For the most part ownership is clear, obvious and already established as it is the result of voluntary trade.
But we cannot escape the reality that a lot of what is owned today was, at some point, stolen.
So what do we do about this?
The basic idea of property rights that exist as an extension of self-ownership is quite simple.
You own yourself and are responsible for yourself. You own your actions and are responsible for them. This allows you to own property that you create, and this ownership allows you to trade that which you own rightfully.
You own your labor and have right to trade that, or donate it if you felt so inclined, or you can use it to create your own property.
To give a simple example, if you built a house (or factory, or anything else) then that is your property. As long as you didn’t violate the NAP along the way, by using slave labor or stealing materials for example, then the fruits of your efforts are rightfully yours.
Because property rights comes from self-ownership it is ultimately defined and restricted by the NAP.
Just as the NAP demands that every person’s right to self-ownership is recognized, protected and respected, it also demands the same with regards to their rightfully owned property. This is universal.
So you can do what you want with your rightfully owned property, just as you can with yourself, but the caveat to that freedom is that you must respect the exact same right of every other person and their rightfully owned property.
We cannot escape the reality that both our past and our present is littered, perhaps even defined, by theft and violent conquest and while we can create a free society where the crimes of the past are not repeated, what do we do about their residual effect?
Does this taint the otherwise rightful ownership of property today?
When it comes to creating a free society what do we do about the crimes of the past?
This is what the Nations Of Sanity propose.
Public Property
Government "property" is comparatively easy to deal with (compared with private ownership) because all government property and resources is stolen. What to do with it may be more debatable but the claim that government property is basically stolen property is a pretty simple truth. The government uses force and coercion and is essentially no different to a criminal organization of another name in this respect (mafia comes to mind).
Returning it all to its original rightful ownership may prove to be difficult at best, impossible in most cases, so the best we can do is make all reasonable effort to return what can be returned to rightful ownership, including returning that which should remain unowned to that status, and then when those concerns are dealt with just treat the citizenry of each nation (or the world if applicable) as the victims of government criminality and deem them equally eligible for recompense.
Ultimately, we would declare the citizenry equal owners of recovered government property and resources, essentially making them a collective of private owners with equal share of their respective nation.
Put public property, resources and infrastructure back in the control of the public by making them the actual owners, with all the right to cash out or remain part of a voluntary collective where they have real democratic power, the democratic power of equal ownership. But, of course, never the power to rule over others, not even democratic rule.
Just to be clear, we are talking about what is currently government owned, we are not talking about seizing/stealing private property. We are just making the people the real owners of that which is supposed to belong to them collectively anyway. We are exposing this pretense for the lie that it is and making it the reality.
People will actually have tangible control over their nation’s resources and infrastructure, and an equal voice in democratic decisions.
However, the distribution of a nation’s wealth and resources should be divided in such a fashion only after certain considerations are taken care of, specifically where failure to address would result in NAP violating harm to another.
We cannot act recklessly when inacting the transition to a free society. We are responsible for our actions and our journey to a NAP compliant society must itself be NAP compliant.
For example, dependent people cannot be cut off from government aid without allowing for alternative means of care to be put in place, as this would be a violation of the NAP, especially as they are not responsible for the theft of taxation and while their dependence on stolen resources may not entitle them to long term ownership of any resource (though they would be entitled to their equal share of what they collectively own) the principle of non-aggression would demand that providing alternative forms of aid takes precedent over standard recompense that is due to the citizenry as a whole.
It is important to note that this duty of care would only apply to what has already been stolen by government and would not justify a continuation of taxation.
In other words, it is a consideration that takes precedent over reclaiming that which government has already taken. Not one that justifies a continuation of any theft. Just an acknowledgement that certain things cannot be recovered at the expense of grave and immediate harm to an innocent person. You cannot initiate force against peaceful people, even to recover stolen property that you do otherwise have a right to recover.
To use this simple analogy to further explain my point here, if your ladder is stolen from you then the NAP allows you to take back your ladder should you manage to find it, but if someone is stood at the top of your ladder when you discover it then you cannot physically take back your ladder at that moment, as you would cause them to fall and hurt themselves.
