Thoughts on this NAP article?

[Gabranth]

http://mattbruenig.com/2013/10/03/non-aggression-never-does-any-argumentative-work-at-any-time/

 

Does this guy have a point?

 

How would a libertarian society acknowledge who actually owns what land? Or who is entitled to the land? Doesnt this need to be established before we can decide who is the aggressor and the defender?

[dsayers]

That's my article. Where's my paycheck? Something tells me that the author would take issue with this. How does HE know it's his and not mine?

[Gabranth]

So i was reading through the article again. And was hung up on this part in particular.

 

"The reason it makes no sense is because it does what philosophers call begging the question. Why is taxing you aggression rather than defense? Well it’s aggression because you are entitled to what is being taxed from you (you claim). Fine, I hear that you believe it belongs to you. But I don’t believe it belongs to you. So really when you say it is aggression, you are just assuming as an unstated premise exactly what we are disagreeing about: whether the thing actually belongs to you or not. If I am right about the thing not belonging to you, it’s not aggression. If you are right about it belonging to you, it is."

 

He seems to be saying its aggression because you claim it belongs to you. But isnt it aggression because its the initiation of force as defined? So its not begging the question?

 

Also, he seems to be saying who owns what is all relative to each person. Which would create a bunch of logical inconsistencies.

 

We do know who owns what, and I think we can all agree that if a person mixes their labor with land, they own it. But do we not need some singular official list of who owns it? What if a person murders a farmer, and claims this land as his or her own? How might we go about proving the murderer does not own the land to private arbitrators?

 

I've been casually perusing some Rothbard articles about it, and I didnt seem to read anything specific on it. Did he write about it? Or do any of you have any specific online reading sources that goes into theories about this? Or perhaps its not a problem at all, and im going about this whole thing wrong?

[nixy]

 

What if a person murders a farmer, and claims this land as his or her own? How might we go about proving the murderer does not own the land to private arbitrators?

 

Well, the farmer never owned the land in the first instance..... just as the murderer wouldn't own it.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

NAP and property rights are two sides of the same coin. Yes, you need to be able to define aggression to apply it. It does not apply itself. Just like scientific principles don't apply themselves; you actually have to provide evidence. Of course, aggression has been defined ad infinitum by libertarians and others, and I'm guessing that is why Mike simply noted the concept of "homesteading" - it has been defined since Locke centuries ago - and what it means to use something which is un-owned, and what it means to use something which is owned by someone else without their permission.

 

If something is un-owned, and you are the first person to make use of it, it's yours. You can trade it to someone else, but their ownership of it will be contingent on the fact that you who sold it to them owned it, and didn't steal it. Property begins with first use. You use it first, or at least have the best claim to using it first, then for all practical circumstances, it is yours. If there are competing claims over property, there will likely be evidence to suggest which person actually used it first, and other relevant information about that fact (like if he used it first, but then abandoned it, and then someone else used it). It's stuff people have been dealing with since common law with no problems for the most part.

 

If this guy doesn't understand that, I don't know what to say, except to suggest taking his article and posting it under your name and taking any credit you can for it. Maybe then he'll understand the difference between owning and stealing.. jesus christ what a manipulative idiot...

[nixy]

NAP and property rights are two sides of the same coin. Yes, you need to be able to define aggression to apply it. It does not apply itself. Just like scientific principles don't apply themselves; you actually have to provide evidence. Of course, aggression has been defined ad infinitum by libertarians and others, and I'm guessing that is why Mike simply noted the concept of "homesteading" - it has been defined since Locke centuries ago - and what it means to use something which is un-owned, and what it means to use something which is owned by someone else without their permission.

