Private property is the biggest lock up of land there is.
"Lock up of land" can mean different things. Maybe you could develop that point a bit more.
It is true that the boundaries of what is properly someone's property, at least if your looking for some overall philosophy of the idea rather than just applying current property law, can be complex, but generally private property increases liberty. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that lack of respect for private property decreases liberty.
How do you libertarians feel about national parks?
Libertarians tend not to be a very monolithic lot. You'd get different opinions, esp. from the more mild libertarians. But it is true that many, probably most, libertarians are against so much government ownership of land, and some would extend that to being against the national park system.
I moved to Alaska and live in the tongass national forest. NO fences. I can hunt and fish anywhere I want. It is wonderful. I can hike for a thousand miles in any direction and never run into a fence.
You can get that with a real new frontier in areas with few people, no history of previous formal ownership, and open opportunity all around. Of course that ignores the fact that most new frontiers where already inhabited, and the locals where just not given the same respect the relatively powerful newcommers gave their own people. Also their really isn't much of a frontier any more. Even the wilds areas of Alaska and Canada, Siberia, the Amazon, the Himalayas, etc. aren't quite the same as what existed in the past. Antarctica might be closer but its a frozen wasteland. It may have some useful resources, but its not going to be "the new frontier". And space can't serve as a real new frontier for now. Only a few visit, at tremendous expense, for a short time, and usually with government direction or at least support.
Another way you can have that is by having ownership in large chunks, with those chunks owned by people who let you wander through and hunt and dish. That ownership can be by the government, but it can also be private. It can even be in smaller chunks if those who own the smaller chunks agree to allow visitors with few restrictions (no one, including the government, allows no restriction, for example you generally can't hunt in national parks)
A third way is to have laws like some northern European countries have, with a "right to roam", and general legal granting of extensive rights to visitors to sparsely populated backwaters. Of course that's an imposition on the owner of the land. |
