Foundations of Private Property Society Theory: Anarchism for the Civilized Person [Paperback ed.] 1387615173, 9781387615179

Citation preview

FOUNDATIONS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY SOCIETY THEORY: ANARCHISM FOR THE CIVILIZED PERSON

By Robert Wenzel

Cover design by Thomas Rossini

Wenzel photo by SteveSimar.com

2

FOUNDATIONS OF

PRIVATE PROPERTY SOCIETY

THEORY: ANARCHISM FOR THE CIVILIZED PERSON

3

FOUNDATIONS OF

PRIVATE PROPERTY SOCIETY THEORY: ANARCHISM FOR THE CIVILIZED PERSON

Robert Wenzel

i

III III Bl I ■ ■

[Gallatin House

5

Copyright 2018 by Gallatin House LLC

All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner without written permission, except in the case of brief quotation embodied in critical articles and reviews. For information contact [email protected]. FIRST EDITION February 2018 ISBN 978-1-387-61517-9

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Wenzel, Robert Foundations of Private Property Theory/Robert Wenzel

Subject headings: Anarchy

Government Social policy Published by Gallatin House LLC 6

For Sourface

7

8

The world does simply not need governing; in fact, it should not be governed.

-Chuang Tzu (399 - 295 B.C.)

9

10

For upwards of two years from the commencement of the American war, and a longer period in several of the American states, there were no established forms of government. The old governments had been abolished, and the country was too much occupied in defense to employ its attention in establishing new governments; yet, during this interval, order and harmony were preserved as inviolate as in any country in Europe. There is a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it embraces a greater variety of abilities and resources, to accommodate itself to whatever situation it is in. The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security...

-Thomas Paine

11

12

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION

15

CHAPTER 1

19

THE NECESSITY OF GOVERNMENT IS A MYTH

29

CHAPTER 2

TYPES OF ANARCHISTS

33

CHAPTER 3 WHY SOCIETY? CHAPTER 4

37

THE PROBLEM WITH NATURAL RIGHTS

CHAPTERS

4

THE PROBLEM WITH UTILITARIANISM

45

CHAPTER 6

THE IMPORTANCE OF SUBJECTIVISM IN SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF GREAT CONFLICT IN A CIVIL SOCIETY CHAPTER 7

51

LAND PROPERTY CHAPTER 8

55

RULES BEYOND LAND PROPERTY RESPECT CHAPTER 9

57

CULTURE IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY SOCIETY

13

1

CHAPTER 10

63

CRIME RESOLUTION IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY SOCIETY CHAPTER 11

69

PUNISHMENT IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY SOCIETY

CHAPTER 12

75

POLICE PROTECTION IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY SOCIETY

79

CHAPTER 13

“NATIONAL” SECURITY IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY SOCIETY 85

CHAPTER 14

LAND DISTRIBUTION IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY SOCIETY

89

CHAPTER 15

ON PROMOTING A PRIVATE PROPERTY SOCIETY

97

CONCLUSION ENDNOTES

101

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

107

ABOUT ROBERT WENZEL

109

14

INTRODUCTION

This book will come as a shock to most. It advances the idea that no government is needed for a fully functioning civil society. Indeed, the point will be made in this book that governments hinder - rather than advance civil society.

The book may also come as a shock to those few who today favor a non-governmental society as it will reject both the natural rights and utilitarian justifications that are generally advanced for what I call a Private Property Society. And it will also reject the left-wing anarchist perspective. While my perspective is based significantly on the ideas developed by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard, and while I rely heavily on their important observations about society, my view at a foundational level differs from that of all three men.

My initial idea when considering writing a book on Private Property Society theory was to examine the thoughts of many thinkers beyond those of just Mises, Hayek and Rothbard. I had 15

planned to discuss for example, the ideas of John Locke, David Hume, Lysander Spooner, Karl Marx, Vilfredo Pareto, Max Weber, Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Rawls, Robert Nozick, John Hospers, Jane Jacobs, Karl Popper, Ayn Rand, Walter Block, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, James Buchanan and David Friedman, to name just some, and to give you a sense for the broad ambitious project I had in mind. However, the current state of world turmoil and a seeming global intensification of demands for various government interventions in society has led me to put my bigger project on hold. This much shorter work does little more than provide an outline of why in my view a Private Property Society is a sound idea and what it could look like.

Foremost, the idea behind a Private Property Society is a counterweight to these prevalent interventionist perspectives. And I believe this counterweight contains a sounder justification for a non-governmental society than those arguing for such from left-wing, natural rights or utilitarian perspectives. The notion that men must be ruled by other men and that the problem is one of how rulers should emerge, via a democracy, a republic, a 16

dictatorship, etc., is one that is also rejected here. But beyond this, even the idea that all men must live under the same law is rejected. Indeed, the idea that there is some specific method of divined society that will guide us all is rejected.

This book will take readers into uncharted waters, but it will guide readers into these waters in a logical step-by-step fashion. It is not a call for a new man on earth that somehow must change his fundamental characteristics. It is not a book that promotes the idea that there are predetermined stages to the history of man. It is not a book that denies evil exists in the world.

Rather, it is a perspective that recognizes the world as it is and merely says, “Hey look, we are currently putting the pieces to the puzzle of civilized man on earth together in this fashion, perhaps they will fit better if they are put together in this fashion.”

Robert Wenzel San Francisco February 2018 17

18

CHAPTER 1 THE NECESSITY OF GOVERNMENT IS A MYTH

The idea that a society could take hold in a civil fashion without the presence of a government is not a view held by most today. Indeed, the prevailing view is that without government, things would quickly turn into chaos and violence. But the idea that government is necessary is a myth. Upon deeper examination, non­ government entities - including police and “national” defense - can more efficiently provide services than governments currently provide. Later chapters will discuss non­ governmental police and defense. At this point it should simply be recognized it is possible that a lot of so-called government services are not as mandatory for a civilized society as generally believed. As an example, let’s review government role of police versus the role of residents in neighborhood safety. In any large city and many small towns, there are neighborhoods known as “good and safe” areas and other neighborhoods known as the “bad sections of 19

town.” Both areas are generally policed by the same police department, but the difference in safety in the two areas can be dramatic. It is not because of the police operating differently in the two sectors; it is because of the people living in the two areas. The police don’t provide complete security to either area. It is only the neighbors in the good part of town that provide a type of self-security. If it was really government police that provided complete protection, there would be no such things as good parts of town and bad parts.

Everyone knows that such different parts of town exist and most of us just stay away from the bad parts, especially late at night and in the very early morning hours before the great protector, the sun, rises for the day. But even in the good parts of town, it is generally not realized private protection’s crucial safety function. Doormen in large cities’ residential buildings are in the lobbies partly as a crime deterrent. Shopping malls and major office buildings maintain private security guards. And in our modern age, privately installed security cameras are spread throughout the land.

20

The economist Jane Jacobs observed as to how people on the street help bring safety to an area. It is what she called “eyes on the street”:

[E]yes belonging to those we might call the natural proprietors of the street. The buildings on a street equipped to handle strangers and to insure the safety of both residents and strangers must be oriented to the street. They cannot turn their backs or blank sides on it and leave it blind... [S]torekeepers and other small businessmen are typically strong proponents of peace and order themselves; they hate broken windows and holdups; they hate having customers made nervous about safety. They are great street watchers and sidewalk guardians if present in sufficient numbers.1

She even saw people out grabbing lunch as providing important safety: [T]he activity generated by people on errands, or people aiming for food or drink, is itself an attraction to still other people.

21

Good people going about their daily business help to create safety and protection in areas much more so than government police. On the “national” defense front, a government military is often used in an aggressive manner rather than for protection of the homeland. The United States military, for example, operates in many theaters around the globe that are more in line with an empire’s adventures than protecting the homeland. The US maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad.2

And it should not be forgotten that government nuclear bomb shelters are designed and available for high ranking members of the government, but not for the common man. There is no government protection for most of us against a horrific nuclear attack - only for the government that is allegedly protecting us. Outside of government officials, the only citizens safe from a nuclear attack are those who have built their own private bomb shelters.

After Hawaii recently issued a false intercontinental ballistic missile warning to its residents, a libertarian observer remarked,

22

“Well at least we know what the government is going to do when there is a nuclear attack headed our way. They are going to send us a text message.”3

In other words, not only is the necessity of government a myth but the idea that government protects us to any important degree is a myth. The streets are only protected if there are good people on them and the regular citizen will not be allowed in a government nuclear fortified bunker. It is not there to protect the average citizen. As for other government services, it requires some deep thinking to break out of the box that sees only government as a legitimate service provider in many sectors. Maintenance of roads and highways is something that many point to which they believe must be provided by government. But, there are plenty of examples today of private sector routes that are maintained without government support. Private sector multiple-level garages, hotel lobbies and mall strolling areas are all examples of passages that are provided without government assistance. No store would ever rent mall space if the owner didn’t guaranty access for customers. In 23

the same manner, no one would buy a house at a specific location in a private society if road access wasn’t provided as part of the package. The first roads, in fact, were privately owned.

