Property, Liberty, and the State

[Tec Mason]

So I clogged up the health care thread rambling about property rights theory and i wanted to move it to a clean thread.

My position in this thread is that the Non-Aggression Principle is the only ethic that can be applied to all humans at all times in any social standing or in the absence of any technology. The NAP can apply to two people on a desert island and a billion people on a technologically advanced continent. It is my belief that any institution that violates the NAP should be opposed on moral grounds.

The Non-aggression principle states that no one has the right to initiate aggression* against the property** of another person.

* Aggression is defined here as effecting property in a way that goes against the owner's will.

** Property is defined here as a human being's body or any physical object which that human being willingly affected through the transformation of natural resources***. The property right, or right to control said physical object(s), can be voluntarily transfered to other human beings (gifts, purchases, trade, etc.).

***A natural resource is defined here as any physical resource which has previously been untouched by people. (i.e. A wild apple tree is a natural resource. if a human takes its seed and plants a new tree, the new tree is not a natural resource, but "property" as defined above.)

If the NAP were followed by every person, there would be no fighting, theft, rape, murder, or war. It is impossible and Utopian to believe that such a world could ever exist fully, however political institutions and societies can arrange themselves over time to either promote the NAP or violate it. There is one institution that's very survival is dependent on the violation of the NAP, and that is States. A State is a territorial monopolist on ultimate decision making and arbitration. it differs from a property owner in that a state claims jurisdiction over multiple properties that all have separate owners. The state receives its funding through taxation, which is a coercive method of taking peoples property from them in return for services the state provides. It is coercive because the state imposes fines (and in some cases death and jail) for peacefully refusing to pay it what it asks for. Unlike a store or restaurant, the state provides you the service without you asking for it, and expects payment for the deed. Because of this compulsory nature of the state, i peacefully oppose its reach and simply ask for one thing: allow people to opt out of your services and the payment for them.

So what do you guys think? is the state just in its insistence on your money and property? Is the NAP a good principle to live by and encourage others to live by? Is property a natural right of man or something made up by governments?

All of my views can be stated much clearer and without as much rambling by reading this book:
mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf

Have fun starting the discussion, I haven't slept in 24 hours and may not be back for a bit :-)

EDIT: Someone asked about my "Market Anarchist" label and asked if it was an oxymoron. No it is not. the term anarchy comes from the Greek ἀναρχίᾱ and means roughly "rule by no one." leftist anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists will tell you that market anarchy is not "true anarchy" since they see capital structures and market processes as "hierarchical" and thus have a form of ruler. This is a great debate for the "Anarchy" thread, but ill just say once that market exchanges are voluntary exchanges of two sides of goods and/or services for mutual benefit and do not involve any ruler or hierarchy to exist. Some rebuttal say that property owners are like kings, they are overlords over their property, and thus property is inconsistent with anarchy. This is a fallacy. Even in a anarcho-syndicalist world, every person would have lordship/kingship over there own bodies, as their will cannot be alienated from there body. so using that logic, anarchy does not exist even among communes. but this is all syntax and rhetoric. the conecpts are what are important, and feel free to call me whatever suits you :-)

[macabre]

These are from the health care thread and I'm interested in your opinion.

If the State has control over the value and production of money, why can't it be taken away through taxation?

Also, why are property rights exclusive to humans? Why don't any other animals have property rights?

[saysmydoctor]

All this talk of the state, where's my boy Rousseau!?

[Praetor]

All this talk of the state, where's my boy Rousseau!?
Probably my favorite writer on the subject. I particularly am fond of this quote:

"The first man who, having enclosed a piece of land, thought of saying, This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, miseries, and horrors might mankind have been spared, if someone had pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch, and shouted to his fellow-men: `Beware of listening to this imposter; you are ruined if you forget that the fruits of the earth are everyone's and that the soil itself is no one's."'

[Tec Mason]

"If the State has control over the value and production of money, why can't it be taken away through taxation?"

If i read you clearly, the question is if the state issues the money we use and controls its value through inflation, why can't they take back what they made? they made the dollars, so now they want some back.

The problem isn't that they want the dollar bills back, the problem is that they are requiring people within their territory to
A) pay them for services that the people have no choice to opt out in
B) Pay in the legal tender that they issue.

