If Mexico is going to pay for the wall, why does Trump need money from Congress?

[Speaker to Animals]

Still not Gibraltar.
The Republic of Congo is in central Africa.
Gibraltar is a large rock owned by the British on the other side of the Med.

I am aware of your shitty rock.

[DBTrek]

It will barely put a dent in our numbers, but I found a place where we can send a million illegals:

Canada wants 1 million more immigrants over next 3 years

Canada, a nation of not quite 37 million people, wants to add more than 1 million immigrants through 2021.

"Thanks in great part to the newcomers we have welcomed throughout our history, Canada has developed into the strong and vibrant country we all enjoy," Ahmed Hussen, minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship, wrote in an annual report to Parliament. "Immigrants and their descendants have made immeasurable contributions to Canada, and our future success depends on continuing to ensure they are welcomed and well-integrated."

Hussen, now in his early 40s, fled to Canada from war-torn Somalia when he was 16 . . .

https://abc7chicago.com/canada-wants-1- ... D=ref_fark

Great news guys, Ahmed Hussen, expert on all things that make Canada a strong and vibrant country, is ready for a million immigrants.
Reserve your seat now!


We need to build a high speed railway between the Mexican and Canadian border. Maybe that can be the compromise on the wall.

[Speaker to Animals]

Can we just fucking leave them at the border or what?

[Montegriffo]

Still not Gibraltar.
The Republic of Congo is in central Africa.
Gibraltar is a large rock owned by the British on the other side of the Med.

I am aware of your shitty rock.

Good, perhaps you can tell me when armed mobs rushed the border then?

[Speaker to Animals]

Still not Gibraltar.
The Republic of Congo is in central Africa.
Gibraltar is a large rock owned by the British on the other side of the Med.

I am aware of your shitty rock.

Good, perhaps you can tell me when armed mobs rushed the border then?

2002

[Speaker to Animals]

Oh wait. My bad. 2002 was when incompetent British troops attempting to land on Gibraltar accidentally invaded Spain.

[Speaker to Animals]

[heydaralon]

First, I'd like to restate some of the relevant parts of the piece we're discussing (not so much for you but in the hope that some of the trollers and peanut gallery might read some of it):

However, with respect to the movement of people, the same government will have to do more in order to fulfill its protective function than merely permit events to take their own course, because people, unlike products, possess a will and can migrate. Accordingly, population movements, unlike product shipments, are not per se mutually beneficial events because they are not always —necessarily and invariably—the result of an agreement between a specific receiver and sender. There can be shipments (immigrants) without willing domestic recipients. In this case, immigrants are foreign invaders, and immigration represents an act of invasion. Surely, a government’s basic protective function includes the prevention of foreign invasions and the expulsion of foreign invaders. Just as surely then, in order to do so and subject immigrants to the same requirement as imports (of having been invited by domestic residents), this government cannot rightfully allow the kind of free immigration advocated by most free traders. Just imagine again that the U.S. and Switzerland opened their borders to whomever wanted to come—provided only that immigrants be excluded from all welfare entitlements, which would be reserved for U.S. and Swiss citizens. Apart from the sociological problem of thus creating two distinct classes of domestic residents and thus causing severe social tensions, there is also little doubt about the outcome of this experiment in the present world. The result would be less drastic and less immediate than under the scenario of unconditional free immigration, but it too would amount to a massive foreign invasion and ultimately lead to the destruction of American and Swiss civilization. Thus, in order to fulfill its primary function as protector of its citizens and their domestic property, a high-wage-area government cannot follow an immigration policy of laissez-passer, but must engage in restrictive measures.

From the recognition that proponents of free trade and markets cannot advocate free immigration without falling into inconsistency and contradiction, and hence, that immigration must —logically—be restricted, it is but a small step to the further recognition of how it must be restricted. As a matter of fact, all high-wage-area governments presently restrict immigration in one way or another. Nowhere is immigration “free,” unconditionally or conditionally. Yet the restrictions imposed on immigration by the U.S. and by Switzerland, for instance, are quite different. What restrictions should then exist? Or, more precisely, what immigration restrictions is a free trader and free marketeer logically compelled to uphold and promote? The guiding principle of a high-wage-area country’s immigration policy follows from the insight that immigration, to be free in the same sense as trade is free, must be invited immigration. The details follow from the further elucidation and exemplification of the concept of invitation vs. invasion and forced integration.

For this purpose, it is necessary to assume first, as a conceptual benchmark, the existence of what political philosophers have described as a private property anarchy, anarcho-capitalism, or ordered anarchy: all land is privately owned, including all streets, rivers, airports, harbors, etc. With respect to some pieces of land, the property title may be unrestricted, that is, the owner is permitted to do with his property whatever he pleases as long as he does not physically damage the property of others. With respect to other territories, the property title may be more or less restricted. As is currently the case in some developments, the owner may be bound by contractual limitations on what he can do with his property (restrictive covenants, voluntary zoning), which might include residential rather than commercial use, no buildings more than four stories high, no sale or rent to unmarried couples, smokers, or Germans, for instance.

Clearly, in this kind of society, there is no such thing as freedom of immigration, or an immigrant’s right of way. What does exist is the freedom of independent private property owners to admit or exclude others from their own property in accordance with their own restricted or unrestricted property titles. Admission to some territories might be easy, while to others it might be nearly impossible. Moreover, admission to one party’s property does not imply the “freedom to move around,” unless other property owners have agreed to such movements. There will be as much immigration or non-immigration, inclusivity or exclusivity, desegregation or segregation, non-discrimination or discrimination as individual owners or owners associations desire.

The reason for citing the model of an anarcho-capitalist society is that by definition no such thing as forced integration (uninvited migration) is possible (permitted) within its framework. Under this scenario, no difference between the physical movement of goods and the migration of people exists. As every product movement reflects an underlying agreement between sender and receiver, so all movements of immigrants into and within an anarcho-capitalist society are the result of an agreement between the immigrant and one or a series of receiving domestic property owners. Hence, even if the anarcho-capitalist model is ultimately rejected—and if for realism’s sake the existence of a government and of “public” (in addition to private) goods and property is assumed—it brings into clear relief what a government’s immigration policy would have to be, if and insofar as this government derived its legitimacy from the sovereignty of the “people” and was viewed as the outgrowth of an agreement or “social contract” (as is the case with all modern, post-monarchical governments, of course). A “popular” government which assumed as its primary task the protection of its citizen and their property (the production of domestic security) would surely want to preserve, rather than abolish, this no-forced-integration feature of anarcho-capitalism!

In order to realize what this involves, it is necessary to explain how an anarcho-capitalist society is altered by the introduction of a government, and how this affects the immigration problem. Since in an anarcho-capitalist society there is no government, there is no clear-cut distinction between inlanders (domestic citizens) and foreigners. This distinction appears only with the establishment of a government. The territory which a government’s power extends over then becomes inland, and everyone residing outside of this territory becomes a foreigner. State borders (and passports), as distinct from private property borders (and titles to property), come into existence, and immigration takes on a new meaning. Immigration becomes immigration by foreigners across state borders, and the decision as to whether or not a person should be admitted no longer rests exclusively with private property owners or associations of such owners but with the government qua domestic security producer. Now, if the government excludes a person while there exists a domestic resident who wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion; and if the government admits a person while there exists no domestic resident who wants to have this person on his property, the result is forced integration.

Moreover, hand in hand with the institution of a government comes the institution of public property and goods, that is, of property and goods owned collectively by all domestic residents and controlled and administered by the government. The larger or smaller the amount of public-government ownership, the greater or lesser will be the potential problem of forced integration. Consider a socialist society like the former Soviet Union or East Germany, for example. All factors of production, including all land and natural resources, are publicly owned. Accordingly, if the government admits an uninvited immigrant, it potentially admits him to any place within the country; for without private land ownership, there exist no limitations on his internal migrations other than those decreed by government. Under socialism, therefore, forced integration can be spread everywhere and thus immensely intensified. (In fact, in the Soviet Union and East Germany, the government could quarter a stranger in someone else’s private house or apartment. This measure—and the resulting high-powered forced integration—was justified by the “fact” that all private houses rested on public land.)

Socialist countries will not be high-wage areas, of course, or at least will not remain so for long. Their problem is not immigration but emigration pressure. The Soviet Union and East Germany prohibited emigration and killed people for trying to leave the country. However, the problem of the extension and intensification of forced integration persists outside of socialism. To be sure, in non-socialist countries such as the U.S., Switzerland, and the Federal Republic of Germany, which are favorite immigration destinations, a government-admitted immigrant could not move just anywhere. The immigrant’s freedom of movement would be severely restricted by the extent of private property, and private land ownership in particular. Yet, by proceeding on public roads, or with public means of transportation, and in staying on public land and in public parks and buildings, an immigrant can potentially cross every domestic resident’s path, even move into anyone’s immediate neighborhood and practically land on his very doorsteps. The smaller the quantity of public property, the less acute the problem will be. But as long as there exists any public property, it cannot be entirely escaped.

