All Episodes
Previous Next
July 14, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
18:27
Property Rights and the Non-Aggression Principle
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, it's Steph. Hope you're doing well.
Oh my goodness, I'm going to be 45 years old tomorrow, so make your text bigger and speak up, sonny!
So this is an article, Why the Non-Aggression Principle is Useless.
There's a moral guideline.
I'll put the links to it below.
And it goes like this. Right libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and assorted proprietarians...
Very frequently cite the non-aggression principle, or zero-aggression principle, commonly called nap or zap.
It's good to base a philosophy on sounds that would come out of Batman punching someone in a cartoon.
As a core tenet of their ideology, it is brought up as the building block of voluntarism, on which free markets can be built and proudly displayed, to show how morally superior such a society would be compared to anything else.
Which, by the absence of the NAP, is defined to have an involuntary aspect.
Kind of snarky.
Morally superior is not sort of one-upmanship.
Einsteinian physics is not a one-upmanship on Newtonian physics.
It's just trying to be more accurate, more consistent.
Now, if left to this end, this is not a half-bad principle.
Basically saying that people shouldn't attack or threaten to attack others.
What is a half-bad principle?
The level of imprecision in philosophical discourse is quite dismaying at times.
What is a half-bad principle?
I don't think I ever handed in a paper with a proof of mathematics or physics where they said, that's not a half-bad solution.
I mean, it's either accurate or it's not.
Maybe it's slightly more efficient or slightly less efficient, but it's either true or it's false.
Propositions of this kind.
And by true simply means, first of all, logically consistent, consistent with its own premises and its own arguments, and hopefully consistent with that which we observe within reality.
You know, just like science.
Anyway, he says, However, at this stage, it is also pretty much unnecessary to be given an explicit existence as a principle, as the generic principle of freedom already encompasses this, i.e., attacking another person would violate their freedom.
Other moral theories, particularly the utilitarian variants, already encompass such rules, with stipulation, as a natural consequence of their suggestions.
In the end, this basic form of non-aggression ends up sounding like a shallow, thou shalt not kill, which, while pretty clear, when strictly adhered to, can lead to worse results, such as foregoing killing in self-defense, or requires a more advanced moral framework above it, which clarifies when it is, in fact, acceptable to kill.
But proprietarians do not generally leave it at just that, but rather try to sneakily expand it by linking it with private property rights.
You see, the NAP is frequently derived directly from the self-ownership axiom.
And thus, the wrongly derived property rights are treated as an extension of the self.
Therefore, one can then treat violation of private property rights as an act of initiated force, even though no actual violence or threat of violence has been perpetuated.
This, in turn, is used as a cause to use actual violence or threat of violence on the violator of property rights.
Okay, so, I mean, we'll get on with this in a sec, but let's talk about that to begin with.
While I agree that the non-aggression principle is a thou shalt or a thou shalt not, without a rational framework behind it, and I go into this in my free book, which is Universally Preferable Behavior, a Rational Proof of Secular Ethics, available at freedomainradio.com forward slash free.
But basically, there's no way to consistently apply a virtue called the initiation of force is good, is universally preferable behavior, is the ideal human standard of behavior.
You can't do it.
Because in order for it to be force, it has to be resisted.
So if I come up to you in an alley and stick a knife in your ribs and demand your wallet, it's only force if you don't want me to do it.
If we're role-playing, if we're in a movie, if I stick a knife in your throat because you're choking and I need to give you an emergency tracheotomy, and I saw a video on the internet once, then clearly that is a welcome intrusion into your throat.
So it has to be unwanted for it to be the initiation of force, whatever violence is occurring.
And so it can't be universally preferable behavior because it has to be both universally preferable and not wanted at the same time for it to be force.
Hot wax on the nipples.
Not so great from strangers in the subway.
Depending. I mean, there are circumstances.
But generally, we don't want that from strangers on the subway.
If you're in an SMN role-playing dungeon and you fail your saving throw against Hot Wax, then you obviously get it on both nipples.
And that's something that's voluntary and something that we like until...
I guess the wax has to come off taking a good deal of hair with it.
So you can't have the initiation of force as a universal moral ideal because it has to be both desired as a universal ideal and rejected or resisted.
That's what makes it force.
In the same way, you can't have...
Rape as a universal moral ideal because somebody, for it to be rape, has to not want it to be occurring.
So one person is doing the raping and thinks it's a good thing and it's universally ideal.
The other person, in order for rape to be universally ideal, has to not want it.
So it cannot be consistently applied.
Same goes for murder. Same goes for theft.
Because if I go and steal something of yours, it's only theft if you don't want me to steal it.
So you can't have theft as universally preferable behavior.
It simply can't work because it has to be both wanted and opposed at the same time in order to qualify as theft or rape or assault or murder or whatever.
So these things can't logically work.
And so a respect for property rights is the only thing that can work In the world.
Now, yes, of course, self-ownership leads to property rights.
And the reason that self-ownership leads to property rights is obviously we own ourselves.
We own the effects of our actions.
