The Austrian Economics Wiki - User contributions [en]

Inflation in the Weimar Republic

2012-03-25T11:52:15Z

141.101.70.180: /* After the War */

[[File:Weimar Republic notes used as wallpaper, 1923.jpg|thumb|right|Weimar Republic notes being used as wallpaper, 1923]]
The '''inflation in the [[Weimar Republic]]''' was a period of [[hyperinflation]] in [[Germany]] between 1921 and 1923. It was one of the most extreme hyperinflations in the world's history.

==Before the end of the War==
The [[German Empire]] in 1914 was economically the most powerful country in Europe. At the outbreak of [[World War I]], the total money supply was at around 6 billion Marks: composed of ''Reichsbanknoten'' (banknotes from the [[Reichsbank]]), ''Reichskassenscheine'' (imperial treasury notes), private banknotes, gold coins and token coins. The duty to redeem the ''Reichsbanknoten'' for gold by the Reichsbank was repealed. One third of the nominal value of banknotes still had to be backed by gold, current German money, or the ''Reichskassenscheine''. In addition to these, however, a new type of banknote was also allowed as backing: the ''Darlehenskassenscheine'', which were issued by newly formed ''Darlehenskassen'', that is, loan institutes run by the Reichsbank. The money could be issued up to the value of the granted loans, where [[collateral]] could be goods or [[bond]]s. These banknotes were not [[legal tender]], but were fully accepted by public cashier's offices and thus their acceptance was assured. This one law removed all limits on the creation of new money.

The public cashier's offices had to deliver all incoming gold coins to the Reichsbank. A massive ad campaign persuaded the population to give their gold coins to the Empire. The people eagerly responded, and about 1 billion in gold was exchanged for Reichsbanknoten.

With the outbreak of the war, Germany's exports shrank dramatically, while imports fell only somewhat, causing significant outflows of gold. This, combined with the cost of the military, made an expansion of the money supply necessary—at the end of 1914 it was at 7.2 billion. The large occupied territories (like [[Belgium]], [[Russia]], [[Poland]], and [[Romania]]) needed money in local currencies; their money was backed by the Reichsbank and its notes.

As the inflation continued, the country instituted [[price controls]] to attempt to limit the rising prices. First established in 1914 for everyday items, the number of regulated goods grew throughout the war.<ref name="Gaettens_German">Richard Gaettens. ''Geschichte der Inflationen Von Altertum bis zum Gegenwart'' (German: History of Inflations from Old Ages to the Present), ''Die grosse Deutsche Inflation von 1914 bis 1923'' (The Great German Inflation from 1914 to 1923) p. 237-278. ISBN: ISBN 3-87045-211-0. Referenced 2010-11-21.</ref>

The [[First World War]] cost Germany in total 160 billion Mark. In 1914–1918 only 13.1 percent of the costs were financed out of recurring revenues. (In [[World War Two]], September 1939 to September 1944 it was about 50% percent of the costs.) Of the costs, 24.8% were paid as "floating debt" (i.e., by printing money), while the remaining 62.1% were state bonds signed by German citizens. In comparison, [[Great Britain]] paid 28% out of its recurring tax revenues. The reason for this financing was a lack of tax base: the ''Reich'' did not have a unified financial administration, and the German states were still very independent.<ref name="Aly">Götz Aly. "Hitlers Volksstaat" (in English published as "Hitler's Beneficiaries: How the Nazis Bought the German People"), p.33. ISBN 978-3-596-15863-8. Referenced 2011-03-19.</ref>

==After the War==
The armistice was signed on 11 November 1918<ref name="History_WWI">History.com. [http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/world-war-i-ends "Nov 11, 1918: World War I ends], referenced 2011-08-15.</ref>, to be followed by a peace treaty.

The [[Treaty of Versailles]] was signed on the 28th June of 1919. [[Germany]] accepted it under heavy pressure shortly after the [[Blockade of Germany|blockade]] of their ports was removed, which allowed much needed resources and food supplies to be imported. Arguably, the reparations were the most important cause of the destruction of the German [[mark]]. As a part of the peace conditions, Germany as well as its allies accepted their role as belligerents, and responsibility for all damages and losses caused by their attacks on their neighbours. All damages would be repaid, including pensions for war victims and the costs for the upkeep of the occupation army. All heavy weaponry would be handed over with the entire war fleet and many locomotives and railroad cars. A large part of the business fleet had to be delivered, and millions of tons of coal was to be supplied to several countries for up to ten years.