A popular government that wants to safeguard its citizens and their domestic property from forced integration and foreign invaders has two methods of doing so, a corrective and a preventive one. The corrective method is designed to ameliorate the effects of forced integration once the event has taken place (and the invaders are there). As indicated, to achieve this goal, the government must reduce the quantity of public property as much as possible. Moreover, whatever the mix of private and public property, the government must uphold—rather than criminalize—any private property owner’s right to admit and exclude others from his property. If virtually all property is owned privately and the government assists in enforcing private ownership rights, then uninvited immigrants, even if they succeeded in entering the country, would not likely get much farther.
The more completely this corrective measure is carried out (the higher the degree of private ownership), the less there will be a need for protective measures, such as border defense. The cost of protection against foreign invaders along the U.S.–Mexico border, for instance, is comparatively high, because for long stretches no private property on the U.S. side exists. However, even if the cost of border protection can be lowered by means of privatization, it will not disappear as long as there are substantial income and wage differentials between high- and low-wage territories. Hence, in order to fulfill its basic protective function, a high-wage-area government must also be engaged in preventive measures. At all ports of entry and along its borders, the government, as trustee of its citizens, must check all newly arriving persons for an entrance ticket—a valid invitation by a domestic property owner—and everyone not in possession of such a ticket will have to be expelled at his own expense.

Here are my questions:

In your mind, how would this system have stopped a large foreign caravan like the ones that are frequently at our border consisting of thousands of people?

To the extent that public property and welfare continue to exist in the US, sufficient border security to prevent trespassers/invaders from gaining entry are necessary. The discussion of what kind of security to implement is driven by specific facts. What walls can't accomplish, armed guards might, &c., &c.

What is the plan when you have a large armed one like those that rush the border at Gibraltar and Hungary frequently?

We have lots of guns in the U.S., and the industrial capacity to make a bunch more.

The article mentions the idea of minimizing public space and maximizing private space. In this hypothetical model, would any physical barriers be implemented? Would there be a border patrol of any kind?



Yes and yes.

The more completely this corrective measure is carried out (the higher the degree of private ownership), the less there will be a need for protective measures, such as border defense. The cost of protection against foreign invaders along the U.S.–Mexico border, for instance, is comparatively high, because for long stretches no private property on the U.S. side exists. However, even if the cost of border protection can be lowered by means of privatization, it will not disappear as long as there are substantial income and wage differentials between high- and low-wage territories. Hence, in order to fulfill its basic protective function, a high-wage-area government must also be engaged in preventive measures. At all ports of entry and along its borders, the government, as trustee of its citizens, must check all newly arriving persons for an entrance ticket—a valid invitation by a domestic property owner—and everyone not in possession of such a ticket will have to be expelled at his own expense.

The idea of having each immigrant strictly coming via invitation from the owner and the owner buying liability insurance if the immigrant leaves their private property would require some kind of large database and a huge amount of paperwork. Would this also not lead to an enormous bureaucracy and a need to have government workers monitoring the insurance and mediating the damage claims?

I disagree that just another federal disaster of an agency is necessary; none of those agencies are necessary as configured. Insurance is insurance. Keep any required monitoring/dispute resolution as local and decentralized as possible. A large database usable across the country is hardly novel in 2019. As public property and gibs are eliminated, the need for state enforcement is diminished.


If an immigrant leaves the private property, will he have to be checked to ensure that his initial host has the appropriate paperwork?

If on private property, trespass law controls. On public property, to the extent it exists, credentials will be necessary. (See how public property sucks?)

Who will do the checking? Other private property owners?

If on private property, trespass law controls. On public property, to the extent it exists, credentials will be necessary. You'll have to rely on Barney Fife to check out people seeking entry onto public property. (See how public property sucks?)

What sort of measures can be taken if the immigrant will not leave the private property?

English/American trespass law has a history going back multiple centuries. What measures would you take if an uninvited stranger showed up at your house and said he was going to start camping in your back yard and started digging a slit latrine?

