FlyoverPress.com

"There is no truth existing which I fear, or would

wish unknown to the whole world." Thomas Jefferson

The concepts expressed on this web site are protected by the basic human right to freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 1997 as applying to the Internet.


HOME


Support FlyoverPress

Donate


Click Here to Puruse the old Flyover-press

Subscribe to our Daily Blog


The Essence of Libety



Please Click ton Ab

 

 

Liberty knows no compromise


A Condensed Version of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard

Compiled by

Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume

Part I: The Libertarian Creed

Chapter 2: Property and Exchange

The Nonaggression Axiom

The central axiom of the libertarian creed is the "nonaggression axiom." "Aggression" is synonymous with invasion and is defined as the initiation of force or violence (or threat thereof) against the person or property of another.

Everyone has the absolute right to be "free" from aggression. This implies that the libertarian stands for "civil liberties"—e.g. the fundamental rights to speak, publish, assemble, and even engage in "victimless crimes" which are not "crimes" at all. The libertarian definition of "crime" is a violent invasion of someone's person or property. The State itself is guilty of true crime on a massive scale. For example, conscription is slavery and war (especially modern total war) is mass murder. Both are aggressive acts against persons and property. These positions are currently considered "leftist."

On the other hand, the libertarian position opposes any invasion of or government interference with private property rights or the free-market economy. It favors the right to unrestricted private property and free exchange. In short, it is a system of "laissez-faire capitalism." These positions would be considered "extreme right wing" on the current political scale.

But there is no inconsistency in these positions. In fact, it is virtually the only consistent position from the standpoint of individual liberty. The left is inconsistent by opposing the violence of war and conscription and, at the same time, supporting the violence of taxation and government control. By the same token, the right is inconsistent by advocating for private property and free enterprise while, at the same time, favoring war, conscription, and the outlawing of noninvasive activities that it judges to be immoral.

Throughout all of history the State has been the most dominant aggressor against all of these rights. It is universally allowed to commit acts that would generally be considered immoral, illegal, or criminal if committed by anyone else. The general moral law applies to everyone. The libertarian refuses to give moral sanction to the State's reprehensible crimes, for example: mass murder, which it calls "war,” enslavement, which it calls "conscription." and forcible theft which it calls "taxation." Even though the majority may support such practices they are still not legitimate.

Indeed, as the child in the fable pointed out, the emperor has no clothes. But, throughout history he has been provided with a set of pseudo-clothes by the intellectual class. In the past they clothed the State and its rulers in divine authority. In more recent times, these "court intellectuals" have convinced the public that what the government does is for the "common good" or the "public welfare." This is a fraudulent way of gaining public support for the State. The fact is that whatever services the government presumes to provide would be supplied much more efficiently and morally by private enterprise.

All governments exist through exploitation of the citizenry. Take for example the institution of taxation: Its very existence sets up a class division between the exploiting (the rulers) and the exploited (the ruled). Among all the individuals and organizations in society, only the government acquires its revenues through coercive violence. If anyone but the government tried to levy a "tax," it would quickly be identified as banditry. The task of the court intellectuals is to mystify the process in a way that will induce the public into accepting the State. In return, they receive a share in the power and pelf.

Property Rights

There are three broad types of foundation for the non-aggression axiom, each corresponding to a particular ethical philosophy—the emotivist, the utilitarian, and natural rights philosophy.

Emotivists consider nonaggression as purely subjective and emotional. This, of course, places them outside the realm of rational discourse.

Utilitarians believe harmony, peace, prosperity, etc. are consequences of liberty. The assumption is that we can compare alternatives and make policies based on their good or bad consequences. But there is a problem with that. Although the consequences of an act may be judged to be “good,” there may be something about the act itself which may be considered “evil”—e.g. the end may (or may not) justify the means. Another problem is that the utilitarian will seldom adopt a principle as an absolute and consistent yardstick—only a vague guideline or aspiration that may be overridden at any time. Milton Friedman is an example of a utilitarian. Freedman holds to freedom against State intervention as a general principle but for the sake of “practicality” he permits a myriad of exceptions.

The “natural-rights” basis for the libertarian creed is the cornerstone of a political philosophy that is embedded in the larger body of "natural law." Natural law theory is based on the insight that each entity has its own unique properties—its own “nature," if you will—that can be investigated by reason. For example, both copper and man have specifiable and unique natures that determine their own activity.

The behavior of plants and lower animals is determined by their biological nature or "instincts." Man is somewhat different. He is not born with adequate innate “instincts” to permit his survival. Learning to use his mind to maintain and advance his life is vital for his survival. In order to act, each individual must choose his own ends and means. Thus, he must be free to learn and act upon that knowledge. To violently interfere with this process is against what is necessary for his life and prosperity. Therefore, it is "antihuman" and violates the natural law of man.

Individuals cooperate, interact and learn from each other. This, too, is required for their survival. But, in the end, each individual makes the choice of which influences to adopt.

A basic axiom of the natural-rights philosophy is the "right to self-ownership." This is the absolute right of each man, by virtue of his being, to "own" his own body—to think, to learn and to choose. Self-ownership gives man the right to these vital activities without coercive molestation.

There are only two alternatives: either a certain class of people owns another class or everyone owns an equal pro-rational share of everyone else.

The first alternative implies that the owning class has human rights but the owned class is subhuman and does not. Thus, by denying natural human rights to one set of humans, it contradicts itself. Furthermore, the owning class is allowed to exploit (live parasitically) off of the owned class and p arasitism violates the basic economic requirement for life: production and exchange.

The second alternative (proclaiming that every man owns a part of everyone else, yet not himself) is patently absurd. Furthermore, if no man was free to take any action without prior approval of everyone else, no one would be able to do anything. Of course that would spell death for the human race and therefore any step in that direction is a violation of the law of man's nature.

Finally, this second option cannot be put into practice simply because it would be impossible for everyone to keep continuous tabs on everyone else. Supervision would be impossible. Therefore, control and ownership would have to be delegated to a specialized group who, thereby, would become the ruling class. So, any attempt at communist rule automatically becomes class rule and ends up back at the first alternative.

Stemming from this right of self-ownership is the theory of property in nonhuman objects. It is fairly easy to recognize when someone is aggressing against another person and violating his property right in his own body (as in assault). But, recognition is sometimes harder in the case of nonhuman objects. For example, if X seizes a watch from Y , we cannot automatically assume that X is aggressing against Y 's property right. That is because X may have been the "true" owner of the watch and was actually repossessing his own legitimate property. Thus, we need a theory of justice in property.

Utilitarians hold that the just owner of the property is whoever the existing government says it is. Is it consistent to accept this, without question, in light of the fact that this is the very government that we have condemned as a chronic aggressor? Of course not!

Take a hypothetical example to illustrate why not. Suppose that the government is ready to abdicate due to revolutionary agitation. But, before the government of New York does, it passes a law turning over its entire territorial area to the Rockefeller family. Then Massachusetts does the same for the Kennedys. And so on for each state. Government then abdicates and taxes and coercion are abolished. Should these new property titles be recognized as legitimate private property?

Utilitarians (because they have no theory of justice in property rights) would have to accept this new social order with fifty new rulers collecting taxes in the form of unilaterally imposed "rent."

Only natural-rights libertarians, who have a theory of justice in property titles that does not depend on government decree, could rebuff these invalid claims. We now turn to the development of that theory.

We established above that each individual has a right to self-ownership. But people need more because they can only survive by grappling with the earth. They must have land to stand on and resources given by nature to transform into "consumer goods." In other words, to survive and flourish man must not only own his own person, he must also own material objects. So the issue is how property titles should be allocated.

Take for example, the work of a sculptor: Who owns it? It is the sculptor's "creation." Although he did not create matter, he did transform nature-given matter using his own ideas, hands and energy. Surely, if every man owns his own body and must grapple with the material objects in order to survive, then he has the right to own the product of his energy and effort. That product is truly an extension of his own personality.

As before, there are three logical alternatives for ownership: (1) the "creator" owns it; (2) another man (or group) can appropriate it by force; or (3) every individual in the world owns an equal, pro-rata share. Very few would not concede the injustice of confiscating the sculptor's property, whether by individual or group or on behalf of the world as a whole. What would give them such a right? Also as before, the communal solution would reduce to a few expropriating the creator's work in the name of a mythical "world public."

It is the same for all cases of "production." The men who extracted the clay from the ground mixed their know-how with the nature-given soil to transform it into a more useful good. Thus, they are entitled to ownership of their product. Where does the process begin? To paraphrase Locke:

If one is nourished by acorns or apples he gathered, nobody can deny that nourishment is his and it became his at the first gathering. That labour put a distinction between them and the common. It added something more than Nature. Can any one say he had no right because he did not have the consent of all mankind? If such consent was necessary, man would have starved long ago.

So, we have now established that every man owns his own person and therefore his own labor. Also, by extension, he owns whatever property he "creates" or gathers with his labor from the previously un-owned "state of nature." But, who owns the earth itself—the land ?

The Georgists (Henry George and his followers) agree that every man should own the goods he produces or creates. But, since Nature or God created the land, no individual can own it. Yet, if it is to be used with any sort of efficiency, it must be owned by someone. So again we have three alternatives. The land belongs to: either the first user or an individual or group of others; or the whole world with each individual owning a pro-rata share. As before, the third option would be impossible in practice. No one could exercise effective ownership of his four billionth portion. The result would be that a small oligarchy would do the owning and controlling.

The natural-rights justification for land ownership is the same as for all other property. No producer can "create" matter. He transforms it and this is precisely what the "homesteader" of unused land does. He transforms the character of the nature-given soil by his labor and personality. Therefore, he is just as legitimately the owner of the land as any other producer is the owner of his product.

If land is nature- or God-given, then so are people's talents, health and beauty. These attributes are given to specific individuals and not to "society." Further, society is an abstraction that does not actually exist. There is no such freestanding, independent entity as "society." There are only individuals interacting with each other. So logically, to say that "society" should own land (or any other property) in common is to say that a group of government bureaucrats should own the property. This can only be accomplished by expropriating the creator of that property.

Moreover, no one can produce anything without land and other natural raw materials. Therefore, if an individual cannot own original land, neither can he fully own the fruits of his labor.

Land communalists claim that the whole world population really "owns" the land. But, but if no one has yet used it, in the real sense it is not owned by anyone. It is difficult to see the morality of depriving the first user of ownership in favor of people who have never been within miles of the location.

Furthermore, since they are original nature-given resources, animals are "economic land." Hardly anyone would deny full title to a horse to the man who captures and domesticates it. In much the same way, the homesteader takes the previously "wild," undomesticated land, and "tames" it.

Society and the Individual

Don't the "rights of society" supersede those of the individual? First, it is an error to treat "society" as if it were an actually existing entity. Sometimes “society” is treated as though it is quasi-divine with "rights" of its own. Other times it is treated as an existing evil to be blamed for all the world's ills. "Society" is not a living entity. The word is only a label for a set of interacting individuals. If ten people band together to rob three others and referred to themselves as "society" acting in "its" interest, they would be laughed out of court. But as the size of the group increases, their true purpose becomes obscure which results in a duping of the public. 

A collective noun like "nation" is fallacious. That is similar, for example, to using the simple monosyllable "France" to indicate a unit or entity. If we say, "France sent her troops to conquer Tunis, we make international relations a glamorous drama where personalized nations are the actors. But, in the process, we forget the flesh-and-blood men who are the true actors. If there was no such word as "France," then we would likely describe the expedition something like this: "A few of these thirty-eight million persons sent thirty thousand others to conquer Tunis." Empire-building is done men and not by "nations." So, the correct approach is to discover the men who are directly involved and analyze the reasons why.

Individualists sum up "Society" as “ everyone but yourself.” There are cases where "society" is viewed as a super villain and massive blame laid at its feet. Consider, for example, the liberal idea that "society," is responsible for a person's crime and not the individual criminal. This sounds sophisticated and humanitarian. But, what these liberals are really saying is that everyone but the criminal himself is responsible for the crime. That is absurd! Arnold W. Green put it this way: “…if society is responsible for crime, and criminals are not responsible for crime, only those members of society who do not commit crime can be held responsible for crime. Obviously that is nonsense.

