Thursday, February 25, 2016

Response to Bob Wenzel on the NAP and Anarchism

By Walter E. Block

If I had my ‘druthers, I would have more time to thrash out with Bob Wenzel these few issues on which we disagree. Alas, I have several books I want to write, hundreds of more scholarly articles, I’m gadding about the world giving speeches, and when I’m back in my office, I’m like the girl who can’t say no to requests for skype interviews. In a word, I just don’t have the time I’d like to have to pursue this very interesting, no, fascinating, discussion I’m now having with Bob regarding punishment theory and anarchism. So this will have to be my last contribution to this dialogue. I’ll leave it to Bob to have the last word on it.

I cannot see my way clear to agreeing with my friend Bob Wenzel concerning the ultimate foundations of libertarianism. In his view, private property rights are sacrosanct. This sounds well and good to my libertarian eyes and ears until I realize precisely what he means by this: that each owner may make up his own rules; may do exactly as he wishes in his own domain; need not adhere to what in my perspective is the defining characteristic of libertarianism: the non aggression principle (NAP) based on homesteading of virgin land and legitimate (voluntary) title transfer. A man is the absolute king of his castle might well be Wenzel’s motto.  I agree with this, except I add the side-order constraint that everyone must abide by the NAP everywhere.

I have already previously mentioned the case of A inviting B to his home and then shooting him dead. I regard this as outright murder, punishable to the full extent of the law, but Wenzel does not. After all, for him, this otherwise unjustified killing took place in A’s domain, did it not? And, A is the supreme ruler, he is the “decider,” of what takes place therein. I go partway in the direction of what I regard as the extreme position of Wenzel’s. I aver that A is justified in killing B in that manner if and only if A first notifies B, before the latter enters the former’s territory, that he has some rather unusual rules in operation. Perhaps A should place a sign to this effect on his doorstep, even require B to sign a notarized contract indicating he fully understands the rules operating in A’s property. Wenzel sees all such requirements as abnegations of A’s property rights. This scholar goes so far as to say that at this rate, B, and/or everyone else, will soon be forcing A to purchase such a sign from B’s brother-in-law…

There would seem to be no end to Wenzel’s divergence from properly understood libertarian principles. For example, suppose our man A entices a five year old girl to his “castle”, perhaps by offering her candy. Whereupon he proceeds to have sexual relations with this child. Wenzel would defend A against the charge of statutory rape, on the ground that this despicable act occurred entirely within A’s home. Say what you will about this rather fascinating theory, it cannot rationally be claimed that it is compatible with libertarianism, much less a paradigm case of it, as Wenzel would have it. I go further; this is a grotesque misunderstanding of libertarianism. There is a movie called “Arsenic and  old lace.” Several old ladies invite men into their domain, and, then, serially, poison them. If I understand the Wenzel position correctly, I sincerely hope I do not, he would support the actions of these elderly murderesses, since they occur on their private property.

Take another case, slant drilling. C drills downward, under his own property for, say, 1000 feet. Then he turns this machine of his sideways, and continues to bore a tunnel under the property of D, his neighbor. D finds out about this, and objects, citing the ad coelum doctrine. According to this law, D, not C, owns all the territory beneath his holdings on the surface of the earth, right down to the core of the planet. How is the dispute to be settled? For the libertarian, the resolution is clear. The ad coelum doctrine is false, since it is incompatible with the sole justification of property rights for libertarians, homesteading. For Bob, I fear, C and D will have to fight it out, since for him there can be no over-riding rules to settle this dispute, at least not for the anarchist of his persuasion.

Bob maintains I am not really an anarcho-capitalist, at least not on this one issue (I have no doubt he acknowledges that I deserve this honorific on virtually all other questions). In my view, in contrast, the position he is staking out in this discussion is not even really a libertarian one. Why not? This is because, at least as I see matters, the NAP is the sine qua non of this philosophy. And, yet, Bob’s position does not allow for the centrality of the NAP. He allows it to be over-ridden by property owners. I can’t see how there can even be property owners in the first place, without the NAP, that he denigrates.

8 comments:

  1. This is precisely why Rothbard, and other such as Hoppe, sought to find and justly validatte such an over-arching rule or absolitist ethic. Its power not derrived by the State but in either Natural Law for Rothbard or Argumentagion Axiom like that of human act for Hoppe. Why foes Wenzel seemjngly stand in oppositon to this, or even its possibility?

    Without it libertarianism, property, etc cannog exist. It is the nub of the issue.

    I would understand more if he conested the reasoning or findinv; but denial appears to contradict his own positions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ─A man is the absolute king of his castle might well be Wenzel’s motto. I agree with this, except *I add the side-order constraint that everyone must abide by the NAP everywhere*.─ (Emphasis mine)

    If that person expects a daily visit from the milkman, then YES. Some people misunderstand the libertarian position by assuming we mean each person can be a barbarian in his or her own land, but they do not understand that there's a difference between walking naked inside your house and going outside naked to talk to the Girl Scouts. Sooner rather than later, that behavior will result in becoming isolated from the rest of your neighbors. If there's one thing each person cannot do even adequately is live in total economic autarky. It is for this reason that we TRADE. If we want to TRADE, we need to be NICE to each other, even if inside our homes we walk around naked all the time.

    So responding to the question "What if a toddler walks on someone's lawn and that someone shoots the toddler dead" then that person will at least be shunned and ostracized from society which will hinder his or her ability to TRADE. That person may feel secure inside the property because no one will come over to sell anything and probably no one will contract services or buy anything from that person. But let's say society is indifferent to this behavior; let's say most people will continue to trade with the crazy person on the property at the end of the street. Then I am sure other parents of toddlers will forbid their children from ever going close to that person's home and will tell them stories of evil witches who dine on little plump children. Do you understand where I am going?

    IT ISN'T LIKE THIS HASN'T HAPPENED BEFORE, GUYS. We've been on this Earth for at least 2 million years; Civilization is probably 10,000 years old. Do you REALLY think libertarianism hasn't existed before today? We're all essentially libertarian in our behavior towards each other, all the time, because the N.A.P. is still a self-evident truth that reveals itself by reason. We are beings of reason. Do you really think that people didn't come up with ingenious ways to shun and ostracize from their society crazy people who kill toddlers? Please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The notion that society would "shun and ostracize" NAP violators whether out of some morality or for economic benefit is an untested assumption. Think about the non-state gang known as the mafia in early and mid-20th century America. They used threats, intimidation, and violence as means to their ends. These activities were certainly well known by their community at large, yet these folks were not shunned or ostracized or forced into some kind of personal economic autarky. They were very public people who patronized businesses, ate at restaurants, etc. Organized gangs present a real problem for anarcho-society.

      Delete
    2. Hollow,

      "Organized gangs present a real problem for anarcho-society."

      How is this problem unique to "anarcho-society"?

      You refer to the fact that these groups caused all sorts of havoc "...in early and mid-20th century America...yet these folks were not shunned or ostracized or forced into some kind of personal economic autarky. They were very public people who patronized businesses, ate at restaurants, etc."

      These gangsters utilized public roads to get to the people who are being coerced. They (the victims) didn't build that! The other gangsters (the people of the "early and mid-20th century" government) made it happen...There can be no doubt that in a society without coercive government access to the victim would be much more difficult, and that any level of government intervention on society will make it concomitantly less difficult for bad actors to thrive, up to and including the point where society reaches full totalitarianism- the ultimate organized gang!

      Delete
    3. @RIck Miller: My point is that the "shun and ostracize" argument, on which so much of anarcho-society smooth functioning seems to rest, is weak. People do not necessarily shun and ostracize aggressive NAP violators. Partly out of the fear of "repercussions" they may experience from the violators for doing so. Partly also out of a culturally contextual viewpoint of right and wrong. From what I understand, many Italian Americans, even those that chose not to participate in crime, had sympathy for their violent criminal mafia relatives and ethnic community members born out of a sort of revenge against the native "WASPs" treated them poorly upon arrival in the country.

      Your "public roads make access to victims easier" argument would be funny if I didn't think you were serious. Presumably, in anarcho society, violent gangsters would also own some property, including roads. Maybe control of private roads would be the first thing they would violently commandeer.

      Delete
    4. Hollow,

      "My point is that the "shun and ostracize" argument, on which so much of anarcho-society smooth functioning seems to rest, is weak. People do not necessarily shun and ostracize aggressive NAP violators."

      I understand your point, but it is not unique to anarcho society, per se. In fact, you are refer to a specific historical example- "...the mafia in early and mid-20th century America"- which is not an anarcho society, but one of myriad government interventions.

      "Your "public roads make access to victims easier" argument would be funny if I didn't think you were serious."

      Can it not be funny and serious?....and correct?

      "Presumably, in anarcho society, violent gangsters would also own some property, including roads."

      Violent gangsters own roads in anything other than an anarcho society, (to steal from Rothbard) writ large!

      As an aside, this gangster discussion is funny to me because of reading Rothbard's characterization of the State as such. So, when you are describing the mafia, I just keep substituting the State in my mind...

      Delete
  3. I think this is Block's best response in this debate so far, too bad it's his last. But I don't think he was quite fair to Wenzel. Nowhere does Wenzel say property rights and the NAP are mutually exclusive. Nowhere does Wenzel say you can invite someone onto your property and shoot him. Unless I missed a post.

    The way I understand his position, property rights are derived from the NAP. However, once you live in a PPS, in which everyone owns all the land there is to own, everyone becomes the king of his castle. My house, my rules. Does Block not believe in that? If I own property legitimately and you trespass on it, is it aggression to shoot you as an intruder? Perhaps you are not an intruder, but who is to decide? I am, if it's my house.

    HOWEVER. Civil society will indeed account for this by creating overarching bodies voluntarily. That is one thing I wish Block had a better reply for. Obviously, a trigger-happy nutjob who shoots every 5-year-old who wanders onto is property is not a model PPS citizen. A PPS might deal with this through contracts. Perhaps 99% of people will live in neighborhood associations where it is a rule of the association that you can't just shoot people for stepping on your lawn. Perhaps 99% of people will not be able to shop at their local grocery if they are known for trigger-happy nutjob behavior. Perhaps road owners will have rules about keeping nutjobs off the roads.

    It seems to me that the biggest mistake both Block and Wenzel have made in this discussion is by not making any kind of argument about what their imagined society really looks like. True, it is not necessarily the job of a libertarian thinker to figure this out, but it helps to clarify what you mean when you use terms like "overarching body" and such. Or maybe my conception of the overarching body is not what either of them had in mind, but let's be real: there is no way in hell a voluntary society would lead to more 5-year-olds being shot in cold blood. How have Block and Wenzel managed not to point this out?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The parents of the child, as owners, bear full responsibility for the child's actions and any repercussions which come about from their failure to control the child. They deserve the scorn of the libertarian for the result, not the farmer.

    The farmer, as owner, can indeed "...make up his own rules; do exactly as he wishes in his own domain..." In fact, despite Dr. Block's assertion otherwise, the farmer "need not adhere to what in my perspective is the defining characteristic of libertarianism: the non aggression principle (NAP)" so long as the farmer is within their property.

    A free society is one in which it is not justified to coerce people, period. This is preferable to the smallest inkling that coercion is allowable- even if it is to force others to accept the NAP!

    ReplyDelete