If I go and strangle a kitten, I am responsible for the death of that kitten.
If I yell into your ear, I'm responsible for you flinching.
If I go up near a cliff edge and you fall off, I'm responsible for you falling.
I own the effects of my actions.
That's as true in morality as it is in property.
And the reason that theft is theft, really, is that you're stealing someone's time.
If I go and make a model boat and spend three days on it, and then you just come and take it, you've basically stolen my time.
You've stolen three days of my life, which I'm never going to get back.
And so it is the theft of time.
This is why IP is sort of a tricky issue, right?
I mean, if somebody downloads my podcast, they haven't stolen anything from me, which is why I give all of this stuff away for free and think that there really should be certainly no state-based intellectual property.
So, I mean, that's a very, very brief overview, but it's not arbitrary to say that we should not initiate the use of force, and it is not arbitrary to say that there should be property rights and property rights should be respected.
If I steal you and lock you up in a cage for three days, I've stolen three days of your time.
If you work At something that takes you three days and I steal the effects of it, I have enslaved you for those three days by taking the fruits of your actions.
And this is not right.
This is not valid. This doesn't work logically.
So it's not arbitrary, though I agree that a lot of the defenses of property rights are not stellar, but it's not arbitrary and it's also not subjective.
So let's continue on with this fellow.
I like this writer. I really do.
And I think he's very, very sharp.
It thus becomes that the non-aggression principle, when combined with self-ownership, conveniently becomes an excuse for someone to initiate real, literal violence against someone else.
The right to freedom, or utilitarian moral rules, reserves the right for people to defend themselves against aggression, that is, to take only as much action as is needed to stop the aggression against their person.
This is pretty much self-evident when achieved both to the one being attacked and to any observers, i.e.
it's obvious when two people have stopped exchanging blows and threats.
When extended to private property, however, things get far, far more complex.
While it's easy to understand that someone aggresses when they steal something from another person, which is why most other moral systems do not require an NAP to label theft as wrong, things get pretty murky when one goes beyond that.
Do I initiate force when I use a productive machine without paying rent?
How about if I pay only enough rent to cover the cost of the machine?
Do I initiate force when I toil the unused land that is owned by someone else?
How about when I trespass?
Well, um...
Property is exclusive use.
Now, I don't have to be using everything in my life that I own at all times.
In fact, it would be impossible to do that.
My 14-year-old car is sitting slowly rusting and falling apart in the driveway as we speak.
That's where I'm going to have to get some blocks to put it up on soon.
That's making my house look like a rural backyard in Arkansas.
But if I use a productive machine without paying rent, well, it's somebody else's property.
And that person made sacrifices or achieved something or gave up something else or works in some way to get a hold of that or inherited it, which means somebody else granted them the property right, which is fine.
And so if you use someone else's property without contractually fulfilling an obligation, that's pretty bad.
Now, I mean, trespassing...
I mean, obviously you can't shoot people for trespassing.
But the problem is, of course, if you're in some rural area and somebody's walking towards your house across your fields when you've got these signs saying no trespassing, you don't know what they're there for.
That's the problem. Maybe they're coming to give you a winning lottery ticket because they like the cut of your jib, but you don't know.
And so you should warn those people off and ask them to leave and so on.
But no, obviously you wouldn't have the right to blow somebody away who puts one toe on your property.
But that's not what happens in the real world.
People don't violate each other's property rights in the real world in any substantial way.
I mean, I remember I used to take a bit of a shortcut to get down to the woods near my house where I like to hike.
And the property owner said, listen, I don't want you to take a shortcut.
And it's fine. Okay, I don't take a shortcut.
I mean, it was a purely verbal exchange.
That's what happens all the time in these kinds of situations.
I mean, if they'd blown me away, that wouldn't have been particularly good.
And I'm sure they would have received, even in a free society, some pretty negative repercussions about that.
But degree is not as important as morality, right?
Is it on the sunny side of the fence or is it on the shadowed side of the fence?
That's really how dark is the shadow, how bright is the sunlight.
That doesn't really matter as much.
That's stuff that gets worked out in a free society.
But as ethicists, as philosophers, as thinkers, as moralists, we have to define what is good and what is evil.
What is consistently achievable in universally preferable human behavior and what is contradictory and Because it's contradictory, fails.
The great thing about UPB is since it validates the bans against murder, theft, rape, and assault, then it explains why societies that violate these moral rules tend to fail.
Communism, fascism, the mixed economy sliding towards fascism that characterizes the modern West.
You have empirical evidence as to why inconsistent theories don't work, just as you do in engineering.
You build a bridge with a design that is inconsistent with the properties of reality, most likely that bridge is going to fall down, or it's going to be way over-constructed.
So, further complicated by the claims of the NAP proponents that the NAP does not excuse any and all acts of self-defense, but is rather limited by the level of aggression.
We're informed that it does not, in fact, grant the right of shooting trespasses.
But this, again, does not really clarify the matter.
Whereas in literal aggression, one is always aware of the level the initiator is using, threats, shoving, punching, lethal weapons, etc., and can respond in kind, in this extended field of aggression, you're left to comparing apples with oranges.