To paraphrase Frank Chodorov who wrote in "Society Are People:" Society is a collective concept and nothing else. So, too, is family or crowd or gang. It is not an extra "person." It disappears when the component parts disperse. When the individuals disappear so does the whole. It has no separate existence. But, using the collective noun with a singular verb leads us to imagine a personalized collective and think of it as having a body and a psyche of its own.

Free Exchange and Free Contract

The central core of the libertarian creed is the absolute right of every man to private property in his own body and any previously unused natural resources which he transforms with his labor. The complete set of principles of the libertarian system can be delineated by the application of this central doctrine (the self-ownership and "homesteading” axioms).

For example, if a man owns anything, it logically follows that he has the right to give away or exchange these property titles, after which the other person has absolute property title. Further, a man may exchange not only his tangible objects but also his labor. This is the basic justification for free contract and the free-market economy.

The free-market economy, with its specialization and division of labor, is the most productive economy known to man. It is responsible for industrialization upon which civilization has been built. But, this is not the prime reason for supporting this system. The prime reason is moral and is rooted in the natural-rights defense of private property. Fortunately, in this case, the utilitarian and the moral go hand in hand.

Many concede the justice of property rights and free-markets but balk at inheritance. The answer is to concentrate not on the recipient but on the giver. I f Smith has the right to his labor and property and to exchange the titles to that property, he also has the right to give his property to whomever he chooses.

We are now in a position to define "freedom" or "liberty" as a condition in which a person's ownership rights are not invaded or aggressed against. Freedom and unrestricted property rights go hand in hand. Conversely, "crime" is aggression or invasion by violence against property rights and therefore against liberty. "Slavery" is the opposite of freedom. The slave has little or no right of self-ownership.

The libertarian is an individualist but not an egalitarian. The only legitimate "equality" is the equal right of every man to his property and person.

Property Rights and "Human Rights"

Liberals will concede to the idea of "personal liberty." They recognize the individual's right to self-ownership, but deny his right to "property." But the two are so intricately entwined that they are impossible to separate. For example, the socialist advocates government ownership of the "means of production." On the other hand, they are adamant in their belief in the "human" right of freedom the press. But this begs the question: How is it possible for the "human" right to a free press be exercised if the government owns all the newsprint and the print shops?

There is a fundamental flaw in the liberal separation of "human rights" and "property rights." If man has the right to self-ownership, it logically follows that he has a right to sustain his life To do this, he must be able to posses land to stand on and resources to transform with his labor. This mixing of his labor with resources makes them a part of him and therefore his property. Property rights are human rights.

As a matter of fact, all human rights are essentially property rights. Free speech is nothing but the property right to rent an assembly hall. Free press is the property right to buy paper and presses to print leaflets, etc. Thus, identifying the property rights involved will always resolve or explain any conflict that can arise.

Consider the classic example, of the right to scream “fire” in a crowded theater. In this case the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of speech must be restricted when it is in the “public interest.” Unfortunately, this decision has been used time and again to “prove” all rights are relative and tentative rather than precise and absolute.

The problem is that the case was stated in terms of a “vague and wooly ‘freedom of speech'” when it should have been in terms of private property. For example, if the guy doing the shouting is the theater owner, then he has failed to fulfill his contractual obligation and stolen his customer's property. On the other hand, if the shouter is a patron, then he has violated the property rights of the owner and the other paying patrons. In this way individual rights are still absolute, but they are property rights. The fellow who cried "fire" is a criminal but not because of “free speech." Instead, it is because he violated the property rights of another.

Continue to the next chapter...


*Note: We hold no special government issued licenses or permits. We don't accept government subsidies, bailouts, low-cost loans, insurance, or other privileges. We don't lobby for laws that hurt our competitors. We actively oppose protectionism and invite all foreign competitors to try to under price us. We do not lobby for tariffs, quotas, or anti-dumping laws. We do not support the government's budget deficits: we hold no government or agency securities.

To Subscribe to our daily e-mail alert service, send an e-mail with the word "subscribe" on the subject line.


Visit our Book Store


Support FlyoverPress

Visit Our Advertisers


Email for Advertising Rates

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


 

 

© Flyover Press All Rights Reserved.