Attack libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosophy - see if you can do it

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

how do you deal with land? Homestead Principle? Geolibertarian/Georgism?

Under the homesteading principle, land becomes ethically embordered the first time a volitional agent objectively alters it to a defined extent (fencing, cultivating, building etc) such that others can recognize the boundary (as in, a boundary that cannot be intersubjectively ascertained does not actually help prevent conflict). This initial embordering does not grant ownership of unaffected surrounding areas, only the portion that has been integrated into purposeful use.
Geolibertarian or Georgist views try to keep land "common" and tax its "value", but that reintroduces aggression by asserting a collective claim against peaceful possessors. It treats productive use as a liability rather than a title criterion.
Libertarianism as I outlined it resolves it cleanly. Embordering is the act that makes conflict avoidable by defining control. Abandonment is to cease exclusion, reopening it to new appropriation. Taxation or rent extraction by non-users is a re-initiation of conflict.
In short, homesteading is about which ruleset prevents conflict without contradiction. Any scheme that overrides peaceful first use fails that test.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

you are again crossing from justification over to implementation. "Who decides?" and "who enforces?" are prudential/jurisprudential questions about how an ethical rule is applied, not whether the rule itself is valid. The topic of this thread is the latter, and the principle itself already answers the "who". Whoever resolves a conflict without initiating a conflict acts lawfully.

The two things are impossible to separate when you're arguing with an ideology which opposes the existence of governing bodies, because without government, systematized law doesn't exist. My argument would be that for a law to be justified, it must first be backed by the legitimacy of a higher authority, because otherwise, how does anyone know that they have to follow it? This isn't a question of implementation, it's a question of having a place where the buck stops, so everyone knows where they stand. It's as much a matter of principle as it is a matter of practice.

Now if you believe ethical legitimacy requires a single final decider, then make your point properly. For instance, show how that decider avoids the contradiction of being simultaneously bound by law and above the law. Otherwise, the principle of reciprocity stands as the only non-contradictory basis of law.

In a law-governed society, no one is above the law, there are merely some people who are elected to decide the laws, and others who are elected to enforce them. My argument is not that a law is made ethical by it's relationship to authority, but that authority is granted legitimacy by it's relationship to a codified set of laws which operate under a system of checks and balances. Whether a law is ethical is a separate question, and that is why we have a mutable political process.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

You're still treating finality as if it were validity. Why?

without government, systematized law doesn't exist

You are defining "law" as "commands issued by a monopolist", simply assuming or asserting the issue at hand. Under libertarian ethics, law is the set of universalizable, non-contradictory norms required by agency in a rivalrous world. Institutions can apply law, but they don't create the validity of law. If validity depends on who says it, then you have replaced law with will.

My argument would be that for a law to be justified, it must first be backed by the legitimacy of a higher authority

Higher than what? Justified by what?
If justified by itself ("sovereign will") that's circular. Will justifies will. Boils down to whim.
If justified by a norm (reciprocity/non-aggression) then the norm is prior to the authority and binding on the authority, which means authority is derivative, not constitutive. Either way, the regress stops at principle, not at a person or office.

This isn't a question of implementation, it's a question of having a place where the buck stops

Where the buck stops is a procedural question (who signs the award?), not a normative one (which side is in the right?). Libertarian ethics as I outlined answers the normative part universally (the initiator of conflict is in the wrong + defensive/restitutive force is right). Many procedures can instantiate that, none requires a universal exemption.

In a law-governed society, no one is above the law, there are merely some people who are elected to decide the laws, and others who are elected to enforce them.

That is a contradiction. If some people can decide what the law is, they stand above any existing law while deciding. And calling it "checks and balances" just distributes the exemption, it doesn't get rid of it. Your own "mutable political process" concedes that what counts as "law" changes by will (read: whim), precisely what you said distinguishes tyranny.

