Formulation of Non Aggression Principle

Economics Political Theory
41

Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. A Marxist may consider the apple to be nobody’s legitimate property. The point I am making is that we all make claims to our property. It is a necessary condition of property. The next step is that people can either respect or violate those claims. Libertarians claim that the first user is typically (or always, depends on the libertarian) the rightful owner. So the question is why do libertarians believe that? Certainly there are libertarians who just accept homesteading as a founding principle for its own sake, and then they separately accept the NAP as another, and estoppel as yet another. But there is no link here other than the fact that the holder of these beliefs happens to believe them.

The link between these beliefs is reciprocity. I make a claim, and if it’s a reasonable claim, I expect you to respect it. For example, if I claim all of North America as mine or I claim it on behalf of some government somewhere, we don’t consider that to be reasonable. But if I were to build a house on unclaimed land, we would recognize that as reasonable. I expect you to respect my reasonable claim, and you expect me to show you the same respect.

Many cultures throughout the millenia have had this as some sort of important principle. Of course, many of these same cultures didn’t agree as to who the principle applied to. Libertarians say this principle applies to everyone. Regardless, when you apply the ethic of reciprocity, you get people to agree to respect other’s claims of first use. Second use is just not a claim anyone (except a thief) can respect.

No, I have already made a claim to the apple. I can explicitly claim it by stating, “Graham, I claim this as my apple.” I can implicitly claim it through my actions of using it. We don’t need to go further into norms here, I think.

So you have a choice, you can either respect my claim or violate it. It’s your choice to do either one. But if you violate that claim, then you and I have a dispute, and if we follow reciprocity, then I have no reason to respect your claim either.

Estoppel is a legal principle that Kinsella found intriguing and just, and he has promoted it as an important libertarian principle. Notice in the very first sentence wikipedia mentions the legal concept of equity? Estoppel originated through the concept of equity, which is in turned tied to reciprocity. I skip the whole common law history in my explanation and go straight to the heart of the issue. Estoppel is about preventing people in a legal setting from making claims contradictory to their previous claims or actions. If you steal from me, and I go to take it back, you can’t call my actions theft in a court of law.

Very little, if any, of that is psychology. It is an explanation of the ethic of reciprocity and its implications. I do not claim to know why the vast majority of people prefer voluntary and peaceful interactions. I do not claim to know why cultures have placed an importance on the golden rule. I imagine it has to do with evolution and social humans passing on their genes better than ones that act alone, but I do not actually know this to be true. I strongly suspect that it is true.

I am claiming that the vast majority of people do prefer voluntary and peaceful interactions. But that is not psychology. If anything, reasoning out those implications would fall under praxeology, but since I am making ethical claims, it cannot be praxeology. Regardless, I am reasoning out the implications of the golden rule, and they lead to principles such as homesteading, estoppel, proportional punishment, etc. The golden rule is my starting point. It does not have to be yours. Feel free to accept whatever axioms you want as the basis for your philosophy.

The NAP is the golden rule. From it, I can reason out the implications to homesteading, etc. So when Rothbard claims that the NAP is the foundation of libertarianism, I believe him. But if you do not have the same attraction to the NAP/golden rule that I do, then you must accept homesteading, estoppel, NAP, proportional justice, etc. as separate axioms. That is fine. But I do add that I think the reason you accept them is because of a typical human attraction to the ethic of reciprocity. Perhaps I am wrong, and I should not use pyschology in that one respect. Perhaps you just accept all these axioms separately.

I don’t.

42

@Graham

When I say, “Feel free…your philosophy.” I am not saying that you aren’t libertarian, so I hope you don’t read it that way. It’s meant to be a sentence that can apply to libertarians and non-libertarians.

43

The NAP is the golden rule. From it, I can reason out the implications to homesteading, etc.

If you can, do.

44

I have. As you have stated in the other thread, you do not subscribe to the NAP. You do not even hold the same definition of “aggression”. Nor do you use the word “minarchist” as others do. To be honest, I have no idea what you are saying, as your words could mean anything.

I’m not really sure what you get out of talking with me.

45

I have. As you have stated in the other thread, you do not subscribe to the NAP.

I most certainly do subscribe to the NAP, please provide the quote where I say otherwise.

You do not even hold the same definition of “aggression”.

Really? What’s my definition and how does it differ from the norm?

Nor do you use the word “minarchist” as others do.

