Humanity hasn't figured out how to completely eliminate pollution yet either. Allowing some pollution seems to be necessary for humans to flourish. Thus, for the time being, we tolerate some pollution until we can figure out how to eliminate it without causing greater harm to ourselves.
Likewise, libertarians seek to maximize liberty and minimize coercion. That doesn't mean we know how to eliminate use of force entirely. Some amount of force seems to be necessary to maximize liberty. For example, imprisoning murderers limits the murderer's liberty. But by imprisoning murderers, you maximize net liberty by preventing other people from being murdered.
Similarly, property rights in natural resources maximize liberty overall, even though they restrict the liberty of some. Without property rights, people with the biggest, most violent gang behind them would seize de facto ownership. There would be constant fighting for control, and many people would be killed.
By agreeing to some mechanism for defining property rights, acquiring property and peacefully transferring property, we can avoid such intercenine warfare and the loss of liberty (and other damage) that would result.
The key question, to my mind, is "What's the best we can currently do?" Imprisoning murders currently seems to be the best we can do. But if some technology came along (brain implants, say) such that we could allow murderers their freedom without significantly increasing the risk to others, then libertarians should advocate brain implants instead of prison.
Likewise, creating property rights in land is currently the best we can do to maximize liberty overall. Socialists, monarchists, fascists and other authoritarian ideologies don't offer any _better_ alternatives that I'm aware of. Their "solution" is to give up caring about other people's liberty altogether.
In response to this:
"Perhaps the most interesting thing about libertarian thought is that it has no way of coherently justifying the initial acquisition of property. How does something that was once unowned become owned without nonconsensually destroying others’ liberty? It is impossible. This means that libertarian systems of thought literally cannot get off the ground. They are stuck at time zero of hypothetical history with no way forward."
Likewise, libertarians seek to maximize liberty and minimize coercion. That doesn't mean we know how to eliminate use of force entirely. Some amount of force seems to be necessary to maximize liberty. For example, imprisoning murderers limits the murderer's liberty. But by imprisoning murderers, you maximize net liberty by preventing other people from being murdered.
Similarly, property rights in natural resources maximize liberty overall, even though they restrict the liberty of some. Without property rights, people with the biggest, most violent gang behind them would seize de facto ownership. There would be constant fighting for control, and many people would be killed.
By agreeing to some mechanism for defining property rights, acquiring property and peacefully transferring property, we can avoid such intercenine warfare and the loss of liberty (and other damage) that would result.
The key question, to my mind, is "What's the best we can currently do?" Imprisoning murders currently seems to be the best we can do. But if some technology came along (brain implants, say) such that we could allow murderers their freedom without significantly increasing the risk to others, then libertarians should advocate brain implants instead of prison.
Likewise, creating property rights in land is currently the best we can do to maximize liberty overall. Socialists, monarchists, fascists and other authoritarian ideologies don't offer any _better_ alternatives that I'm aware of. Their "solution" is to give up caring about other people's liberty altogether.
In response to this:
"Perhaps the most interesting thing about libertarian thought is that it has no way of coherently justifying the initial acquisition of property. How does something that was once unowned become owned without nonconsensually destroying others’ liberty? It is impossible. This means that libertarian systems of thought literally cannot get off the ground. They are stuck at time zero of hypothetical history with no way forward."