The Ethics Of Liberty - Self Defense

 

The Ethics Of Liberty by Murray Rothbard

Natural rights, ownership, and criminality have all been defined and analyzed.  Now Rothbard focuses his attention on the topic of self defense.  He explains its justification and its proper boundaries.  You will see that his analysis from 40 years ago gives you a clear understanding regarding many things being discussed today.

Previously in the book, Rothbard explained why individuals have a right to their own life, liberty, and property.  Now, he covers the ethical responses when someone tries to violate those rights.

                "If every man has the absolute right to his justly-held property, it then follows

                that he as the right to keep that property- to defend it by violence against 

                violent invasion."

An individual can rightly defend himself alone or have  employees or volunteers come to his aid.  Common examples are things like private security, home alarm systems, militias, posses, or a friendly neighbor with a gun.

It is also acceptable to defend oneself against things like fraud or direct threats of violence.  Fraud can take several forms.  One form occurs when a buyer receives a good from a seller, but refuses to pay for it.  This form includes money loans.  Fraud also occurs in the opposite direction when payment is received, but the good which is delivered doesn't meet the quality, condition, or performance promised by the seller.

                "If Smith pays $1000 and receives from Jones not a specified make of a car

                but an older or poorer car, this too is implicit theft."

But not all broken promises should be considered fraud.  A promise, even written in a contract, to marry someone or give money with nothing in return is not theft because no property was taken by deceit.

However, violence is not to be used to defend against other kinds of harm that aren't themselves violent.  Violence is justified when someone or some group is trying to kill you, injure you, enslave you, force you to act involuntarily, or ruin or steal any of your property.  Violent defense is not justified if the injury is simply emotional or reputational.  It is also not justified if economic harm is caused by others through boycott or competition.  In those cases no one is trying to take away your ownership or use of property.  They are simply refusing to exchange their money for the goods you have produced.

Further, in order to justify defensive violence, any threat of offensive violence must be "palpable, immediate, and direct."  It is important to distinguish those types of threats from others that are "remote... indirect... vague..." or "future".  Also self defense isn't appropriate in order to protect against the natural risks of life or if the natural rights of others are violated.  This argument even applies to those speaking at protests, and gives us insight into how Rothbard would have viewed President Trump's involvement in the January 6th "Stop The Steal" rally.

                "Suppose that Green exhorts a crowd: 'Go!' 'Burn!' 'Loot!' 'Kill!' and the mob

                proceeds to do just that, with Green having nothing further to do with these

                criminal activities.  Since every man is free to adopt or not adopt any course

                of action he wishes, we cannot say that in some way Green determined the

                members of the mob to their criminal activities; we cannot make him ... 

                responsible for their crimes."

The argument also sheds light on Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022.  Based on Rothbard's guidelines, any threat NATO presented to Russia, especially before the war began, could only be characterized as "remote... indirect... vague..." or "future".  Therefore their invasion of Ukraine is itself an aggressive violation of the natural rights of Ukrainians.  As such Ukraine has every right to protect themselves by fighting a defensive war.  They are even justified to pursue the goal of removing Russian forces from Donbas and Crimea, regardless of how wise or realizable that goal is.  However, they have no right to demand others give them weapons, training, and soldiers to fight their war.  Additionally, the US government has no right to steal from its citizens by inflating the money supply, which it has used to give aid to Ukraine. But the verdict stands.  Russia is the aggressor.  Ukraine is employing self defense.  Those statements don't address every aspect of this complicated conflict.  However, it does help identify the underlying reality.

Continuing, with this argument we can better understand the legitimacy of actions taken by governments around the world to fight the spread of the Covid-19 virus.  The risk of any respiratory virus in terms of infection rate and case severity is indirect and vague.  That means governments violated the property rights of both business owners and consumers when they shut down some businesses, canceled public gatherings, and even limited personal interactions in private homes.  Everybody has the right to walk into whichever building they choose and purchase whatever product they want.  Business owners have the right to open, close, or modify the operations of their businesses in any way they choose to address public health concerns.  The government also violated citizens' rights by mandating that they inject a vaccine into their bodies or face harmful consequences.

A third example is the laws governments have enacted to reduce the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.  If any threat was ever "vague" or "future", the epitome would be theoretical problems related to a changing climate.  Many of the prescribed solutions are nothing more than invasions of property rights and individual liberty violations; criminalizing the use of various technologies, reducing food production, forcibly taking land from farmers, and outlawing certain forms of transportation.

Not only should we understand when it is appropriate to initiate self defense, we should also be clear on what level of force or violence people should apply in self defense.  For that subject we turn to the idea of proportionality and the old adage: "let the punishment fit the crime".

                "I propose another fundamental rule regarding crime: the criminal, or invader, 

                loses his own right to the extent that he has deprived another man of his."

This means that it is not justified to shoot a thief if he is clearly no threat to your life.  But if you have a reasonable fear that the thief is putting your life in danger in the act of taking your property, then you are.  This concept also applies to what limits police should have when investigating and prosecuting crimes.  Bottom line, the police should not violate the rights of suspects by holding them in jail, torturing, beating, confiscating their property, or violating their privacy.  That means bail should be eliminated as well.  Before a suspect is convicted of a crime they should be considered "innocent until proven guilty".  Other means should be used to prevent further crimes before the trial.  If a police department wants to use coercion as a means of investigating a case, then they should be liable for any injustices they commit in the process.

                "If the suspect turns out to be guilty, then the police should be exonerated,

                for then they have only ladled out to the murderer a parcel of what he deserves

                in return; his rights had already been forfeited by more than that extent. 

                But if the suspect is not convicted, then that means that the police have beaten

                and tortured an innocent man, and that they in turn must be put into the dock

                for criminal assault."

In order to create a just and peaceful society, citizens must be confident in their right to self defense.  Yet, self defense should not become an excuse for anyone, even law enforcement, to in turn violate others' rights.