Freedom and the property problem.

October 30, 8:25 PMSandusky County Politics ExaminerMichael Stahl

Previous Next

10 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Sandusky County Politics Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

I happen to be an advocate of the philosophy of non-aggression, which is simply stated the idea that I think it wrong to use force except in cases of self-defense. simple, right? No. It runs right into the basic conundrum of property and how to define it. The Lockean theory of property rights-essentially homesteading-the notion that if one "mixes ones labor with the land" then that land should "belong" to to that person, exclusively, is often put forward by "libertarians" and classical liberals as a just system.

This notion is problematic when the non-aggression axiom is applied to property, however. If durable title is created, and can then be supported by force-force external of the self-then at some point acts of violence will take place to support the "property" of one person, even when there is no actual force initiated. By conflating an action against property to an action against an actual body, a secondary moral dilemma comes into being-what force should be used, and how? Durable title, in this sense, then violates the axiom of non-aggression-in other words if someone breaks into a vacant house that I happen to "own" in the abstract, how can this be a use of force against me? The answer is, it isn't.

It seems to me that the problem here is the base disparity between what really are two radically different theories of a "just" society. The Lockean theory above has no exacting prohibition on violence, indeed it specifically calls for it to defend property through the use of the State. On the other hand, the non-aggression axiom applies to everyone, always. Indeed, if we are to take the Weberian definition of government/State, that a State is " an entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence in a given geographical area".  With this definition, then, the point of the non-aggression axiom is obvious, to de-legitimize the State. One cannot support the State at all, and still be consistent in believing in the non-aggression axiom, and frankly, the Lockean notion of property cannot survive true non-aggression.

This does not mean property cannot exist, but rather that it would be a very different creature, likely more personal, and probably less defined. If you have something in your pocket, it would require force to remove it(or the pants)from you. However, if you set it down and walk away, it no longer requires force for someone to pick it up. Even if it required a huge amount of work for you to craft, or you had it for a very long time-non-aggression does not have the qualifier: unless you really want something.

This is not to suggest one philosophy over the other, though I choose one myself, but rather to point out that the two are every bit as distinct as Communism is to Capitalism and Lockean property theory(frankly perhaps more so if the current statist form of "capitalism" is used in the comparison).

This brief column arises out of thought generated by Kent McManigal when questioning fraud on his Examiner page:

Fraud- however it is classified, it is still wrong

How fraud fits into the equation will be discussed in a forthcoming article.

Also, I wound up here after reading a piece by Rothbard on property rights an air pollution and "homesteading". that seemed so filled with arbitrary definitions of "property" that have no bearing on natural anything-except in the most profoundly abstract sense, that I've had to question how property fits into the rest of the equation. At least as currently defined. Thanks to the Ludwig von Mises institute for making so much literature available for free.