Ah, I see now. Thanks.
Mingy Jongo, maybe you understand now why I said when you said natural property doesn’t exist that you were basically saying ‘I didn’t exist’. I am naturally my own property (my body and mind). Natural property is person and the labor thereof as explained by numerous people in this thread thus far. It’s understanding this that has been emphasized for a long time now. Glad to see you are reaching out intellectually now. I gave a good source to read up on this called “The Ethics of Liberty” by Rothbard. We’ve been trying to help you understand from the beginning. [;)]
I have one more statement to make. I have thought about this for a long time, and am now confident enough to defend it.
Between (1) infringing upon another’s physical property and (2) claiming higher ownership of another’s physical property, only (2) can be used as justification for self-defense according to the NAP.
I have a rigorous proof for that claim:
-
There exists a property ‘a’ owned by a being ‘A’. There exists a property ‘b’ owned by a being ‘B’.
-
By the laws of physics, ‘a’ cannot infringe upon ‘b’ without ‘b’ infringing upon ‘a’.
-
(1) alone cannot justify either ‘A’ or ‘B’ alone to use self-defense, as any interaction between ‘a’ and ‘b’ can be claimed by both ‘A’ and ‘B’ to be aggression.
-
Therefore, between (1) and (2), only (2) can possibly be used to justify either ‘A’ or ‘B’ alone to use self-defense.
Practical implications:
(All assume an anarchical society with no prior agreements)
I have a soccer ball (my property) that ends up on my neighbors lawn (his property) by a gust of wind. I can validly claim that his lawn is infringing upon my ball, and he can validly claim my ball is infringing upon his lawn. However, I cannot claim ownership of his lawn any more than he can claim ownership of my ball. Therefore, self-defense can only be justified for him if I prohibit him from keeping his lawn nice, and for me if he does not return or permit me to retrieve my ball.
A man threatens me (my property) with a knife (his property). I can validly claim that his knife is infringing upon my body, and he can validly claim that my body is infringing upon his knife. However, he is using the knife to directly claim ownership over myself. I am not claiming ownership over him at all. Therefore, I am justified in using self-defense while he is not.
I (my property) am thrown on my neighbor’s land (his property) by a gust of wind. I can validly claim that his land is infringing upon my body, and he can validly claim that my body is infringing upon his land. However, as long as either one of us is willing to separate our properties, initiating aggression is the same as claiming superiority over the others’ ownership rights. If I voluntarily refuse to move, then I have claimed that my rights trump his and he is justified in self-defense. If he refuses to let me leave, then he has claimed that his rights trump mine and I am justified in self-defense.
The practical implications serve only as examples. Also, note that this only applies to self-defense. Damages to property should still be paid by each other. If anyone has any criticisms, please aim them at my proof. Thank you.
Actually, I would basically have been saying that “you don’t have the right to exist” (which really isn’t any less demeaning). I have started reading it already. Thanks for the help!
Well, you might have only meant that “I don’t have the right to exist”, but… Somebody says that to me in person, and I would keep my eye on them real close. I’m thinking about how close I might be to enact self-defense. They might want to make my existence cease - be no more. It is the fuzzy area as to what somebody’s motives really are. But it’s a threatening statement none the less. That person might as well be calling me a dead man. Same as saying ‘Dead man walking’. But I knew you didn’t really mean it that way, but hopefully you see what kind of grey, threatening, and quite possibly coercive area you walked into when you said that. Say that to somebody feeling a little edgy and they might open fire on you, maybe, maybe not. Now they are just words, but somebody walking around thinking I don’t have the right to exist. That speaks volumes. I would keep a close eye on them. They might be thinking about how I’m already dead and how they’re going to bury the body. I just wouldn’t know. It’s not a good thing for somebody to say to another that’s for sure. Too much grey area in the intentions there.
If no one owns (ought to be considered as having ultimate jurisdiction over) anything, then no one can use anything, period. No one’s consent will suffice. Same effect as Option C.
(1) and (2) are the same thing, stated in different ways. When Person A infringes upon Person B’s property, Person A is acting on the implicit presumption that they have a higher claim of ownership on Person B’s property than Person B has over his own property.
Not all property is composed of physical materials. Property is only a scarce thing that can be subjected to your control at some level. Your will (as in “will power”) is your property (because it is a scarce thing [there is only one of them] that is subject to your control at some level), but it is not composed of physical materials.
Property is an abstract, ethical concept, and ethics is merely a mental construct. As you yourself said, ethics are not chiseled in stone anywhere. They exist in the mind. The purpose of the ethical concept of “property” is merely a general rule (recommendation) for human action to help acting humans achieve their desired end (long-run maximization of personal satisfaction) in a world where scarcity exists and conflict is possible. The ethical concept of property is merely an idea. It is a means that we use to achieve our ultimate desired end.
Therefore both (1) and (2) can be used to justify acts of self-defense, because (1) and (2) are the same thing, stated in different ways.
Part of something being your property means you are responsible for it, and that means that if your property invades another person’s property, you must suffer the consequences. The fact that you failed to take proper care of your ball and let it land on someone else’s property is your own fault, and the land-owner is not morally obligated to return your ball. You lose the property title in your ball if you, in your malicious intent or innocent negligence, allow it to trespass against someone else’s property. You only regain the property title in it if the landowner whose land your ball has invaded agrees to voluntarily return it to you.
What if it was not a ball, but rather your pet tiger that accidentally got loose and ran onto another person’s property? Would the land-owner not be justified in picking up a shot gun and killing the tiger that is galloping toward him? Of course he would be justified. You are responsible for your property and responsible for taking care that it does not invade any one else’s property, whether or not you intended for it to do so.
How can the stabber validly claim that your body is “infringing upon” his knife? The initiation of aggression was committed by the stabber, thus the stabber is the infringer here. You are the victim/defender.
You cannot really say that anything is “infringing upon your body” in this instance (unless the landowner is preventing you from leaving). However, the difference between this instance and the ball example is that the title to the ball can be transferred or dispossessed, while the title to your self is inalienable. It cannot possibly be transferred. Even if you tried to transfer it, you would still remain in ownership of (ultimate jurisdiction over) your self. Thus, the owner of the property on which you involuntarily landed is obligated to allow you to leave.
-
I do not see how one’s will can be considered property, as it can never be transferred; it is you. I can see someone selling their organs, for example, but not their actual mind. I cannot think of any property that would not be physical, but if I’m missing something obvious, please let me know.
-
I stated that the ball was displaced by a natural disaster (gust of wind); no negligence on my part at all. And even if it was something like, me hitting a baseball through a window, I would have to pay for the damages, and my neighbor would have to give me my ball. I do not see how he can just arbitrarily claim it for his own.
-
He would be justified for killing it in self-defense not because it is just on his property, but because the tiger is, in effect, claiming higher ownership over his property. Yes, I know animals cannot own property; but being territorial creatures they act as if they do. I would be responsible for all damages because the tiger is my property, and he would have to give me its body.
“(1) and (2) are the same thing, stated in different ways. When Person A infringes upon Person B’s property, Person A is acting on the implicit presumption that they have a higher claim of ownership on Person B’s property than Person B has over his own property.”
If that were true, then I could buy some land next to a park and rig a bench to an electric generator to instantly kill anyone who sits on it, without any warning sgns. Just because someone might touch your property does not mean that they think they have a higher claim of ownership.
How so?
If the parking break on my car fails and it rolls into my neighbors trash cans, I owe them new trash cans, but they can’t steal my car.
I think you attributed Freiheit’s quote to the wrong person, but I agree to your reply anyways 
Sorry. I knew who said it but didn’t catch that.
Note that this does not just apply to animals, but also to any kind of property that can go out of control and destroy things, such as the T-1000. [:D]
It is your property, because it is a scarce resource that you ought to ethically be considered as having ultimate jurisdiction over. Whether or not it can be transferred is irrelevant. A thing does not have to be transferrable to be property. It merely has to be a scarce resource that is firstly appropriated and used by an actor.
You are responsible for taking care that your ball does not invade any one else’s property. You will have to account for the fact that you are outside, near someone else’s land, and that there is wind, and you will have to take measures accordingly to prevent invasions of any one else’s property.
Okay. Say the tiger is not galloping toward the landowner, but is merely standing in the landowner’s front lawn. Would the landowner not be justified in shooting this tiger on his front lawn? Of course the landowner would be justified in doing so, even if the tiger was not acting aggressively toward him.
If, on your private property, you set up a lethal park bench next to a public park, and you do not clearly demarcate that that property is yours (with a Private Property - No Trespassing sign, perhaps), then a pretty solid case could be made that you were committing fraud and indirect aggression. By making the edge of your private property look like the public park it borders, not clearly demarcating the boundaries of your property, and putting a lethal park bench that would lure people over, you fraudulently led others to believe that your property was part of the public park and could be treated as such. Also, park benches are there for people to sit on. If you did not take care to demarcate your property, a pretty solid case could be made that by putting a park bench there, you were intentionally luring random people to come and sit on that bench so that they would die. That would be an aggressive act on your part.
When someone infringes on someone else’s property (1), they are necessarily acting on the implicit assumption that they have a higher claim of ownership over that someone else’s property than that someone else has over their own property (2). Likewise, when someone acts on the implicit assumption that they have a higher claim of ownership over that someone else’s property than that someone else has over their own property (2), they are necessarily infringing on that someone else’s property (1). (1) and (2) are different sides of the same coin.
Was the failure of your parking break due to your own or someone else’s (i.e. the manufacturer’s or a mechanic’s) negligence? If your negligence caused your car to invade someone else’s property, they have no obligation to go out of their way to return it to you, and you have no right to walk onto their property to go get your car back. Thus, you have lost all levels of both physical and ethically rightful control over your car, and it can no longer be classified as your property. If, for instance, the manufacturer’s negligence was responsible for your car invading your neighbor’s property, your neighbor still has no obligation to return it to you, and you still have no right to walk onto your neighbor’s property to get your car back, but you may now rightfully demand full compensation from the manufacturer for the loss of your car, any property inside your car, the loss of time, and compensation for any damage the car may have done to your own property as it rolled. Thankfully, though, the vast majority of neighbors will probably be kind enough to let you retrieve your car, so this scenario is exceedingly rare to begin with (and the fact that you and your neighbor live in such close proximity and will probably, therefore, have to interact on a frequent basis, provides incentives, especially from a reciprocity standpoint, to be “neighborly”).
“It is your property, because it is a scarce resource that you ought to ethically be considered as having ultimate jurisdiction over. Whether or not it can be transferred is irrelevant. A thing does not have to be transferrable to be property. It merely has to be a scarce resource that is firstly appropriated and used by an actor.”
I can’t really argue against that from a logical point of view, as it is an axiom, but I can say that even if your will is property, it is a fundamentally different kind. My proof still holds for all physical property.
“You are responsible for taking care that your ball does not invade any one else’s property. You will have to account for the fact that you are outside, near someone else’s land, and that there is wind, and you will have to take measures accordingly to prevent invasions of any one else’s property.”
If a tornado threw my car a mile away on someone else’s house I should not be responsible for their damages. This is the exact same thing on a smaller scale.
“Okay. Say the tiger is not galloping toward the landowner, but is merely standing in the landowner’s front lawn. Would the landowner not be justified in shooting this tiger on his front lawn? Of course the landowner would be justified in doing so, even if the tiger was not acting aggressively toward him.”
Exactly, because unlike soccer balls, tigers can and will attack people due to their nature and have no concept of natural rights.
“If, on your private property, you set up a lethal park bench next to a public park, and you do not clearly demarcate that that property is yours (with a Private Property - No Trespassing sign, perhaps), then a pretty solid case could be made that you were committing fraud and indirect aggression. By making the edge of your private property look like the public park it borders, not clearly demarcating the boundaries of your property, and putting a lethal park bench that would lure people over, you fraudulently led others to believe that your property was part of the public park and could be treated as such. Also, park benches are there for people to sit on. If you did not take care to demarcate your property, a pretty solid case could be made that by putting a park bench there, you were intentionally luring random people to come and sit on that bench so that they would die. That would be an aggressive act on your part.”
Exactly. If I had “no trespassing” signs and fences, the only people who would be on my property are those who knew they were trespassing, and therefore thinking their rights trumped mine.
“When someone infringes on someone else’s property (1), they are necessarily acting on the implicit assumption that they have a higher claim of ownership over that someone else’s property than that someone else has over their own property (2). Likewise, when someone acts on the implicit assumption that they have a higher claim of ownership over that someone else’s property than that someone else has over their own property (2), they are necessarily infringing on that someone else’s property (1). (1) and (2) are different sides of the same coin.”
Like I have shown previously, this is not always the case (accidents, natural disasters, etc.)
I might as well just post my handy-dandy “property aggression” identifier to clarify my way of thinking:
There are three distinct situations involving property aggression:
(1): Aggression caused by nature
(2): Aggression caused by another involuntarily
(3): Aggression caused by another voluntarily
(1) should not require restitution.
(2) should require restitution by the person(s) responsible.
(3) should require restitution by the person(s) responsible and allow for self-defense against the person(s) responsible.
From my side:
The tiger itself is responsible for (1). If the tiger’s escape is an accident I am responsible for (2). If I purposefully let the tiger out to aggress upon you that is (3).
From my neighbor’s side:
My neighbor is responsible for (2) by killing my tiger.
Sure, you can divide “property” up into different “kinds” of property in infinite ways. You can divide it up into the following kinds: physical and non-physical. You can just as easily also divide it up into the following kinds: weighing more than a pound, and not weighing more than a pound.
But property is property. The basic, ethical nature of property does not change no matter what “kind” of property it is. Property is that resource which you own, and ethical ownership over a thing means that other actors ought to consider the owner as having ultimate jurisdiction over the owned property. You own your body; other actors ought to consider you as having ultimate jurisdiction over your body.
You own your will; other actors ought to consider you as having ultimate jurisdiction over your will.
Scarcity of a thing and some level of control over a thing are the two necessary requirements for something to be able to be property.
If a thing is not scarce, if it is infinitely acquirable/infinitely reproducible, there is no need to say “this thing is mine, and you may not take it,” because if someone takes a non-scarce thing from you, it doesn’t deprive you of that thing, because there’s always another one there for you. For instance, if you come up with an idea on how to fold a piece of paper into a neat shape, that idea cannot be your property, because it is not scarce. If someone “takes” that idea from you, it doesn’t deprive you of that idea, you still have it in your mind.
If a thing is not subject to your control at any level, then it is pointless to try to say “this thing is mine, and you may not take it,” because if you can’t control it at all, you can’t possibly appropriate and then use it, and thus you can’t possibly make it your property.
Scarcity makes property rights necessary, and control makes property rights possible to enforce.
Your body is scarce; there is only one of them. You can control your body. Thus, it can be your property. The fact that only you can control your body means that your body can only ever be your property and no one else’s.
Your will is scarce; there is only one of them. You can control your will. Thus, it can be your property. The fact that only you can control your will means that your will can only ever be your property and no one else’s.
There is a very clear difference between these two things, but there is a particular element of similarity in both cases.
The difference between these two situations, is that:
1). The tornado situation is a completely unpredictable, uncontrollable phenomenon.
2). If you’re playing ball in an outside area, rather near someone else’s private property, you can predict the likelihood that your ball will land on the person’s property, and you can control this situation by deciding how close to the other person’s property you play, by deciding how you play with the ball, etc.
The similarity in both these two situations, is that:
1). If your ball lands on another person’s property, they have no obligation to go out of their way to return it to you, and you have no right to walk onto their property to retrive it. Thus, you lose all levels of physical and ethically rightful control over the ball, and you cannot possibly claim it as your property at that point. You can ask the landowner to return it you voluntarily, or you can work out some kind of agreement with the landowner beforehand (like, perhaps, getting the landowner to agree to let you run onto his property to retrieve your ball if it lands over there).
2). If a tornado throws your car onto another person’s property, they have no obligation to go out of their way to return it to you, and you have no right to walk onto their property to retrieve it. Thus, you lose all levels of physical and ethically rightful control over the car, and you cannot possibly claim it as your property at that point. You can ask the landowner to return it to you voluntarily, or (more likely) both of you will have worked out beforehand an agreement with insurance companies to compensate you for this completely unpredictable event. Because the tornado was completely unpredictable and uncontrollable, you are not obligated to pay compensation to the other person whose property your flying car damaged. These sort of unpreditable situations are why people buy insurance, and any failure on the part of the other person to not insure against acts of nature like this means it’s the other person’s own fault and he will have to suffer the costs of the flying car landing on his property.
Okay, perhaps my example was confusing.
The reason why your property ceases to become your property when it invades another person’s property (even if it wasn’t your intention), is because the other person has no obligation to go out of their way to return it to you, and you have no right to trespass onto their property to retrieve what was once yours. Thus, since you lose all levels of physical and ethically rightful control over it, you cannot say that it is your property. Ownership without some level of control is meaningless. But, hopefully, the other person will kindly let you retrieve it, or if it’s a very valuable item, you will have worked out agreements before hand or will have some kind of insurance policy on it.
Right.
Okay, now we’re really delving (perhaps somewhat unnecessarily far) down into the minute details of the concept of aggression, but keep in mind that any accidents or natural disasters that are completely unpredictable and uncontrollable on your part do not constitute an act of ethical infringement. They merely constitute an unpredictable and uncontrollable act of nature. Thus, since you committed no act of ethical infringement when a tornado picked your car up and threw it at another person’s property, you do not owe them compensation. You do lose the property title in that car if you have no agreement with the other person, or if you can’t come to an agreement with the other person regarding returning the car to you, but you do not owe them compensation in the event of a completely unpredictable and uncontrollable phenomenon.
If an accident that is predictable and controllable on your part involves your property violating someone else’s property rights, then you are still, at the most basic and deep level, acting on an implicit assumption of a higher claim of ownership over another person’s property than they have over their own property. Granted, this implicit assumption is much more hard to see in some cases, but allow me to give an example. You’re outside (where wind is possible), and you’re strolling alongside the property border of someone else, where just across the property line, the family of the property owners are all sitting, having a picnic. As you’re strolling alongside their property, you’re tossing an apple up into the air and catching it over and over. You toss the apple up again, and suddenly a gust of wind blows the apple over and causes it to hit the property owner on the head or perhaps it just lands on their property in general. You may not have been acting on the explicit assumption that you had a higher claim of ownership over the property owner’s head or land than the property owner has over those things. But, by choosing to walk in a place where wind is possible, and choosing to lob the apple up into the air, and choosing to do so in a location that is close enough to the property owner’s land that a gust of wind could conceivably blow the apple over and violate the property owner’s property, you were, implicitly, acting on the basis of the knowledge that your property could violate the other guy’s property, and acting on the basis of the choice that you would take your chances in lobbing the apple up and down there–that, given the facts of reality in that situation, you didn’t care if your apple fell over and violated someone else’s property.
Sure, you can divide “property” up into different “kinds” of property in infinite ways. You can divide it up into the following kinds: physical and non-physical. You can just as easily also divide it up into the following kinds: weighing more than a pound, and not weighing more than a pound.
But property is property. The basic, ethical nature of property does not change no matter what “kind” of property it is. Property is that resource which you own, and ethical ownership over a thing means that other actors ought to consider the owner as having ultimate jurisdiction over the owned property. You own your body; other actors ought to consider you as having ultimate jurisdiction over your body.
You own your will; other actors ought to consider you as having ultimate jurisdiction over your will.
Scarcity of a thing and some level of control over a thing are the two necessary requirements for something to be able to be property.
If a thing is not scarce, if it is infinitely acquirable/infinitely reproducible, there is no need to say “this thing is mine, and you may not take it,” because if someone takes a non-scarce thing from you, it doesn’t deprive you of that thing, because there’s always another one there for you. For instance, if you come up with an idea on how to fold a piece of paper into a neat shape, that idea cannot be your property, because it is not scarce. If someone “takes” that idea from you, it doesn’t deprive you of that idea, you still have it in your mind.
If a thing is not subject to your control at any level, then it is pointless to try to say “this thing is mine, and you may not take it,” because if you can’t control it at all, you can’t possibly appropriate and then use it, and thus you can’t possibly make it your property.
Scarcity makes property rights necessary, and control makes property rights possible to enforce.
Your body is scarce; there is only one of them. You can control your body. Thus, it can be your property. The fact that only you can control your body means that your body can only ever be your property and no one else’s.
Your will is scarce; there is only one of them. You can control your will. Thus, it can be your property. The fact that only you can control your will means that your will can only ever be your property and no one else’s.
Whew! I already said that it would not apply to non-physical property if that was the case. Remove “All property is composed of physical materials.” and then try to disprove it.
There is a very clear difference between these two things, but there is a particular element of similarity in both cases.
The difference between these two situations, is that:
1). The tornado situation is a completely unpredictable, uncontrollable phenomenon.
2). If you’re playing ball in an outside area, rather near someone else’s private property, you can predict the likelihood that your ball will land on the person’s property, and you can control this situation by deciding how close to the other person’s property you play, by deciding how you play with the ball, etc.
The similarity in both these two situations, is that:
1). If your ball lands on another person’s property, they have no obligation to go out of their way to return it to you, and you have no right to walk onto their property to retrive it. Thus, you lose all levels of physical and ethically rightful control over the ball, and you cannot possibly claim it as your property at that point. You can ask the landowner to return it you voluntarily, or you can work out some kind of agreement with the landowner beforehand (like, perhaps, getting the landowner to agree to let you run onto his property to retrieve your ball if it lands over there).
2). If a tornado throws your car onto another person’s property, they have no obligation to go out of their way to return it to you, and you have no right to walk onto their property to retrieve it. Thus, you lose all levels of physical and ethically rightful control over the car, and you cannot possibly claim it as your property at that point. You can ask the landowner to return it to you voluntarily, or (more likely) both of you will have worked out beforehand an agreement with insurance companies to compensate you for this completely unpredictable event. Because the tornado was completely unpredictable and uncontrollable, you are not obligated to pay compensation to the other person whose property your flying car damaged. These sort of unpreditable situations are why people buy insurance, and any failure on the part of the other person to not insure against acts of nature like this means it’s the other person’s own fault and he will have to suffer the costs of the flying car landing on his property.
My physical-property proof is still intact, so I see no reason to believe they should be able to keep either my soccer ball or my car.
Okay, perhaps my example was confusing.
The reason why your property ceases to become your property when it invades another person’s property (even if it wasn’t your intention), is because the other person has no obligation to go out of their way to return it to you, and you have no right to trespass onto their property to retrieve what was once yours. Thus, since you lose all levels of physical and ethically rightful control over it, you cannot say that it is your property. Ownership without some level of control is meaningless. But, hopefully, the other person will kindly let you retrieve it, or if it’s a very valuable item, you will have worked out agreements before hand or will have some kind of insurance policy on it.
My car gets stolen and ends up on someone’s lawn who is not the thief. Dang, guess I got to buy a new car if they won’t let me take it. My proof covers both those situations and is still standing.
Right.
At least we agree on something. Now try to be consistent with your other answers.
Okay, now we’re really delving (perhaps somewhat unnecessarily far) down into the minute details of the concept of aggression, but keep in mind that any accidents or natural disasters that are completely unpredictable and uncontrollable on your part do not constitute an act of ethical infringement. They merely constitute an unpredictable and uncontrollable act of nature. Thus, since you committed no act of ethical infringement when a tornado picked your car up and threw it at another person’s property, you do not owe them compensation. You do lose the property title in that car if you have no agreement with the other person, or if you can’t come to an agreement with the other person regarding returning the car to you, but you do not owe them compensation in the event of a completely unpredictable and uncontrollable phenomenon.
If an accident that is predictable and controllable on your part involves your property violating someone else’s property rights, then you are still, at the most basic and deep level, acting on an implicit assumption of a higher claim of ownership over another person’s property than they have over their own property. Granted, this implicit assumption much more hard to see in some cases, but allow me to give an example. You’re outside (where wind is possible), and you’re strolling alongside the property border of someone else, where just across the property line, the family of the property owners are all sitting, having a picnic. As you’re strolling alongside their property, you’re tossing an apple up into the air and catching it over and over. You toss the apple up again, and suddenly a gust of wind blows the apple over and causes it to hit the property owner on the head or perhaps it just lands on their property in general. You may not have been acting on the explicit assumption that you had a higher claim of ownership over the property owner’s head or land than the property owner has over those things. But, by choosing to walk in a place where wind is possible, and choosing to lob the apple up into the air, and choosing to do so in a location that is close enough to the property owner’s land that a gust of wind could conceivably blow the apple over and violate the property owner’s property, you were, implicitly, acting on the basis of the knowledge that your property could violate the other guy’s property, and acting on the basis of the choice that you would take your chances in lobbing the apple up and down there–that, given the facts of reality in that situation, you didn’t care if your apple fell over and violated someone else’s property.
I agree with the apple example; I was actively throwing it and should have known better. I should pay restitution, but I should also get my apple back. I also agree that if my soccer ball caused damage I should pay restitution also, but my neighbor has no right to keep the ball without my permission. Every action every person does has a small chance of destroying something by accident, but in the apple example it was more my fault than the wind’s, the soccer ball could be seen either way, and the car destroying the house was all tornado.
I will post the revised proof for reference:
Between (1) infringing upon another’s physical property and (2) claiming higher ownership of another’s physical property, only (2) can be used as justification for self-defense according to the NAP.
Proof:
-
There exists a physical property ‘a’ owned by a being ‘A’. There exists a physical property ‘b’ owned by a being ‘B’.
-
By the laws of physics, ‘a’ cannot infringe upon ‘b’ without ‘b’ infringing upon ‘a’.
-
(1) alone cannot justify either ‘A’ or ‘B’ alone to use self-defense, as any interaction between ‘a’ and ‘b’ can be claimed by both ‘A’ and ‘B’ to be aggression.
-
Therefore, between (1) and (2), only (2) can possibly be used to justify either ‘A’ or ‘B’ alone to use self-defense.
Maybe it would help if I explained it from a different angle:
There can be no positive liberty (i.e. an ethical obligation for another person to perform a positive act for you), because such a thing would infringe upon that person’s right to self ownership. There can only be negative liberty (i.e. an ethical obligation for another person to refrain from performing a certain positive act toward you).
Thus, the lawn’s owner is under no ethical obligation to go out of his way to return your ball or car to you. But you still do not have the ethical right to trespass onto their lawn to go retrieve your car or ball. You have lost all level of physical/ethical control over it, and if you have no level of control over it, it is thus meaningless to claim it as your property. If the lawn owner does not consent to you coming onto his property, then you’re not getting your car or ball back.
However, if the loss of this property was a result of theft, you may rightly demand full compensation from the thief. And hopefully, if it’s a very valuable item, you will have taken out an insurance policy on it (in case the thief can’t be found).
When have I been inconsistent? I readily admit and apologize for the fact that I have been a bit confusing in some of my answers, but I’m trying to be as clear and concise as possible to answer all of your questions. If you feel I’ve been inconsistent in my logic, please show me where, and if I see an inconsistency, I’ll admit it, and adjust my beliefs accordingly.
How should you get your apple back? Once you lose all physical and ethical control over it, it becomes unowned. If you can think of a way to get it back without violating the lawn owner’s property (and before the lawn owner can get to it, because if the lawn owner gets to it and appropriates and uses it, it now becomes his property), like, perhaps using a powerful suction or magnetic device or something, then you can reclaim it. But you may not trespass onto the other person’s property to get the object back, and the lawn owner has no obligation to go out of his way to return it to you. It has nothing to do with the lawn owner actively “keeping” the object. The lawn owner could let the object sit there FOREVER. It doesn’t matter. The fact is, the lawn owner has no obligation to go out of his way to return it to you, and you have no right to trespass onto the lawn owner’s property to go get it back (without the lawn owner’s consent). No matter how the object got there (excepting the possibility that the lawn owner himself stole it from you), if the lawn owner doesn’t want to return it to you or doesn’t want to let you come onto his property, then it’s your loss. If it got there as a result of your own fault, then you’d better hope the lawn owner is an understanding guy. If it got there as a result of theft by a third party, you may demand compensation from the thief. If you can’t find the thief, or if it got there as a result of an uncontrollable act of nature, and the lawn owner won’t return it to you or let you come get it, then you’d better have had an insurance policy on it, or be willing to take the loss.
There can be no positive liberty (i.e. an ethical obligation for another person to perform a positive act for you), because such a thing would infringe upon that person’s right to self ownership. There can only be negative liberty (i.e. an ethical obligation for another person to refrain from performing a certain positive act toward you).
Thus, the lawn’s owner is under no ethical obligation to go out of his way to return your ball or car to you. But you still do not have the ethical right to trespass onto their lawn to go retrieve your car or ball. You have lost all level of physical/ethical control over it, and if you have no level of control over it, it is thus meaningless to claim it as your property. If the lawn owner does not consent to you coming onto his property, then you’re not getting your car or ball back.
However, if the loss of this property was a result of theft, you may rightly demand full compensation from the thief. And hopefully, if it’s a very valuable item, you will have taken out an insurance policy on it (in case the thief can’t be found).
I agree that there can be no positive liberty. He has the right to keep me off his land. However, you are forgetting that it is not only my soccer ball that is on his land, but his land is also on my soccer ball! Therefore, I have the right to keep his land off my soccer ball. If he refuses to return it when I want it back, he is claming that his rights trump mine, plain and simple.