The German government was in financial trouble even before the Treaty - and the revolutions, uprisings and strikes did little to help. Therefore, several new taxes and tariffs were introduced. The tariffs should be paid in gold and increased dramatically. The expenses were still not covered. The government's debt rose from 38.6 billion in January, 1919, to 176.6 billion in May, 1921, the banknotes in circulation rose in the same period from 23.647 to 71.863 billion. If the public did not take over a large part of the debt, the money supply could have been even higher. The exchange rate to the [[U.S. dollar|dollar]] rose from 7.95 to 65.18 in this time.

Germany had to start paying reparations immediately, their final value was assessed in January 1921. With gradually increasing payments, it should pay 226 billion goldmark over a period of 42 years. In addition, every year should Germany pay 12% of its exports, as security should serve all tariffs and all import and export taxes. The German side agreed to the payments, providing the already paid sums were subtracted from the total; the 12% of all exports were declared to be impossible to accept.

[[Lloyd George]], Britain's Prime Minister strongly refused these suggestions. Several cities in the Rhine area were occupied and the customs in occupied areas were confiscated. A new payment plan was formed in April 1921 and, coupled with an [[London Ultimatum|ultimatum]] of occupying the whole Ruhr region, it was accepted by the German government. The new plan had lowered the total reparations to 136 billion goldmark. 2 billion goldmark should be paid each year, and a higher part of the exports (26%).

For the first down payment of 1 billion goldmarks in August 1921, the German government was able to get, with great difficulties, 600 million in gold. The remaining 400 million came from short-term loans from banks. The exchange rate with the dollar rose to 86.37 marks. The [http://www.sypaydayloans.co.uk/short-term-cash-loans.html short term loans] needed constant refinancing and the exchange rate rose to to 115.50 in September. By the time of the next payment in November was the rate at 310 mark per dollar. In this period Germany also lost the industrially strong Upper Silesia.

The difficulties of getting the necessary means led the German government to announce, that it could not make the payments in 1922 and requested a reprieve. The attempts to resolve the issue failed and by the end of the year was the exchange rate 7650 marks per dollar. The debt grew from January, 1922 by 52 billion, in the next three months by 150 billion and in the final three months by over 1000 billion. The prices and wages followed the debasement of the mark. While initially was over a half of the debt held by the public, at the end of the year was most of it held by the Reichsbank. As a consequence, the banknotes in circulation rose from 115 to 316 billion, then to 1280 billion in December.

The Reichsbank was made nominally independent from the government, but that action didn't stop the inflation. The backing of banknotes was temporarily repealed. Germany requested to be freed from all payments for at least a few years, until the necessary reforms were made. A conference in Paris in January, 1923, failed to resolve the issues, where Germany was blocked by France. The [[Ruhr]] was occupied.

The occupation was considered a breach of the Treaty of Versailles. The German government stopped all payments to France and Belgium and announced passive resistance in the occupied areas. The French army went aggressively after income of any sort, with confiscations and downright theft. The inflation broke out in full. The exchange rate of the dollar rose in the first six months of 1923 to 74 750 mark. In August it was a million, in October a billion, in November it was over a trillion per dollar. The impact on life was unimaginable and the mark effectively stopped being a means of payment.<ref name="Gaettens_German" />

==Reform of the mark==
The reform of the mark was considered since 1920. Many called for the return of the goldmark, others suggested backing by other means. By the year 1922, in agricultural areas like Mecklenburg an Oldenburg, prices and rents were based on a pound of rye and several districts issued bonds quoted in the price of rye. Other commodities like coal or potash were also used to back loans and bonds.

