Subscribe to our Daily Blog

The Essence of Libety

Please Click ton Ab

Liberty knows no compromise

by Murray N. Rothbard

Chapter 20: Lifeboat Situations

Compiled and Edited

by

Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume

Some contend that “lifeboat” situations disprove the theory of absolute property rights. The argument goes that, since any theory of individual rights seems to break down in such situations, there can be no inviolable rights at all. In the typical situation there are eight places in a lifeboat but more than eight people who need to be saved. Who decides who should die and what happens to the right of self-ownership? The phrase “right to life” is fallacious since it could imply that an individual's “right to life” might involve an infringement on the life and property of someone else. Changing the phrase to a “right to self-ownership” avoids such confusions.

In the first place, problems associated with moral theory in such extreme situations do not invalidate the theory for normal situations. Rothbard is trying to frame an ethic for the way men live in the world and not for situations that are rare or extreme.

The problem is that property rights in the lifeboat situation have, so far, not been well defined. The key question is: Who owns the lifeboat? If the owner (or his representative – the ship's captain) has died without having laid down rules for allocation of lifeboat seats, then those seats have been abandoned and are, therefore, un-owned. So, here is where the rules for un-owned property would come into play. As we have seen above, un-owned resources become the property of the first people possessing them. In other words, the first eight people to reach the boat are the “owners.” Anyone who aggressively throws them out violates their property right. In the same way, since aggression may not be used to establish a homestead right, the scramble must not be violent. The use of any physical force would be criminal assault.

In the case where the owner (or his representative) survives (or has previously laid down rules), the right to allocate spaces belongs to him. He has the right to make the allocation in whatever way he wishes and any forcible interference is an invasion of his property right.

The homestead principle also applies in the case where two shipwrecked men are battling over a plank that can only support one. The first person who reaches the plank “owns” it and, as before, neither may use force against the other to prevent him from reaching the plank.

On the other hand, when faced with either saving himself or violating the property rights of the owner (or “homesteader”), it would be ridiculous to expect a man to surrender his life on behalf of the abstract principle of property rights. But, the error here is to confuse the moral course of action with whether seizing of lifeboat by force is an invasion of someone else's property right. Rothbard was concerned (in this work) strictly with the “political ethical” questions such as the proper role of violence, the sphere of rights, and the definitions of criminality and aggression.

Just as it would be the lifeboat owner's (or his heir's) right to proceed with punishment, it would also be his right to forgive the violator. To confuse individual, personal morality (what should I do?) with the rights of the case would be a fallacy. Furthermore, the lifeboat owner (or his hired defense agent) has the right to use physical force to repel the perpetrator's aggression on the spot.

Continue to the next chapter...

Back to the Table of Contents

Visit our Book Store

Visit Our Advertisers

Email for Advertising Rates

Use the link or send an email to: adinfo@flyover-press.com