Dr. Walter Block informs us Privately owned and operated turnpikes were the backbone of the highway network in England in the eighteenth century... The early American experience of private road building was entirely in keeping with England...4

Wooldridge provides details: From 1800 to 1830 private investment poured into thousands of miles of turnpikes in the United States... hundreds of turnpike companies built roads...

The history of the grandfather of all turnpike companies, the Philadelphia and Lancaster Turnpike corporation, chartered in 1792, has much in common with all the rest.5 Charity is another area where government proponents allege that government is 24

necessary. Former President Barack Obama is fond of saying that charity “is the neighborly thing to do.” But he is distorting charity with government welfare operations. Most people are not against helping a neighbor in a time of need. Whenever there is a hurricane, earthquake or some other disaster, people donate willingly of their own free will, even for people in far off lands. Private charity used to be the method to care for the downtrodden in the United States before government involvement began. The government’s current vast welfare system is not about helping those in need as much as it is a large vote buying scheme. The scheme is promoted Obama-style as helping neighbors precisely because people really want to help those down on their luck - politicians are masters at muddying the waters when they are doing one thing and making it look like they are doing another. It is the generosity and kindness of most people that politicians take advantage of with their vote buying schemes when they claim they are running needed charity work.

Indeed, government charity may be a great negative.

25

Murray Rothbard wrote: Since welfare families are paid proportionately to the number of their children, the system provides an important subsidy for the production or more children. Furthermore, the people being induced to have more children are precisely those who can afford it least; the result can only be to perpetuate their dependence on welfare, and, in fact, to develop generations who are permanently dependent on the welfare dole.6

Thomas Sowell has made the same point: The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.7

Ludwig von Mises makes the further point: It is highly probable that the funds of the charitable institutions would be sufficient in the capitalist countries if interventionism were not to sabotage 26

the essential institutions of the market economy... The greater part of those assisted by charitable institutions are needy only because interventionism has made them so.8

And so, we can make a strong case that government does not do what it says it is doing. Government’s very structure aims to protect and expand its operations, while pushing the propaganda that it provides necessary services that would otherwise be impossible without its existence. But what is the alternative? How can we have a better society, a non-governmental society that doesn’t turn into a wild west shootout?9 Who are the anarchists that call for the abolition of government? What are their ideas?

27

28

CHAPTER 2 TYPES OF ANARCHISTS

One definition of anarchy is that it is simply the absence of government.10 This is a good working definition to begin to understand the different types of anarchist movements that exist and where the Private Property Society fits in on the spectrum of anarchist groups. One current group of anarchists are not only in favor of the collapse of government but the entire current societal structure, including private property. Their view is expressed at Crime Inc. They are not only against government but against capitalism and even money.

The foundation of capitalism is property rights - another social construct we inherited from kings and aristocrats. Property shifts hands more rapidly today, but the concept is the same: the idea of ownership legitimizes the use of violence to enforce artificial imbalances in access to land and resources... Without money or property rights, our relationships to things would be

29

determined by our relationships with each other.11

This type of anarchist thinking can best be described as destructionist. Not only are these anarchists against government, but they also oppose even peaceful, private independent exchanges that exist in a society, such as the exchange of goods and services for money. But, without a medium of exchange (money) and respect for property rights, it is difficult to see how such a society would advance beyond the subsistence level. The economist Percy Greaves wrote on Ludwig von Mises’ thoughts on money:

Money is an indispensable factor in the development of the division of labor and the resulting indirect exchanges on which modern civilization is based.12 Without money, a society would be reduced to the primitivism of barter. This may appear attractive as we now sit and read printed books in lighted, heated homes in the winter and airconditioned homes in the summer - all the result of the division of labor. But without the division of labor (only possible with money), life would be, as Thomas Hobbes wrote, “poor,

30

nasty, brutish, and short.”13 (For more on the division of labor, see Chapter 3.) Another group of anarchists, left-wing anarchists, are best labeled socialist-anarchists. They desire an end to government but seek socialist rules of order in its place. Thus, it is a self-contradicting philosophy. A new set of socialist rules applicable to all is simply a different governmental structure, not the elimination of government.

There are also libertarian anarchists who follow the lead of the great libertarian social philosopher and economist Murray Rothbard, who advocated what he called an anarcho­ capitalist structure. This is a structure without government but that also embraces a capitalist system. Rothbard justified his perspective on natural rights grounds. But here again, as with the socialism, if there is an overarching set of rules for a society - whether based on natural laws or socialist perspectives - this is just a different, subtle governmental structure, but not the elimination of government. While there is much that is attractive in Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalist structure, especially its support of capitalism, the weakness is its integration with natural rights 31

law that presumably everyone must universally recognize.

The alternative to the anarcho-capitalist system is the Private Property Society, where respect for private property is the only anchor and no rules are set for any property... other than the rules set by the property owner. The PPS is, in an important sense, the only consistent anarchist view that supports no governing body, no overarching laws based on socialism, the theory of natural laws, utilitarianism or anything else. At its foundation, it is about respect for private property and that is all. The remainder of this book is about the foundations of a Private Property Society, a non-government society where truly no one makes grand rules for anyone.

32

CHAPTER 3 WHY SOCIETY?

Before we examine the attractiveness of a Private Property Society, we should first ask what is society and why do we want a society?

The Oxford Dictionary defines society as:

the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community14 This leads to the question, why do almost all people choose to live in a society rather than isolated from others, as hermits? The answer is, of course, that most people believe they benefit from living in a society. Most people enjoy the friendships and general interaction that are available in a society. Economics teaches us that the division of labor available through societal co-operation increases the general standard of living.

The economist Murray Rothbard writes:

No one, for example, can become a creative physicist on a desert island or in a primitive society. For, as an economy grows, the range of choice open to the producer and to the consumer proceeds to multiply greatly. Furthermore, only a society with a standard of living considerably higher than subsistence can afford to devote much of its resources to improving knowledge and 33

to developing a myriad of goods and services above the level of brute subsistence. But there is another reason that full development of the creative powers of each individual cannot occur in a primitive or undeveloped society, and that is the necessity for a wideranging division of labor. No one can fully develop his powers in any direction without engaging in specialization. The primitive tribesman or peasant, bound to an endless round of different tasks in order to maintain himself, could have no time or resources available to pursue any particular interest to the full. He had no room to specialize, to develop whatever field he was best at or in which he was most interested. Two hundred years ago, Adam Smith pointed out that the developing division of labor is a key to the advance of any economy above the most primitive level.

A necessary condition for any sort of developed economy, the division of labor is also requisite to the development of any sort of civilized society. The philosopher, the scientist, the builder, the merchant—none could develop these skills or functions if he had had no scope for specialization.

Furthermore, no individual who does not live in a society enjoying a wide range of division of labor can possibly employ his powers to the fullest. He 34

cannot concentrate his powers in a field or discipline and advance that discipline and his own mental faculties. Without the opportunity to specialize in whatever he can do best, no person can develop his powers to the full; no man, then, could be fully human.15 Notice here that in the discussion of friendships, general interaction and the division of labor, no argument is made that there is a “natural right” to such. Indeed, it is acknowledged that while most seem to be attracted to friendships, general interactions and the benefits of the division of labor, there may be some who prefer the hermit life. Thus, even the utilitarian argument, in the objective sense - that something is good for the greatest number - is not used here to explain why societies form.

Societies form precisely because almost all view the societal form of life as attractive and preferable - and yet there can be outlier individuals who reject such a life. But the key is that those who do participate in society do it from an individualistic perspective. That is, they do it because they prefer living in society rather than the hermit life, since if they preferred the hermit life they would adopt that form of living.

35

36

CHAPTER 4 THE PROBLEM WITH NATURAL RIGHTS The idea of natural rights has a long history. Elements of the concept date back to ancient Greek philosophy, the Roman philosopher Cicero and in the Middle Ages by Catholic philosophers such as Albert the Great and his pupil Thomas Aquinas. The 17th-century English philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work.16

However, there is a problem with the natural rights perspective. Indeed, it is difficult to understand how the idea of natural rights is nothing but a statement without a logical progression of the sort “this is part of nature, therefore this.”

In attempting to justify the idea of natural rights, John Locke writes:

[E]very man has a property in his own person. Thus nobody has any right to but himself.17 But where is the causal link here that because a man has a property in his own person that therefore this should not be taken away from him by someone else?

It is certainly attractive for most of us to think that we have a property in our own person in such a manner that nobody has a right to take control of our person. But is this desire a logical conclusion from observed fact? 37

That slaves have existed on this planet shows that this “natural right” to one’s own person can be overruled. And there are plenty of people living under kings and dictators who will tell you that there is nothing natural about natural rights.

