Monday, October 27, 2008

Libertarian Party Needs to Change Its Ways

What role does the Libertarian Party actual play in today’s politics? They resemble moderate Republicans than the revolutionaries they should. The Libertarian Party seems to enjoy being the little guy but never does what is needed to actually win. Why can’t the Party adopt a winning strategy to show that they are viable, that they can get people elected to office and that they are a real choice between the Democrats and the Republicans? I believe far too much money is wasted with presidential campaigns. I advocate abandoning them altogether for the time being. There might be some ballot access repercussions in some states but overall the millions of dollars wasted on running a Libertarian presidential candidate could be better spent where it counts the most. If nothing else run a paper presidential campaign and quit wasting on something you’re not going to win right now. I believe that a fundamental change in the way the LP does business will help them get more people elected to office. You only need a few elected officials to really get the ball rolling. Here is my plan:

  1. Stop spending money on presidential campaigns. They aren’t worth it, we can’t win them so stop spending those much needed resources.
  2. Focus on winning only the races that can be won and pool the entire party resources to get it done. We can run a bunch of candidates for office in each state but lets spend the bulk of the money Libertarians are going to donate on a handful of congressional seats. If we can win a few seats in Congress it will have two results: First, it will demonstrate that the LP can get people elected to high office which will encourage others who normally wouldn’t have voted LP to vote in our direction. Second, it will introduce some sane voices into that madhouse where the freedom message can be further promoted. At the state level pick a few candidates that have a real shot at winning a state level seat and pour money into their campaigns. A few LP members in the state legislatures will do the party good.
  3. More money and time must be spent advertising the freedom message. The only way to win the support of the electorate is to educate them about the choices. I know a lot of state parties have a hard time just paying the bills but if we can encourage our members to really get active and talk to other people about freedom we will see our numbers grow. There are a hundred different low cost ways of doing this and each state party should take care to look at the various options and encourage their members to participate.
  4. Become radical. Offer an ideology that is more than just “low taxes and more liberty.” That’s the same BS the Republicans spout all the time. Let’s really promote plans to abolish the income tax, eliminate the Department of Education, scale back the size of the state, eradicate property taxes, etc. Let’s have a real message with substance and tell the people why we want those things.

I think if we did those things we could have better results, we could get more people in office and the party would grow more than ever.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Douche

Douche

By

Mitchell Gray

Alan Greenspan is a douche. A Douche with a capital ‘D’. A recent AP article has Greenspan saying “A critical pillar to market competition and free markets did break down. I still do not fully understand why it happened.” You want to know what happened Mr. Greenspan?

WE HAVEN’T HAD A FREE MARKET FINANCIAL INDUSTRY FOR 95 YEARS!!

In 1913 the Federal Reserve was born and by 1929 they had destroyed the economy to grab more control of the financial sector. Every couple of decades or so the Fed will create a lot of cheap credit which fuels malinvestment and sends the economy into a tailspin towards collapse to grab just a little more power. This new bout with bad credit isn’t new, it’s just bigger. During the 18 or so years Greenspan ruled over the economy he doubled the amount of dollars in circulation. His policies created artificially low interest rates which fueled a credit expansion that has been unrivaled in history. Anyone remember the tech boom and bust? That was caused by the cheap credit Mr. Greenspan pumped into the market. It was the Feds socialist policies that created the housing bubble in the first place. Their easy credit schemes attracted a large number of people who couldn’t have afforded a home with market established rates. Combine this with the Feds insistence that banks loan this new cheap credit to those who had less than great credit scores created the housing boom and now the bust that must follow.

Most people don’t realize this but one of the ten planks of the Marxist socialist system is the establishment of a central bank which can take control over the nations financial industry. We talk about the socialization of the financial markets today but that happened in 1913 when the Federal Reserve Bank was established helped by the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Fannie Mae in 1933 and 1938, respectively. It wasn’t the free market that failed, Mr. Greenspan, it was socialism.