To cause a potentially innocent third party harm, even when taking back what is rightfully yours (which you are otherwise entitled to do) would be a violation of the NAP, especially if the person using the ladder played no part in stealing your ladder, but was only a needy recipient.
In this very simplified example, you have right to reclaim your ladder and request the person cease using it, but they must be given a reasonable chance to step down so that you can take back what is yours without harming them.
Perhaps a more real world example would be to say that you cannot unplug a life support machine in a hospital, just because it is funded by taxation.
The duty of care demanded by the NAP here is in the context of recovering stolen goods and applies as a reminder that enforcing the NAP must be done without violating it.
With these provisions the task of recovering the wealth of the nation from the governments (and other interests) would be a relatively simple (not to be confused with easy) task.
In fact the duty of care demanded by the NAP would apply to all aspects of transitioning over to a free society, as we must abide by the principles we are fighting for.
Private Property
Private property is a little more complex but, as the defining law of a free society, the Non-Aggression Principle is there again to guide us through and show us the way.
Private ownership acquired through voluntary trade or creation is without question legitimate and the full protection of property rights applies.
An important note on Property rights
"Legitimate private ownership does not apply to all things.
The only property that can be rightfully owned is that which was acquired through voluntary trade (or created).
We have to accept that property rights can violate the NAP if they are given such license and granted such authority and while most property ownership would be ratified as rightful due to the peaceful nature of its acquisition, there are some things, including some land, that no one ever had a right to make claim to because it belongs to us all as part of our shared environment.
Ultimately when dealing with a "Tragedy of the Commons" situation, as it applies to land and resources that cannot be rightfully owned without violation of the NAP, the answer is clear. We all have equal right to utilize such areas and resources but none of us have the right to claim private ownership over such things.
This distinction is important because property rights allow you to destroy that which you privately own. You own your property exclusively and can deny it to others.
The potential for such standards of property rights to violate the NAP if applicable to everything is pretty obvious if the NAP is not serving as an overriding and enforced authority that restricts even private ownership"
The question remains over what, if anything, is done about the crimes of the past and the inequities created by the rule of criminality.
Government property is easily identified as illegitimate (as previously established) but private ownership begins at a starting point of assumed legitimacy in a free society.
Innocent until proven guilty is the approach and while people can argue that a lot of what is owned today is rooted in theft if you go far enough back in history, if both the culprits and victims involved in past crimes are long gone then there’s nothing that can be done to right these historical wrongs and ultimately we have to just draw a line under it and move on with our free, just and sane society that we will hopefully establish one day.
It doesn’t mean we are blind to the disparity of privilege that exists today that is in some linked to crimes of the past. It just means that we have to draw a line under crimes of the past where recompense or restoration is not feasible, or even possible.
So when dealing with historical crimes let’s simplify the scenario to make things easier to understand, we can then transpose the principles to the more complicated realities of today.
Let's say we accept that US land was originally stolen, way back when it was either owned by Native Americans as their home lands or ranges and territories or whether it was just deemed to belong to nature and sort of owned by none of us at the same time as belonging to all of us (like the air we breathe is something that we all have a right to utilize but not a right to exclusively own, destroy or deny to others). Our shared environment.
But let’s say that even if they did not own the lands as private property, they certainly had occupancy and first use claims as well as many other property claims and basic rights of self-ownership that were clearly violated by European invaders.
As I say, I realize this is a massive simplification and various realities (like the lack of NAP adherence by Native Americans themselves for example) and other nuances are being ignored for the sake of simplifying this example.
So even, for the sake of this example, fully accepting that premise (that US land and territories were originally stolen from Native Americans) as the real situation, we still cannot undo this today because the victims are long gone, the guilty parties and the beneficiaries of these crimes are long gone and all that is left, for the most part, are innocent people who have legitimately acquired property through peaceful interactions.
The validity of our peaceful interactions, including our acquisition of property, is not altered by the crimes of the past when we have no direct connection to such things.
But we cannot ignore that there is a great disparity of opportunity and circumstances between innocent peaceful people of today because of the crimes committed against people of the past.
This is where the moral principles of a free society collide with the realities of our "might is right" history.