Either way, you claim that legitimacy requires a "higher authority", yet that authority is either bound by the same universal law (meaning that it isn't the source of legitimacy) or it's not bound (placing it above the norm). There's no in between or third option.
So either resolve the contradiction by giving a non-circular account of an authority that is both the final decider and not above the law it decides or concede that legitimacy rests on universal principle (reciprocity/non-aggression), with enforcement being a separate and contingent design choice (and definitely not a justification for a monopoly).
If you go with the resolve route, show the mechanism. If you go with the concession route, we're back inside the scope of the thread. Either identify a contradiction in the principle or cease this implementation detour.

If you reply, it will likely be one of the following common objections, all stuff I've heard before, so let me pre-emptively address them

• Social contract / consent of the governed
  Contract presupposes prior property and consent norms. If consent binds rulers, it means the principle is prior. If it doesn't, it's not consent but decree. Pick one
• Public interest / common good
  "Public interest" is either definable without violating reciprocity (the principle is prior) or it's an exemption (then it's whim). Define it without exemption or drop it
• Predictability needs a monopoly / one law
  Predictability is a coordination benefit, not a source of validity. Show why contradiction-free norms require an exemption, not why firms like uniform rules
• Private enforcers become warlords / highest bidder
  If buying force makes aggression legitimate, that's the state today (lobbying/regulatory capture). If it doesn't, then price doesn't override principle. Show the contradiction
• Without a final decider, disputes never end
  Ends are procedural, validity is logical. Give a non-circular reason why finality requires exemption from the norm, rather than multiple procedures tied to the same norm

 

[Smoltine Kiminal]

because without government, systematized law doesn't exist

this is a (false) claim without any merit behind it
proof it is false:
take the 10 commandments, they are gods laws, whatever the government has to say about it doesnt matter

In a law-governed society, no one is above the law

in a government-lawed society the government is above the law
proof:
the government makes the laws

 

[Meriasek]

I'll refute it as succinctly as possible: law without force is impotent; force without law is tyranny.

Lolbertarianism is tyranny in a way, the tyranny of the individual.

take the 10 commandments, they are gods laws, whatever the government has to say about it doesnt matter

That presumes the existence of God, and the main justification for that is that the same book that contains said laws also claims that it is the word of God. That's pretty circular.

in a government-lawed society the government is above the law
proof:
the government makes the laws

In an ideal democratic government, the government is a representative of the people, and only the legislative branch makes laws. They neither decide nor act on it, and they have to adhere said laws themselves.
In the real world, this of course is mottled by corruption and such. The government isn't very representative of the people, and there are ways to create laws without the processes that are supposed to ensure that those laws represent the will of the people.

The point of implementation was brought up earlier, and dismissed as not the point right now.
But it is the most important point. I've said it before, a utopian vision requiring nothing less but universal acceptance of a single set of ethics and morals is trivial. Oh, sure, you can yap on about how this particular set of ethics and morals is more internally consistent and totally the ontological best and whatnot. But it doesn't matter if it can't actually work outside fiction. It's not even material for good fiction if all conflict is precluded by everyone being perfect in the first place.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

You are defining "law" as "commands issued by a monopolist", simply assuming or asserting the issue at hand. Under libertarian ethics, law is the set of universalizable, non-contradictory norms required by agency in a rivalrous world. Institutions can apply law, but they don't create the validity of law. If validity depends on who says it, then you have replaced law with will.

Law is defined as a system of enforceable rules which are designed to regulate behavior and temper negative externalities. If they're not issued by an institution which has a monopoly on law, then they're not really enforceable, are they?

You keep getting hung up on this idea that the government is a "monopoly" (the implication being that this is somehow unnatural), but you appear completely incredulous to the fact that this is an emergent phenomenon which repeatedly and consistently arises across human cultures, from the very first human settlements and city states, all the way to the modern nation state. It always happens: one group or faction is always going to form a controlling government in a given territory, with perhaps the singular exemption of failed states which have broken down into a state of intractable conflict (see: Somalia 1991-2006).

