The Ethics Of Liberty - Property And Criminality

 


The Ethics Of Liberty by Murray Rothbard

In chapter 9, Rothbard discusses how to identify criminals and respond to crime.  Previously, he defined crime as using physical force to take control (ownership) of someone else's body or property.  According to the natural law of human nature, every person owns their own body because the human mind controls the body's movement.  Following that a person rightfully owns goods which were created by mixing his labor with previously unused raw materials found in nature.

Picture a scene.  You are walking down a city sidewalk.  You see another man in the distance walking towards you wearing a white shirt and carrying a bag of money.  You know there is money in it because there is a big dollar sign, $, printed on it.  Then all of a sudden another man appears, walking across a side street wearing a black shirt.  The man in the black shirt (BS) sees the man in the white shirt (WS), and runs over to him grabbing the bag of money.  As you approach them they are struggling against one another trying to take the bag of money from the other.

It is obvious what you should do, right?  BS is trying to steal the money from WS.  You should jump into the fray to help WS secure his money from this apparent robbery.  Not so fast my friend!  We don't know who was the original owner.

                "we do not yet know which one of the two men is the legitimate or just property
                owner.  We can only find the answer through investigating the concrete data
                of the particular case"

After inquiry it may come to light that BS originally owned the money and WS broke into his house to steal it.  That would make BS the legitimate owner.  Or the truth may be that the money originally belonged to WS and that he was returning home after withdrawing it from his bank.  To have a free and just society, decisions of ownership like this must be based on which of the two had a natural right of possession.

                "we only recognize private property claims that are just- that emanate from an
                individual's fundamental natural right to own himself and the property which
                he has either transformed by his energy or which has been voluntarily given...
                to him by such transformers."

We will look at each of the possible scenarios and what is the just outcome.  From the perspective of WS claiming he owns the bag of money:
  1. We know clearly that his ownership claim is NOT criminal
  2. We DON'T know clearly that his ownership claim IS criminal
  3. We do know that his claim IS criminal in nature, but do NOT know who is the rightful owner
  4. We do know that his claim IS criminal, and do know who IS the rightful owner
Now imagine, I have stopped the fight and separated BS and WS from each other.  I have grabbed the money bag and am determined to give it only to its rightful owner.  I have also administered truth serum to both so that there is no doubt in their testimony.  To those now passing by along the street, it has been a very strange situation to witness.  You might ask why I was carrying truth serum and a syringe with me.  Just for cases like this, I would answer!

Scenario 1 is the most simple.  The situation is just as it looked, WS is no criminal and rightfully owns the money.  So, I give him back the money and send him on his way home.  BS is held accountable for attempted theft.  The real world implications are that any money or property taken by force is unethical.  That means nationalizing industries, socialism, civil asset forfeiture, territorial conquest, and even taxation are unethical acts.  If we are to have a free and just society, we must protect individuals from such crimes.

Scenario 2 is very similar.  BS admits he was trying to steal the money from WS.  The money doesn't belong to BS.  Yet, we learn next that WS picked up the bag only 10 minutes ago.  It was sitting on the sidewalk.  He asked around and no one claimed it, so he did.  The next step would be to notify the public about the bag which was left on the sidewalk.  After a reasonable amount of time, if prior ownership can't be established, then the bag of money becomes unowned.  WS is now the new owner because he found it unowned and made a first new claim of ownership to it.

Scenario 3 is a modification of  2.  Just as before, we know BS was trying to steal the bag so he has no legitimate claim.  But now we know certainly that WS also stole the bag of money.  Instead of him finding the bag laying on the sidewalk.  WS gained possession of the bag by stealing it from someone else.  But we don't know who.  Despite investigations and advertisements, the mystery is never solved.  We don't know who the money should go to, but we do know that we can't let WS have it.  He must be punished for theft.  What do we do now?

                "Applying our libertarian theory of property, the [bag] is now- after [WS] has
                been apprehended- in a state of no-ownership, and it must therefore become the
                legitimate property of the first person to "homestead" it- to take it and use it, 
                and therefore to have converted it from an unused, no-ownership state to a useful,
                owned state.  The first person who does so then becomes its legitimate, moral, and
                just owner."

The question then becomes how does one now become the legitimate owner of a previously stolen good without being the victim?  Practically, there must be some kind of sale through an auction or in a store.  Local governments do some of this type of work today.  Of course they also sell items that they confiscated unethically themselves.  Conceivably there could also be a private organization that offers unowned contraband for sale.

It may not be obvious but scenario 3 rejects the legitimacy of the concept of slave reparations today.  It made sense to give newly freed slaves land, money, or goods to compensate them for the labor which was stolen from them.  But today the land worked and the goods produced by their labor either doesn't exist anymore or it is impossible to determine which slaves' descendants have legitimate claims to ownership of land or goods.  I am not saying we don't know whose ancestors were once slaves.  What I am saying is that there is no way to link specific parcels of land and units of labor worked to specific people today, in other words, we can't identify heirs of specific items.  It is also unjust to take by force money or goods from people today who legitimately own those items, in order to repay descendants of slaves generally speaking.

Scenario 4 can end in two ways.  First, we can establish that BS was in fact the original owner of the money and was trying to take it back from WS, the thief.  In that case we punish WS for theft and restore the money to BS.  Second, neither BS or WS are the rightful owners of the money.  But in this scenario we take the bag back to the place where WS stole it.  Laying there on the ground is a man wearing a green shirt (GS).  It is clear that someone beat him up, so we ask GS what happened.  He says that a man in a white shirt beat him up and took his bag of money which he had just withdrawn from the bank.  He also correctly describes what the bag looks like.  We have identified the rightful owner of the money and restore the money to him.  If GS dies, then his heirs will receive the bag of money in his place.

Building on the foundation of natural law, natural rights, and the concept property Rothbard deduced with these four scenarios a libertarian theory of criminality.

                "a criminal is someone who aggresses against such property.  Any criminal
                 titles to property should be invalidated and turned over to the victim or his
                heirs; if no such victim can be found, and if the current possessor is not himself
                the criminal then the property justly reverts to the current possessor on our basic
                "homesteading" principle."

         

   


Comments

Post a Comment

Most Popular:

The Ethics Of Liberty - Knowledge, True And False

Image
  The Ethics Of Liberty by Murray Rothbard Rothbard continues to analyze individual rights as property rights in order to explain what rights truly exist.  In this chapter he applies that framework to knowledge.  This isn't as straightforward as dealing with things that are basic physical property because even though knowledge, thoughts, lies, and slander are not physical things, they can still have physical consequences. He starts by analyzing the situation when someone lies about another person.  Does Smith have the right to lie about Jones?  Looking strictly at property gives a clear answer.  Smith owns his own mind, his mouth, and a smartphone.  Therefore he has the right to use his own property to lie.  He can speak, send out a letter, announce over a radio station he owns, etc.  Smith has done something immoral but his action should not illegal.  In general, it is legal to lie in our day and time, so Rothbard isn't saying anything controversial here. However, he applies
Read more

The Ethics Of Liberty - "Human Rights" As Property Rights

Image
  The Ethics Of Liberty by Murray Rothbard                  "human rights, when not put in terms of property rights, turn out to                 be vague and contradictory, causing liberals to weaken those rights                 on behalf of 'public policy' or the 'public good.' " I expect you have heard a variety of criticisms anytime you have spoken up for freedom or individual rights.  Those criticisms usually consist of claims that no rights are absolute.  One common example is you don't have the right to swing your fists in the space taken up by someone else's face.  Or they claim you should give up some of your own rights so that others will feel free to do what they want.  I call this the, "if I want to go to a concert then everyone else there must wear a mask so I won't get a respiratory virus", example. Rothbard addresses these criticisms by framing all "human" rights as property rights.  By doing so he shows that natu
Read more

Human Life Straddles Two Realities

Image
  Human beings were created in the image of God.  Classical philosophers stated that the human ability to reason was the key to understanding what that meant.  After hundreds of years of searching the bounds of reason, philosophers became frustrated.  Following reason alone did not produce the solutions they sought.  As a result, during the 17th century some philosophers in the West started to emphasize emotion.  Our intellectual and political elites have walked us down this other path for another couple of hundred years.  Society in the 21 Century has reached the end of that journey.  It has lead us to a place of confusion, division, and despair. I propose that the problem is both efforts considered only one aspect of  the human soul and neglected the other.  God demonstrates both reason and emotion in the Bible.  As His image, both constitute our substance.  We live simultaneously in two worlds, the objective and subjective.  Therefore, in order to make right decisions, come to accur
Read more

The Church And State In Romans 13

The proper relationship of the Church to the State has been discussed for centuries. Reading through history you can see the actual relationship has evolved over time. When the Church first started, the Roman State was their adversary with chronic and acute persecutions. From the time Constantine made Christianity the official religion of his empire through the Reformation, the relationship could roughly be characterized as a series of alliances. By the time the United States of America was founded, the relationship was no longer an alliance. In theory, churches were free to conduct their business without disturbance by the State, but the State no longer supported a particular religion or denomination. The purpose of this situation was to promote peace between the increasing number of different groups within Christianity and between each of them and the State. However, through the 20th Century to today, the government and culture has become more and more secular. The safeg
Read more

The Ethics Of Liberty - State Relationships Internal & External

Image
  The Ethics Of Liberty by Murray Rothbard Citizens' Relationship To The State In previous chapters Rothbard wrote about the illegitimacy of the state and inconsistencies found in the narratives supporting its existence.  However, the fact remains that states exist and will for the foreseeable future.  The next two chapters focus on how those ruled by the state should act and how states should interact with one another. To start, the state exists on the basis of aggression.  Not only does it set up a monopoly on the use of violence, placing limits on the natural right of self defense, it funds itself by taking money from the citizenry by force (i.e. taxation).  Therefore, as an illegitimate organization, individuals have no obligation to obey it.  In fact taking over government owned property, refusing to pay taxes, and lying to the state can be morally justified if you aren't committing a property crime against another private citizen.  Everything they own has been taken by f
Read more

The Ethics Of Liberty - Children And Rights

Image
  I have to admit up front, this chapter contains my biggest disagreement with Rothbard so far.  In "Children And Rights", he starts with discussing the rights of parents to abort and neglect their children before partially redeeming himself by focusing his searchlight back onto government's aggression against children and parents. He starts the chapter describing his philosophy on abortion.  I disagree out of the gate.  Uncharacteristically he provides no logical or natural law basis for his foundation.  Instead, he throws out an assertion and starts applying his normal deduction atop this faulty starting point.                 "[with] birth as the beginning of a live human being possessing natural rights...                     While birth is indeed the proper line of demarcation, the usual formation makes                    birth an arbitrary dividing line, and lacks sufficient rational groundwork                    in the theory of self ownership." Everythin
Read more