We can recognize and acknowledge the crimes of the past and their effects on the future, but we also have to accept (where appropriate) that much of these crimes were long ago, with both the victims and the perpetrators of such crimes long gone. We cannot undo all that has been done, we cannot reverse these crimes and right all the wrongs of the past. We can only make sure they stay in the past and are not repeated and continued.
More importantly, we need to understand that, for the most part, many property owners of today are, by all reasonable standards, the rightful owners now because they acquired their ownership through voluntary trade and from someone who did likewise and so on and so forth.
Even if ownership was rooted in theft if you trace the property far enough back, if the current owners are far removed from such crimes it seems clear that their ownership is valid.
How far back we have to go for this standard to be the deciding factor may seem somewhat debatable but the deciding factors become clear when you simplify the scenario even more (so let's do that).
If something is stolen and then sold on to a third party (who is unaware they are buying stolen property) the obvious claim of ownership would belong to the original rightful owner and their claim would override the otherwise legitimate claim of ownership that the current owner would have.
Compensation would be provided where possible and appropriate but the fact is that even if you engage in voluntary trade and buy something in good faith, if what you bought was actually stolen from someone else then your claim to ownership is overruled by the original rightful owner.
The principle is pretty clear here, the only question is exactly where you draw the line with regards to how far back you can establish such things, and if the NAP remains unviolated when such principles are actioned.
As with everything presented by the Nations Of Sanity, the NAP is there as the golden rule to prevent any scenarios where the aforementioned guidelines may result in harm or loss to innocent people.
It is our safety net of morality.
Ideally when stolen property is passed on to an innocent party who acquires it through legitimate trade the stolen property would be returned to its original rightful owner and the innocent party who would have otherwise been the rightful owner would be compensated, at the very least reimbursed for the money that was essentially stolen from them during the fraudulent transaction. Ideally the cost of all of this would be recovered from those responsible for the theft.
So if person A has his bike stolen from him by person B and then person B manages to sell that bike to person C, then the bike belongs to person A and should be returned to them. Person C does not have rightful ownership of it and has essentially had their money stolen by person B and that should be returned to them. That would be the minimum that justice would demand.
The problem comes when reality does not fit these ideal scenarios and it may not always be possible to properly compensate innocent victims of crimes.
All we can do is adhere to the basic principles of the NAP and understand that the minimum demands of the NAP does not prohibit us from applying maximum effort to see that justice is served to its maximum, in the name of charity and good will.
If the guilty party is unable to compensate their victims then basic justice has not been served. The obvious way to facilitate justice in this example would be to facilitate a way for the guilty party to pay off their debt, perhaps through labor, but such compensation must go only to the victim of the crime.
So that is what happens when stolen property is sold on, it goes back to the original owner. If however we extend this chain of events to represent historical crimes then this would be like Person A having something stolen from person B who then manages to sell to person C who then manages to sell to person D and that goes on and on until we get to person Q owning it as the result of voluntary trade.
If person A is still around when this course of events is discovered then their ownership claim overrides that of the current “owner” (person Q). But if person A is long gone and person B is long gone then there is no opportunity to return to the original rightful owner and there is no opportunity to recover from person B, all we have is an ownership claim that was based on legitimate trade, which was acquired equally legitimately prior to that, and so on.
In other words, we right the wrongs if and where we can, but if and where we can’t then we must draw a line under it and move on.
Private property ownership is perfectly legitimate so long as it acquired rightfully and property rights that comes from self-ownership defines rightful ownership as that what is acquired through creation or voluntary trade.
The tragedy of the Commons
Currently we have two basic forms of ownership that are recognized. We have private ownership and "public"/government ownership.
In a free society government would not exist (as currently defined) and "public" ownership would essentially become collective private ownership with the owners in this case being a collective of citizens. But ultimately it would all be type of private ownership, as even what is collectively owned would be a form of private ownership and property rights would apply equally in a free society.
However there is another standard of ownership that can apply to land and resources where property rights are not applicable, at least not fully. A form of non-ownership where everyone has right of use and access, but no one has right to claim ownership.
There is land and resources that no one owns, or at least no one should own, and no one can own because there is no way to claim rightful ownership.
This is important to understand. There are some things that belong to no one simply because they belong to everyone (in the sense that we share this world but none of us can own it in the traditional sense).