If we had a TRUE free market in the banking and financial industries our money wouldn’t be counterfeit unbacked fiat paper but would be gold and silver. If we had a TRUE free market there wouldn’t be a central bank, there wouldn’t be an FDIC, there wouldn’t be the government mortgage monopolies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If we had a TRUE free market in banking then banks wouldn’t be bailed out by the government because they failed to act responsibly with their investors money. They would fall, their good assets sold and the bad written off. If we had a TRUE free market in banking banks wouldn’t lend out more money than they had in reserve (known as fractional reserve lending) but would instead operate as 100% reserve institutions.

No sir, it wasn’t the free market that failed. It was the nearly 100 years of socialist monkeying with the market that finally failed. If you think the Great Depression was bad get ready for Great Depress II. The more money the Fed pumps into the system, the more control they exercise over the banking and financial markets, the more they attempt to bail out businesses and homeowners that should go under the harder the inevitable crash is going to be. The next Great Depression will be VERY bad indeed.

I said it before and I’ll say it again: Alan Greenspan is a DOUCHE!!!

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Life Without Government: Police

Life Without Government

By

Mitchell Gray

Police

Like all services even police protection can be provided for by the free market. However when you suggest that we should eliminate state funded police forces in favor of free market ones people tend to have an adverse reaction. Their face crinkles up, their eyebrows lower and they begin twisting in odd ways as they attempt to demonstrate the ridiculousness of such a notion. Most people assume that without the government and without their police forces crime would run rampant. It is really an irrational fear once you break it down and examine it logically. Like everything else supporters of the free market are against state funded police forces since they exist only because of the coercive actions of the state. To fund the police the state must forcibly extract large sums of money from the people through taxation. Every year we pay billions of dollars in income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and a slew of other taxes to pay for police service and for it we get sloppy, inefficient and corrupt service. Under a free market competitive system each person could elect to receive the amount of police protection they wanted. Because of stiff competition for customers the cost would fall dramatically while the efficiency and quality of service would rise. There are several arguments against public police forces chief among them is their coercive nature. Their existence relies on the theft of billions of dollars from individuals. Many will argue that paying for a government service through taxation is necessary to provide police protection for everyone. In the free market where competition is fierce for customers if a service is unwanted then it does not get funded and the companies offering those services go bankrupt. The fact that police protection must be funded through the forcible confiscation of monies from the public must mean that it would not exist in its current form if allowed to compete in the free market. How then would order be established in an world where police services are privately funded?

Like everything else police protection is a service and a service that can be sold by the market. While the state may have socialized this service and currently funds it through coercive methods this does not mean that it could not or would not be provided by the free market. The first objection we must overcome is the belief that everyone needs police protection. This is most assuredly untrue. The vast majority of people will go through their lives just fine without ever needing a police officer and for many of them the only time they will ever have any contact with an officer is when they are caught speeding or for some other offense. Rarely is someone going to need the police for crimes such as murder or theft or assault. In the free market there would be security companies that offered police protection as a subscription service. There is already an industry operating like this. Many private companies and individuals employ private security firms to augment the inefficient and unreliable police protection offered by the government. While the state allows these companies to exist they are heavily regulated and are limited in what they can do. History also provides a good example of private police forces in the form of the Pinkerton National Detective Agency. Pinkerton was so good at their job that at one time they employed more private detectives than there were soldiers in the standing army. They had a terrific record of catching the bad guy or protecting those things that needed protecting. And because they were a private company people could choose to employ them or not. This would continue to exist with a pure free market in police protection. When evaluating their security needs a person would take many factors into consideration. A person that lived in a small rural town might not have any need for a security company believing he can best defend himself and his home with a pistol and a shotgun and some good locks. Whereas a person who lived in a city with a high crime rate might opt for considerably more police protection. Likewise a celebrity or captain of industry might find it suitable to hire full time body guards who are with them 24 hours a day.

