I'll be sharing and I'm sure I'll be resharing this article for years to come!
Even Adam Smith who they call the 'Father Of Capitalism' saw the fundamental injustice in property: ‘Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions … Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.’ https://peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/p/adam-smith-father-of-capitalism
Funny thing is also that, as much as Rothbard likes to crib his theory from Locke's homesteading theory, Locke also puts limits onto it that Rothbard could never accept! For example, in the famous Lockean Proviso, he argues that any time we take things from the natural commons, this is only legitimate if we leave as much and as good for others. The appropriation itself, if it doesn't meet that standard, can be considered a harm to others, which ancaps refuse to recognize.
Quoting Locke: "Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same."
Consistency was never the strong suit of conservative capitalist philosophers - as your article shows well.
I wasn’t aware of that quote from Locke before now. It’s a great one, but goes to show that the right-wing propertarians excuse more than their early predecessors dared to.
It's a good quote to have on hand. I grew up fairly conservative, and even had a whole Rothbard phase. I was going to elaborate on it a bit more in this, but one of the big differences isn't just in matters of what these propertarians will excuse, but just matters of seriousness. Locke for all his faults (especially regarding indigenous peoples and slavery) seriously engaged with literature and made real contributions. Rothbard's project isn't really like that. I briefly mention this, but Rothbard's whole thing is more about creating this kind of Newspeak where, if you are inside it, you have this kind of appearance of self-consistency. From relatively simple premises, you are meant to derive a whole theory of law, and that is appealing in its own way until you see these tricks. Hence every time I quote Rothbard kind of stumbling into the conclusion himself here, it is in the context of dismissing some OTHER theory which he crafts the appearance of avoiding by turning back to his homesteading theory. Directly engaging with the case of King Charlie and Ruritania is one he carefully avoids.
I grew up in a fairly right-wing conservative family, and even had a whole Rothbard phase. Part of why I'm familiar with him here. And it was by engaging with more serious people and having these kind of holes poked in that self-contained universe that helped me get out. Locke is especially useful there because Rothbard needs to praise him so much for giving him this whole natural rights framework, but Locke considers these issues much more seriously.
For example, a big premise for Rothbard is that these property rights must NEVER be violated under any circumstances. It is entirely and wholly prohibited, as promised by his non-aggression "axiom." No excuse is good enough, nor can your need, even extreme need, justify things. Otherwise ancaps would need to accept things like taxes for emergency services or whatever, and they could never allow that. So the thought experiment for me was just pretty simple and straightforward as a matter of intuition: Suppose you are, through no fault of your own, being attacked by a bear and your only means of escape is to hope a fence. But this fence has a "no trespassing" sign on it. Would a completely just person hop the fence, or would they allow themselves to be eaten by the bear?
Intuitively, most people would say you should hop the fence. Even if you didn't homestead or trade for the land or whatever, and agree that is generally what you need to do, this is clearly an exceptional circumstance. The Ancap however will tell you straight to your face "Yes, you should let yourself be eaten." Walter Block, a friend of Rothbard, says that explicitly here: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/02/walter-e-block/turning-their-coats-for-the-state/
Contrast this to an answer Locke gives:
"But we know God hath not left one man so to the mercy of another, that he may starve him if he please: God the Lord and Father of all has given no one of his children such a property in his peculiar portion of the things of this world, but that he has given his needy brother a right to the surplusage of his goods; so that it cannot justly be denied him, when his pressing wants call for it: and therefore no man could ever have a just power over the life of another by right of property in land or possessions; since it would always be a sin, in any man of estate, to let his brother perish for want of affording him relief out of his plenty. As justice gives every man a title to the product of his honest industry, and the fair acquisitions of his ancestors descended to him; so charity gives every man a title to so much out of another’s plenty, as will keep him from extreme want, where he has no means to subsist otherwise: and a man can no more justly make use of another’s necessity, to force him to become his vassal, by with-holding that relief, God requires him to afford to the wants of his brother, than he that has more strength can seize upon a weaker, master him to his obedience, and with a dagger at his throat offer him death or slavery." (First Treatise of Government, §. 42) https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hollis-the-two-treatises-of-civil-government-hollis-ed
One can still accept a largely propertarian framework then and rule out a lot of the extreme cases that Rothbard and other "an"caps are forced to accept. I plan on more posts on Rothbard tackling stuff like this.
