4 ms·
Careful with that though. You're creeping pretty close to some of the more absurd thought exercises of a pure libertarian utopia, the types of thought exercises
by mpyne 13y ago
Careful with that though. You're creeping pretty close to some of the more absurd thought exercises of a pure libertarian utopia, the types of thought exercises that show pure libertarianism to be flawed as a universal sociopolitical scheme.
In the actual U.S. it is entirely probable that Glen would be made to get rid of the dam instead of cutting off water supply to the rest of the county, for the same underlying common-sense principles that have caused things like easements to end up in property law.
- burntsushi 13y agoI must have missed the meeting where libertarians decided that a free society would be a utopia.
- peterwwillis 13y agoYes, it's likely that an actual water supply could be a target for an easement, mainly because it's the only method of either transportation or sustaining someone's livelihood/life in a desert climate. Even if the internet 'needed' to be used, the only easement you could claim would be on the equipment of the telco in order to access something over the telco's property [that you could not otherwise access]. There are multiple methods to gain internet access, and the internet is not a requirement of a property or method of access (unless telephones and postal mail become abolished), and does not affect your property. I don't see what any of this has to do with political philosophy. The law is the law; doesn't much matter what you label it.