This concept isn’t limited to individuals. Many businesses already employ private security companies and this practice would continue without socialized police forces. Private businesses hire security firms for a number of reasons. They want to ensure that someone is watching their merchandise so that none of is stolen. They want to provide a secure atmosphere for their customers who can shop freely without fear of being attacked. And they want their employees to feel safe. All of these factors ensure that if public police forces were to be dismantled private security firms would quickly take their place.

For many police protection might be bundled in an insurance policy or they might simply subscribe to a particular plan offered by a security firm. Businesses might hire a company individually or they might form a business association that subscribes a blanket contract to share the cost. A residential neighborhood might see a rise in crime and the homeowners might come together form more an association that would hire a security company to perform regular patrols around the neighborhood.

The key to this is that each person now has a choice. Instead of being forced to pay for police services that they might not want or need each individual is free to choose the level of protection that best suits them. While one person might not want the services of a security firm, believing he can best defend himself with a pistol on his hip another might want armed guards stationed outside their doors 24 hours a day. The choice is now yours, as a consumer, to pick how secure you want to be. The person that might not need any security protection fifty weeks out of the year might sign up to have a company perform routine patrols around his home while he goes on vacation. It could include anything from just monitoring a security system to driving around the house to actually getting out and checking all of the doors and windows to even having guards stationed around the clock until he should return. The key is that now he can choose what he wants instead of it being forced upon him.

What about murders and rapes and other violent crimes? How would those be investigated? Much the same way they are today. A person would contact their investigation company (likely such actions would be handled through an insurance provider who would contract with a company specializing in such things) who would then investigate the crime and track down those guilty of committing it. They would use all of the tools available now and those that are surely to come in order to find the perpetrator. But what if someone didn’t have a subscription? They could purchase the service of an investigation company to investigate the crime after the fact like we do with so many different services.

You would likely see many different types of companies that specialized in different areas. You might have some that just offered armed guards while others specialized in fields such as murder investigations, robberies, rapes, kidnappings, fraud, etc. Likely we will see these various companies working together as well by developing a common database of known criminals, much like the one the FBI currently maintains. It would be to their advantage to share their records with other companies as it would reduce overall cost and possibly speed up investigations.

The second objection people will raise is the belief that these private security companies could exploit their customers becoming a state unto themselves. This argument demonstrates a lack of understanding concerning competition. Assuming a company began to exploit their customers in order to establish their own “state” is difficult to imagine happening because of the very nature of the market. Unless there is already some authority, such as the state, that could ensure something like this could happen granting monopolies to privileged businesses, then pure market forces would utterly destroy any company that did attempt it. The natural reaction of people who are abused by one company is to cancel their service and take their business elsewhere. Any company that became abusive would suffer the negative market reactions of lost customers and lost revenue. If they continued on their course they would surely have to close up shop or be sold to another more reputable company.

Daily we read about police abuses in one city or another. Inner city residents often view the police with skepticism and contempt alleging abuse, corruption, racism as well as their inability to control crime. These things would surely vanish or be reduced significantly with a free market police force. To control high crime residents could pool their resources to hire a firm to patrol a certain area. Or, if they so wanted, could form their own security force that would be used to drive the criminal gangs from the area. Police brutality and abuse would become a thing of the past or at the very least much, much less common. If a security company begins to develop a record of brutality or leniency with their employees then they will start to lose customers. It is the reliability and fairness of a company that is it’s chief marketing tool. Company A might offer a better price but is known to have a record of abuse while Company B might be slightly more expensive but has a very good reputation of fairness when dealing with people. The reputation of Company B makes it the stronger company and will attract more customers while Company A’s reputation will drive customers away and reduce its revenue.

The key factor in free market police services that the consumer now has a choice. They can use to have as little or as much protection as they want. Gone would be the coercive confiscatory actions of the state which violate the property of all people. The state must use force in order to fund its police forces which are often used against those who would challenge its authority and to enforce draconian or superfluous laws which further violate the rights of its subjects. Their use of force demonstrates that they offer a service that the market would not subscribe to. It is clear that a free market in police services is much preferable to that of the coercively funded state police.

