Formulation of Non Aggression Principle

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?

See my above response.

Eran, you are right to criticise the NAP as not being the proper “foundational principle” of libertarianism. It isn’t. As Stephan Kinsella writes:

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:

I hope this helps.

gotlucky,

No it isn’t. The foundation of libertarianism is the homesteading principle.

Autolykos,

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.

Eran,

To address your last question directly…

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.

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?

Just so you know, Graham, I didn’t write that - GotLucky did.

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:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Shocking I know, but I actually disagree with Rothbard’s formulation. To continue from where your quote ended:

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:

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.

Yeah, sorry about that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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:

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.”

II. Principle of Reciprocity

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:

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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:

  1. 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

  2. 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

III. Principle of Defense

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

IV. Principle of Exchange

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

V. Principle of Homesteading

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