Private Property Society and Kids Suing Parents

Eric Parks emails:

Robert,

Was wondering your position on this...

French parents who upload images of their children could be sued by them

I believe the child image case is a subset of a much bigger question for the advocate of a Private Property Society..

As Murray Rothbard has pointed out in The Ethics of Liberty, albeit from a natural rights perspective,  it is impossible to see a newborn babe as an existing self-owner. My view is slightly nuanced, I simply hold, from a PPS perspective, that a newborn babe can not survive, make decisions, protect itself, without help. Someone must make decisions etc. for a child. The presumptive decision makers for a child are the parents that bring a given child into the world.

The parents, as decision makers, remain until the child begins to make decisions for himself, Or as Rothbard puts it from his natural rights perspective:

For the child has full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature--in short, when he leaves or "runs away" from home.

Recognizing that a parent's role is limited, that it ends when the child begins to make his own decisions, it follows that parents can not make decisions for a child that last in perpetuity.
A parent can not sign a contract for a young child that will require, say,the child to work at a certain job, 80 hours a week at low pay, for 30 years. When a child becomes of age, that is, when he is making his own decisions, he can reject any contract that was made on his behalf by his parents. In other words, parental decisions are non-binding on an adult.

Thus, when a child becomes of age and learns that his parents took pictures of him as a child, perhaps in the belief that he would cherish memories for later years, the child as an adult can demand the pictures be destroyed, limit the way the pictures can be used etc., since the photo taking "contract" between the parents and a child end when the child becomes of age.

I note that this does not mean that a child can sue a parent for decisions made on his behalf that do not violate the non-aggression principle, just that parental decisions lack force in a PPS when the child begins to make his own decisions.

Of course in cases where a child has been abused by a parent, and later becomes a decision maker, he can sue a parent for a violation of the non-aggression principle. Indeed, while a child remians under the decision making control of a parent and an outsider recognizes abuse, that is a violation of NAP, the outsider can make a friend of child filing with a PPS court to ask for remedies that will stop the NAP abuse.

 -RW

VIDEO Bernie Sanders Arrested in 1963 Protest Against Segregation

NYT reports:

On Monday, a film company, Kartemquin Films, uploaded footage of a young man, 

wearing thick glasses, surrounded by police officers who grabbed him by his arms and carried him away. The man looked like it could be Mr. Sanders, so the company asked the public and Mr. Sanders to help confirm whether it was. On Friday, Michael Briggs, a spokesman for Mr. Sanders’s campaign, and Tad Devine, a senior adviser to the campaign, said Mr. Sanders had said it was him. What sealed it was the watch the man is wearing; Mr. Sanders recalled owning a watch like that, Mr. Devine said.

It isn't exactly clear what Bernie was protesting in 1963, whether it was a protest against segregation overall including on private property or segregation at a public school, but I doubt Bernie had any sympathy for private property even back in 1963.

NYT reports:

Mr. Sanders, then a 21-year-old student at the University of Chicago, was arrested on Aug. 12, 1963, while protesting segregation in Englewood, where Chicago Public Schools was planning to build a school.

Of course, the libertarian position is that no one should prevent segregation on private property. People should be allowed to associate with whomever they choose and avoid whomever they chose based on any criteria at all----dependent on the desires of the property owner. This is Private Property Society 101. It has nothing to do with what "society" thinks, what "cultural" perspectives are. what is "right," over-ruling bodies, etc.

As for public schools, in a Private Property Society there wouldn't be any government schools.

-RW

Progress in the Debate over Anarcho-Capitalism vs. Limited Government

By Robert Wenzel

I am going to declare that some progress has been made in my debate with Dr. Walter Block over the true essence of anarcho-capitalism.

Dr. Block's response (Walter Block Responds to My Anarcho-Capitalist Post) to my most recent comments suggests that he recognizes that an "over-ruling body" does mean just that, an over-ruling body, and thus, at a minimum, minarchism, which is a subset of limited government, which is a subset of government.

He writes:

Re your latest contribution A Reply to Walter Block on Anarcho-Capitalism to our discussion about minarchism and anarchism. If I’m a minarchist, then so are you. Your criteria for anarchism seems to be that there be “… no over-ruling body that can (en)force rules…” But, you, too, favor an “over-ruling body that can (en)force rules.” For example, how do we get to private property rights in the first place? Suppose I claim the moon, the stars the heavenly bodies, the oceans, the rivers, all the virgin land in Alaska, the Rockies, etc. Surely, my claim is not valid, because I have not homesteaded any of this terrain. But, surely private courts would be the “over-ruling body that can force rules” regarding homesteading.  Suppose I claim property that some people already think is private property. Bob, I now claim the shoes you are wearing. They are really mine. How do we settle my claim, in the absence of an “over-ruling body that can (en)force rules?” Surely, only a (private) court should determine who is the rightful owner of the shoes now on your feet, no?

He is correct in his belief that if there is an over-ruling body there is at least minarchism.

But he is incorrect in his notion that I believe, like he does, that such an over-ruling body is required (although he does slip in the idea of a private court but seems to have a hidden implication that they are following some over-ruling laws).

Dr. Block asks the question, "How do we get to private property rights in the first place?"

This is certainly a more important question for Dr. Block than it is for me. I don't think he realizes it but he seems to have a neocon-ish zest to think his rules on how to determine  private property should apply to the entire planet  universe.

I am far from so adventurous. When I think in terms of a Private Property Society, I am thinking of a society where current property ownership is generally recognized. I am not thinking about some theoretical land where new property is dispersed by some set and necessary standards.