Life Without Government: Property

Life Without Government

By

Mitchell Gray


Property

What is it and How is it Acquired?


Property is extremely important to any society, but even more so in a world without government. Property rights and ownership are so essential to a free world that without them we have no rights at all. Earlier we defined property as anything that you have legitimately acquired either through homesteading or via exchange or as a gift. And with ownership comes the right to decide how that property ought to be used. In fact, as we will discuss later, it is only through ownership of private property and a proper understanding of that concept that you have any rights at all.

It is good to note that property ownership begins with yourself, your body, your mind and your life. It is from this ownership of yourself, which begins at birth, that you acquire all other rights. Your right to speak freely, your right to privacy, your right to bear arms for defense, your right to be secure in all your papers and effects – all of those rights stem from the one eternal right that all men have which is your right to own and control property. Property means much more than just land or a house. Property is everything you can physically own. Every breath of air that enters your lungs is your property until you exhale it. Every drop of water you drink is your property until you expel it. It is essential, then, to understand the proper meaning of property if we ever going to understand how a free market world unencumbered by the State can ever function.

One of the rights you inherit when you acquire a piece of property (including your own body and life) is the absolute right to do with it as you please, provided you do not violate the rights and property of another person (remember the non-aggression principle?). As owner of that property you can do anything you want with it. If you own a chair you may sit on it, stand on it, hang it from a tree or burn it for firewood. No one has the right to tell you what you can or cannot do with that chair. If they did they would be violating your absolute right to ownership in that chair, thus they are violating your property rights. The only caveat to all of this is that you can only do what you want with your property on your property. Here is an example to help clarify.

Let us assume that Bill is going over to Johns house for dinner bringing with him a six pack of beer. When he arrives John sees that Bill has a six pack of beer with him. Being a recovering alcoholic John request that Bill leave the beer in his car so as to not be tempted by it. Bill could protest that since he is the owner of that six pack he has the right to do with it as he pleases but he would be wrong in this situation. Bill, as owner of that six pack, does have the right to do with it as he pleases, but only on his property. Bill can drink that six pack to his hearts content in his own property but he is no longer on his own property. He is now on Johns property and John has requested that Bill leave the six pack in his car. The right to use your property in any manner you see fit extends only to the boundaries of your own property. Once you are on someone else’s property your property rights become secondary to theirs you becoming subject to their rules concerning how their property ought to be used. John has stated that in order to remain on his property Bill must leave the beer in the car. Bills property right in the beer has become secondary to Johns primary property right in the house since Bill is now a guest of Johns. If Bill refuses to obey the rules established by John for use of his property then Bill has become an aggressor against John and violated Johns property rights. John then has the right to ask Bill to leave. If Bill should refuse he further violates Johns rights, has now become a violent aggressor against John, giving John the right to use force to remove him from his property.

Another example would be a restaurant that requires their patrons to wear shirts. While you certainly have the right to not wear a shirt that right becomes secondary as you enter that restaurant. By entering the restaurant that requires the wearing of a shirt you are now subject to their rules. They have the right to refuse you entrance to their establishment if you refuse to abide by their guidelines.