The question which then arises is: would it be better if this inevitable government was regulated by law, or would it instead be preferable if it were left unregulated, and guided entirely by the arbitrary whims of those with power? This is the difference between liberty and tyranny, and I think it's important for you to understand which side your position places you on.

Higher than what? Justified by what?
If justified by itself ("sovereign will") that's circular. Will justifies will. Boils down to whim.
If justified by a norm (reciprocity/non-aggression) then the norm is prior to the authority and binding on the authority, which means authority is derivative, not constitutive. Either way, the regress stops at principle, not at a person or office.

How about: higher than the immediate personal interests of those making and enforcing the laws, for a start?

Ideally, laws should be grounded in sound ethical and legal principles, but perhaps we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves here, because it would appear that you're arguing against a position that I don't hold. To make myself a bit clearer, my argument would be that a law needing the backing of government is a necessary condition for justification; not necessarily a sufficient one. Bad laws can exist under any system, which is why there needs to be a mechanism for us to challenge them.

Under the system you advocate, what such mechanism exists? If the people making and enforcing the laws start acting with reckless disregard for the rights of other people, how can those people seek a redress for their grievances?

That is a contradiction. If some people can decide what the law is, they stand above any existing law while deciding. And calling it "checks and balances" just distributes the exemption, it doesn't get rid of it. Your own "mutable political process" concedes that what counts as "law" changes by will (read: whim), precisely what you said distinguishes tyranny.

But what you describe is not guided by whim, because changes in law are debated among legislators, assessed by the judiciary against established legal precedent, and challenged by the courts all the time. Under the system we have, people can seek a redress against bad laws, and there is a path to restitution for those who have been wronged by them.

Under the system you propose, you can't even tell me who decides the laws, who enforces them, or what binds the enforcers to the very laws which they are charged with upholding. If the motive to decide and enforce the law is directed by money (which I imagine it must be under an anarcho-capitalist system), then what justice could be expected for those without any money?

this is a (false) claim without any merit behind it
proof it is false:
take the 10 commandments, they are gods laws, whatever the government has to say about it doesnt matter

And how many of the 10 commandments are actually enforced? The ones which we still recognize have long since been subsumed into secular legal precedent, while the rest have become optional religious instructions for one sect of believers and completely irrelevant to everyone else.

in a government-lawed society the government is above the law
proof:
the government makes the laws

The legislative branch make the laws, the judiciary assesses their validity against established legal precedent, and the civil service and law enforcement are then tasked with implementing them. The "government" is not some monolithic entity where one faction have absolute power, unless you're describing a totalitarian regime, which no sane person is arguing for.

It is well advised that you shouldn't seek to make the perfect the enemy of the good, and while I wouldn't necessarily describe the governments we have in the West as particularly good, they're still a heck of a lot better than anarchy.

 

[Smoltine Kiminal]

That presumes the existence of God, and the main justification for that is that the same book that contains said laws also claims that it is the word of God. That's pretty circular.

it proves there exists a system of law that does not depend on government
people believe in it, if god exists or not doesnt matter for the argument

In an ideal democratic government, the government is a representative of the people

sounds pretty utopian to me, not like something that could ever exist in the real world
you would need a new human for that
the libertarian take is more realistic at keeping in line with human nature

they have to adhere said laws themselves

thats fine, they can just make laws that exempt them from following laws, so they adhere to the laws

a utopian vision requiring nothing less but universal acceptance of a single set of ethics and morals is trivial

getting all humans to agree that humans are faulty and as such should not have authority over others seems far more reasonable than getting all humans to stop being faulty and form the ideal government

And how many of the 10 commandments are actually enforced?

all of them, by god after you die, but thats not the argument
then of course there is sharia law which does include the 10 commandments as core values
it is enforced in many places of the world, including parts of western cities like london

The "government" is not some monolithic entity

lol, in your dreams

I wouldn't necessarily describe the governments we have in the West as particularly good, they're still a heck of a lot better than anarchy.