My books, my clothes, my furnishings are what I am concerned about. I am looking to live and own property where  respect for private property is recognized. (To a limited degree we have this in the United States, but the operative word is limited.)

If I decide to buy property, I want to make sure that the people around me have the same respect for private property, that is all. Notice: I am not attempting to drag in some court that has set rules over a region. I am just looking for an area where people, in general, respect each other and mind their own business.

Recognizing that even  under the conditions where property is generally respected that outsiders could still wander in and do damage or disputes could arise  with neighbors, in such an area, I would hire a private security agency to protect my property. If this is a big agency, they would have other clients and say to me,"Look, we will back you up on what is your property, but if you have a dispute with one of our other clients, we want you to agree that we can take this to our private court, where we have the most wise and fair judges in the world."

Now at this point. I can say "No thanks" or because I am reasonable and have checked out to see that the security agency's judges are indeed the wisest and most fair in the land, I sign up.

Notice here: No one is forcing me to use this court and follow their rules, I am agreeing to do so. I don't have to. I can live without the agency and court if I want. Or I can hire another agency and a different court. What if my agency comes up against my opposition who has a different agency? I would imagine such agencies would come up against each other many, many times in  a PPS, so that, if they are profit seekers, they would just reach an agreement that if they come up against each other they would use certain great. wise and fair judges that they have both decided on.

Of course, in my contract with my agency, they would stipulate that when coming up against other agencies, they would have the option to determine how a dispute is resolved in which court, by an agreement between the two agencies.

All agencies would compete to be the wisest and fairest in the land since that is how they would get clients---and compete that their rules are the best. An agency that was crooked wouldn't last long.

Notice again, no over-ruling laws, Choose your security agency by the way it operates with its own clients and rules, and how they operate with other agencies that might have different rules.

And so, without an over-ruling body, a private property society could exist. with respect for the rules set by the property owner paramount and at the core of the basis by which security agencies would agree to protect a property,

If Dr. Block wants to claim that the shoes I am wearing are his, he is free to do so, but he would never win with any serious agency that was competing for customers on the basis of being fair about private property. I would prove (perhaps by receipt) that I acquired the shoes via a legitimate transaction. There would be no agency that would take the case of Dr. Block here since they know they would lose if it went to court. And if he is so rich that he is able to get an agency to represent hin anyway, he would lose before the fair and wise judges.

It is important to understand that my discussion above applies to current property ownership and I am purposely not extending the discussion to new virgin property that does not have any lineage,

It is indeed very possible that many would approve of  homesteading as the way new land should be parceled out. However, I am not convinced that is the necessary method, but that is a much longer discussion for another day. Setting this discussion of virgin property off to the side does not reduce the validity of recognizing current property ownership. If one wants to be technical about it,  I suppose my view of a Private Property Society is thus one where current private property ownership is generally respected--and exchanges can take place from there .

Dr Block also states:

Our intellectual enemies claim that free market anarchism, or anarcho capitalism, would be chaos. You are playing into their hands. Without an  “over-ruling body that can (en)force rules” chaos would result.

But isn't our defense against the charges against free market anarchism detractors that they do  not understand what an anarcho-capitalist society would look like and that it would not be chaos?

That is my defense to those who object to a Private Property Society, such detractors simply fail to see what a Private Property Society would look like and that such a society without an “over-ruling body that can (en)force rules” would not result in chaos.

Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher at EconomicPolicyJournal.com and at Target Liberty. He is also author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics

A Reply to Walter Block on Anarcho-Capitalism

Dr. Walter Block has responded (SEE: Walter Block Responds to My Charge That He is Not an Anarcho-Capitalist) to an earlier post of mine (SEE: Has Walter Block Left the World of Anarcho-Capitalist Advocacy?).

His response in my view continues to place him in the limited government camp rather than the anarcho-capitalist camp. I do not see how Dr. Block can be in the anarcho-capitalist camp, which I define as a respect for private property but no over-ruling body that can force rules on a person's private property. if he continues to insist that a property owner must put up certain signs on his property:

 I don’t think that my views about warning signs are incompatible with AnCap. Surely, private defense agencies, courts, can make these rulings.

What is Dr. Block saying here? That private defense agencies can set requirements for a property owner that has no interest in listening to the defense agency and is not violating NAP? How is that not interference with a private property owner who has not violated NAP?

The same goes for Dr. Block calling on a court to resolve such issues. If he believes a court can interfere on the private property of an individual who has not violated NAP, he is not an anarcho-capitalist, since he for sure sees some kind of body over-ruling a person who is minding his own business on his own property.

Dr. Block then goes on to move the discussion over to the world of  the doctrine of ad coelum. But my example has nothing to do with a question of property ownership. I am discussing a situation where the ownership is clear. My question remains, if the ownership of a property is clear, in an anarcho-capitalist world how can one have over-ruling bodies that decide what rules must apply on properties? To have any such rules requires a central planning body, call it whatever you choose, but if there is a private property and you are attempting to make rules of any kind that apply to the property, this is not anarchism in any form, It is government---yes that beast that tends to expand into an organism that in the past has killed hundreds of millions on this planet, Do we really want to advocate, for the sake of demanding signs on a property owner's land, the seeds of such a beast?

