Alice, Bob, and the Tea Party. (Rothbardian law question)

Economics Political Theory
1

Alice invites Bob over to her house for tea. While there, Bob makes a horrible insult toward Alice’s mother, and Alice demands Bob leave.

Obviously, Bob does not simply vanish off the premises when the Alice revoked her consent. Bob is doing something (being there) with Alice’s property without her permission (That is, Bob is now trespassing). Without considering the prior events, Bob is obviously in the wrong here according to Rothbardian law, and the victim now has the right to punish Bob in any way she sees fit.

This conclusion seems very absurd to me, as its logical implication is the owner of a piece of land has the right to do anything to anyone who enters, even those who are invited or otherwise allowed in, like at a restaurant. This means, for example, restaurant owners have the right to poison customers they don’t like. I doubt any Rothbardian would accept this conclusion either, as it very clearly goes against the central justification for the non-aggression principle and private property in general: For the increase of wealth through mutual cooperation.

Therefore, it’s most likely there’s a problem in my analysis. What is it?

2

Standard Rothbardian analysis relies on proportional response

3

What defines a proportional response?

4

It is usually understood that an invitation applies as long as is necessary – Bob is not trespassing until he has been given a chance to leave but hasn’t. Hence the example of the revoked invitation at 30,000 feet. Would you accept an unconditionally revocable invitation? Alice probably knows that Bob wouldn’t, in Western cultures at least.

5

So, upon the invitation, a particular contract is implied, right?

Actually, that brings up another interesting problem. Let’s say Bob is helping Alice with Spring Cleaning, and she asks Bob to “throw out all the junk in [her] house.” In this, Bob throws Alice’s C into the incinerator. The C is a very precious object to Alice, but to Bob it appears to be worthless junk. Long after the C is destroyed, Alice realizes what Bob has done and becomes very angry, although Bob, from his perspective, was only doing what Alice asked him to do. Has Bob violated Alice’s property here? The intuitive answer is “yes” but this clearly contradicts the “implied contract” described above.

6

This means, for example, restaurant owners have the right to poison customers they don’t like.

Sur thing, if they make it clear to whoever enters that they can be killed at the owner’s pleasure and upon asking to leave, people are allowed to do so at any moment without ill-effects. Under these conditions, sure.

7

There will still be a private court system as well. Excessive punishment would not bode well in courts.

And like someone else said. Proportional response.

8

I understand that this is quite old discussion but I would like to use it as a good place to ask some questions regarding what property owner can do in face of aggression.

Rothbard says that proportional response is justified but why it must be proportional in respect to NAP? NAP says that person being agressed is justified to use violence in response but why this response must be proportional?

The agressor knew that by initiation agression he can expect a justified violonent response. Why a victim is limited is scope of his retaliation? Isn’t he the one who best know what kind of response is proper in satisfying his needs? Why exactly third parties are better suitied to decide what is justified in retaliation rathen then the victim? Shouldn’t the victim has the final say about something concering his property (his body or other property)? As the owner, he should have better claim than anybody else to decide what is proper restitution or punishment.

Could you explain me a bit more what are libertarian justifications for proportionality of response (and/or punishment)?

9

Punishment and Proportionality - Ethics of Liberty Chp 13

The Right to Self-Defense - Rothbard

10

How extensive is a man’s right of self-defense of person and property? The basic answer must be: up to the point at which he begins to infringe on the property rights of someone else. For, in that case, his “defense” would in itself constitute a criminal invasion of the just property of some other man, which the latter could properly defend himself against.

Okay, but this doesn’t answer the questions why exactly the defense must be “up to the point at which he begins to infringe on the property rights of someone else”? Doesn’t the aggressor sort of waived his rights by initiating the aggression? Isn’t the victim entitled to choose an appropriate retailiation in such case?

To be clear, I agree with Rothbard on that. I disussing with so called “hardcore libertarians” who claim that there is no limit for the owner to choose whatever retailiation he wants after he has become a victim. Also they claim that the victim is the only person entitled to choose the extent of response and no third party can make the decision for him (otherwise we will have collectivism). NAP says that aggression in response to initial aggression is justified but it doesn’t say anything about allowed extent of such retailiation. So far I can only argue that “Rothbard said so”.

11

Let’s say that Bob is unknowingly trespassing on Alice’s land. Alice happens to be armed with a sniper rifle and gets a head shot on Bob without him ever seeing her. What’s to prevent Bob’s next of kin, “blood redeemer”, or life-insurance company from filing a wrongful death suit against Alice?

12

Some people would claim that any such wrongful death suit could constitute an act of agression againt the owner because it is owners prerogative to decide the rules on his land (and this rule could say: trespassers will be eliminated by precise head shots). They claim that if a third party can decide what rules are acceptable or nor, then the owner isn’t in fact the owner. And now imageine that the owner invents such rules on the spot (no warning signs, no fences) seeing the chance to make a nice kill of an aggressor. Can he do that? If not, why not?

Does the situation change if Bob is knowingly trespassing Alice’s land? Can he be killed in response to his clear aggression against Alice’s property?

13

Sorry, I meant to respond to this earlier.

My position is that the landowner’s rights in his/her land do not abrogate the trespasser’s right to his life - unless the trespasser presents a threat to the landowner’s life.

When you ask “Can he do that?”, do you mean is he physically able or do you mean is he permitted to do it?

I don’t think so. Bob’s trespassing per se doesn’t present an existential threat to Alice (i.e. a threat to her life).

14

The general Rothbardian position is that retaliatory force in excess of the intial tort is a new violation of the NAP.

Even if the law of the land did not explicitly condemn non-proportional retalionation, its hard to believe that it would become the norm. The concept of justice is tied to proportion in the minds of most people, and murdering petty thieves is not considered acceptable behavior in the modern world. Even the death sentence which IS proportional in most cases is not acceptable in the modern world.

Anyway, nothing says you can’t fart and burp loudly in public places, yet people refrain from doing it. The same rules apply.

15

@maciej

How, exactly, does your novel interpretation of Rothbardian ethics play out in practice?

I mean…

What if Bob and Alice are walking near each other, and Alice accidentally stands on Bob’s foot, causing him minor pain and trivial injury. Is Alice now a non-person vis-a-vis Bob forever more because she negligently hurt him in some tiny way, thereby violating the NAP in an absolute sense?

What if Bob and Alice are talking, and Bob says something she finds really insulting, so she slaps him and walks off. Is Bob entitled to unload a shotgun into the back of her head?

What if Bob and Alice are talking, and Bob’s breath smells really bad…

How are third-parties supposed to react to these goings on? If arbitration based on the NAP is impossible, because the NAP flies out the window forever more as soon as somone violates it in the most miniscule sense, aren’t we just going to have a completely ridiculous and lawless situation?

Are you sure you agree with Rothbard? Most people who assume such a distorted interpretation of his ethics are quick to reject libertarianism outright, and I can’t say I blame them.

The NAP is not some sort of social contract with a unilateral cancellation right afforded to its parties in case of any breach, no matter how minor, by another party. That’s the contract the state pretends it has with its subjects, except it is the only one with a cancellation clause available to it. :stuck_out_tongue:

The NAP is a principle derived in terms of natural law. It continues to apply at all times, even against people who do not comply with it in an absolutely perfect sense in the way they treat you, which is just as well, because NO ONE is capable of abiding by the NAP in a perfect sense for very long. This implies that justifiable private defense is the only form of aggression allowed in terms of it. Aggression which unreasonably exceeds that which is necessary for private defense, under the circumstances and concerning the threatened property in question, is therefore a violation of the NAP anew.

If there’s no place for arbitration, there’s no reason for us to talk about ethics. We might as well adopt total, solipsistic egoism and go around doing whatever we like to others if there never actually comes a time to justify one’s actions to others in terms of ethics. Why bother deriving property rights, if the fact of a property rights violation is just something people can make up whenever they like, and are never expected to demonstrate to 3rd parties, or have decided by 3rd-party arbitration? Why not just allow people to act in terms of their impulses and leave it there?

16

James, that is not my view, I’m just relaying some questions that I’v been asked elsewhere (see here as well). Thanks for your answers, they will definitely help me in my discussions with so called hard-core propertarians.

17

Lol, sorry, I thought you were the OP for some reason, so I glossed over the personal pronouns in your post. :stuck_out_tongue: