Jun 21, 2022
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.
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
* 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
* 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
* 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