In this society, will there be any kind of central authority in place monitoring who comes in?

To the extent that public property and welfare continue to exist in the US, sufficient border security to prevent trespassers/invaders from gaining entry are necessary. I'm not sure what you mean by “central” authority, but I'd be in favor the absolutely most local authority possible regarding any given border region. If one state or region turns into a sieve, the rest of the country could address how to shape them up.

For instance, what would stop someone from inviting in a immigrant who is a terrorist or child molester?

This begs the question of how terrorism and child molestation is considered generally. Any voluntary group of citizens can definitely decide by agreement what kind of undesirable types are kept away from civilized people. I don't see how invading terrorist / molesters would get any better treatment than native-born ones.

Do you envision any kind of governmental oversight over the process?

Which process? As to the border, to the extent that public property and welfare continue to exist in the US, sufficient border security to prevent trespassers/invaders from gaining entry are necessary. As to dealing with terrorists / molesters, the question is the same whether we are dealing with foreign offenders or native offenders. That doesn't mean a required equality of outcome, just that the “process” shouldn't necessarily be different.


Lastly, it discusses the idea of Switzerland having a system where if someone sells property to an immigrant, he still has to get all of his neighbors who could be affected to sign off on it. Do you think that is a restriction of liberty? A sort of "tyranny of the Homeowners Association?"

I'm not really down with how you phrased the question, but I'll answer “no.” A full definition and discussion of Voluntaryism is beyond the scope of the Hoppe piece, but assume that I'm in favor of voluntary associations regarding property use, &c.

Anyway, these are my questions to you. The article mentions the government's role is to protect its citizens, but it does not specify beyond the contracts and expansion of private property, what specific actions can be undertaken to ensure the contracts and liability are upheld.

It is important to understand the scope and purpose of Hoppe's piece:

I will argue that this thesis and its implicit claim are fundamentally mistaken. In particular, I will demonstrate that free trade and restricted immigration are not only perfectly consistent but even mutually reinforcing policies. That is, it is not the advocates of free trade and restricted immigration who are wrong, but rather the proponents of free trade and free immigration. In thus taking the “intellectual guilt” out of the free-trade-and-restricted-immigration position and putting it where it actually belongs, I hope to promote a change in the present state of public opinion and facilitate substantial political realignment.

We're talking about immigration here, not protectionism as a stand-alone. (I know the trolling is coming from the usual suspect(s) defending mindless protectionism, but whatev.) The point is to understand the fundamental difference between capital and consumer goods moving around the world because of mutual agreement and human beings with agency moving around unilaterally.

I've answered your 11 questions within the context of the piece; if you want to discuss any of the issues more generally, let me know.

Yes the wall is dumb. But, until we have sufficiently removed the incentives for and toleration of unwanted invasion, the wall is a legitimate tool. IMNSHO, it's not the solution -- far from it. But without a real solution, I'm not in favor of being overrun by invaders itching to vote for and receive the Gibs.

Plus, the country voted for a wall in 2016. If we're going to continue the democracy delusion, giving people what they vote for might eventually lead them to vote away the gibs and the evil of democracy. That part *is* a bit of fantasizing, but one that doesn't necessarily include wholesale bloodshed at least.

Well, if you take the view of the piece that the government's role in this should be minimized as much as possible, and you mentioned being in favor of Voluntaryism, let me rephrase my question:

In this system of immigration, does the citizen inviting a resident to his private property have a duty to inform his surrounding neighbors and get their consent before inviting an immigrant to his own land? In theory, if the guest isn't going to leave his property at all, this wouldn't be an issue. However, unless the land owner has a private airport, the resident would still have to travel either on government land, or more ideally (based on the views of the author of this article) across various private roads and tracts of land owned by other citizens. Now the piece discussed liability insurance as one way of fixing this issue. What if all the surrounding land, roads etc, were owned privately, and the owners of this property were not fine with letting the guest on them, even if he owned liability insurance? Do you view that as infringement on the person who originally invited the guest?

This problem can go beyond immigration. What if you owned a plot of land somewhere, and I owned all the land around it, geographically encircling you? Let's say that I also owned the roads on said land. In this scenario, I am a vindictive asshole that hates your guts. Lets say I want to buy your land, but you won't sell, so I prohibit you from setting foot on any of my land that surrounds yours, even if you want to leave the area to go into town to buy groceries or something like that, because your own land could not sustain you. That would effectively make you a prisoner on your own property right? So in this scenario where the govt is not involved, do my property rights outweigh your need to travel and get food? What are your thoughts on this?