That’s true, but I explained that in my very first post on this forum many months ago, and there’s a standing explanation in my account profile for anyone to see.

To be honest, I have no idea what you are saying, as your words could mean anything.

Anything? Huh…

I’m not really sure what you get out of talking with me.

The same I get out of talking with everyone here, an opportunity to learn, sharpen my reasoning skills, and have my own ideas subjected to rational criticism and thereby improved.

…I don’t know why you’re getting angry. You claimed you could derive the homesteading principle from the NAP, and I asked you to do so. What’s wrong with that? Would you prefer if we all just took your word for it?

46

From this conversation. For anyone who cares, Minarchist claims to subscribe to the NAP, but he does not subscribe to the standard version as stated by Rothbard or Block. He has his own principle that he also calls the NAP. It’s the same with aggression and other terms.

Well, I just simply don’t believe you. I am not angry, but I just don’t really find much value in engaging you on these subjects anymore. I have numerous times demonstrated how one can reason to these other principles from the golden rule. The fact of the matter is that you do not accept the golden rule as your premise. But that doesn’t change the fact that estoppel, for example, comes from the ethic of reciprocity. I mean, come on, its very history comes from the common law concept of equity, and it doesn’t get much more reciprocal than that.

So, you’ve gotten me to respond to you again, but fortunately I haven’t actually engaged you in any meaningful debate in this post, so your antics will only get you so far.

I don’t believe you are acting honestly, and until you convince me otherwise, I don’t think I’m going to think otherwise. You can either care or not care what I think. If you care what I think, then I guess you’ll have to convince me that you are behaving honestly. But if you don’t care, then naturally you will stop with this nonsense.

47

I’ll say again, the Rothbard quote you’re so fond of, gotlucky, presupposes an existing definition of property. NAP is the foundation of a great deal, but you have not established that it is the foundation of a DEFINITION OF PROPERTY.

Also by referring back to a Golden Rule, you suggest that common practice is an effective argument in favor of NAP as an axiom. That may be so, but it undermines your point. The reason you have set yourself up for this problem is that you fail to recognize the definition of property as necessarily prior to NAP. You had to look elsewhere, and in doing so you argued against your own argument.

You’re clearly emotionally attached to the NAP. That’s great, but it’s not logic.

48

With all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you would like to state what the golden rule even is and what it’s relationship is to the NAP?

49

That’s YOUR preoccupation, not mine. I don’t even think it pertains to the discussion at hand.

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.

Here we go. Right there in your very own quote. Emphasis mine. I don’t find your “due respect” all that respectful, either.

50

Well, that’s your problem I guess, not mine. I meant it, as we have been having a nice conversation in another thread. But here, you have demonstrated that you do not even know what the golden rule is. So, I have asked you to demonstrate that you have knowledge of what is being discussed. I will give you some easy links to read:

Golden Rule/Ethic of Reciprocity

NAP/History

The NAP is the golden rule. “Do not aggress” “Eye for an eye” “Love thy neighbor as thyself” “Respect me and what’s mine, and I’ll respect you and what’s yours”

These are all various ways of stating the ethic of reciprocity, which the NAP falls under. The NAP is specifically meant for the realm of law, but the golden rule even allows for this too. If you insult me, reciprocation would not mean hitting you, it would be insulting you back. But if I hit you, then I would be going beyond reciprocity. Then the law is involved, unless of course you are in a statutory law system where you can be arrested for things you said. But I should hope that any libertarian would recognize that as a violation of the NAP.

The problem here is that you are fixated on the NAP, and you are not looking at the ethic of reciprocity. “Respect me and what’s mine, and I’ll respect you and what’s yours.” This is the origin of property. If I make a claim to own something, you can either respect it or not. If you do not, then we have a dispute, and then we must settle it. But it starts with me making a claim to own something - that it belongs to me and not you. That claim has to start somewhere.

But there is not much for us to discuss if you won’t even bother to learn about what is being discussed before making accusations of failed logic. You are just throwing darts in the dark.

51

From this conversation.

What in that conversation indicates that I reject the NAP in its normal formulation?

I stated that the NAP is not the foundation of libertarianism. I did not say I reject the NAP.

For anyone who cares, Minarchist claims to subscribe to the NAP, but he does not subscribe to the standard version as stated by Rothbard or Block.

That is false, I subscribe to the normal formulation of the NAP. I do differ with Rothbard on the question of inalienability, as does Block.

He has his own principle that he also calls the NAP. It’s the same with aggression and other terms.

Is it? Why don’t you tell me what I call the NAP? And what I call aggression? I use both those terms in the same way as you and everyone else.

I have numerous times demonstrated how one can reason to these other principles from the golden rule.

No, you have not. You have argued that all libertarian ethics has its historical roots in the ethic of reciprocity, but as Graham pointed out above, the history of the ideas has nothing to do with their logical relationships to one another.

The fact of the matter is that you do not accept the golden rule as your premise. But that doesn’t change the fact that estoppel, for example, comes from the ethic of reciprocity. I mean, come on, its very history comes from the common law concept of equity, and it doesn’t get much more reciprocal than that.

Again, talk about the history of these ideas has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not one can derive the homesteading principle from the NAP.

So, you’ve gotten me to respond to you again, but fortunately I haven’t actually engaged you in any meaningful debate in this post, so your antics will only get you so far. I don’t believe you are acting honestly and until you convince me otherwise, I don’t think I’m going to think otherwise. You can either care or not care what I think. If you care what I think, then I guess you’ll have to convince me that you are behaving honestly. But if you don’t care, then naturally you will stop with this nonsense.

So when I ask you to substantiate your claim that it is possible to derive the homesteading principle from the NAP, I’m engaged in nonsensical, dishonest antics? Uh huh. And clearly the only sensible, honest and serious thing for you to do is to start making baseless and completely irrelevant claims about my views on the NAP et al, in an effort to paint me as a non-libertarian? Uh huh.

52

Minarchist,

I believe this just may be my last post to you ever. You can quote me on this if I fail to live up to this claim. If anyone read through the conversation that ended with the link I posted, anyone can see that your definition did not line up with either Block’s or Rothbard’s. Specifically, you cut out the initiation of violence to the person. You also define aggression differently than Rothbard or Block.

Feel free to read through that conversation again. It is stated explicitly for anyone who cares to wade through that bullshit conversation between us.

I do not need to repost quotes from that thread in order to prove you wrong, as the quotes are already in that thread. I am not going to derail this thread any further by wasting my time with you. If you continue to lie about me and these “false” accusations, as they are not false, then I am just going to start reporting your posts to the moderators.

There is no need for this level of dishonesty on the forums.

53

You DO have a definition of property, which you state is dependent upon NAP but is not. You’re saying that “things that I assert as my property are my property” and that’s a definition, sure, but it isn’t explicit in NAP.

It’s still a definition WHICH YOU NEEDED IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND NAP.

Note too that it is different from others’ definitions, leading to the obvious conclusion that the exact terms of the definition of property are not a requirement of NAP in and of itself.

54

That would be a misuse of language by the Marxist. Marxists advocate a specific set of principles for determining ownership. I believe those principles basically amount to: everything belongs to the state. They cannot help but specify owners and ownership principles. Anyone who has an opinion about what constitutes just use of scarce resources is necessarily supporting a particular set of principles for ownership, whether they recognise it or not. All that means is that they have an opinion about who should make decisions about what, i.e. who should own what.

OK, well that’s not the question I’m answering. I’m addressing the OP’s question about whether the NAP rests on a more fundamental concept and whether there is actually a circularity involved somewhere. I’m saying it does, and there isn’t.

It doesn’t matter who is first to claim it. It is the first person to establish an objective and intersubjectively ascertainable link that matters, because we call that person the homesteader and consider him the legitimate owner of the scarce good which was previously unowned.

Well if I respect your claim then there’s no problem to be solved. If I don’t respect your claim, you can choose to not respect my claim either and we’ll be at a state of war with each other. Ownership - the whole subject of political philosophy - only matters when there is such a state of war between individuals. If we all just got along, there’d be no disputes to resolve, and no political philosophy at all.

Talking about why we seem to just get along most of the time is either history or psychology. Political philosophy only comes into play when we don’t get along, so what you’re talking about is one step removed from what I’m talking about, and what I think the OP was talking about.

If the Golden Rule and the NAP are the same thing, why did you even bring up the Golden Rule? The NAP has a much more precise meaning than the Golden Rule. There are dozens of ways of phrasing the Golden Rule. You used the word “respect”. Now here you’re saying effectively that “respect”, to you, means “don’t aggress”, i.e. “don’t initiate coercion”.