Dr. Block continues:

When a friend of mine who really should know better heard this, he accused me of being a G man (a government man); a non anarchist. A minarchist. He was making the same error as you are Bob, in thinking that law is a total monopoly of the state. No, it is not. Law precedes government. The state continually violates libertarian law. But, how could this be if, as you and this friend of mine think,  the government is the source of law, and whenever anyone such as myself proposes a law (signage for attack dogs; requirements that slant drillers not interfere with neighbor’s property rights) he is accused of violating AnCap?

I fear Dr. Block has created a strawman here and set it on fire.

I have never denied that laws can emerge without government, Religions, for example, have created laws, see: Catholic Canon Law and Islamic Sharia law. Private communities have set rules/laws for their communities.

But does Dr. Block believe that any of these laws must overrule activities of an individual on his own property if he is not violating NAP? Does he believe that Islamic Sharia law must overrule private property owner desires in parts of the world?

How does Dr. Block determine that his non-government law is the "true" law?

A private property society advocate would simply say. "Fine, if you want to recognize and enforce  Catholic Canon Law, Islamic Sharia law or  the Jewish Halakha, or any other laws on your property go for it, but the PPS advocate would recoil in horror at the idea that a set of laws, irrespective of how they developed, must apply to all properties."

Such a society with outside laws applying everywhere would not be an anarcho-capitalist system, It would be pretty much what we have now, people budding into the actions of those who are minding their own business on their own property, Some will demand warning signs from barking dogs, some will demand signs and safe rooms from speaking individuals. Where does it stop?

-RW

The Government as Provider of Security Myth (NYC Edition)

Two cops were shot last night in the South Bronx.

This is the propaganda that New York City mayor Bill deBlasio put out at a press conference in front of the hospital where the 2 coppers were taken (via NYT):

It’s another example of what our officers confront every single day keeping us safe, not only in the streets of New York City, but in the stairwells and hallways of our public housing developments.

From the same NYT article on the true state of "security" provided by NYPD in that neighborhood. My bold:

 On Thursday night, after scores of police officers descended on the complex and cordoned off the area, residents...aid they had grown accustomed to the persistent violence in the neighborhood...

The shooting — coming after four other officers had been killed while on duty across the city in the past 14 months — also highlighted the risky conditions for officers at night in the 40th Precinct, a violent section of the South Bronx where large parties and dimly lit public housing courtyards and hallways can become havens for gunplay...

Symphony Alston, 18, a high school senior, who lives on the 14th floor of the building where the shooting happened, waited outside in the cold for more than an hour, as police kept the area cordoned off. She said she understood the police response, but also found it disquieting.

“When people from the ’hood get shot they never come this quickly,” she said, shaking her head. “This happens all the time. The only thing different is that it’s a cop. They don’t care as much about our lives, I guess. It’s disturbing.”

Parrish Parker, a construction worker who had lived in the complex for six years, had already moved away. “It got too wild there,” Mr. Parker, 52, said. “This is nothing new. People get killed around here for no apparent reason. It’s just going to happen again and again.”

Government security is a myth. You take care of yourself, move away from danger and that is about it. Anyone that thinks government or "governance" would stop what is going on at the Melrose Houses, and places like it, is denying reality.

Go ahead, governance people, go to the Melrose Houses and put "governance"  "community culture," whatever, in place, show me how that works.

 -RW

Has Walter Block Left the World of Anarcho-Capitalist Advocacy?

By Robert Wenzel

In an email  Rick Miller has posed an important question of what is required of a farmer who has attack dogs on his property (SEE: Walter Block: Thoughts on the Farmer Dilemma),

Prof. Walter Block has responded with this claim:

My claim is that yes, the owner should be able to have attack dogs roaming his property, but, if so, he must place fences with barbed wire around his territory, along with signs, large ones, warning of this danger.

But at another time Prof. Block has written  (June 1 1969, Libertarian Forum):

 Any threat or initiation of violence against a man or his property is in violation of man's rights and hence inimical to liberty.

These two positions seem to be in conflict. One may argue that rules/laws must be required to protect children, but the advocacy of such must cause one to leave the world of anarcho-capitalism.

The first question that can be asked to illustrate this point is Who is making this rule? Suddenly, there is some sort of ruler over private property. A second question: Where does this stop? Should a swimming pool owner also be required to have "fences with barbed wire around his territory, along with signs, large ones, warning of this danger"? What about a child that is being fed "too much sugar"? Should society intervene to stop this if responsibility doesn't stop with the parents?

And finally, we must ask, what is to be done to a private individual who simply ignores outside regulations? How are these regulations to be enforced if not by some violation of an individuals right to be left alone.

There are many who now call themselves anarcho-capitalists, who fail in fully advocating  an anarcho-capitalist society. They are actually limited government advocates. You can call a group that overrides private property rights by many names, but in the end it is some sort of over-ruling body, that is, some type of government. It may be advocacy for an extremely limited government but it is still an advocacy for some sort of over-ruling body. People who believe such an over-ruling body is necessary should realize this. They are not anarcho-capitalists, if anarcho-capitalism means respect for private property and no government.

I happen to hold the view that the fears that most hold about an anarcho-capitalist society, what I prefer to call a Private Property Society, are unjustified. The significance should be recognized that we, even  now, despite the supposed protection of government, for the most part protect ourselves and our children by staying away from danger. It is a myth that government protects us from danger. If government was the key driver of protection of person and property, locks on doors wouldn't exist, nor babysitters. We protect ourselves.

Anyone who demands an over-ruling dictate that requires certain things be done on a private property, regardless of the property owner's desires, can't possibly believe that we protect ourselves. They, to at least a minor degree, buy into the idea that government protects. It is an extremely dangerous notion, since one can think of many, many rules that can be made to "protect children" and, say, the low IQ, the handicapped.

