Property

One opponent of the libertarian political position asserted that the institution of property was inherently coercive, so libertarians could not justify their position on the basis of the non-initiation of force. Instead the writer suggested that they attempt to assert that individuals have pre-institutional property rights. The author was doubtful about whether this was the case.

Literally the objection doesn't stand. Property rights are not inherently coercive. We do not need coercion to assert that the involuntary transfer of property from one individual to another is immoral. However, the point that libertarians support the use of force to back up this claim is right on target. I believe that the case for pre-institutional property rights is much better than the author suspected. I doubt that many would actually claim that in the absence of government, that it would be acceptable to rob one's neighbor.

However, it does not follow from this that the use of coercion to back up property rights is just. One approach to this would be to look at the alternatives to this. I should note that any arrangement for handling issues of justice with respect to control over physical assets could be backed up by force. Alternatively we could state that the initiation of force in order to control the use of such assets is unjust. We would rely only on moral persuasion to control them. This is a custom that is more alien to our traditions than socialism. I suspect that it wouldn't work in practice.

If we need some way to determine how physical assets are to be controlled, then our options would be to enable government to do so in any way that it chooses, or to specify a certain way that it must. The current method is a hybrid system in which property and needs are both factors in determining rights. Of course, different individuals will have different ideas about rights.

Property rights are an efficient way of dealing with the tragedy of the commons. If all resources are held in common, and any individual is free to use them as he or she pleases, then each individual will have an incentive to take too much. By consuming the resource he or she will enjoy the full benefit that comes from use of the asset, but will only assume the proportion of the cost that is their share of the value of the asset.

This is a justification of property rights in general, but doesn't deal with with why property rights can legitimately be backed up by force. In practice very few people actually suggest that private property should be done away with. Even the socialists support the idea that individuals should have personal belongings and typically support this principle with the use of force. Their ethics differ in that they believe that this principle should not extend to capital, or those assets that are used for production. Thus the alternatives to capitalism lead to much more complicated systems of moral and ethical values. They must deal with different forms of assets differently.

I believe that the claim on the left is that by allowing the use of force to back up property rights we are harming the poor. Hence we are obligated, according to this argument, to compensate them. This assumes that the poor would be better off without any institution of private property. I doubt this.

Not everything that the night watchman state would do would support the use of force to back up property rights. For instance, the law gives the lives of thieves some legal protection. In the absence of a state that protected property rights poor people who disagree with the idea of property rights might find themselves in a situation where they were subject to more of this coercion and not less.

I believe that the non-initiation of harm is a far more intuitive moral concept that the non-initiation of force. I suspect that the reason why libertarians use the latter is that they are concerned that it would do away with free speech. Blaming people for doing things is a form of harm. If we adopt the principle that it is wrong to blame people for doing things that are not harmful, then there is a potential for this principle to be used to curtail free speech. We will have to come up with another argument in favor of free speech.

My argument for free speech does not depend on all speech being morally acceptable. Much of it is not. My point in this regard is that if we allow the use of force in order to curtail harmful speech, then we will prevent the moral evaluation of coercion. Blame is inherently harmful. We want to use blame in order to deter unjust coercion. If we allow people to use coercion in order to prevent people from blaming others, then others will have no way of objecting to the coercion.

Libertarians typically use the classical liberal concept of property. They see it as an extension of the person. Most people would concede that the use of force in order to prevent someone from seizing one's body or some part of it would not be an initiation of force. Thus, if we think of property as an extension of the person, then to use force in order to prevent an involuntary transfer of assets would be just. However, this argument depends on thinking about a certain set of physical objects and land as being part of someone else's body, which it is not. However, the point that it is not literally true doesn't contradict its usefulness as a concept.

First we see that the use of assets by one person prevents them from being used by another. In that sense we might say that it harms them. However, if we hold that the use of assets is immoral, this is irrational. We need physical resources in order to live. You will not benefit from blaming people for using physical resources, because everyone does this in order to live. The institution of private property sets simple rules governing the use of assets. Control over each asset is given to a single individual, so as to avoid the tragedy of the commons.

The only alternative we have is to set far more complex rules. We must specify how assets are to be used explicitly. We would need to set such rules in order to prevent them from being over-used.

Now we must present some argument about why it is legitimate to back up moral principles governing the use of assets with force when it is clear that the use of force would be wrong when applied to back up rules governing the assignment of blame. I should note that this principle enjoys widespread agreement. Libertarians and socialist both agree that this use of force is legitimate. They only disagree about what principles should govern the use of assets.

Blame is inherently social. There is no way of effectively blaming another person without making that blame public. Hence there will be much less dispute about the fact that blame was assigned. With respect to physical assets, however, things are different. It is possible to surreptitiously use them. The use of them need not be made public. The use of blame becomes harmful exactly to the extent that it is made public.

If we tolerate the improper assignment of blame, then people will be able to use blame as retaliation. If someone has a reputation for improperly assigning blame, then people will be less likely to pay attention to his or her assignments of blame. This reduces the damage. In contrast, the user of assets will be equally able to use them whether people approve or not.