Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl



2019 | 16 | 60 | 34-51

Article title

Must Right-Libertarians Embrace Easements by Necessity?


Title variants

Languages of publication



The present paper investigates the question of whether right-libertarians must accept easements by necessity. Since easements by necessity limit the property rights of the owner of the servient tenement, they apparently conflict with the libertarian homestead principle, according to which the person who first mixes his labor with the unowned land acquires absolute ownership thereof. As we demonstrate in the paper, however, the homestead principle understood in such an absolutist way generates contradictions within the set of rights distributed on its basis. In order to avoid such contradictions, easements by necessity must be incorporated into the libertarian theory of property rights and the homestead principle must be truncated accordingly.









Physical description




  • Faculty of Political Science and International Studies Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun


  • Barnett R.E. (2004), The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, Oxford University Press, New York.
  • Block W.E. (2004), “Libertarianism, Positive Obligations and Property Abandonment: Children’s Rights,” International Journal of Social Economics 31 (3): 275–286. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290410518256
  • Block W.E. (2010a), “Objections to the Libertarian Stem Cell Compromise,” Libertarian Papers 2 (Art. 34): 1–12.
  • Block W.E. (2010b), “Van Dun on Freedom and Property: A Critique,” Libertarian Papers 2 (Art. 4): 1–11.
  • Block W.E., Nelson P.L. (2015), Water Capitalism: The Case for Privatizing Oceans, Rivers, Lakes, and Aquifers, Lexington Books, New York (Kindle Edition).
  • Block W.E. (2016), “Forestalling, Positive Obligations and the Lockean and Blockian Provisos: Rejoinder to Stephan Kinsella,” Ekonomia–Wroclaw Economic Review 22 (3): 27–41.
  • Cohen G.A. (1995), Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality, Cambridge University Press, New York. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511521270
  • Cunliffe J. (2000), Introduction. Left-Libertarianism – Historical Origins, [in:] The Origins of Left-Libertarianism: An Anthology of Historical Writings, P. Vallentyne, H. Steiner (eds), Palgrave, New York: 1–19.
  • Dominiak Ł. (2017), “The Blockian Proviso and the Rationality of Property Rights,” Libertarian Papers 9 (1): 114–129.
  • Dominiak Ł. (2018), “Libertarianism, Freedom and the Problem of Circularity,” Athenaeum: Polish Political Science Studies 59: 7–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15804/athena.2018.59.01
  • Feinberg J. (1973), Social Philosophy, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
  • Hearn W.E. (1883), The Theory of Legal Duties and Rights: An Introduction to Analytical Jurisprudence, John Ferres, Melbourne.
  • Hohfeld W.N. (1913), “Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning,” Yale Law Journal 23 (1): 16–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/785533
  • Hoppe H.-H. (2006), Economics and Ethics of Private Property, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn.
  • Hoppe H.-H. (2012), The Great Fiction: Property, Economy, Society, and the Politics of Decline, Laissez Faire Books, Baltimore.
  • Kinsella S. (2007), “The Blockian Proviso,” Mises Wire, September 11, URL = https://mises.org/blog/blockean-proviso [Accessed 24.08.2018].
  • Kinsella S. (2008), Against Intellectual Property, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn.
  • Kinsella S. (2009), What Libertarianism Is, [in:] Property, Freedom, & Society, J.G. Hülsmann, S. Kinsella (eds), Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn: 179–196.
  • Kramer M.H. (2002), Rights Without Trimmings, [in:] M.H. Kramer, N.E. Simmonds, H. Steiner, A Debate Over Rights: Philosophical Enquires, Oxford University Press, New York: 7–111.
  • Kramer M.H. (2006), “Moral Rights and the Limits of the Ought-Implies-Can Principle: Why Impeccable Precautions are No Excuse,” Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 48 (4): 307–355. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00201750510022844
  • Mack E. (2010), “The Natural Right of Property,” Social Philosophy and Policy 27 (1): 53–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052509990033
  • Merrill Th.W. (2015), Ownership and Possession, [in:] Law and Economics of Possession, Yun-Chien Chang (ed), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 9–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316017814.002
  • Nozick R. (2014), Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Blackwell Publishing, Malden.
  • Rainbolt G.W. (2006), The Concept of Rights, Springer, Dordrecht.
  • Rothbard M. (1974), Justice and Property Rights, [in:] Property in a Humane Economy, S.L. Blumenfeld (ed), Open Court, LaSalle: 101–122.
  • Rothbard M. (2002), The Ethics of Liberty, New York University Press, New York.
  • Rothbard M. (2011), For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn.
  • Sinnott-Armstrong W. (1985), “A Solution to Forrester’s Paradox of Gentle Murder,” The Journal of Philosophy 82 (3): 162–168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2026353
  • Steiner H. (1994), An Essay on Rights, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
  • Vallentyne P. (2000), Introduction: Left-Libertarianism – A Primer, [in:] Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate, P. Vallentyne, H. Steiner (eds), Palgrave, New York: 1–20.
  • van Dun F. (2009), Freedom and Property: Where They Conflict, [in:] Property, Freedom, & Society, J.G. Hülsmann, S. Kinsella (eds), Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn: 223–234.
  • von Savigny F.C. (1979), Treatise on Possession; or, the Jus Possessionis of the Civil Law, Hyperion Press, Westport.
  • Wertheimer A. (1989), Coercion, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
  • Williams G. (1956), “The Concept of Legal Liberty,” Columbia Law Review 56 (8): 1129–1150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1119777

Document Type

Publication order reference


ISSN 1733-5566

YADDA identifier

JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.