This article argues that enforcing property rights is an initiatation of force and that property rights can therefore only be justified on utilitarian grounds.
Property-claims initiate force against others. The original privatization unilaterally removes others' access to what would otherwise be a common resource. That's an aggressive imposition of harm on innocent people, without their consent. We then threaten aggression against them, merely for wanting to use the resource in the same (peaceful) way as we do... ... So step back, and try to imagine seeing things from an alien's anthropological perspective. The alien has all sorts of physical and psychological concepts, but no explicitly moral ideas such as 'rights'. All he does is observe what is the case; he makes no judgments about what ought to be. So when he visits Earth, what will he see?Bob and Sally are stuck on a desert island, with a banana tree. Bob gets there first and claims it as his own -- maybe he mixes his labour with it a bit, waters and nourishes it, whatever you like. Later, Sally goes to eat a banana, and Bob stops her, pushes her back. Who aggressed against whom? From the value-neutral perspective of the alien, the answer can only possibly be that Bob was the one initiating force here.For libertarians to offer a different answer, they must not be using 'force', 'aggression', 'coercion', 'liberty' etc. as purely descriptive, value-neutral terms that even the alien could understand. They must instead be loading their moral assumptions into the concepts, effectively collapsing 'aggression' into 'unjustified aggression'. These moralized concepts presuppose libertarianism, they therefore cannot be used to argue for libertarianism on pain of circularity. This is why simple libertarianism is more accurately called 'propertarianism'. What's philosophically fundamental to the view is property rights, not liberty.
...
So step back, and try to imagine seeing things from an alien's anthropological perspective. The alien has all sorts of physical and psychological concepts, but no explicitly moral ideas such as 'rights'. All he does is observe what is the case; he makes no judgments about what ought to be. So when he visits Earth, what will he see?Bob and Sally are stuck on a desert island, with a banana tree. Bob gets there first and claims it as his own -- maybe he mixes his labour with it a bit, waters and nourishes it, whatever you like. Later, Sally goes to eat a banana, and Bob stops her, pushes her back. Who aggressed against whom? From the value-neutral perspective of the alien, the answer can only possibly be that Bob was the one initiating force here.For libertarians to offer a different answer, they must not be using 'force', 'aggression', 'coercion', 'liberty' etc. as purely descriptive, value-neutral terms that even the alien could understand. They must instead be loading their moral assumptions into the concepts, effectively collapsing 'aggression' into 'unjustified aggression'. These moralized concepts presuppose libertarianism, they therefore cannot be used to argue for libertarianism on pain of circularity. This is why simple libertarianism is more accurately called 'propertarianism'. What's philosophically fundamental to the view is property rights, not liberty.
What is the libertarian response to this?
I would argue that a true value free perspective could not conclude common ownership by default. Only if the alien had any concept of what ought to be could he have any notion of who initiated force.
"There's no such thing as private property" is stupid.
If it's immoral to defend my property, then what incentive is there for me to build a house, plant crops, or do any useful work?
Suppose I work, save money, and use the profit to buy land. Why would my ownership claim be illegitimate?
You can defend property without aggression.
There's a separate issue, which is "Who is the legitimate owner of property right now?"
Suppose the CEO at an agriculture corporation borrows $1 billion and buys a lot of land. He was the recipient of a massive State subsidy. He received a loan for $1B at 6%, when true inflation is 10%-30% or more. In this example, the CEO at the agriculture corporation is not the legitimate owner of the land, because his purchase was subsidized by the State.
Suppose I work, save money, and buy a house. I'm the legitimate owner of the house. Nobody else has a stronger ownership claim than me.
Suppose a landlord puts up a $1 million downpayment, receives a $9 million mortgage at 6%, and buys an apartment building. Is he the legitimate owner? His purchase was subsidized by the State.
