WEBVTT NOTE 9. Property and Criminality 1 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.440 Chapter 9. Property and Criminality We may define anyone who aggresses against 2 00:00:09.440 --> 00:00:16.880 the person or other produced property of another as a criminal. A criminal is anyone who initiates 3 00:00:16.880 --> 00:00:23.920 violence against another man and his property, anyone who uses the coercive political means 4 00:00:23.920 --> 00:00:27.880 for the Acquisition of Goods and Services. 5 00:00:27.880 --> 00:00:31.000 Now however critical problems arise. 6 00:00:31.000 --> 00:00:36.760 We are now indeed at the very heart of the entire problem of liberty, property and violence 7 00:00:36.760 --> 00:00:38.720 in society. 8 00:00:38.720 --> 00:00:44.640 A crucial question, and one which has unfortunately been almost totally neglected by libertarian 9 00:00:44.640 --> 00:00:49.760 theorists, may be illustrated by the following examples. 10 00:00:49.760 --> 00:00:55.400 Suppose we are walking down the street and we see a man, A, seizing B by the wrist and 11 00:00:55.400 --> 00:00:58.080 grabbing B's wristwatch. 12 00:00:58.080 --> 00:01:04.240 There is no question that A is here violating both the person and the property of B. Can 13 00:01:04.240 --> 00:01:10.600 we then simply infer from this scene that A is a criminal aggressor and B his innocent 14 00:01:10.600 --> 00:01:12.480 victim? 15 00:01:12.480 --> 00:01:13.740 Certainly not. 16 00:01:13.740 --> 00:01:20.740 For we don't know simply from our observation whether A is, indeed, a thief, or whether 17 00:01:20.740 --> 00:01:28.180 A is merely repossessing his own watch from B, who had previously stolen it from him. 18 00:01:28.180 --> 00:01:34.100 In short, while the watch had undoubtedly been B's property until the moment of A's 19 00:01:34.100 --> 00:01:39.380 attack, we don't know whether or not A had been the legitimate owner at some earlier 20 00:01:39.380 --> 00:01:42.900 time and had been robbed by B. 21 00:01:42.900 --> 00:01:49.900 Therefore, we do not yet know which one of the two men is the legitimate or just property owner. 22 00:01:49.900 --> 00:01:55.900 We can only find the answer through investigating the concrete data of the particular case, 23 00:01:55.900 --> 00:01:58.900 that is, through historical inquiry. 24 00:01:58.900 --> 00:02:09.900 Thus, we cannot simply say that the great axiomatic moral rule of the libertarian society is the protection of property rights, period. 25 00:02:09.900 --> 00:02:22.900 For the criminal has no natural right whatever to the retention of property that he has stolen, the aggressor has no right to claim any property that he has acquired by aggression. 26 00:02:22.900 --> 00:02:36.900 Therefore, we must modify or rather clarify the basic rule of the libertarian society to say that no one has the right to aggress against the legitimate or just property of another. 27 00:02:36.900 --> 00:02:44.420 In short, we cannot simply talk of defense of property rights or of private property 28 00:02:44.420 --> 00:02:46.460 per se. 29 00:02:46.460 --> 00:02:51.740 For if we do so, we are in grave danger of defending the property right of a criminal 30 00:02:51.740 --> 00:02:52.740 aggressor. 31 00:02:52.740 --> 00:02:57.340 In fact, we logically must do so. 32 00:02:57.340 --> 00:03:04.180 We may therefore only speak of just property or legitimate property, or perhaps natural 33 00:03:04.180 --> 00:03:05.940 property. 34 00:03:05.940 --> 00:03:12.580 This means that in concrete cases, we must decide whether any single given act of violence 35 00:03:12.580 --> 00:03:19.500 is aggressive or defensive, for example, whether it is a case of a criminal robbing a victim 36 00:03:19.500 --> 00:03:24.500 or of a victim trying to repossess his property. 37 00:03:24.500 --> 00:03:29.640 Another vital implication of this way of looking at the world is to invalidate totally the 38 00:03:29.640 --> 00:03:34.560 The Utilitarian way of looking at property rights, and therefore of looking at the free 39 00:03:34.560 --> 00:03:36.260 market. 40 00:03:36.260 --> 00:03:43.040 For the utilitarian, who has no conception, let alone theory, of justice, must fall back 41 00:03:43.040 --> 00:03:49.400 on the pragmatic ad hoc view that all titles to private property currently existing at 42 00:03:49.400 --> 00:03:56.000 any time or place must be treated as valid, and accepted as worthy of defense against 43 00:03:56.000 --> 00:03:58.040 violation. 44 00:03:58.040 --> 00:04:03.360 This in fact is the way utilitarian free market economists invariably treat the question of 45 00:04:03.360 --> 00:04:05.400 property rights. 