What is Anarcho-Propertarianism?

Revised: February 8, 2017

The views and opinions in this article written by Chris LeRoux do not represent the views and opinions of other people that write on peacefreedomprosperity.com.

Anarcho-propertarianism is the recognition that all potential human conflict can be justly resolved with consistent application of the law of private property, which is absolute, axiomatic, eternal, objective, and universal [Hoppe, Economics and Ethics of Private Property]. No normative, legal, or political system built on aggression, coercion, or fraud against private property is in the long run compatible with life. Death is the natural, ultimate result of violating this metaphysically imposed, natural law. Taxation, properly called extortion, theft, and-or slavery, and coercive monopolies such as “states”, properly called protection rackets, are thus criminal. All true propertarians are therefore anarchists. Anarcho-propertarianism is the highest form of anarchist society, a society where no private property violations are legal.

Anarcho-propertarians reject the authority of anyone attempting to rule out any existents from being private property [Intellectual Property is an Anti-Concept]. Anything peacefully homesteaded, produced or acquired via voluntary contract is justly acquired property, whether ideas, land, water, air, writings, musical performances, software, digital tokens-currencies, odors, recipes, etc. Once justly acquired, the owner has exclusive control over use and disposal. Any interference with this control is criminal. The owner can give their property away, they can destroy it, they can contract for a restricted exchange with voluntary terms of use or they can sell it outright. Involuntary terms of use, which is what the anti-IP adherents mean to oppose, are always criminal. But the state can put involuntary terms of use conditions on any property, and thus the anti-IP adherents are in fact pure communists, albeit confused.

Anarcho-propertarians put no faith in any alleged substitute for monetary freedom, like digital or paper unbacked fiduciary media, since they cannot survive in a free market but are distortions caused by government. Money is the most saleable good [Menger, On The Origins of Money]. Anything posing as money that is not the most saleable good is counterfeit. [The Inability of Bitcoin to Serve for Rational Economic Calculation]. Anarcho-propertarians demand an end to all legal tender and controls on money. The same is true of eliminating the “state” in totality. Anarcho-propertarians do not believe in working within the system, meaning anarcho-propertarians do not believe in voting or working for the “state” as a state-licensed attorney, as police, as a politician, etc. Anarcho-propertarians wash their hands of legalized crime entirely.

Anarcho-propertarians recognize the self-ownership of all sentient beings of any age and acknowledge the fact that parents create a pure private trust with their voluntary sexual exchange-contract. Parents are trustees, not owners. The fetus, baby, infant, etc, is a self-owner in the process of homesteading. Violence against their homesteading is a violation of private property, just like violence against any other self-owner in the process of homesteading, for instance an aggressor shooting someone in the process of building a fence to set their property line. If one owned a child, one could destroy it at any age this alleged ownership exists for ownership means total control over use and disposal. But clearly this is not the case as parental control is widely recognized to extend long after the time even the most rabid abortion advocates claim murder should be legal.

In cases of rape, the baby’s inadvertent and innocent trespass cannot warrant a death penalty. Defensive coercion must be proportional, per the law of private property. The baby can be removed only when safe for the baby. All costs and damages are the fault of the rapist and restitution must be sought there and-or through private aggression-coercion-fraud insurance. However, if the mother’s health or life is at risk and safe removal impossible, it is legitimate self-defense to terminate the baby. Obviously, technology such as fetal transplantation will develop to make safe removal possible ever earlier once the law of private property is consistently implemented in society.

Finally, Anarcho-propertarians recognize the absolute right of individual self-defense and therefore recognize any violence intended to reduce or abolish “state” aggression as being defensive and thus justified, since “state” criminals are in unceasing violation of the law of private property [We Have the Right to Fight the State]. Of course, the right to use defensive violence does not imply a duty to resort to it nor does it imply that it is wise.

, , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to What is Anarcho-Propertarianism?

  1. Vegan Voluntaryist January 4, 2015 at 7:21 am #

    “Propertarians recognize the self-ownership of all sentient beings”

    What about non-human sentient beings?

    • Chris LeRoux January 4, 2015 at 7:25 am #

      If they are sentient, we would recognize their rights. This is an issue of the special sciences, not philosophy, however. I, personally, would not eat dolphins, chimps, elephants and some other species for exactly the reason I believe they have proven sentience. Others may also be sentient.

  2. John Howard April 20, 2015 at 7:35 pm #

    With regards to so-called “animal rights” I would add that rights can apply only to beings that can understand them. Rights between two or more creatures exist only when the rights can be understood by all involved. I can respect the space of a tiger, but can the tiger respect my space? No, likewise a chimp, dolphin, elephant, cannot understand rights. Will all monkeys respect each other? Must a predatory species abstain from killing and respect their prey? It all gets rather silly and ends up having meaning only for humans with respect to other animals, and rather than referring to the welfare of other animals as “rights”, it makes more sense to speak about “humane and caring treatment” than “animal rights”. But this gets troublesome. By this definition, even a severely retarded human could not have rights. What about a person in a coma? What about a person sleeping? So, obviously this is not a complete definition. But I think it makes sense as a basic requirement for a being to be able to understand the meaning of rights and to be able to behave in a way to observe them in order for reciprocal rights to be extended to them.

  3. Chris LeRoux April 23, 2015 at 6:55 pm #

    Block blocked me. Ayn Rand said American Indians didn’t have property rights because they didn’t understand private property. I disagree with this formulation. Do socialists have property rights? They don’t understand private property, yet I say they can own property anyway. I am not convinced you have any evidence to support the contention that socialists understand rights better than dolphins, chimps, or elephants.

  4. Branden July 20, 2015 at 9:51 pm #

    Chris is right; ancaps always claim that we can have our communes in their society, but in reality they will never respect the property rights of a people who refuse to see the earth as a thing that humans do- or ought to- own.

  5. Chris August 2, 2015 at 10:07 am #

    A couple points of contention…

    “Anarcho-propertarians recognize the self-ownership of all sentient beings of any age and acknowledge the fact that parents create a pure private trust with a voluntary sexual exchange-contract.”

    Sapience, not sentience, is the determining factor. A dolphin is sentient, i.e., it has the capacity to feel pleasure and pain. Dolphins are the only animals, other than humanity, that has sex for pleasure! Yet dolphins do not have rights.

    “In cases of rape, the baby’s inadvertent trespass cannot warrant a death penalty. Defensive coercion must be proportional, per the LoSO. The baby can be removed only when safe for the baby.”

    This would defy the process of homesteading. A mindless group of cells has no more rights than toaster. Conception therefore does not define a point of self ownership; there is no individual, no ethical agent, this fetus/embryo is no more a separate entity with self-ownership than a skin tag the mother might find on her thigh. This makes the fetus/embryo the property of the mother by right of First Possession. It is not until birth that an objective point of transfer of ownership from mother to child occurs. Once born, and objectively separate from the mother, the infant assumes self-ownership and the rights associated with it.

  6. Chris LeRoux August 2, 2015 at 10:26 am #

    “Sapience, not sentience, is the determining factor. A dolphin is sentient, i.e., it has the capacity to feel pleasure and pain. Dolphins are the only animals, other than humanity, that has sex for pleasure! Yet dolphins do not have rights.”

    I am not presently interested in the debate between sapience and sentience as a standard of self-ownership, important as it is. I am also not convinced either term is suitable as a standard for self-ownership, as presently defined or undefined. But asserting dolphins do not have rights does not prove they do not have rights. I am also uninterested in this debate, at this time, though I tend to think dolphins are indeed self-owners and I note they use tools and use language.

    “A mindless group of cells has no more rights than toaster.”

    You are incorrect on the science. Functional MRI has demonstrated brain activation patterns present in fetuses exactly the same as in adults. You would have to prove this human being does not think to defend your own standard, which is apparently very similar to mine- “I think, therefore I own myself.” The evidence demonstrates they do think in the timeperiod in which they are currently murdered in mass.

    “It is not until birth that an objective point of transfer of ownership from mother to child occurs.”

    You cannot ever own another human being. A group of unthinking cells, you could own, but not a thinking entity. The fact a thinking entity is inside another thinking entity, setting aside the issue of whether invited or placed there innocently on their part, by the aggression of another, does not negate their thinking, their self-ownership. Certainly it is well demonstrated that there is a very wide range of time a fetus can be extracted safely and born. It is an arbitrary standard, not objective. The objective standard is whether the fetus-baby thinks.

Leave a Reply

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.