As you point out, the AnCaps have to make property riots paramount because, if human lives and wellbeing took precedence over them, then their whole philosophy would fall apart. The bear example was a good one - I hope I can remember it when it’ll come in handy. It reminds me of the book ‘A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear’ and the story behind it.
Thank you for sharing more of your story. I was part of a very conservative community for much of my life, and - although I always had reservations in some areas - I was in a very narrow world and saw the rest of the world through a very narrow lens, but ultimately still saw enough inconsistencies to lead me out of there, and to continue questioning everything, especially hierarchy.
You’ve certainly showed me a side of Locke I was unaware of. I wonder if it was in part due to his Christian ethics (especially where such ethics align with secular humanist ones), whereas Rothbard vehemently rejected such ethics as impediments to 'rational' 'selfishness' (as Rand would have characterised it).
I look forward to your future posts on Rothbard, and other subjects.
In the article, you say "Anarchists have varied a bit more in their answer here, given that a free society might organize itself in many different ways so long as it excludes despotism and exploitation."
So does this mean that one of these societies could allow possession of land (based upon use and occupancy) and a freed market, even if you personally wouldn't want to live in such a society?
I think for that, you'd need to dive a lot more into the specifics of the argument. Anarchism must oppose any form of domination and exploitation, nor do its principles lead it to declare any "freedom" do dominate and exploit.
Property, as it is being defined commonly by anarchists, inherently involves these features, especially highlighted in contrast to a system of possession. However, even 'possession' itself can be something of a misleading idea as an alternative, since ultimately all humans possess the entire Earth. This puts inherent limits on what could even be claimed by possession. Proudhon's discussion in What is Property is pretty good here, and I have a plain-language summary I wrote up.
So in a better system, could anything work on market principles? I tend to think it wouldn't, given the collective nature of production. The claim everyone would have to everything would undermine it pretty broadly, meaning there would be no outside party to trade things to, which would preclude any market. But there are still some more immediate claims to what someone personally uses that go beyond just the broad claim all would have to all, and in that frame there would be room for free agreements and associations, which might also mean there'd be space for some kind of market-ish form.
I would say people would likely experiment with a bunch of different options, but I expect that, given the hassles and the different relation we'd all have to production and consumption, I think markets would be seen more and more as superfluous and disappear a more natural death with the abolition of property.
I'll be sharing and I'm sure I'll be resharing this article for years to come!
Even Adam Smith who they call the 'Father Of Capitalism' saw the fundamental injustice in property: ‘Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions … Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.’ https://peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/p/adam-smith-father-of-capitalism
Funny thing is also that, as much as Rothbard likes to crib his theory from Locke's homesteading theory, Locke also puts limits onto it that Rothbard could never accept! For example, in the famous Lockean Proviso, he argues that any time we take things from the natural commons, this is only legitimate if we leave as much and as good for others. The appropriation itself, if it doesn't meet that standard, can be considered a harm to others, which ancaps refuse to recognize.
Quoting Locke: "Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same."
Consistency was never the strong suit of conservative capitalist philosophers - as your article shows well.
I wasn’t aware of that quote from Locke before now. It’s a great one, but goes to show that the right-wing propertarians excuse more than their early predecessors dared to.
It's a good quote to have on hand. I grew up fairly conservative, and even had a whole Rothbard phase. I was going to elaborate on it a bit more in this, but one of the big differences isn't just in matters of what these propertarians will excuse, but just matters of seriousness. Locke for all his faults (especially regarding indigenous peoples and slavery) seriously engaged with literature and made real contributions. Rothbard's project isn't really like that. I briefly mention this, but Rothbard's whole thing is more about creating this kind of Newspeak where, if you are inside it, you have this kind of appearance of self-consistency. From relatively simple premises, you are meant to derive a whole theory of law, and that is appealing in its own way until you see these tricks. Hence every time I quote Rothbard kind of stumbling into the conclusion himself here, it is in the context of dismissing some OTHER theory which he crafts the appearance of avoiding by turning back to his homesteading theory. Directly engaging with the case of King Charlie and Ruritania is one he carefully avoids.
I grew up in a fairly right-wing conservative family, and even had a whole Rothbard phase. Part of why I'm familiar with him here. And it was by engaging with more serious people and having these kind of holes poked in that self-contained universe that helped me get out. Locke is especially useful there because Rothbard needs to praise him so much for giving him this whole natural rights framework, but Locke considers these issues much more seriously.