 

If something is un-owned, and you are the first person to make use of it, it's yours. You can trade it to someone else, but their ownership of it will be contingent on the fact that you who sold it to them owned it, and didn't steal it. Property begins with first use. You use it first, or at least have the best claim to using it first, then for all practical circumstances, it is yours. If there are competing claims over property, there will likely be evidence to suggest which person actually used it first, and other relevant information about that fact (like if he used it first, but then abandoned it, and then someone else used it). It's stuff people have been dealing with since common law with no problems for the most part.

 

If this guy doesn't understand that, I don't know what to say, except to suggest taking his article and posting it under your name and taking any credit you can for it. Maybe then he'll understand the difference between owning and stealing.. jesus christ what a manipulative idiot...

Ah yes, but this is not, in the first instance, anything about NAP.

It is the confusion that land is property.

??

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Of course, aggression has been defined ad infinitum by libertarians and others, and I'm guessing that is why Mike simply noted the concept of "homesteading" - it has been defined since Locke centuries ago

And Locke also said that property claims should only be respected "where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others" which is something capitalist libertarians routinely ignore in favor of indefinite absentee ownership.

 

Here's some problems with libertarian property foundations as discussed by David Friedman.

 

If something is un-owned, and you are the first person to make use of it, it's yours.

What constitutes "use"? Do I own all land I tread on?

 

Do I own everything I enclose in a fence?

 

How long do I own something I make use of? Indefinitely?

 

What's the scope of my ownership? Do I own the orchard because I trimmed a tree.

 

These and more are all question people debate, on which they usually disagree. Therefore people have differing definition of just property claims and therefore have different definitions of aggression. The NAP doesn't resolve any of this, and I think that's the author's point. Marxists don't say "gee, we need to aggress again the capital owners to steal their stuff!" That's only relative to your definitions of property/aggression. They rather say something like "gee, we should defend ourselves from the aggressive capitalist system and reclaim the product our labor has homesteaded."

 

Here's an elaboration on how the right-libertarian's definition of "aggression" isn't persuasive to their opposition: http://individualistwill.com/everything-is-aggression/

[EclecticIdealist]

He seems to be saying its aggression because you claim it belongs to you. But isn't it aggression because its the initiation of force as defined?

Utilizing force to retain what belongs to you is not aggression or the initiation of the use of force. Similarly, demanding the immediate return of your property and engaging in force if the property is being unjustly retained by another is not the initiation of the use of force, it is again a defensive or retaliatory use of force against a prior use of force (on the part of the person unjustly retaining one's property).

 

 

Also, he seems to be saying who owns what is all relative to each person. Which would create a bunch of logical inconsistencies.

 

Yes. This is why for a society to be orderly and peaceful, rather than chaotic and full of violence, there must be agreement upon the ideals, values, and principles upon which society operates, which is what morals and rights are all about. Morals define the rules for an orderly society.

 

We do know who owns what, and I think we can all agree that if a person mixes their labor with land, they own it. But do we not need some singular official list of who owns it? What if a person murders a farmer, and claims this land as his or her own? How might we go about proving the murderer does not own the land to private arbitrators?

If a person mixes their labor with land that no one else has previously laid claim to, and they labor upon it for their own behalf then the land is acknowledged to belong to them. That is the common law concept of homesteading which most of our Founding Fathers advocated and practiced. If on the other hand, a person lays claim to land not designated by the state as open to homesteading, or land that is the just claim of another person, no amount of labor will make it their land.

[EclecticIdealist]

http://mattbruenig.com/2013/10/03/non-aggression-never-does-any-argumentative-work-at-any-time/

 

Does this guy have a point?

 

How would a libertarian society acknowledge who actually owns what land? Or who is entitled to the land? Doesnt this need to be established before we can decide who is the aggressor and the defender?

Yes, while I certainly disagree with his property claims, he is precisely right that the NAP doesn't resolve the issue of taxation if there is not a common agreement as to the entitlement claim of the money. Appealing to NAP (as the author suggests many libertarians do) presupposes not only a Universal acceptance of NAP (which the author is not disputing), but also a common agreement as to the who is entitled to the property (money taken as a tax) which the author is disputing when suggesting that taxation is not theft.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

http://mattbruenig.com/2013/10/03/non-aggression-never-does-any-argumentative-work-at-any-time/

 

Does this guy have a point?

