Libertarianism and Property Rights from First Principles
Articles,  Blog

Libertarianism and Property Rights from First Principles

Here’s the thing about logic: it’s completely
objective. There is no “my logic” or “your logic”; there’s just logic. So if you have
a logical position, then it’s an objective argument that stems from First Principles. First Principles are foundational propositions
and axioms that do not have to be defended. As long as your argument is purely from First
Principles, meaning that it’s linked back to these First Principles with no breaks in
the chain and no fallacious reasoning, then you don’t actually need empirical evidence
to support it. Because then, the only way for the conclusion to be wrong, would be for
these First Principles to be wrong as well. The first principle we’ll look at is a foundational
principle of all logic and reason: the Principle of Non-Contradiction. Something cannot be
“A” and “not A” at the same time. Also, if something is “A”, then it cannot be “B” if
A and B are mutually exclusive. It may be possible for something that is A to later
turn into B, but once it does it cannot be A anymore. Directly from this, we get: The Consistency Principle In logic, consistency means that you don’t
contain any contradictions. So as long as the Principle of Non-Contradiction holds,
the Consistency Principle does as well. While there are proofs of consistency, for purposes
of this video we’ll just look at falsifiability: if we can find inconsistency in a posit, then
the posit must be rejected. So if A and B are mutually exclusive and a True Dichotomy,
then falsifying A is all that you have to do to support B, and vice-versa. Ironically, the Consistency Principle itself
can be supported in this way. Consider the following claims: “Consistency is preferable.” “Consistency is not preferable.” This is a true dichotomy. One or the other
must be true, but both cannot be. But if we examine these statements, we see that “Consistency
is not preferable” is a consistent principle, and therefore self-contradictory. By the Principle
of Non-Contradiction, we therefore reject it and accept consistency as being preferable. It’s the Consistency Principle that leads
us to establish Burden of Proof: The Burden of Proof is on the active side,
not the passive side There are a lot of things you’re not doing
right now. Maybe you’re not collecting stamps at the moment. You’re not walking on the moon.
You’re not inventing the hoverboard. You’re not annexing the Sudetenland. There are an
infinity of things you’re not doing at the time. Imagine if someone said you had to justify
every single one of them! There’s no way you could do it! It would be inconsistent for someone to insist
that you had to justify one or some of the things you’re not doing, since you can’t possibly
justify them all. The only principle consistent with the Consistency Principle is that if
you’re not doing something, you don’t have to justify it to anybody. The Burden of Proof
is NEVER on the passive side. Which means that the Burden of Proof must
be on the active side when the active side conflicts with a passive side. In the theism/atheism
debate, atheists take the passive side: they see no reason to believe in God, so they decline
to. You don’t have to defend not believing in God any more than you have to defend not
inventing the hoverboard. But since belief is active, the theist is taking the active
position and therefore the Burden of Proof is on those who claim that God exists. Let me be clear about this: we’re talking
about the Burden of Proof. We are NOT concluding that it is always right and proper to take
the passive side; sometimes the passive side might well be in the wrong. But if you want
to claim that the passive side is wrong, the Burden of Proof is on you to establish that. Everything so far is absolutely consistent
with established logic, and you cannot doubt any of this without running afoul of the basic
principles of logic and rational thought. They are the basis of all science and reason.
You cannot reject the principles we’ve talked about so far without rejecting all of science
and reason as well. Now, going from nothing more than these First
Principles, let’s see how this works in the libertarian/statist debate: Force is active; ergo, those who want to use
force have the Burden of Proof, those who do not have no such burden at all There really is no way around this. If someone’s
just sitting there not doing anything, the burden is on you to justify any action taken
against him. Like, say, taking some of his money. And you can’t worm your way out of
this just by calling yourself a “government”; that is a BLATANT violation of the Consistency
Principle. You can’t have different rules for government than you do for the rest of
us. Even if the person is taking an action, if
everyone affected by the action agrees to it, the burden of proof is on you if you want
to interfere. So if one person hires another, and that person agrees to work for wages of
$7/hour, and you think that’s too low, that it should be $10 or $15 an hour, the burden
of proof is on you to justify your intrusion into this voluntary, private, peaceful exchange. So, I know you statists are now chomping at
the bit, getting your arguments all ready to justify the forceful actions your government
does, but hold on, because: Initiation of force cannot be defended Person A hires Person B at $7/hour. Person
C, thinking Person B should be paid at least $10/hour, wants to point a gun at Person A
and make him pay Person B more money. Is he justified in this? Think about it: what if
Person A then points a gun back at Person C, because he doesn’t want to be forced to
do something he doesn’t want to do? What’s Person C going to do, say that Person A doesn’t
get to use force? Even though Person C is doing what HE’S doing through force? How does
Person C have any legitimacy here at that point? It gets worse: let’s say that Person D disagrees
with Person C’s interference, and points a gun at HIM. If the initiation of force is
defensible, then who is acting in the wrong here? And even worse: After Person C makes Person
A pay Person B more money, Person E points a gun at Person C and makes HIM do something
HE thinks he should do, like, give up his collection of pornography. How does Person
C have any logical defense if he wants to complain about it? Under the Consistency Principle,
if one is valid, the other must be, too. The ONLY way compatible with the Consistency
Principle is that the Initiation of Force is NEVER justified. Which means that the Non-Initiation
of Force Principle, also known as the Non-Aggression Principle, the basis of all libertarianism,
is the ONLY principle compatible with consistent logic. And since this argument was made in
an unbroken chain from First Principles, you CANNOT refute it. Your only recourse is to
try to find a flaw in my logic up to this point, some link in the chain that was skipped
or doesn’t work for some reason. That is the ONLY option to you if you want to deny the
Non-Aggression Principle. It’s now time to turn to the basis for all
libertarian political policy: property rights. While Non-Initiation of Force is the guiding
principle, property rights is the logical structure we use to determine who is initiating
force and when. This isn’t a pragmatic idea; it, too, is based on first principles. We start with the Principle of Self-Ownership.
Basically, you own yourself: you own your body, your mind, your time, and the fruits
of your labors. Why? Well, what would it mean if you didn’t? Who else would own you? If
someone else can own you, that would make you their slave. But slavery completely violates
the Consistency Principle: who gets to own slaves, and who is subject to being enslaved?
You would be making different rules for different people, which you don’t get to do. Even if your answer is that no one would own
you, you still have a problem. If something isn’t owned, then no one can stop someone
from doing whatever they want to to it. If no one owns a rock, there’s nothing stopping
anyone from picking it up and using it for whatever purpose they want. So if no one owns
you, then anyone can do whatever they want to you–including raping and murdering you. So you run into a problem with the Consistency
Principle again. Since ownership of something means having control over what happens to
it, the only consistent principle is self-ownership, which means that you get to make the decisions
that affect only yourself, and you get to defend yourself against others who would impose
their will on you. Giving anyone else the legitimacy to do so runs into fundamental
inconsistency problems: that would mean you can’t defend yourself, that would mean that
no one else has any legitimacy in stopping them, and what happens if someone else wants
to rape you instead? How do you determine which of them has the right to rape you? Get
the picture? So self-ownership is the only consistent way.
And that naturally leads to private property. How can one claim ownership over private property?
Only if it’s an extension of one’s right of self-ownership. So, someone can own something
one of two ways: 1) He can do it himself, or make it himself,
or whatever. So long as he doesn’t intrude on anyone else’s property rights to do so,
whatever is the product of his own actions, his own mind, his own labor, rightly belongs
to him and no one else. 2) He can trade for it, or otherwise convince
the proper owner of something to transfer ownership to him. If he makes an axe, he can
trade it for a saw, and the saw is his. Likewise, the other person gives up the saw and takes
ownership of the axe. Or, he can trade his labor. He can agree to
work a certain number of hours and receive property in return. For example, he might
do some work for his landlord in exchange for letting him stay there. In fact, he can engage in any kind of voluntary
contract he wants–except one, there’s one piece of property he owns he can never give
up: himself. You can give an axe, because the axe can be separated from you. You can
donate your kidney, because your kidney can be separated from you. But there’s no way
you can be separated from yourself. No matter where you go, there you are! So although the
Consistency Principle allows for the trading of private property, it doesn’t actually let
you transfer ownership of yourself. Any contract where you sell yourself into slavery is therefore
completely invalid. But an axe, or a few hours a day, you can voluntarily trade that for
whatever you believe is fair. Normally, of course, these exchanges are made
for money, because barter gets out of hand REALLY fast. So you’re more likely to sell
your axe, or work for a certain wage. You can then use the money to trade for other
things in the economy. Money is just another form of property, it simply has the features
of being a medium of exchange and a store of value. There’s nothing special about it.
Working for someone in exchange for money in no way makes you a slave or anything else
statists like to bleat on about. By the same token, there’s no legitimacy whatsoever to
the claim that we don’t own money, it’s all the government’s. If you received it in exchange
for your labor, YOU OWN IT. To say anything else would be to deny self-ownership, and
all the principles on which it is based. And THAT would make the person a slave. As well
as violating the Consistency Principle and therefore all of science and reason. So from nothing more than a logical examination
of first principles, we come to the following inescapable conclusion: Taking of legitimately-owned property cannot
be defended Owning property is passive. Taking that property
is active. At the very least, as we discussed earlier, the burden of proof is on the side
of the property-taker. This is why a plaintiff in court must prove his case before the court
will pass a judgement for compensation. The only time this is legitimate is when the person
has taken or damaged his property, or otherwise not lived up to his end of a contract. If
Person A has stolen property from Person B, he can be made to give it back, or give the
equivalent amount of money. Likewise, if Person A damages Person B’s property, Person A can
be made to pay damages to fix everything. Or if Person A borrows money from Person B
to buy a house and then doesn’t pay it back; Person B can then foreclose on Person A’s
house. But when there has been no contract, no taken
or damaged property, when no such obligation can ever be shown, you run into BIG problems
with the Consistency Principle. By the very effect we talked about before with self-ownership,
likewise private property cannot be usurped by others. So burden of proof in this context
means ONLY that you can prove that the person has an obligation based on positive action
he himself has taken to agree with it. That’s IT. And that positive action CANNOT be the result
of duress. Duress is an initiation of force, and so any contracts made under that force
(or the threat of it) are automatically invalid. So from first principles, taxation is theft.
Using force to take a portion of someone’s wages denies the very concept of self-ownership,
and therefore denies the Principle of Non-Contradiction and all of science and reason go with it. That also makes the so-called “Social Contract”
a failure right on the face of it: even without having to go into what the courts have said
about Tacit Consent and the rest, the Social Contract contravenes these very basic property
rights, and since these rights are based on nothing more than first principles, the Social
Contract fails right from the start. And you can’t get around it by saying, “But government
built the roads you drive on!” Remember: If it’s done by force, it’s duress, and the whole
thing is invalid. The Social Contract is also a direct violation
of the Consistency Principle, too. Whereas a normal contract requires positive mutual
agreement and a meeting of the minds, the Social Contract gives special powers to a
certain group of people known as the “government”–powers we’ve shown they cannot possibly have in any
way compatible with the Consistency Principle. So there you have it: Property Rights and
the Non-Aggression Principle stem directly from first principles, and statism, along
with concepts such as “wage slavery,” the legitimacy of taxation, the “Social Contract,”
Labor Theory of Value, and pretty much everything else the state does all violate first principles. Statists, your ONLY way out of this is to
try and show a flaw in the logic I’ve presented: where either some link in the chain of logic
was skipped, or some fallacious reasoning was used somewhere. That’s IT. There is NO
empirical data, NO emotional argument, NO amount of fear-mongering, NO Lifeboat Scenario
that will help you. “Who will build the roads?” or “Libertarians are selfish” or “there’s
never been a Libertarian society” will likewise do nothing. These are arguments from First
Principles. They CANNOT be denied.


  • TheGnarlyDoug

    Point 4 is universally true. The one using force must justify it as the burden of proof falls to them. I do not believe point 5 is in fact universally true. While very rare, I could envision a scenario where person A through no fault of their own is a existential threat to others. Perhaps they have a deadly and highly contagious disease, perhaps they are having a seizure at the controls of the plane and you need to use force to move them, and so on. My point is that you might have to initiate force of varying degrees against them to save your life or the lives of others, and I think that would be justifiable.

  • Servius Terentius

    I will hereby attempt to refute something you called a first principle which is in fact not a first principle. "If something isn't owned, then no one can stop someone from doing whatever they want to to it." This can be restated as, "Only if something is property, there are possible worlds in which it is the patient of a morally wrong act." Wrong. There could be moral duties in a world entirely without property. Property rights are themselves only a categorization of moral duties in general. The categorical imperative, the harm principle, and virtue ethics are all alternatives that would explain what should and should not be done to a particular person without reference to property. The passive in this case in agnosticism with regard to ethical principle. The burden of proof is on you to show us why Self-Ownership is a first principle and not, for example, the Categorical Imperative.

  • No More 2 Party System

    Hi Shane. If you'd like to support options outside of the 2 party system please check out No More 2 Party System.

  • Pedrinho

    There are two major flaws in this video which prevent it making the perfect case for a modern Libertarian society. Firstly, this set of principles does nothing to justify the ownership of land, upon the ownership of which is built a huge amount private wealth. It is correct to say that people own that which they create, but people do not create land and 'homesteading' is, and always has been, a feeble argument as far as justifying exclusive and perpetual land ownership is concerned. And if land ownership cannot be justified, then the inhabitants of private land must be said to be initiating illegitimate force in their attempts to prevent the rest of society using the land which they erroneously claim to own.Secondly, even if we solve the land ownership issue, or simply suspend its consideration for the purpose of moving on the debate, this video is only good as a justification for Libertarianism at some hypothetical perfectly-equitable year zero; it outlines no logical pathway for contemporary society to transition to a Libertarian model. The principles of non-agression and self-ownership are good ones, but we know that very little existant wealth has been created in this way; much of the private wealth accumulated today has been gained either in a directly and overtly-aggressive manner or else by trade and cooperation with, or preferment by, centres of aggressive power. Therefore, if the honourable principle of non-aggression is to have any real meaning, it must be set in a context of equitable beginnings. To honour the property rights established by legal frameworks which have permitted wealth to be accumulated through violent and aggressive means would make a mockery of this core principle of Libertarianism and would constitute an implicit act of aggression against those not fortunate enough to have acquired wealth in this way.

  • Pedrinho

    Also there is a major illogical leap between points four and five; initiation of force has a burden of proof – true, but that does not make the use of force indefensible.

  • Gordon Tubbs

    5. The Initiation of Force CAN be justified with the principles of Jus Ad Bellum (Right Intent, Proper Authority, Just Cause, Probability of Success, Proportionality, and Last Resort). When you defend yourself or your property, it is because you are the proper authority of yourself, and you have a just cause to to maintain your property rights and personal safety. Any initiation of force to ensure their own safety and property is based on the right intent to maintain the consistency of self-ownership, and is therefore justified, even if as a last resort. By all means, if you want to reject the Social Contract and the Authority of the State, then you are justified (albeit compelled) based on your First Principles to refuse to pay taxes, renounce your citizenship, or register as a foreign agent or non-citizen national. "Opt out" of the system as much as possible and see where that takes you. If you cannot live by your principles, then don't reason by them.

  • Aaron Reamer

    I do not accept 5 as valid.
    Your argument seems to follow that either all force is justified or no force is justified. This is a false dichotomy. Why can't some cases be justified while others aren't?

    Force is not a single all or nothing boolean. Force is a property and could be expressed as a set of all things that we would consider force such as punching, pointing a gun, threats, etc. It is possible that one act of force is justifiable while others are not. Just because something classified as force is unjustifiable doesn't mean all cases classified as force are unjustifiable. Same goes as just because some cases classified as force are justifiable doesn't mean all cases classified as force are justifiable. Force does not require the universal condition of being all cases justifiable or not. I am NOT stuck between "all force is justifiable" or "all force is not justifiable". "Not all cases of force are equally justifiable" is also logically valid. True dichotomies only apply when all the options are stated and when all options contradict each other meaning only one can be true.

    Can You defend the practicality of the NAP if it were to be logically true? If person A goes and kills person B, person A has the burden to justify their act of force. Person A performed an unjustifiable act of force. How does that stop person A from killing person B? Person A is a psychopath and does not care that they have the burden to justify their initiation of force or that they committed an unjustifiable act. The NAP does not stop somebody from committing aggression, only states that it is unjustifiable. This question assumes you have an anarchic libertarian philosophy. If this does not reflect your belief you may dismiss this practicality question.

  • Levi Barnes

    Reasoning at 1:42 is circular. You've presumed that one of the two statements "consistency is preferable" or "non-consistency is preferable" must be true and the other false. That is, one of the principles must be consistently true. Why? Couldn't a third choice be "consistency is unrelated to preferability (i.e sometime consistency is preferable and sometimes inconsistency is preferable)." What about "consistency is one of many attributes we consider in evaluating statements, viewpoints, etc."?

  • Levi Barnes

    Reasoning at 1:42 is unclear. You've established the dichotomy "consistency is preferable" or "consistency is not preferable." So far, so good. Then you claim that "consistency is not preferable" contains a contradiction because it's a consistent statement. But couldn't the statement "consistency is not preferable" contain the postulate "consistency is insufficient to establish preferability"? In that case, finding one consistent statement to be preferable is not inconsistent with the statement.

    To rephrase, "consistency is not preferable" is not the same as saying "no consistent statements are preferable" so one counter example of a preferable consistent statement is not enough to show a contradiction.

  • Silberstreif

    The video is sort of incomplete, since while you give a hand full of
    examples for what would go against the Non-Aggression-Principle, or
    would be "Initiation of Force" you are lacking a proper definition of
    what "Initiation of Force" or "Force" actually is, a question which is
    nowhere near trivial.
    This also is the crucial point where I would say that the libertarian ideology is breaking apart – because it is extremely hard to come up with "consistent" definitions for these terms which don't have ridiculous implications.
    So far I had been able to dismantle every call for "Non-Aggression" by reductio ad absurdum.

  • Travis Retriever

    This video and the one you did on "What Is Money?" really are bringing out the postmodernists/nihilists/subjectivists out in droves, huh? Almost as much as your "How To Argue For Immigration Restrictions" and "How to Argue for the War on Terror" videos brought out the racists and warmongers in droves.

  • Vhaal

    If initiations of force are indefensible, then initiations of force against initiations of force are also indefensible; otherwise, your logic's inconsistent. So, in your example, people A, D, and E are all as guilty as C are for initiating force, regardless of the fact that C started it.

    However, if nobody does anything, B is either dead or forced to increase the wage of A, which is clearly immoral, so what would you say is a consistent answer to an initiation of force?

  • daddyleon

    9:34 if someone can make it themselves and thereby it becomes theirs… how would you get to claimt he right to own/use the raw materials (be it… seeds, agricultural lands, miller's stone, bread-oven fire wood, etc., etc.)?

  • Joshua Moyer

    Couldn't you reject the non-aggression principal by arguing use of force is always justified? Obviously I agree that's a screwed up opinion, but I don't see how it violates the consistency principal.

  • Ike Moon

    I have been an ancap for a long time, but recently a question was posed to me:

    "If there is no central government, what will stop an extremely wealthy person from bribing a private military into subjugating everyone into slavery?"

    So, I think while taxation may be theft, there should be a court system private security must comply with. These courts could be easily municipalized, and thus compete for population/taxes, but they'd have to be bound by a central government whose only constitutional power is to limit the power of those courts. This is just the answer I came to. What do you all think? Will the aforementioned private military even succumb to greed? Is this plan even sensible?

  • DeadEndFrog

    The conclusion seems to end in "neo-feudalism with bitcoins"
    ownership over land seems to be the biggest problem, as it is bound to limit the freedom of movment, as well as the livingspace of people in the future. Not that its a "contradiction" as i don't see libertarians as "pro-freedom" ,but rather pro-"liberty".
    And bitcoins being necessary aswell, as regular money is a collective agreement on what can be used to represent a value.

  • Sean Feeney

    I just realised you could use a second chain of logic, just as valid as the first, to again prove libertarianism correct.
    1. Non-Contradiction
    2. Consistency
    3. Self-Ownership.
    You cannot declare that People can own other people or that nobody can own themselves without being inconsistent, as demonstrated in the video
    4. Non-Aggression AND Property rights both reached logically at the same time from Self-Ownership.
    You cannot use coercive action against other people without declaring that either you own that person or that nobody owns that person, which cannot be true if Self-Ownership is valid.
    And the right to own property stems directly from Self-Ownership, so you cannot use coercive action against other people's property without declaring that you own that property and therefore you own the person who own's that property.

  • Tyler Durden

    The only real issue I see with your argument is the notion that you can pick up a rock and say it is yours; or draw a line on a map and say this is my space. I don't see the justification for this in your argument.
    If you are holding, wearing or standing on something, then someone would have to use force to take it; but otherwise, how would it be force if a person entered your property or took something "of yours" that you had put down. Basically, how can ownership be extended beyond what you are in contact with?

  • Brian Wisher

    When you use any public facility (roads, police, Military, hospitals, parks, Library, Schools, ect.) you are using the service and not paying the full cost of it. The government will charge tax not as a show of force but as a consolidation and representation of all of your micro transactions that happen with public assets on a daily basis.

    I agree with self-ownership, but i feel there is a logical leap in saying that tax is a show of force. In my view, it is merely a tab for all of the services received by the organization know as "the Government".

  • Mistur Fixit

    The flaw in your logic begins at 4:54 "Even if the person is taking an action, if everyone affected by the action agrees with it, the burden of proof is on you if you want to interfere" This seems to be a hasty attempt to put all the players in place, but you never actually provide any basis for suspending logic as long as there's an agreement.

    If someone agrees to be a slave: according to your statement at 8:00, slavery violates the consistency principle (2). This should be true whether or not they agree to it. So your principle of self-ownership (6) comes with some unspoken degree of autonomy. After all, if they must choose between slavery and starvation, it's not much of an agreement, is it?

    Slavery cannot be both impermissible under the consistency principle (2) and permissible as long as there is an agreement (4). This would be a contradiction of your first principle. Even assuming that you've satisfied that burden of proof to interfere in slavery, you must still enforce it to ensure self-ownership. According to you, (5) the initiation of force can not be defended without contradiction.

    So either we illogically enforce principles of self-ownership or we allow them to be given away under duress. Either way, there's a contradiction. Nothing about agreeing to something makes it logically consistent.

  • OverlordSpartan

    What do you think about Hoppe and Kinsella's main argument of scarcity justifying private property rights?

  • CharlyBr0wn

    Following your own line of reasoning the government actually isn't holding a gun to your head making you do anything. The reason being that the government is a body that enforces principles that we all agree too. By utilizing the benefits of a governed society we thereby agree to give in to the agreement s of the larger body the masses. Which works out well in a minimalized governed society. The issue comes when the voice of the people isn't listened too.

  • john kosowski

    I don't buy your "those who want to use force have the burden of proof" argument. That is just a statement. Why does someone who wants to use force have a burden? If they feel like using force, why can't they? I agree that they shouldn't , but how is it proven from a "first principle" that they shouldn't? This goes to your "murder is wrong" premise in the Murder Most Feh video. How is murder wrong from first principles? Again, I am not taking the position that murder is not wrong, but how have you "proven" it logically?

  • Troy Sharples

    If the two different parties are agreed to have different political authority, then why should the constancy principle apply? Isn't a presupposition for this the fact that all people have equal political authority?

  • Levi Barnes

    8:15 is my favorite part. "If something isn't owned, then no one can stop someone from doing what they want to to it. If no one owns a rock, there's nothing stopping anyone from picking it up and using it for whatever purpose they want."

    <gasps in horror!>

  • Levi Barnes

    "How can one claim ownership of private property? He can do it himself. As long as he doesn't intrude on anyone else's private property to do so, whatever is the product of his own actions rightly belongs to him."

    How do we know whether he's intruded on anyone else's private property?

  • zaid Bolarin

    great arguments you posit, love all videos i've seen so far but i'd expected you to address here the concept of the social contact (partial freedoms/legal rights) which societies are built upon as opposed to the state of nature (absolute freedom/natural rights).

  • Alex

    Yeah your jumps of logic from 4-5 are a bit shifty. Its an unbroken chain till then, initiating force is defendable in the case of indirect violence or oppression, say through starvation. I would argue that it is morally justifiable for someone to steal some bread to feed themselves, whilst it is not always legal, it is okay to view someones life higher than that of a loaf of bread.

    Self ownership is ridiculous, your equating a human life to a rock. The difference being that property does not have rights, since it is not alive. Something that has a brain or that is alive has rights. Something that is sentient has responsibilities. A door, whilst it is mine, does not have rights, it only gains protection through my claim and responsibility over it. Ownership is not control, just because I have a rock, does not mean I have full control over what happens to it. It could be struck by lighting, thus I have no way of controlling what happens to it. I do however have responsibility over how its is used and who uses it.

  • Emperor Picard

    Just playing devils advocate here but how would a libertarian society handle people who are mentally disturbed? You can't just let a person who has mental problems walk free if he endangers himself and others but you would have to initiate force to help him wouldn't you? What about children, same questions again, if they have self ownership they could just walk away from their parents but I don't think anyone would argue that they should. What if they have abusive parents, who intervenes without using force?

  • Boredfan Gerrude

    Except the person on the opposite side of a claim should be able to prove the claim wrong otherwise there isn't any reason to believe the claim is false.

  • Andrew Cavallo

    Wouldn't this argument (the self-ownership part) apply to everything?
    My argument:
    1. If humans own themselves animals own themselves, why make the distinction?
    2. Same for plants.
    3. Same for everything else.
    I expect to receive one of these responses:
    1. Did you even WATCH THE VIDEO IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    2. Humans are different IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    3. Humans are conscious
    1. This is not an argument, I did watch the video, 5 times in fact
    2. Why?
    3. Why does this make a difference in self ownership?

  • Hyacinthus

    "Consistency is not preferable" isn't a consistent principle if you're simply indifferent to consistency. If you can take consistency or leave it, you're treating it as being non-preferable, but you're not establishing a consistent principle.

    "Consistency is not preferable" does not equal "inconsistency is preferable". The former isn't a consistent principle, the latter is.

  • Siren Slayer

    Molyneux's "the story of your enslavement" Rose's "tiny dot" and this video should be on every libertarians hard drive.

  • Acexand

    I have a question its its probably a dumb one, but here you go: With Self ownership you said what ever a person makes through labor is his. My question is this. If person A and B have a child wouldn't that mean person C is owned by A and B since C was created through their labor?

  • Andrew Cavallo

    Though I am not a hard determinist, I think that the possible holes in the argument based on moral responsibility should be considered since hard determinism is so common. I do not say this because I think that all ideas must be considered in a situation where there is a slight relation to the idea being discussed, but because I believe these ideas can still be justified if the idea that moral responsibility does not exist and considering this might convince some hard determinists.

  • z3ke_sk1さん

    I would love to see Sargon do a response to this. But he won't and he'll continue to call our side, that has logic on the side of it by the way, nothing more than a meme movement.

  • Wes Walker

    3 Refuted.
    The passive position is me minding my own business as a theist. The ACTIVE side is the one challenging someone else's beliefs. YOU are making a claim. LOL Wow, this is #EverydayAtheism at its worst. #ArgumentByAssertion

  • Wes Walker

    "everything I say is correct!"
    LOL #AppealToAuthority…@4:50
    "belief is active" #ArgumentByAssertion
    Oh, this hurts. The logic is broken here.

  • Wes Walker

    "Force is active."
    Another #ArgumentByAssertion… Things you have not established with this point… what constitutes Force. That Force is morally wrong. That they have any burden of proof other than the fact that they are fitter than you are. If those using force are stronger (fitter) than you are, in absence of an objective principle that you can point to that has authority, they get to determine what is and isn't "good", not you. See, I can assert things as true without basis, too.

  • xxcrysad3000xx

    It's a question of who owns the property, how they acquired it, and how the rules that govern the actions of those on the property are decided and enforced. The problem is you start in the middle of things by assuming property already exists, that rules or laws exist, and that the person who owns the property is within his/her rights to set the rules (aka laws) and enforce them. Thus he's not initiating force, he's simply enforcing the rules. But somehow when individuals transfer some of their rights to an association called the government, establishing rules and enforcing them becomes the initiation of force. I'm not sure if this is a logical fallacy, but there's something arbitrary about the distinction that needs clarification.

  • ThinkTrey

    Beautiful video. It honestly has changed the way I analyze, criticize, and self criticize things. It has helped me shape a secular moral code by throwing out all of the logically inconsistent theories, thus leaving only 2; everyone can (insert something immoral) or no one can. So we then choose which one is more preferable to the human existence and we see that no one may do immoral things. Thanks for teaching me that we can use basic logic to destroy un preferable theories.

  • Sachen Born Rhinelander

    What if person A buys an item off craigslist from person B, but 3 months later person C claims it was stolen? How they gonna proove it was stolen if its an item that looks identical to every other item like it. aka shit that don't have a tracking number embedded in it that can't be removed.

  • Mad Skeptic

    Your arguments ignore the contracts made by people and their government.

    Prior to the age of majority, your parents initiated you into a contract with the government by making you a citizen. By proxy, they signed you on to follow all the laws and regulations of the state, with all the benefits and responsibilities that entails. This is because prior to age of majority, you lack the mental capacity to enter such an agreement (a baby can't make an informed choice after all).

    After you reach age of majority, you are free to, should you no longer wish to be bound by this contract, forfeit it. But in so doing, basically renouncing your citizenship, you would be no longer welcome in the country as the country only wishes citizens of that nation to take part in that nation. Otherwise, you are basically stealing from the nation as long as you remain there, which is an action despite how passive you may feel it is.

    Your argument breaks down at part 5, as force is justified if at any point you break part of that contract, wherein you agreed to abide by the law. I understand you as a person never agreed to it in writing or verbally, but a contract need not be initiated by only these two methods. An implied contract can exist. A contract is a binding legal agreement between two or more competent parties, not necessarily in writing and given mutual consideration, to perform a legal act voluntarily (yes I remembered that from High School law class, they drill that into you).

    After reaching age of majority, you are considered to be in an implied contract to be bound by the law simply by staying and remaining a citizen. As such, if the law allows force, it's justified AND by definition you gave prior consent. Worse, being passive in remaining in a country where you are not a citizen when requested to leave is in itself a form of action. It all depends on who's point of view you go by.

    Part 6 is mostly assertion. Ownership is a human social construct, and as such it's at the whims of the people asserting ownership. You deem yourself the owner of your body and mind, claiming to be owned by another is slavery, which is basically inflammatory language meant to bring those listening to your side of thinking, then muddy the water of "Who decides who owns who" and claims it violates premise 2, and claiming different rules can't apply to different people, which is just another assertion, based on the idea of what YOU subjectively determine is "consistent", ignoring others may find a different consistency. While I accept the idea of self-ownership, your logic is faulty.

    Once again, premise 6 ignores that same contract I mentioned. You as a citizen are in a contract to obey the law. You have forfeiting some of your self-ownership to the government in exchange for the benefits that come with it, such as the protections afforded by those same laws to protect you from other citizens who break them.

    Premise 7 ignores where the original property came from and who actually owns it. For example, when you buy land, the land is itself owned by the government. It's a part of the country. You never actually fully and completely own it. For example in Canada (my home country), most of the land is Crown Lands, owned by the government in the name of the Crown. When you buy land, you basically enter a contract to have some but not all ownership of it. This is why the government can tax you, you're in essence renting. Sadly most don't understand this nuance, and assume they own the lands they are on, and then make other assumptions based on that.

    By the same logic, all items in the country are similarly owned by the government (which, really, just represents the people of the country, so really EVERYONE). So everyone in your country has partial ownership of the goods you have, by virtue of those goods originating in those lands, and again by the contract with the government you are a part of (wherein you cede partial ownership). You have no real private property, only the illusion of it, which ultimately is the problem with much of your argument.

    Worse, you in Part 7 build on Part 6 (which you previously claimed was basically iron-clad) to claim you can't grant anyone ownership of yourself. But in part 6 your major point is whom decided who owns who as the major reason why Part 6 was so perfect. But in Part 7, if you sell yourself to another, you have traded ownership of your mind and body to another for some form of recompense. This is a perfectly consistent transaction. One I personally find abhorrent, but logically valid.

    You use these points to segway into point 8 to claim that the taking of legally owned property can't be defended. But again I point to that contract I keep mentioning. By being a citizen, you agreed to a contract with the government. And you can renounce that contract at any time by renouncing your citizenship and leaving. But by agreeing to continue to benefit from that contract you are also bound by the responsibilities of it. So if you break any of the rules, and those rules mean forfeiture of freedom or property, you previously agreed to it (even if at the time of the forfeiture you suddenly no longer do). So point 8 is easily nullified by the fact you previously ceded partial ownership of your property to the state, and agreed to any punishments meted by the state should you break any law. You are a willing participant even if you don't understand that's what you're doing.

    In a nutshell, about half your video is logically flawed.

  • Bruce Ludlow

    Why do you get universal, eternal, infinite rights to land just because you built over it? What gives the principle of private property more value over the personal rights of humans born after you?

    This is a "first past the vagina" system that discards personal rights out of hand.

    Also, you never seem to qualify these seemingly contradictory statements:
    *You cannot sell yourself
    *You can sell yourself if only for a few hours


  • GargamelGold

    Shane Killian

    I have a question for you, do you think that we should allow people to drink and drive? The drunk driver maybe putting other people's lives in danger due to being severely impaired, but they're not initiating force, and if you ban drunk driving aren't you initiating force against drunk drivers? Also you think we should get rid of all environmental, health and safety regulations? Do you think we should allow companies to just dump toxic waste in the river? Again, what they're doing is clearly harmful, but they're not initiating force.

  • Keith Lindsey

    Hey, you commit the fallacy of division at 2:44. You state that it's unreasonable for someone to demand that you justify [the infinite set of all possible actions you aren't performing] (this is axiomatically true), and claim that the unreasonableness extends to individual members of that infinite group, citing the consistency principle. The problem is that if it's possible that some of those members have attributes that others don't (and since the set is truly infinite, it is axiomatically true), then you have immediately committed a fallacy. The link between the group and the individual might still be possible, but it's now possible that every conclusion subsequent to that one is wrong. Do you have any other reasons to suggest that one cannot demand justification for inaction?

  • Digicraftmon the Crystal Gem here's a guy called knowing better that might be advicating for gun control but I'm not sure…I'll continue to watch his video.

  • Triangle Chloros

    I believe this is the same combination of face-palming amusement and mild annoyance that physicists must feel upon seeing one of those flat earther videos. You cannot go from an is to an ought.
    For fun, let's count the errors:

    1: There are actual several different logics, with different logical laws. Yes, yes, this is a quibble, but it's still true.

    2: Not technically an error, but all axioms are foundational, and by definition they do not have to be defended. That is what makes them axioms

    3: It's hard to put any one of the logical laws as 'more foundational' than any other, but I certainly wouldn't put non-contradiction as the foundational principle. I'd give that honour to the law of equality (a=a), which is why paraconsistent logics tend to keep it.

    4: 'preferable' and 'true' are quite different things. It is quite possible for 'consistency is true' and 'it would be preferable were it not true' to both be true, and thus the statement 'consistency is not preferable' is not contradictory.

    5: 'should' has not been proven to be a subset of 'could', so it is not inconsistent to require you to do the impossible.

    6: If we assume that ought implies can, it is not inconsistent to require you to justify some of the things one is not doing, so long as one does not justify that as being because of an inherent need to justify not doing things. If, for example, I were to posit an inherent need to justify not doing the thing dictated by any given moral system, but nothing else, I would not be being inconsistent in any way.
    To be clear, I have not, so far, actually come across anything I disagree with. Points 4-6 are more showing just how little is actually really based just on objective logic. Not only is science not, neither is maths. You almost always need something else too.

    7. 'Wanting to use force' is not something that needs proving. It's not truth-bearing. Unless someone was questioning that the people in question want to use it? What I suspect was meant was that those who say force should be being used have to justify that position. Which they do. First, they need to justify thinking that morality exists at all. It would not be inconsistent to say 'there is no such thing as morality, and also I want to shoot people'. And if 'morality exists is a premise, it needed to be included at the beginning, because there is no logical proof that it does.

    8. It is not logically inconsistent to say that different rules apply to governments. It is not logically inconsistent to say that there are different rules for people called 'James', either. This is what's called 'future Tuesday indifference' – so called because it is not logically inconsistent to be indifferent to anything that will happen on any future Tuesday.

    9. Whilst, assuming all prior logic, the statement that 'the burden of proof is on you if you say that there should be interference with an action taken by a consenting group' is true, it is also on you if you say that there should be interference with an action taken by a group some of whom don't consent. Whilst not logically untrue, the statement has more qualifiers than needed.

    10. It is not logically inconsistent to claim that force is justified in some cases and not in others. A lot of things are not logically inconsistent. It is not logically inconsistent to say that force is only wrong when used by people not called 'C'. Logical inconsistency is very strict.

    If you disagree with me on the logical issues with this segment of argument, consider the following: let 'borce' be a word meaning exactly the same as ‘force’, except that ‘borce’ does not include ‘killing anyone who has not killed anyone’. If you substitute ‘borce’ into Shane’s argument in place of ‘force’, there is no difference to the logic (or even the examples, actually). Therefore, either the argument is flawed, or it is impossible to justify using force on a murderer.
    This is what’s called a false dichotomy. The argument would only follow if we could assume that any justification for one use of borce could also be used to justify any other use of borce. But it obviously can’t. Which the uncharitable part of me suspects is why Shane avoids the word ‘all’.

    11. It is not logically inconsistent to suggest that people are unowned. Just because it might have negative consequences, doesn’t imply that it can’t be true. It’s also not logically inconsistent to say that those with a particular quality own those without a certain quality. Nor to say that each person owns exactly one other person, whilst being owned by a third person. Or that ‘ownership’ is a meaningless concept. Or that people don’t actually exist. Or that inanimate objects have property rights.

    I’m actually going to stop here, because I’m bored. The argument doesn’t go through on purely logical grounds, to say the least.

  • Rufus Coombe

    How and who stops someone selling themselves into slavery? Surely that violates the principles of non aggression and it violates the idea of self ownership (you can do what you wish with your property). In addition to this how can we sell ourselves for a few hours (labour) yet we cannot sell ourselves completely.

  • Thomistic

    This burden of proof idea is complete nonsense. Anyone who holds to a position has the burden of proof. Otherwise, you are holding that position for no reason, which is irrational by definition.

  • Thomistic

    The passive principle wouldn't be that initiation of force is morally wrong. It would be that initiation of force is neither morally wrong, nor morally acceptable. It was a nice slight of hand there using the word "unjustified," but even with your principles, this doesn't work.

  • Finntronaut

    Regarding selling yourself to slavery, couldn't you hypothetically sign a contract selling your labor for the rest of your life? I wouldn't call this slavery, because it's voluntary, but is there a problem with a "rest-of-the-life-lasting" voluntary labor contract?

  • Paul Perrin

    An atheist not believing is fine… it is passive. But an atheist actively claiming that god does not exist is an active position… they are not 'not believing', they are actively 'denying… I am not suggesting either side is right or wrong, just that if you want to be militant about something, then you need to prove your case if you want to claim that your position is logical/objective…

    ps. this is just a side point for militant atheists… it doesn't impact your line of logic.

  • Paul Perrin

    If I have 'self ownership', but can't sell myself in to slavery then I am not my own property… I bet you are happy for me to sell a bit of myself in to slavery… like a kidney – no? People clearly are not property… if not everything is property (such as people), maybe other things are not property… like land that existed before any person did…

  • Mathew Reimer

    I don't think point 5 properly demonstrates that the Non-Aggression Principle necessarily logically follows from the Non-Contradiction Principle. It bakes in the assumption that person C thinks person A shouldn't be able to retaliate in the first place. If person C initiates force expecting that person A would be justified doing the same, then person C would not violate the Non-Contradiction Principle when justifying their initiation of force. I for example think that the government is justified in initiating force upon me so that I operate within its rules, so long as I can retaliate if I want to.

  • Pedro Victor

    In 5, people confuses justified with justifiable. Lets say A initiates force on B and, in response, initiates force on A. If A's initiation of force can be justified, that means B's can't, because A's initiation would be right. Same thing with B's. But initiation of force can't be both justifiable and unjustifiable at the same time. Even If A or B came up with a justification.

  • Scrotie McB

    5:28 #5 is incorrect. The valid defense for the initiation of force is to claim it was in retaliation to a threat.

    Let's say person A is armed and holstered while person B is unarmed. Person A then walks up to person B, looks them seriously in the eye, and says "I think you should give me your wallet." Is person A threatening person B? Based off this interchange alone, if person B was carrying a concealed knife, would they be justified in drawing it and trying to disable person A before they could draw their firearm, or is person A merely exercising freedom of speech?

    As the above example shows, threats are subjective. For instance, imagine that person B isn't fluent in the language person A is speaking in. It's possible he might not feel any danger at all; it's also possible that, seeing the holstered weapon, he could feel his life is in danger even if it turns out person A said "nice weather we're having." The evaluation of threat is a complex procedure which attempts to forecast whether or not certain behaviors are indicative of the future use of force, and unlike facts, forecasts are inherently not objective — the past is the proper province of the objectivity, the future the proper province of subjectivity.

    The non-aggression principle fails because it either
    1. draws a false equivalence between threats and force, or
    2. it fails to respond to threats with force and thus gives those who would use force illegitimately the first strike, effectively killing its adherents.

    The truth is that threats are not force, yet threats sometimes demand the use of force to counter. In other words, the initiation of force is justified when the unproven and unprovable forecast of upcoming violence, based on a series of behavioral indicators, is deemed to be beyond a certain arbitrary and/or socially-constructed standard of doubt.

  • A T

    Point 5, no initiation of force is justified, I would say it is justified in protecting say children from themselves, not having the ability to reasonably make decisions for themselves, would this however fall under defensive use of force as youre using reactionary force in defense of them?

  • Jimmy Stephens

    There are some good principles here, but many of the mistakes Rand made pop up in this video. There is too much here to cover for a mere youtube comment, but let's consider logic and first principles. Take for example the recurring claim in this video that logic is "objective." This is ambiguous. Although it is unpopular in the West to deny the objectivity of logical laws, the nature and content of those laws remains as controversial now as it was during the Classical Era. So then, what does it really mean to say logic is objective?

    Is logic a sociological construct? Is it a conceptual framework or category of human psychology? Is it a natural law? Is it grounded in a Platonic form or timeless propositionality? Is it the wisdom of God? Is logic intuitionist or dialetheistic instead of classical? Is it fuzzy instead of binary? Is it normative or just descriptive? Without covering these more basic questions, it is unclear what "logic" really is, and so ambiguous to call it "objective."

    Consider also the naive foundationalism proffered to support the argument. Are there really first principles that do not need to be defended? If it is meant that people will just naturally agree with Shane's view, then he is mistaken. Coherentists and foundherentists might accept some or all of his first principles without adopting foundationalism. Infinitists will reject his notion of first principles entirely. Foundationalists disagree not only on what makes a belief a "first principle," including whether they should be defended, but on what our "first principles" include. Shane's argument therefore is a lot less simple than he makes it out to be.

    Consider his consistency principle (3). It is not obvious how Shane avoids special pleading when for some beliefs he deems them true without defense and then proceeds to defend other beliefs. If in principle one can just name some belief's "first principles," then one can simply call the negation of Shane's position a "first principle" and call it a day. If Shane rejects these alternative "first principles," he will have to provide us a reason for taking up his instead and will thereby undermine their nature as not needing a defense. So it appears Shane's epistemology is not consistent with itself both in general and in the sense that Shane doesn't follow (3), his own principle of consistency.

  • zerox medox

    "Person A hires Person B at $7/hour. Person C, thinking Person B should be paid at least $10/hour, wants to point a gun at Person A and make him pay Person B more money. Is he justified in this? Think about it: what if Person A then points a gun back at Person C, because he doesn't want to be forced to do something he doesn't want to do? What's Person C going to do, say that Person A doesn't get to use force? Even though Person C is doing what he's doing through force? How does Person C have any legitimacy here at that point?"

    Persons C's legitimacy rests, as you said, in his proof for that action; then, if his reasoning is shown to be valid, we procced to Person's A legitimacy for his action of pointing a gun at Person C; now we are checking Person's A reasons for that action and if it is shown that his argument is valid, then he is to also procced with his action. Now, if those two actions are contradictory (if they are about the same problem, in this case they probably are because Person A doesnt want to pay more so he is in direct opposition to Person C), one of them will appear invalid in legitimacy ( in their reasoning). So that option is not even possible, because it would break the principle of contradiction. So to conclude, your argument is missing the part where we try to understand both of the sides for their actions and thus conclude witch of them is right: statist or libertarianist

  • Notra Name'

    All life transgresses upon other life, there is no avoiding this. All these principles contradict the inherent form of nature.

