What is property?

[gotlucky]

Minarchist,

I’m not sure that this conversation is going to go anywhere else. You are defining aggression separately from how it is defined in terms of the NAP. It is not an appeal to authority to quote Rothbard or Block. If someone says they support the NAP, I assume they mean the NAP as defined by Rothbard or Block. After all, that’s what I am referring to. But if you want to define the NAP differently, I don’t see why you would want to call it the NAP unless you wish to hijack the phrase. It’s one thing if a lot of people were doing it, but in this case, it is really only you.

If a slave owner beats his slave, he has initiated violence against the person that is the slave. If you want to define aggression as something else, like aggression is violating property rights, then so be it. But this is neither one of the dictionary definitions of aggression, nor is it the definition of aggression found in the NAP as stated by Rothbard or Block.

Self-defense is not aggression because it is not the initiation of violence. Beating your slave is not self-defense. In order to beat your slave, unless he has attacked you (which is fine by me, as you are holding him as a slave), then you must “begin, start, introduce” “force” against your slave. This is aggression as defined by the NAP.

Regarding horses, well, last time I checked, the NAP was only about men aggressing against men, not men aggressing against horses. Just so you know, there are actually people out there who think it is wrong to “aggress” against horses. But when we talk about libertarianism and the NAP, we are talking about men.

As a general point, I would also say that the NAP is not the basis of libertarian ethics. The concept of property is the basis of libertarian ethics, and is presupposed by the NAP. It makes no sense to talk about aggression prior to a concept of property.

Well, this is actually false. Now, I suppose you could have some libertarians who view it this way, but most libertarians have been influenced by Rothbard at one point or another, even if they do not agree with him 100% (I know I don’t, though I am astounded at how much I do agree with him whenever I reread him). So, let’s look at what Rothbard said:

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. [Emphasis added]

I have tried to demonstrate this previously, how the NAP and libertarian ethics comes from the golden rule, which, when you look at the chart on the wikipedia page on the NAP, you can see that others have reached this conclusion too (like, say, Rothbard). I have shown how property and estoppel and homesteading and proportion come from the NAP. Whether or not you accept this is up to you. After all, if you don’t accept the golden rule as your starting point, then you might have other reasons for supporting the NAP. But the problem is that you are supporting some version of the NAP that is a virtual unknown. Your version essentially boils down to, “Thou shalt not violate property.”

Okay, that’s fine if that’s what you want to use as the NAP, just as it’s fine that you want to define “minarchist” as something other than someone who supports a really small state. And it’s fine if you want to define aggression as something other than the initiation of force or the threat thereof. But these are all nonstandard uses, both in the general population and the libertarian population. And, for example, unlike the gay population, you don’t have numbers on your side. They hijacked the word gay and changed it’s meaning. The nonstandard use became the standard use. But you are essentially on your own on these particular definitions.

For your sake, and for clarity’s sake, I highly suggest finding different terms and phrases for some of your beliefs. Otherwise, you will forevermore have to define your nonstandard terms. Even if I have to define aggression to someone, I won’t have to always do it, as the libertarian definition of aggression is actually one of the few dictionary definitions for the word. I won’t always have to do it.

And it’s also why Rothbard initially wanted to call himself “anti-state” instead of “anarchist”. Because of people’s perceptions and understanding of the definition of the words. But he had numbers on his side. He was able to use the word anachist eventually because enough libertarians wanted to use the etymological meaning of the word.

But you don’t have numbers on your side. Maybe you will someday, but until then, I highly recommend coining new terms or phrases. It’s just too confusing.

So, I think I’m going to bow out now. There really isn’t much else for me to say. I suggest you read more Rothbard instead of Block. Or read some Kinsella. Or maybe brush up on what the ancient rabbis (or the modern orthodox rabbis) said. While religion is flawed, and I’m sure there have been some very great Christian priests or ministers, I can say that certain historical rabbis such as Hillel or Maimonides were very wise and virtuous men, and while I firmly believe all religion to be flawed, these 2 men (and certain other rabbis) more than make up for any flaws in the religion.