At the post, How Would Disputes Be Resolved in a Private Property Society?, Bob Roddis comments:
The purpose of private property is to protect human beings from theft and violence. If some innocents accidently parachute onto land owned by cannibals, I cannot justify allowing those people to be eaten. Further, this "you can do whatever you want on your own property to other people" paradigm seems to allow for the most ghastly tortures, punishments and violations for people who inadvertently trespass in low population primitive societies.Look, this is another example of
the fallacy of taking a specific and failing to recognize the general.
We do not live in a world where evil does not exist. Bad things occasionally occur to innocent people. In many ways, it is a very harsh world. Some very beautiful people die of cancer at a very young age.
The best we as human beings can do is structure a world that will generally provide decent outcomes.
As I have pointed out before, people die in automobile crashes but we don't ban automobiles (or stop riding in them ourselves) because there have been some truly horrific crashes.
To look at a specific crash and call for the banning of cars is to ignore the general. It is pathological altruism.
Likewise, in the specific, we can conjure up negative things that could occur under any type of societal structure.
But to conjure up an off-the-wall negative, such as, parachuting into a property filled with cannibals, and thus demanding outside rules imposed on all properties is also pathological altruism.
Imposing outside rules on ALL property requires some form of ruling body, that is, government. It is positively delusional to think that once a ruling body is formed, it is your rules that will be set in place. This is the error of all central planners. As Ludwig on Mises lectured “The worst thing that can happen to a socialist is to have his country ruled by socialists who are not his friends.”
Further, F.A. Hayek taught us in chapter 10 of The Road to Serfdom that the worst always get on top.
All governments are oppressive and the greatest horrors on earth, resulting in hundreds of millions deaths, are the result of government.
Do we really want to introduce such an evil structure as government to attempt to do the impossible and eliminate all harshness?
I say once again, I can not think of a structure that is more peaceful and offers the most freedom than a structure which is no more and no less than, "I will leave you alone on your property, please leave me alone on mine."
But to introduce government over all property because of the possibility of a parachutist landing at a place such as the Naihehe Caves of Sigatoka, Fiji is a remarkably specific focused thinking that ignores the general.
Wouldn't it just make more sense for parachutists to be aware of where they are parachuting and stay away from areas that might take them into dangerous land?
That is, shouldn't we call on individual responsibility and respect for private property rather than introducing a form of society, government, that history has shown can result in millions upon millions of deaths.
I hasten to add that there's no reason missionaries can't attempt to change cannibals from their cannibalistic ways. However, this is missionary work and not a role that should require the introduction of that great evil, government