This hypothetical is pretty obviously situated in a framework where liberal proprety rights have been the established norm for centuries though. Not in a Native American village ca. 1800 where "communal property" has likewise been the established norm for centuries, and thus not everything just goes.
Also, to add to your point about collective ownership, this is especially true of cultures which not only had a communal sense of property but in addition considered non-human animals as ‘members’ of the community with their own subgroup property rights in contrast to either being communal property or individual property.
For instance, stretches of rain forests left alone for millennia for Bengal tigers. I don’t know if the current govt. protected and restricted borders for the rainforests is the most efficient idea but it seems quite harsh to merely say the land is just unclaimed and was free to be ****ed with as no other individual has a property deed over it.
On a broader level, animal rights are an issue I have never been able to reconcile with libertarianism and everything i’ve read on the topic seems to lean towards 1) Shapirosque divine exceptionality of human beings arguments or 2) cold blooded
top of the food chain baby arguments, both of which are too conveniently human centric and neither of which seem especially convincing to me.
Genuinely interested on what Cribb’s thoughts are on it.
Tbf, Animal rights are an issue that I have always struggled to personally rationalise in a ‘fair’ way, consistent with my other beliefs, without drawing arbitrary lines. It’s an issue I want to read more on it outside of an either libertarian or anti-natalist/vegan perspective.
