by Paine's Torch
Copyright 1993 ZENO Press, All Rights Reserved
Box 170, Sedalia, CO 80135
This essay is dedicated to the memory of Jim Glennie, whose lengthy and beneficial discussions with the author contributed to the formulation of several examples of natural property presented here. His integrity, courage and passion for the ideas of human freedom are a continuing source of inspiration.
MY BODY IS MY PROPERTY.
MY LIFE IS MY PROPERTY.
MY LABOR IS MY PROPERTY.
MY IDEAS AND THOUGHTS ARE MY PROPERTY.
MATERIAL POSSESSIONS THAT I HAVE CREATED OR ACQUIRED WITHOUT COERCION ARE MY PROPERTY.
NO PERSON, MAJORITY, SOCIETY OR GOVERNMENT MAY LEGITIMATELY TAKE OR CONTROL MY PROPERTY WITHOUT MY CONSENT.
These statements illustrate a concept of property that few people today seem to believe in. This concept was the fundamental idea behind the American Revolution, and the primary reason for the unprecedented prosperity of America during most of its history. While some ridicule or merely pay lip service to these classical ideas of property, much confusion exists today about the limits, proper control or disposal of property and the meaning of property rights. This is especially true when discussions focus on the differences between public and private property, and the widely accepted practice of confiscating one person's property to benefit others.
Over the last 100 years or so in America, the fundamental and beneficial property ideas of the English-man John Locke and his followers have generally been replaced with the collectivist ideas of Karl Marx. This has been so subtle however, that most Americans don't even realize that it has happened. This essay includes a review of classical (free market) property ideas and a discussion of their application in today's world. Contrary to popular belief, these fundamental property ideas are not anachronisms which only make sense for an agrarian society, but rather they provide the ideological basis for all human freedom and prosperity. They are as valid today as they were three hundred years ago. They start with the idea that each individual human owns himself, and has the right to control his own life and the fruits of his labor. This idea is often called self-ownership, or individual sovereignty. (In this essay, masculine pronouns are intended to include all humans.)
All nation-states, including the United States of America, reject the principle of individual self-ownership, despite historical documents, laws and rhetoric apparently supporting it (such as the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights). In the U.S., what began as a revolutionary change toward freedom in 1776 has degenerated into the Marxist idea of forcing individuals to sacrifice themselves for the good of "society." Along with this, the false promise of "something for nothing" is constantly used by politicians to lure naive voters into the quagmire of public debt, coercive property redistribution and authoritarian political rule. Mistaken ideas about property have contributed to this general decline of human freedom.
Without widespread acceptance of self-ownership, the primitive barbarism of coercive government continues to plague mankind. Even in "democratic" America, the authoritarian force by which kings and other tyrants once ruled their subjects continues. Only the agency wielding the force is different, as is the opportunity for more citizens to share its plunder. These conclusions are not weakened because 20 percent of the population votes for a handful of government officials once every few years.1
This essay will examine two fundamentally different concepts of property and the consequences of each. Numerous examples will be presented so the reader can understand how each affects the way human beings relate to each other, and why.
PROPERTY is one of the most confusing words commonly used to discuss human freedom. This is because there are so many different definitions for it, where users of the word bother to define it at all. Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language lists no less than eight definitions of property. Most of these focus on material possessions. Widely different uses of the word property are found in subjects ranging from philosophy and economics to politics and law.
Two general concepts of property will be discussed in this essay: STATE PROPERTY and NATURAL PROPERTY. The fundamental difference between the two explains much of the confusion that surrounds the word "property" and its application.
STATE PROPERTY is the current norm and the basis of modern property law. This concept is rejected here because of its reliance upon coercion, rather than honest labor or legitimate claim.
COERCION IS THE INITIATION OR THREAT OF AGGRESSIVE FORCE, FRAUD OR THEFT.
NATURAL PROPERTY is presented here as a legitimate concept of property, since it rejects coercion. Definitions and a discussion of each of these concepts are presented below.
The words, "state" and "government" have been used to mean the same thing, slightly different things, and totally opposite things, by different writers and educators within the freedom movement. This has led to some confusion, since these words are often used without precise definitions or other indications of their meanings. Their use in this essay is clarified here.
Albert Jay Nock, in his book, Our Enemy The State, used the word state to mean a coercive monopoly based on force and conquest, and government to mean a social organization designed to protect people and property. He goes on to explain that the "government" ideas of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were of the latter kind, whereas the "state" ideas of Hitler and Stalin were the former.2 Nock's dichotomy between the words state and government has since been adopted by educators such as Robert LeFevre and his successor Kevin Cullinane (Freedom School, South Carolina), as well as A.J. Galambos (Free Enterprise Institute, California). Many authors however, such as Rose Wilder Lane and Ayn Rand, used the word government to mean what Nock meant by the word state.
Most people today have confused the coercive and protective aspects of those institutions called states and governments, and have therefore used the two terms interchangeably. Although a logical case can be made that they should be defined as two different things (as Nock did), in this essay these two words are used to mean the same thing: a coercive monopoly. The reasons for this are twofold: 1) most people view the traditional forms of government to be essentially the same thing that Nock called the state, and 2) the purpose of this essay is to contrast two different ideas of property (similar to Nock's dichotomy); not to debate the use of the words "state" and "government." Readers interested in a discussion of Nock's dichotomy using the terms, "coercive government" and "voluntary government" may acquire the book, A Personal Declaration of Independence from ZENO Press, Box 170, Sedalia, CO 80135 ($10 postpaid).
In their brilliant book, The Market for Liberty, Morris and Linda Tannehill presented an excellent definition of (coercive) government, which has been modified slightly here for defining the word state for the purpose of this essay:
A STATE IS A COERCIVE MONOPOLY WHICH HAS ASSUMED ULTIMATE AUTHORITY OVER ALL HUMANS IN A PARTICULAR GEOGRAPHICAL AREA.3
Regardless of the method of rule (monarchy, democracy, dictatorship, etc.), all states (governments) have at least two things in common: COERCIVE FUNDING and UNREPRESENTATIVE AUTHORITY. COERCIVE FUNDING means taxation, confiscation, public debt and other forms of coercion for obtaining revenue. UNREPRESENTATIVE AUTHORITY means that the State's authority extends beyond those people who have given their consent to be governed. A third characteristic of most, but not all, states is a perception of legitimacy, or popular sanction. It is only this third characteristic that distinguishes popular states from terrorist organizations. I should point out that a majority vote does not give a state the consent of those governed. Only unanimous, explicit, voluntary consent can produce a legitimately representative organization, which by definition cannot be a state.
STATE PROPERTY IS ANY POSSESSION ACQUIRED OR MAINTAINED THROUGH COERCION.4
Notice that this definition is not limited to possessions "owned" by the State, but can include privately-owned possessions as well. For example, an automobile stolen from its owner by anyone is STATE PROPERTY. When one person steals something from another, the thief becomes the owner of STATE PROPERTY by this definition. Indeed, coercion is the most important distinction between states and most other organizations. Every thief or aggressor is a primitive state.
In many historical texts, and books of law and economics, the term "property" is represented as a product of state decree. That is, property is awarded to people by the State, based on some kind of claim considered to be valid. Although the State may acknowledge a person's ability to create something that did not exist before his involvement, the creative act itself is considered incomplete to legally define property. Only after permission from the State has been obtained, confirming that the property claimed is consistent with the State's laws and policies, is such property then recognized as being legitimate. Examples of this are real estate, mineral rights and patents. In each case, what might have been legitimately created or acquired property becomes STATE PROPERTY once the enforcement of state laws becomes the basis of recognizing, protecting or regulating that property.
In the U.S., two kinds of property are generally recognized by the State. The first is real property, which includes land, buildings and factories, for example. These are generally large, permanent material assets which cannot be easily changed or moved. The second kind of property recognized by the State is personal property. This generally includes personal, movable possessions such as furniture, automobiles, clothes and other such material goods. Under copyright and patent laws, a more specific kind of personal property is recognized (sometimes called intellectual Property). Examples of this are songs, plays, inventions and computer programs. None of these kinds of property is considered legally complete however, without some kind of state approval.
Under a system of STATE PROPERTY, all private property is subject to the recognition, regulation, taxation and control of the State, without regard to the legitimate claims or protests of property creators and owners. All that is required is an excuse that is palatable to "the public."
"THE PUBLIC" IS A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO COVETS THE PROPERTY OF OTHERS AND JUSTIFIES COERCION TO OBTAIN IT.
Typical excuses are "the common good," "public morality," "traditional family values," "human rights," "environmental protection," "national security" and "equality." Each appeals to the confused hysteria of a segment of the population. Each allows property to be denied its rightful owner. Each denies the concept of self-ownership.
This definition of "the public," although unfamiliar to many readers, is reasonably accurate today, considering how the phrase is so often used to justify violating property. "The public" is that great but nebulous thing that is defended by all major political viewpoints today. It seems to be some kind of god, but no one has defined it in a rational, consistent way. In fact, its obscure meaning benefits those who use it to justify state intervention into private affairs. If the term were rationally defined and consistently used, it could not serve its present purpose, which is to confuse the masses who mistakenly think it is something noble and good. I offer a sarcastic definition of "the public" here to stimulate your thinking.
