- Joined
- Aug 26, 2012
- Messages
- 8,247
- Reaction score
- 2,713
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Under Hoppe's system they certainly do have the authority to remove people because it is their land.
I don't think Hobbes is talking about shunning when he refers to 'forcibly removing' anyone who doesn't abide by his elitist standards.
So as long as the land is the 'private property' of the landlord then feudalism is 'libertarian'? I disagree with this notion.
There is nothing libertarian about a select group of elitists having the power to physically remove people who don't agree with their views.
He wants the land to be 'homesteaded' which has very broad meaning when it comes to Austrians. To many Austrians that simply means stepping onto a piece of unclaimed land and declaring that everything he/she can see to the horizon is now theirs, which is imo a ludicrous way to look at property rights.
As you saw in his quotes about removing people from society he clearly does advocate aggression (though he may not admit it).
I guess I just disagree that removing someone from one's own property is an initiation of violence. A trespasser has no right to be on my land, so I would have no ethical objection to removing him.
And, in my opinion, it doesn't make me a monarch.