this is the dumbest shit i have read today
western governments forced people to inject literal poison that killed 2% of the injected, no anarchist would ever do that
the only argument against anarchy that has any merit is the "power vaccuum" one, and that just means that warlords could stop the anarchy
READ THIS AGAIN: THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH ANARCHY IS THAT IT CAN END
the warlord would have to be pretty horrible to just murder 1.3% of the population too, most warlords dont just murder innocents for fun

If the people making and enforcing the laws start acting with reckless disregard for the rights of other people, how can those people seek a redress for their grievances?

by forming a militia which in turn acts law upon the infractor, depending on gravity of the infraction but up to and including armed conflict
arms not being restricted under libertarianism means that the many have enough firepower to deal with criminals, unlike in a system with government, monopoly on violence and standing armies

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Lolbertarianism is tyranny in a way, the tyranny of the individual.

Calling individual autonomy "tyranny" renders the notion of "tyranny" meaningless. Tyranny is the unilateral subjugation of one agent's will to the will of another. A rule that forbids such subjugation is literally the negation of tyranny.

it doesn't matter if it can't actually work outside fiction.

This thread is about validity. Ethical truth is not falsified by disobedience. I reiterate: Murder does not become justified because murders happen. Theft does not become ethical because it's common. The question here is not "how many will comply?", but "what can be justified without contradiction?". Or, if compliance is so important to you, "what is worth complying with?".

In an ideal democratic government, the government is a representative of the people

Representation does not solve the problem I raised earlier. If law is valid because "the people" say so, then validity reduces to will (just aggregated/diffused will in this case). The same contradiction appears. A norm that depends on who issues it cannot be universal, and a law that isn't universal isn't law, but command.
You are free to argue that universal reciprocity is impossible in practice, but that's a sociological claim, not a refutation of the ethical principle. The principle itself stands or falls on logic, not polling data.

---

Law is defined as a system of enforceable rules which are designed to regulate behavior and temper negative externalities. If they're not issued by an institution which has a monopoly on law, then they're not really enforceable

That is a descriptive definition of positive law, aka rules backed by threat, whatever the content of the rules is. The topic at hand is normative law, aka the set of prescriptions that can be justified without contradiction. Enforcement does not create that, enforcement is only valid when derived from it. Calling every enforced rule "law" just turns "lawful" into "successful coercion".

one group or faction is always going to form a controlling government in a given territory

That is an assertion in the domain of sociology, not a justification in the domain of normativity. "It happens" does not mean "it ought to happen". Slavery, conquest, and censorship have been equally recurrent. Their frequency tells us nothing about their legitimacy.

would it be better if this inevitable government was regulated by law, or would it instead be preferable if it were left unregulated

That's a false dichotomy right there. The question is whether monopoly itself can be lawful. If a monopolist of force can rewrite the rules that bind everyone else, it's unregulated by definition, the exemption is the absence of law.

a law needing the backing of government is a necessary condition for justification

You've turned dependence on its head. Government can't justify law, only law can justify government (if its acts conform to universal norms). When they don't, government "backing" adds power, not legitimacy.

Under the system you advocate, what [mechanism to challenge bad law] exists?

The same mechanism underlying any claim of justice, reciprocity. If an arbiter/enforcer violates property/consent, the victim and third parties can withhold cooperation, contract elsewhere, or retaliate within the same norm of proportional restitution. It's competitive accountability. No actor in the universe enjoys immunity by office or title.

Under the system we have, people can seek a redress against bad laws, and there is a path to restitution for those who have been wronged by them.

Null would like to have a word with you. Regardless, even if your assertion were 1000% true, it remains the case that those procedures only work when they happen to align with the underlying principle. The moment the state exempts itself (war, taxation, regulation etc) they fail. A process that sometimes honors a norm and sometimes override it cannot be the source of the norm's validity.

If the motive to decide and enforce the law is directed by money (which I imagine it must be under an anarcho-capitalist system), then what justice could be expected for those without any money?