46 00:04:05.400 --> 00:04:11.480 Note however that the utilitarian has managed to smuggle into his discussion an unexamined 47 00:04:11.480 --> 00:04:18.480 ethic, that all goods now, the time and place at which the discussion occurs, considered 48 00:04:18.480 --> 00:04:23.920 private property, must be accepted and defended as such. 49 00:04:23.920 --> 00:04:30.720 In practice, this means that all private property titles designated by any existing government, 50 00:04:30.720 --> 00:04:38.280 which as everywhere sees the monopoly of defining titles to property, must be accepted as such. 51 00:04:38.280 --> 00:04:45.480 This is an ethic that is blind to all considerations of justice, and, pushed to its logical conclusion, 52 00:04:45.480 --> 00:04:51.700 must also defend every criminal in the property that he has managed to expropriate. 53 00:04:51.700 --> 00:04:58.140 We conclude that the utilitarian simply praising a free market based upon all existing property 54 00:04:58.140 --> 00:05:03.380 titles is invalid and ethically nihilistic. 55 00:05:03.380 --> 00:05:09.340 I am convinced, however, that the real motor for social and political change in our time 56 00:05:09.340 --> 00:05:16.140 has been a moral indignation arising from the fallacious theory of surplus value, that 57 00:05:16.140 --> 00:05:21.700 The capitalists have stolen the rightful property of the workers, and therefore that existing 58 00:05:21.700 --> 00:05:26.180 titles to accumulated capital are unjust. 59 00:05:26.180 --> 00:05:32.180 Given this hypothesis, the remainder of the impetus for both Marxism and anarcho-syndicalism 60 00:05:32.180 --> 00:05:34.440 follow quite logically. 61 00:05:34.440 --> 00:05:40.820 From an apprehension of what appears to be monstrous injustice flows the call for expropriation 62 00:05:40.820 --> 00:05:47.120 of the Expropriators, and, in both cases, for some form of reversion of the ownership 63 00:05:47.120 --> 00:05:50.920 and the control of the property to the workers. 64 00:05:50.920 --> 00:05:56.460 In this sense, the only proper carrying out of the Marxian ideal has partially occurred 65 00:05:56.460 --> 00:06:02.380 in Yugoslavia, where the communist regime has turned the socialized sphere of production 66 00:06:02.380 --> 00:06:10.460 over to the control, and hence de facto ownership, of the workers in each particular plant. 67 00:06:10.460 --> 00:06:16.180 Their arguments cannot be successfully countered by the maxims of utilitarian economics or 68 00:06:16.180 --> 00:06:22.540 philosophy, but only by dealing forthrightly with the moral problem, with the problem of 69 00:06:22.540 --> 00:06:27.980 the justice or injustice of various claims to property. 70 00:06:27.980 --> 00:06:35.120 Neither can Marxist views be rebutted by utilitarian peons to the virtues of social peace. 71 00:06:35.120 --> 00:06:41.200 Social peace is all very well, but true peace is essentially the quiet, unmolested enjoyment 72 00:06:41.200 --> 00:06:47.360 of one's legitimate property, and if a social system is founded upon monstrously unjust 73 00:06:47.360 --> 00:06:54.040 property titles, not molesting them is not peace, but rather the enshrinement and entrenchment 74 00:06:54.040 --> 00:06:56.600 of permanent aggression. 75 00:06:56.600 --> 00:07:01.540 Neither can the Marxists be rebutted by pointing the finger at their use of violent methods 76 00:07:01.540 --> 00:07:03.240 of overthrow. 77 00:07:03.240 --> 00:07:09.160 It is, to be sure, a consistent creed, the one that I do not share, that no violence 78 00:07:09.160 --> 00:07:16.280 should ever be used by anyone against anyone else, even by a victim against a criminal. 79 00:07:16.280 --> 00:07:21.920 But this Tolstoyan-Gandhian moral position is really irrelevant here, for the point at 80 00:07:21.920 --> 00:07:27.760 question is whether or not the victim has a moral right to employ violence in defending 81 00:07:27.760 --> 00:07:34.760 in the name of a higher morality, but this takes us a field from our discussion into broader reaches of ethical philosophy. 82 00:07:34.760 --> 00:07:41.760 I would only add here that any such total objector to violence must then be the subject of discussion. 83 00:07:41.760 --> 00:07:50.760 I would only add here that any such total objector to violence must then be the subject of discussion. 84 00:07:50.760 --> 00:07:52.360 Philosophy. 85 00:07:52.360 --> 00:07:59.600 I would only add here that any such total objector to violence must then be consistent and advocate 86 00:07:59.600 --> 00:08:04.880 that no criminal ever be punished by the use of violent means. 87 00:08:04.880 --> 00:08:11.360 And this implies, let us note, not only abstaining from capital punishment, but from all punishment 88 00:08:11.360 --> 00:08:17.800 whatsoever, and indeed from all methods of violent defense that might conceivably injure 89 00:08:17.800 --> 00:08:19.560 an aggressor. 90 00:08:19.560 --> 00:08:25.320 In short, to employ that horrid cliché to which we shall have occasion to return, the 91 00:08:25.320 --> 00:08:31.560 Tolstoyan may not use force to prevent someone from raping his sister. 92 00:08:31.560 --> 00:08:37.320 The point here is that only Tolstoyans are entitled to object to the violent overthrow 93 00:08:37.320 --> 00:08:44.280 of an entrenched criminal group, for everyone who is not a Tolstoyan favors the use of force 94 00:09:14.280 --> 00:09:37.280 If we concede that capitalist property is morally illegitimate, then we cannot deny the right of the workers to employ whatever violence may be necessary to seize the property, just as A, in our above example, would have been within his rights in forcibly repossessing his watch if B had stolen it previously. 95 00:09:37.280 --> 00:09:54.280 The only genuine refutation of the Marxian case for revolution, then, is that capitalist's property is just rather than unjust, and that therefore its seizure by workers or by anyone else would in itself be unjust and criminal. 96 00:09:54.280 --> 00:10:00.320 But this means that we must enter into the question of the justice of property claims, 97 00:10:00.320 --> 00:10:05.720 and it means, further, that we cannot get away with the easy luxury of trying to refute 98 00:10:05.720 --> 00:10:12.760 revolutionary claims by arbitrarily placing the mantle of justice upon any and all existing 99 00:10:12.760 --> 00:10:15.120 property titles. 100 00:10:15.120 --> 00:10:19.720 Such an act will scarcely convince people who believe that they or others are being 101 00:10:19.720 --> 00:10:45.280 Let us again use an example to make our thesis clear. 102 00:10:45.280 --> 00:10:50.560 To use Ludwig von Mises' excellent device for abstracting from emotionalism, let us 103 00:10:50.560 --> 00:10:54.360 take a hypothetical country, Ruritania. 104 00:10:54.360 --> 00:11:00.440 Let us say that Ruritania is ruled by a king who has grievously invaded the rights of persons 105 00:11:00.440 --> 00:11:06.280 and the legitimate property of individuals, and has regulated and finally seized their 106 00:11:06.280 --> 00:11:07.280 property. 107 00:11:07.280 --> 00:11:12.920 A libertarian movement develops in Ruritania and comes to persuade the bulk of the populace 108 00:11:12.920 --> 00:11:18.500 that this criminal system should be replaced by a truly libertarian society, where the 109 00:11:18.500 --> 00:11:25.580 rights of each man to his person and his found and created property are fully respected. 110 00:11:25.580 --> 00:11:32.380 The king, seeing the revolt to be imminently successful, now employs a cunning stratagem. 111 00:11:32.380 --> 00:11:38.560 He proclaims his government to be dissolved, but just before doing so, he arbitrarily parcels 112 00:11:38.560 --> 00:11:45.360 goes out the entire land area of his kingdom to the ownership of himself and his relatives. 113 00:11:45.360 --> 00:11:50.480 He then goes to the libertarian rebels and says, All right, I have granted your wish 114 00:11:50.480 --> 00:11:52.700 and have dissolved my rule. 115 00:11:52.700 --> 00:11:56.680 There is now no more violent intervention in private property. 116 00:11:56.680 --> 00:12:03.360 However, myself and my eleven relatives now each own one-twelfth of Ruritania, and if 117 00:12:03.360 --> 00:12:08.080 you disturb us in this ownership in any way, you shall be infringing upon the sanctity 118 00:12:08.080 --> 00:12:15.040 of the very fundamental principle that you profess, the inviolability of private property. 119 00:12:15.040 --> 00:12:21.760 Therefore, while we shall no longer be imposing taxes, you must grant each of us the right 120 00:12:21.760 --> 00:12:27.880 to impose any rents that we may wish upon our tenants, or to regulate the lives of all 121 00:12:27.880 --> 00:12:32.800 the people who presume to live on our property as we see fit. 122 00:12:32.800 --> 00:12:37.880 In this way, taxes shall be fully replaced by private rents. 123 00:12:37.880 --> 00:12:44.680 Now, what should be the reply of the libertarian rebels to this pert challenge? 124 00:12:44.680 --> 00:12:50.440 If they are consistent utilitarians, they must bow to this subterfuge and resign themselves 125 00:12:50.440 --> 00:12:55.720 to living under a regime no less despotic than the one they had been battling for so 126 00:12:55.720 --> 00:12:57.680 long. 127 00:12:57.680 --> 00:13:03.760 is indeed more despotic, for now the king and his relatives can claim for themselves 128 00:13:03.760 --> 00:13:10.300 the libertarian's very principle of the absolute right of private property, an absoluteness 129 00:13:10.300 --> 00:13:14.220 which they might not have dared to claim before. 130 00:13:14.220 --> 00:13:19.320 It should be clear that for the libertarians to refute this stratagem, they must take their 131 00:13:19.320 --> 00:13:24.260 stand on a theory of just versus unjust property. 