Now, all of this doesn’t mean that when you enter another’s property they have the right to treat you anyway they want. If Bill goes over to Johns and John starts beating Bill about the head and face for no reason then John has become an aggressor against Bill, violating the NAP. However, if Bill understood that at any time during the night John would attack and beat him about the head and face, and that was one of Johns requirements for entrance to that property and still entered it, knowing full well that at some point he would be beaten John would not be considered an aggressor. Why? Because Bill knew that getting beaten was a requirement to come into Johns house and accepted that as a condition for entrance. Certainly all people have the right to not be beaten but by consenting to a beating in order to enter someone else’s property you have waved that right. Some might argue that that example is taking things a little too far but we must take things too far if we are to prove our point. If a principle does not stand true at the farthest extremes then it cannot be considered a valid argument. If you, as owner of your body, cannot voluntarily wave your “right” to not be beaten up then you really have no property rights at all. Since it is your body that you are allowing to be beaten, and since you alone have absolute control over what happens to it, then you most certainly have the right as owner of your body to allow someone else to beat you up. Of course you can always change your mind and leave, thus saving yourself the beating. In fact, if you had decided to leave because you changed your mind about the beating you have just withdrawn from the pre-agreed to contract and if John should proceed to beat you as you made you way out of the house then John would become an aggressor against you. He cannot argue that you were still in the house and thus subject to a beating because you were making a reasonable effort to leave the home.

Now that we’ve talked about what you can or cannot do with property how does one actually obtain property legitimately? As we have brought out beforehand there are two ways in which a person may obtain property legitimately. You can either obtain it by homesteading it or by transfer of ownership, which I call transfer of title. So how does homesteading work?

There are two types of property: owned and unowned. An example of an unowned property would be a deserted island which no man has ever stepped foot on. Any person who landed on that island could then begin the homesteading process. You can only homestead raw natural products that are untouched by human hands or have been totally and completely abandoned and are now in an unowned state. To homestead something you must mix your labor with it. In other words it must become transformed from unused property to used property. Say Bill lands on that island and decides he likes the place and wants to make it his new home. He stakes of an area for a little garden, cuts down a few trees to build a house and makes other improvements. Let’s assume in all he transforms 10 acres of land from unused to used land. Bill has now homesteaded those 10 acres of land and now has a legitimate claim to them. They have moved from being unowned property to owned property. Can Bill legitimately claim ownership of the entire island? He could try but it wouldn’t stick. If John were to land on the opposite side of the island and transform 10 acres of land on that side of the farm then he would become the legitimate owner of that property. The reason is that you can only legitimately claim ownership of that which you have transformed. If you are walking down the street and find a nice looking rock and pick it up you have “mixed your labor with the land” so to speak and can claim that rock as your own. But you cannot claim ALL of the rocks in the entire world as your own. You have transformed that single rock by picking it up, mixing your labor with it, moving it from unowned to owned property. But you cannot claim every rock that should be on the surface of the earth simply because you picked up one small stone. The rest of the island that is not being used by either Bill or John would be unowned land still in its natural unused state. Now, John could lay claim to larger portions of the island by utilizing more land for his own use. This is the principle of homesteading in a nutshell.

The other way to acquire property is by transfer of title. This can occur in one of two ways. Either the title can be transferred via exchange or as a gift. You cannot give away things that are unowned meaning Bill cannot give Sally any portion of that island which he has not legitimately homesteaded. Her title to that property would be illegitimate, unless of course she mixes her labor with the land and homesteads it for herself. If you are the legitimate owner of property it is totally within your right to simply give it away. Acquiring property by means of exchange would be either in direct exchange, such as barter (trading two bulls for five milk cows) or through indirect exchange. Indirect exchange is the most common method of exchange. You have five acres of land for sale and want $20,000 for them. So I pay you $20,000 for that land and all rights to it. That is indirect exchange.

When transferring title to property it is possible to transfer a conditional title. Say John sells Bill 100 acres of land but with the condition that he is only buying the surface property, not the minerals. If Bill accepts those terms then Bill will obtain a conditional title to that property. Bill retains all rights to the surface of the land but has no claim over the minerals that may be beneath it. Property can also be divided and owned by several people. Bill, Dave, John, and Sam can all have a claim in that same 100 acres of land according to their pre-agreed to terms each owning a share in that property.

If you were paying attention you see that everything relies on contractual agreements and pre-agreed to terms and conditions. An example of a contractual agreement would be the employer-employee scenario. If we used the homesteading principle we might conclude that the employee building widgets for ABC Widget Company actually owns the widgets he produces but that would not be true. The reason is because ABC Widget Company has all of the raw material necessary to build the widgets. The employee has made a contractual agreement with the employer to build as many widgets as possible for the sum of X amount of dollars per hour, week, year or whatever the agreement would be. The employer has made an agreement with the employee that it if the employee produces as many widgets as possible he will paid X amount of dollars for his time and labor. The employee has agreed to contract their time and labor (their property) for the wages (the employers property) the employer is willing to pay, but under the stipulation that all widgets produced do not belong to them but to their employer. If the employer does not pay the employee then the employee is free to withdraw from the contract, quit the job and find a new employer. If the employee does not produce a sufficient number of widgets or steals widgets from the employer then the employer has the right to withdraw from the contract and fire the employee.

Life Without Government Introduction

Authors Note: This is the first installment of a series of articles called Life Without Government. I hope to explain how life would work in a world without the State. Please bear in mind I have not finished editing these articles. I just wanted to get them up so others can view them. The final editions will be on our official website when it is up and running.
==============================================================

Life Without Government


By

Mitchell Gray



Introduction

When we talk about a world without government people often object to it because they do not understand how everyday things would be taken care of without the State and its muscle there to enforce the “law.” How would disputes be handled? How would security be provided? What would keep someone from just stealing my stuff? Who is going to pay for the roads and bridges and sanitation systems? Who is going to ensure that public health is protected? These are the types of questions everyone ask at first. It is important to address these questions discussing the various free market solutions and alternatives. Once presented logically it is easy to see the superiority of a world free of the burdens of government over that of our current statist model.

Why Abolish the Government?

That really is a good question. Why should we abolish the government? What benefits would mankind gain if the State were done away with? Past centuries have proven that tribes, monarchial kingdom and empires are vastly inefficient and unsuitable for all men. They either stagnate innovation and economic expansion or inspire the most vile of men to take hold of the reigns of power to exploit and violate the masses. The 20th century has proven that nation-states are equally capable of all that is evil and rarely does any good come from them. In the 20th century alone over 170 million people were murdered by governments. The once limited government of the United States has ballooned into the largest most regulated government mankind has ever seen. The great advancements in liberty made during the Enlightenment which culminated in the American and French Revolutions have long since been forgotten or abandoned and we have over the last 200 years crept closer and closer to the socialist nightmare of George Orwell wrote about in his book 1984 or Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

Government has done more harm than good to mankind. Besides murdering over 170 million people in the 20th century alone government has done a wonderful job of stealing the wealth of the people of the earth and regulate them to death. Crime, poverty, famines, pollution, sicknesses and the break down of morals can all be attributed to the very existence of government. We will explore more of the reasons why government ought to be abolished in detail later on. What you should remember is that government is coercion built by force for the purpose of slavery. No one can have true and lasting liberty so long as our very livelihoods are taxed and regulated by the State.

There are two core beliefs you must master to fully understand free market anarchism and its application to real world situations. The first the non-aggression principle and the second is private property.

Non-aggression Principle

The non-aggression principle (NAP) is the cornerstone of the liberty philosophy. The NAP states that no man or group of men has the right to aggress against another person or their property except in self-defense. In other words no one has the right coerce or use physical violence or a substitute for coercion or physical violence (such as theft or fraud or the threat of physical violence) against any person or against that persons property but all men have the right to defend themselves against aggression and violence. Understanding this key principle is paramount to our later discussions.

Any action that is directed against me without my consent is aggression unless I am the aggressor. That means that you do not have the right to take my car from me just because you want it. Nor do you have the right to stop me from polluting my body with chemicals. Neither have you the right to take my money without my consent which is what taxation is. Now it is much different if I am the aggressor. If I am attempting to take your property then you have the right to defend yourself.

An application of the NAP would be a man attacking and taking the watch of another man as he walked down the street. The person taking the other mans watch is seemingly the aggressor and would thus be violating the NAP. This has caveats though which will be discussed shortly.