Are the tenants the legitimate owners? Suppose that the apartment building is rent controlled. Then, the tenants have their rent subsidized by the State. They aren't legitimate occupants either. Who's the legitimate owner of a rent controlled apartment building? Neither the tenants nor the landlord have a valid ownership claim.
"Private property is immoral!" is obviously stupid. "In the present, who is the legitimate owner of land?" is a difficult question. The current occupants usually have the strongest ownership claim. For the example of a corporate farm, the people who actually work the land are the legitimate owners.
Suppose I refuse to pay property taxes and armed thugs kick me out of my house and sell it. Is the new buyer the legitimate owner?
Suppose I get tricked by an inflationary bubble into buying a house and getting a huge mortgage. Then, the housing market crashes and I lose my job, due to State manipulation of the interest rate market. Again, armed thugs come to kick me out of my house for not paying my mortgage. Who's the legitimate owner of the house? When the bank lent me money, it literally printed new money and lent it to me. Is that debt contract valid?
People get confused . "Private property is immoral!" is not the same as "In the present, almost all property is stolen property!"
Via property taxes, the State owns all land. If you think you own a house, you really don't. You merely have a perpetual transferable lease, because armed thugs will steal your house if you refuse to pay property taxes.
It's tricky to figure out who legitimately owns what land. However, that's not the same as private property being inherently evil.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
well sally could use economic means of aqusition, say make bob something from the other resources or catch a fish and trade with bob. Sally is like the government, she niether produces or facilitates anything in this system she just drains away without any return.
Fried Egg:Bob and Sally are stuck on a desert island, with a banana tree. Bob gets there first and claims it as his own -- maybe he mixes his labour with it a bit, waters and nourishes it, whatever you like. Later, Sally goes to eat a banana, and Bob stops her, pushes her back. Who aggressed against whom? From the value-neutral perspective of the alien, the answer can only possibly be that Bob was the one initiating force here.
I'm only responding to this part :) Bob aggressed against sally, watering a tree is not sufficient for ownership considering the tree was already alive. If he plants his own tree from one of its seeds, then he owns THAT tree, not the original.
It makes no sense to say "All property claims are an initiation of force agaist someone else," because that is to assume that someone else already has a (legitimate) claim to the property in question. So while Bob and Sally might disagree about who owns the banana, they must at the very least agree that it is possible for one of them to legitimately own it. If either one of them disputes this, then they would themself be asserting a claim to the banana.
Also, the notion that everything can be a "common resource" is faulty, because there is scarcity in the physical world. One person eating a banana necessarily precludes others from doing so; to act as though the banana were a "common resource" could not change this fact.
twistedbydsign99:I'm only responding to this part :) Bob aggressed against sally, watering a tree is not sufficient for ownership considering the tree was already alive. If he plants his own tree from one of its seeds, then he owns THAT tree, not the original.
I think the presumption is that watering the tree is not the only act of mixing his labour. Also I dont really have a developed answer for this but suppose when new land is discovered( I know its all been discovered and claimed but bear with me) then who decides or how is it decided who's it is
Surely the terms "aggression", "theft" and "force" are given their meanings only when set on a background of private property.
Irish Liberty Forum
Josh Dennis:I think the presumption is that watering the tree is not the only act of mixing his labour. Also I dont really have a developed answer for this but suppose when new land is discovered( I know its all been discovered and claimed but bear with me) then who decides or how is it decided who's it is
Certainly building a fence around the new land is not sufficient, or drawing imaginary lines, thats how a government claims property. You have to reasonably use the land, aka build a structure on it that has some purpose. The first person to derive value from the land owns it, not the discoverer.
twistedbydsign99: Josh Dennis:I think the presumption is that watering the tree is not the only act of mixing his labour. Also I dont really have a developed answer for this but suppose when new land is discovered( I know its all been discovered and claimed but bear with me) then who decides or how is it decided who's it is Certainly building a fence around the new land is not sufficient, or drawing imaginary lines, thats how a government claims property. You have to reasonably use the land, aka build a structure on it that has some purpose. The first person to derive value from the land owns it, not the discoverer.
interesting, like i said I have no developed my thoughts on this but your explaination or squatters rights both sound reasonable
MatthewWilliam: Surely the terms "aggression", "theft" and "force" are given their meanings only when set on a background of private property.