Justice has cost under any system. The difference is who pays involuntarily. In a monopoly, everyone is forced to fund both defense and aggression. In a voluntary system, only the users of a service fund it. The ethical question is coercion, rather than distribution. Redistribution by force is not "justice", it's pre-judged aggression.

you shouldn't seek to make the perfect the enemy of the good, and while I wouldn't necessarily describe the governments we have in the West as particularly good, they're still a heck of a lot better than anarchy.

I wish I could uniterally threadban everything that distracts from the topic of normativity. See, you used the word "better", thus presuming a standard of good, which happens to be the topic at hand. If a rule violates that standard, then calling it "better" because it persists just makes you a moral relativist pretending to be a pragmatist. I'm positing that libertarianism is the good and seeking evidence to the contrary, you're here to excuse contradictions of libertarianism.

Either way, show how a monopolist of law can be bound by the same law it dictates (without circularity) or accept that justification precedes enforcement and that ethical law is principle, not decree.

---

@Smoltine Kiminal I appreciate the support, but I'd like you too to maintain the topic of normativity. You mentioned the Ten Commandments as a source of law that doesn't come from the state, but the point I made (law != state) stands on universality/reciprocity. Epidemiology and policy outcomes are empirical debates, not ethical justification. Militia/armed conflict hypotheticals too are regarding implementation.
The open challenge, the singular purpose of this thread, is to show a contradiction in the framework of reciprocity/non-aggression/first-use-and-consent. And so far pretty much every single objection has been about compliance, but not about validity.

---

It irks me that I have to reiterate this point regarding normativity again and again. Thus I posit an analogy to explain it better.
Let's take arithmetic. (Before anyone says "so you're claiming ethics = math", the point of this analogy is to show the independence of objective truth from decree, preference, word games, and ignorance)
Behold the proposition 2 * 3 = 6.
"But 2 * 3 = 5 because the government/greater good/will of the people/my God says so" - Authority does not create truth.
"That's naive and idealistic. 2 * 3 ought to be 7." - Preference does not refute truth. Desire is not the same thing as justification.
"In my language, '2' means 'serpent', '*' means 'sphincter', and '3' means 'breath', and 'serpent sphincter breath is obviously not 7'" - A redefinition dodges the proposition. Word games are not a refutation.
"But toddlers don't know math" - Ignorance does not negate truth. The fact that some people are ignorant or noncompliant is not a proof of invalidity.
"2 * 3 = 6" is the only objectively correct alternative that corresponds to reality. Every alternative result leads to contradiction.

Likewise for ethics. The principle of reciprocity/non-aggression/first-use and consent is the only non-contradictory set of volitional action norms that corresponds to reality. If you think this proposition is false, show the contradiction.
If your objection is decree ("because the state"), preference ("I want X"), redefinition ("I'll rename law"), or ignorance/compliance ("people won't follow it"), that is outside of the domain of justification and has nothing to say about validity.

 

[Smoltine Kiminal]

@Smoltine Kiminal I appreciate the support

im not supporting you, im just calling out stupid when i see stupid

And so far pretty much every single objection has been about compliance, but not about validity.

you simply ignored my valid objection to your extremely restrictive anglo-american concept of what constitutes a valid contract, which was historically used to justify scamming, extortion, imprisonment and murder of native populations
by systematically denying the possibility of commons, which belong to everyone and can be used as such, as you established earlier, you defend the robbery of ancestral lands because you follow a different culture
for your framework to be of universal validity you need to respect ALL peaceful and voluntary (which are objective standards) forms of associations and societal organization, not just those that fit subjective cultural standards, otherwise you are in violation of the NAP

furthermore your libertarianism will, even if established on virgin ground and with a moral population, quickly degrade into feudalism, as this is the only way for a common area to exist in the form of crown land.
this is because societies all around the world during all times have shown that human cultures need a common area for interaction similar to the greek polis, and that they desire to keep the forests and nature freely available.