Because the legal tender is forced on the citizens to use to pay all taxes, it eliminates the use of all private currencies and market alternatives, leaving only the legal tender in circulation. Once that happens, people will begin "saving" in the legal tender, as they must use it anyway for all debts public and private. This gives the ability for the state to print up additional dollars at will, then pay people in those dollars for their services, which they in turn must use to pay their taxes again later anyway.

Ill be the first to admit though that I am very rusty on monetary issues, and will be happy to come back to this one after i do more research.

Short Answer: The State does not have the right to force you or me to accept any currency, nor does it have the right to take our property away.

[Tec Mason]

"Also, why are property rights exclusive to humans? Why don't any other animals have property rights?"

They may not be exclusive to humans. When dealing with human to human interactions with regards to the scarces resources around us, we can deduct through reason that If anyone, between person A and person B is to have control over X resource, there is no better claimant than the original appropriator ( why not both or neither? more on this at a later time). If both a human and an animal want the same resource, it is impossible (at this time) to reason with the animal or for the animal to reason with the human. Until the animals can petition for their natural rights using deductive reasoning and communicate it to humans, there is no answer to the animals-as-property-owners question.

[Tec Mason]

"The first man who, having enclosed a piece of land, thought of saying, This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, miseries, and horrors might mankind have been spared, if someone had pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch, and shouted to his fellow-men: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are ruined if you forget that the fruits of the earth are everyone's and that the soil itself is no one's."

Market Anarchists would agree with this point by Rousseau. If someone fences in an area and says "this is mine" you are a fool for listening to him. you are only the owner of that which you mixed your labor with (somewhat in the Lockean tradition), which in that case, would only be the fence and the ground which the fence touches. however, once you do mix your labor with natural resources, it becomes something different which no other person can have claim to have part in. this make the transformed natural resource your property, by infusing part of your being into the resource to create a new thing.

[macabre]

"Also, why are property rights exclusive to humans? Why don't any other animals have property rights?"

A) If anyone, between person A and person B is to have control over X resource, there is no better claimant than the original appropriator.

B) If both a human and an animal want the same resource, it is impossible (at this time) to reason with the animal or for the animal to reason with the human. Until the animals can petition for their natural rights using deductive reasoning and communicate it to humans, there is no answer to the animals-as-property-owners question.

A) How about if the original appropriator of a given resource is an animal? If the animal has willingly used the resources around it in order to create a suitable living habitat, it does not follow that humans should be given precedence over that property, simply by virtue of being human.

B) In the event that an animal was the original appropriator of the land, it does not matter whether the animal can petition for their natural rights or not. Does ignorance of natural rights necessarily preclude an organism from having those rights?

I know you're claiming to be agnostic on the animals-as-property-owners question but if this indeed an open question, why should we act as if they don't have these rights?

[Theseventhson]

Subscribing to come back to later.

[Tec Mason]

I know you're claiming to be agnostic on the animals-as-property-owners question but if this indeed an open question, why should we act as if they don't have these rights?

Great question. Im not sure. I am sure that i can communicate with humans on the matter, so at the very least i can reduce my aggression against humans. So in a human to human relationship, we can deduce who the original human was to use a resource, and we can trade resources between each other voluntarily. I don't believe we can come up with an objective ethic or positive right that is objectively proven, so the animal question will be open forever (unless we can find a way to communicate with them to ask them). I am aware that the ethic i propose for all humans, the Non-aggression principle, is a normative, subjective principle, so i don't think i can ever "prove" that it is the best ethic.

I can however, attempt to convince others that it is the best ethic by appealing to their moral beliefs. If one believes it is wrong to steal, murder, rape, and molest people then I believe holding to both the Non-aggression principle and natural property rights theory is the only ethic that, if held, can eradicate all of those problems. Every other ethic i have found, such as "positive rights" (the right to shelter, food, sustenance, etc.) cannot be held to all people at all times, as it always involves stealing or threatening some of the "haves" to give to the "have nots" (even these categories are subjectively defined), or they cannot even be achieved in desert island scenerios. Holding to the NAP can prevent all of those moral problems on a desert island, in Tokyo, on the moon, in the 4th century, and in the 22nd century.

