“Since socialism cannot arise without the expropriation of assets originally “created” and owned by individual homesteaders, producers, and/or contractors, all socialist property, ill-begotten from the very start, should be forfeited. No government, even if freely elected, can be considered the owner of any socialist property, for a criminal heir, even if himself innocent, does not become the legitimate owner of illegitimately acquired assets. Because of his personal innocence he remains exempt from persecution, but all of his “inherited” gains must immediately revert to the original victims, and their repossession of socialist property must take place without their being required to pay anything. In fact, to charge a victimized population a price for the reacquisition of what was originally its own would itself be a crime and would forever take away any innocence that a government previously might have had.”
More specifically, all original property titles should be recognized immediately, regardless of who presently owns them. In so far as the claims of original private owners or their heirs clash with those of the current assets’ users, the former should override the latter. Only if a current user can prove that an original owner-heir’s claim is illegitimate - that the title to the property in question had initially been acquired by coercion or fraudulent means - should a user’s claim prevail and should he be recognized as the legitimate owner.[10]
[10] In those cases in which current users actually bought expropriated assets from the government, they should seek compensation from those responsible for the sale, and the government officials accountable for it should be compelled to repay the purchase price.
~ Democracy: The God that Failed, Hans-Hermann Hoppe p125.
That’s Rothbard’s position spelt out. I can make the effort if so wished.
Yes, Conza, thanks for the information. Only curious: can Hoppe’s position be described as exactly the same as Rothbard’s?
I do think that the original owners have to present a very specific claim to the present (illegitimate) owner. Also, what if you have criminal heirs and victim heirs? What would Rothbard say about that? Must the criminal heirs restitute property to the victim heirs?
I think you massively misunderstood Rothbard. Or at least, I didn’t get this impression while I was reading Ethics of Liberty.
Sure, if C takes stolen property from B, then he is not commiting a crime against B (unless he hurts him in a way, or damages his legitimate property). But he surely would and should be liable if A or D could prove, that this property belongs to A. Then A or D is justified taking this property from C. Well, I am not a fan of using force/violence even if it’s justified, but for the sake of argument, yeah, I’d say it would be ok.
So If I join a government and “steal” 2 trillion money from taxes, I’m no thief, but these money surely belong to at least, majority of people, and I would be liable if someone who “payed taxes” and can prove it, sued me (in a libertarian court). That’s why it’s better to keep these things secret just in case.
I have not read EoL yet, actually. I got this impression from “Confiscation and the Homestead Principle,” but I realize that I did misinterpret that article. Thanks for the good points!
And, I know you meant it as a joke, but keeping these things secret does actually sound valid. ;D
Criminal A breaks into my brother’s house and steals two guns among some other small related things, he then sells the two guns and related items to drug dealer B. The cops catch A and A tells them he sold them to B and gave out the name of B. My brother gets a small bit of stolen savings bonds back due to the help of C, cops. Now, the cops are on the search for drug dealer B who bought stolen guns from A. Is it wrong that the cops catch the drug dealer and take the stolen guns from him only to be returned to the legal owner?
If I have something stolen from me, and I see that it’s been sold off to someone else, chances are I’m taking it back on the spot and telling them to take up their issue was the person that stole/sold it, and if not force will be used.
just in case.