"But 2 * 3 = 5 because my God says so" - Authority does not create truth.

god created the 10 commandments to form an objective law that stops conflict from occurring
these are not senseless rules created because "someone said so", they dont derive their validity from authority
god created them BECAUSE they are true, they set a perfectly logical groundwork for human societal organization
the 10 commandments are very similar to the NAP in that regards, in fact the NAP is a part of the 10 commandments

maybe this becomes more obvious to you when i say government & manmade laws are false idols

 

[BestUserName]

What about Classical Liberalism?

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

by systematically denying the possibility of commons, which belong to everyone and can be used as such, as you established earlier, you defend the robbery of ancestral lands because you follow a different culture

This point on "commons" and voluntary association is worth clarifying.
Under the framework I outlined, any peaceful and voluntary arrangement is valid if and only if it does not contradict the non-aggression/first-use principle. A group of people can absolutely pool property and treat it as a commons provided that every participant originally consented and retains the right of exit. The ethical boundary is not set by cultural preferences, but by consent and exclusion. A conflict arises the moment someone outside the group is coerced into or barred from using what was never his.
Historical injustices and cultural preferences are descriptive matters. Ethics asks only which present claims can be justified without contradiction. If a communal system satisfies reciprocity and voluntary participation, it's as legitimate as any private holding. What's ruled out is not "commons per se", but unowned yet exclusionary resources (places where no one bears the cost, but outsiders are barred). That's where conflict begins.
So the framework I outlined already allows the type of voluntary tribe or commons you're describing, so long as its boundaries are defined by consent rather than by decree.

---

What about Classical Liberalism?

Historically, classical liberalism is the halfway point between libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism and statism. I consider classical liberalism obsoleted by libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism, because libertarianism fixes the contradiction at the heart of classical liberalism.
By that I mean that classical liberalism holds that individuals own themselves and may acquire property through voluntary exchange (so far, so good), but then exempts a special actor (the state) from that ethic in order to "protect rights".
This exemption creates a contradiction at the ontological level. If aggression is wrong because it violates an agent's control over their body and property, no actor can be granted a license to perform that aggression "for good". To claim otherwise is to assert that a being can both be bound and not-bound by the same norm, which directly violates the law of identity.
So, in retrospect, classical liberalism borrowed libertarian premises, but denied their universality. An ethic that applies only until it's inconvenient is not an ethic, but a mere policy preference. Consistency demands either extending the principle to all actors (anarcho-capitalism) or abandoning it entirely (statism). There is no stable middle ground.

 

[Skitarii]

Randian/Austrian hypercapitalism does eventually lead to loss of buying power, but go off queen.

 

[agent_donkey]

This thread is about validity.

> "This thread has nothing to do with reality. We are here to circlejerk."
Right.

 

[Smoltine Kiminal]

So the framework I outlined already allows the type of voluntary tribe or commons you're describing, so long as its boundaries are defined by consent rather than by decree.

and provided all of it is documented in a contract valid under british law, preferably written in english, but other european languages are also acceptable, but no niggerbabble!
but no other contract could ever be valid anyways, because savages dont have "culture", their way of life does not count because their customs are merely coincidental, like those of animals (this is what real american libertarians truly believe)

provided that every participant originally consented and retains the right of exit

why is the right of exit of necessity? seems like your cultural preference to me

A conflict arises the moment someone outside the group is coerced into or barred from using what was never his.

what about the question of oceans?
does the first one who installs some rope between buoys just own the ocean? so he gets to charge tolls for every passing ship?
gets to fish all the fish, or license out fishing rights?
that seems like the logical consequence, but also utterly dumb

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

why is the right of exit of necessity? seems like your cultural preference to me

It follows from the same axiom as property itself. If a person cannot leave a group that claims to act by consent, then there is no more consent, only captivity. A voluntary collective without a right of exit is a contradiction in terms ("voluntary" while forbidding dissent). So the right of exit is not a preference, but logically entailed by non-aggression.
I honestly have no idea why you're trying to bring cultures into the mix. For instance, the other thing you attributed to "real american libertarians" is completely irrelevant and contributes nothing. I have pre-emptively pointed this out in the OP. The norms derived here apply to all volitional agents, regardless of ancestry, skin color, or tribe. That is, logic isn't localized. Or do I need to show how polylogism (the notion that there are multiple different logics) is contradictory?

what about the question of oceans?

