|Crazy Harry: "Do not trespass."|
In a five star review of my book, Foundations of Private Property Society Theory: Anarchism for the Civilized Person, a reviewer adds:
Delightful read. Too bad it won’t be used as a primer at government schools! My one slight suggestion for improving his vision is when talking about Crazy Harry shooting the accidental trespasser, Mr. Wenzel should point-out other property owners can freely choose to forbid Crazy Harry from ever coming onto their own property. That would probably keep Crazy Harry harnessed. Rules and punishment for trespass can be subjectively and independently determined—and are a two-way street.Well, first of all, maybe it won't keep Crazy Harry harnassed so the simple rule applies that you stay away from trouble areas or areas where the degree of trouble is uncertain (The way we do now!). This solves the problem. No shaming, or forbidding to exchange with, is required.
Shaming strikes me as a way for libertarians to get around the restriction of forcing other people to act in a certain manner. "Aha, I won't coerce this person but I will advocate that no one exchange with him!"
This could certainly be a position of some in a PPS but I personally find it abhorrent. I really don't want to tell other people what to do on their property at all.
That said, there is a kind of natural selection process that we all observe. With a very few people, we exchange on many levels and with others, say a store clerk, on a very limited basis, and with the vast majority extremely limited, say, just avoiding not bumping into each other on a sidewalk.
Some libertarians call for all to shame, say, racists, homophobes, climate deniers etc. It's libertarian totalitarianism-lite. I prefer to leave people alone. I am not going to spend much time, or any, with someone who rants about race all day (or a person who wants to shoot trespassers), that's a natural selection thing on my part, but I have no desire to try and force others to adopt my views by shaming.
If a racist owns a restaurant where the tastiest barbecued ribs are made, I may frequent the place based on the limited exchange: my money for the ribs (And I may even whisper to friends I take there for the ribs, "The owner back there is a racist"). The same way I may go to a Chick-fil-A though they close on Sunday--even though I see nothing wrong with operating on Sunday. Am I supposed to boycott Chick-fil-A and shame them into opening on Sunday?
It is absolutely impossible to think we can take a full profile of everyone we deal with before we determine if we want to deal with them in a very limited exchange. It defies the economics of exchange and is busybody libertarianism. That work should be saved for missionaries.
Of course, if we are going to allow someone into our lives in a much more significant way, we will want to consider many different aspects of their lives. You just won't find me joining any shaming campaigns---or advocacy of such in any of my books.