If I did a poor job explaining my point, I can phrase it differently in another post.

[Fife]

Well, if you take the view of the piece that the government's role in this should be minimized as much as possible, and you mentioned being in favor of Voluntaryism, let me rephrase my question:

In this system of immigration, does the citizen inviting a resident to his private property have a duty to inform his surrounding neighbors and get their consent before inviting an immigrant to his own land?

If there is a contractual duty to inform, then yes for sure. This isn't terribly different than standard HOA restrictions against certain types of leases, allowing RV parking on your property, &c.

Whether there is a duty to inform/get consent or not, there is always a duty not to commit what the common law calls "nuisance" and/or "waste." IOW, you can't unreasonably infringe on a neighbor's use and enjoyment of his land by putting some huge burden on your own land.

In theory, if the guest isn't going to leave his property at all, this wouldn't be an issue. However, unless the land owner has a private airport, the resident would still have to travel either on government land, or more ideally (based on the views of the author of this article) across various private roads and tracts of land owned by other citizens. Now the piece discussed liability insurance as one way of fixing this issue. What if all the surrounding land, roads etc, were owned privately, and the owners of this property were not fine with letting the guest on them, even if he owned liability insurance?

This is a fairly common occurrence in English/American common law; not unusual. It normally happens when a large piece of property is divided up because of inheritance, leaving a tract that has been subdivided cut off from the road without an easement for access. In a court of equity, a landlocked property owner can get equitable relief (not free relief) to get reasonable ingress/egress rights. In a totally private society, a landlocked owner might be faced with just selling out at the best price available (why would he not have already secured a senior easement though?). In some hybrid society, some form of dispute resolution short of handing over to a state agent judge could be developed.

Do you view that as infringement on the person who originally invited the guest?

One's freely entered contractual obligations aren't an infringement.

This problem can go beyond immigration. What if you owned a plot of land somewhere, and I owned all the land around it, geographically encircling you?

Discussed above.

Let's say that I also owned the roads on said land. In this scenario, I am a vindictive asshole that hates your guts. Lets say I want to buy your land, but you won't sell, so I prohibit you from setting foot on any of my land that surrounds yours, even if you want to leave the area to go into town to buy groceries or something like that, because your own land could not sustain you. That would effectively make you a prisoner on your own property right?

Discussed above.

So in this scenario where the govt is not involved, do my property rights outweigh your need to travel and get food?

Discussed above.

What are your thoughts on this?

Plan ahead.

Also, I posted this totally free treatise from a very very smart cookie in the Muh Roadz OP, here it is again:

The Privatization of Roads and Highways

The Mises Institute is pleased to introduce Walter Block's remarkable new treatise on private roads, a 494-page book that will cause you to rethink the whole of the way modern transportation networks operate. It is bold, innovative, radical, compelling, and shows how free-market economic theory is the clarifying lens through which to see the failures of the state and see the alternative that is consistent with human liberty.

He shows that even the worst, off-the-cuff scenario of life under private ownership of roads would be fantastic by comparison to the existing reality of government-ownership of roads, which is awful in ways we don't entirely realize until Block fully explains it (think: highway deaths).

But that is only the beginning of what Professor Block has done. He has made a lengthy, detailed, and positive case that the privatization of roads would be socially optimal in every way. It would save lives, curtail pollution, save us (as individuals!) money, save us massive time, introduce accountability, and make transportation a pleasure instead of a huge pain in the neck.

Because this is the first-ever complete book on this topic, the length and detail are absolutely necessary. He shows that this is not some libertarian pipe dream but the most practical application of free-market logic. Block is dealing with something that confronts us every day. And in so doing, he illustrates the power of economic theory to take an existing set of facts and help see them in a completely different way.

What's also nice is that the prose has great passion about it, despite its scholarly detail. Block loves answering the objections (Aren't roads public goods? Aren't roads too expensive to build privately?) and making the case, fully aware that he has to overcome a deep and persistent bias in favor of public ownership. The writer burns with a moral passion on the subjects of highway deaths and pollution issues. His "Open Letter to Mothers Against Drunk Driving" is a thrill to read!

The author, Walter Block:



A quick hit from Rothbard:





If I did a poor job explaining my point, I can phrase it differently in another post.