Homesteading applies only to rivalrous use, not to an unpossessed expanse. Accordingly, placing buoys across an unused sea only creates ownership of the occupied zone, not ownership over the ocean itself.
Exclusive rights expand only through demonstrated, continuous, and bounded use. That means anyone else may traverse or fish outside that used space. That prevents both enclosure of the whole ocean and conflict over overlapping claims. It's the same conflict-avoidance logic that grounds property on land.

 

[Smoltine Kiminal]

A voluntary collective without a right of exit

oh, i thought this would be about having a pay-out for your share of the common land if you leave, or take your share of it back into private property
forbidding someone from leaving is obviously captivity

placing buoys across an unused sea only creates ownership of the occupied zone, not ownership over the ocean itself.

yea and you can create borders that way, and if you allow passage in a zigzag by not claiming it so that the zigzag is 100 times longer than the normal way you can take tolls for ocean passage

I honestly have no idea why you're trying to bring cultures into the mix.

earlier you denied native american claims to america because their contracts are not written down like english contracts

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

oh, i thought this would be about having a pay-out for your share of the common land if you leave, or take your share of it back into private property

Exactly, that is one way to exercise the right of exit.
How a commons handles that depends on its internal contract. Not hard to imagine members agreeing that departure triggers sale, payout, or physical division. What matters ethically is that no one is held in the arrangement against their will. But whether a share converts to money or soil is procedural, not normative.

if you allow passage in a zigzag by not claiming it so that the zigzag is 100 times longer than the normal way you can take tolls for ocean passage

You could, if and only if others consent to use that route in knowledge of the toll.
However, if the zigzag blocks another agent's already-established, non-conflicted use or passage, that is aggression, because it imposes a new conflict where none existed. (disclaimer: just "potential" or "imagined" routes don't count. There is no claim coming from unexercised possibilities). Property boundaries must be bounded and knowable, but they can't be drawn so as to create conflict that didn't exist before. That's the limiting principle that distinguishes legitimate embordering from predatory enclosure.

earlier you denied native american claims to america because their contracts are not written down like english contracts

Huh???
Are you talking about this?

If a living claimant (or their clear heirs/assignee) can show a specific dispossession of this parcel, then restitution is due. A practical remedy could be restoring the land title or equivalent value. The worker's improvements (his labors) remain his property and must be compensated if kept or removable if feasible. But in the absence of a specific, provable claim, the worker's peaceful title stands.

If so, let me clarify. What I said is that restitution is due wherever a specific dispossession can be shown. The written form is irrelevant, what matters is the chain of consensual transfer and identifiable claimants.
That is, where no identifiable claimant remains, title is established by new peaceful use. And in no way does "claim" reduce to "written contract", for a claim can also be spoken, carved, or remembered, so long as it's knowable to others and not contradicted by rival evidence. That is, the language or paperwork is irrelevant. Which also raises an important question for you.
If you reject the rule that unreclaimable property reverts to peaceful use, what principle do you propose for property stolen from people who are now unidentified and unidentifiable?
Do you hold that all current possessors inherit guilt forever?
And if not, where is the logical stop of restitution, and by what non-arbitrary standard?
Every alternative I've seen collapses into either perpetual aggression (endless expropriation in the name of someone who can't be identified) or an arbitrary cut-off (a date chosen by decree, rather than by principle). If you know of a third option that avoids both, I invite you to state it explicitly

 

[Smoltine Kiminal]

You could, if and only if others consent to use that route in knowledge of the toll.

as long as the toll is less than the cost of time and additional fuel, the magic hand of the market will guide the tolls into my pocket

Are you talking about this?

yes

so long as it's knowable to others and not contradicted by rival evidence. That is, the language or paperwork is irrelevant.