Property created by an individual through his own honest effort is not STATE PROPERTY. However, when coercion is used to transfer or maintain property, it becomes STATE PROPERTY. Whether your property is regulated by a king or a congress, both deny your complete ownership of it. It is the choice to use coercion that distinguishes STATE PROPERTY from NATURAL PROPERTY, even when apparently justified by the nebulous needs of "the public."
In primitive tribal societies, the concept of individual property was not well established at first. Early groups of hunters and gatherers often viewed land, shelter and food sources as communal resources. That is, these resources did not belong to any one person, but rather to the group as a whole. Territorial disputes between groups sometimes led to boundaries being established, which were often the result of the stronger group defeating the weaker group in battle. Within groups, however, only small personal items such as tools and clothing were owned by individuals rather than the group.
The division of labor and the ideas of property and contract allowed primitive man to progress beyond mere subsistence living. However, as these beneficial institutions were developing, some aggressive individuals who only knew how relate to others by force began a long history of human conquest. These individuals were often of inferior intellect to those who chose to produce useful goods and services, since they could not understand the benefits of market transactions to produce wealth and raise the standard of living. This early recognition of the idea of property is further discussed in ZENO Press essay #Z-02: Why Government? ($7.00 postpaid).
As mankind progressed beyond these primitive origins, two general kinds of human relationships developed. One was the non-coercive concept of markets, based on voluntary human action. The other was the concept of coercive force, based on aggression, theft and conquest. The first concept led to progress; the second led to coercive government, or the State. Throughout recorded human history, people have struggled with the power of the State, and the ideas upon which it is based. Political "leaders," who use force to impose their will on others, are often aided by intellectuals who benefit from sharing the spoils of plundering the citizenry. The intellectuals convince the populous that a political "leader" is a great person, capable of solving their problems and leading them to peace, prosperity and satisfaction. Most people don't seem to realize that these promises are almost never kept, as they are contradictory to the fundamental nature of relationships based on aggressive force in the first place.
Despite the progress of human ingenuity as evidenced by the development of art, science and commerce, the State and Church often worked together to defraud and intimidate the masses into obeying the rules established at the top. The "divine right of kings" resulted from this unholy alliance, which tended to keep the population under control for the benefit of both institutions. Those who disagreed or rebelled were treated harshly, with their lives or personal possessions routinely forfeited. Property during these times was whatever the king (or church) said it was.
Despite a recent historical tradition of property rights development from mostly voluntary human action (since the 17th century), modern governments constantly impose new controls and rules on property. These often become more important than the original claims that established property in the first place. Most individual property owners have been convinced since childhood that the coercion of the State is legitimate as long as a "democratic" process is involved in selecting state leaders. Coercive laws passed by legislatures (including the U.S. Congress) are considered by most property owners to be legitimate, even though they require universal taxation and other forms of coercion to give benefits to some STATE PROPERTY owners at the expense of everyone else.
Most people do not consider the unrepresentative nature of all existing legislatures (including the U.S. Congress). They are often lulled into complacency and resignation by the popular rhetoric of the time. U.S. Congressmen, for example, proudly proclaim that they are agents of no one, but represent everyone. 5 This contradictory, irrational view is not often recognized by the "public." This is mainly because the major news media are unimaginative, biased and willing to present the government's side of most stories as authoritative fact. The phrase, "democratic government," as used in the U.S. today, means that if 20 percent of the population votes for a particular politician, he can rule over the other 80 percent as well. This is called "majority rule," since the 20 percent represents a majority of those who voted. Most Americans seem to have accepted the false idea that majorities have the right to control the property of minorities. Further, they have been misled into believing that "democratic" politics actually produces majority rule (It does not).
Modern property law in the U.S. is largely based on conquest. Dressed up, disguised and labeled as anything but tyranny, the modern "democratic" State is nevertheless a political extension of the primitive concept of "property" by conquest and coercion.6 Past aggressions are routinely ignored, and current "owners" of property are enshrined in that ownership. That is, until the State decides that their property is needed for some grand public purpose! Under a system of STATE PROPERTY such as that which presently exists in the U.S., the existence of real private property is largely an illusion. Taxes today are much higher than the amount of tribute that medieval serfs had to pay to their lords, for example. More and more decisions are made collectively, centralized by government agencies and enforced by statutory law and the police power. Laws passed by legislatures and Congress are primarily the result of full-time lobbying efforts by special interests. The "public" finds this whole process intoxicating, since it allows ordinary citizens to steal from their neighbors without going to jail.
NATURAL PROPERTY IS ANY POSSESSION NOT DERIVED FROM COERCION.
This is not limited to material possessions. The most important possession a human being has is his life. Another important possession is an original idea. Only after recognizing that all humans own their own bodies and thoughts does it make any sense to talk of material possessions without coercion. Self-ownership provides the legitimate basis for owning material possessions.
This concept of property originated in some of those primitive tribes when individuals claimed possessions for themselves as against the collective ownership of their groups. Based on individual initiative, labor and innovation, some were successful at establishing a separate, private ownership role for themselves. To the extent that this did not involve coercion, it would be NATURAL PROPERTY as defined here. The same material possessions obtained through coercion however, are STATE PROPERTY.
In his book, Citadel, Market and Altar, Spencer Heath described the social evolution of man and the effect of property on that evolution:
"The birth of a society, properly as such, occurs when erstwhile nomads or other merely blood-bonded groups cease their dependence on mere animal instincts as to their occupancy of territory and possession of natural things. It begins with their gradual adoption of private ownership and thereby of the contractual process for the rational distribution and secure individual possession of these natural things."7
Heath recognizes that property must be widely recognized before "goods and services can be produced or exchanged." He rejects political action as destructive of this process:
"ALL POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS ARE FOUNDED ON FORCE"8
Political institutions have throughout history preyed on the peaceful market processes which produce prosperity and human freedom. Again, according to Spencer Heath:
"As voluntary service and exchange raise wealth and subsistence, so does coercive public power increasingly penalize and pervert this vital process."9
Natural Property Theorists
Contrary to the pattern of the State and its political process taking property by force, there have been several important contributors to the idea of NATURAL PROPERTY. Three of the most important are discussed here. The first two, John Locke and Robert LeFevre, presented fundamental property theories. Although there are some differences between them, each provided important elements that will be used later in the examples I have developed to further explain NATURAL PROPERTY. The third, Murray Rothbard, supports, explains and justifies the "natural rights" doctrine, including the concept of self-ownership.
John Locke (1632-1704)
The first complete concept of NATURAL PROPERTY was set forth by John Locke, the great 17th-Century English philosopher. From John Locke came a view of property that was not dependent upon the permission of the State, nor was it limited to material possessions. Locke recognized that in order to have a more, complete understanding of property, it was necessary to determine where it comes from. He realized that useful material possessions had to first be created or appropriated by human labor. He used the phrase "life, liberty and estate" to describe the natural progression from human existence to the application of his ingenuity to produce material goods. First there is human life, from which ideas derive. These ideas, unconstrained in an environment of natural liberty, inspire human labor to be applied to unowned natural resources to create material goods, which Locke called property. Material goods were not the only form of property, however. In Locke's words:
"... every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands... are properly his."10
Locke recognized the need for humans to own their own bodies and that legitimately-acquired material possessions derive from human labor without interference with the property of others. He recognized that material property, as the result of human labor, was necessary to sustain human life. He did not consider land to be property, since man did not create the land. However, he did consider the use of land to be property, since land use could be developed, defined and controlled by human labor. By limiting such property to the use of land, Locke did not necessarily include the minerals under the land or the sky above the land for that property (unless those items were used by the owner as well). Such property in the use of land was considered to be legitimately owned by its human creator, who could use it or exchange it to others. This recognition of legitimate property (based on self-ownership and labor without coercion) became the basis of the ideas of natural liberty which later produced the American Revolution for independence. Material property is created by using labor to separate unowned resources from their natural state.11
By using his own labor, man removes unowned resources from the potential use by others. Locke believed that this would not conflict with similar claims of other men, since there was plenty of land and water, for example, to go around. One of the shortcomings in Locke's theory of property was his failure to recognize the conflicts that arise from resource scarcity. His original contribution to the definition and bounds of property, however, remains extremely profound and important.
Locke recognized the inherent contradiction between government attempting to protect property, and also trying to transfer wealth. He believed that the only legitimate purpose of government, voluntarily created by man, is to protect property.12 Today's government, with its coercive funding powers (taxation, confiscation and public debt), regularly gives unearned benefits to some by forcing others to pay for them. Examples of groups benefiting from this legalized theft are farmers, environmentalists, businessmen, military contractors, criminals and all public employees, just to name a few.
GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
PROPERTY DOES NOT EXIST TO SERVE GOVERNMENT.
Locke contributed other important ideas such as equality of individual rights between men and women, government by consent and the right of people born under a government to choose not to accept its authority. These were extremely radical and courageous views for his time (late 1600's). His ideas had a profound impact on others; most notably Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. Locke's original ideas were a primary inspiration for the American Revolution for independence, as written in the Declaration of 1776.
A good example to illustrate how Locke's ideas of property were actually implemented for a scarce resource is the creation of water rights in Colorado. Although the spontaneous creation of an efficient system of resource allocation was accomplished without government, this original NATURAL PROPERTY has long since been treated as STATE PROPERTY by government interference.
"The Colorado system of water rights is largely the product of the free market and common law. In the mid-1800's, miners, farmers and ranchers established water rights by diverting water from natural streams and using it; creating a system of allocating scarce water supplies that preceded Colorado's statehood by several years.... Virtually all of the most senior water rights in Colorado were established by this unplanned, spontaneous market action, as was the system of their allocation."13
Beginning in the gold mining camps of California in the 1850's and later in Colorado and other western states, ordinary people put John Locke's ideas on property into action. Furthermore, they did it with a scarce resource, which is something that Locke did not address. Since there was not enough water to go around for all the people who wanted to use it, a priority system was developed. The rule was: "first come, first served."
In years of average streamflow, there was enough water for all, as envisioned by Locke. During these normal times, Locke's ideas of establishing property only for that water you could use, and not interfering with others' use were easy to implement. However, in dry years, when there was not enough water for everyone, early conflicts led to a creative solution by the miners and farmers. The solution was to let those with the earliest claims take the water, and for latecomers to be shorted. This system, rewarding competence, initiative and hard work, was the exact opposite of the coercive socialist and protectionist ideas sweeping Europe and much of the eastern U.S. at the time (1850's & 1860's).
This 19th-century example of NATURAL PROPERTY works well to this day, although many people are calling for a repeal of, or at least a modification to this system. This is often done with claims of "the public interest." Many coercive laws which have been passed in recent years make it increasingly difficult and expensive for water right owners to control and use their own property.
Robert LeFevre was an American philosopher, teacher, and journalist. He founded the Freedom School in Colorado in 1957, and taught his unique freedom philosophy long before the modern libertarian movement became popular in the 1970's. In his book, The Philosophy of Ownership, he presented his ideas on property. Although he disagreed with John Locke in some respects, his philosophy on property nevertheless accommodated the Lockean idea that individual humans, through their own non-coercive efforts, were the source of legitimate property ownership. This was clearly distinguished from property defined by the State and by other coercive means which I have previously discussed as STATE PROPERTY.
LeFevre distinguished between ownership and property. According to his definition, "Property is anything that is subject to ownership".14 It was the human act of owning, rather than the object of that owning (property) where he focused his ideas of non-coercion. He regarded the food that animals eat, for example, as their property, even though they could not necessarily experience the type of non-coercive ownership that he thought should be the basis of property legitimately owned by humans. He defined three possible conditions for property: unowned, correctly-owned and incorrectly owned.
According to LeFevre, unowned property is any natural resource which has not been appropriated by man for his use. Correctly-owned property is the complete possession of things without coercion, and incorrectly-owned property is the possession of things by coercion (or incompletely-owned, in the case of some collective ownership). My definition of NATURAL PROPERTY in this essay was greatly influenced by the ideas of Robert LeFevre.
LeFevre disputed Locke's claim that land could not be owned. LeFevre interpreted Locke's view that property was limited to use through human labor as meaning that man could not have property during times when he wasn't using it. That is, if he left it to go hunting, for example, he stopped owning it. As I have already shown in the example on Colorado water rights, this was a too-restricted view of Locke's theory. The use of labor to maintain property and keep it from the use of others is a form of labor which LeFevre did not fully recognize. I believe, having read both, that the differences between Locke and LeFevre were largely semantic, and that LeFevre did not give Locke enough credit for his pathbreaking ideas. LeFevre, to his credit, did analyze some more complicated examples of property ownership than did Locke. I have combined the ideas of both in this essay, and I believe they are completely compatible. I am indebted to both of these great thinkers for their creative ideas on property.
One of LeFevre's focus points about correctly-owned property was that the owner of property had to be in complete control of it. So, a house which is mortgaged to the bank for most of its value is not completely and correctly owned, since someone else has an interest besides the person that would today be called the property "owner." LeFevre acknowledged the possibility of correctly-owned property by more than one person, but stated that one person had to be responsible for the property. He equated full and correct ownership with full and complete responsibility. A further discussion of this concept will be presented in the examples which follow later in this essay. You own your own property. You do not own the property of others. You may legitimately control your property. You may not legitimately control the property of others, except with their freely-given consent.
LeFevre believed that the coercive nation-state could never be justified, since it fundamentally depends upon the violation of legitimate property for its existence. He recognized the contradiction that many people think of the State as the primary agency which protects property, when it is in fact the greatest destroyer of correctly-owned property. (It sometimes protects incorrectly-owned property, however).
Murray Rothbard is an economist who was a student of the great Austrian libertarian Ludwig von Mises. Rothbard is perhaps best known for his clear and uncompromising description of the libertarian philosophy in For a New Liberty. I hold this book in high regard, since it was my first introduction to real free markets. With respect to property, Rothbard relies heavily on John Locke, contributing significantly to the further explanation and application of Locke's ideas. In particular, Rothbard thoroughly explained the concepts of self-ownership and non-aggression as the basis of all legitimate human relationships.
Rothbard offers an uncompromising view of the "natural rights" doctrine attributed to John Locke. This doctrine is based on recognizing man for what he is (an individual), rather than what he should become according to some coercive morality (an unselfish altruist, for example). Rothbard observes that man's nature is to "learn, choose, develop his faculties, and act upon his knowledge and values." To interfere with this peaceful, productive process by aggression is to deny man his fundamental nature. This view is consistent with Spencer Heath's ideas on the necessity of property and contract for society to function.
"Natural rights" as used by Rothbard is not a concept of claim on the assets of others, but rather a recognition that man must be free to pursue his peaceful interests. This does not mean guaranteed success in his endeavors, however. Modern claims such as the "right" to housing or the "right" to an education cannot be legitimate, since they depend on violating the rights of others (through taxation and confiscation of property). Such "guaranteed" rights are an inconsistent distortion of the legitimate concept of natural rights. The most fundamental human right, according to Rothbard, is the right to self-ownership. From this, he derives the right to material property.
An interesting aspect of Rothbard's presentation on property rights is his analysis of three possible scenarios with respect to self-ownership. According to Rothbard, there can be only three choices 15:
The first choice is self-ownership, the second is slavery, and the third is socialism. Although the third is the most popular today (even in the U.S.), it contains a fatal contradiction that cannot be avoided except by fraudulent misrepresentation: No one can own anything securely if others have a claim on his life for the "public interest" or "common good."
The contradictory concept of public claim is not usually recognized for what it is, because large, popular, coercive institutions have been established to promise people "free" benefits that they presumably could not achieve by themselves. They don't often realize that these "free" benefits have to be obtained by violating the property of others first. This is easy to see when a bank robber offers you some of the loot. However, most people don't recognize the same process when a handsome, articulate politician speaks of "the public interest" and the "community of all mankind." It sounds better, and theft for such "noble" purposes is not only legal, but widely praised. Nevertheless, it is the same raw aggression as that used by the bank robber.
Rothbard refined and explained the concept of John Locke, which is to "mix your labor" with natural resources to establish material property rights. These natural rights are recognized by Rothbard as an extension of each person's life, obtained without violating the rights of others through force or fraud, and are therefore considered to be legitimate. Rothbard explains many examples of property application, in areas as diverse as criminal justice, pollution control, national defense and social welfare.
From John Locke to Murray Rothbard, the concept of NATURAL PROPERTY is the only consistent, rational and legitimate way I have found to deal fairly with the lives of human beings and the products of their labor. While claims of "public property" and "national interest" may be intoxicating, all claims to STATE PROPERTY as defined here are based on raw aggression against humans. Even the smallest aggression against NATURAL PROPERTY is the first step toward tyranny, especially if the small aggressions are left unchecked and unresolved.
The following examples are provided to illustrate the concept of NATURAL PROPERTY. Where appropriate, comparisons will be made with STATE PROPERTY. Beginning with the land and water examples already presented, each additional example involves a complexity not previously discussed.
For the remaining discussion in this essay, I will use the term "landowner" and will refer to the act of owning land within the defined context of NATURAL PROPERTY and the ideas of John Locke. That is, a landowner is the owner of the use of the land. This does not necessarily mean ownership of other resources commonly associated with the land.
Examples of natural property in land and water resources have already been given, but deserve more detail. An illustration of how this would be accomplished is a farm with irrigation ditches to grow crops in dry western states. To appropriate unowned natural resources, a settler used his labor to clear the land and dug ditches to carry water from a river for irrigation. Crops were planted, buildings were constructed and the property thus created was protected by the owner from aggression or the later claims of others. This process was a legitimate creation of property. Once this farm was developed by the original settler, he may have chosen to pass it to his children, and they in turn to their children. At some point, one or more family members may have chosen to sell their portion of the property to someone else. A voluntary exchange of the property between a new landowner and the old one, for compensation agreed to by both parties, would be a completely legitimate transfer of the property. Thus, a landowner might acquire the property without creating it, through voluntary exchange. As previously noted by Spencer Heath, property and exchange go hand-in-hand.
At times in U.S. history, especially during the Great Depression of the 1930's, farms were confiscated by the State for failure to pay taxes. This was clearly an aggression against such property, which then became STATE PROPERTY as a result of this coercion. However, this is not the same as a bank foreclosing on a farm for failure to make loan payments. Many people, especially historians, view these two situations as virtually the same thing. Fundamentally, they are not. If a bank loaned 80 percent of the value of the farm to the purchaser, who signed a contract to make scheduled payments, the purchaser was not the complete and legitimate owner of the property. He would have become the owner once the loan was paid off, but the bank was the actual owner during this period. (I have purposely avoided the issue of the bank's legitimacy and its collective ownership to simplify this example). When the bank foreclosed on the property, it was simply recovering its own property after the purchaser had defaulted on a prior agreement. While one might feel compassion and sympathy for the farmer whose crops failed and couIdn't make his payments, the issue of property here is very clear. The farm is owned by the bank, not the farmer. To the extent that the bank used the local state apparatus (e.g., the sheriff) to enforce the foreclosure (which was usually the case), then the bank's aggression in this case made its claim STATE PROPERTY rather than NATURAL PROPERTY. However, the coercion resulted not from the bank recovering its property, but the use of the coercive state system to help it do so.
The use of a private agent to recover the farm could be legitimate, although it is easy to see how this lack of state authority might lead to a conflict. An important point to stress here is that it is the bank's responsibility to see that the property is recovered; not the taxpayer's. It is also the bank's responsibility not to lend money to anyone who will not pay it back. Any mistakes in assessing this possibility are entirely the responsibility of the bank. Cheap government-subsidized loans and coercive agencies guaranteeing the bank's profit make the bank a less-responsible lending institution in the first place. The bank, its owners and depositors should shoulder the entire risk of bad loans. It is up to depositors to place their money only in banks that they consider safe. Their mistakes in judgment should not be encouraged by forcing innocent bystanders (taxpayers) to restore losses caused by their own lack of responsibility and bad judgment.
The amount of force which might be used in the recovery of property is debatable. However, there is a wide variety of nonviolent techniques available to the bank, most of which aren't widely used today. The State offers its coercion to recover property, and therefore property owners have little incentive to be more creative. Boycotts and other forms of nonviolent social ostracism can often be more effective than force, as demonstrated by Dr. Martin Luther King in the 1960's. His organized boycott of businesses who discriminated against blacks was one of the most effective techniques ever used to create social change. Unfortunately, the force of the State is an intoxicating power. Its ease of use, paid for by unwilling taxpayers, discourages property owners from being more responsible for protecting their own property.
It is clear that NATURAL PROPERTY in both land and water is based on use through human labor, without coercing others. However, this does not mean that these resources have to be developed in order to establish property rights. This fallacy is often at the root of arguments concerning environmental protection of land and water resources.
A legitimate way to preserve, rather than develop, natural resources is to expend human labor to exclude others from using the resource. While this was not considered by John Locke, it is a natural extension of his ideas. It just involves a different kind of labor and use.
Assuming that the resource was unowned to begin with, a person interested in preserving a forest in its natural state, for example, could at his own expense and risk, patrol and fence the area, establishing a property claim in so doing. This kind of property creation is every bit as legitimate as a logging company establishing a property claim for the same land for harvesting trees. Assuming that the preservationist got there first, it would be his property. However, the expense of excluding others from the property, or allowing them only for certain purposes (fishing, walking, etc.) would be entirely on the property owner. No one else would be forced to contribute to the continued maintenance of the property in its natural state. The owner could charge fees for others to use the property, or ask for donations. This means that the preservationist's claim is limited to the area that he is able to protect. This same limitation also applies to the farmer, logger, or any other property owner or claimant.
Privately-owned wilderness areas can be more effectively protected against development than those in "public" ownership. This is because total control of the property is properly maintained by the property owner, without conflicting "public" claims by others. No change in political climate in Washington, for example, could legitimately reverse (or re-interpret) the fundamental purpose for which the property was created. Only the desire of the landowner could produce such a change, which is the same as all other landowners. No outside claim to the property for a contrary purpose would be valid, unless it was based on a non-coercive past use of that property. An example of how the Audubon Society uses private property to protect areas from development is presented later in this essay. Referring back to Robert LeFevre, it is the landowner who has total and complete control of the property. No "public interest" has a right to violate any property, for any purpose.
In deference to Robert LeFevre's criticism of John Locke, a further example of Colorado water rights is used here to explain one area where LeFevre's analysis was essentially correct. Since LeFevre lived and worked in Colorado for many years, his ideas may have been influenced by the Colorado water rights system.
Colorado water rights in surface streams are defined and based on use, and to some extent illustrate LeFevre's disagreement with Locke. The reason for this is the nature of the resource and claims for its use. If a person develops land, creating a farm, for example, it has been removed from the use of others, which is one of the criteria both Locke and LeFevre established for the creation of material property. Water flowing in a natural stream however, is a different kind of property. Water that is not diverted and used is available for use by others downstream, and therefore has not been removed from their use by the original property owner's claim. So, if the developer of a water right claim doesn't use his water right for several years, other downstream water users begin to rely on his lack of use to enhance their use of water. It is the continuously flowing nature of the resource which makes water rights "use" rights. Although land can be not used for a while and its ownership retained without adversely affecting other Property interests, the non-use of a flowing water right does affect other interests. During the non-use, others benefit, but when the water right is again returned to use, the additional water others have come to depend on is no longer available. This is a complex issue, and is subject to a variety of "abandonment" rules and claims in virtually all western states. Some of these could be considered valid NATURAL PROPERTY concepts, although they have been recently enforced through state coercion. This issue is presented here to show a particular kind of property which illustrates LeFevre's concern.
"Use" rights such as those in flowing water are fully consistent with Locke's philosophy, although he did not envision them. Locke's creative ideas do not become invalidated because someone applies them in a way the originator did not imagine. A water right, just like any other valid property, must be defined and claimed. The claimant must expend labor to exclude others from the use of the resource, and must protect the property from adverse claim. Some kinds of property, such as a water right, are more difficult to define and protect than others. The difficulty of using or protecting such property is entirely the responsibility of the owner. This might include obeying customary rules agreed to by him and owners of similar property.
It is important to point out that neither Locke's, LeFevre's nor my ideas about these property interests should ever be the basis of a single, coercive set of rules that apply to people who have not agreed to them. The attempt here is to explain NATURAL PROPERTY and how it works, not to suggest that this is the only possible interpretation of how people can use natural resources without coercing each other.
Mineral rights are usually considered to be attached to the land overlying them. Under today's coercive property law, the recognized owner of land is automatically considered to own the minerals under his property, unless he has sold them to someone else. This approach appears to be NATURAL PROPERTY, but is in fact STATE PROPERTY under current laws. This is because the minerals have not necessarily been appropriated, defined, used, or otherwise protected by the landowner.
Until someone expends labor discovering or removing minerals under his (or other) land from the use of others, those resources are unowned. Once labor is expended, however, the resource can be legitimately claimed. Although access to the land above may be required to develop such a resource, the resource is not owned by the landowner until he expends labor to define, develop or exclude it from others. Meanwhile, if an adjacent landowner can develop the resource under the land without infringing upon the landowner's existing use of his land, the mineral resource under one person's property may legitimately become owned by another, without the first landowner's permission.
If the first landowner has taken measures to exclude others from developing his resource, such as drilling or by placing notices at his property boundary of his intent to PROTECT OR DEVELOP the resource, then these laborious human actions may prevent the legitimate development of the resource by others. However, the effectiveness of such efforts may be severely tested in the marketplace of ideas. Putting up a few signs is a small effort to exclude large amounts of mineral resources from development by others. If the signs don't work, then the sign owner may have to invest significant additional resources to insure that the resource is not developed. This may lead to a conflict: The sign owner says, "I was here first; it's my property!" The adjacent landowner says, "No, you haven't spent enough labor to establish a property right." Let's assume that these conflicting views are honestly held by both parties, acting in good faith. Under STATE PROPERTY, the parties would turn to the State to resolve the conflict at taxpayer expense. Under NATURAL PROPERTY, they would have to resolve the dispute themselves. Conflict resolution will be explained further in the next example.
The situation with oil, groundwater and other fluid resources under the land is similar to that with minerals, with one important exception: the resources can move from under one property toward another. If a landowner drills a well and begins pumping water, for example, the water table under his neighbors' property may decline. Depending upon the geology, it might be possible for all the water under both properties to be completely used up by only one landowner legitimately, if no one else expends the labor to develop a second well (or protect the resource) before the resource is depleted. This example of NATURAL PROPERTY conflicts with the currently popular idea that land ownership should automatically include all resources underneath it. It may or may not, depending upon the efforts of the landowner or his predecessor.
This example is almost identical to the previous one (mineral rights); only the ease of mining the resource is different. Conflicts would arise if a second well were drilled on the affected property, at which time the two resource users could negotiate an agreement as to water use among themselves. A prior right scheme such as that used in Colorado water rights might be chosen, or any other arrangement that the concerned parties would care to develop. Conflicts and their resolution would be entirely the responsibility of the two parties, and no one else's. If either of the landowners uses aggressive (as opposed to defensive) force, his ownership of the resource becomes STATE PROPERTY. Neither of the parties has a right to force others to pay for the resolution of their dispute. If they choose violence instead of cooperation, then they must pay the full price and suffer the consequences for such a choice. Affected neighbors may choose to enter the dispute, either as mediators or to choose sides. However, no such conflict justifies forcing unaffected parties to pay for its resolution.
The protection of property is entirely the responsibility of the property owner. This doesn't mean that he can't gain the assistance of others to help him. It simply means that he must make a conscious choice, pay the price and accept the consequences. Governments are popular largely because they have defrauded people into believing their property can be protected without these things.
In the U.S. oil industry, the discoverer of an oil field has a legitimate claim to it, although he must negotiate with landowners for royalty payments. Under a system of NATURAL PROPERTY, the discoverer of a previously unowned resource could legitimately claim resources under an adjacent landowner's property. Only if the landowner had previously discovered the resource and had taken steps to preclude others from its use would the new "discoverer" have to recognize the former claim. However, a more practical result would likely take place.
It might be much more efficient and beneficial for the discoverer of a resource to drill wells on the land directly over the resource, rather than relying on wells on his adjacent property. In this case, the discoverer could offer some kind of payment or royalty to the other landowner. This payment would not recognize the landowner's ownership of the underground resource, but would recognize his ownership of the use of his land. This is an important distinction. An arrangement similar to those used today between oil companies and landowners might develop, not because of the landowner's presumption of underground resource ownership, but rather as a recognition of the landowner's right to the use of his land. The deal would be whatever both parties voluntarily agree to, and would not be enforced by any external state authority. The landowner has control of his land, and the oil company pays the royalty. Each would have a measure of control that stimulates cooperation, rather than conflict.
Under today's system of STATE PROPERTY, property owners can turn to an external, coercive authority to settle the dispute. While this may appear to be an efficient way to resolve conflicts in the short term, it removes the incentive for conflicting property owners to deal with each other honestly and fairly. Since the costs of this coercive (STATE PROPERTY) solution are borne by the unwilling taxpayer, both parties to the conflict are rewarded for hostile, irrational behavior. Such is the nature of the State and its system of "justice."
THEFT IS NOT FAIRNESS.
COERCION IS NOT COMPASSION.
It is important to point out that without the State's power of "eminent domain" (confiscation), private companies could not successfully force existing property owners to part with their resources on a widespread and consistent basis. Without a "public" claim to disguise their aggression, private companies attempting coercive measures would be widely recognized as aggressors. Their products could be boycotted, and other companies would be wise not to trade with them. This nonviolent, legitimate process of "consumer" control rather than state control is one of the benefits of the widespread recognition and acceptance of NATURAL PROPERTY.
It is ironic that non-aggressive means to resolve property disputes can be more effective than force, contrary to much conventional "wisdom." While forceful means (politics, legislation, police power, government regulation, etc.) appear to be effective in the short run, they almost always create new problems and animosities which surface later. This is bad for interpersonal, economic and/or other kinds of human relationships.
Property rights in air are a difficult thing to define, but not impossible, as some government regulators would have us believe. Air is simply a more complicated and movable fluid than groundwater or oil. It is important to define the rights of a landowner here as well.
When a farmer mixes his labor with the land to create a property right, or when someone purchases a farm from someone else who created it, a certain amount of clean air is presumed to be necessary to allow the farmer to live on the land. If the air was polluted when the farm was created, then no legitimate claim to clean air can be made, unless it was further degraded after this. It is up to the landowner to detect and pursue any disagreement with others who he thinks may be causing injury to his property. His use of the air for his own or his livestock's breathing is the basis for his legitimate claim to the air as property. However, this does not give him the right to own the entire atmosphere above his property (He has no property in air not used or protected from the use of others). He cannot legitimately prevent others from flying over his property, for example, unless such actions interfere with his right to use his property. If he has solar collectors, he may legitimately argue with adjacent landowners who block his sunlight. However, this claim is based on his prior use of the sun falling on his property, not ownership of the unused air. If a hovering platform 10,000 feet above his property blocked the sun to his solar collectors, he would have a legitimate claim to remove it. Again, this is not because he owns the entire atmosphere above his land, but because the platform interferes with his pre-established use of the sun (which must travel through the atmosphere to reach his property).
If a neighboring factory is polluting his air, making him and his livestock sick, he has a legitimate claim against the factory, unless the factory was there before the farm. If the factory was there first, then the farmer has only a right to prevent increases in pollution over the pre-existing levels. This should also be the case with other conditions such as noise, smell or dangerous materials. If the existing air on the farm is toxic or carcinogenic, then the purchaser may have a fraud claim against the prior owner who sold him the property. However, if no fraudulent claims were made (property sold "AS IS"), then the buyer should suffer the consequences for his own inadequate investigation. It is not the responsibility of others to protect him from himself, unless he has specifically contracted with someone to do this. As in the case with banks and bad laws, subsidizing stupidity simply produces more of it.
In the 1800's, American judges abandoned legal principles which would have allowed private property rights to be used to fight the new pollution of adjacent factories. Instead, the judges based their decisions on the "public policy" that the factories were more important to the local economy than the farms.16 While this may have benefited the factory owners and workers, it was a complete denial of the farmer's right to protect his property. This example is typical of STATE PROPERTY protection: "protection" for those with clout, but trampling those without it. The State never was, and will never be, primarily an instrument by which the weak protect themselves from the strong. On the contrary, it has always been the primary mechanism by which the strong prevent the weak from challenging their position. This is clearly demonstrated by the counterproductive results of government regulatory agencies. Theoretically created to protect consumers from producers, they inevitably become controlled by the producers themselves to prevent market competition.17
The issue of farmers trying to use property rights to protect themselves from factory pollution leads to a discussion of other environmental issues and the value of NATURAL PROPERTY concepts to deal with them.
As Terry Anderson and Donald Leal point out in Free Market Environmentalism, it is the State which is primarily responsible for environmental damage.18 Although private companies are often polluters, it was the destruction of private property protection by the State that has allowed and encouraged this to occur without prosecution or legal claim for a century. In addition, the perverse incentives of public ownership often lead to the destruction, rather than preservation of natural resources.
The U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a multitude of government-owned municipal sewage treatment plants routinely damage the environment without regard to the market processes that would limit private property owners. (Ironically, the Corps of Engineers is not only the single organization most responsible for wetlands destruction, but is today the primary organization charged with protecting wetlands). With widespread recognition of the NATURAL PROPERTY concepts described here, each legitimate landowner would have the final say as to how his property is disposed of. He would also have to deal with external claims that his use of his property was injuring others. He would not be protected from such claims by coercive laws that produce conformity, obedience and standardization rather than justice or real property protection.
As previously described, it would be possible for both environmentalists and loggers to develop and acquire property rights, and neither would have a political or other coercive power over the other. Negotiations between opposing groups could provide unconventional solutions to environmental problems, such as in the Rainey Preserve in Louisiana (owned by the Audubon Society). Audubon agreed to allow Consolidated Oil and Gas to drill wells on a privately-owned estuary during times in the year when birds were not nesting. Royalties are used to buy additional privately-owned property for protection, and Consolidated is held to a much stricter level of compliance than it would be on public property. This kind of solution is all but impossible with public property, since both sides would assert their legal rights as part of the "public." The dispute might be resolved politically or legally, but one side would likely win, and the other would lose. Neither side would receive awards appropriate for its expenditure of labor. The winner would be subsidized by the taxpayer, and the loser would get no benefit from all its efforts. Clear property rights in such resources would make cooperation much more likely, as that which occurred in the Rainey Preserve.
Property rights established in land, water and other resources are based on human labor which has been expended to define and use or protect such property. The introduction of polluted material into a stream, or cutting down trees in a forest without the landowner's permission, or polluting groundwater resources are all acts of aggression against property. These acts would be aggressively pursued (or more likely, prevented) by self-interested landowners and their agents (private guards, insurance companies, etc.) if NATURAL PROPERTY were more widely recognized. Companies who did a poor job of property protection for their customers would go out of business (unlike the current status of the State). Good ones would flourish. All would be highly motivated to do the job; not just to look like it (a predominate characteristic of the State).
The contradiction of using the coercive State to protect the environment must be more widely understood. The apparent benefits of state protection for some properties should be placed in a proper context. No institution is more well-suited for the destruction of the natural environment. Likewise, no institution is more poorly-equipped for its protection. It is no accident that some of the most severe environmental problems on earth exist in the former Soviet Union, which was a government fundamentally opposed to private property. As more private property becomes public property, the U.S. resembles more closely the former Soviet Union. The natural environment is suffering because of it.
Property in wildlife brings up some interesting questions. For example, why does property apply only to humans, and not other species? What if there were a subhuman species of primate on earth that had the average intelligence of a retarded human? Could humans legitimately "own" these intelligent animals as their property? What if the conceited view of property for only one species were applied by a super-intelligent species from another planet? Could they, using similar ideas as ours on property, come to earth and make humans their slaves, as we have property in cattle? You get the idea of the potential complexity of this subject. I cannot fully explore answers to these questions here, but I hope to set the stage for additional work in this area. I will begin by exploring the primitive nature of coercion, and the preconditions for the concept of NATURAL PROPERTY.
Other animals on earth have primitive skills compared to humans. For example, their communication is not as effective or precise. Their rationality is less developed, and in general, they must use force to survive, unless their particular species has developed alternatives. Skunks and porcupines, for example, are non-aggressive, and forage for food without much fear of being attacked by stronger animals. They have evolved with effective defensive protection mechanisms, and do not rely on strength, speed or aggression to survive. The wolf, on the other hand, must use his hunting skill, speed and strength to kill other animals to survive. No earth animal other than man, however, has developed the highly complex social institutions of property and contract. These institutions evolved from the more primitive, less-efficient forms of survival. On earth, only man has developed these institutions, although some other species may exhibit primitive (but often coercive) forms of ownership and the use of tools. It took man many thousands of years to develop his intellect and abandon the more primitive ways; other species today are not yet fully capable of sustaining the institutions of property and exchange among themselves. However, it is important to note that well-defined property rights by humans may be used to protect, as well as harvest, wildlife.
As an animal lover, I have a great respect and affinity for some wild things, and would like to see them remain free and wild. However, the simple fact remains that only man has the social technology to use the institutions of property and contract in even a primitive way. Only when man has improved the scope of these institutions, relying less on coercion and more on voluntary exchange, will he widely recognize the validity of these institutions in other species. The nation-state, in its present form, is a coercive, primitive institution that denies self-ownership among humans. Until this institution is changed or replaced so that NATURAL PROPERTY is protected, rather than STATE PROPERTY, property rights in other species will not likely be seriously considered. Some humans may choose this path earlier than others. In any event, no human has the right to coerce others into obeying his own morality with respect to animals.
According to Robert J. Smith, in his article, Resolving the Tragedy of the Commons by Creating Private Property in Wildlife, the best way to save endangered species from further destruction is to apply NATURAL PROPERTY rights to them.19 Herds or flocks of endangered animals can be kept for their economic value, whether for harvesting products from them or aesthetics (such as tourism or photo safaris). While this may seem paradoxical to opponents of the marketplace, in the case of the green sea turtle, for example, it has been proven to be effective. Government efforts to resolve the problem have been a dismal failure. Such efforts usually amount to passing laws banning poaching or the commercial use of such animals. However, these laws drive up the profits of poachers and encourage black markets to take advantage of these profits. By allowing private ranching of endangered animals, the species could be preserved without coercing others into paying for it. Readers interested in wildlife issues in particular are referred to Mr. Smith's 1981 article in the Cato Journal (referenced above). Also, in Free Market Environmentalism, Anderson and Leal discuss this approach by recommending homesteading in ocean waters.20 These ideas are gradually finding more acceptance among environmentalists, some of whom are beginning to understand the inherent contradictions in wildlife protection by the State.
Patents are government monopolies, enforced by statutory laws which recognize a single owner of an idea for an invention. As such, they are STATE PROPERTY, not NATURAL PROPERTY. If two people independently produce the same idea at about the same time, the first one to the U.S. Government Patent Office gets the legal right to produce the invention, whereas the other is prohibited from doing the same. This is a violation of the right of the second person to his own idea (which actually happened with the invention of the telephone). Under the concept of NATURAL PROPERTY, both inventors would be recognized for their achievements. Of course, there might be false claims of independent development, which is all the more reason for an inventor to take precautions for the protection of his intellectual property. It is the responsibility of the inventor, and no one else, to protect his ideas or inventions. Under the pretext of doing this for him, the U.S. Patent Agency subsidizes one inventor, while violating the legitimate property of another.
Copyrights are a recognition of a creative work such as a book, manuscript, song or play. The current system, to its credit, does not necessarily require the filing of papers with the government to establish a copyright, but it is recommended by the government to avoid future disputes. Although there is a "monopoly" concept in copyrights as there is in patents, the type of property is different. A written work to be copyrighted, for example, is a complex combination of dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of words. No two people are likely to create the same document, although two may come up with similar ideas for patents. A patent is based on a single concept or a few concepts, which might reasonably be expected to be duplicated independently. Neither copyrights nor patents should be protected by state coercion, but this is the currently accepted norm. These principles also apply to other ideas as property.
When someone has a new idea, that idea is NATURAL PROPERTY according to the principles in this essay. The idea (property) owner has the exclusive right to establish conditions (if any) under which others may use the idea, which may include payment or other compensation. However, the idea originator is responsible for developing protective mechanisms for insuring that the idea does not fall into the hands of those who have not agreed to the owner's conditions. This may not be easy.
Computer software is a modern example of ideas as NATURAL PROPERTY. While most major software developers use coercive government laws to "protect" their ideas (making their programs STATE PROPERTY), developers of "shareware" generally retain their NATURAL PROPERTY status. "Shareware" is software sent free or at a small cost to potential buyers, who may use it temporarily to decide if they want to pay for its permanent use. When shareware developers don't take sufficient protective measures, it is easy for potential customers to become thieves by continuing to use the software without paying the developer. One way that software developers encourage payment is by withholding instruction manuals, updates and technical support until payment is received. Another way would be to place a routine in the program that would render it unusable after some time or a certain number of uses.
The shareware industry offers an excellent example of how NATURAL PROPERTY works today. It might become a suitable prototype for the application of NATURAL PROPERTY ideas in other areas, especially after the State becomes less able to fulfill its promises of property protection.
I can never emphasize too much: Property owners are responsible for protecting their own property. They may contract with others who are specialists at this, or use any other non-coercive means, but it is their responsibility. Part of the responsibility that LeFevre emphasized was that property owners should not be subsidized by the State for being stupid or irresponsible. Losing one's property through one's own inadequate protection will promote personal responsibility like no coercive state or political law will ever do. This will lead to the development of cheap, effective and plentiful means to protect property from aggression or theft. However, people will not be very responsible for their property as long as the super-parent State is there to "protect" them from their own mistakes.
There is nothing wrong with a non-coercive monopoly. Each person has a monopoly in his own property, which cannot legitimately be taken without his consent. He may ask any price for his property, although he may find no buyers at that price. NO ONE may legitimately take or control his property without his consent, regardless of their "need." One of the most common, mistaken, but popular ideas today is that if you "need" something, you may force others to give it to you. This is a direct result of Karl Marx's idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This is not always easy to remember, however.
Suppose you invent a cheap cure for cancer. Suppose further that you don't like certain people who are dying of cancer. Marx says you must make it available to them. However, the principles of NATURAL PROPERTY allow you, and you alone, to make the decision as to who will receive your property, and under what terms. If it costs you one dollar to manufacture, and you sell it for $10,000, then that is the price others must pay if they want to benefit from your product. You may not force them to buy it, and they may not force you to sell. Of course, this is highly objectionable to most people today, who have a confused, nebulous and incomplete view of property. This extreme example makes an extreme point: The only person who may legitimately decide what to do with NATURAL PROPERTY is the property owner.
Obviously, withholding a necessary cure from a dying person is an insensitive thing to do, to say the least. But the slim chance that such an extreme case might occur cannot begin to justify the massive amount of coercion that is routinely condoned by most people. Such coercion, perhaps originally intended to prevent an extreme case such as this example, almost always escalates to a point far beyond its original "justification." Condoning a violation of property for an extreme (and highly unlikely) case opens the door to a wide variety of coercive actions, applied in ways that the originators never intended. Such is the inevitable result of attempting to justify coercion on a continuing, consistent basis.
Under extreme stress, some people who believe in the principles of self-ownership and non-coercion might choose to coerce someone else. This might be done to protect one's property, for example, in which case an individual might choose to coerce another rather than suffer a loss. While this is not condoned by the principle of non-coercion, it is easy to see how this situation might occur. Even under these circumstances however, it is important to realize that this coercion is not being institutionalized, or widely condoned, as it is with a consistent pattern of state coercion (such as taxation or confiscation). Individual acts of coercion may result in restitution to the victim(s) after the fact, recognizing the regrettable aggression; or a relatively small loss may be forgiven by the victim. Such an isolated act, a realistic possibility in a generally free-market society, cannot be used to invalidate the principles of self-ownership and non-coercion. Isolated individual acts of coercion are not the same as the widespread, popular coercion of the State.
GOOD INTENTIONS ARE A POOR EXCUSE FOR TYRANNY.
Unlike non-coercive monopolies, coercive monopolies are not legitimate. Examples of coercive monopolies are the State, most utility companies, the U.S. Postal Service (for first class mail service) and the Federal Reserve System. Privately-owned monopolies which do not resort to coercion are not likely to be a threat to others. Only coercive monopolies can regulate, restrict, tax and otherwise legally prevent their competition from threatening their established position.
A good example of this is local taxicab companies and the public utilities commissions that regulate them. Whenever a new taxicab company wants to enter such a regulated market, it must get a license from the regulatory commission. The commission asks the other taxicab companies if there is a "need" for the new company. They, of course, reply, "No, we can handle it." Without the coercive commission, often staffed with former employees of the industries they regulate, existing companies would be subject to increasing competition. However, rather then letting new customers decide whether it succeeds or fails, the new company is prevented from entering the market by a government "monopoly." Of course, the term, "monopoly" is not precisely correct where more than one existing company is subsidized by the government's coercive laws and commissions, but the principle is the same.
Robert LeFevre discussed legitimate property ownership by more than one person in his book, The Philosophy of Ownership. For correctly-owned property (as he defined it), two or more people could own property if one person had the controlling interest, or was otherwise chosen by the owners to be the final authority concerning disputes.21 His concept of property was that the property owner had to have complete control over it and have no control over the property of others. This means that a single person has to be responsible for each property.
YOU DON'T FULLY OWN SOMETHING UNLESS YOU HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OVER IT.
LeFevre warned against collective ownership in which owners have not chosen a single individual to be in charge. He used the example of a large corporation, in which many people own voting stock. Without a single majority share-holder, the operation of the corporation has to be confused, always subject to the inefficiency of collective decisions. Even with an elected Board of Directors, their selection is based on an inefficient majority vote process, similar to that used in politics. The only difference is that the corporation doesn't necessarily use coercion (that is, the decisions of the corporation are not binding on those outside the corporation). Despite government subsidies for large corporations today, (called "free enterprise" by some), their inherent inefficiencies are often exposed. Competition by smaller, leaner, hungrier, more efficient and innovative companies can wreak havoc for large bureaucratic ones. This is precisely why so many large corporations actively participate in politics. When the market they claim to support turns against them, they can get their competition regulated, licensed, taxed and restricted from competing. This is done for the "public interest," of course, and a gullible voting public often buys this lie -- hook, line and sinker!
Of course, this same weakness in corporations is inherent in most government agencies as well. Although they may have directors who are apparently in charge, these directors are not liable for damage they do to the property of others, usually being protected by political laws passed in the "public interest." Also, a director of a state agency does not have a proprietary interest in any property, although he may be technically in charge of millions of acres of "public property." The primary incentive in such an environment is to protect the status quo. It doesn't matter to bureaucrats whether that status quo is subsidized logging, grazing, or other uneconomic or nonsensical activity. It doesn't even matter whether the mission of the agency is being accomplished. What matters is the justification and maintenance of annual budgets, political power and protecting one's pension. All of this is accomplished without market control, since taxpayers are told they can't legally refuse to fund the agency or program.
PUBLIC PROPERTY IS SOCIALISM!
This provocative statement is provided here to deal with some of the misleading terminology that is used today to disguise STATE PROPERTY as something legitimate. Combining dictionary definitions for the words PUBLIC and PROPERTY, a reasonable definition of public property is: anything possessed by the community as a whole. The reader is referred to the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO by Karl Marx for an explanation of socialism. Fundamentally, it means public ownership of property. It is almost always coercive, although it is possible (as acknowledged by LeFevre) for collective ownership to occur without coercion. The next section discusses how this may be done.
Let's say that a park is developed by a single person, in accordance with the principles of NATURAL PROPERTY as outlined here. Land is cleared, grass is planted, playing fields are constructed, and a fence is placed around the property by a single person at his own expense. Assuming that no previous claims exist to the property, it would be legitimate NATURAL PROPERTY.
Now, the person who developed the park donates it to the "community." In order to avoid coercion, he sets up a private foundation, with sufficient funds to maintain it forever. He gives each and every person in the community an equal share ownership in the park. A general election is held at a meeting of all stockholders, in which they elect a board of directors from their own ranks by unanimous consent. Each board member has only one ownership share, just like everyone else in the community. However, the Board has the authority, after the unanimous vote, to operate within a set of bylaws which gives it control over decisions about the property's use and operation. The bylaws include a provision that disputes will be resolved by majority rule, which was originally accepted by all shareholders, (so majority rule is still a non-coercive policy).
This is an example of a collectively-owned park which was created, funded and maintained without coercion. In accordance with its bylaws, the board of directors for the park foundation appoints an executive director to make daily management decisions. This evolution of collective ownership without coercion is an example of NATURAL PROPERTY, even though it involves widely diverse collective ownership. While this collective ownership might be called socialism by some, it is based on a completely different concept than that promoted by Marx. It is based on the concept that group rights are nothing more than a collection of individual rights. It is also based on non-coercion, following the ideas of NATURAL PROPERTY rather than those of STATE PROPERTY. There is no subordination of the individual to the group.
The concept of majority rule as it relates to coercion is widely misunderstood. For example, most people just assume that all majority rule is legitimate and fair. This is because they are taught as children to believe that it is legitimate for majorities to coerce minorities. Many widely-accepted laws are based on this concept, although no majority of people voted for them. (Even laws from ballot initiatives which pass by a majority of voters do not have the votes of a majority of the people subject to those laws). If coercion could be justified by majority vote, then lynch mobs and slavery would be acceptable forms of human behavior.
Had the creator of the park in the example above implemented majority rule before giving away the shares, then it would not have required unanimous consent of the shareholders. As long as the park developer owns the property, he can place any conditions on the shares that he gives to other people. However, if collective ownership is achieved without such guidance, majority rule is not necessarily a legitimate way to proceed. If 51% of the people owning shares decide to do something with the property, and the other 49% has never given its explicit consent to majority rule, the park becomes STATE PROPERTY. In fact, one dissenting vote would make the park STATE PROPERTY. Obviously, it would not be very wise to bestow collective ownership without some means of resolving disputes. If the park had been created by the collective action of many people who accepted majority rule at the beginning, then there would be no coercion, and the park would remain NATURAL PROPERTY.
This, by the way, is how most voluntary organizations get started. The founders usually agree to a set of rules or bylaws at an organizational meeting, and subsequent decisions are often made by majority rule in accordance with those original agreements. Since no one in the group was coerced into joining or supporting the group, and since no one had any vested ownership position at the time of the initial meeting, majority rule in this case is entirely legitimate. New members agree to abide by the existing rules of the organization when they join, and can leave at any time they feel the organization is not meeting their needs. Notice the difference between majority rule in this voluntary association and the so-called "majority rule" of the State. One is legitimate and the other is not. One is based on NATURAL PROPERTY and the other is based on STATE PROPERTY.
It is extremely important to distinguish between coercive and non-coercive majority rule. It is quite literally the difference between slavery and freedom.
The conditions that allowed the park to remain as NATURAL PROPERTY throughout the example are not very realistic today. Public property is more often obtained through confiscation, sustained through taxation, managed by unelected bureaucrats and manipulated by the coercive politics of administrative rules and statutory law. A small minority of "the people" who supposedly own a public park actually control it, without the explicit permission of the owners as used in the voluntary example. The collective "owners" of the park cannot sell or give away their interests, cannot determine the policies of how it is used, nor can they use it whenever they want. These "owners" are subject to the arbitrary rules of the people who run the park operating with virtually no personal liability for unsafe conditions or damage to the park itself. The electoral or appointative process by which they are selected is so far removed from the vast majority of the "owners" that one could more accurately say that the park is unowned, rather than owned by "the people." Using Robert LeFevre's terminology, such a park might be considered to be incorrectly-owned by a few government employees. Some would consider the park to be unowned, since no one is specifically responsible for it.
As shown by the voluntary park example, NATURAL PROPERTY can involve collective ownership. However, in order to avoid coercion, a complicated but precise list of conditions were formulated here. While these conditions are not found in today's public parks, they are found in voluntary organizations of all kinds, and may serve as a model for dealing with collectively-owned property without coercion. The list of conditions presented here is not intended to be complete or unique, however. Myriad possibilities exist for the creation, maintenance and protection of NATURAL PROPERTY, limited only by the imagination of non-coercive humans.
Throughout human history, most economic, social and political ideas have been implemented by a complex web of rules, regulations, principles and laws. Since most of these were coercive, based on the primitive idea of STATE PROPERTY, little thought was given to diversity, individuality, tolerance or non-coercion. So, it is easy for intelligent, educated, rational humans (biased by this history) to ask, "What rules will have to be implemented to result in a wider acceptance of NATURAL PROPERTY?" The answer is simple, but will be perplexing to some:
NO RULES OR LAWS SHOULD APPLY TO EVERYONE.The idea of coercing people into following a single set of rules is completely foreign to the idea of NATURAL PROPERTY, as it is to the idea of self-ownership. Any and all rules, customs and conditions may be implemented by property owners to protect their property as long as they do not involve coercion. Legitimate rules, customs and law are created by property owners and apply only to their property. This does not rule out societal norms or collective rules, but to be legitimate they must involve unanimous consent. Deviations from this, such as majority rule, must be based on the original consent of those affected, as illustrated by the example of the collectively-owned park.
Some readers of this essay may be frustrated at this point by what they perceive to be the theoretical, impractical or utopian nature of the NATURAL PROPERTY concept presented here. By the definition presented, most property that exists today is STATE PROPERTY. This is a result of the coercion used by the State to recognize and "protect" much private property. It also results from the fact that the State today dominates virtually all areas of society. However, the reader should not limit his or her thinking about property to the laws, institutions and customs of today's world. According to Alvin Toffler in The Third Wave:
"The First Wave of change -- the agricultural revolution -- took thousands of years to play itself out. The Second Wave -- the rise of industrial civilization -- took a mere three hundred years. Today history is even more accelerative, and it is likely that the Third Wave will sweep across history and complete itself in a few decades... This new civilization, as it challenges the old, will topple bureaucracies, reduce the role of the nation-state, and give rise to semi-autonomous economies in a post-industrial world..."22
"If our elected brokers can't make deals for us, we shall have to do it ourselves. If the laws they make are increasingly remote from or unresponsive to our needs, we shall have to make our own. For this however, we will need new institutions and new technologies as well."23
The logical, consistent basis for NATURAL PROPERTY must be understood by those who will attempt to make better lives for themselves as industrial and coercive societies become increasingly obsolete. Fundamental changes in society are already occurring, and this process is very likely beyond the control of any state or other coercive institution to prevent. Recent changes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union represent not only the decline of communism. They mean the decline of the nation-state as a viable form of government.
I have purposely left out the issue of implementing NATURAL PROPERTY in this essay, although the answers are found in markets, not politics. Practical implementation of any idea involves many combinations and changes that the idea's originator(s) may not have envisioned. The subject of implementation is so complex, so diverse and so unpredictable that a complete essay (or large book) could be devoted to explain it. Suffice it to say here that ideas have to be understood (at least by some innovators) before they can be implemented. This essay is an attempt to provide that understanding.
This essay has focused on the philosophical origin, development and application of NATURAL PROPERTY, distinguished from STATE PROPERTY by the lack of coercion. Because it excludes coercion, NATURAL PROPERTY is one of the most important concepts in all human relationships. Social relationships benefit from a lack of coercion, and are severely damaged when coercion is used. Properly defined and understood, NATURAL PROPERTY reflects the simple recognition that each individual human being should have exclusive control over his life and labor. Contrary to the shallow, incomplete and nebulous definitions of property widely offered by economists, historians, lawyers, social "scientists" and politicians, NATURAL PROPERTY recognizes the individual as the fundamental unit of social organization. It further recognizes voluntary human relationships as the most beneficial, productive and legitimate.
The concept of NATURAL PROPERTY as presented here is the basis of all human progress. Where NATURAL PROPERTY is recognized and respected -- peace, prosperity, harmony, social order and justice result. Where it is not recognized -- war, depression, social upheaval and injustice occur. In all countries today, elements of both NATURAL PROPERTY and STATE PROPERTY exist, with STATE PROPERTY being dominant. Democracies attempt to disguise this by letting a minority of the population vote occasionally, but they are still fundamentally based on the same coercive ideas as the most totalitarian dictatorship.
To the extent that people recognize and respect the property of others, they are practicing NATURAL PROPERTY, whether or not they recognize it. Where people condone either private or public coercion to obtain the things they want however, then they support STATE PROPERTY. Although most people who support STATE PROPERTY think they are justified, they often fail to understand how small aggressions become large ones. This is because small aggressors who are not held responsible for their actions are encouraged to increase their level of aggression. In short, "crime pays" under STATE PROPERTY, and the biggest criminal of all is the State acting in the "public interest." This is precisely why the U.S. Government has grown from a relatively modest organization with limited power to the destructive and violent federal behemoth we have today. This has occurred in spite of the Bill of Rights and other checks and balances originally designed to prevent this. The existence of the State as the final authority on protection, law and commerce has inhibited the development of non-coercive alternatives. These alternatives must proceed, despite the State.
I have purposely avoided constitutional, statutory, administrative and judicial law as a basis for legitimate ownership of property. While these institutions often recognize limited forms of original NATURAL PROPERTY, they are fundamentally based on coercion. Therefore, NATURAL PROPERTY protected or enforced by these institutions becomes STATE PROPERTY. Alternative, non-coercive institutions need to be developed to protect NATURAL PROPERTY. The State will never serve this purpose, since its existence depends upon the denial of self-ownership and NATURAL PROPERTY.
If you agree with the NATURAL PROPERTY principles presented in this essay, you make the rules concerning your own property. You may decide whether your guests may smoke or drink, how they dress or set other conditions for their use of your property. You may exclude anyone you want from your property, for any reason. However, you may not apply these rules to the property of others without the owner's permission. This is the essence of NATURAL PROPERTY: complete control of your own property, with respect for others to control theirs. To deviate from this by using coercion is to become a primitive state.
The State is a remnant of man's primitive past. It is based on the same destructive force used by animals to kill each other for food, except that it does not have that excuse for committing its aggression. The State awards some people for their lack of responsibility by punishing others for their productive efforts. Despite this, victims of the State often perceive it as legitimate and beneficial because they don't realize its inherent destructiveness. A gross misunderstanding of property is largely responsible for this.
While the State often punishes creators of NATURAL PROPERTY, it attempts to protect owners of STATE PROPERTY. Most property experts in law, economics and politics concentrate on the differences between private and public property. Only a few recognize the difference between the concepts of NATURAL PROPERTY and STATE PROPERTY as defined and discussed in this essay. By allowing coercion as a basis for establishing, recognizing and protecting property, the State reinforces the perceived "legitimacy" of its own power. By passing off a 20 percent vote for "majority rule," the State defrauds Americans into believing that it represents all of them. Because of subsidized (but tentative) material comforts and public school indoctrination, most citizens do not question the irrational, contradictory idea of STATE PROPERTY. Critical and nontraditional thinking is not encouraged in the obedience factories we call public schools.
The essence of NATURAL PROPERTY is the concept that each person has exclusive control of his property, but no one else's. As we saw with Rothbard's comparison, the alternatives to this are slavery and socialism. By confusing the legitimate concept of NATURAL PROPERTY with the tyranny that is STATE PROPERTY, politicians, bureaucrats, powerful business leaders and other special interest groups hope to maintain their grip on a gullible public. Without sound, rational and critical thinking, many honest and intelligent people believe that the common, individual aggression of the petty thief is different than the legalized coercion of the State. Fundamentally, it is not. If it were not for an assortment of coercive laws, more non-coercive solutions to problems would be sought and achieved. As suggested by Alvin Toffler in The Third Wave, such changes are already occurring, despite the State.
This essay is an attempt to bring about a better understanding of NATURAL PROPERTY and its importance to those who are open-minded enough to listen. It is not intended to answer all questions and address all concerns or disagreement, but rather to lay a logical foundation for additional work and discussion. I hope readers of this essay will pursue the concept of NATURAL PROPERTY presented with their own critical thinking and further applications. Of particular importance is a re-examination of popular beliefs that may not withstand a reasoned critique.
While I have not addressed the implementation of more widespread acceptance of NATURAL PROPERTY here, I am convinced that a consistent philosophical basis must precede such implementation. I suspect that the most effective means of implementing NATURAL PROPERTY ideas will be through education, innovation, technology and ultimately, once a critical mass has been achieved, civil disobedience. As the ideas of John Locke inspired the founding fathers, I hope that this updated and expanded review of great freedom thinkers and their ideas will inspire others.
In 1988, U.S. President George Bush received 48,886,097 votes from a population of about 247,000,000 people. He was therefore elected by about 20 percent of the people over which his authority is commonly recognized. A similar analysis of congressmen elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1990 revealed total votes of 40,588,652 from a population of 248,700,000, or about 16 percent. In the 1992 presidential election, Bill Clinton was elected with a popular vote totaling 43,860,888 from an estimated population of 250,000,000. This is less than 18 percent.
Our Enemy The State, by Albert Jay Nock. San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes, 1992 (originally published in 1935). pp. 17-22.
This definition of the State is similar to that used for "government" by Morris and Linda Tannehill in their book, The Market for Liberty, (New York: Libertarian Review Foundation, 1984, p. 32; originally published in 1970). Their definition of "government" is: "... a coercive monopoly which has assumed power over and certain responsibilities for every human being within the geographical area which it claims as its own."
Some readers may object to the melting pot of property ownership implied by the definition of STATE PROPERTY. In particular, the lack of distinction between state-owned and privately-owned property may offend some advocates of free markets and private property. I fully realize that there are important differences between these two kinds of ownership. This is especially true with respect to the practical incentives and responsibilities involved with the stewardship and use of property such as real estate. However, for a philosophical comparison of the two general concepts of property described, this distinction is not important. Private property without coercion is legitimate; private property with coercion is not.
Nock, p. 20. See also For a New Liberty, by Murray Rothbard. MacMillan Publishing Company, 1978. pp. 63-64. See also Citadel, Market and Altar, by Spencer Heath. Baltimore: The Science of Society Foundation, Inc., 1957, p. 66.
Heath, p. 73.
Heath, p. 89.
9. Heath, p. 213.
Two Treatises of Government, by John Locke. New York: New American Library, 1965. pp. 328-329.
Locke, pp. 332-333.
Locke, p. 367.
Just Say "No" to Centralized Water Planning, by Craig Green. Golden, CO: The Independence Institute, paper no. 12-90, October 8, 1990. pp. 1-2.
The Philosophy of Ownership, by Robert LeFevre. Orange, CA: Pine Tree Press, 1985. p. 4.
Rothbard, pp. 28-29.
Rothbard, pp. 257-258.
Free to Choose, by Milton & Rose Friedman. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980. pp. 189-227.
Free Market Environmentalism, by Terry L. Anderson and Donald R. Leal. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991. pp 51-59.
Resolving the Tragedy of the Commons by Creating Private Property Rights in Wildlife, by Robert J. Smith. San Francisco: The Cato Institute. From The Cato Journal, Volume 1, Number 2. Fall 1981. pp. 439-468.
Anderson and Leal, pp. 121-132.
LeFevre, pp. 43-45.
The Third Wave, by Alvin Toffler. New York: William Morrow and Company, 1980. p. 26.
Toffler, p. 444
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com