Here is my argument:
Here is a retort of an Anarcho-Capitalist friend:
Here is my explanation:
My argument is based upon this passage by Professor Rothbard:
A… would be initiating aggression against C if they tried to take back the property
What? If I try to take back my stolen bike it’s a violation of NAP?
The object is only justly in the hands of A (B in Rothbard’s claim).
The simple solution? No one is justified to take anything from a thief - it’s not theirs! Now, if the victim allows them to do this - all is well! But otherwise, anyone who holds my property without permission is illegitimate.
What? If I try to take back my stolen bike it’s a violation of NAP?
Well, C is not a criminal. He did not steal the “stolen bike.” He confiscated it from a thief.
The object is only justly in the hands of A (B in Rothbard’s claim).
No, Rothbard says: “Of course, it would be still better if he returned the horse to B, the original victim. But even if he does not, the horse is far more justly in C’s hands than it is in the hands of A, the thief and criminal.”
He did not steal the “stolen bike.” He confiscated it from a thief.
What difference does it make? Is it his property? No. Then he’s in the wrong.
more justly
There is no “more justly.” There is simply “just” and “unjust.” You can’t say that someone got raped “just a little.”
Is it his property?
Yes, it is now his property. He homesteaded the property in his confiscation, which is now in the hands of the innocent, non-criminal sector rather than the hands of a thief.
You can’t say that someone got raped “just a little.”
Neither I nor Rothbard endeavour to say anything of the sort. If A rapes B, and then (5 years later) C rapes A as proportional punishment for his crime, B could not justifiably rape C. That is my argument in a nutshell.
I should also add, for good measure, that my argument presumes B has not retroactively consented to A… In which case you would not have an instance of rape.
*Also, I should add that C’s action is not technically “rape,” which I called it for simplicity’s sake. Technically, C’s action was retaliative sexual punishment as oposed to rape, like C’s action in Rothbard’s example was confiscation as opposed to theft.
Yes, it is now his property. He homesteaded the property in his confiscation
So government spending is justified because if the Department of Education gets its money after the IRS steals it from me, it’s all fine?
You can’t homestead property which is currently owned and not abandoned…
So government spending is justified because if the Department of Education gets its money after the IRS steals it from me, it’s all fine?
Not at all, for that money is in the possession of thieves. The DoE did not confiscate it; they were working together with the IRS, hence criminals. Now if private sector individual C confiscated the funds from the DoE and spent it on schools that would be acceptable. (He is not a criminal by any stretch of the imagination, and has homesteaded the stolen property, as Rothbard would say).
According to Rothbard’s theory of property, if consistently applied then we arrive at the fact that this is A ok. B stole from A, this means that it is not B’s property, it is A’s, it never stops being A’s property, this means that if C takes if from B then it is still A’s property. Therefore D has the right to help A reclaim his property.
I disagree with Rothbard’s stance on property/morality but that’s a tale for another day, the above is just what happens if we apply his own principles consistently.
According to Rothbard’s theory of property, if consistently applied then we arrive at the fact that this is A ok. B stole from A, this means that it is not B’s property, it is A’s, it never stops being A’s property, this means that if C takes if from B then it is still A’s property. Therefore D has the right to help A reclaim his property.
Wait, so Rothbard would be OK with D “taking back” the property? Are you sure? Didn’t seem like it in the article “Confiscation and the Homestead Principle”?
RD, doesn’t what Neodoxy says make sense, though? Just because something of yours is stolen, it doesn’t mean that it suddenly has no owner. It still has a rightful owner. Under your system, if I stole $20 million from BIll Gates and then I got mugged and lost the money, then BIll Gates has no legal recourse.
Bill Gates should certainly be given back his money by the confiscator. But I do not think the confiscator can be forced to return it. As I said, that would be a violation of Rothbardian ethics (as far as I know).
And I hold lots of Rothbardian position that you might claim “just don’t make sense.” For instance, I support that you cannot initiate aggression against a mother who has starved her children; for she has not violated the NAA. Rothbard very clearly makes this point. (Let’s not go on a digression about this; I was merely using an example to highlight my Rothbardian positions that allegedly “do not make sense”).
Well, that position makes logical sense (not if she prevents the child from leaving, of course).
Your title to your property doesn’t vanish when you get it stolen. Indeed, if this were the case, then it is more convenient to then claim that you merely “let” the man have you property rather than having it be stolen. Because this way, you might be able to negotiate to get some of it back.
Furthermore, how do you make a distinction between a confiscator and a co-conspirator?
Why do I ask? Because if the confiscator does not want to return the good, then he had the intention of keeping it for himself. So he’s a thief nonetheless.
Plus, imagine that I join the government for one day and then take all the taxpayer money collected and then quit the government. Since I was not part of the government during the collection, I am not a co-conspirator. Hence, I now legally own some $2 trillion.
Your title to your property doesn’t vanish when you get it stolen.
I agree. But, as I have tried to say, C has initiated aggression against no one. Wherefore, then, may you initiate aggression against him? I thought one could only use retaliative force in proportion to a criminal’s crime. To me, it does not seem like C is a criminal, to any extent, nor has he committed a crime for which we may use violence. As he is entirely innocent, forcing him to return the property would in itself be a violation of the Non-Aggression Axiom, would it not?
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.
Plus, imagine that I join the government for one day and then take all the taxpayer money collected and then quit the government. Since I was not part of the government during the collection, I am not a co-conspirator. Hence, I now legally own some $2 trillion.
Yes, I’d say so. Unless my current understanding is wrong, of course.
I’m not certain of it, but I am certain that if you apply Rothbard’s logic properly then that’s where you end up (philosophers are notorious for making small excuses that lead to big exceptions to their systems and Rothbard might have done this to avoid calls for redistribution of reobtained property)
Under Rothbard’s system something is homesteaded from nature through the combination of labor and the natural factors, then it is considered property and can rightfully be exchanged, being property all the way down the line of exchange. However, when something is stolen it is not rightfully obtained by the individual who steals it, it is still the original owner’s property. Therefore by taking it from the thief thief 2 (who is technically not a theif) has not made it his own property, he has not taken something that is not owned by anyone and combined it with his labor in any way, instead he has taken something that belongs to someone else away from the one who had stolen it.
I think in the artical Rothbard is saying that thief 2 is technically not a thief and is not a thief in and of himself. He is not morally obliged to give back the stolen good, but it is perfectly right for the original owner to take it back.
So my question to you RD, when does the object in question stop being A’s property?
How has he not committed aggression? He’s taking someone else’s stuff!
Try this:
To have property in something means that you may use force to regain the good if taken from you. Hence, A can take the good back from B (the thief), to which we both agree.
Now, to homestead something is to take something which is unowned and make it yours.
Taking these two tools, we examine the situation.
A may use force to get the good back from B because A owns the good. Can C homestead the good from B? No, because it is currently an owned good. If the good instead were unowned, then A would not be able to legitimately regain the good with force, which is a contradiction.
@Whey- That might make sense. Perhaps that is why Rothbard said “if the original owner cannot be identified,” according to wiki:
Murray Rothbard says (in Justice and Property Rights): "All existing property titles may be considered just under the homestead principle, provided
- (a) that there may never be any property in people;
- (b) that the existing property owner did not himself steal the property; and particularly
- (c) that any identifiable owner (the original victim of theft or his heir) must be accorded his property".
Maybe I just needed more context? Yes, this would seem to be theft (from the rightful owner) in the objective sense. I think I might have been geting wrapped up in the subjective view of C, who has merely confiscated it from B, but refusing to return the property to identifiable A has stolen it.