If one does not believe it is wrong to steal, murder, rape, etc. then the Non-aggression principle and respecting property rights will not be of great concern.

[GeeBee]

Define "property" and "ownership", and let me know how we determine how what's mine came to be "MINE" in the first place...then get back to me.

[Tec Mason]

Property is defined here as a human being's body or any physical object which that human being willingly affected through the transformation of natural resources***. The property right (ownership), or right to control said physical object(s), can be voluntarily transfered to other human beings (gifts, purchases, trade, etc.).

***A natural resource is defined here as any physical resource which has previously been untouched by people. (i.e. A wild apple tree is a natural resource. if a human takes its seed and plants a new tree, the new tree is not a natural resource, but "property" as defined above.)

[caveBEAR]

***A natural resource is defined here as any physical resource which has previously been untouched by people. (i.e. A wild apple tree is a natural resource. if a human takes its seed and plants a new tree, the new tree is not a natural resource, but "property" as defined above.)

What if someone haphazardly starts throwing seeds for the hell of it with absolutely no intention of ever interacting with the future trees? Is it still their property?

[GeeBee]

Property is defined here as a human being's body or any physical object which that human being willingly affected through the transformation of natural resources***. The property right (ownership), or right to control said physical object(s), can be voluntarily transfered to other human beings (gifts, purchases, trade, etc.).

***A natural resource is defined here as any physical resource which has previously been untouched by people. (i.e. A wild apple tree is a natural resource. if a human takes its seed and plants a new tree, the new tree is not a natural resource, but "property" as defined above.)

Then vacate the premises, since the descendants of whatever indian tribes were kicked off still technically own the land you're now on.

See how it's not so cut and dry?

[Tec Mason]

What if someone haphazardly starts throwing seeds for the hell of it with absolutely no intention of ever interacting with the future trees? Is it still their property?

Great question. In order to understand this answer you have to know the Misesian definitions of Action, rational and irrational (as they differ slighty from the normal usage of the terms). I will quote from the Human Action Study Guide.

"Human action is purposeful behavior. The distinguishing feature of action is that the observer imputes a goal to the actor. Action is different from purely reflexive behavior. A man may flinch after a loud noise. This is not necessarily action in the Misesian sense."

"It is redundant to use the phrase “rational action,” because all action is necessarily rational in that the actor uses means to (attempt to) achieve an end. By the same token, there is no such thing as an irrational action...Some desires, such as those for food or shelter, are more common than others, yet this doesn’t make the former more “rational.” It is also wrong to condemn an action as irrational simply because the means chosen were ill suited to achieve the desired end."

Basically, Action is required for "labor" to occur, and labor is required to make a natural resource into property. so if i sneeze reflexively onto an unused nature-found flower that does not make the flower my property. only if i purposefully sneeze on it (or pick it up) does it become property. Rational behavior is any behavior that is used to achieve an end (regardless of how dumb another thinks the action is). Irrational behavior is simply "reflexive behavior" such as breathing or sneezing or blinking.

So if one throws seeds all around without the end goal being the tree that sprouts from it, then the tree is not his property (assuming the tree is subjectively considered a separate object from the seed).

A better example than my seed example would be a net. Suppose a person grabs vines from the woods and makes a net to catch fish or something. this net would be considered the person's property because she purposefully acted towards the vines in a manner to achieve the end goal of the net.

(sorry but im busy with finals and work, so if i don't reply you'll know why.)

EDIT: http://mises.org/books/humanactionstudy.pdf Here is the book i quoted (i quoted some from pages 1 and 3).

[Tec Mason]

Then vacate the premises, since the descendants of whatever indian tribes were kicked off still technically own the land you're now on.

See how it's not so cut and dry?

It is cut and dry. I should vacate the premises if the owners were kicked off and they want it back. I can easily stay where i live, and hope the owners never return, but if they do it would be unjust for me to stay, and all the actions I took with their property was also unjust. But because they need evidence that they mixed their labor with the land I am on, the burden of proof lays too them if they want it.

EDIT: Does it suck that the natives need proof that I am on their land when I probably am? yes. But we cannot base a universal ethic around who probably was here first. We need evidence.

EDIT2: My first edit sounds douchey. What i mean is that while we know that the Cherokkee tribes lived in the current U.S. south, A person of that tribe would have to show proof or evidence that they are the heirs to the actual plot of land that I am physically using. This is sort of how property "resets" over time. If someone dies or abandons a property (house, land, wallet, bag of doritos) a current user can use the object, mix his labor with it, and hope that the owner never wants it back or willingly abandned it. If the owner ever returns with proof the item is his property, then it is just to return it. Assigning an arbitrary "time to reset" is useless and subjective.

[GeeBee]

It is cut and dry. I should vacate the premises if the owners were kicked off and they want it back. I can easily stay where i live, and hope the owners never return, but if they do it would be unjust for me to stay, and all the actions I took with their property was also unjust. But because they need evidence that they mixed their labor with the land I am on, the burden of proof lays too them if they want it.

EDIT: Does it suck that the natives need proof that I am on their land when I probably am? yes. But we cannot base a universal ethic around who probably was here first. We need evidence.

EDIT2: My first edit sounds douchey. What i mean is that while we know that the Cherokkee tribes lived in the current U.S. south, A person of that tribe would have to show proof or evidence that they are the heirs to the actual plot of land that I am physically using. This is sort of how property "resets" over time. If someone dies or abandons a property (house, land, wallet, bag of doritos) a current user can use the object, mix his labor with it, and hope that the owner never wants it back or willingly abandned it. If the owner ever returns with proof the item is his property, then it is just to return it. Assigning an arbitrary "time to reset" is useless and subjective.

The fact is, what you're pushing is idealistic, utopian, and not at all realistic in practice. Which is one of my main objections to this brand of "libertarianism". Its logical end is more whimsical than that of communism.

[Tec Mason]

The fact is, what you're pushing is idealistic, utopian, and not at all realistic in practice. Which is one of my main objections to this brand of "libertarianism". Its logical end is more whimsical than that of communism.

Respectfully disagree. It is Utopian to believe that property rights will ever be fully enforced and never violated. So if I thought that one day, we can reach a point where all people respect and adhere to property rights, that would be Utopian and i would agree with you. There will always be murder, rape, and theft (all violations of the NAP and property), but what we can do is support and discuss institutions or ethics that discourage the incentives to commit these problems (again assuming you personally agree that murder, rape, and theft are wrong in all circumstances).

We have anti-rape and anti-murder laws on the books. That doesn't mean we are Utopian and think all murder and rape can be eliminated. It just means we are attempting to discourage rape and murder by punishing the acts. In the same way, we can practice the Non-aggression principle in our own lives every day, and by respecting other property ourselves and encouraging others to do the same, social institutions will change to reflect the social norm as they historically do. Heck slavery was legal in the most of the world for thousands of years. it was not Utopian to oppose slavery, and now it is socially despicable in most corners of the globe. I simply want to to end slavery to the state as well (more on that later.)

edited for spelling and grammar

[Love As Arson]

The market and the state are inseparable; the latter is a manifestation of former, which, through force, law and social norms,maintains and justifies market society.

[loveisdead]

The market and the state are inseparable; the latter is a manifestation of former, which, through force, law and social norms,maintains and justifies market society.

I've been waiting for you to get into a good debate with Tec Mason.

[Tec Mason]

The market and the state are inseparable; the latter is a manifestation of former, which, through force, law and social norms,maintains and justifies market society.

Bill and randy are on an island. Bill catches fish, and Randy picks berries. later, Bill trades some fish to Randy for some berries. This is a market transaction separate from the state.

This happens all the time, and not on hypothetical islands. any time two people trade with each other goods or services outside of a state's knowledge or reach, a market transaction was made separate of the state.

Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. So yes i totally agree with you that the state relies on markets and prosperity to function, as that is how they receive more revenue though taxation, so I agree again that successful states encourage and justify markets. But it does not follow that because the state cannot survive long without market forces, that markets cannot survive without states. The State is said to provide law, order, and security for markets to function in, but this in no way implies that the market cannot also supply these services.

This super short booklet can explain how a stateless society can have a functioning market, laws, and even defense: http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

Let us keep in mind that "the market" is short hand for "several people trading goods and services to each other." The state is short hand for "several people maintain a territorial monopoly of ultimate decision making and arbitration.." Society and production necessarily predate the existence of the state both theoretically and historically.