 

How would a libertarian society acknowledge who actually owns what land? Or who is entitled to the land? Doesnt this need to be established before we can decide who is the aggressor and the defender?

 

 

People already own land by virtue of existing. You occupy space and necessarily require certain resources like air and water, etc.

 

A society doesn't acknowledge things. There's no such thing s a society that can acknowledge something. There's only individuals. You can homestead some actual land and no one can rationally argue with you. What would they say? What makes anyone say you're not entitled to a certain amount of land? 

[EclecticIdealist]

People do not own land by virtue of existence, nor does one own air, water, or other resources by virtue of our dependance upon them for survival. Were existence and necessity sufficient to justify ownership, a person could justify ownership of a home merely by occupying it, or the food cultivated, harvested, and gathered by another on the basis of need.

Ownership requires more than the assertion of a claim and a basis for such a claim. An exclusive claim must be justifiable to all potential claimants according to universally applicable standards of ownership recognized by the majority of members of a society, or chaos and violence will ensue as people attempt to establish and maintain their claim by force. Homesteading can be rationally asserted; however, because it is not the only possible system, rational claims against it can be made according to competing ideas about the acquisition of real property. The challenge for a society is in determining what system is to be used and then consistently executing that system unless or until it is determined that a different system should be utilized.

 

Marxism operates under the premise that the very idea of personal property is wrong because it is selfish, and that no person is any more or less entitled to anything than any other person. Thus, no person has a justifiable claim upon anything, merely a need or desire which may only be satisfied under the consent of the community as a whole, or more often, as determined by the political leaders elected or appointed to manage the affairs of the state. A person may possess and use things by the permission of the community (state), but they may never own them or consider them their personal property. Under Marxism, property only rightfully belongs to the community as a collective whole, and no individual member of the community is entitled to anything; everything is dispensed at the pleasure of the community as a whole (or more precisely, the managers of the community).

 

The real problem facing the world today is the ongoing cold (and sometimes hot) war of ideologies held by different communities and societies around the world which informs their moral systems, govern the people under their jurisdiction and influence, and influence the behavior and actions of such individuals. This war of competing ideologies and moral systems exists not simply between societies on the same hierarchical level such as between Nation States or Religions, but also between the different communities which one is a member of, i.e. a conflict between the ideologies of one's religion or religious organization and one's political community on the local, state or federal level; or a conflict between one's personal ethics and those of one's immediate or extended family, etc. All of man's progress comes from a reduction of conflict, which necessitates the harmonizing, of the ethical system one personally adheres to, with the moral systems imposed from without by one's family, peers, community, religion, state, nation, and so on, or the disruption and overthrow of these various systems in favor of systems which can be harmonized with one's personal ethical system.

[Gabranth]

"Ownership requires more than the assertion of a claim and a basis for such a claim. An exclusive claim must be justifiable to all potential claimants according to universally applicable standards of ownership recognized by the majority of members of a society"

 

-Eclecticidealist

 

This kind of ties into what i was getting at in my first post. How would we actually do this, and is this not essentially a government?

 

On a related question as well. If someone were to die and have no transfer of property, who would get the persons property? 

[EclecticIdealist]

This kind of ties into what i was getting at in my first post. How would we actually do this, and is this not essentially a government?

 

On a related question as well. If someone were to die and have no transfer of property, who would get the person's property? 

A government is the traditional way, but it is not the only way. A registry of property, commonly held by two or more private parties can be used to establish the legitimacy of a claim. Justification of a claim can be established based on universally agreed upon principles such as principles of homesteading, trade, and so forth. A government as such is not necessary, although it may be the most efficient. The problem with such efficiency, is that it almost invariably leads to tyranny.