For example, a big premise for Rothbard is that these property rights must NEVER be violated under any circumstances. It is entirely and wholly prohibited, as promised by his non-aggression "axiom." No excuse is good enough, nor can your need, even extreme need, justify things. Otherwise ancaps would need to accept things like taxes for emergency services or whatever, and they could never allow that. So the thought experiment for me was just pretty simple and straightforward as a matter of intuition: Suppose you are, through no fault of your own, being attacked by a bear and your only means of escape is to hope a fence. But this fence has a "no trespassing" sign on it. Would a completely just person hop the fence, or would they allow themselves to be eaten by the bear?
Intuitively, most people would say you should hop the fence. Even if you didn't homestead or trade for the land or whatever, and agree that is generally what you need to do, this is clearly an exceptional circumstance. The Ancap however will tell you straight to your face "Yes, you should let yourself be eaten." Walter Block, a friend of Rothbard, says that explicitly here: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/02/walter-e-block/turning-their-coats-for-the-state/
Contrast this to an answer Locke gives:
"But we know God hath not left one man so to the mercy of another, that he may starve him if he please: God the Lord and Father of all has given no one of his children such a property in his peculiar portion of the things of this world, but that he has given his needy brother a right to the surplusage of his goods; so that it cannot justly be denied him, when his pressing wants call for it: and therefore no man could ever have a just power over the life of another by right of property in land or possessions; since it would always be a sin, in any man of estate, to let his brother perish for want of affording him relief out of his plenty. As justice gives every man a title to the product of his honest industry, and the fair acquisitions of his ancestors descended to him; so charity gives every man a title to so much out of another’s plenty, as will keep him from extreme want, where he has no means to subsist otherwise: and a man can no more justly make use of another’s necessity, to force him to become his vassal, by with-holding that relief, God requires him to afford to the wants of his brother, than he that has more strength can seize upon a weaker, master him to his obedience, and with a dagger at his throat offer him death or slavery." (First Treatise of Government, §. 42) https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hollis-the-two-treatises-of-civil-government-hollis-ed
One can still accept a largely propertarian framework then and rule out a lot of the extreme cases that Rothbard and other "an"caps are forced to accept. I plan on more posts on Rothbard tackling stuff like this.
As you point out, the AnCaps have to make property riots paramount because, if human lives and wellbeing took precedence over them, then their whole philosophy would fall apart. The bear example was a good one - I hope I can remember it when it’ll come in handy. It reminds me of the book ‘A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear’ and the story behind it.
Thank you for sharing more of your story. I was part of a very conservative community for much of my life, and - although I always had reservations in some areas - I was in a very narrow world and saw the rest of the world through a very narrow lens, but ultimately still saw enough inconsistencies to lead me out of there, and to continue questioning everything, especially hierarchy.
You’ve certainly showed me a side of Locke I was unaware of. I wonder if it was in part due to his Christian ethics (especially where such ethics align with secular humanist ones), whereas Rothbard vehemently rejected such ethics as impediments to 'rational' 'selfishness' (as Rand would have characterised it).
I look forward to your future posts on Rothbard, and other subjects.
In the article, you say "Anarchists have varied a bit more in their answer here, given that a free society might organize itself in many different ways so long as it excludes despotism and exploitation."
So does this mean that one of these societies could allow possession of land (based upon use and occupancy) and a freed market, even if you personally wouldn't want to live in such a society?
I think for that, you'd need to dive a lot more into the specifics of the argument. Anarchism must oppose any form of domination and exploitation, nor do its principles lead it to declare any "freedom" do dominate and exploit.
Property, as it is being defined commonly by anarchists, inherently involves these features, especially highlighted in contrast to a system of possession. However, even 'possession' itself can be something of a misleading idea as an alternative, since ultimately all humans possess the entire Earth. This puts inherent limits on what could even be claimed by possession. Proudhon's discussion in What is Property is pretty good here, and I have a plain-language summary I wrote up.
So in a better system, could anything work on market principles? I tend to think it wouldn't, given the collective nature of production. The claim everyone would have to everything would undermine it pretty broadly, meaning there would be no outside party to trade things to, which would preclude any market. But there are still some more immediate claims to what someone personally uses that go beyond just the broad claim all would have to all, and in that frame there would be room for free agreements and associations, which might also mean there'd be space for some kind of market-ish form.
I would say people would likely experiment with a bunch of different options, but I expect that, given the hassles and the different relation we'd all have to production and consumption, I think markets would be seen more and more as superfluous and disappear a more natural death with the abolition of property.