You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Voluntaryist, Writer and Anarcho-Rapitalist: Jared Howe

in #introduceyourself • 8 years ago (edited)

Hi @jaredhowe. Nice to meet you. I have a devil's advocate question for you. I'm interested in how you'd choose to answer the following:

B violates A's rights by murdering them and taking possession of the house they built and owned. A has no known kin and no representatives interested in challenging B's claim to the house he stole. Assume that if B weren't living in it, it would be abandoned.

Bearing in mind that B has occupied the house and 'mixed his labour' with it in the years following the theft, does B now have the "best link" to the house? If not, why?

Thanks in advance!

8 years ago in #introduceyourself by
$0.00
    Reply 2
    Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     8 years ago  

    Thanks for the welcome and the questions. In short: B doesn't. The purpose of property rights is to avoid the initiation of violence, therefore property title can't be legitimately transferred through the initiation of violence.

    A few clarifying questions, though:

    • Why is there an assumption that B wouldn't face any consequences for engaging in murder, trespass or theft?
    • How would murdering and stealing be beneficial for B if B is faced with the prospect of being ostracized or having violence used against himself?
    • How long is that going to last before people take notice and retaliate?
    • Given his demonstrated preference for violence, what expectation would B have that no one would use violence against him? Wouldn't any use of force against B post-murder be retaliatory rather than initiatory?
    • Is B just going to kill people every time he needs something? Wouldn't that create a huge risk of retaliation?
    • If B is so dependent on the labor of others that he thinks he needs to kill someone and steal their house, is B's best choice really to declare war against everyone else?
    • How would B continue to "mix his labor" with the stolen property for years? Wouldn't killing people make homesteading a little too risky? How could he plan for the future if there's always a fear of retaliation?
    • If he was already capable of homesteading and mixing his labor with scarce resources, why did he need to kill anyone in the first place?

    I'm not trying to be obtuse; I'm just having a hard time fathoming B's motive and the circumstances in which something like your lifeboat situation could actually happen. Thanks in advance!

    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       8 years ago  

      Hey, thanks for the response.

      The purpose of property rights is to avoid the initiation of violence, therefore property title can't be legitimately transferred through the initiation of violence.

      That sounds sensible. Though in this case B could object that it wasn't the violence that triggered the ownership change, but the subsequent use and improvement. Would his objection hold?

      I think I agree with what your list of questions implies: that this hypothetical situation is very artificial, unlikely to obtain in the real world - absolutely. I hope you'll excuse me not trying to contrive plausible answers to them!

      $0.00
        Reply