ana035: Citizen of Nowhere Part 3 | Immigration is a Public Space Issue

We “rap up” our long lost “Citizen of Nowhere” series, and apply our theory of public space to present a unique perspective on the immigration debate.

Can Hoppean principles justify open borders?

Use hashtag #ana035 to reference this episode in a tweet, post, or comment

View full show notes at https://anarchitecturepodcast.com/ana035.

 

----more----Intro

A fancy “shout out” to old school rap group Endz n Meanz

Discussion
We started the conversation on immigration, then lost interest
Lions of Liberty Debate on Open Borders – Dave Smith vs. Spike Cohen.
“Recent” for us means “within the past 12 months or so”
Tim’s Public Space theory
We want to challenge the one thing Dave and Spike agreed on – exclusive private ownership of public space
In a libertarian society, there should be public spaces where the owners can’t exclude people without cause
Episode 19 – bad audio, “like reading the dictionary”

Hoppe – Of Common, Public, and Private Property
Ground our theory within Rothbardian/Hoppean theory

Outline
Ownership – can be broken down into various rights and privileges, including public rights

How to justify eviction rights (privileges) on unowned land
Pre-established uses should be preserved
What ownership rights can governments claim
Homesteading particular uses of property, rather than homesteading a bundle of rights on a property

Ownership
A bundle of rights
Three categories
Usus – Use of the land, access to the land
Fructus – Fruits of the land, hunting, fishing, gathering
Abusus – Right to modify the land, build, mine
Right to sell / transfer – selling bundles of rights

Various rights could be owned by different people
Lease agreement – tenant has Usus, landlord retains Abusus, possums get Fructus
Condominium – exclusive Usus, restricted Abusus
Trust – land preservation trust, public Usus with restrictions
Easement – rights of way granted by road owner to others

How do rights get established on unowned land?
Non-Aggression Principle – applies regardless of whether land is owned or unowned
You can do anything on unowned land as long as your use doesn’t conflict with someone else’s use
Example – Homesteader fences established hunting ground
Resolving use conflicts without property ownership
Private Property ownership – a one-size-fits-all approach
Governing the Commons – Elinor Ostrom

How is an eviction right established?
NAP – should apply to bodily harm only, not “aggression against property”
Eviction – a privilege, not a right
Theft is deprivation of use, not “aggression against property”
What is aggression, is eviction
What justifies eviction privilege?
Right to defend yourself – applies regardless of who owns property
Is this just semantics?
On your private property, right to evict gives you maximum freedom on your property
Norm / legal standard of eviction avoids conflicts
Libertarian theory is consequentialist at heart – based on minimizing potential conflict over scarce resources

Pre-established uses protected with an easement
Hoppe example :

How is it possible that formerly unowned common streets can be privatized without thereby generating conflict with others? The short answer is that this can be done provided only that the appropriation of the street does not infringe on the previously established rights—the easements—of private-property owners to use such streets “for free.” Everyone must remain free to walk the street from house to house, through the woods, and onto the lake, just as before. Everyone retains a right-of-way, and hence no one can claim to be made worse off by the privatization of the street.

HANS HERMAN HOPPE, “OF COMMON, PUBLIC, AND PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE RATIONALE FOR TOTAL PRIVATIZATION“
Hoppe restricts public access to a (poorly) defined group of people
Makes sense for a new (greenfield) gated community
Rights are “path” dependent
How do you determine who gets access?

Burden of proof is on the road owner to demonstrate right of eviction
Bill of Rights Fallacy
Does this mean owner can’t evict anyone?
Michael Malice – Pitching a tent on subway tracks
Owner can evict those who are acting outside the purpose of the easement
An owner who evicts someone is aggressing against that person in the same way as a bum on the sidewalk – interfering with that person’s use of the easement.