I would further argue that contra to Dr. Block, the farmer dilemma is not a "very difficult case for libertarians." It is at the core of libertariansim that each person and his property should be  be left alone as long as he is not violating NAP. The entire concept of libertariansim is based on the idea that people are quite capable of taking care of themselves (and their children) and that there is no need for over-ruling bodies. It is the observation that the actions of over-ruling bodies, despite possibly initial good intentions, turn evil. The danger with creating a central power is that it creates a focal point that can be corrupted. For the desire to protect some theoretical child, who theoretically climbs on to the private  land of a theoretical child-molesting killer as theoretical parents ignore the child, a very real central power is created that the worst in mankind can focus on and capture. This is the great danger that has resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths on this planet, the capture of central power by the evil ones. It has been repeated in history time after time.

The message of libertarians to the world should be that central powers are extremely dangerous and that Lord Acton was very right when he warned power corrupts. It should be emphasized that government protection now is largely a myth that we protect ourselves and that creating any central power is creating a seed that has always led to great death.

Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher at EconomicPolicyJournal.com and at Target Liberty. He is also author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics

The Nature of a Private Property Society

In a post titled Feedback, Bionic Mosquito has posted his comments, along with that of others, with regard to my comments on how I view a Private Property Society.

I am going to respond to the commentary in the hopes of advancing why I hold that full respect for private property is the best way to achieve a decent and reasonable society.

First, Bionic posts a Rothbard comment which was supplied to him by an anonymous provider:

I was sent the following by one of the prefer-to-remain-anonymous feedbackers, an excerpt from Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 13:

Thus, it should be quite clear that, under libertarian law, capital punishment would have to be confined strictly to the crime of murder. For a criminal would only lose his right to life if he had first deprived some victim of that same right. It would not be permissible, then, for a merchant whose bubble gum had been stolen, to execute the convicted bubble gum thief. If he did so, then he, the merchant, would be an unjustifiable murderer, who could be brought to the bar of justice by the heirs or assigns of the bubble gum thief.

Shooting someone for stealing a stick of gum – and in Rothbard’s example, not even a child.

Rothbard is proposing this restriction on punishment based on his proportionality view of punishment. But I ask anyone who holds the Rothbard proportionality view to please state how these proportionalities should be determined.

I see a huge quagmire. Do proportionalities have to be determined on an ad hoc basis? Or are they already set? That is, if Stevie Wonder pokes out a person's eye, when that person's other eye is glass, is proportionality poking out both of the already blind Stevie Wonders eyes? Or must we now have some kind of "punishment body" to determine proportionality?

If there is a heckler at a Donald Trump campaign stop, does this mean Trump gets to go to that person's house and heckle him on two separate occasions or do we bring in the ruling "punishment body" for some other punishment?

Or how about this: A landowner has a sign "No blacks," and a black trespasses, who gets on the "punishment body" in that case?

Or if a thief steals a wallet should his hand be cut off? Which, I am certain would be considered proportional punishment in parts of the Middle East.

How is the outcome of punishment less protected under a Private Property Society where the property owner has the ultimate word in punishment? Why are outsiders somehow better at this? Further. in a Private Property Society, no edifice must be constructed over private property. Call it governance, culture or whatever, it is, for all practical purposes, a ruling body over all, if rules over all are made despite the wishes of the property owner. Thus, those who are not in favor of the owner of a private property determining punishment must recognize that they are no longer anracho-capitalists. They can be limited-government libertarians but they are not against the essence of government, which is the ruling over people who may not wish to be ruled over.

Bionic then introduces Walter Block who writes in part:

[T]o think that victims and they alone may make up any punishment rules thay want on their own property, without notifying everyone else of unusual rules (like killing, or seizing coats, a la Donald Trump) I find completely incompatible with libertarianism

It seems to me by reading this comment that Prof. Block agrees with me that a property owner can set his own punishment rules on his own property--as long as warning is given. So I would say, he and I are in 95% agreement on this point. Where we differ is as to a necessary warning about the punishment,

I hold that in a society where private property is respected that no notification should be required of by a property owner of the punishment rules on his property, I see this as a minor rule above property, which I would consider a movement away from anarcho-capitalism, since who is to determine what are "unusual rules"? Again, are we going to be setting up committees or something?

I hasten to ask what would be the practical difference of a property owner who posts, "I jail people for 50 years who sneeze when on my property"? and one who keeps his rules secret? Who would go on either property?

In a Private Property Society, I fully expect decency and reasonableness to be the norm and that people would  just avoid unknown areas, just like they avoid the bad parts of town now.

Bionic next introduces "Black Flag":

 [P]erhaps the most succinct and insightful comment was offered atthe subject post:
Black Flag January 21, 2016 at 3:09 PM 

Why should Wenzel oppose the state when he's fine with an individual operating the same way? Is the libertarian objection to action, or the label attributed?

Wenzel hasn't defended Anarcho Capitalism, he has defended the judge, the jury, and the executioner, (all bundled together as one man) likely of statist ilk, who feel they can operate without consequences for error.

I wish I thought of this line of reasoning.  In sixty words, Black Flag said more than I did in ten-thousand.  Wenzel wants to create two billion tyrants.  This isn’t libertarianism.