Can a right with the potential to be overruled be considered a fact the way, say, that water is composed of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen is a fact? The same slave owner, king or dictator who can overrule natural rights of individuals cannot overrule what is a true scientific fact, such as water is made up of a certain combination of elements or that the earth revolves around the sun. As Henry Hazlitt writes

The term Natural Rights like the term Natural Law is in some respects unfortunate. It has helped to perpetuate a mystique which regard such rights having existed since the beginning of time; as having been handed down from heaven as being simple self-evident, and easily stated; as even being independent of the human will, independent of consequences inherent in the nature of things...18 Because the declaration of natural rights is nothing more than a statement of what is desirable by a given person or group, rather than founded in logical fashion from an observation about the nature of the world, the idea of natural rights can go off in many directions. 38

Ludwig von Mises writes: There is... no such thing as natural law and a perennial standard of what is just and what is unjust. Nature is alien to the idea of right and wrong. “Thou shalt not kill” is certainly not part of natural law. The characteristic feature of natural conditions is that one animal is intent upon killing other animals and that many species cannot preserve their own life except by killing others. The notion of right and wrong is a human device, a utilitarian precept designed to make social cooperation under the division of labor possible.... From the notion of natural law some people deduce the justice of the institution of private property in the means of production. Other people resort to natural law for the justification of the abolition of private property in the means of production. As the idea of natural law is quite arbitrary, such discussions are not open to settlement.19

The items that others have put on the list of natural rights seems never ending. The declaration of human rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948 states that everyone has the right to rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours, including holidays with pay.

The 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women requires State parties to ensure women the 39

right to “enjoy adequate living conditions, particularly in relation to [...] water supply.” In the current day, we also see statements that there is a right to education, housing, non­ discrimination, a “living” wage, medical care and freedom from verbal attack. In October 2009, Finland’s Ministry of Transport and Communications announced that every person in Finland would have the right to internet access.

Because it is impossible to identify a specific element of nature and deductively determine what is a right (and what is not), the rights argument becomes a trap. It is a train that can stop frequently and anywhere. It is about wishes, desires and opinions. Since there is no-logical foundation for identifying natural rights, natural rights set up the potential for serious conflict. One group declares A is a natural right, while another declares B and C are natural rights but not A. Anyone calling on “rights” to demand specific action of his fellow man is using a weapon that can be turned against him. It is a boomerang bomb that soars through non-logical thin air.

40

CHAPTER 5 THE PROBLEM WITH UTILITARIANISM

The most popular, generally advanced alternative to the natural rights justification for a civil society is utilitarianism. Turning once again to the Oxford Dictionary The dictionary states that utilitarianism is:

The doctrine that an action is right in so far as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.

But, of course the greatest happiness of the greatest number is simply the tyranny of majority rule. It is certainly not the society someone would want to live in who may have tastes, desires and views that are not generally popular. And this assumes that we can, in the first place, measure happiness to know what civil society rule will be the rule that promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Murray Rothbard raises some further problems with utilitarianism:

[TJhis doctrine is hardly scientific and by no means value-free. For one thing, why the “greatest number”? Why is it ethically better to follow the wishes of the greater as against the lesser number? What’s so good about the “greatest number”? Suppose that the 41

vast majority of people in a society hate and revile redheads, and greatly desire to murder them; and suppose further that there are only a few redheads extant at any time. Must we then say that it is “good” for the vast majority to slaughter redheads? And if not, why not? At the very least, then, utilitarianism scarcely suffices to make a case for liberty and laissez-faire... Secondly, what is the justification for each person counting for one? Why not some system of weighting? This, too, seems to be an unexamined and therefore unscientific article of faith in utilitarianism.20

The great problem here is that utilitarianism sets up, just like natural rights theory, the potential for great conflict. This will be most observable when a society is split roughly 50/50 on an issue. Because victory of one group over another means that the desires of one large group will be denied. It may result in methods used to attempt to achieve victory that can be very aggressive, malicious, Machiavellian and even violent if each side strongly desires its (conflicting) goal to be the law of the land. The displeasure will be less visible when a small minority does not gain influence on an issue or issues but the unhappiness with the situation remains for such a minority7. Such small minority groups may not really go along but may just correctly believe they do not have

42

the sufficient strength in numbers to directly battle the outcome. Thus, whether we are considering a natural rights solution or a utilitarian solution, edicts are made that will interfere with the freedoms and desires of some.

Is there some other alternative which can eliminate many of the conflicts that are part of the structures of a natural rights society and a utilitarian society? That is the subject of the next chapter.

43

44

CHAPTER 6 THE IMPORTANCE OF SUBJECTIVISM IN SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF GREAT CONFLICT IN A CIVIL SOCIETY “It is probably no exaggeration to say that every important advance in economic theory during the last hundred years was a further step in the consistent application of subjectivism.” -F.A. Hayek Subjectivism in the sense that I use it as a starting point in this chapter (subjectivist economics) was well defined by Percy Greaves:

Subjectivist economics: Economics based on the theory that the value of goods is not inherent in the goods themselves but is in the minds of acting men; that economic value is a matter of individual judgement which may vary from person to person and for the same person from time to time.21 The Nobel Prize winning economist F.A. Hayek, as the quote at the start to this chapter reveals, considered the consistent application of subjectivism in economic theory extremely important. Can subjectivism applied to social theory be as important? Is it possible that attempting to find laws, natural or utilitarian, that apply to all is barking up the wrong tree, so to speak? Is it possible to argue that a good societal structure could form that does not seek out grand laws that apply to everyone? 45

Is it possible that a society could be formed where individuals subjectively set their own rules? Can we apply subjectivism to the theory of civil society to advance the notion that a society based on the recognition of individuals’ subjective desires is the best society for most of us? And can we reach this conclusion not via a utilitarian framework, where we claim that such a structure is best for us, but via a subjective methodological individualist approach, where individually we say, “This type of society would be good for me”? My answers to all these questions are a full throated “Yes.”

David Gordon, a student of Hayek, tells us: [Hayek] was keen to stress methodological individualism, the view that only individuals act. References to collectives such as nations and classes that act must in principle be capable of being reduced to individuals’ actions....

Methodological individualism, as Hayek taught it, went together with subjectivism. To explain social phenomena, one had to start from the preferences and perceptions of individual actors.22 The problem with natural rights theory and utilitarian theory7 is that they both attempt to impose order from above. That is, in some manner, someone makes rules (allegedly discerned) that must all must obeyed by all. They break Hayek’s rule that to explain social phenomena we must start with individual 46

actors, with methodological individualism, with subjectivism.

We all have our own subjective values. We most certainly will not be happy with all the rules imposed on us by others. Coercion will be the result to keep us in line with whatever rules a ruling body sets, be it a congress, a parliament, a direct majority rule society, a king, a dictator, etc.

Ina region, a large group of individual actors may support a government, but this is much different than saying that the rules are in some sense natural and predetermined. If it is individual actors that support a governing body then it is possible for those individual actors to pull support from such a governing body. Some societies with a governing body may be less oppressive than others, but the fundamental foundation of a society with a governing body that sets rules is some type of oppression of individuals to the demands of the rule makers.

Governmental rule must, by its very nature, lead to grand conflicts. Mises once said:

The worst thing that can happen to a socialist is to have his country ruled by socialists who are not his friends.23 It may not be such a large jump to say:

The worst thing that can happen to a government advocate is to have his

47

country ruled by government officials who are not his friends.

Is there a way to get around this government problem? The answer is yes, if we begin to understand that we all live on this tiny planet together and that fundamentally there are only two ways to go about surviving with the other roughly 7.5 billion people on this planet. We can either act like thugs and fight and steal to get what we want, or we can enter into exchange and co­ operation.

If we go the thuggish route, there are a few problems. Others are going to fight back. Others will hide what they have in their possession and others are not going to willingly co-operate with us. On the other hand, if we come with goods and services and offer them in exchange for other goods and services, we will generally be welcome with open arms. Less battles, more goods and services. This is the route most of us have chosen. Indeed, it is because of the decision for most to co-operate that we have a vast, complex economy that makes available all sorts of goods and services. But once we have made things and provided services and have acquired things and received services in exchange, we will want to store the things we have made and acquired.

Do we really want to lug things around and lay them down in a different place every night or 48

would it be better to find a place where we would store things that we could return to every evening? It would allow us the ability to control more than what we can just carry and free us from lugging things around all day.

This problem of what to do with things is not a problem limited to us; the problem is pretty much universal. And so, it could be wise for each one of us as individuals to agree with others that we should allow each of us to control our own property and not bother the other on his property. This is not because of some natural law or natural rights. It is not because of some utilitarian declaration that this will be good for the most, but rather from our own subjective view where we say individually: “Hey, I need a place to put my things and so do the other people around me. I’ll cut a deal with them. They leave my property alone and I will leave their property alone.” And thus, a Private Property Society is born. No one makes rules on my property as to what I can and can’t do. I am left alone. And I will leave others alone on their property.

Of course, over time, trading can occur where I turn my property over to another for cash, goods, services or another property, on a temporary or permanent basis, but this is all within the general trading and exchange that can occur in a Private Property Society.