[heydaralon]

Well, if you take the view of the piece that the government's role in this should be minimized as much as possible, and you mentioned being in favor of Voluntaryism, let me rephrase my question:

In this system of immigration, does the citizen inviting a resident to his private property have a duty to inform his surrounding neighbors and get their consent before inviting an immigrant to his own land?

If there is a contractual duty to inform, then yes for sure. This isn't terribly different than standard HOA restrictions against certain types of leases, allowing RV parking on your property, &c.

Whether there is a duty to inform/get consent or not, there is always a duty not to commit what the common law calls "nuisance" and/or "waste." IOW, you can't unreasonably infringe on a neighbor's use and enjoyment of his land by putting some huge burden on your own land.

In theory, if the guest isn't going to leave his property at all, this wouldn't be an issue. However, unless the land owner has a private airport, the resident would still have to travel either on government land, or more ideally (based on the views of the author of this article) across various private roads and tracts of land owned by other citizens. Now the piece discussed liability insurance as one way of fixing this issue. What if all the surrounding land, roads etc, were owned privately, and the owners of this property were not fine with letting the guest on them, even if he owned liability insurance?

This is a fairly common occurrence in English/American common law; not unusual. It normally happens when a large piece of property is divided up because of inheritance, leaving a tract that has been subdivided cut off from the road without an easement for access. In a court of equity, a landlocked property owner can get equitable relief (not free relief) to get reasonable ingress/egress rights. In a totally private society, a landlocked owner might be faced with just selling out at the best price available (why would he not have already secured a senior easement though?). In some hybrid society, some form of dispute resolution short of handing over to a state agent judge could be developed.

Do you view that as infringement on the person who originally invited the guest?

One's freely entered contractual obligations aren't an infringement.

This problem can go beyond immigration. What if you owned a plot of land somewhere, and I owned all the land around it, geographically encircling you?

Discussed above.

Let's say that I also owned the roads on said land. In this scenario, I am a vindictive asshole that hates your guts. Lets say I want to buy your land, but you won't sell, so I prohibit you from setting foot on any of my land that surrounds yours, even if you want to leave the area to go into town to buy groceries or something like that, because your own land could not sustain you. That would effectively make you a prisoner on your own property right?

Discussed above.

So in this scenario where the govt is not involved, do my property rights outweigh your need to travel and get food?

Discussed above.

What are your thoughts on this?

Plan ahead.

Also, I posted this totally free treatise from a very very smart cookie in the Muh Roadz OP, here it is again:

The Privatization of Roads and Highways

The Mises Institute is pleased to introduce Walter Block's remarkable new treatise on private roads, a 494-page book that will cause you to rethink the whole of the way modern transportation networks operate. It is bold, innovative, radical, compelling, and shows how free-market economic theory is the clarifying lens through which to see the failures of the state and see the alternative that is consistent with human liberty.

He shows that even the worst, off-the-cuff scenario of life under private ownership of roads would be fantastic by comparison to the existing reality of government-ownership of roads, which is awful in ways we don't entirely realize until Block fully explains it (think: highway deaths).

But that is only the beginning of what Professor Block has done. He has made a lengthy, detailed, and positive case that the privatization of roads would be socially optimal in every way. It would save lives, curtail pollution, save us (as individuals!) money, save us massive time, introduce accountability, and make transportation a pleasure instead of a huge pain in the neck.

Because this is the first-ever complete book on this topic, the length and detail are absolutely necessary. He shows that this is not some libertarian pipe dream but the most practical application of free-market logic. Block is dealing with something that confronts us every day. And in so doing, he illustrates the power of economic theory to take an existing set of facts and help see them in a completely different way.

What's also nice is that the prose has great passion about it, despite its scholarly detail. Block loves answering the objections (Aren't roads public goods? Aren't roads too expensive to build privately?) and making the case, fully aware that he has to overcome a deep and persistent bias in favor of public ownership. The writer burns with a moral passion on the subjects of highway deaths and pollution issues. His "Open Letter to Mothers Against Drunk Driving" is a thrill to read!

The author, Walter Block:



A quick hit from Rothbard:





If I did a poor job explaining my point, I can phrase it differently in another post.

Before we continue, what is a senior easement? I looked up easement, and it said a contract to cross another person's property for a pre agreed upon purpose. What do you mean by "senior?" What if the other party is unwilling to make such an arrangement?