You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: An Original Parable about Voluntaryism
It doesn't really matter, there are plenty of alternative solutions for them to employ. If people block the river route, then take to land. If they block the land routes, then take to the sea or air. There's always another way of doing something.
The sea and air are unowned? Or are the owners of sea and air under some kind of enforceable agreement to keep them from doing as Ben did?
It doesn't matter if the sea and air are treated as unownable common spaces or if they are owned. The hypothetical proposes that everyone owns every piece of accessible real estate or travel corridor, and they're all determined to cut off their noses to spite their face. This is both wildly implausible and inconsistent with how we know people in these sorts of situations actually behave right now. It's a "just so" story.
If you want to take it to this extreme... Let's say Ben saw Mises building his home in a valley surrounded by mountains with only one entrance and exit. Ben sneakily builds a wall blocking the path thereby imprisoning Mises in the valley. Can Mises do what it takes to escape? Who is justified in their action if there is no government to resolve this conflict of interests (I think that is the point you are trying to make)?
Either way, someone is going to have to make a decision on the matter. Whether you decide to pay and give control to a coercive government to make the determination, or come up with a mutually beneficial agreement on your own, a decision will be reached regardless.
In this example, if Ben wants to be malicious, then Mises would do whatever it would take to survive. Meanwhile, the rest of the community will be seeing how Ben is treating Mises and would decide how they want to respond to it.
Let's say North Korea somehow was able to imprison South Korea. Would we need to create a world government to resolve it?