The purpose of this paper is to explore absolute property rights within the realm of ownership and action. Many individuals speak about libertarian property rights as being absolute, but it has been my experience that when taken to the extreme many advocates turn against their original stance and argue for some form of relative property rights. Let me pose a scenario so that the reader knows what I mean. If I ask a libertarian should we be allowed to murder someone who trespasses on their property, I will likely be met with the answer no. The reason for this will depend on the sophistication of the individual, but their arguments normally amount to something of the nature of, 

"Your rights end where another's rights begin" 
"The punishment does not fit the crime, i.e. it is not proportional"
 "Said actions are themselves a crime because..."    
"The criminal loses his rights to the extent that he deprives another of his rights"
"Murder is only justified when..."

 
Although I sympathize with each of the objections listed above and would agree that trespassing, alone, does not merit the taking of another's life. We must, at least, note that said restrictions are limitations built in to our property rights. We would have to say, at the very least, that someones rights to property are relative, not absolute. If someone disagrees with this than they must prove that such underpinnings are not limitations at all. They must show that in cases like murder as punishment for trespassing is not within the limits of someones property decision. 

Shaffer Argues that,

"All property rights are absolute: some person or persons must exercise ultimate control over things to be owned. The only question relates to the identity of such parties, an inquiry that was as relevant on the early American frontier as it was in the Soviet Union. If we were to identify all of the persons entitled to exercise some degree of control over a given parcel or item of property, and if the interests of all those persons could be purchased by one person, that buyer would, by definition, be entitled to do anything regarding that property, including destroying it, because there would be no other party entitled to exercise control over it.... Every property is, by definition, subject to the absolute and unrestricted control of someone. This is what is implicit in a “claim of ownership.” Of course, this absolute authority need not be in just one person. An owner might convey his or her ownership interest to a husband and wife, or business partners who, as new owners, would then exercise joint control over some item of property. But the point is that some person— or persons—must have the final word regarding what is to be done with any given property interest. This is why the ultimate test of ownership comes down to the question: who can decide, without having to get the permission of another, to destroy this property?"

In the scenario we outlined above, who owns the right to fire the bullet?

Let us pause for a second and readjust our scenario. Let us remove the individual who is shot and ask if the property owner may shoot his gun in his direction of choosing. If no, why?

One particular reason may reside in some form of community ordinance that doesn't allow guns or loud noise within the community. In such an event, the property owner relinquished his rights to fire his gun once he choose to reside in the community. In such a scenario the right to fire guns was not sold (rented) to the individual purchaser of the property. The property owner legitimately knew upon choosing to reside in this particular community what limitations were placed upon their property. There is no conflict regarding this situation.

Another reason for not allowing someone to fire their gun may include the owners home insurance policy on gun ownership and discharge. It may be possible that an individuals home insurance does not allow the homeowner own guns for whatever reason they note (It may be that their statistical evidence points to home owners who own guns are more likely to be sued or more likely to use lethal force instead of resolving minor disputes, thus causing property damage). Although such a policy is hard to imagine, the scenario is mean to serve as a description only.A more likely example would be a insurance company who does not allow candles or the storage of flammable objects. Either way, in such a scenario the property owner agrees to relinquish their rights to own and discharge guns by agreeing to employee their insurance agency.

Banks whom the property was financed though may have their own stipulations about guns. In such a case, the property owner is agreeing to forfeit some of their rights by financing through this particular institution.   

All of the above situations are legitimate reasons for restricting someones rights to their property. However, what if none of these cases apply to our property owner. How is it that one might argue for restricting someones rights to shoot a trespasser? 

Just like the examples above, it may be that the property owners private protection agency limits the use of capital punishment to strict requirements; for example, to use capital punishment you must be able to prove that you were in immediate danger. The need for such a clause may be to limit external conflicts between competing private protection agencies. In such a situation, if the property owner violates the clause set forth by their protection agency, the protection agency may  refuse future services and the property owner may be left alone when dealing with the third party protection agency (or private court) of the now dead trespasser. Again, in such a scenario the property owner is expected restrict their rights to property in exchange for the protection offered by private protection firms. 

However, if there is no third party contract for the rights to shoot a trespasser where would such restrictions reside?

Some would argue that the shooting of a trespasser is a violation of the trespassers rights and that all rights to property end where anthers begin. Yet, this is confusing. Why would someones rights to property end where another's begin in the case of trespassing? Clearly, there is a property violation here. A trespasser, by definition, has no right to the property which they reside and yet we are to believe that they still own their right to body while trespassing? Either one of two reasons must be true here. First, a persons right to their body is higher in the property hierarchy then rights to other property or second, two individuals may have duel ownership of the same piece of property. I would argue both are wrong. 

It may be true that rights to property is meaningless without rights to body, but this does not imply that the rights you have within your body are more important than my rights to my property. The trespasser forfeits their right to body when the engage in trespass (or there is some form of ownership duality which we will discuss below). This, alone, may not suffice for capital punishment but it does serve the purpose of waging all property the same.

Quote from Hoppe...   
Two individuals may have separate claims over the same property in question. That is, two or more individuals may share a property interest in the same piece of property but they may not share duel ownership of the same claim (This line of reasoning may be objectionable, but it is not within the scope of this paper to elaborate. ). If this is true, than it must be settled who, the trespasser or the original owner has the right to control the property under question. Anyone who sides with the trespasser in that they may not be shot must either believe that the trespasser is now the actual owner of the property to which they trespass (meaning they may not be shot) or that both are equal owners of the same property--what we describe as illogical. 

So where does this leave us? Is that it? Can any property owner simply kill any would-be trespasser at will? There is one ore aspect of ownership that must be addressed before we answer this. Shaffer claims, 
"...the essence of ownership is found not in certificates  of title, sales receipts, or recorded documents; but in the socially recognized authority to exercise control over an item of property i.e. to direct what will or will not be done with it. "

That is to say, our answer to the original question will heavily depend on the culture of the environment to which the action occurs. It may be that for a local community of private property, gun-right, extremists capital punishment for the violation of trespassing is tolerated. It may be that in other communities such actions are met with boycott and outcry. Nevertheless, it holds, that such repercussions are possible for any action. Certain religious communities may choose to boycott local homosexuals. Such repercussions may limit homosexual acts, but this does not itself make homosexuality illegal or impossible. 

If the individual fires a gun and misses their target leading the bullet to stray onto someone else's property, the owner may be responsible for property damage or, at a minimum, responsible for littering. Either way, a direct result of the individual firing their gun and missing the target is some form of property violation.