He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.
Property
This article was transcribed from his "Past is Prologue" radio series.
Five hundred years from now, when historians and philosophers have the opportunity of viewing the 20th century in perspective, they may decide that the outstanding characteristic of our time was a willingness to pass responsibility to others. In a sense, this has become the age of Pass The Buck. In the British Isles, until the 20th century, the cry "Stop Thief!" echoing down the street caused good citizens to cease their daily endeavors and rush in hot pursuit of the fleeing miscreant. Each man felt a concern when the property rights of others were violated. But in the 20th century, we have learned dependence upon government. Whenever possible, we shirk responsibility and thrust it away. Not too long ago, in New York City, on Broadway, a young man seized a brick and hurled it through a plate glass window of a men's clothing shop. At least a hundred people waiting for transportation, or passing by, observed the action and what ensued. The young man calmly climbed through the broken window, helped himself to clothing, and then walked on down the street. Not a voice was raised in protest. No one called the police. No one wanted to become involved. It wasn't the duty of the citizens to arrest a criminal: it was the duty of the police. Besides, why worry about it? The owner of the store was probably rich and deserved the loss. The young man probably needed the clothing. A hundred blasé and skeptical New Yorkers shrugged it off.
Liberals generally wish to preserve the concept of "rights" for such "human" rights as freedom of speech, while denying the concept to private property. And yet, on the contrary the concept of "rights" only makes sense as property rights. For not only are there no human rights which are not also property rights, but the former rights lose their absoluteness and clarity and become fuzzy and vulnerable when property rights are not used as the standard. In the first place, there are two senses in which property rights are identical with human rights: one, that property can only accrue to humans, so that their rights to property are rights that belong to human beings; and two, that the person's right to his own body, his personal liberty, is a property right in his own person as well as a "human right." But more importantly for our discussion, human rights, when not put in terms of property rights, turn out to be vague and contradictory, causing liberals to weaken those rights on behalf of "public policy" or the "public good." As I wrote in another work:
 Hans Hoppe is a thinker of striking originality, and this excellent collection of his essays is filled with arguments: it is, as my great teacher Walter Starkie used to say, "packed with matter." I shall confine myself to a few of his points, but it would be an easy task to write several other reviews, each emphasizing completely different arguments. Among libertarians, Hoppe is best known for his "argumentation ethics", his endeavor to show that acceptance of the principle of self-ownership is a demand of reason. Some people have objected not only to the details of Hoppe's argument but also to his entire project. The purpose of ethics, the objectors allege, is to guide action. If so, then a system of ethics must show why you have an interest in following its dictates. To motivate someone to do something, you must show that doing it is a means to his goals. |
Search |
|||||||||||||||||||||