We will discuss the NAP many more times but this brief definition of what it is will give you the necessary background to understand what we are going to discuss later.

Private Property

Free market anarchism’s second corner stone, I suppose you would say, is that of private property. While the NAP helps to lay out the morality of anarchism a proper understanding of private property establishes the legal philosophy of anarchism. Let’s discuss private property in a little more detail.

Private property is basically anything you own. It begins with yourself, your body, your life. It is from ownership of yourself that you derive ownership of everything else (as well as all of your rights). Whatever is external of your body becomes your property because you have made a legitimate claim thus it becomes an extension of you. An example of this would be John and the book he left at Bills house. Bill isn’t going to make a claim to that book because he recognizes that only John has a legitimate claim to it and by virtue of that claim it has become an extension of John. Thus when Bills wife ask “Whose book is that?” Bill will reply that it is Johns conveying to his wife that the book is not his but it is in fact Johns even though John is not present. In order for something to be claimed by you as property you must have acquired it through either homesteading or through title transfer.

Homesteading applies to raw materials in their natural state untouched by man. To homestead something you must be the first person to use it. When you are born you immediately homesteaded your body and your life since you were the first person to use them. It is in fact the only piece of property that cannot be legitimately transferred to someone else thus rendering slavery or involuntary servitude illegitimate. No man, then, can have a legitimate claim of ownership over other person (though this does have conditions which will be discussed later).

A transfer of title applies when someone who has a legitimate claim over something transfers title to someone else. There are only two ways that a title can legitimately be transferred either as a gift or through exchange. Property that was acquired illegitimately, such as by theft, can never be legitimately transferred to anyone else.

So to have a legitimate claim to something it must be acquired through homesteading or through exchange or as a gift. Once you acquire something no one has the right take that property from you or force you to do anything with that property that you do not want to do. Property then is anything that you have legitimately acquired either through homesteading or via exchange or as a gift. As owner of that property you alone have the absolute right to determine how that property ought to be used. An example is a house left to rot. Since that is your house you have the right to do with it as you please, including allowing it to rot and fall apart. We will discuss property and its applications later on. We will also discuss what constitutes abandoned property later as well. I just wanted to give you a brief overview so that you had a basic understanding before we moved on.

The Non-aggression Principle and Private Property Applied

I want to give you a quick application of the non-aggression principle and private property to better illustrate it.

Consider our earlier example of the man who stole the watch from another man walking down the street. This is a good example of why you cannot have just the NAP but also a proper understanding of private property to resolve disputes.

We will assume that Bill is walking down the street with a very nice gold watch on his arm when all of a sudden John runs up behind him, pushes him down and pulls the watch off of Bills wrist and runs away. To the casual observer we would assume that John has violated the NAP and aggressed against Bill by first pushing him to the ground then forcibly taking Bills gold watch. If that is all there was to the story then we would be correct and John would have become a criminal aggressor. However, what if the watch originally belonged to John? Assume that it was in fact Bill who stole the watch from John. John, angry at the theft of his nice gold watch, tracks down Bill and takes the opportunity to take the watch back from him. John is totally within his rights to act this way since it was Bill that had originally aggressed against John, violating the NAP and violating Johns property right in the watch. But what if Bill had purchased the watch from John but John decided he wanted it back? He approached Bill and asked if he could buy it back but Bill refused. John then decides to act by taking the watch anyway. Here we have a good example of a good being transferred legitimately then illegitimately taken away. John had transferred his title of the watch to Bill and thus giving up all rights to it and could no longer have any legitimate claim over it. To then take it away from the new owner of the watch by force is a violation of that persons newly acquired rights in the watch and a blatant violation of the NAP.

So as you can see it is important to understand the NAP and private property. It is with these two principles that the whole of society functions under free market anarchism. And you’d be surprised at how many problems can be solved just by appealing to the NAP and private property.