So you’re saying you can reason from the NAP to the homesteading principle? Please outline how or point me to somewhere you have done that.

55

This is tiring. I have not said this. I specifically talked about claims. Property is a legal concept. There is no property on a one man island. You are still fixated on the NAP, when the crux of the issue is the ethic of reciprocity. You are going to have to undertand this if you want to get anywhere.

Yup, fixated on the NAP. Perhaps if you bothered to read the chart I linked to, you would see the progression of the ancient form of the golden rule to the modern libertarian form of the NAP.

But that would require work on your end.

Definitions of what? NAP or property?

56

You also define aggression differently than Rothbard or Block.

I define aggression in exactly the same way as Block: namely, as a violation of property rights. No, the quote you’ve posted repeatedly where Block defines aggression as a violation of property or person does not speak to the contrary - because Block views the body as (alienable) property. Again, see the following:

you cut out the initiation of violence to the person.

I believe that violence to the person is aggression insofar as it constitutes a property rights violation of the owner of the body, which is always the person whose body it is, unless that person entered into voluntary slavery.

You believe that violence to the person is aggression per se, regardless of who owns the body in question.

In other words, our disagreement is all about the case of voluntary slavery. If VS were not an issue, we would have exactly the same definition of aggression.

…and I’m going to ignore all the rest of what you said, and any additional hostile nonsense you spew in the future.

57

I was using the term Marxist somewhat loosely, as there are Marxists/communists who do not believe in a state. I don’t care to delve too deeply into that matter as Marxism/communism is so contradictory that we’ll get nowhere as to who believes what. The point I am making is that not everyone has the same concept of legitimacy.

The NAP is circular only insofar as it is an axiom. It is not a conclusion but a premise. Rothbard tried to use natural law to reason his way to the NAP, but I do not agree with that, namely for the is-ought problem. I recognize that I accept the NAP as a premise for no other reason than the fact that I do. But it seemed to me that the OP was claiming that the NAP had other circular problems within it, and I reject that claim.

Obviously, you take other premises in order to reach your philosophy of libertarianism. But for me, and people like Rothbard, I start with the NAP/ethic of reciprocity. In the end we probably agree on most everything seeing as we are both libertarians. I just don’t take all these axioms as unconnected principles that we just happen to agree upon by coincidence.

Well, this is the problem of objective links. Why first use and not second use? There must be a reason that you prefer first use to second use? I know why I do. But I’m curious, do you have a reason other than you do?

To be honest, this seems a little strange coming from you. I don’t want that to sound like I’m insulting you, because I’m not. It’s just that you are missing the whole dispute resolution aspect of the equation. Just because there is a dispute does not mean that we must be at a state of war with each other. This is what law is for. Law will exist with or without political philosophy.

Are you familiar with the term respect?

I could have used the word violate, which has an opposite meaning in terms of law. I could have said, “Do not violate me or what is mine, and I won’t violate you or what is yours.” I preferred the sound of the positive form rather than the negative form. But they mean the same thing.

I did earlier in the thread, but I’ll do it again quickly here:

I pick an apple that has fallen from a tree. I have used it first. I claim it to be mine, explicitly or implicitly. If you come along and say that it is yours, I have no reason to respect that claim. But we both have a reason to respect each other’s claims of first use instead of some weird notion of second use. In other words, I respect your claims to the apples you pick off the ground, and you will do the same for me. This is respecting first use.

What we are not doing is respecting some bizarre claims of second use. In other words, I pick the apple off the ground and put it down in a basket, and then you come along and say, “According to the rule of second use, this is now my apple.” Perhaps a society could do this, but the ethic of reciprocity is such that I respect your claims and you respect mine. I made a claim to the apple. This does not make it my property. Claims are a necessary aspect of property, but they are not sufficient. We only have property in a legal context. For something to be considered property, it needs to be recognized as property by the community or society. When you respect my claims of first use, and I respect your claims of first use, then we have homesteading of property. But if no one recognizes the claims of first use as legitimate, then there is no homesteading.

Perhaps that is the source of the problem here. I have already provided links in this post, so if I start providing more, the forum will eat or delay my post. So, I suggest that you look up the following words just so to make sure we are on the same page. This is not meant to be patronizing:

Property, ownership, possession, and rightful.

Actually, on second thought, I will just edit those links in after I post. But the one thing you will notice is that the one man “society” does not have property per se. It requires a two way street at least. So, without reciprocity, you cannot have homesteading, as homesteading requires people to actually consider it legitimate in the first place for it to even be a law. It requires both of us to agree to the reciprocal nature of the principle.

58

To directly answer the OP:

Once property rights are established (i.e. once we know what property is, and how one acquires it) the NAP is superfluous. It amounts to “don’t violate property rights.” I don’t think the NAP has a place in the foundation of libertarianism.

However, the NAP is extremely useful shorthand to look at any particular action/policy/law/etc and ask “is this compatible with libertarianism?”

59

In the OP I proposed an alternative forumation which I believe combines the calling of the traditional formulation with Rothbardian property-acquisition rules as a consequence.

I suggested something along the lines of “It is wrong to use force against another person or his ongoing peaceful projects”.

Property is now simply a convenient methods of clarifing and making publically known which physical objects (or natural resources) are to be considered part of a given person’s ongoing projects. If a resource is part of my ongoing project, the NAP prohibits others from using force against it. The meaning of the new formulation is identical to that of the old.

But the new formulation makes it easy to derive homesteading as a method for acquiring property titles.

Homesteading is nothing but the incorporation of resources into an ongoing project. If the resource isn’t previously owned (or if I acquired it through voluntary exchange), its incorporation into my projects is peaceful (as it doesn’t itself violate NAP). Homesteading only confers full (exclusive) property rights of the nature of the project and the resource are such that exclusive use is reasonably necessary. The canonical example of clearing and sowing a field clearly fits.

If, on the other hand, the nature of the project and the resource is that exclusive access is not reasonably required (e.g. if the resource is a path I use occasionally), there is no justification for full ownership. Another person using the resource (e.g. another person walking on the path) isn’t thereby using force against my project. In that case what I acquire is mere easement (or use-right), rather than full, exclusive ownership.

A subsequent person who does want to incorporate the used resource into a project in a way that reasonably requires exclusive use (e.g. by clearing a field which contains the path) can only be considered to be doing so peacefully if they refrain from employing force against my project, i.e. if they respect my easement (use-right) on the path.

The advantage of this formulation is that it combines the traditional property-protecting calling of NAP with Rothbardian property acquisition procedures. It even allows the useful distinction between exclusive use (full ownership) and non-exclusive use (easement). It even helps clarify the boundaries of homesteading. Property rights are conferred through homesteading exactly to the extent that exclusive access is reasonably required. If I clear and sow a field, I can reasonably require that no other person enter the field and trample on my crops. I cannot, however, reasonably claim that an airplane flying way above me, or a tunnel drilled far underneath my field interrupt my project. Hence my property rights are restricted to normal surface use.

Comments?

60

Yes, you and Rothbard start with the NAP: “don’t initiate coercion”. My position as I explained in my first post is that this criterion of initiation does not make sense unless you have a theory of property (what it is, and how it is legitimately acquired) underlying the statement. It is this underlying theory that is the foundation of libertarianism.

I support homesteading because a society based on homesteading (i.e. a libertarian society) will have what I consider to be better consequences (peace and prosperity) than societies based on a different property assignment principle.

Why do you support homesteading?

What are you talking about?! In that very quote I said that if we all got along, there’d be no disputes to resolve. Disputes are the whole reason laws and the subject of political philosophy exist, and I’ve said that many times in this thread and on my blog.

Does “respect me and what’s mine” mean the same as “don’t aggress against me and what’s mine” or doesn’t it? You can’t just equivocate between a broad and a narrow definition of “respect” as and when you please.

So what if we both “have a reason to respect each other’s claims”? Either we are able to get along or we’re not. And political philosophy is about when people don’t get along.

Again, so what? Obviously if no one recognizes the claims of first use as legitimate, then there is no homesteading. All you’re saying here is that the property rules actually operating in a society depend on what property rules are generally seen as legitimate. Well, duh.

You have not reasoned from the NAP to the homesteading principle here.

That is very patronizing.

And where have I said anything to the contrary?

Both the “so” and the “as” here are non-sequiturs, as far as I can tell. You have not reasoned from the NAP to the homesteading principle at all. You would need to start by giving a definition of the NAP which doesn’t have property theory already underlying it, otherwise your reasoning is bound to be circular.