132 00:13:24.260 --> 00:13:27.280 They cannot remain utilitarians. 133 00:13:27.280 --> 00:13:32.780 They would then say to the king, We are sorry, but we only recognize private property claims 134 00:13:32.780 --> 00:13:39.400 that are just, that emanate from an individual's fundamental natural right to own himself and 135 00:13:39.400 --> 00:13:45.080 the property which he has either transformed by his energy, or which has been voluntarily 136 00:13:45.080 --> 00:13:49.640 given or bequeathed to him by such transformers. 137 00:13:49.640 --> 00:13:56.440 We do not, in short, recognize anyone's right to any given piece of property purely on his 138 00:13:56.440 --> 00:14:01.640 It is his or anyone else's arbitrary say so that it is his own. 139 00:14:01.640 --> 00:14:08.520 There can be no natural moral right derivable from a man's arbitrary claim that any property 140 00:14:08.520 --> 00:14:10.720 is his. 141 00:14:10.720 --> 00:14:16.440 Therefore we claim the right to expropriate the private property of you and your relations, 142 00:14:16.440 --> 00:14:22.180 and to return that property to the individual owners against whom you aggressed by imposing 143 00:14:22.180 --> 00:14:25.100 your illegitimate claim. 144 00:14:25.100 --> 00:14:31.820 One corollary that flows from this discussion is of vital importance for a theory of liberty. 145 00:14:31.820 --> 00:14:37.060 This is that, in the deepest sense, all property is private. 146 00:14:37.060 --> 00:14:45.020 For all property belongs to, is controlled by, some individual persons or groups of persons. 147 00:14:45.020 --> 00:14:51.580 If B stole a watch from A, then the watch was B's private property, was under his control 148 00:14:51.580 --> 00:15:18.580 As we shall see further below, the same holds for individuals forming themselves into any sort of group. 149 00:15:18.580 --> 00:15:24.500 Thus, when they formed the government, the king and his relatives controlled, and therefore 150 00:15:24.500 --> 00:15:30.680 at least partially owned, the property of the persons against whom they were aggressing. 151 00:15:30.680 --> 00:15:36.580 When they parceled out the land into the private property of each, they again shared in owning 152 00:15:36.580 --> 00:15:40.760 the country, though in formally different ways. 153 00:15:40.760 --> 00:15:46.140 The form of private property differed in the two cases, but not the essence. 154 00:15:46.140 --> 00:15:51.780 Thus the crucial question in society is not, as so many believe, whether property should 155 00:15:51.780 --> 00:15:58.160 be private or governmental, but rather whether the necessarily private owners are legitimate 156 00:15:58.160 --> 00:16:00.720 owners or criminals. 157 00:16:00.720 --> 00:16:07.000 For ultimately there is no entity called government, there are only people forming themselves into 158 00:16:07.000 --> 00:16:12.900 groups called governments, and acting in a governmental manner. 159 00:16:12.900 --> 00:16:16.780 Governmental property is therefore always private. 160 00:16:16.780 --> 00:16:21.940 The only and critical question is whether it should reside in the hands of criminals 161 00:16:21.940 --> 00:16:25.280 or of the proper and legitimate owners. 162 00:16:25.280 --> 00:16:30.660 There is really only one reason for libertarians to oppose the formation of governmental property 163 00:16:30.660 --> 00:16:37.060 or to call for its divestment, the realization that the rulers of government are unjust and 164 00:16:37.060 --> 00:16:40.780 criminal owners of such property. 165 00:16:40.780 --> 00:16:47.180 In short, the laissez-faire utilitarian cannot simply oppose government ownership and defend 166 00:16:47.180 --> 00:16:53.500 private, for the trouble with governmental property is not so much that it is governmental, 167 00:16:53.500 --> 00:17:00.940 for what of private criminals like our watch-stealer, but that it is illegitimate, unjust and criminal, 168 00:17:00.940 --> 00:17:04.460 as in the case of our Ruritanian king. 169 00:17:04.460 --> 00:17:10.360 And since private criminals are also reprehensible, we see that the social question of property 170 00:17:10.360 --> 00:17:17.160 cannot ultimately be treated in utilitarian terms as either private or governmental. 171 00:17:18.040 --> 00:17:22.040 It must be treated in terms of justice or injustice, 172 00:17:22.040 --> 00:17:28.040 of legitimate property owners versus illegitimate, criminal invaders of such property, 173 00:17:28.040 --> 00:17:31.000 whether these invaders are called private or public. 