From irrefutable self ownership.
I have not fully developed my thoughts on natural resource acquisition and ownership either :)
Only if the state enforces them. No one has a right to unclaimed resources, rights to them only obtain when brought under the homesteader's control. So there is nothing and no one to initiate force against prior to it. The way to overcome this argument is to deny its initial premise: that there is such a thing as a "common" as opposed to unowned resource - regardless of whether property rights are justifiable or not. The rest is just waffle. If a socialist tries to argue this ask them if their commune will defend against aggression, such as theft of its collective resources. If yes they are defending a property right of sorts, and in that case ask how it obtained.
To darkness I condemn you...
Fried Egg:What is the libertarian response to this? I would argue that a true value free perspective could not conclude common ownership by default. Only if the alien had any concept of what ought to be could he have any notion of who initiated force.
A true value perspective would remain agnostic on the question of property rights, so they would see force initiation as unjustified, since there is no known reason for the aggression.
fsk:"There's no such thing as private property" is stupid. If it's immoral to defend my property, then what incentive is there for me to build a house, plant crops, or do any useful work? Suppose I work, save money, and use the profit to buy land. Why would my ownership claim be illegitimate? You can defend property without aggression.
I don't know how you'd actually defend it without the ultimate threat of aggression. You might be able to defend it if Sally were rational and you could work out some kind of bargain where a cooperation strategy would have a higher present value for both of you than a hostile strategy. However this relies on her being rational and having a certain discount rate.
Again if you want to be totally value free you wouldn't assume work has value, and arguably "useful" is a value laden concept.
How would you argue that illegitimately acquired property somehow becomes legitimate just by passing it around?
fsk:"There's no such thing as private property" is stupid. If it's immoral to defend my property, then what incentive is there for me to build a house, plant crops, or do any useful work?
The author of the article was only trying to refute the liberatrian principle of non-aggression. One can always abandon this premise and say that the initiation of force is sometimes justfied. But that would be, like your argument above, a utilitarian defence of property rights.
twistedbydesgn99:I'm only responding to this part :) Bob aggressed against sally, watering a tree is not sufficient for ownership considering the tree was already alive. If he plants his own tree from one of its seeds, then he owns THAT tree, not the original.
I guess that would be covered by the "whatever you like" bit. i.e. it doesn't change the point.
Judicator:A true value perspective would remain agnostic on the question of property rights, so they would see force initiation as unjustified, since there is no known reason for the aggression.
So, if Bob just grabbed the bannana back out of Sally's hands instead of pushing her, there would be no agression involved (from the alien perspective)?
Fried Egg: fsk:"There's no such thing as private property" is stupid. If it's immoral to defend my property, then what incentive is there for me to build a house, plant crops, or do any useful work? The author of the article was only trying to refute the liberatrian principle of non-aggression.
The author of the article was only trying to refute the liberatrian principle of non-aggression.
I think you are misrepresenting him. The author is trying to show the "circularity of the definition of 'aggression'."
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
Fried Egg:I guess that would be covered by the "whatever you like" bit. i.e. it doesn't change the point.
Yea I guess being unable to give a example wouldn't change your point, just make it useless.
twistedbydsign99: MatthewWilliam: Surely the terms "aggression", "theft" and "force" are given their meanings only when set on a background of private property. From irrefutable self ownership.
I for one am not buying that you own yourself.
My response is that there is no such thing as a collective right, and certainly no such thing either current or future generations as a whole to have a right to any "common" resource. Since the person has begged the question of such a thing, the person's argument is dead upon arrival.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap