Manual to Humanity either adjusted or revealed a few previously obscured or undiscovered aspects of libertarian philosophy, like objective morality, just acquisition and threat assessment. One thing that remained unanswered, in my mind, was why I would have a claim on the property of someone who had violated my property in a way that made that my property unrecoverable. It’s one of those ideas that seems to flow from the logic of property so easily that I simply asserted it as true without realizing it needed to be reasoned out on its own.
I’ve been ’round and ’round with this and I’ve finally come to an unexpected conclusion.
Let’s say that Bob took some food from Tom and ate it without Tom’s consent. The food now no longer exists, for all practical purposes. Originally, I would have asserted that Tom now has a claim on Bob’s property because Bob had violated Tom’s property, transferring the value of Tom’s property to Bob without Tom’s consent. Bob had displayed that he rejects the moral principle that property should be respected, and that applies to his own property and, therefore, Tom would not be violating Bob’s property if he took property from Bob in order to replace the value of the food Bob took from Tom without Tom’s consent. But objective or universal moral principles can’t be based on subjective ideas. Objective morality isn’t based on “value”, it’s based on “those material objects to which no one else has an equal or greater claim, nor for which others can be assigned responsibility”. In this way, the assertion in Manual to Humanity is inconsistent with itself. Libertarians and, in particular, Austro-libertarians, should understand that value is subjective. The value of any object to any person is going to be different based on any person’s current situation and preferences. Ordinarily, a 100 oz gold bar would be more valuable to me than most other things, however, if I found myself in the desert, my values would suddenly shift away from gold and toward shade and water. But values shift in this way constantly, though less radically, for everyone in every moment. In this way, the value Tom places on the food Bob took from him can’t really be pinned down in any objective way, in any permanent sense, even by Tom himself!
The point is, for a philosopher to claim, as I previously did, that the violation of one’s property creates a claim on the property of the violator, the moral principle would need to be based on value, rather than material objects. Material objects objectively exist and value is merely subjective, so it can’t be true that the violated party, Tom, in this case, has an objective claim on the property of the violator! The property owner does, actually have a right (or an entitlement) to his own property, and, if that property is taken from him without his consent, he may recover that property by any means necessary, because he has a right to do what wants with his property and, because no one else has a right to the property of others, they may not, morally, stop him from recovering his property. However, if his property no longer exists, or the violator no longer possesses the stolen property, like Tom’s food that Bob ate without Tom’s consent, there is nothing for Tom to recover. Under no circumstance does one have a right to the property of others, even if others have violated one’s property.
That is all very unsatisfying, because it seems unjust that someone can take what’s yours, dispose of it in some way without your consent and owe you nothing. I think, however, that this is something a free market would deal with. Obviously, everyone has an interest in getting their stolen property back, in whatever form they can, even if that property no longer exists. Even consistent property violators would want this for their own property. Therefore, some arrangements could be made to mitigate these bad outcomes. For example, people could have insurance against property violation, and if property were violated, the insurance company would pay out and the property violator’s premiums would go up accordingly, effectively wiping out the long-term gain the violator may have gotten from violating the property. The violator may, in fact, find that he can’t be insured, which would make his property vulnerable to uncompensated violation.
Before wrapping this up, I want to address another issue I brought up earlier. I said, “…Bob had displayed that he rejects the moral principle that property should be respected, and that applies to his own property and, therefore, Tom would not be violating Bob’s property if he took property from Bob in order to replace the value of the food Bob took from Tom without Tom’s consent”. In the moment that property is being violated, I think (as of this writing, anyway) that this is a defensible position. I’ve written on this before in the Defense of Others post. However, people change over time. Tom demonstrates, in taking Bob’s bike without Bob’s consent, that he rejects the idea that property should be respected, including his own, since property is universal among humans, which constitutes Tom’s blanket consent to the use of Tom’s property by anyone, including Bob. But if, later, Tom has a change of heart and no longer approves of his past actions, he effectively withdraws his blanket consent. So, that concept is still applicable, but only during the act of the violation of property, which includes the time during which Tom refuses to return Bob’s bike.
The conclusion is that one does not have a claim on property that no longer exists, nor does one have a claim on the property of the violator because property is material and, therefore objective and “value” is subjective and indeterminate. An objective principle, like “By violating his victim’s property, thereby transferring value from the victim to himself, he creates a claim on his own property by which the victim may attempt to recoup the value taken from him…” can’t be based on a subjective concept. It’s ok, a free market would take care of this worrying conclusion in the real world.
