Letter on libertarian theory

From time to time I get over the transom letters. Here is an interesting one, with my response.

1. Letter:

I have a question that I’ve been mulling over and figured you were the best
person to ask. If you don’t have time to provide an answer, no worries.

I’m trying to figure out how to respond to a statist who claims that, by
moving into a community, you thereby consent to the tax and regulatory
regime that exists, and how this sits with the libertarian homesteading
principle as it relates, for instance, to pre-existing easements or
pollution.

To elaborate, I understand that if I homestead a path across some unowned
land, and later someone homesteads the entire block of land, since my
homesteaded easement preceded their homesteading, their land is subject to
my easement. Or, if I homestead or buy a block of land next to an existing
airport, since the airport homesteaded the right to create a certain level
of noise pollution, I cannot lawfully complain about this level of
pollution. So, applying this to the issue at hand, if I move into a
community with a tax and regulatory regime that impacts real property in
that community, why can’t those in the local government claim that they have
homesteaded the right to a financial/regulatory easement or
financial/regulatory pollution with respect to my real property? (For the
purposes of this issue, let’s assume neither the people in government nor
the level of taxes/regulation change, since if either of those change then I
don’t think the new politicians can claim the easement and nor can existing
politicians claim a more intrusive easement).

What’s the flaw in that way of thinking?

2. Response:

Suppose you moved into a dangerous inner city area, where you were mugged every day. You agreed to be mugged? Don’t be silly. What’s the difference between city government and a robber gang? The former has far better public relations; that’s it. Neither the gang nor the government had a RIGHT to impose robbery or taxes, whereas, in sharp contrast, the homesteader did have a right against the latecomer.

There is a basic problem with this “if you don’t like government leave here,” or, in this case, “if you don’t like government, don’t come here in the first place.” It is that this is a circular argument. It assumes to be correct the very thing in contention: that the state has a right to exist in the first place.

Share

7:12 pm on October 6, 2014