What is the correct response to someone trespassing on their property?
Forcibly taking them out? Threatening to shoot them and then follow through if they don't comply?
The truth of the matter is that unlike literal aggression, you cannot discover how you can respond in kind intuitively.
But this is not what people do.
This is not what people do.
They don't sit there at their windows with high-powered rifles waiting for people to put a toe on their property so that they can blow them away.
But this doesn't happen. The reason you're not going to shoot a trespasser in a free society is because you're going to face a lot of paperwork and questioning and cross-examining afterwards and the society may say that you're kind of a lunatic and we don't want to respect your property rights anymore.
You can live where you are, but nobody's going to come and defend you anymore.
And we're going to warn everyone that you're a lunatic.
And you may not be able to buy groceries.
The electricity company may shut off their delivery to you.
I mean, that's why people aren't going to do stupid stuff like shoot someone for trespassing.
I mean, this just doesn't happen in the real world.
Unlike actual aggression, where equal reaction can cancel the aggression, shoving can defend against shoving, punching can defend against punches, etc., in aggression on property via the NAP, the self-defense enacted is, and must always be, different and stronger than the act of aggression.
A trespasser cannot be removed by counter-trespassing.
They must literally be forcibly removed, and this is very likely to require threats of lethal force if they do not comply.
This gets even more complicated if that person does not accept the NAP and considers the literal acts of aggression against them as the initiation of force.
It is, and defends in kind.
Well, property is property is property.
Obviously, you can't plant a flag on the moon and claim the whole moon, and the homesteading, you have to do something with the land, you can't just make a million-mile fence.
These things all get worked out in a free society, and the reality is that People do work these things out.
There's a great article in Jeff Tucker's recent book, It's a Jetson's World, about how property is distributed at tailgate parties in sports events, right?
So people have the same areas or they set up these tailgates and people don't trespass.
Property works itself out really, really nicely.
And there's very little trespassing.
You know, when I have my neighbors, when we were first putting up fences, we checked things out.
There were no fights. There's no problem.
If my neighbor's kids come over to get a ball from my yard, that's no problem.
I mean, again, there's not a particular problem with property rights in a free society.
Problems with property rights arise in a state of society where you get thrown in jail unless you hand over half your income at gunpoint to the state.
That's the kind of stuff that we really need to focus on as moralists, not creating all of these logical maybe problems somewhere in a future society where...
People are setting up landmines in their front yard.
I mean, it's not what happens in the real world.
And this is an issue I have with ethicists as a whole.
Not this guy. And again, I like this guy.
He's a good writer. And I'll post a link to the article below.
But I sort of end here with a brief explication by saying that there's a common argument that you'll hear about ethics.
It's posted on some critique of UPB that wasn't really worth responding to.
But it sort of goes something like this.
Oh, you say that telling the truth is a virtue.
But if I come up to your house with a gun and say, where's your wife?
I want to shoot her. Well, are you going to tell me the truth about where your wife is so that I can shoot her?
Well, of course not. Therefore, truth is not a virtue.
It's conditional. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And that's substantial nonsense.
I mean, it's nonsense. Because virtue is like lovemaking.
You do it to Barry White.
And It requires voluntarism.
So if you make love to someone against their will, that's rape.
And so virtue, the moment that compulsion comes into it, no longer counts, no longer matters.
Just like lovemaking no longer counts as a way of describing an action the moment that there's a knife to someone's throat.
You don't call it lovemaking anymore.
You call it something else. And so, when someone comes up to you and says, I'm going to kill your wife, they've got a gun, they're going to do great violence, morality does not exist in that interaction anymore.
Anymore than lovemaking exists when someone sticks a knife to someone else's throat.
Virtue is voluntarism.
Virtue can only be evaluated in a situation of voluntarism.
And so, when you're under a situation of coercion, there's no such thing as virtue.
Then you're in a state of nature.
You're an antelope and a lion.
You do not have a moral commandment.
And of course, the amount of agony that people Put into things like, well, I did this under coercion or this under compulsion or whatever.
I didn't protect my brother when my brother was being hit by my mother or whatever, right?
I mean, but this was a situation of coercion, a situation of violence.
And so there's no morality where there's violence.
What amazes me is that people will say in this situation, you know, a guy comes up to you with a gun and says, where's your wife so I can shoot her?
The moralist comes up and says, well, let's turn the moral spotlight on the guy who's got a gun to his neck.
No. Let's turn the moral spotlight on the guy who's putting a gun to someone's neck.
And let's not worry about the ethical choices of someone with a gun to his neck because they simply don't exist.
They simply do not exist.
It's not a wedding if you force the bride to be there at gunpoint.
You didn't get the job if the only reason you're allowed in the office is you kidnapped the boss's kids.
That is not called hiring.
That's just called blackmail or terrorizing.
So, wherever, you know, when the gun comes into the picture, when the gun comes into the picture, morality evaporates completely and totally.
Like ghosts at dawn, or vampires in the full sun, morality evaporates.
▲
Export Selection