Exclusive ownership applies to our property, that we own rightfully, but our shared environment (the world we live in) is no one’s exclusively but everyone's inclusively.
The air we breathe would be a good example of this but such a standard can be applied to other aspects of our shared environment, even including land and resources.
No one can claim exclusive ownership over our environment, the air we breathe, the sun, the moon, the level of nature we require to sustain us, no one can destroy it or deny it to others, or even attempt to, without violating the Non-Aggression Principle.
You don't have to obtain private ownership over all our natural environment to protect it, in fact it is vital that we understand and accept that there are areas where no one has a rightful claim of exclusive ownership but all have a claim of utilization.
Such places would be what was once known as "the commons".
Areas, land and resources that no one owns, but everyone utilizes in some direct or indirect way (though utilization itself is not a defining characteristic).
We are all free to use such resources, but we do not have the right to own or possess and we certainly do not have a right to destroy.
We all have a right to breathe the air in our atmosphere but we do not have the right to claim ownership over that air, to deny it to others, to destroy or pollute it to the harm of others.
While the air we breathe is a prime example of such a standard, this would also apply to other natural resources and even unutilized parts of our natural environment (rainforest destruction would be a good example).
In addition to the considerations of our shared environment, in the sense of why exclusive ownership of certain things would be NAP violating, we also have the obvious problem of the lack of legitimate claim anyone can make over such land and resources.
Once again, the NAP is there to show us the way to go each time we are faced with these questions.
Land Ownership
Land Ownership is not technically allowed by property rights, No one created the land, so nobody can make valid ownership claim. It is ultimately part of our shared environment.
However we don’t need to technically own the land to obtain a rightful dominion over land that serves very similar to land ownership. We can occupy land with what we do rightfully own, whether it is our property or our physical self.
Basically, you do not need to own the land beneath your feet to have dominion over that land while you stand there. This is because you own yourself and the land has become an extension of you in the sense of being where you stand and being a part of the space that you are taking up and utilizing.
Therefore, while you stand there, it would be just as much a violation for someone to invade that area and push you away from that spot while you stand there because they would be aggressing against you. You occupy that space with your rightfully owned self, so you have a temporary ownership of that space as it serves as an extension of you.
The same applies to your rightfully owned property. You don’t need to own the land to have an ownership-like dominion over that area of land while your property is there. Because you own your property just as you own yourself.
The surface of the land may become part of your property but only as an extension of your property. If you found land and did nothing with it, including not even occupy it with yourself or your property, then you would have no claim to it. Land ownership is not valid, property ownership is.
This simple standard guards against arbitrary ownership claims over land and natural resources that have no foundation in the real property rights and in fact are essentially no more sophisticated or legitimate than pointing to an area and saying “mine”.
You acquire ownership through creation or voluntary trade. You can create property to sit on the land, which gives you dominion over it while you or your rightfully owned property occupies that space, but you do not have an ownership claim over that land which can persist when neither you or your property is there.
For example, if you farmed an area of land then that cultivated land would be part of your property, because you own the crops you planted. But if you abandon such land then you’d no longer have claim to it.
So land ownership is an important issue to understand as it is technically not valid as actual property ownership but because property ownership is valid that allows you to claim dominion over land that houses your rightfully owned property (or yourself) while your rightfully owned property (or yourself) is there.
It may seem a pedantic detail at first, as property ownership will often give a dominion over land that is virtually the same as land ownership in the context of your right over that area, but the fact that your right over that area is tied to your rightfully owned property and cannot be continued when you cease to occupy that area with your person or property is actually a vital detail that distinguishes rightful property ownership from arbitrary claims.
There is also a right to our environment that connects to our self-ownership and the subsequent property rights we have.
We don’t own our environment we all have right to it as it pertains to our rightfully owned property, or selves.
You can’t pollute the air we breathe, the lakes we drink from and oceans we fish. You can’t block out the sun from reaching us or our property. You can’t build a giant donut shaped house around my house, for example, so that I am essentially trapped within my property as you have made it impossible for me to leave without trespassing onto your property. You can’t do anything with yourself or your rightfully owned property that serves as an act of aggression against another person or their rightfully owned property.
When it comes to use of the commons where there is sustainable limit, first use has first right of use.
In other words, if there is a limit to how much can be sustainably fished from an area, then the fishermen who are already fishing that area have right of first use, meaning others cannot come in and demand that they reduce or even cease their current fishing to allow newcomers to also fish that area.
When it comes to the commons everyone has right of use but it must be sustainable use and when that limit is reached then it is those who got there first who have the right of use over those who came after.
So we must accept that some things are off limits when it comes to private ownership.
In the case of land, we can claim a dominion over land we occupy with our persons or property that works very similar to land ownership.
When it comes to vital parts of our shared environment and natural resources like oceans, lakes and forests then we all have right to utilize but none of us have the right to destroy or deny to others. Our right to destroy or deny to others applies only to our rightfully owned property. We can do what we like with our self or our property, provided we do not violate other people or their rightfully owned property.
The world we live in and the vital parts of our shared environment is nobody’s rightful owned property.
The NAP will draw the basic lines for us, and finer specifics will need to be dealt with in the Non-Aggression Agreement. While part 3 of this peace agreement has obvious relevance, as it addresses this directly, this is actually a subject that will be dealt with to varying degrees by all parts, as part 1 will set the principle, part 2 will be drawing the pertinent lines that mark the limits of tolerance over the different interpretations and part 3 ratifies rightful ownership through this principle (NAP).
This is why everything has to be subservient to the Non-Aggression Principle. This is why the Nations Of Sanity champions the NAP as the highest and only authority that defines a free society.
Not only does the NAP grant us our freedom, it essentially defines it.
Even property rights, which most people think of as being virtually interchangeable with voluntarism, still needs to be restricted by the NAP.
The reality is that while property rights come from the NAP, it is important to understand that they must remain governed by it too.
The Non-Aggression Principle is the only absolute in a free society. Things like property rights are afforded by the freedom and universal principles that define a free society, the only authority that maintains such a society is the NAP.
The NAP demands that we do no harm. Such a principle enforces property rights, but it also restricts property rights exactly when and where it is necessary to do so.
Property rights is just an extension of self-ownership. It comes from that basic premise and the principle it creates (the NAP) so it cannot violate that principle as a result.
So, if you build a house then you own it. But if you build a house using stolen material and/or slave labor then that would obviously invalidate your ownership claim.
You also cannot do anything with your property, or build it in a way, that violates the self-ownership or property rights of another person.
You cannot build a ring-shaped house around my house that essentially imprisons me and prevents me from travelling beyond my property without trespassing on yours.
When it comes to issues like this, as well as issues of competing use of natural resources and areas that are unowned, it basically comes down to first use.
If there is a limit to how much water can be sustainably taken from a lake, without destroying that lake, then those using it already have the right to use that which they are sustainably using and others will not be able to push over that limit with their use.
A good way to conceptualize this is to imagine a life boat that is unowned (so everyone has right to use) but can only safely hold 10 people. If 9 people are already on it, then those 9 people have right of use based on “first use” principles and while there is room for one more person there is not room for an 11th person and it is the people already there who have right over those who are not, even though no one involved actually owns anything involved in this example.
This is linked to the principle that allows you dominion over the land that houses you or your rightfully owned property while you are there.
Another, perhaps more real world, example would be to point to sustainable fishing. The people who are sustainably fishing a certain area have right over newcomers. Newcomers can fish the waters if they can do so sustainably but if the existing fishermen are already fishing the maximum then their first use takes precedent over newcomers. Again, this is about first use and it is first use that governs dominion over what which cannot be owned.
The importance of understanding property rights, that is based on self-ownership, is that these rights distinguish rightful property ownership from arbitrary and illegitimate claims of ownership. It also describes our rights as it pertains to our environment and that which cannot be owned by anyone as it serves as a vital component to our person or our rightfully owned property, which covers the land beneath our feet and beneath our property as well as the oceans we fish, the air we breathe, the sunlight we depend on and any other component that we have a first use claim of use over or that makes up a vital component of our shared environment.
To hammer the point home with an extreme example. None of us own the sun, but it would be an act of aggression against us all for anyone to destroy it. It is a vital part of our shared environment. For all to use but for none to own or destroy.