I hasten to add that this kind of society could not exist without a general recognition by most in a region that such a private property society made sense to live in. And such a society could 49

handle any occasional thug or other criminal who happened to attempt to violate the general respect for property.

50

CHAPTER 7 LAND PROPERTY My emphasis on land property in the last chapter should not suggest that I do not consider recognition of all types of property an important factor in advancing society, but rather that land property holds a special place. In addition to supplying a place to hold other goods we have accumulated, a regular space we can return to and close our eyes at night seems to be inherent in our nature. Indeed, those of us who wander the streets of major cities late at night can spot the same homeless individuals in the same spots each night. These individuals choose the same spots because they perhaps feel safe in the same spots and sleeping in the same spots eliminates the necessity of every night having to look for a new place to sleep.

At a very basic level, the homeless person who sleeps in the same spot every night is signaling the value individuals put on land property even by those who may not have any physical belongings.

Certainly, as we consider those beyond the homeless stage, the significance of land property becomes even more important. It is a necessity if we want to build a home, have a family, have a group of workers and computers and machinery that meet at the same place every day.

I rush here to add that the land property we use daily may not be owned by us, but merely 51

rented from a landowner. From a fundamental Private Property Society perspective, land ownership would remain respected, but it could be assigned over to another for a limited period and under certain conditions or via a complete permanent transfer. The key here is general respect by people of land property as the fundamental instrument to keep peace and freedom. The world is a very complex place and individuals have all sorts of views on religion, culture and so on. To demand that all others globally or in a region respect and follow the tenants of a specific religion or culture on their property is to immediately set up conflict. Respect for land property as a fundamental principle of respect is a way to move away from this conflict. It says, “Do whatever you choose on your property. Honor any gods you choose to honor (or none at all). Set any rules you choose on your property. I will respect your property boundaries and in turn I only ask that you respect my property boundaries and allow me to honor any gods I choose on my property (or none at all) and set any rules I choose on my property.” It is “live and let live” at the land property level.

A society that generally adopts a PPS perspective is a society that has taken a giant step towards a structure that will promote a great and general freedom, but this does not mean a society must have no other rules. Respect for the allowance of an individual to do what he chooses on his property and to set the rules for his property does not mean a given 52

group of individuals may not set other rules for their properties. The respect for land property is simply a first step, but a very important step in eliminating much conflict.

53

54

CHAPTER 8 RULES BEYOND LAND PROPERTY RESPECT Certainly, all societies will want to set up some rules beyond respect for private land property. In a PPS, this would occur by like-minded individuals adopting similar rules on their properties. Respect of land property should be considered an umbrella, under which others can set up their own rules on their own properties or groups of properties. If some individuals desire to live in a socialist community, the PPS supporter should have no objection to this as long as the individuals are not attempting to impose their socialist views on those who live on tracts of property where individuals do not choose to live under socialism.

That said, a libertarian society appears to be the best society to live under. It is essentially a society where the non-aggression principle (NAP) is the fundamental law.

Dr. Walter Block has provided the best definition of the NAP. Note, he calls it an axiom rather than a principle because of his natural rights position, rather than from the extreme subjectivist perspective of the PPS: The non-aggression [principle] ...is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not 55

initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another. That is, in the free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms. Thus, there would be no victimless crime prohibitions, price controls, government regulation of the economy, etc.24 But a libertarian-NAP society would be just one form of society that might emerge on some (or all) properties in a PPS. Anything else would be allowed on any other properties. The PPS is simply a method that would allow libertarians (and others) to be left alone to live under the rules they choose to live under. It is not an attempt to force the world under one set of rules as determined by majority rule, a king or a dictator. It would be a great advance from the current situation where battles, killings and political intrigue are used to gain power over wide swaths of people.

The PPS is about removing power and thus battles for power.

56

CHAPTER 9 CULTURE IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY SOCIETY Beyond respect for land property and the general rules in a given society, one may ask what about culture?

There is no conflict here with the PPS. A given society can respect land property boundaries, adopt the libertarian NAP and still add further rules on the properties of its societal members. They can demand that only individuals of a certain religious group, ethnic group, individuals without children, etc. use their land. On the other hand, there could easily be a given society that respects land property boundaries, adopts the NAP and allows all comers, regardless of religion, ethnicity or anything else. Remember, the PPS is about eliminating conflict by allowing people to do as they please on their property, without forcing them to live by someone else’s rules, regardless of how much we object to the way they live on their property. The trade-off is that no one bothers us on our property.

What’s more, although we should expect that in a PPS many would congregate in sub-societies with more specific rules and likely with similar people living next to each other, the PPS would allow for anyone to live his own life on his own property with his own rules.

57

Thus, it is an error to argue that at the the umbrella Private Property Society top level, where respect for private property is the only guide, there must be a specific culture beyond respect for private property that must be observed by all. Cultures can be good or bad, but to demand a certain type of culture must be accompanied at the top PPS level or even the libertarian non-aggression principle sub-level is to introduce an unnecessary point of conflict. A conflict that somehow must have winners and losers, that is, oppressors and the oppressed. It requires an adoption of rules beyond respect for private property and the non-aggression principle.

Certainly, it is not difficult to conceive that under the umbrella of the PPS, we have a libertarian non-aggression subset that then is broken down into further subsets under the libertarian non-aggression subset. But, there is no reason to cry out and demand that all live under certain specific rules of culture. This would be a violation of PPS where we allow others to do as they choose on their own property.

There are many who now call themselves anarcho-capitalists, that is those who believe there should be no government, but who fail in fully advocating an anarcho-capitalist society because of their demands for a certain culture as a necessary part of anarcho-capitalism. Not all anarcho-capitalists hold that a certain culture must accompany an anarcho-capitalist society but those who do are limited government advocates, that is, conflict 58

creators, if they demand that all must respect a specific culture on all properties. You can call a group that overrides full respect for private property by many names, but in the end, if it is some sort of over-ruling body it is some type of government. It may be advocacy for an extremely limited culture rules, but it is still an advocacy for some sort of ruling body. People who believe such an over-ruling body is necessary should realize this. They are not hilly anti-government in the sense that they do not want any rules placed on individuals. The fears that most hold about a non­ government society, specifically a Private Property Society, even when viewed from a culture perspective are unjustified. We must keep in mind what was discussed in Chapter 1, “The Necessity of Government is a Myth”. Despite the supposed protection of government, for the most part we protect ourselves and our children by staying away from danger. It is a myth that government protects us from danger. If government was the key driver of protection of person and property, locks on doors wouldn’t exist, nor would babysitters. Anyone who demands an overarching dictate of what amounts to some type of cultural “protection” on all private property, regardless of the property owner’s desires, can’t possibly believe that we protect ourselves. They, to at least a minor degree, buy into the idea that government protects. It is an extremely dangerous notion, since one can think of many government rules that can be made to protect 59

us all, starting with rules to “protect children” and, say, the low IQ, the handicapped and so forth. And once we accept that government is a necessity, then the slippery slope begins. The propertarian25 rejects this. For the propertarian, it is at the core of PPS that each person be left alone on his property. A second foundational concept of the PPS is based on the idea that people are capable of taking care of themselves (and their children) and that there is no need for over-ruling bodies. It is the observation of the propertarian that the actions of over-ruling bodies, despite possibly initial good intentions, turn evil. The danger with creating a central power is that it creates a focal point that can be corrupted and attempted to be controlled. There are differences in what people desire and setting up one set of rules for all results in conflict. It results in attempts to gain control of the power setting regime and we are once again left to keep in mind the paraphrased warning of Mises:

The worst thing that can happen to a government advocate is to have his country ruled by government officials who are not his friends. The message of the PPS advocate to the world should be that central powers are extremely dangerous, and that Lord Acton was very right when he warned power corrupts. We really protect ourselves. Creating any central power, even on cultural questions, is creating a seed that has always led to great death—hundreds of millions of deaths.26 60

A PPS advocate would simply say. ’’Fine, if you want to recognize and enforce Catholic Canon Law, Islamic Sharia law, the Jewish Halakha, be a hippie free spirit or have any other laws on your property go for it.” But the PPS advocate would recoil in horror at the idea that a set of laws, irrespective of how they developed, must apply to all properties.

Such a society with outside laws applying everywhere would not be a non-governmental society. It would be pretty much what we have now, people butting into the actions of those who are minding their own business on their own property. Some will demand warning signs from barking dogs, some will demand smoking bans, some will demand punishment for “offensive” speech, some will demand that young men be drafted to fight and kill and be willing to die. Where does it stop? Who will make the rules for all? Isn’t a private property society preferable, where one can make one’s own rules for one’s own property?

61

62

CHAPTER io CRIME RESOLUTION IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY SOCIETY

There are plenty of reasons not to lie, cheat, steal, injure and kill and there are plenty of reasons to protect oneself from those who lie, cheat, steal, injure and kill. But how does one do this in a PPS?