Intended use of space matters
You can’t camp in a playground, and you can’t build a playground on a homeless encampment

You can offer a better solution
Adverse use and abandonment
Mitigation – common in development

Government Owned Property
What stops a 50 year old TSA agent from wandering around a school?
The school wasn’t established as a public space
Distinguish between “government owned” space and “public space”
Established uses matter regardless of ownership
Stop calling government ownership “Public”
“Government Owned” and “Non-Government Owned” instead of “Public” and “Private”

Government Owned Roads
Old, unowned roads
Roads established as public access

New, government built roads
Typically created for general public use
Public access not granted by taxpayer funding
No way to determine who has a use claim – public access right should be maintained

Roads not intended for public use
Government (military) facilities, schools
Once exclusivity is established, there is no public access

Combination of Government vs. Non-Government Roads
Privately owned parcels of land, interconnected by a network of easements
Once you allow any easement, you necessarily allow a whole network of easements
Encirclement
A fractal network of easements
Could you secure all easements before establishing a property?
Your public space ends where my property begins
A restricted access grid of roads is encircling every property within it
Easement established by accessing property via any path

An optimally free society is one that has parcels of truly sovereign private property with strong eviction rights, that are interconnected by a network of public roads and public spaces, from which it is difficult to be evicted.

Immigration and Public Space
No justification for limiting access to public spaces, as long as they are not interfering with the intended use of those spaces by others
Hoppean immigration theory – invitation only
Ownership of roads doesn’t matter; road owners can’t prevent an invitee from visiting

Taxpayer funded welfare complicates the situation
Hoppe, the consummate democrat?
Place of birth has no relevance
Interstate immigration can also strain local systems
Allow building and investment to accommodate new people
Poor immigrants disincentivised from moving to expensive areas
Growing population is generally positive in a free market
100,000 people isn’t that hard to absorb – just go to Houston
What about 100,000 people per day?
The worst life in America may be better than life elsewhere
Keep them out until we can free the markets?
Gradual vs. immediate transition to open borders
The government can’t stop illegal immigration now
A single national border might be less defensible than local borders in every town
People inviting immigrants aren’t on the hook to support them – voters in New York inviting immigrants to Texas
A fractal border – maximal surface area allows people to spread out
The only conflicts would be immigrants impeding on established uses of roads and other public spaces – no different than a homeless problem
Immigration is just a particular case of public space
Gordian knot of public policy

“Rap up”
Road owners should not have eviction rights
No libertarian justification for prohibiting movement
In free markets, localities can adapt to migration
Real world arguments
People perceive roads as public access
No simple solutions
A reasonable compromise

Links/Resources
Dave Smith vs. Spike Cohen: The Borders Debate on Lions of Liberty
Hoppe – Of Common, Public, and Private Property and the Rationale for Total Privatization
Elinor Ostrom – Governing the Commons

Episodes Mentioned
Citizen of Nowhere Series
ana007: Citizen of Nowhere | Part 2: Joe’s Immigration Ordeal

Public Space
ana013: Private Ownership of Public Space | Part 1: Tim’s Porcfest Speech (2017)
ana014: Private Ownership of Public Space | Part 2: Exploring Opt-In Trusts
ana019: Public Space: The Missing Link Between Freedom and Property | Tim’s Porcfest Speech 2018
ana029: Hospital Space is Inhibited, so Public Space is Prohibited

 

Support Anarchitecture Podcast on Patreon!

 

Contact:
Contact Us
Twitter: @anarchitecturep
Follow:
Website: https://www.anarchitecturepodcast.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/anarchitecturepodcast/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/anarchitecturep/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/anarchitecturep/
Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/user/AnarchitecturePodcst
Minds: https://www.minds.com/AnarchitecturePodcast
Subscribe:
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/anarchitecture/id1091252412
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWELM_zTl7tXLgT-rDKpSvg
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5pepyQfA25PBz6bzKzlynf?si=4UiD6cLkR6Wd26wJC4S4YQ
Podbean: https://anarchitecture.podbean.com/
Stitcher: http://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=85082&refid=stpr
Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/MIq2dOnSaTOP/
RSS (all posts): https://www.anarchitecturepodcast.com/feed/
RSS (Podcasts only): https://www.anarchitecturepodcast.com/feed/podcast/
Other Subscription Options
Support:
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/anarchitecturepodcast
Bitbacker.io: https://bitbacker.io/user/anarchitecture/
Steemit: https://steemit.com/@anarchitecture
Donate Bitcoin (BTC): 32cPbM7j5rxRu1KUaXGtoxsqFQNWD696p7