The Non-Aggression Principle Must Be a Two-Way Street: Part I
By Free Society
Libertarianism, reduced to its essence, is a political philosophy dealing only with one subject, that is, that the only proper use of force or violence directed from any one person towards any other person is that of measured self-defense against an immediate threat. Yet inside of this question are two considerations, property right and contract. Now, I have not read much from the greater thinkers on these topics, Rothbard, Hoppe, etc., rather, I have drawn most of what I know of them from the writers at LewRockwell.com for over more than 15 years, now.
While I thoroughly enjoy and benefit from the writing of many, I find that my thinking is more closely aligned with the thinking and conclusions of Bionic Mosquito than any another. Bionic Mosquito was recently engaged in a written debate with another such writer whom I will refer to as Mr. W, regarding the proper use of force in the defense of private property. Mr. W argued that if he saw a boy stealing an apple from his orchard, he had every right, inside of the non-aggression principle and the importance of property rights, to respond by killing the boy. At the same time, Mr. W. found fault with Bionic Mosquito for his assertion that, while the non-aggression principle says nothing regarding culture, yet a free society will never exist apart from an appropriate culture conducive to freedom.
I have thought much regarding the elements of this argument and intend to weigh in with considerations of my own. If other libertarian writers have said similar things, bear with me, I draw my own conclusions out of my own life experience and reasoning.
To begin, the libertarian non-aggression principle requires a context for its existence, a context of three things. First, this principle, including its corresponding traits of the right of property and the sanctity of contract, exists only in a society. If Mr. W. were living on an island all by himself, he would need no reference whatever to any non-aggression principle, but would be free to shoot anything he wanted to shoot, for no one would prevent him.
Second, the non-aggression principle assumes that this society, this community of people living in proximity to each other are, in fact humans. You see, if we are speaking of a society of grabons, creatures who birth children for the sole purpose of having them gunned down by their neighbors and who throw a party every time such a thing happens, then Mr. W’s response would be fully appropriate. Of course, we know of no such creatures, for they do not exist.
And third, the context of the non-aggression principle must be one of scarcity. If everything everyone wanted came to them immediately out of the ether the moment they wanted it, there would be little or no question of property right.
Mr. W’s definition of enforcing his property right is, however, by my own definition and, I think, the definition of most, an illegitimate violation of the NAP. The NAP most certainly allows self-defense of person and property, but only in proportion to the threat. Killing the boy is violence beyond the threat; it is not self-defense, but the termination of judge and jury. Mr. W asserted that as the owner of said apple and as the owner of the ground upon which that apple was found, he had the full right of being the judge, the jury, and the executioner of the boy who committed this dastardly deed. Such an execution violates the NAP.
I support Mr. W’s claims of property right in that apple 100%. However, there are three other property rights to be considered. There is the property right of the boy in his life. There is the property right of the parents in their son. And there is the property right of the community to live at peace. Of all the property we might possess, our own life is the most valuable outwardly; for most only the right of conscience is valued higher than the right of life. The fact that they are humans is sufficient to recognize the property claim of the parents in their son. One could deny such a property claim, but that denial cannot remove the assertion of the parents over their property right in their son – and that assertion must be faced.
The property right of the community, however, is one which might be argued against. Let me present my argument for. The community as a whole does have one property right, a right it can assert according to the non-aggression principle, and that is the right of the community to live at peace. Recognizing that one right need not bloat that right into anything more.
So, let’s weigh the valid property rights. On the one side is Mr. W’s very valid property right in his apple and in the trespass on his land. On the other side is the property right of the boy in his life, the parents in their son, and the community in the maintenance of peace.
Mr. W claims that the apple was, in fact, on his property. He says (let’s assume for sake of clarity) that the boy was walking down the road, saw the apple three inches inside his property line, reached over, touched the apple, thus trespass, and picked up the apple – at which point Mr. W shot him dead. This is Mr. W’s testimony, the testimony of one witness. How do the parents know that Mr. W was telling the truth?
Mr. W’s witness is a valid one witness, but the witness of the boy is forever silenced. Let’s assume inside of Mr. W’s ill-considered argument, he has no other witness. Now, let’s extend Mr. W’s own argument to the property right of the parents in their son. Mr. W has executed their son without evidence (if the son cannot confront his accuser, then Mr. W’s one witness has no validity as proof) and he has not even claimed the right of self-defense.
In a libertarian society, Mr. W is safe inside his own property. The moment he steps off that property, however, a second principle of property right inside the non-aggression principle kicks in. The parents of the executed boy have the sympathy of their neighbors, a community of people who highly value their one property right shared together, to live in peace. Thus, the owners of property near Mr. W’s choose to extend to the parents a sub-let of their property.
The moment Mr. W walks down the road and steps onto the property of the store owner in order to buy himself a beer, by every argument raised by Mr. W in defense of his right to execute their son, by that same right and argument, the parents now shoot Mr. W dead. End of story. And if Mr. W wants to argue against the parent's right, we might assume that he is acquainted only in his experience with a society of grabons and has never lived among humans.
(to be continued)
