to access]" But then this way of wording it would show that it's just an assertion and question-begging. There is no "contradiction' entailed by not letting someone use your property to access remote unowned property. Even if there is, "contradicting" is not an act of aggression. In any case, you can't just say that because an unowned tract is unowned, "homesteading it is permissible," and thererefore, there 'is a duty" not to prevent it. Saying it's permissible only means that (a) the property has no owner, and that (b) IF someone is able to reach and possess and control and emborder it, then they would have established a link to it and become its owner.
So I think the error may your sneaking in the loaded term "permissible" e.g. "If no one has a duty to not homestead the interior, then it is permissible to homestead the interior." You are reading 'is permissible" to imply that there is a duty not to allow it to happen. Look you can say it's permissible for people to "eat food" or to "have food" and then you could say positive welfare rights are justified because otherwise you are "allowing them to starve" or "preventing them from having that which it is permissible them to have." But saying it is permisisble for someone to have food only means that "having food" is not per se a rights violation--that if you are able to get food without violating rights, you have the right to do it. It doesn't mean anymore than that.
Same with saying it's permissible to homestead unowned land in the middle of the donut. Saying it's permissible only means that if you can do it, it would be legitimate. It's like saying it's permissible for you to travel to Alpha Centauri and homestead an unowned tract of land on a planet there. SAying it's permissible is just a way of saying "if you do X, then it doesn't necessarily violate others' rights" or "if you are able to possess X, then you own it". So if you are clear about what it means to say "it's permissible to hometead X" then it does not not imply a duty on the part of a third party "not to prevent it from happening by failing to provide the means to make it possible." Because this is simply just a restatement of Block's ridiculous position that "libertarianism abhors unowned property," whatever this weird metaphorical statement is even supposed to mean.
Thanks for the reply.
I think one has a duty to not prevent people from accessing the unowned land because the unowned land is permissible for homesteading. It's permissible even on your own terms as (a) it has no owner, and (b) IF it were reached, the person who reached it would establish an objective link and become the owner (though I hesitate that there might be some circularity there; that sounds dangerously close to "it being permissible only means if someone reached it and took it under their control, then it would be permissible." — and certainly here people could reach the interior by crossing the owner's property. You take the view that this would be aggression, so do you conclude that even though it's aggression, they are now the just property owner? If not, it seems you would have to further modify it to "permissible means that if you permissibly reached it, then it's permissible to use," which is problematic).
And if it's permissible for A to do X, then A has no duty to not do X. Agreed, some third party has no positive obligation to aid or assist A in performing X, but the issue here is that the donut owner's property arrangements don't just make it much harder to reach the interior if we assume no easements, but literally make it impossible. If he is not going to claim that unowned land, then he is allowing it to still be permissible to be homesteaded.
So I agree ordinarily no one would have the authority to cross my land to reach some other land. Others have a duty to respect my property rights and not enter my land without permission. However, they have no duty to not homestead the interior, or, in other words, it is permissible for them to do so, and thus I have a duty to not prevent them from doing what is permissible for them to do. I think unowned land is land where no person presently possesses a property claim capable of imposing on others a duty to refrain from original appropriation. If there is unowned land and my property provides a shortcut, I have not imposed on others a duty to not homestead the interior by preventing them access; I have just imposed on them a duty to not use my land to do so, even if it makes it harder to homestead the interior. But in this scenario, my arrangements are causing the act of homesteading the unowned land to be intrinsically linked to the act of crossing my land. My land does not merely provide a shortcut; it is, by stipulation, the only means to access the land which is permissible for homesteading and for which I have no duty to prevent others from homesteading. But by the way I have drawn up the property arrangements, me imposing on them the duty to not enter my land (which I typically would have the ability to do) would impose on them the duty to not homestead land permissible for homesteading.
So they have a duty to not enter my land, but no duty to refrain from homesteading the interior, but because of the donut homestead, those acts are merged into one, which causes a contradiction between duties. I agree that a contradiction is not aggression; it's not even an action nor something that can appear in reality. My point was that the no-easement conception of libertarianism was resulting in a contradiction, which would imply libertarianism is false (oh no!), and that adopting a pro-easement conception resolved the contradiction, which is good.
And I agree with you that Block is wrong that "libertarian property theory abhors unowned property" and would not group my argument alongside his. If you do, I hope you can see how mine is less metaphorically weird than attributing preferences to a theory.
Lastly, I would agree the donut-shaped homestead is actually the most controversial of the ones I discuss and is the one I could most see myself being convinced against, but I'm curious what your thoughts are on the 2nd and 3rd examples and whether you think easements are valid in those cases.