It is difficult for me to discern Black Flag's argument here. He correctly points out:

he has defended the judge, the jury, and the executioner, (all bundled together as one man) 

But isn't this what anarcho-capitalism is? Who does Black Flag suggest be the judge, the jury, and the executioner in an "anarcho" capitalist world? I further add that in a PPS world people would simply avoid areas where reasonable and decent rules aren't set up, including areas where property owners haven't chosen reasonable judges, juries and executioners. The beauty of PPS is that it allows for freedom within the bounds of one's property and those one chooses to associate with---without the oppressive veil of government, which does now monopolize choices for all in judges, juries and executioners.

That is, there is good reason to oppose the state, very good reason, if the alternative is a Private Property Society. Since a PPS means a society where there is no government and a general respect for private property. To equate PPS with a state is extremely difficult for me to understand.

I believe a large part of the problem here remains because many don't really believe a peaceful society can exist without some rules beyond a respect for private property.

But my argument is that in many ways we live a PPS life now, with a government veil over us that pretends to protect us, when it is, in fact, the case that we protect our own property. If it was laws that protected us, why would we stay out of bad areas? Why would we have locks on our doors?

Just because one does not believe  government is necessary to protect one's property does not mean that such a person is in favor of theft. To say we shouldn't have government police on standby to protect our property doesn't mean we don't want our property protected.

To say that there should be no rules that are not set by a property owner does not mean we are an advocate of any kind of punishment, that we are for/or against racial rules on properties etc.

It means that just like now, we avoid trouble spots and act in a decent and reasonable manner  with the people we choose to deal with. Isn't this what we do now?

Just because young kids could burn themselves playing on a hot stove, it doesn't mean we should call for a ban on stoves, it means that we watch kids so that they don't get themselves in harms way.

In the same way, in a PPS, you wouldn't allow kids to wander off into unknown territory, just like you don't now.

What would be the difference in the way you act other than not having the government breathing down your neck?

 -RW

More on Private Property Society here.

Bionic Mosquito: Anarcho-Capitalism Could Never Survive In Practice

By Robert Wenzel

Bionic Mosquito didn't use the exact words I have put above in the title. In a response to my post, The Current State of Anarcho-Capitalist Theory (Part 1), hewrote a post with the title Wenzel Develops Theory That Could Never Survive Practice.

But my theory is nothing than my understanding of anarcho-capitalism. That is a society without government but a respect for private property, My preferred name for such a society is the Private Property Society.

It is based on the non-aggression principle.

As Rick Miller points out:

Here is the NAP as defined by Walter Block:

"The non-aggression [principle] ...is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another."

It appears that Bionic wants to ignore part of this principle but still hang on to the idea that he is an anrcho-capiatslist. He writes:

To set the stage, general descriptions regarding my earlier comments, as offered by Robert:

…[bionic] has left the world of anarcho-capitalism and entered the world of limited government.

…you are, at least, a limited government advocate.

These because I suggest culture would have a role in society.

But Bionic just doesn't mean a general culture could be recognized by almost all. He means a society where the rules of aculture could not be ignored by anyone who chooses not to go along on his own private property. He clarifies in a comment to my post on such culture

 I will go one step further: if a community decides that the penalty for a child stealing an apple is death, so be it. But if it is imposed by one individual without agreement by the others – no matter how great the theory sounds – further and escalating conflict will ensue.

But this is my point: if the community accepts the death of the child as payment…it is their culture – it has nothing to do with the NAP. 

It is here where he has left the anracho-capitalist camp and entered the world of government. Not because he argues a culture could develop that most would  recognize, but because "the community" in his view can  overrule an individual, who chooses, on his own property, to ignore the rules of a culture.

Culture does not equal government. But culture that is forced by a "community" on those who are on their own property and who don't want to live by such culture is government.

As for Bionic claiming my anarcho-capitalist position "has nothing to do with the NAP,"
 it is the exact opposite. NAP is, significantly, about non-aggression on private property. If we have a "community" that imposes its culture on individuals, on their own property, who don't want anything to do with that culture, it is aggression. It is an attempt to demand acting in the manner approved by the culture on a given individual's private property---that's aggression.

Bionoic goes on to reveal that he buys into the myth that "governance" is needed in a society:

I have written often about the difference of “government” and “governance.”  There will always be governance – else there is no civil society.  It is to governance that I introduce and discuss culture.

But this is  a myth. People generally take measures to protect their own property. It is a myth that they rely on governance. If Bionic really believes governance  protects people, then I suggest a test. Bionoic should pull $10,000 out of the bank--cash. He should put it on a park bench in San Francisco's Tenderloin with the note, "This belongs to Bionioc Mosquito. Please do not touch. I will be back for it in  a few days"

Does he seriously think that "governance" will protect his money?

As a further test, I urge him to leave his DOB, SS#, bank account number along with online passwords in the comment section below. Since he believes in "governance" and there are now laws against identity theft, he should have no problem with this test.

If he does not act out either of these easy tests to prove his point, it means he rejetcs the idea that governance as opposed to individual protection, is the root of private property protection. I repeat, governance as a protector is largely a myth. The idea should be destroyed along with the notion that the government protects us against terrorists.

Bionic asks in his post:

So why write a post entitled “Additional Comments on Penalties for Violators of the Non-Aggression Principle”?  If “people mind their own business and respect private property,” why speak of penalties?  Why speak of violators?

The answer is, of course, because people do violate private property on occasion. We are not discussing a world of angels. We are discussing methods by which a society could function where there is a general respect for private property, but still recognize the way the world is and that there will be those who become aggressors.