174 00:17:32.120 --> 00:17:37.320 The libertarian may now be getting rather worried. He may say, granted that you are 175 00:17:37.320 --> 00:17:42.500 You are right in principle that property titles must be validated by justice, and that neither 176 00:17:42.500 --> 00:17:48.480 the criminal may be allowed to keep the stolen watch, nor the king and his relatives their 177 00:17:48.480 --> 00:17:54.560 country. How can your principle be applied in practice? Wouldn't this involve a chaotic 178 00:17:54.560 --> 00:18:00.280 inquiry into everyone's property title? And furthermore, what criterion can you establish 179 00:18:00.280 --> 00:18:06.260 for the justice of these titles? The answer is that the criterion holds as 180 00:18:06.260 --> 00:18:12.300 As we have explained above, the right of every individual to own his person and the property 181 00:18:12.300 --> 00:18:18.780 that he has found and transformed, and therefore created, and the property which he has acquired 182 00:18:18.780 --> 00:18:27.100 either as gifts from or in voluntary exchange with, other such transformers or producers. 183 00:18:27.100 --> 00:18:32.500 It is true that existing property titles must be scrutinized, but the resolution of the 184 00:18:32.500 --> 00:18:36.740 The problem is much simpler than the question assumes. 185 00:18:36.740 --> 00:18:43.620 For remember always the basic principle that all resources, all goods, in a state of no 186 00:18:43.620 --> 00:18:50.100 ownership belong properly to the first person who finds and transforms them into a useful 187 00:18:50.100 --> 00:18:53.480 good, the homestead principle. 188 00:18:53.480 --> 00:18:59.980 We have seen this above in the case of unused land and natural resources, the first to find 189 00:18:59.980 --> 00:19:05.820 and Mix His Labor with Them to Possess and Use Them, Produces Them and Becomes Their 190 00:19:05.820 --> 00:19:08.540 Legitimate Property Owner. 191 00:19:08.540 --> 00:19:11.580 Now suppose that Mr. Jones has a watch. 192 00:19:11.580 --> 00:19:17.300 If we cannot clearly show that Jones or his ancestors to the property title in the watch 193 00:19:17.300 --> 00:19:23.600 were criminals, then we must say that since Mr. Jones has been possessing and using it, 194 00:19:23.600 --> 00:19:28.620 that he is truly the legitimate and just property owner. 195 00:19:28.620 --> 00:19:34.460 Or to put the case another way, if we do not know if Jones' title to any given property 196 00:19:34.460 --> 00:19:41.100 is criminally derived, then we may assume that this property was, at least momentarily, 197 00:19:41.100 --> 00:19:47.040 in a state of no ownership, since we are not sure about the original title, and therefore 198 00:19:47.040 --> 00:19:53.260 that the proper title of ownership reverted instantaneously to Jones as its first, that 199 00:19:53.260 --> 00:19:56.780 is, current, possessor and user. 200 00:19:56.780 --> 00:20:03.180 In short, where we are not sure about a title but it cannot be clearly identified as criminally 201 00:20:03.180 --> 00:20:10.700 derived, then the title properly and legitimately reverts to its current possessor. 202 00:20:10.700 --> 00:20:16.780 But now suppose that a title to property is clearly identifiable as criminal. 203 00:20:16.780 --> 00:20:21.060 Does this necessarily mean that the current possessor must give it up? 204 00:20:21.060 --> 00:20:23.680 No, not necessarily. 205 00:20:23.680 --> 00:20:30.160 So that depends on two considerations. A. Whether the victim, the property owner originally 206 00:20:30.160 --> 00:20:38.040 aggressed against, or his heirs, are clearly identifiable and can now be found. Or B. Whether 207 00:20:38.040 --> 00:20:44.680 or not the current possessor is himself the criminal who stole the property. Suppose for 208 00:20:44.680 --> 00:20:50.280 example that Jones possesses a watch, and that we can clearly show that Jones' title 209 00:20:50.280 --> 00:21:10.880 Now, if we can identify and find the victim or his heir, then it is clear that Joan's 210 00:21:10.880 --> 00:21:16.760 title to the watch is totally invalid, and that it must promptly revert to its true and 211 00:21:16.760 --> 00:21:18.400 legitimate owner. 212 00:21:18.400 --> 00:21:24.640 Thus, if Jones inherited or purchased the watch from a man who stole it from Smith, 213 00:21:24.640 --> 00:21:30.360 and if Smith or the heir to his estate can be found, then the title to the watch properly 214 00:21:30.360 --> 00:21:37.420 reverts immediately back to Smith or his descendants, without compensation to the existing possessor 215 00:21:37.420 --> 00:21:41.040 of the criminally derived title. 216 00:21:41.040 --> 00:21:44.880 Or it may revert to any other of Smith's assignees. 217 00:21:44.880 --> 00:21:51.280 Thus, Smith might have sold his claim or right to the watch to someone else, and then, 218 00:21:51.280 --> 00:21:57.800 if this purchaser or his heirs can be found, the legitimate property title reverts to him. 219 00:21:57.800 --> 00:22:05.080 Thus, if a current title to property is criminal in origin, and the victim or his heir can 220 00:22:05.080 --> 00:22:10.040 be found, then the title should immediately revert to the latter. 221 00:22:10.040 --> 00:22:22.040 Suppose, however, that condition A is not fulfilled. In short, that we know that Jones' title is criminal, but that we cannot now find the victim or his current heir. 222 00:22:22.040 --> 00:22:26.040 Who now is the legitimate and moral property owner? 223 00:22:26.040 --> 00:22:36.040 The answer to this question now depends on whether or not Jones himself is the criminal, whether Jones is the man who stole the watch. 224 00:22:36.040 --> 00:22:37.040 The Watch 225 00:22:37.040 --> 00:22:43.160 If Jones was the thief, then it is quite clear that he cannot be allowed to keep it, for 226 00:22:43.160 --> 00:22:49.040 the criminal cannot be allowed to keep the reward of his crime, and he loses the watch 227 00:22:49.040 --> 00:22:52.960 and probably suffers other punishments besides. 228 00:22:52.960 --> 00:22:56.240 In that case, who gets the watch? 229 00:22:56.240 --> 00:23:02.500 Applying our libertarian theory of property, the watch is now, after Jones has been apprehended, 230 00:23:02.500 --> 00:23:07.880 in a state of no ownership, and it must therefore become the legitimate property of the first 231 00:23:07.880 --> 00:23:13.520 person to homestead it, to take it and use it, and therefore to have converted it from 232 00:23:13.520 --> 00:23:19.420 an unused no-ownership state to a useful owned state. 233 00:23:19.420 --> 00:23:26.080 The first person who does so then becomes its legitimate, moral and just owner. 234 00:23:26.080 --> 00:23:31.800 But suppose that Jones is not the criminal, not the man who stole the watch, but that 235 00:23:31.800 --> 00:23:36.520 that he had inherited or had innocently purchased it from the thief. 236 00:23:36.520 --> 00:23:41.840 And suppose, of course, that neither the victim nor his heirs can be found. 237 00:23:41.840 --> 00:23:47.080 In that case, the disappearance of the victim means that the stolen property comes properly 238 00:23:47.080 --> 00:23:50.280 into a state of no ownership. 239 00:23:50.280 --> 00:23:55.480 But we have seen that any good in a state of no ownership with no legitimate owner of 240 00:23:55.480 --> 00:24:01.600 its title reverts as legitimate property to the first person to come along and use it, 241 00:24:01.600 --> 00:24:06.520 to appropriate this now unowned resource for human use. 242 00:24:06.520 --> 00:24:11.520 But this first person is clearly Jones, who has been using it all along. 243 00:24:11.520 --> 00:24:17.160 Therefore, we conclude that even though the property was originally stolen, that if the 244 00:24:17.160 --> 00:24:24.140 victim or his heirs cannot be found, and if the current possessor was not the actual criminal 245 00:24:24.140 --> 00:24:30.820 who stole the property, then title to that property belongs properly, justly and ethically 246 00:24:30.820 --> 00:24:33.940 to Its Current Possessor. 247 00:24:33.940 --> 00:24:41.300 To sum up, for any property currently claimed and used, a, if we know clearly that there 248 00:24:41.300 --> 00:24:47.940 was no criminal origin to its current title, then obviously the current title is legitimate, 249 00:24:47.940 --> 00:24:54.980 just and valid, b, if we don't know whether the current title had any criminal origins 250 00:24:54.980 --> 00:25:02.260 but can't find out either way, then the hypothetically unowned property reverts instantaneously and 251 00:25:02.260 --> 00:25:05.300 justly to its current possessor. 252 00:25:05.300 --> 00:25:12.380 c. If we do know that the title is originally criminal but can't find the victim or his 253 00:25:12.380 --> 00:25:14.380 heirs, then c. 254 00:25:14.380 --> 00:25:15.380 1. 255 00:25:15.380 --> 00:25:20.940 If the current title holder was not the criminal aggressor against the property, then it reverts 256 00:25:20.940 --> 00:25:27.100 to him justly as the first owner of a hypothetically unowned property. 257 00:25:27.100 --> 00:25:33.200 But see, too, if the current title holder is himself the criminal or one of the criminals 258 00:25:33.200 --> 00:25:38.980 who stole the property, then clearly he is properly to be deprived of it, and it then 259 00:25:38.980 --> 00:25:44.300 reverts to the first man who takes it out of its unowned state and appropriates it for 260 00:25:44.300 --> 00:25:46.440 his use. 261 00:25:46.440 --> 00:25:52.680 And finally, D, if the current title is the result of crime and the victim or his heirs 262 00:25:52.680 --> 00:25:59.340 can be found, then the title properly reverts immediately to the latter without compensation 263 00:25:59.340 --> 00:26:04.940 to the criminal or to the other holders of the unjust title. 264 00:26:04.940 --> 00:26:10.340 It might be objected that the holder or holders of the unjust title, in the cases where they 265 00:26:10.340 --> 00:26:16.220 are not themselves the criminal aggressors, should be entitled to the property which they 266 00:26:16.220 --> 00:26:22.900 added on to the property which was not justly theirs, or, at the very least, to be compensated 267 00:26:22.900 --> 00:26:25.140 for such additions. 268 00:26:25.140 --> 00:26:30.580 In reply, the criterion should be whether or not the addition is separable from the 269 00:26:30.580 --> 00:26:33.740 original property in question. 270 00:26:33.740 --> 00:26:38.820 Suppose for example that Brown steals a car from Black, and that Brown sells the car to 271 00:26:38.820 --> 00:26:40.300 Robinson. 272 00:26:40.300 --> 00:26:46.100 In our view then, the car must be returned immediately to the true owner, Black, without 273 00:26:46.100 --> 00:26:52.420 compensation to Robinson. Being a victim of a theft should not impose obligations on 274 00:26:52.420 --> 00:26:58.740 Black to recompense someone else. Of course Robinson has a legitimate complaint against 275 00:26:58.740 --> 00:27:04.540 the car thief Brown and should be able to sue Brown for repayment or damages on the 276 00:27:04.540 --> 00:27:10.100 the basis of the fraudulent contract that Brown had foisted upon him, pretending that 277 00:27:10.100 --> 00:27:15.860 the car was really Brown's property to sell. But suppose that Robinson, in the course of 278 00:27:15.860 --> 00:27:22.660 his possession of the car, had added a new car radio. Since the radio is separable from 279 00:27:22.660 --> 00:27:29.140 the car, he should be able to extract the radio as legitimately his own, before returning 280 00:27:29.140 --> 00:27:36.140 The Theory of Money and Credit The Theory of Money and Credit 281 00:27:59.140 --> 00:28:15.140 If for example Robinson had built some buildings on the property, then he should be able to move the buildings or demolish them before turning the land over to the original landowner, black. 282 00:28:15.140 --> 00:28:25.140 Our example of the stolen car enables us to see immediately the injustice of the current legal concept of the negotiable instrument. 283 00:28:25.140 --> 00:28:53.140 In current law, the stolen car would indeed revert to the original owner with no obligation on the owner's part to compensate the current holder of the unjust title, but the state has designated certain goods as negotiable instruments, for example, dollar bills, which the non-criminal recipient or buyer is now deemed to own and who cannot be forced to return them to the victim. 284 00:28:53.140 --> 00:29:12.140 Special legislation has also made pawnbrokers into a similarly privileged class, so that if Brown steals a typewriter from Black and then pawns it with Robinson, the pawnbroker may not be forced to return the typewriter to its just property owner, Black. 285 00:29:12.140 --> 00:29:22.140 To some readers, our doctrine may seem harsh on good-faith recipients of goods which later turn out to be stolen and unjustly possessed. 286 00:29:22.140 --> 00:29:32.140 But we should remember that, in the case of land purchase, title searches are a common practice, as well as title insurance against such problems. 287 00:29:32.140 --> 00:29:46.140 In the libertarian society, presumably, the business of title search and title insurance will become more extensive to apply to the wider areas of the protection of the rights of just and private property. 288 00:29:46.140 --> 00:30:06.140 We see, then, that properly developed libertarian theory neither joins the utilitarians in placing an arbitrary and indiscriminate ethical blessing upon every current property title, nor does it open the morality of existing titles to total uncertainty and chaos. 289 00:30:06.140 --> 00:30:36.140 On the contrary, from the fundamental axiom of the natural right of every man to property in his self and in the unowned resources which he finds and transforms into use, libertarian theory deduces the absolute morality and justice of all current titles to property except where the origin of the current titles is criminal and, one, the victim or his heirs can be identified and found, or two, 290 00:30:36.140 --> 00:30:43.500 2. The victim cannot be found, but the current title holder is the criminal in question. 291 00:30:43.500 --> 00:30:49.220 In the former case, the property reverts in common justice to the victim or his heirs. 292 00:30:49.220 --> 00:30:54.500 In the latter, it becomes the property of the first appropriator to alter its unowned 293 00:30:54.500 --> 00:30:59.780 state. We thus have a theory of the rights of property, 294 00:30:59.780 --> 00:31:05.540 that every man has an absolute right to the control and ownership of his own body and 295 00:31:05.540 --> 00:31:10.420 and to unused land resources that he finds and transforms. 296 00:31:10.420 --> 00:31:16.480 He also has the right to give away such tangible property, though he cannot alienate control 297 00:31:16.480 --> 00:31:22.780 over his own person and will, and to exchange it for the similarly derived properties of 298 00:31:22.780 --> 00:31:23.780 others. 299 00:31:23.780 --> 00:31:30.900 Hence, all legitimate property right derives from every man's property in his own person, 300 00:31:30.900 --> 00:31:39.180 as well as the homesteading principle of unowned property rightly belonging to the first possessor. 301 00:31:39.180 --> 00:31:47.300 We also have a theory of criminality. A criminal is someone who aggresses against such property. 302 00:31:47.300 --> 00:31:52.580 Any criminal titles to property should be invalidated and turned over to the victim 303 00:31:52.580 --> 00:31:58.860 or his heirs. If no such victims can be found, and if the current possessor is not himself 304 00:31:58.860 --> 00:32:04.380 of the Criminal, then the property justly reverts to the current possessor on our basic 305 00:32:04.380 --> 00:32:07.420 homesteading principle. 306 00:32:07.420 --> 00:32:12.260 Let us now see how this theory of property may be applied to different categories of 307 00:32:12.260 --> 00:32:13.820 property. 308 00:32:13.820 --> 00:32:17.780 The simplest case, of course, is property in persons. 309 00:32:17.780 --> 00:32:23.580 The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that each person must be a self-owner, 310 00:32:23.580 --> 00:32:28.480 and that no one has the right to interfere with such self-ownership. 311 00:32:28.480 --> 00:32:35.520 From this there follows immediately the total impermissibility of property in another person. 312 00:32:35.520 --> 00:32:41.120 One prominent example of this sort of property is the institution of slavery. 313 00:32:41.120 --> 00:32:47.720 Before 1865, for example, slavery was a private property title to many persons in the United 314 00:32:47.720 --> 00:32:49.400 States. 315 00:32:49.400 --> 00:32:53.540 The fact of such private title did not make it legitimate. 316 00:32:53.540 --> 00:33:00.020 On the contrary, it constituted a continuing aggression, a continuing criminality, of the 317 00:33:00.020 --> 00:33:05.540 masters, and of those who helped enforce their titles, against their slaves. 318 00:33:05.540 --> 00:33:11.420 For here, the victims were immediately and clearly identifiable, and the master was every 319 00:33:11.420 --> 00:33:15.460 day committing aggression against his slaves. 320 00:33:15.460 --> 00:33:22.040 We should also point out that, as in our hypothetical case of the King of Ruritania, utilitarianism 321 00:33:22.040 --> 00:33:29.200 The system provides no firm basis for vacating the property right of a master and his slaves. 322 00:33:29.200 --> 00:33:35.520 When slavery was a common practice, much discussion raged as to whether or how much the master 323 00:33:35.520 --> 00:33:42.760 should be monetarily compensated for the loss of his slaves if slavery were to be abolished. 324 00:33:42.760 --> 00:33:45.680 This discussion was palpably absurd. 325 00:33:45.680 --> 00:33:50.680 For what do we do when we have apprehended a thief and recovered a stolen watch? 326 00:33:50.680 --> 00:33:56.600 Do we compensate the thief for the loss of the watch, or do we punish him? Surely the 327 00:33:56.600 --> 00:34:02.320 enslavement of a man's very person and being is a far more heinous crime than the theft 328 00:34:02.320 --> 00:34:08.360 of his watch, and should be dealt with accordingly. As the English classical liberal Benjamin 329 00:34:08.360 --> 00:34:14.620 Pearson commented acidly, the proposal had been made to compensate the slave owners, 330 00:34:14.620 --> 00:34:19.720 and he had thought it was the slaves who should have been compensated. 331 00:34:19.720 --> 00:34:26.440 And clearly such compensation could only justly have come from the slaveholders themselves, 332 00:34:26.440 --> 00:34:30.440 and not from the ordinary taxpayers. 333 00:34:30.440 --> 00:34:35.240 It should be emphasized that on the question of slavery, whether or not it should have 334 00:34:35.240 --> 00:34:40.940 been abolished immediately is irrelevant to problems of social disruption, of the sudden 335 00:34:40.940 --> 00:34:47.240 impoverishing of slave masters, or of the flowering of southern culture, let alone the 336 00:34:47.240 --> 00:34:52.200 and, interesting of course on other grounds, whether slavery was good for the soil and 337 00:34:52.200 --> 00:34:58.760 for the economic growth of the South, or would have disappeared in one or two generations. 338 00:34:58.760 --> 00:35:04.600 For the libertarian, for the person who believes in justice, the sole consideration was the 339 00:35:04.600 --> 00:35:11.320 monstrous injustice and continuing aggression of slavery, and therefore the necessity of 340 00:35:11.320 --> 00:35:15.040 abolishing the institution as soon as it could be accomplished.