A Private Property Society would not be a form of the wild west where anything would go almost everywhere. Just because there is no “government law” or “natural right” to protect someone doesn’t mean that most people are going to allow aberrant behavior on their property. There is no reason to divine what is “inherently wrong” or debate “positive obligations” in a PPS. The owner sets the rules for his property - any way he wants. To be sure, there could be areas where all kinds of criminal nut jobs roam, but sane people are just going to stay out of these dangerous “bad areas” just like the way they stay out of dangerous “bad areas” now. We as individuals, even now, consider where it is safe to travel and where it is not. It would be no different in a PPS. Good people would congregate around other good people. How this would work in a PPS is not complicated to grasp once we think outside the box of current government operations. There is no need for a government to determine for all 63

what is a “violation” of some abstract guideline and what is not. Each property owner in a PPS gets to set his own rules, which over time would likely result in some degree of rough uniformity in many regions. The key difference between a PPS and a government set of laws is that in a PPS each property owner gets to determine his own rules. This means that if he so chooses he can base his rules on what he thinks is “inherently” right or wrong, a religious code, on “positive obligations” or phases of the moon for that matter. The key being that no other property owner would be required to honor such laws on his own property and that others will stay away from properties where they view the rules as oppressive, dangerous or even just unclear. It should be emphasized that there may be some yahoos who have some insane rules for their properties. Where the rules and punishments are dangerous, most of us would simply avoid those areas. To think, however, that government or some over-ruling cultural values must have power over all private property is the first step away from freedom. And once we take a step in that direction, it is very difficult to reverse because most have a pet law or cultural value that they want to see instituted on all property. And then the battles begin: Which rules, which laws, which cultural values should be imposed on everyone?

Freedom is always about moving toward a PPS.

But let us think more about the individual that has crazy rules. Indeed, this is going to result in 64

one of most controversial discussions in this book, but it is applying PPS consistently.

Let us consider the most horrific underlying case under a PPS and what would consistency would mean here. We can highlight such a case in the form of a question: “Should we have an outside body institute some sort of rules or regulations to protect us against the Crazy Harry’s of the world when they have crazed outlier rules for their property? Where they shoot to kill a simple lost trespasser on their property?”

The consistent propertarian must answer that if we are going to adopt the boundaries of property as the only rule and respect the rules set by anyone on their property, then we should not call for an over-riding rule to cancel a given individual’s rules on his property. A propertarian can certainly proclaim a rule insane, even warn others about the rule. But the minute we institute a regulation over all private property, we have moved beyond the Private Property Society into a world of government where a man is no longer free to set his own rules and do as he pleases on his own land. Of course, it is terrible that Crazy Harry would shoot either a trespasser for failing to heed to a bizarre regulation or, say a child for stealing an apple. But we would just keep potential trespassers and children far away from such an individual’s property, the way we now do not let four-year old’s roam alone on highways or alone in bad sections of town. The minute we start imposing rules on an individual’s property 65

we are moving in the direction of government, which sets up conflicts and has resulted - I emphasize once again - in the deaths of hundreds of millions.

To avoid the fear of a potential crazed outlier that can be easily avoided, and call for a specific structure of society beyond respect for property (that is, government rules), that has definitively led to deaths and deaths and deaths and more deaths is an error of looking at the specific as opposed to the general. Recently in New York City, a three-year old child playing with a stove caused a horrific fire where 12 died.27 It was the worst death toll by fire in New York City in 25 years. But no one will call for the banning of all stoves because of the tragedy. It is recognized as an extreme outlier event. The world we live in is far from perfect, but to introduce the great killer government because of extreme outlier events is to suffer from pathological altruism, that is blindness to logic of the best way to act despite a specific event.28 We live in a world of disequilibrium where all facts are not known to us in advance. To attempt to design the world as though we know in advance all possibilities leads to the most horrific totalitarian states. It must because the only way you can even attempt to control masses of people is by making all kinds of rules that limit all kinds of activity. Hayek called it a fatal conceit to think we can plan the entire world.29 66

Most people do recognize this on one level on a daily basis. That’s why people get into cars every day even though death occurs to people in cars. It’s why people get on planes even though planes crash. Should we have a governmental rule that says no cars and no planes are allowed because there are deaths? Of course not.

Indeed, some people die every year by falling out of bed.30 Should we have a governmental rule that bans beds? Should we ban all mushroom picking because someone may not be aware what is a poisonous mushroom and pick it?

We cannot eliminate risk from the world, even when totalitarians attempt to ban almost all activities - and what a “life” that would be with so many bans.

Now, let’s return to the far-out possibility of a Crazy Harry, who has crazy rules. A new person to the area wanders onto the property and breaks one of Crazy Harry’s rules, resulting in Harry killing the person. That would be just as terrible of a death as automobile accidents, plane crashes and mushroom poisonings. But we must ask, what is the alternative to this incredible stretch of how a person could die in aPPS?

And the answer is rules overriding private property. That is, some form of government that sets rules for all properties, thus overriding the freedom of an individual on his own private property. 67

Thus, the question becomes: To prevent the one off-the-wall death that hypothetically might occur, a death seemingly less likely to occur than from an automobile accident or a person eating a poisonous mushroom, do we want to install a government- structured society that has resulted in hundreds of millions dead? A form of society where, as Hayek pointed out in Chapter 10 of the Road to Serfdom, the worst get on top31. Do we really need to be reminded that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were all government men, government leaders? If we ever end up with a PPS, do we really want to overthrow it for a form of society that has been led by such monsters? This planet we live on is a very harsh place. Using our minds, we cannot end all harshness but only attempt to structure things in a manner to minimize the harshness. Given the nature of our planet, anyone can point out that a form of society may result in bad, outlier outcomes. The real question becomes the comparative question of the economist, “The harshness of the PPS compared to what?”

It seems a great folly to promote a society that moves in a direction away from PPS and toward a society that overrules private property respect and has brought us true monsters via the government structure.

68

CHAPTER 11 PUNISHMENT IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY SOCIETY

The next question that must be addressed is how do we derive punishment theory in a Private Property Society? The first answer is that any property owner could set any punishment rules on his property that he chooses. Most of us would then just avoid areas that set where draconian punishments were set or where the punishment was unclear and perhaps dangerous. This would not be much different under the libertarian subsection under the PPS umbrella. The libertarian Murray Rothbard has argued32 that in a libertarian society, punishment should be “proportional.” There are other libertarians who have adopted Rothbard’s suggestion and have argued that the penalty in a libertarian society should be an eye for an eye, while others suggest it should be two eyes for an eye. But, these suggestions violate subjective value theory, and Rothbard’s initial suggestion also violates subjective value theory. An outsider can’t possibly know what will satisfy a victim of a non-aggression principle violation. Only a victim can judge what he values as a sufficient penalty in terms of compensation and deterrence for further NAP violations against him.

Thus, in a Libertarian-Private Property Society, the default rules of the property owner where 69

an event took place would be supreme. This framework would not be inconsistent with “set your own rules on your own property,” since there are no objective measures of compensation for NAP violations, only subjective ones.33 This is not as alarming as it sounds. Few would dare enter a wild west area, where no one stipulates penalty codes in advance. I suspect what would occur in a libertarian-PPS is that property owners would stipulate that they operate under an XYZ penalty code. That is, different penalty codes would develop and an owner could choose to recognize a certain set.

But the rules would be civil, except for outliers that everyone would avoid - just the way we avoid bad areas now. In the great general arena, things would be civilized. No one is going to enter a Macy’s retail store if the penalty for accidentally knocking over a vase in one of their stores is death by beheading. Each property owner would establish a penalty code, either a generally recognized set of penalty codes, or his own independent code. There would be no fear of outrageous penalties under these situations because if people wanted to interact with others, they must have “reasonable” penalty codes, but they would still be in line with their own subjective values. Of course, in these situations it would also benefit most property owners to post and otherwise let others know what penalty codes are in operation and enforced on their properties. 70

Though there would be no requirement to post punishment codes, since you can do whatever you want on your property in a PPS, including not posting punishments. Still, there could be wild west areas, but most would stay away from these areas, just like most women alone, wearing short skirts and expensive jewelry would stay off the streets of San Francisco’s Tenderloin or Cologne, Germany at 3:00 A.M.

In general, in the greater libertarian-PPS society, reasonableness would win because people wouldn’t enter, from their perspective, unreasonable areas with extreme or unclear punishment risks. It is just that none of us can say for anyone else, as an outsider, what reasonableness is for everyone in every case.

Thus, an outsider cannot determine the penalty for a violation of NAP. An outsider, just as we do now, must be aware of where he travels and where it is dangerous. We know now, for example, the countries and areas where terrorists roam where an American would be grabbed off the streets. Regarding children, there is no parent who is going to let a child near a situation where penalties are not disclosed (and reasonable), in the same way that no parent now lets a 3-yearold girl wander alone on the streets of the bad section of town at 3:00 AM. In other words, there is an underlying trust of free markets in a PPS, even when it comes to punishment. People are not going to expose themselves to dangerous situations. Again, the

alternative is government which has resulted in many examples of horrific situations where millions and millions have been killed.