If the decision of penalties for a private property violations is left up to the owners of a properties, then we have no need for governance and no  penalties which may not satisfy victims. And here again, we come to the point that there is no objective measure of appropriate punishment. Only victims can determine satisfaction for an aggression becasue they are the ones aggressed against and satisfaction is always subjective.

Bionic then goes on and makes some odd points:

Does a common, unifying culture increase or decrease the likelihood for the demand of the service of a monopoly fixer of all things?  I say decrease...Is it “government” when neighbors voluntarily agree to abide by a certain code of conduct despite not being pleased with every single clause?  No – it is called life.

Bionic can call a  "common, unifying culture," life, but it is government when such a unifying culture is forced upon those who are on their own property and who are not interested in such culture as necessary for "life." Bionic is playing word games here, "a common, unifying culture," is government, that is some kind og monopoly fixer. This is not quite anarchy.


Bionic than takes another great leap away from fundamental NAP theory:

Is it possible for a penalty to cross the line into the initiation of aggression?  Again, yes. (This isn’t self-evident to Robert, but perhaps one or two others might read it and say “duh, how stupid does bionic think we are?”)

Wenzel suggests shooting a child for stealing an apple is not initiating aggression.  In any civil society – meaning any society that has some reasonable chance of putting libertarian theory into practice – he would be wrong.

Bionic may not like it, but fundamental private property recognition means that  the owner of the property should not be aggressed against and only he can set the rules, on his property, for aggression penalties. It is impossible for anyone other than a victim to know what is a satisfactory penalty for an aggression. (A victim by being on the property of another siginifies acceptance of aggression penalties as allowed by that property owner)

But let us look further into why Bionic objects to penalties determined by private property owners.. He tells us in his next paragraph:

Picture the scene: the child, dead in a pool of blood; the parents, neighbors, and other community members show up.  Wenzel says “that dumb kid stole my apple, so I shot him.  You have to respect my property rights.”  Everyone says “you know, that Wenzel guy is right.  Let’s buy him a beer.”  And the child’s father picks up the tab.\ 

On what planet?

First, I would not shoot a kid who stole an apple from a tree on my property, neither  would almost all the rest of us.

But more important, the questions that must be asked that are not presented by Bionic are: Is it a dangerous world for children? Of course, it is. They could burn their hands on a stove, set fire to a house while  playing with matches etc. That is why there are people called baby sitters. Children who potentially can harm themselves are not left alone. It is not because governance laws ban stoves, matches etc. It is because everyone recognizes that children must be watched after.

What planet does Bionic buzz around in that he does not understand this?

It would be the same way with a killer of children who trespass. Who would allow their children to go near such a property?  Who would allow children to go near a property that doesn't disclose its rules and penalties? It wouldn't happen any more than parents allowing children to play on top of a hot stove or allowing them to go out and play in traffic?

This necessity of governance is a great myth. Life mainly goes on with people protecting their own property without the help of governance.

Bionic may not think this kind of society could survive, but it is the kind of society we live in, with a mythical, supposed all-powerful veil called governance over us that in reality does nearly nothing to protect us.

It is the great myth that must be exposed before we can move onto a Private Proprty Society, I suspect that many who call themselves anarcho-capitalists do not truly understand the logical road such a view leads to and I am sure that many recoil, as Bionic has done, to the punch in the gut as to the true nature of PPS. But the punch in the gut is felt because they don't truly understand the way the world really works now and that governance as a great protector doesn't exist.

But in time, perhaps, many will come to the view that in many ways we are already living a PPS life with government a leach that has no real value for us.

Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher at EconomicPolicyJournal.com and at Target Liberty. He is also author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics
  

The Current State of Anarcho-Capitalist Theory (Part 1)

By Robert Wenzel

Recently when having lunch with a semi-prominent hardcore libertarian, the man said to me that he thought all the deep thinking about libertarianism had been done and that there was not much more that needed to be hashed out..

I objected vehemently. I stated that there was much more that had to be developed and that there were very few that understood exactly what anarcho-capitalism meant.

My current discussion with regard to the nature of a Private Property Society (my preferred term for anarcho-capitalism) here at Target Liberty is an object lesson. The discussion points out gaps in current theory, but also the lack of understanding by most libertarians as to exactly what a PPS would look like--as far as the theory has already been developed

I view the idea that government is necessary as largely a myth. Government, for the most part, is simply an organization that seeks to survive and expand, driven by the people in charge of it. A change in government power is simply new people taking over power spots.

Government does not protect us against terrorists, it does not improve healthcare, it is terrible at charity and the police do little to protect us against crime. Government is a propaganda machine that creates the impression that it is needed for all these matters when in fact it is a suffocater of real solutions.

My working definition of anarcho-capitalism is a society where no government exists but where private property is recognized and respected.

Let's take this definition and look at some comments made at my recent post: Additional Comments on Penalties for Violators of the Non-Aggression Principle.

bionic mosquitoJanuary 15, 2016 at 8:24 PM

To start: I will set aside the situation where the property owner has clearly specified rules and penalties for violations regarding his property. I will also set aside the implication of this to the child taking the apple – libertarian theory is very incomplete when it comes to many questions about children.

From everything I gather, I believe it is correct that libertarian theory does not answer the question: what is the proper punishment / restitution / whatever for violation X?

It is possible that this means that libertarian theory offers that the victim is allowed to determine the punishment. I imagine it is also possible that this is not a logical conclusion. If libertarian theory doesn’t answer the question, the logical conclusion might just be that it doesn’t answer the question – and that the answer must be found elsewhere.

Subjective value is a truism for humans – in economics and in all human action. I don’t know that this suggests subjective value is a libertarian concept. It is subjective value on which Robert rests. This might be one way to answer the question: “what is the proper punishment for violation X?” But it isn’t the only way, and I don’t know that it is inherently the libertarian way.

There are many issues of human action and human interactions that are not addressed by libertarian theory and the NAP – which only address the issue of initiating violence (of course, against property or person). Punishment (after the cessation of the initial violent act) is not an initiation of violence.

How does a theory that addresses the initiation of violence address something that isn’t the initiation of violence?

Robert might be right, however I remain in the box that this question can only be answered by what is acceptable in a given culture. Fortunately or unfortunately this leaves a somewhat wide path for “acceptable” punishment – but, I would argue, not as wide a path as the one offered by Robert’s position.

Whatever might be correct in libertarian theory (and again, I do not believe libertarian theory offers an answer), communities want to avoid blood feuds (I have a post that will be published tomorrow that touches just on this point, an example from today’s world).

The decision of punishment will not be left solely to the victim to decide. And I do not see this as contradictory to libertarian theory.

I am not sure Bionic Mosquito realizes it here, but he has left the world of anarcho-capitalism and entered the world of limited government. The moment there is a central party, be it culture or whatever, that sets the rules that overrule the desires of a person on his property, it is a central power, that is, it is government. Regardless of how modest the desires of such a ruling power that is what it is. It is no longer anracho-capitalism.

Matt@Occidentalism.orgJanuary 15, 2016 at 9:40 PM

To my mind penalties for crimes (NAP violations) must be culturally determined, not determined at the whim of some Shylock demanding a pound of flesh.

Libertarianism is not a complete way of life. There are many things that the NAP does not provide an answer for. Furthermore the vast majority of the population is not biologically selected for libertarianism and thus a libertarian society is impossible without strict standards of who to let in and who to keep out. This standard would need to be stricter than just admitting people that claim to be libertarian today.

Yet, another that has left the world of anarcho-capitalism and leaves us with the horrific thought that the masses are "not biologically selected to be libertarians" and, therefore, government is here to stay.

This, of course, flies in the face of my perspective that everyone, from libertarian scholars to the masses, spend most of their day acting just as they would if there was no government. I repeat what the government allegedly provides is either done poorly or is a complete myth.

The masses may never become deep thinkers of libertarian philosophy, but it is not difficult to imagine them, at some place and some time, adopting the view that people should just be left the hell alone.

sonepatchworthJanuary 15, 2016 at 10:10 PM

"...if there are no previously stipulated penalties, the property owner should determine penalties on his property"

Unilaterally? This is deeply problematic. A religious extremist could insist on beheading or enslavement for merely glancing at a married woman while on his property. To him, legitimate. To the guest, unacceptable and insane. But would a libertarian have to side with the religious property owner just because the guest was occupying his land even though the guest may have been unaware or unconsenting to this rule and penalty for any number of reasons? I don’t think so. Unless surrendered via contract, by default one retains full ownership of one’s body and personal property even while occupying the land of another.

"On what basis should you be overruling a property owner on his own property? You guys sound like a couple of central planners...This violates the fundamental Austrian principle of subjective value..."

Perhaps you misunderstood our positions. I am arguing that a guest and a property owner must first come to mutual agreement on all terms or else the guest cannot enter the property. This dictates nothing to anyone. It allows for the subjective values of both host and guest to find common ground between them (or not) so all parameters are explicitly agreed to in advance. Surely this conveys a legitimacy to rules and penalties that unilateral imposition by either party cannot.

"Unless surrendered via contract..."

 In a PPS, surrendering rights to the owner of the property is a given. Otherwise, we are back to the limited government situation where rules are determined by a central power.

I think there is an implication here that people would be wandering off into areas where they would be tortured or perhaps murdered and that somehow rules overruling private property must be necessary to prevent this.

But this fails to understand how people act now. They don't walk at 3:00 in the morning counting cash in the open in a bad section of town because there is a government law against it and the government police will protect them. They simply stay out of bad areas, as would occur in a PPS. There aren't many modern day Americans who are going to wander on the property of someone who will kill them because of the smallest infraction.

It doesn't happen now, no thanks to government, and it wouldn't in a PPS.

Apollo SlaterJanuary 15, 2016 at 11:24 PM

Robert, would a child who steals and eats an apple be subject to the death penalty, if the farmer who owned the apple desires it? The child is not on his property anymore, but he did steal and irretrievably damage the farmer's property. After all, subjective value means the farmer could have valued that apple immensely - who is anyone else to judge the value?

If that's true, wouldn't any crime, from trespassing, to physical altercation, to theft, to fraud, be potentially punishable by death, since the victim's restitution could only be evaluated subjectively, i.e. according to the victim's wishes?

Yes, I have made my point clear that it is impossible for anyone other than the victim to determine what is satisfactory punishment. However, I wish to emphasize once again that no one is going to wander into areas where significant danger lurks. Government doesn't protect us from such dangers now, we just avoid such areas. Why wouldn't we avoid them in a PPS?

You are all falling into the trap that the government is somehow needed to protect us from dangerous areas. They don't. We just stay  away from such areas. You are all setting up the scenario where people are not going to be cognizant of where they are in a PPS, even though they are now, with a supposed government to protect them now.

sonepatchworthJanuary 16, 2016 at 8:52 AM...That is why conflicts not covered by pre-agreements are so deeply problematic...

