Show notes
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 426.
Related:
On "Unowned" State Property, Legal Positivism, Ownership vs. Possession, Immigration, Public Roads, and the Bum in the Library
Adam Haman and Matt Sands on Immigration, Property Rights, and Hostile Encirclement
Libertarian Answer Man: Homesteading Donuts, Hostile Encirclement, and Prostitution as Selling One’s Body
A Tour Through Walter Block’s Oeuvre
See: Collectively Homesteaded Easements and the Enclosure Movement
Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project, which aims to promote the Non-Aggression Principle as a universal peace agreement, and I discussed various issues including: immigration and open borders, and so on.
(See previous episode with Matthew, KOL372 | Discussing Contract Theory, Restitution, Punishment, with Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity and KOL362 | California Gold #6, with Matt Sands: Defining Libertarianism, Anarchism and Voluntaryism.)
https://youtu.be/zXKxc8QxqKo
Related links:
Switzerland, Immigration, Hoppe, Raico, Callahan
A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders, LewRockwell.com, September 1, 2005
Van Dun on Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement
Libertarian Answer Man: Homesteading Donuts, Hostile Encirclement, and Prostitution as Selling One’s Body
From Grok:
Here are the updated show notes for the podcast episode at https://stephankinsella.com/as_paf_podcast/kol426-immigration-homesteading-donuts-sands/, incorporating additional details about the discussion on forestalling and hostile encirclement, as informed by the provided posts and the YouTube transcript:
Show Notes: KOL426 | Immigration, Homesteading, Donuts, SandsIn this episode of the Stephan Kinsella on Liberty podcast, libertarian legal theorist Stephan Kinsella engages in a detailed, two-hour discussion with Matthew Sands, who runs the Nations of Sanity project, focusing on libertarian principles surrounding property rights, homesteading, immigration, and the contentious concepts of forestalling and hostile encirclement. The conversation delves into the nuances of libertarian philosophy, particularly self-ownership, the non-aggression principle (NAP), and their application to practical issues like borders, access to unowned resources, and the theoretical "donut homesteading" scenario.Introduction and Background
Matthew Sands introduces his Nations of Sanity project, which is grounded in defining law and crime through individual self-ownership as a basis for peaceful agreements.
The discussion originates from a debate about immigration and borders, evolving into a broader exploration of property rights, specifically addressing the "donut homesteading" scenario—where a property owner surrounds an unowned or owned piece of land, potentially restricting access to it—and the related concepts of forestalling and hostile encirclement.
Immigration and Libertarian Principles
Kinsella outlines the libertarian immigration debate, noting the traditional "open borders" stance among some libertarians, who argue that the state, being illegitimate, has no right to restrict movement. However, he highlights a shift in the 1990s and 2000s, led by figures like Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Murray Rothbard, who questioned open borders due to practical and cultural concerns, such as welfare state externalities and forced integration.
Kinsella clarifies he is not anti-immigration but argues that denying outsiders access to public roads—legally controlled by the government but rightfully owned by taxpayers—does not inherently violate their rights. Sands counters that while property owners can exclude others from their land, actively preventing access to unowned resources (e.g., wilderness areas like the Grand Canyon) through measures like border walls constitutes a violation of libertarian principles.
Donut Homesteading, Forestalling, and Hostile Encirclement
The "donut homesteading" scenario, inspired by Walter Block’s “Blockean Proviso” and Frank Van Dun’s work, becomes a central point of contention. Sands argues that enclosing someone’s property or unowned land, thereby imprisoning them or denying access, violates the NAP. He distinguishes between not facilitating access (e.g., denying road use) and actively blocking it (e.g., building a wall or completing a donut-shaped property to encircle another).
Kinsella references Frank Van Dun’s 2009 article, “Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement,” which critiques the idea that property rights allow one to prevent others from accessing unowned resources through encirclement. Van Dun argues that such actions could be seen as initiating force by restricting others’ freedom to act, aligning with Sands’ perspective on the NAP violation.
Walter Block’s “Blockean Proviso” (discussed in Kinsella’s 2007 post and 2024 Libertarian Answer Man article) posits that libertarianism abhors unowned property, suggesting that preventing access to unowned resources (forestalling) via a donut-shaped homestead could be problematic. However, Kinsella challenges this, arguing that forestalling does not inherently violate rights, as property owners are entitled to control their land without a positive obligation to facilitate others’ access.
Kinsella dismisses the donut scenario as an unrealistic hypothetical, akin to left-leaning concerns about monopolies. He cites civil law solutions, such as granting easements to enclosed estates, as practical resolutions that align with libertarian goals of minimizing conflict. These solutions, detailed in his 2024 post on Block’s oeuvre, reflect historical legal practices where enclosed property owners gain a right of way if encirclement occurs through no fault of their own.
Sands emphasizes that the violation occurs when the final property owner closes the “C-shaped” gap, effectively imprisoning someone or blocking access to unowned land. He argues this act of hostile encirclement—actively preventing access rather than passively refusing to facilitate it—crosses a libertarian line. Kinsella acknowledges the reasonableness of rights of way in private law contexts but cautions against directly applying these to national borders, given the differing contexts of citizenship and state-controlled property.
Practical and Theoretical Implications
Both agree that the ultimate libertarian solution is a stateless society where private property reigns, eliminating immigration as a political issue. Sands stresses that libertarian solutions, like denying immigrants access to welfare and public services, are preferable to anti-libertarian measures like border walls. Kinsella suggests a compromise inspired by Hoppe: allowing immigration with sponsorship to mitigate welfare state issues, which Sands acknowledges as an improvement but not fully libertarian.
The discussion on forestalling and hostile encirclement ties back to immigration, with Sands arguing that building a national border wall is analogous to closing the donut, actively preventing access to unowned resources and violating libertarian principles. Kinsella maintains that denying access to state-controlled roads does not violate outsiders’ rights, as they lack ownership claims, but he concedes that violently blocking access to unowned land (e.g., via military force) would be problematic.
Conclusion
The conversation concludes with mutual appreciation for the exchange, recognizing the complexity of applying libertarian principles to real-world problems. They agree that while edge cases like donut homesteading, forestalling, and hostile encirclement highlight theoretical principles, the focus should be on moving toward a freer, stateless society. Sands plugs his Nations of Sanity project, and both express interest in future discussions to further explore these ideas.
Resources Mentioned
Nations of Sanity project (Matthew Sands)
Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s work on immigration
Walter Block’s “Blockean Proviso” (Kinsella’s 2007 post: https://stephankinsella.com/2007/09/the-blockean-proviso/)
Frank Van Dun’s “Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement” (Kinsella’s 2009 post: https://stephankinsella.com/2009/08/van-dun-on-freedom-versus-property-and-hostile-encirclement/)
Kinsella’s “Libertarian Answer Man: Homesteading, Donuts, Prostitution” (2024: https://stephankinsella.com/2024/03/libertarian-answer-man-homesteading-donuts-prostitution/)
Kinsella’s “A Tour Through Walter Block’s Oeuvre” (2024: https://stephankinsella.com/2024/05/a-tour-through-walter-blocks-oeuvre/)
These updated show notes integrate the additional details from the provided posts and transcript, particularly emphasizing the discussion on forestalling and hostile encirclement, while maintaining the structure and key points of the original notes. The added content clarifies the theoretical underpinnings from Van Dun and Block, and elaborates on the debate over whether encirclement violates the NAP, connecting it to both the donut scenario and immigration policy.
GROK CLEANED UP TRANSCRIPT FROM YOUTUBE:
Intro
Stephan Kinsella (0:04): Okay, I'm starting this recording now. This is another episode, I think, of the podcast, and we have a recurring or return guest, Matthew Sands. We've been talking offline about some issues, and we decided to just hash them out here. I think we're talking about homesteading and blocking homesteading, and those kinds of issues. Is that right?
Matt Sands (0:36): Yeah, primarily. Why don't you go ahead and introduce yourself and what you think this talk should be about?
Matt Sands (0:43): Okay, my name is Matthew Sands. I have a project called the Nations of Sanity Project, which is built on the assertion that crime, and therefore also law, can and should be defined by the concept of individual self-ownership and established as the terms of a peace agreement....
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
Stay Connected