As far as “proportionality” in punishment, what exactly does this mean? Let’s take the example of two eyes for an eye. What happens if the blind singer Stevie Wonder pokes someone’s eye out? Does that mean that the victim only gets to poke out the eyes of the blind Stevie Wonder? How is that proportional? There is simply no way that anyone outside of the victim can tell us when the victim feels sufficient compensation for a NAP violation. The victim must demonstrate his compensation parameters based on the property rules of the property he is on, be it his own property or the property of another that he chooses to be on. Macy’s is not going to have a policy of torturing someone who drops a product on the floor. Who would go to Macy’s under those conditions? Reasonableness will develop in a private property society but free exchange driven reasonableness, not decrees from on high.

The idea of “proportionality” suggests some type of objective perspective. There is no such thing. Let us look at a few more examples. Suppose someone destroys the only picture I have of my dead grandmother who was very important to me. Who but me could determine adequate punishment?

72

Suppose three men are intentionally hit by a car and all three end up with paralyzed right legs. One of the men is a couch potato, one is a young man that used to love to play pick-up basketball and the third is basketball superstar LeBron James. Is there a right answer to “proportional punishment” for intentionally causing paralysis of a right leg?

It could very well be the young man who liked to play pick-up basketball lost the most. Maybe Lebron has enough money and was pretty much sick of playing and this gave him an excuse to stop. You can’t measure proportionality objectively. It is not an objective fact. As for dangerous areas of insane rules and punishment, in this day and age it is not inconceivable to think apps would emerge for our cellphones, warning if we are about to enter a private property area with hazy or dangerous rules or hazy or dangerous punishment. □

As for culture (beyond recognition of the PPS), it could very well play a role in a Private Property Society, but not in the manner most would expect. In a true PPS, cultural values wouldn’t act as a blanket on all members of society, because this wouldn't recognize the supreme superiority of property ownership rules over rules set by others. That is, it would not be the case where the cultural rules would be above the sanctity of private property. That doesn’t mean, however, that a large group of 73

people may declare that certain cultural rules, religious rules, whatever, are the rules that are respected on their properties. It is likely many people would set rules on their property in a PPS that will include set punishments and culture. Say, for example, some will subscribe to Walter’s rules of property behavior, culture and punishment, while others might subscribe to Murray’s rules of property behavior, culture and punishment. The point is that individuals would be able to set up their own rules of behaviors and punishments and except for the very daring, the Marco Polos, people would stay out of areas where the rules aren’t clear or dangerous.

74

CHAPTER 12 POLICE PROTECTION IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY SOCIETY

Murray Rothbard has made the important observation that government “asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area.”34 Recognizing that even under the conditions where property is generally respected, outsiders could still wander in and do damage or disputes could arise with neighbors, we must now consider how we would protect our property and body in a PPS.

Since the PPS is about rejecting over-riding oversight, how can we possibly protect what is ours without government police? Rothbard’s insight puts us on the right road to consider this question. Do we really need a monopolist in police protection?

The answer from a PPS perspective suggests the answer is “no.” One could simply hire a private security agency to protect property. Does this mean that different private security police agencies would be shooting as each other all the time? Of course not. If I hire a private agency, I would want to hire, in most cases, a large agency that would be able to protect me against all sorts of threats, big and small. But, if I hire a big agency, they would have other clients and say to me, “Look, we will back you up on what is your property 75

and your rules, but if you have a dispute with one of our other clients, we want you to agree that we can take this to our private court, were we have the most wise and fair judges in the world to determine the outcome based on our rules.”

Now at this point. I can say “No thanks” or because I am reasonable and have checked out to see that the security agency’s judges are indeed the wisest and most fair in the land and the rules are fair, I sign up. Notice here: No one is forcing me to use this court and follow their rules, I am agreeing to do so. I don’t have to. I can live without the agency and court if I want. Or I can hire another agency and a different court. What if my agency comes up against my NAP violator who has a different agency? I would imagine such agencies would come up against each other many times in a PPS. And if they are profit seekers, they would just reach an agreement in advance that if they come up against each other they would use certain great, wise and fair judges that they both have decided on.

Of course, in my contract with my agency, they would stipulate that when coming up against other agencies, they would have the option to determine how a dispute is resolved in which court, by an agreement between the two agencies. All agencies would compete to be the wisest and fairest in the land since that is how they would get clients - and compete that their 76

rules are the best. An agency that was crooked wouldn’t last long. Notice again, no over-ruling laws. Choose your security agency by the way it operates with its own clients and rules, and how they operate with other agencies that might have different rules.

And so, without an over-ruling body, a private property society could exist, with paramount respect for the rules set by the property owner, and at the core security agencies would agree to protect a property.

Rothbard discussed how something close to a PPS police protection system existed for an extended period in ancient Celtic Ireland: For a thousand years, then, ancient Celtic Ireland had no state or anything like it...

The basic political unit of ancient Ireland was tuath. All “freemen” who owned land, all professionals and all craftsmen were entitled to become members of a tuath... which decided all common policies... An important point is that in contrast to other tribes, no one was stuck or bound to a given tuath, either by kinship or of geographical location. Individual members were free to, and often did, secede from a tuath and join a competing tuath.35 It is only because we were born under a certain system and have lived under it our entire lives that it makes it difficult to understand how a

different system could exist or, indeed, how it might have existed.

78

CHAPTER 13 “NATIONAL” SECURITY IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY SOCIETY

It is a bit misleading to identify something as “national” security in a society where anyone can do whatever they want on their own property and there is no over-riding rulemaker(s), but there is a way the concept of “national” may apply in a very limited sense.

If there is an area where people have adopted and live by PPS principles, this area may be called a nation in the sense that in the region people all live by the same general PPS rule. That is, basically live and let live on land property. But what if a non-PPS nation threatens invasion of this nation? Certainly, the propertarian should not be as naive as the Morori of the Chatham Islands who were invaded in 1835 by the Maori. Groups of Maori walked through the Morori settlements announcing that the Morori were now their slaves. However, the Morori had a tradition of resolving disputes peacefully. They decided in a council meeting not to fight back, but to offer peace, friendship and a division of resources. This was a big mistake.

Before the Morori could deliver their offer, the Maori attacked and killed hundreds of Morori. If the Morori had organized, they could have defeated the Maori whom they outnumbered 2 to 1. Instead, it was a brutal victory for the 79

Maori who cooked and ate many of the Morori bodies.36

What could propertarians have done in such a situation where no government military existed? First, we must consider how governments consider attacks and how it would be different in a PPS.

All governments consider attacks inside their boundaries as attacks on the entire nation. But why should this be so? Let us take the United States as an example. North Korean missiles may be a threat to parts of the U.S. especially the West Coast, but it is unlikely that North Korea is a serious threat to, say, Key West, Florida. An invasion by Mexico might be a concern for Texas or Arizona, but it would be a stretch to think there is much concern about such an invasion by residents of Maine. In other words, threats to different parts of the United States are different, but the U.S. government lumps them altogether as though the cost of support should be spread across all. That is the residents of, say, Maine are coerced to pay for defense of all kinds of places, e.g. Texas and California, even though Maine does not face these threats. If an area is too difficult to protect the residents of an area, perhaps they should pick up and walk away rather than force residents of Maine to help in their protection. This is not such a 80

radical notion if the cost is great. In real life these types of decision are made all the time.

If a category 5 hurricane is about to hit the east coast of Florida, we do not pitch a tent on the sands of Miami’s South Beach and then build a million-dollar protective building around the tent and demand the residents of Maine contribute to the cost of the structure. We pick up our tent and let nature take its course.

Something of the same might occur in a PPS. If there is a real threat of attack or invasion, it may be too expensive to protect the land. The best option may be to leave. On the other hand, another option might be that some may see the threat as insignificant and stay on the land. There is also a third and fourth option. A third option might be that, say, builders see fertile ground for building in an area, but recognize that people would be afraid of attacks in the region by outside forces. Thus, the builders must provide the necessary protection as part of the building package. Clearly, this would require either builders working together to provide protection or one large builder to provide what is necessary - a nuclear missile defense, a standing army, whatever. Indeed, builders may even consider it cost effective to take out a nuclear threat. Remember, under the NAP, people can respond to the threat of violence. Under the libertarian part of the PPS umbrella, it would be perfectly justifiable for a builder group, or any other group, to take out a nuclear threat. With their own dime, of course.

81

As Rothbard put it in recognizing the difference between nuclear weapons and conventional weapons: [An] answer that the libertarian is particularly equipped to give is that while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even “conventional” aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction...We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat thereof, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification.37

A fourth option might be some type of non­ profit that raises money from residents to develop different defense protections. Not everyone would participate and donate but few donate even to intellectual institutions that attempt to spread ideas “to save the world,” or art museums, or the local symphony, or local hospital - but some still do. It is difficult to think that donations wouldn’t be robust for local defense. In a PPS, therefore, only by those in the area who fear the risk and are willing to pay for it would absorb the protective costs. It may be 82

that some areas are so vulnerable to attack that it would cost so much to protect, just like it would be too expensive to protect a tent on a beach during a hurricane. But since defense against attack in a PPS would not be susceptible to the crony military-industrialcomplex and government collusion that makes national defense so expensive, total net defense expenditures in a PPS would be much more efficient and less costly than they are now under government operation. A region would only want and pay for defense protections that they would consider necessary for their region, so say goodbye to the military-industrial­ complex.