No they are not. If there are no set rules or designated arbiter, then the private property owner has the last say. But again who is going to go on a property where it isn't clear what the rules are or who the arbiter might be?

Spencer FanJanuary 15, 2016 at 11:43 PM

"You guys sound like a couple of central planners determining penalties. This violates the fundamental Austrian principle of subjective value..."

And so does the legal concept of "property." How is property defined in civil society if not by some universal, uniform, objective legal standard? Or is property determined by subjective value? Where does that lead? Not to a civil society I think.

What about IP? Summary justice based on subjective value for IP too? Eeee... and this contributes to a civil society? A libertarian society? I don't see how.

"In short, my view on penalties for violations of NAP, as being determined in a libertarian society by the owner of the property on which the violation occurs, rests on the fundamental principle of subjective value and a respect for private property ownership."

No due process? No day in court?

And if someone is wrongly accused by the property owner? So if a property owner *believes* someone has violated his terms of entry to his property, he can simply administer summary justice on the spot? What if he's wrong or just doesn't like the person? Or what if there is shared blame?

Your issue of subjective value to me pertains to remedy AFTER guilt has been established (for a criminal offense) which should be by an impartial jury of peers.

There's no reason why a court can't be somehow required to base their remedy on the plaintiff's subjective value of the harm done. In ancient Athens (as the case at the trial of Socrates), the accuser and the convicted each proposed a remedy/punishment which the jury voted on. The logic of this explained by Aristotle was that if either party demanded too much they'd likely lose so both parties tended to moderate their proposal.

Property in a PPS is not a legal concept. It is simply a society where the population respects private property and respects the idea that the  owner of the property sets the rules on that property.

I am not here discussing the specific mannerof how property ownership develops in a PPS (Like I said there is much theory in an anarcho-capitalist society that needs to be developed). I am at this point only discussing the nature of a PPS. How property ownership is determined in a PPS is for another time and another essay.

"And if someone is wrongly accused by the property owner? So if a property owner *believes* someone has violated his terms of entry to his property, he can simply administer summary justice on the spot? What if he's wrong or just doesn't like the person? Or what if there is shared blame?"

Again, why are you going to go on a property where you don't know the rules? This stuff isn't going to happen. Do you think Macy's would survive if it practiced summary justice? No one would go in the damn store.

theageofnowJanuary 16, 2016 at 12:11 AMWhy would there not be private, impartial businesses that judge disputes? Private police that communities pay to enforce laws. Jails/work camps to punish aggressors based on the victims preference (so far as he is a consumer of the service).

It's almost as if you guys are thinking bounty hunters, police, courts, judges, lawyers and jails would not exist in a free society. There would no doubt be wild west areas as there are still today but the vast majority of us would gladly be a member of some protection service. With all the extra income we would have protection services would thrive and these wild west NAP justice theories would be a tiny afterthought.

Go to the head of the class, though to the degree it's communities, it would be private property owners getting together and deciding to recognize certain rules, etc.

Matt@Occidentalism.orgJanuary 16, 2016 at 12:02 PM...Once again pie in the sky libertarianism with no attempt to gauge the acceptability of this to actual people living. This line of thinking makes libertarianism intolerable to normal people.

No, pie in the sky is believing that government is actually protecting you somehow. That is the great myth. What I am describing is how people live now, with the unfortunate veil of government that suffocates and oppresses.

bionic mosquitoJanuary 16, 2016 at 1:22 PMAs I think about this more, I keep returning to a couple of thoughts:

1) When does "penalty" cross the line into "initiation of aggression"? Libertarian theory does not hold an answer to this question, to my understanding; we even cannot settle on a definitive line regarding what "aggression" is in the first place (not that I find it necessary to do so).

2) Subjective value is not a concept that flows from libertarian theory, at least not in any way that I see. Therefore, one could presumably justify a penalty code based on subjective value, but I do not see how it can be built on the foundation offered by the NAP.

Any light / links on either matter would be appreciated.

Separately,this idea put into practice is seen in gang wars and the relationship of Israel / Palestine, among other places where blood feuds are normal). If it is valid in libertarian theory (which, so far, I do not see) it is not conducive to a civil society and would certainly result in the welcoming of a monopoly fixer of all grievances. 

A libertarian society could not survive this practice.

1) If you are an anrcho-capitalist, the only answer is the property owner. If you are an advocate of an overruling group of laws, then you are, at least, a limited government advocate.

2. You are talking penalty codes, this is a central planning concept, that is, a limited government that somehow and someway, rules over private property. There is no such overruling body if NAP is recognized completely, such rules would be an aggression against a person or his property,

"Separately,this idea put into practice is seen in gang wars and the relationship of Israel / Palestine, among other places where blood feuds are normal). If it is valid in libertarian theory (which, so far, I do not see) it is not conducive to a civil society and would certainly result in the welcoming of a monopoly fixer of all grievances

"A libertarian society could not survive this practice."

Now, you sound like a total government propagandist, Last I looked, Israel was a government and there are governments from around the Middle East aiding and abetting different sides in that conflict, not to mention involvement by the US government, but yet you attribute this to what anarcho-capitalism would look like? I am talking about a society where people mind their own business and respect private property, I really don't think this is outside the realm of possibility, becasue as I say, in most cases people are already acting as if they are in a PPS, though there is a remarkable desire, even among libertarians to suffocate such a world with central rules.

The Israeli-Palestine conflict has as much to do with anarcho-capitalism as does Bernie Sanders.

To be continued...

Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher at EconomicPolicyJournal.com and at Target Liberty. He is also author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics