Most formulations of the Non Aggression Principle make use of the term "property" (or "legitimate property"). This makes the principle problematically-circular. To be complete, the principle must be accompanied with a definition of, or detailed expositions or rules regarding what constitutes "legitimate property". Ideally, one would like those principles to be derived from the NAP, rather than being external to it.
I suggested the following formulation:
"It is wrong to use force against another person or their peaceful ongoing projects".
This formulation is still circular ("peaceful" means "non NAP violating"), but that circularilty is not problematic, since fundamental Rothbardian property-acquisition methods (self-ownership, homesteading, voluntary exchange) are obviously peaceful.
That formulation has the additional advantage of clarifing (somewhat) the boundaries of property-acquisition through homesteading. In a nutshell, one acquires full property rights over a natural resource if (and only if) retaining exclusive access and control over the resource are reasonably inherent in the requirements of an ongoing project. Thus the canonical example of homesteading (clearing and working a field) easily fits within the scope of an "ongoing project" which reasonably requires exclusive access. Contrast that with using a path to reach a lake. The path is part of an ongoing project, and thus cannot be closed without NAP violation, but doesn't require exclusive access. Hence using the path gives the user some rights (easement or use-rights), but not full property rights.
Property rights can thus be viewed as tools for the implementation of, rather than fundamental concepts underlying, the NAP.
Comments?
I don't see why a term or phrase referring to property is necessary. Since property is an extension of the self, it seems unnecessary to the statement "to initiate aggression against persons is not legitimate". It's the job of the definition of person/selfhood to determine where the boundaries are.
You are going to have to be clear about what you consider to be circular about the NAP and property. The only circular aspect of the NAP that I can see is if you just assume it as your premise for no reason. Seeing as it's an axiom, I don't see anything wrong with that.
How about this: "To coerce someone who has not already coerced you in the same way is morally wrong." By "coerce" I mean "threaten or use force against".
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Lady Saiga,
The reason it is necessary is that the definition of the boundary of person/selfhood goes to the very essence of the difference between libertarians and non-libertarians. By sweeping the issue aside, the NAP loses its entire power. Hitler and Stalin would gladly sign up to it, if they were only allowed to define that boundary themselves.
gotlucky,
The reason the conventional formulation of NAP is circular is that "aggression" only makes sense by reference to "legitimate property", yet legitimacy of property titles is itself conditional on compliance with NAP.
Consider a statist who argues that government (as representative of the citizen body) is the legitimate owner of its entire territory. Since the entire territory of the country is the legitimate property of the democratic government (goes the explanation), no government law violates NAP (in the same way that landlord charging rent or setting rules of conduct on his territory doesn't). Since government action doesn't violate NAP, its ownership is legitimate.
Thus nothing in the NAP helps distinguish between the libertarian and the statist position (thus justified).
Autolykos,
Consider Captain Cook claiming Australia for the British Crown. Ignore for a moment the aboriginals, and assume Australia was actually uninhabited. Having claimed Australia as belonging to the Crown, Britain then claims that making laws, lavying taxes, etc. on Australian soil are consistent with NAP. How does your definition help reject that claim?
How could NAP apply if there were no inhabitants?
NAP is only formulated to apply in the specific case of interactions between rational agents. It does not stand on its own as a guide for all human action. It is a component of a broader system that includes certain definitions of property. I think you're expecting NAP to be something that it is not.
It would apply with respect to future settlers in Australia.
I am looking for an NAP formulation that would clearly de-legitimise government claims for ownership based merely on proclamation. The conventional formulation doesn't do that, as it fails to distinguish arbitrary claims of ownership with legitimate ones.
Then you're looking in the wrong place. NAP does not do this.
You're looking in the wrong place. NAP does not do this.
Sorry, malfunction
Then why are so many people looking at the NAP as the foundational principle of libertarianism?
If ordinary state action is as consistent with NAP as a Rothbardian paradise, what good is it?
I have no idea what "other people are looking at", but I would certainly consider other issues such as definitions of property to be foundational to Libertarianism. NAP is a part but not a whole. Again.
Eran,
I'm still waiting to hear from you why you think the NAP is circular. Also, the following statements contradict one another:
Eran: Most formulations of the Non Aggression Principle make use of the term "property" (or "legitimate property").
Most formulations of the Non Aggression Principle make use of the term "property" (or "legitimate property").
Eran: I am looking for an NAP formulation that would clearly de-legitimise government claims for ownership based merely on proclamation. The conventional formulation doesn't do that, as it fails to distinguish arbitrary claims of ownership with legitimate ones.
And the NAP is the foundation of libertarianism. You are going to have to write more clearly if you want any of us to be able to engage you in meaningful conversation.
Sorry, I didn't see that you responded to my post in a response to others. So you can ignore my previous statement about waiting for a response.
Eran: gotlucky, The reason the conventional formulation of NAP is circular is that "aggression" only makes sense by reference to "legitimate property", yet legitimacy of property titles is itself conditional on compliance with NAP. Consider a statist who argues that government (as representative of the citizen body) is the legitimate owner of its entire territory. Since the entire territory of the country is the legitimate property of the democratic government (goes the explanation), no government law violates NAP (in the same way that landlord charging rent or setting rules of conduct on his territory doesn't). Since government action doesn't violate NAP, its ownership is legitimate. Thus nothing in the NAP helps distinguish between the libertarian and the statist position (thus justified).
This is not quite true. The libertarian concept of just property is derived from the NAP. The NAP is a form of the golden rule, the ethic of reciprocity. Homesteading and estoppel are derived from this concept of reciprocity, though they do not find their origins in libertarianism. Through concepts of homesteading and estoppel, we get the libertarian idea of just property.
The point of the NAP is that it is the foundation of libertarianism, and all libertarian concepts can be derived from it. There are plenty of libertarians who do not care to derive these other principles and just accept them as separate axioms. But this need not be the case. Certainly, if you encounter a libertarian who just accepts homesteading as an axiom, then the NAP will seem circular. But other libertarians, such as Rothbard (or myself!), do not just accept homesteading as a separate axiom. To us, all libertarian concepts must be derived from the NAP or they are not libertarian.
I am looking for a formulation that would both include respect for property rights, and establish legitimate property rights in the principle of peaceful respect of others. Once legitimate property rights are agreed, NAP is easy to accept. The difference between libertarians and mainstream statists can be traced to the mainstream perception that government (or society, which a democratic government is supposed to represent) is the legitimate owner of its entire territory.
NAP doesn't help us distinguish between that claim and the libertarian alternative. My reference to it as circular relies on the understanding that what makes property "legitimate" is the compliance of its acquisition process with NAP itself.
Alternatively, libertarians would have to formulate a separate justification for their preferred legitimate property acquisition process. It would be odd if that process was independent of and separate from the NAP.
The NAP has powerful intuitive appeal. It would be a shame if we couldn't use it to differentiate our position from that of the statist mainstream.
See my above response.
Eran, I hope you don't mind if I also address your responses to Lady Saiga and GotLucky.
Eran:Lady Saiga, The reason it is necessary is that the definition of the boundary of person/selfhood goes to the very essence of the difference between libertarians and non-libertarians. By sweeping the issue aside, the NAP loses its entire power. Hitler and Stalin would gladly sign up to it, if they were only allowed to define that boundary themselves.
Indeed, I'd say the difference between voluntaryists and statists concerns the self-ownership principle, not the non-aggression principle.
Eran:gotlucky, The reason the conventional formulation of NAP is circular is that "aggression" only makes sense by reference to "legitimate property", yet legitimacy of property titles is itself conditional on compliance with NAP. Consider a statist who argues that government (as representative of the citizen body) is the legitimate owner of its entire territory. Since the entire territory of the country is the legitimate property of the democratic government (goes the explanation), no government law violates NAP (in the same way that landlord charging rent or setting rules of conduct on his territory doesn't). Since government action doesn't violate NAP, its ownership is legitimate. Thus nothing in the NAP helps distinguish between the libertarian and the statist position (thus justified).
That statist argument completely forgoes any notion of self-ownership - that is, of having property rights over oneself. Hence, even if you agreed arguendo that government is the legitimate owner of its entire territory, that in no way means it's also the legitimate owner of all people born/residing/etc. within its territory. So the possibility remains that government laws can violate the non-aggression principle if one also presumes self-ownership.
Eran:Autolykos, Consider Captain Cook claiming Australia for the British Crown. Ignore for a moment the aboriginals, and assume Australia was actually uninhabited. Having claimed Australia as belonging to the Crown, Britain then claims that making laws, lavying taxes, etc. on Australian soil are consistent with NAP. How does your definition help reject that claim?
I think it could be argued that, if aggression is morally wrong, then anything gained through aggression is also morally wrong. The British Crown came about through aggression (i.e. conquest), so its claims of ownership of the entire continent of Australia would be illegitimate under the non-aggression principle.
Eran:I am looking for a formulation that would both include respect for property rights, and establish legitimate property rights in the principle of peaceful respect of others. Once legitimate property rights are agreed, NAP is easy to accept. The difference between libertarians and mainstream statists can be traced to the mainstream perception that government (or society, which a democratic government is supposed to represent) is the legitimate owner of its entire territory.
I don't think most people actually believe that government is the legitimate owner of its entire territory. Most homeowners, landowners, etc. seem to believe that they actually own their homes, land, etc. A lot of social institutions are predicated on the notion that these people aren't just glorified renters.
Most people do believe that a (democratic) government can legitimately tell people what to do (possibly within some civil-rights limitations) as long as they reside on its territory. Their use of "property" is different from ours - it is much weaker. They view ordinary land ownership is subsediary to government's over-lordship over all the land.
Self-ownership doesn't help - a landlord can legitimately prohibit smoking on his permises. So governemnt's drug prohibition, for example, would be legitimate IF government was the legitimate owner of its territory.
So I come back to my question - how does one use NAP to show that ownership by governmental proclamation isn't as legitimate as homesteading? How does one use NAP to define the boundaries of homesteading?
Eran:Most people do believe that a (democratic) government can legitimately tell people what to do (possibly within some civil-rights limitations) as long as they reside on its territory. Their use of "property" is different from ours - it is much weaker. They view ordinary land ownership is subsediary to government's over-lordship over all the land.
I don't see most people as believing that, but I could be wrong. As I see it, most people either believe that things like property-tax obligations are not indicative of government being the actual owner of all land (in its own eyes), or their outlook is simply schizophrenic.
Eran:Self-ownership doesn't help - a landlord can legitimately prohibit smoking on his permises. So governemnt's drug prohibition, for example, would be legitimate IF government was the legitimate owner of its territory.
Prohibiting smoking on his premises simply means that people smoking on his premises are trespassing and must either stop smoking or leave. But prohibiting smoking per se does not give the landlord any right to imprison them, injure them, damage or destroy their property, kill them, etc.
Most people lack a coherent and comprehensive understanding of the concept of "property".
But once presented with the inviolability and full rights associated with property, they could reconcile that term with their perception of the scope of legitimate government action by associating political sovereignty (in their world) with property (in ours).
You are correct that government actions exceed even those of a landlord.
However, even if government restricted its activities to those consistent with being a landlord (e.g. by punishing drug-users with exile rather than imprisonment), we would still view them as contrary to NAP.
How do we justify that?
Eran, you are right to criticise the NAP as not being the proper "foundational principle" of libertarianism. It isn't. As Stephan Kinsella writes:
Stephan Kinsella:The nonaggression principle is also dependent on property rights, since what aggression is depends on what our (property) rights are. If you hit me, it is aggression because I have a property right in my body. If I take from you the apple you possess, this is trespass — aggression — only because you own the apple. One cannot identify an act of aggression without implicitly assigning a corresponding property right to the victim.
I've written about this myself in two blog posts: The Task of Political Philosophers and Libertarian Property Assignment Rules. Here are a few paragraphs from the second one:
Graham Wright:The first criterion for the libertarian, when deciding whether or not a particular use of coercion is aggression, is to ask who initiated the coercion. Libertarians have historically emphasised the primacy of the “Non-Aggression Principle” (NAP) in libertarian philosophy, which forbids any initiation of coercion. But this criterion of initiation cannot be a defining principle of libertarianism, because any political philosophy can reasonably claim to be opposed to the initiation of coercion. For example, suppose we are stranded on a desert island and you find an apple tree and pick an apple, but then I use coercion to take it from you. Which one of us initiated the coercion here? You could reasonably say that I did, but then I could reply that actually you initiated coercion against me, on the basis that it was my apple to begin with because it was my apple tree and I did not give you consent to pick from it. My use of coercion was therefore retaliatory; I was merely defending my own property. Libertarianism cannot be uniquely defined by referring to initiation as a standard to distinguish between aggressive and defensive coercive acts, because the concept of initiation relies on a more fundamental idea about who ought to own which objects in the first place.
I hope this helps.
gotlucky:the NAP is the foundation of libertarianism
No it isn't. The foundation of libertarianism is the homesteading principle.
Autolykos:The libertarian concept of just property is derived from the NAP. The NAP is a form of the golden rule, the ethic of reciprocity. Homesteading and estoppel are derived from this concept of reciprocity, though they do not find their origins in libertarianism. Through concepts of homesteading and estoppel, we get the libertarian idea of just property.
No. The NAP is a useful shorthand in many circumstances, but at a deeper level of analysis the NAP is (depending on how aggression is defined) either 1) a restatement of the general task of political philosophy (i.e. even non-libertarians subscribe to it) or 2) it relies on the more fundamental principle of homesteading.
To address your last question directly...
Eran:So I come back to my question - how does one use NAP to show that ownership by governmental proclamation isn't as legitimate as homesteading? How does one use NAP to define the boundaries of homesteading?
The NAP can't be used in that way, which is exactly why it cannot be the foundation of libertarianism. The reason the government's claim to an entire (previously empty) continent is not legitimate (according to the libertarian) is that the government did not homestead the land (or acquire it through a voluntary exchange). Homesteading requires establishing an objective, intersubjectively ascertainable link between the individual and the scarce object claimed. A mere verbal decree is not homesteading.
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
Graham Wright: No it isn't. The foundation of libertarianism is the homesteading principle.
No it isn't. The foundation of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle.
Did you read the rest of my post or check out my links?
Graham Wright:Autolykos, Autolykos:The libertarian concept of just property is derived from the NAP. The NAP is a form of the golden rule, the ethic of reciprocity. Homesteading and estoppel are derived from this concept of reciprocity, though they do not find their origins in libertarianism. Through concepts of homesteading and estoppel, we get the libertarian idea of just property. No. The NAP is a useful shorthand in many circumstances, but at a deeper level of analysis the NAP is (depending on how aggression is defined) either 1) a restatement of the general task of political philosophy (i.e. even non-libertarians subscribe to it) or 2) it relies on the more fundamental principle of homesteading.
Just so you know, Graham, I didn't write that - GotLucky did.
Graham Wright: Did you read the rest of my post or check out my links?
I'm actually in the process of writing out a less snarky response, I just wrote that because your response to me didn't really highlight anything other than that you disagreed with me.
And I can quote people too:
Murray Rothbard: The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence ("aggress") against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.
The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence ("aggress") against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.
But the Rothbard quote itself shows that it requires a prior understanding of the nature of property before NAP can apply. This is why I suggested that both are important, and that NAP in and of itself was not meant to encompass the definition of property nor was it the whole basis of libertarianism.
Sorry Autolykos.
Here's something you did say that I disagree with.
Autolykos: Eran:Self-ownership doesn't help - a landlord can legitimately prohibit smoking on his permises. So governemnt's drug prohibition, for example, would be legitimate IF government was the legitimate owner of its territory. Prohibiting smoking on his premises simply means that people smoking on his premises are trespassing and must either stop smoking or leave. But prohibiting smoking per se does not give the landlord any right to imprison them, injure them, damage or destroy their property, kill them, etc.
Your second sentence is incorrect. A landlord can do all these things, so long as it is proportionate to the severity of the rule violation. The landlord must start off by politely asking the person to leave, but if that doesn't work, they can use as much force as necessary to remove that person. All government actions, that we typically call aggression, are legitimate if the government is the legitimate landlord of the nation.
Eran is completely right in the above two sentences. We (libertarians) therefore have to show why government's don't legitimately own the land they claim, because otherwise Georgism (for example) and other philosophies are still completely consistent with the NAP. We do this by referring to the homesteading principle... not to the NAP, or the self-ownership principle, but to the homesteading principle.
The NAP is a legal realization of the ethic of reciprocity. I'm about to post a more thorough response to Graham in a couple of minutes. If you only understand the NAP without realizing its history and application as the golden rule/ethic of reciprocity, then yes, it is circular and cannot be a foundational principle. Luckily for me (and Rothbard), you can actually derive these other principles from the NAP/golden rule/ethic of reciprocity.
If you choose to just accept these principles as separate axioms, then that is your choice. I cannot do anything to change that.
What if someone rejects the NAP because they say its human nature to aggress towards others?
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Graham Wright: Autolykos, Autolykos: The libertarian concept of just property is derived from the NAP. The NAP is a form of the golden rule, the ethic of reciprocity. Homesteading and estoppel are derived from this concept of reciprocity, though they do not find their origins in libertarianism. Through concepts of homesteading and estoppel, we get the libertarian idea of just property. No. The NAP is a useful shorthand in many circumstances, but at a deeper level of analysis the NAP is (depending on how aggression is defined) either 1) a restatement of the general task of political philosophy (i.e. even non-libertarians subscribe to it) or 2) it relies on the more fundamental principle of homesteading.
Autolykos: The libertarian concept of just property is derived from the NAP. The NAP is a form of the golden rule, the ethic of reciprocity. Homesteading and estoppel are derived from this concept of reciprocity, though they do not find their origins in libertarianism. Through concepts of homesteading and estoppel, we get the libertarian idea of just property.
I believe you meant that for me. But, homesteading is derived from the NAP/golden rule: "Respect me and what's mine, and I'll respect you and what's yours." What is mine and what is yours? How do we decide that? We need claims. If I claim this apple as mine, you can either respect that claim or not. What happens if you don't respect that claim? Well, why am I going to respect your claim to it? Thus the dispute. In our dispute, if you go ahead and say, "gotlucky, it's my apple and you have no right to steal it from me", then you are contradicting yourself. You might say that I have no right to take it, but your actions have demonstrated that you don't really believe this prohibition against theft, as you have already done so.
That is estoppel. So let's look at homesteading. This idea of first use, why would anyone subscribe to that as a rule? Why not a rule of second use or third use? Why transform or use the object in question at all? This, too, has to do with reciprocity. If I take the time to climb a tree and pick the apples, or even just collect the apples from the ground, I have clearly claimed those as my apples. If you come along and say, "gotlucky, under the rule of second use, I get to claim those apples as my own," what do you think is going to happen? I'm going to call you nuts and tell you to get away from my stuff. Again, we have a dispute.
We can see through the ethic of reciprocity how homesteading (first use) and estoppel arise as ideas. If you assault me, you would be a hypocrite if you were to complain about the illegitimacy of my hitting you back. If you steal my apples, or break into my home, you would be a hypocrite if you were to complain if I were to respond in kind. The legal principle of estoppel is meant to prevent people from saying things like that. And homesteading is another mechanism of reciprocation. You leave my homesteaded property unmolested, and I'll do the same for you. If you violate my homesteaded property, then I will respond in kind.
This is why homesteading and estoppel make so much sense to libertarians (and also the people who originally came up with these principles). First use makes sense to people because of reciprocity. It is a conflict avoidance mechanism (and can help resolve disputes should it not avoid them). I have my stuff, and you have your stuff. So long as we respect each other and our respective stuff, then we have no problems. We only have problems when we cannot agree as to what stuff belongs to whom or if someone just blatantly violates other people or their rightful property. This is when dispute resolution and then law kicks in. It defines the extent of the property in question.
Just don't forget there is a reason why homesteading/first use makes so much sense to people (and especially libertarians). It is not some rule that just got thought up one day and we all happen to like it by coincidence.
kelvin_silva: What if someone rejects the NAP because they say its human nature to aggress towards others?
Then that person is full of shit. The vast majority of human interaction is voluntary exchange. Look at the prison population. Even with imprisoning victimless criminals, they are still an insignificant percentage of the general population. Cut out the victimless criminals, and you can see that aggressive interaction is incredibly rare.
That is very true, but then he will say, then why do people kill people?
Id say its because humans dont always follow their nature.
Its human nature to do voluntary exchange but sometimes even we try to agress towards others (like stealing sister/brothers items, etc).
But the general rule is that humans do not agress towards others.
I'd be careful when making claims about human nature. For the most part it's true that humans are social animals and act cooperatively. Even criminally aggressive organizations have humans acting cooperatively within them.
I think the most precise claim we can make is that humans generally prefer social cooperation to conflict. And it's quite easy to empirically verify that claim. The opposite claim, that humans are inherently aggressive cannot be empirically verified, but it can be quite easily disproved.
gotlucky:I'm actually in the process of writing out a less snarky response, I just wrote that because your response to me didn't really highlight anything other than that you disagreed with me.
OK. That's all I was doing. I'm answering the OP and wanted to point out that I am disagreeing with the way both you and Autolykos responded to him.
And I can quote people too: Murray Rothbard: The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence ("aggress") against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.
Shocking I know, but I actually disagree with Rothbard's formulation. To continue from where your quote ended:
Rothbard:Let us set aside the more complex problem of the State for a while and consider simply relations between "private" individuals. Jones finds that he or his property is being invaded, aggressed against, by Smith."
Immediately raises the question: why is it Jones' property and not Smith's? If Smith claims it was his property all along and that his action was therefore defensive (retaliatory against an earlier aggression by Jones), then where are we? As I said, the criterion of initiation is insufficient.
Graham Wright: Immediately raises the question: why is it Jones' property and not Smith's? If Smith claims it was his property all along and that his action was therefore defensive (retaliatory against an earlier aggression by Jones), then where are we? As I said, the criterion of initiation is insufficient.
See my above post. I just want to requote the end of that post:
gotlucky: Just don't forget there is a reason why homesteading/first use makes so much sense to people (and especially libertarians). It is not some rule that just got thought up one day and we all happen to like it by coincidence.
And to add to it, the golden rule/ethic of reciprocity has been around since recorded history in all major cultures (and I presume all cultures, but I cannot back that up easily). I don't see how homesteading could precede the ethic of reciprocity if it came into being afterwards. Quite simply, we recognize the importance of first use because of it's relationship with reciprocity.
gotlucky: Graham Wright:No. The NAP is a useful shorthand in many circumstances, but at a deeper level of analysis the NAP is (depending on how aggression is defined) either 1) a restatement of the general task of political philosophy (i.e. even non-libertarians subscribe to it) or 2) it relies on the more fundamental principle of homesteading. I believe you meant that for me.
Graham Wright:No. The NAP is a useful shorthand in many circumstances, but at a deeper level of analysis the NAP is (depending on how aggression is defined) either 1) a restatement of the general task of political philosophy (i.e. even non-libertarians subscribe to it) or 2) it relies on the more fundamental principle of homesteading.
I believe you meant that for me.
Yeah, sorry about that.
But, homesteading is derived from the NAP/golden rule: "Respect me and what's mine, and I'll respect you and what's yours." What is mine and what is yours? How do we decide that? We need claims.
No, we already have claims... incompatible claims... that's the problem. What we (humans) need is a principle or set of principles for determining which claims are legitimate and which claims are not legitimate.
If I claim this apple as mine, you can either respect that claim or not. What happens if you don't respect that claim? Well, why am I going to respect your claim to it? Thus the dispute. In our dispute, if you go ahead and say, "gotlucky, it's my apple and you have no right to steal it from me", then you are contradicting yourself. You might say that I have no right to take it, but your actions have demonstrated that you don't really believe this prohibition against theft, as you have already done so.
At this point in this dispute though, things are symmetrical. If you go ahead and say 'Graham, it's my apple and you have no right to steal it from me' then you are as guilty of a "contradiction" as I am.
That is estoppel.
I don't think so. My understanding is that estoppel is a principle used by Kinsella for determining what kinds of retaliatory actions constitute defense and which ones go further and become a new act of aggression. It doesn't try to justify libertarianism in the first place.
So let's look at homesteading. This idea of first use, why would anyone subscribe to that as a rule? Why not a rule of second use or third use? Why transform or use the object in question at all? This, too, has to do with reciprocity. If I take the time to climb a tree and pick the apples, or even just collect the apples from the ground, I have clearly claimed those as my apples. If you come along and say, "gotlucky, under the rule of second use, I get to claim those apples as my own," what do you think is going to happen? I'm going to call you nuts and tell you to get away from my stuff. Again, we have a dispute. We can see through the ethic of reciprocity how homesteading (first use) and estoppel arise as ideas. If you assault me, you would be a hypocrite if you were to complain about the illegitimacy of my hitting you back. If you steal my apples, or break into my home, you would be a hypocrite if you were to complain if I were to respond in kind. The legal principle of estoppel is meant to prevent people from saying things like that. And homesteading is another mechanism of reciprocation. You leave my homesteaded property unmolested, and I'll do the same for you. If you violate my homesteaded property, then I will respond in kind. This is why homesteading and estoppel make so much sense to libertarians (and also the people who originally came up with these principles). First use makes sense to people because of reciprocity. It is a conflict avoidance mechanism (and can help resolve disputes should it not avoid them). I have my stuff, and you have your stuff. So long as we respect each other and our respective stuff, then we have no problems. We only have problems when we cannot agree as to what stuff belongs to whom or if someone just blatantly violates other people or their rightful property. This is when dispute resolution and then law kicks in. It defines the extent of the property in question. Just don't forget there is a reason why homesteading/first use makes so much sense to people (and especially libertarians). It is not some rule that just got thought up one day and we all happen to like it by coincidence.
This is all pyschology though, not political philosophy. Yes, libertarianism feels 'intuitively' the most ethical system to us and many people, and there are good reasons in evolutionary psychology why that would be the case. But this is not what we're really talking about. You and I are 'rationalists' in that we're seeking to build a sound intellectual foundation for a grand edifice. This is an intellectual discussion about what sits at the very bottom of that edifice: the starting point, the first principle in our grand theory of social relations. It's not relevant here to bring up arguments from psychology about why people do (or do not) intuitively agree with (at least most of) the edifice.
gotlucky:And to add to it, the golden rule/ethic of reciprocity has been around since recorded history in all major cultures (and I presume all cultures, but I cannot back that up easily). I don't see how homesteading could precede the ethic of reciprocity if it came into being afterwards.
I don't see what the history of ideas has to do with it, either. The Law of Comparative of Advantage and The Law of Marginal Utility and many other ideas in the economics historically precede the idea that is now recognised as being the starting point in the grand theortical edifice of economics... the concept of action. Do you see how the 'branches' were grasped before the 'root' was recognised or understood?
Quite simply, we recognize the importance of first use because of it's relationship with reciprocity.
That may well be true, but that's for psychologists to sort out.
Libertarianism cannot be uniquely defined by referring to initiation as a standard to distinguish between aggressive and defensive coercive acts, because the concept of initiation relies on a more fundamental idea about who ought to own which objects in the first place.
Indeed.
The foundation of libertarianism is the homesteading principle. The reason the government's claim to an entire (previously empty) continent is not legitimate (according to the libertarian) is that the government did not homestead the land (or acquire it through a voluntary exchange)
The foundation of libertarianism is the homesteading principle.
The reason the government's claim to an entire (previously empty) continent is not legitimate (according to the libertarian) is that the government did not homestead the land (or acquire it through a voluntary exchange)
The homesteading principle is not sufficient, as you yourself imply in the bolded passage above.
What is needed is a principle or principles governing how property is acquired in general. Homesteading is just one of several ways in which property can be acquired. It seems to me that there are three distinct ways: homesteading, voluntary exchange, reciprocation. When I say "distinct" I mean that these principles do not all derive from some other more fundamental principle. These have to be taken as axioms. But they also presuppose a concept of property. So we need a definition of property as well, which is another axiom. Given these four axioms (what property is, and the three distinct ways in which it can be acquired) there is no possibility for self-defense. So we actually need a fifth axiom providing for self-defense.
I've been working on reducing the entire libertarian ethics to a set of as few principles as possible. Here's an unpolished draft of what I have so far, and I'd be appreciative of any comments or criticisms.
I. Principle of Property
Classes of Ownership:
Unconditional and Unlimited Ownership: the owner has the right to use the thing in any way he pleases, and to forcibly exclude others from the use of that thing in any way
Unconditional and Limited Ownership: the owner has the right to use the thing in a particular way, and to forcibly exclude others from the use of that thing in any way which would cause him to be unable to use the thing in the way that he has a right to use it
Conditional and Unlimited Ownership: the owner has the right, if certain conditions are satisfied, to use the thing in any way he pleases, and to forcibly exclude others from the use of that thing in any way
Conditional and Limited Ownership: the owner has the right, if certain conditions are satisfied, to use the thing in a particular way, and to forcibly exclude others from the use of that thing in any way which would cause him to be unable to use the thing in the way that he has a right to use it
Thing: physical thing
Use: to cause the physical nature or location of a thing to change
N.B. The right that an owner holds is called “property” or “property right.”
Property Violation: a property violation is the use in any way of an owned thing without the consent of the owner of that thing; or the use of an owned thing in any way which prevents the use of that thing in a particular way by the person who has the right to use that thing in that particular way, and without his consent; the violator of property is the tortfeasor, the person whose property was violated is the victim
Retribution:
Destruction or Damage: if a person commits a property violation against another person, and thereby causes damage or destruction to the thing concerned, then the victim becomes the owner of some thing of the tortfeasor which is equivalent to that which the tortfeasor destroyed, or to some thing of the tortfeasor whose market value is sufficient to finance the repair of the thing which the tortfeasor damaged
Theft: if a person commits a property violation against another person by taking possession of some thing of his without his consent, then the victim becomes the owner of some thing of the tortfeasor which is equivalent to that of which the tortfeasor took possession
Usurpation: if any person commits a property violation against another person, but this violation is neither damage, destruction, nor theft, then it is usurpation, and the victim obtains the right to use some thing owned by the tortfeasor in the same way that the tortfeasor used the thing owned by the victim
Causation:
the action of a person is the cause of an occurrence if the action was a necessary condition for the occurrence, and if the person knew or reasonably should have known that the action would lead to the occurrence
A person is the sole cause of all of his actions, except that if a person reasonably believes that he must take an action in order to avoid becoming the victim of some act of aggression with which he was threatened by another person, then that second person is the cause of the aforementioned action of the first person
Defense: if a person who reasonably believes that he must use violence against another person in order to avoid becoming the victim of the aggression with which that other person threatened him so uses violence, and only as necessary to prevent the aggression, then he is not the cause of this violence, but rather the other person is the cause
Property Exchange: an exchange of property occurs when both parties consent to the exchange
Consent: a person consents to an exchange of property when he intends for the proposed exchange to occur
Duress: a person who reasonably believes that he must indicate his consent to an exchange of property in order to avoid becoming the victim of the aggression with which he was threatened by another person is under duress and any indication of consent made by a person under duress is not evidence of consent
Unowned Property: unowned property is any thing which either has never been owned by any person, or which was owned by a person who has died without inheritors, or which was owned by a person who has voluntarily renounced ownership
Acquisition: the first person to use unowned property becomes the owner thereof, and if multiple persons begin to use the unowned property at the same time, then the person who has invested the most capital (measured in money units) into the property shall become the owner thereof