The abstract libertarian discussion of property rights in the case of a sailboat rescuing a young girl is well and good for a number of purposes. It shouldn’t be the exclusive basis for reaching conclusions, however. The duty to rescue at sea is well-established in customary law and international law. There is no good reason not to examine the existing solutions to rescues at sea that have developed over long periods of time. See here for a review article.

Sometimes useful bodies of law develop independently of states. Sometimes states are directly involved. In a world without states, insurers would probably individually and collectively have incentives to save lives at sea. Through restrictions on making insurance available, they might produce rescue provisions that have a result similar to the laws and duties arranged by states in treaties. In addition, people taking to the sea benefit from knowing that other ships will make efforts to rescue them should a mishap occur. This demand translates into owners making pacts to engage in rescues on a reciprocal basis.

Some bodies of Law that would develop in a stateless world of free markets might look quite a lot like the laws that have already developed in a world of states. What may look like involuntary impositions on property rights in a world of states may be requirements that make sense even for property owners if they were free to make their own arrangements.

This is not to ignore or be content with state-made law, because the state’s power to make laws is so easily applied beyond proper limits and abused. We see this all the time. In the face of the constant pressures to extend laws to new areas of our behavior, our Constitution has provided too weak a barrier and deterrent.

The Best of Michael S. Rozeff