  • Darth Utah 66

    You kinda jump the shark with point 5. All of the previous points make sense but then you go from saying that force must be justified to saying that the initiation of force is inherently unjustified. Can you explain it better?

  • paskal007r

    holy shit this video seriously is riddled with gross mistakes.

    Linking the burden of proof to the consistency principle it's insane. This guy never even saw a logic textbook.

    The burden of proof is on anyone making any statement in logic. Whether is a statement about the truth of something or the falsehood of something. To take the example of the theist-atheist debate he uses, the atheist HAS a burden of proof: he is affirming he doesn't hold a belief in a god, so he ought to prove that … HE doesn't hold a belief in a god. The theist claims the EXISTENCE of a god, so he ought to prove that the god exists. They both have a burden, it's just that the claims are different and one of the two is trivially proven to anyone's satisfaction by the very words of the atheist.

    When it comes to the second example "state coming for my money" he's making the statement that he has ownership of the money, so he has a burden of proof on that in the first place. He's just taking his position as a granted and asking for proof of another position. This is an unjustifiable double-standard.

    Next example is that there can't be a minimum wage without justification of it. He forgets that also the no-minimum-wage position needs justification, it's NOT the default state of existence. Also, it's extremely easy to justify minimum wage regulations: a non-living wage is a con, one is being tricked into a detrimental exchange that will endanger him physically (he'll end up starving).

    8:00 self ownership principle includes "fruits of your labor", BUT there's no justification for using resources EXTERNAL to one's body. Here's where lies the hidden assumption that cannot be supported and that he needs to justify. There's no such a thing as labor that can be performed EXCLUSIVELY with one's own body and nothing else. Even stuff like dancing implies using cultural elements that need to come from someone else. To anyone with a gram of training in actual logic this is a glaring mistake.

    8:30 "if something isn't owned there's nothing stopping you from doing anything with it"

    Where's the justification of this? He's flat out ignoring his burden of proof on this one. Note that it does NOT derive from any of the principles stated so far: someone is initiating an action here, "doing anything" with an unowned object. This places burden of proof on the author of this video even by HIS standards. And self-ownership also doesn't say anything about how one can or cannot behave towards an unowned object. This statement needs justification before any conclusion based on it can be derived.
    Otherwise is impossible to claim that anyone denying your conclusions is denying reason.

    About the argument that one can't sell himself into slavery, that's actually in contradiction with the first principle of private property that one can do whatever it wants with it. Also, one might easily replace the word slavery with "ceding one's labor for all its life" and be in the same position of anyone ceding portions of his life's work.

  • Jan Doskočil

    In point 5 (Initiation of force cannot be defended) you make the argument, that it would be inconsistent to complain about someone initiating force against you while you claim to be justified in initiating force against someone else – and I agree. However (theoretically) there are two consistent stances on aggression. Either "aggression is never justified" OR "aggression is always justified". Therefore I think your thought process can be rendered invalid when someone takes the stance "might makes right" and accepts it consistently even if he becomes a victim of aggression.

    For all practical purposes people choose the former of the two stances (that which you hold as true), because world in which all aggression is deemed just would be very unprosperous and unfree. However I think you cannot objectively reject all aggression (and therefore states and criminals) because some people might as well take and consistently apply the latter of the two stances.

    I know I'm quite late to make this comment, but I would still appreciate it if you could provide some counter-argument.

  • Platon

    I think your video can be tidied up in a way.

    First, a key point that I think many comments have missed is that truth-arguments from reason have an inherent normative foundation underlying them. The reason we can say they do is that individuals can choose to use reason or choose not to use reason ( which can manifest itself in many ways ) and an argument's force relies in part on the acceptance of the norms underlying the choice of reason itself. The goal then is to determine what the inherent normative foundation is.

    1. One ought to be reasonable.
    For any argument to work, this norm must be accepted. Everything flows from this norm. If an arguments rejects its own use of reason or an application of reason, it fails.

    2. One ought to take logic and justifiability seriously.
    An argument that doesn't take logic and justifiability seriously would no longer be an actual argument, but a joke, and the claims under consideration could never actually be settled.

    3. Universalizability.
    An argument's soundness depends on it being universalizable: that is, for an argument to essentially be valid, it would have to be that no one capable of challenging it in principle could refute it. An argument which denied an individual an ability to assess its truth ( capable of doing so ) would fall into a dialectical contradiction.

    4. Self-Ownership
    In line with the previous point, an argument's soundness depends on it being able to be challenged by anyone capable of challenging and not being refutable. As such, any argument which denied the autonomy of an individual to assess it and come to their own conclusion about it falls into a dialectical contradiction — it destroys the conditions under which it can be assessed as an argument by someone who could assess it in principle. All of this is a very roundabout way to say that an argument must allow the individuals to be able to come to conclusions about it on their own, or have a right to their autonomy, or self-ownership. This applies to both normative propositions and descriptive propositions.

    5. Private Property
    This point pertains specifically to normative propositions rather than descriptive ones. In this case, it has to deal with arguments in the context of a conflict over a scarce resource. That is, when we have individuals wanting to use the same resource for incompatible ends, what norms must an argument cohere to? A norm an argument must cohere to is that the current possessor must be allowed to control ( or has a right to control ) the resource against any later possessors who would want to control the same resource. The opposite case would result in a dialectical contradiction. Of course, it possible as a fact that a later possessor can seize control of a resource against an earlier possessor's desire. As a logical implication of our norm, it then follows that "the current possessor must be allowed to control (or has the right to control) the resource against any later possessors unless a later possessor can prove he was the possessor of the resource prior to the current possessor." It logically follows from this then we have first-possessor neo-Lockean ownership — the first possessor has the right to control a resource until they decide to give up all future intent to by abandonment of it. This applies not only to external resources but also to one's body or parts of it.

    6. The Non-Aggression Principle
    This logically flows from everything before. As a consequence of the norm before, "the current possessor must be able to control the resource against any later possessors who would want to control the resource", it follows then "a later possessor ought not to seize control of a resource away from the current possessor" or "one ought not to initiate force."

  • Free Helicopter Rides for all Socialists of Roblox

    I just linked this video to a commie and he refused to watch it because of the lame excuse that 20 minutes is too long for him. I guess his brain would melt if he was exposed to intelligence for too long anyway.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *