David: This debate has little meaning if not conducted within the parameters of the private ownership of property, beginning with the issue of “self-ownership.” So considered, I regard “liberty” as a recognition of the principle that an owner can do whatever he/she wants to do in connection with what is theirs. The hypothetical I have used with my students is this: if I own a brick, and if the property principle allows me to do whatever I want with what is mine, may I throw my brick through your picture window? After a few of them get through the “provided that,” or “on the condition that” responses – to which I reply “no conditions whatsoever” – I usually get a student to get the point when they say “you said you can do whatever you want with your property. My picture window is not your property.” Exactly! I am entitled to be as outrageous, or irrational, or destructive as I choose so long as my actions are confined to my property interests. The boundary line of my liberty is confined to what I own; if I want to throw my brick through your window, I must get your permission (e.g., by entering into a contract you; a contract being an agreement with two or more property owners to exchange ownership claims). With such an understanding – which is the core of my Boundaries of Order book – whatever I choose to do with what is mine requires no one else’s approval. For me to be able to exercise such authority over my life – and the property extensions of my life through which such authority is exercised – does depend upon my neighbors respecting this principle. If they do not, all of the “natural law” or “constitutional rights” or “moral imperative” responses will be meaningless. It is broad acceptance of the division between “liberty” and “property ownership” that provides the state with its power.
Appeals to “justice,” on the other hand, are premised on some outside party – usually the state – intervening to restrain – or to preempt altogether – the decision-making of a property owner over what is his/hers. It is just one more expression of the statist principle that “property rights are not absolute.” Once this idea is accepted, those who own and control the machinery of the state may do whatever it is their choice to do; a proposition universally recognized by students of politics who define the state as “an agency that enjoys a monopoly on the use of violence within a given territory.” Whether such unlimited power is exercised in the name of “the greatest good for the greatest number,” or to “protect minorities,” or to “fight terrorism,” or to “provide for national defense,” or to “save the planet,” or any other rationale, such authority requires widespread acceptance of the idea that an individual’s authority over what he/she owns can be subordinated to the will of those who control the coercive machinery of the state. In this sense, I have long regarded “justice” as nothing more than “the redistribution of violence.”
11:30 am on March 11, 2016
