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.
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 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?
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.
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.
I’m still waiting to hear from you why you think the NAP is circular. Also, the following statements contradict one another:
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.
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.
Eran, I hope you don’t mind if I also address your responses to Lady Saiga and GotLucky.
Indeed, I’d say the difference between voluntaryists and statists concerns the self-ownership principle, not the non-aggression principle.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.