83

84

CHAPTER 14 LAND DISTRIBUTION IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY SOCIETY

If individuals begin to accept a Private Property Society in a region, the natural question that is likely to occur is “How should property be divided at the start of a PPS?”

There is a strong argument that at such time that individuals are ready to adopt a PPS, they should recognize property ownership already in place. It must be kept in mind that this book has rejected natural rights theory and utilitarianism. Thus, there is no magical determination of land ownership via the mixing of land and labor, or any other method of determination from on high.

Thus, the question should become a methodological individualist one: “I see a PPS is very desirable for me. What is the best way I can get others to join in advocating for a PPS?” Certainly, those who currently have property are not going to be happy with any system that calls for them to lose their property. If one really believes strongly in PPS, then the answer becomes let those who currently hold property continue to maintain ownership, since any first distribution of property is in some sense arbitrary (and always has been). By allowing those who currently own property to keep what they own, more property supporters will desire a PPS. And since no one loses any property

85

under this plan, no one will be losing any property from the period of the pre-PPS. It should be kept in mind that initial distribution of land has nothing to do with preventing changes in land ownership over time. Land is simply one good and some owners will certainly be willing to part with some ownership to gain services or other goods, which means the ownership structure of property amongst individuals in a PPS could very well change over time - and very likely would. Indeed, this may be a good point to introduce the important observation of the economist Israel Kirzner, that an entrepreneur need not have any land or capital of his own to discover potential entrepreneurial profit opportunities and take advantage of them.38 If we recognize this very important observation, it is easy to see how an entrepreneur without any initial land or capital may be able to gain land ownership. Further, it may occur in a PPS that landowners, just as they do now, may be willing to sell properties for cold hard cash.

The world we live in as a world of inequality. One individual may be born into land, but with little in way of skills. Another may be born with nothing in terms of land ownership, but may have great skills, say a major league baseball player that makes many millions of dollars. Most of us fall in the middle of these two extremes, some of us with a little more in skills, other with a little more in land property. The important thing to keep in mind is that free 86

exchange will increase the general standard of living and is generally beneficial for most of us and why, from an individualist perspective, most of us should desire such a society.

When it comes to virgin land, again it is not extremely significant how it is divided at the start. If the United States government were to end ownership of the 640 million acres it currently owns and in some fashion divided up ownership, how the division takes place is of secondary importance to a PPS outcome for the land. The division may occur by Lockean homesteading (the mixture of land and labor), by lottery or by a billionaire taking control of all the land. In the end the billionaire is likely to trade some of the land for other goods and services (or even different lands). Initial ownership of new land does not hurt our current spot in life if we don’t own any of the initial land. And advancing the PPS, even if others initially get the land, will be a plus for us. The more land available (even if owned by others) means greater supply of land and lower land prices for all of us in the long run. It’s basic supply and demand. Therefore, it is important to support the takeover of land currently controlled by the US government, on a PPS-basis, even if we don’t initially get any of the land. The same goes for explorers who gain property on the moon, Mars or beyond the galaxy. The breaking in of new land by pioneers who hold a PPS perspective is always a plus. That John D. Rockefeller owned the land at Rockefeller Center and built the Center has been a plus for 87

us. It is a place for us to shop, eat and, in the winter, skate and view the great Rockefeller Center Christmas tree for free. And it provides office space for many more. The same goes for the land owned by Walt Disney, J. W. Marriott and the many developers throughout the country. We don’t need to be the initial owners of virgin property in a PPS to gain an increase in our standard of living because that property now has other owners. It can happen because in many cases the virgin owners will want to convert their land into profitable enterprises by providing something of value to the rest of us.

88

CHAPTER 15 ON PROMOTING A PRIVATE PROPERTY SOCIETY

I really don’t expect a full Private Property

Society to emerge any time soon. If you think it

is going to occur in the near future, you are fooling yourself.

If you would like to see a PPS, but really don’t

like to do intellectual battle with

interventionists, then you really shouldn’t spend a lot of time on PPS. 39 This is a battle for those who like to mix it up. If you are going to

be a crybaby about the fact that the world isn’t

going to go PPS next week, you really should be doing something else with your time, perhaps watching baseball games on television.

The world is a very complex place, so we don’t know what series of events could occur to make the public open to moving towards a PPS or when this transition could occur. The more we

give thought to what a PPS means and explain its foundation, the more likely it could take hold sooner rather than later.

The PPS is a very simple concept: “Leave me

alone on my property and I will leave you alone on yours.” It is a concept that is in sync with 89

our basic nature. It is a concept that the masses can easily grasp and it’s difficult to wander too far from the basic concept.

Battle each other, follow the leader and the PPS are the three basic directions in which the masses can move. We all have natural tendencies that pull us in all three directions, but the PPS offers more peace, more freedom and the greatest opportunity for increasing our living standards. It is truly results in the outcome that should be most attractive to civilized individuals. For liberty-propertarians (advocates of the PPS and libertarianism under the PPS umbrella), in a world of interventionists, they must guide by communicating the PPS and libertarian ideals and act in a manner that is consistent with being a propertarian and a libertarian. We just never know when the ideas will “go viral,” but the more promoters of the concepts, the greater the foundation for the liberty and PPS ideals to explode amongst the masses. Our weapons are truth and logic - and the promise of civility and higher standards of living. With these weapons, we can mix it up with any statist advocates and power seekers. The intellectual battle against these power freaks should be fun - and it is 90

noble pursuit. It should be the engine that drives us against the evil of power seekers.

That said, while we should not refrain from

promoting libertarian and PPS ideals with anyone, there should be specific focus on what

Hayek called the “second-hand dealers” in ideas. These are the intellectual trendsetters, if you will. Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, Ayn Rand and even

John Maynard Keynes all recognized that the masses were all influenced by great

philosophers and the intelligentsia. As Keynes put it:

Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct

economist... Madmen in authority, who hear

voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.40 The term intelligentsia has gotten a bad rap because the intelligentsia have been mostly socialists. But the term itself signals the

importance of the intellectual trendsetters and there should be no hesitancy by propertarians

to co-opt the term.

91

The intelligentsia is a status class of educated people engaged in the complex mental labors that critique, guide and lead in shaping the culture and politics of a society. The intelligentsia generally includes artists, teachers, academics, writers, journalists and the literary hommes de lettres.41 They are, indeed, second-hand dealers in ideas. They are very important.

They are an important part of the division of labor. The masses do not have the time nor inclination to study and think about different societal structures. They are influenced by the intellectual trendsetters. This is where the intellectual battle is, for the attention and conversion of the second-hand dealers and the battle amongst first-hand dealers, that is, the original thinkers. These are both very powerful and important groups. The first-hand dealers being those that influence the intelligentsia, the second-hand dealers. And it should be noted that among the first intelligentsia to be formally identified as such, capitalists were among them.

The Polish intelligentsia played a unique and vital role in nineteenth century Polish history and in the early twentieth century. The 92

twentieth century intelligentsia divided philosophically into conservative idealizers of the past (whose landholdings gave them a vested interest in maintaining the status quo) and liberal reformers advocating development of capitalism.42 And E. M. Oblomov writes of the Russian intelligentsia during the years of the Soviet Union: Intelligentsia, a very Russian concept, is difficult to pin down with precision. Russia has always been a caste society and the intelligentsia was a particular caste, consisting of educated people who did not fit into one of the traditional categories—clergy, nobility, peasants, merchants, or the urban middle class. But the line of demarcation for membership was never clear. When I was a child in the Soviet Union, I thought it meant nice Jewish people who read books, wore spectacles, tucked in their shirts, and didn’t slurp their soup. In my parents’ circle, these were mostly engineers and scientists, with a smattering of musicians and doctors. None had any sort of formal connection

93

to academic social science or the humanities, since in the U.S.S.R. these fields were political minefields, difficult for decent people to negotiate. But most seemed to dabble in poetry or playwriting, and all could recite large chunks of Evgenii Onegin from memory. The concept of the intelligentsia was easier to define negatively. Anyone connected with the organs of state power—government functionaries, law enforcement, the military—fell way outside the pale. Party membership was disqualifying. A more-than-casual interest in sports, while not in itself disqualifying, was deeply suspect. Ultimately, membership came down to a self-designation, a certain recognizable set of manners, turns of phrase, and habits of mind.43

Murray Rothbard recognized the importance of reaching out to the second-hand dealers in an unpublished paper on strategy.44

He quoted Hayek in his paper:

94

The main lesson which the true liberal must learn from the socialists is that it was their courage to be Utopian which gained them the support of the intellectuals and thereby an influence on public opinion... Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are dark. But if we can regain that belief in the power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost.

Rothbard then added: Naturally, I am convinced that it is precisely we libertarians who have the inspiring, adventurous, consistent radical fulfillment of classical liberalism to offer to intellectuals and to mankind. We are the answer to Hayek’s call. If you have read this far, you are well beyond an average thinker and are at the vanguard of intellectual discussion. I invite you to continue the discussion at my website, Target Liberty (targetliberty.com), where I will continue to 95

discuss libertarianism and the PPS. Please visit the site and leave your comments and enter the battle. The PPS battle has just begun. During some periods we may achieve only small victories in the direction of a PPS, that is, battles won which eliminate only some relatively small governmental power centers. But somewhere beyond the horizon a great advance to a full libertarian-Private Property Society is possible. We are its drivers. It is in our hands.

96

CONCLUSION I hope I have made clear that in many ways we live a PPS life now, with a government veil over us that pretends to protect us, when it is, in fact, the case that we protect our own property in many ways. If it were laws that protected us, why would we stay out of bad areas? Why would we have locks on our doors? Governments mostly only suffocate life, take a good portion of our money and tell us what to do.

The opposite of the non-government society is not evil. Just because one does not believe that government is necessary to protect one’s property, it does not mean that such a person is in favor of theft or wild west shootouts. To say we shouldn’t have government police to protect our property doesn’t mean we don’t want our property protected.

To say that there should be no rules that are not set by a property owner does not mean we are an advocate of any kind of punishment, that we are an advocate of anything goes radical rules on properties etc. It means that just like now, we avoid trouble spots and act in a decent and reasonable manner with the people we choose to deal with.

Just because young kids could start a fire playing on a hot stove doesn’t mean we should call for a ban on stoves. It means that we watch

97

kids so that they don’t get themselves in harm’s way.

I view the idea that “government is necessary” as a great myth. Government, for the most part, is simply an organization that seeks to survive and expand, driven by the people in charge of it. A change in government power is simply new people taking over power spots. Government does not protect us against terrorists, it does not improve healthcare, it is terrible at charity and the police do little to protect us against crime. Government is a propaganda machine that creates the impression that it is needed for all these matters when in fact it is a suffocater of real solutions in these areas. A Private Property Society is a society where no government exists, but where individuals recognize private property and the individuals on that property are respected and left alone. But the PPS is only a great umbrella that creates peaceful understanding amongst all of us. Under that umbrella we do need laws on properties. My perspective is that the libertarian non-aggression principle is the “under the PPS umbrella” form of societal organization that would advance freedom and the standard of living the most. However, as a first principle, I hold to the PPS as the foundation of peace amongst neighbors and will not interfere with those who respect the PPS principle but desire to go in a direction different from the libertarian NAP.

To a limited degree, parts of the PPS principle are in effect here the United States, but the 98

operative word is limited. On almost a daily basis, people look to government to do more and more, thus, setting up more power centers and more potential for conflict. The way of government, that is the way of power centers, is not the way to freedom and greater prosperity for all of us. Governments have killed hundreds of millions and in the current day limit the freedoms of billions. Isolated government military battles and related injuries and death continue, with the constant threat of exploding battles overhanging over us. The government structure is a failed structure whose logical faults we can easily recognize under careful examination. Civilized people should not provide a welcome mat for governments. Simple respect for individuals and their property is the mark of the civilized individual.

99

100

ENDNOTES 1. Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Vintage; Reissue edition December 1,1992) 35-36 2. Politico: Where in the World is the U.S. Military https://epj.doud/2H6FoCx

3. @jeffreyatucker 4. Walter Block, The Privatization of Roads and Highways: Human and Economic Factors (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform 2012)

147-149

5. William C. Wooldridge, Uncle Sam, The Monopoly Man (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1970) 129-130 6. Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (Collier Books 1978) 156

7. Capitalism Magazine: War on Poverty Revisited https: //epj.cloud/ 2EhIp3 H

8. Ludwig von Mises, Human Action: The Scholars Edition (Ludwig von Mises Institute 2008)

101

9. I am aware there has been some revisionist history on the “Wild West” that argues it was not so wild. I am not using the term here in the sense of a specific period in history but merely as a metaphor for an out of control, that is, wild society, whether in fact such a period ever did exist in reality. 10. Merriam Online Dictionary https://epj.doud/2Cc4v1D 11. Crimethlnc https://epj.d0ud/2EkuJVH

12. Percy L. Greaves Jr, Mises Made Easier: A Glossary for Ludwig Von Mises' Human Action (Free Market Books, 1990)91

13. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Penguin Classics 1982) 14. Oxford Dictionary Online https://epj.doud/2G5KYSQ 15. Murray N. Rothbard, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays (The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000) pp 249-250

16. Wikipedia: Natural and legal rights https: //epj .cloud/2G7169f 102

17- John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (Hackett Classics, 1996) p 27

18. Henry Hazlitt, The Foundations of Morality (Foundation for Economic Education 2010) 19. Mises, Human Action, 716

20. Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (NYU Press, 2003)

21. Greaves Jr, Mises Made Easier 134 22. David Gordon, An Austro-Libertarian View: Essays, Vol. 1 (Mises Institute 2018)268 23. Ludwig von Mises, Marxism Unmasked: From Delusion to Destruction (Mises Seminar Lectures, Vol. 2, (Foundation for Economic Education, 2006)) 24. LewRockwell.com The Non-Aggression Axiom ofLibertarianism https://epj.d0ud/2BplCjx

25. Education April 20, 2017 at 1:43 PM; Target Liberty, https://epj.d0ud/202NTUK

103

26. R.J. Rummel, Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900 (Routledge; Revised edition,February 1,

1997) 27. CNN: Bronx fire started by child playing, https://epj.doud/2CetQI9

28. Barbara Oakley, Ariel Knafo, Guruprasad Madhavan, David Sloan Wilson, Pathological Altruism (Oxford University Press;December 19, 2011)

29. F.A Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, (University of Chicago Press; October 4,1991) 30. Brainjet.com: 9 Unexpectedly High Death Statistics You Wouldn’t Believe https: //epj .cloud/2EzciZD 31. F.A Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (n Routledge Classics 2001) 138

32. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty 85

33. Of course, it is possible via agreement/contract an owner could grant overruling sub-authority to any one he rents the land to, or for any other reason. 34. Murray N. Rothbard, The Rothbard Reader, (The Mises Institute 2016) Chapter 34

35. Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty (Collier Books 1978) 231 104

36. Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, (W. W. Norton & Company;(March 7, 2017)) 53 37. Rothbard, The Rothbard Reader Chapter 32

38. Israel M. Kirzner, Competition and Entrepreneurship, (University of Chicago Press; September 15,1978) 39. Unless, of course, you like to think about it for purely intellectual enjoyment.

40. John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (Stellar Classics, May 5, 2016) Chapter 24

41. Wikipedia Intelligentsia https: //epj .cloud/2Br7aaK 42. Country Studies The Intelligentsia https: //epj .cloud/2H4oD9w 43. City Journal Intelligentsia Elegy https://epj.cloud/2EY6Gc9 44. Murray N. Rothbard, Toward a Strategy for Libertarian Change (unpublished private paper)

105

io6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This early written commentary on Private Property Society would never have been considered and created were it not for the “Oakland Duo” and Dr. Michael Edelstein all of whom urged me to put something in writing about PPS and never stopped asking “When is the book going to be done?” They also made valuable comments during the writing process. The book would read nowhere near as polished, if it wasn’t for the careful editing of Harrison Burge. Discussion, during the writing period, with Joseph Ford Cotto and Chris Rossini helped to bring focus on topics I might have missed otherwise.

Circle Rothbard-SF members focused my thinking many times during our monthly gatherings.

107

io8

ABOUT ROBERT WENZEL Robert Wenzel is editor and publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and Target Liberty.

He is also author of “The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank.” He considers himself “more radical than the Founding Fathers.” He lives in San Francisco.

109

What they say about Private Property Society Theory: "No matter where you find yourself on the political spectrum Foundations of Private Property Society Theory will effect a paradigm shift in your view of the optimal political structure of society, It was for me. Well reasoned and innovative, Wenzel lays out a new foundation for a free society based on a single principle having pervasive and profound ramifications."

-Dr. Michael Edelstein author of "Therapy Breakthrough: Why Some Pyschotherapies Work Better Than Others"

"People talk about government as if it has always existed. People talk about government as if it is infallible. They talk about government as if it is not simply a group of people that has at least as many weaknesses as the rest of us. "But the concept of a Private Property Society helps me to reboot my mind." -Victor J. Babylon "

Ward author of "The Smartest Christian in

Robert Wenzel is editor & publisher of EconomicPolicyJournal.com and Target Liberty.

He is also author of "The Fed Flunks; My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank."

He considers himself "more radical than the Founding Fathers." He resides in San Francisco.