in that case all of north america belongs to native americans

Do you hold that all current possessors inherit guilt forever?

i think i gave an example already that i do not believe the guilt lives on forever, with the man that brought land from the government with money he fairly earned, hes neither a proponent nor a profiteer of the crimes

the indians had their land stolen by the government, while the worker had the fruits of his work, so effectively his time, stolen by the government

where is the logical stop of restitution, and by what non-arbitrary standard?

this purchase by a non-profiteer results in a situation where there can me multiple valid claims to a property at the same time, which comes with its own problems
of course ideally the criminal who stole the land would owe either party, and those parties decide who receives what
in praxis this doesnt work, because everything the government owns is stolen, thus the government can never really make a payout, and both legitimate claimants can not be guaranteed to find a solution
im not sure there is a non-arbitrary solution to this problem, maybe flipping a coin or sharing would be fairest, but that again comes with its own problems

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

as long as the toll is less than the cost of time and additional fuel, the magic hand of the market will guide the tolls into my pocket

All you gotta keep in mind is that this scheme only works if travelers choose to pay because it's cheaper than making a detour. And that it still fails if the route was created by blocking a previously free passage. That is, the invisible hand (right in time for spooky October!) does not justify enclosure by ambush.
In generalized terms: Profit earned by creating value is legitimate, profit earned by imposing new conflict is not.

in that case all of north america belongs to native americans

Restitution applies only where a specific area of land can be tied to an identifiable claimant or heir.
And as I said earlier, where such identification is impossible (where no one can show who was dispossessed or who inherits the claim) the title reverts to the party maintaining peaceful use. The alternative would be overlapping claims and perpetual conflict. The boundary of ethics is where identification stops, decided not by decree, but by logic. A right that cannot be located in persons or facts cannot be exercised without committing new aggression.

this purchase by a non-profiteer results in a situation where there can me multiple valid claims to a property at the same time, which comes with its own problems

Which is exactly why libertarian ethics as I outlined it ontologically defines ownership as the exclusive control over rivalrous goods, because conflict over one space cannot have two simultaneously valid divergent resolutions. And when multiple claimants arise, the only consistent test is temporal and evidential priority. That is: Who first established control by non-aggressive use? Who can prove it?
Any "sharing" scheme that forces others to accept incompatible use just re-creates conflict.

The example you bring up, of indigenous lands being stolen by the colonies, is one of the clearest violations of libertarian ethics ever committed. And when living descendants or documented heirs can show a specific, continuous lineage to a dispossessed claim (like I said earlier, it doesn't need to be some sort of British contract) resolution is owed on ethical grounds (return land or compensate value). The only problem exists when records and witnesses are gone and identification is impossible. And in that case, peaceful present possession stands as the least-conflict alternative.
Perpetual collective guilt is incoherent (a wrong without identifiable parties cannot be rectified without creating new victims). Thus, the person who uses libertarian ethics condemns both the original conquest and endless expropriation in the name of the conquest. The correct normative boundary is factual traceability. In a nutshell: restore what can be shown, respect what cannot. Justice must end where knowledge ends, or else there cannot be any peace at all.

 

[Smoltine Kiminal]

specific area of land can be tied to an identifiable claimant or heir.

i think the areas that belonged to each tribe are documented, some of those tribes still exists in reservations, others where of course genocided - their closest relatives will be some other tribe
due to the nature of their tribal organization of ownership all the land is common tribal land (here we get into the understanding of contracts in different cultures again), thus each living descendant of the tribe as a claim to that land, how they divide it between each other is their business

Who first established control by non-aggressive use? Who can prove it?
Any "sharing" scheme that forces others to accept incompatible use just re-creates conflict.

but this also causes conflict, the indians can prove they first established ownership, but the worker would lose his home and in old age would starve in the streets
the worker is free from guilt and does need the home more than the indians, and on a level that is necessary for his survival at that, but the indians have the valid claim
this is guaranteed to cause conflict