To rehash: the only world that follows the non-aggression principle is the grab-what-you-can world. In this word “nobody initiates force directly against another person’s body, but subject to that constraint, people regularly grab any external resource they can get their hands on, regardless of who has made or been using the resource.” This [...]
When I use the word violence in the context of discussing theories of property, I mean a specific thing by it: acting upon the bodies of others without their consent. This is as neutral a definition of “violence” as you will find. It is the definition of violence implied by the concept of [...]
I’ve argued here and elsewhere that property is an institution of involuntary, violent, coercive aggression (I, II, III, IV, V, et al). These arguments are clearly correct, but they are lacking in one important respect: they don’t constitute a full descriptive account of the institution [...]
Consider this tweet:
In a truly liberal society, anyone could refuse to engage in private commerce with anyone for any reason http://t.co/UxqCQKYyb4
— JustinGreen4000 (@JGreenDC) March 7, 2014
Now ask yourself this question: can people in the U.S. refuse to engage in private commerce with anyone for any reason?
Frankfurter was a Supreme Court justice in the early 20th century. He was not fond of the kinds of decisions judges were making in the so-called Lochner era. In that era, the Supreme Court and lesser courts regularly struck down laws that contravened laissez-faire economic institutions, holding that such laws were unconstitutional. The [...]
Jason Kuznicki has a way-too-long fictional dialogue where he tries to show you that, if you operate under historically-bound ideological assumptions, things that deviate from the historically-bound ideological assumptions seem weird. He did a great job. I have been wanting to do initial appropriation in dialogue for a long time now, and so [...]
Shortly after I first learned of the non-aggression principle (NAP) and how it was supposed to justify libertarian property rights, it occurred to me that it was hopelessly circular. This was around 6-7 years ago. It baffled me why so many libertarians I knew used this principle in argument and why they could not understand, [...]
I wrote about the non-aggression principle at Demos today. I explained that the principle that you should not initiate force against other people generates the conclusion that we must create the grab-what-you-can world. In this world, people are free to do whatever they want so long as they do not literally bring force [...]
In my prior post, I wrote about the way that the involuntary coercive violence inherent in property ownership means that those who advocate it cannot consistently oppose taxes on the grounds that taxation is involuntary coercive violence. Here I want to detail one thing libertarians can and have done, in some of my [...]
Libertarians are not the brightest bulbs. So I want to explain how my obviously correct argument that property is coercive violence works in debates.
As a refresher, property is obviously coercive violence because it involves someone excluding everyone else in the world from some piece of the world without their consent and threatening violence against [...]