The escalating economic situation with plundering and revolts called for action. On the 27th September, 1923, the government declared a state of emergency and abdicated. A new government completed the reform plan: the new currency should be the '''[[Rentenmark]]''', based on gold. It was not declared [[legal tender]], no conversion ratio with the paper mark was set, nor was it actually backed by gold - there was not enough of it in Germany. The issuing bank, the "[[Deutsche Rentenbank]]" was independent from the outset. The new money was not based on the state, but on the economy itself. The agricultural sector and the industries each took on a half of the bank's capital in the form of debt - [[mortgage]]s in the value of 4% of all lands used for agriculture and forestry, and debt issued by the industries, crafts and trades, each in amount of 1600 million goldmark. The basic capital of 3200 million mark was the backing of the Rentenmark, and the bank could issue up to this amount of the new money (but the top limit was never reached, the maximum in circulation was 2.1 billion<ref name="Rentenbank_History">Landwirtschaftliche Rentenbank. [http://www.rentenbank.de/cms/dokumente/10011459_262579/8852134e/Historie.pdf "Die Geschichte der Landwirtschaftlichen Rentenbank"] (pdf, in ''German''), referenced 2010-11-19.</ref>).

Anyone who would deliver at least 500 Rentenmark could redeem them for "Rentenbriefe" - bonds with a 5% interest rate, quoted in goldmark. The Rentenbank issued them in an amount equal to its capital. It could issue money (the Rentenmarks) only up to the amount of Rentenbriefe it held. In this way, the Rentenmark should be a bridge to a new golden mark.

The Rentenbank was founded on 15th October of 1923 and [[Hjalmar Schacht]] was put into a key government position to execute the reform plan. The stabilisation was done according to the exchange rate to the dollar on the Stock Exchange in Berlin, which was at the 20th November 4200 billion mark.<ref name="Gaettens_German" />

===Notgeld===
Cities have produced metal money during the war and after it. With the ever-growing devaluation of the currency, the demand grew correspondingly.

The Reichsbank had to call upon private printing works for the production of banknotes, in 1923 were 30 paper factories and 133 printing works busy with their production. The number of printing presses (1723 running day and night in autumn 1923) could be still increased, but the capacities for the special paper for banknotes could not keep up with the demand. The Reichsbank therefore welcomed and in many cases supported the issue of ''Notgeld'' (emergency money) by municipalities, districts, provinces and private enterprises. It was estimated, that at the end of 1922 there were about 20 billion in circulation - as opposed to 1280 billion of official money. By the end of 1923 there were 400 to 500 billion of Notgeld in value of about 500 million goldmark, so about the same amount as the official banknotes. There was also "value-stable" money in the same amount. The Notgeld was not only used to assist the Reichsbank, but many produced it to great profit.

In November, 1923, the Reichsbank stopped accepting the Notgeld, and wanted to exchange its sizable reserves in their places of issue, causing a great outcry. It took until the end of October, 1924, to exchange most of the Notgeld and the economy could finally stabilize.<ref name="Gaettens_German" />

==Effects of the inflation==
Germany had a large and wealthy middle class, and exactly this class was the hardest hit. Especially desperate was the situation of people living off rents. Many families of high repute and constituting a significant part of the higher officialdom lost all of their property and status. Some have chosen the ''Freitod'' ("free death"). The Reichsgericht (Imperial Court) decided, that a mark equaled a mark, and that old debts could be settled in worthless paper money. Many did so; the taxes were also paid in this way, leaving the state to live exclusively from the printing press.

The price of a mark differed strongly at the stock exchanges outside from the prices in Germany. This attracted many foreigners to buy and live in Germany for cheap, buying up everything from common goods to company shares and land. The Germans were not less inclined to speculation. From this period comes the term "Luftgeschäft" (lit. "air-business"), trading of nonexistent goods in a long chain, where the last buyer was the fool. By 1922 were most people still not aware of what was going on, and growing loans and prices seemed like great opportunities.

The rationing laws, that basically forced families to break them and use the black market, shook the foundations of trust in laws. The wages of officials were always raised too late, leading to corruption. A shocking number of packages were misappropriated at the railways and the post office. Many felt betrayed by the state.

In 1923 fell the currency apart. The [[Flight into real goods|flight into "real values"]] began, everyone sought to get rid of the money as fast as possible. By that time, it wasn't even worth robbing a money transport, as it was in 1919 or 1920. According to the German economist Adolf Weber, the inflation caused much worse damage than the destructive four years of war.<ref name="Gaettens_German" />

The last reparation payment of £59m was made on Sunday, October 3, 2010.<ref name="Hall_reparations">Allan Hall. [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315869/Germany-end-World-War-One-reparations-92-years-59m-final-payment.html "Germany ends World War One reparations after 92 years with £59m final payment"], ''Daily Mail Online'', 29th September 2010, referenced 2011-08-15</ref>

==Inflation in numbers==
[[File:Weimar Hyperinflation Chart.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Graphical representation on a logarithmic scale of Weimar hyperinflation]]
{| class="prettytable" style="text-align:right"
! Date<ref name="Gaettens_German" />
! Exchange rate of the<br /> dollar in [[mark]]s
! Banknotes in circulation,<br /> millions
! Floating debt in treasuries,<br /> total, billions of marks
|-
| January 1919
| 7.95
| 23 647
| 58.6
|-
| April 1919
| 11.26
| 26 628
| 67.2
|-
| July 1919
| 13.75
| 29 268
| 76.1
|-
| October 1919
| 23.83
| 30 928
| 83.3
|-
| January 1920
| 49.80
| 37 443
| 88.3
|-
| April 1920
| 67
| 47 939
| 95.1
|-
| July 1920
| 37.90
| 55 768
| 112.7
|-
| October 1920
| 61.62
| 63 596
| 140.6
|-
| January 1921
| 74.50
| 66 620
| 155.5
|-
| April 1921
| 62.62
| 70 839
| 172.7
|-
| July 1921
| 75
| 77 390
| 190.8
|-
| October 1921
| 124.50
| 91 527
| 202.9
|-
| January 1922
| 186.75
| 115 375
| 255.9
|-
| April 1922
| 298
| 140 420
| 281.1
|-
| July 1922
| 402
| 189 794
| 308.0
|-
| October 1922
| 1815
| 469 456
| 331.5
|-
| January 1923
| 7260
| 1 984 496
| 2081.8
|-
| February 1923
| 41 500
| 3 512 787
| 3588.0
|-
| March 1923
| 22 800
| 5 517 919
| 6601.3
|-
| April 1923
| 21 100
| 6 545 984
| 8442.3
|-
| May 1923
| 31 700
| 8 563 749
| 10 275.0
|-
| June 1923
| 74 750
| 17 291 061
| 22 019.8
|-
| July 1923
| 160 000
| 43 594 737
| 57 848.9
|-
| August 1923
| 1 100 000
| 663 200 050
| 1 196 294.7
|-
| September 1923
| 9 700 000
| 28 228 815 494
| 46 716 616.4
|-
| October 1923
| 242 000 000
| 2 496 822 909 039
| 6 907 511 102.8
|-
| November 1923
| 130 000 000 000
| 400 267 640 301 854
| 191 580 465 422.1
|-
|}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==Links==
* [http://mises.org/books/hyperinflation.pdf Exchange, Prices, and Production in Hyper-Inflation: Germany, 1920-1923] (pdf) by E. W. Kemmerer
* [http://mises.org/MMMP/MMMP7.ASP The Great German Inflation] by Ludwig von Mises
* [http://mises.org/etexts/mises/og/chap9a.asp Omnipotent Government: Weimar and its Collapse] by Ludwig von Mises
* [http://mises.org/books/economicsofinflation.pdf 'The Economics of Inflation'] (pdf) by Costantino Bresciani-Turroni, 1931
* [http://www.econ.puc-rio.br/pdf/TD159.pdf 'The Rentenmark Miracle'] (pdf), Gustavo H.B. Franco, May 1987
* [http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE7_1_1.pdf Hyperinflation and Hyperreality: Thomas Mann in Light of Austrian Economics], by Paul A. Cantor, 1994
* [http://mises.org/daily/3661 My Summer Reading: Hyper-Inflation in Weimar Germany] by Ralph Fucetola, September 2009
* [[Wikipedia:Inflation in the Weimar Republic|Inflation in the Weimar Republic]] on Wikipedia
[[Category:Inflations|Weimar Republic]]
[[Category:History of Germany]]

User:Pestergaines

2012-02-03T14:24:53Z

141.101.70.180: Adjusting to reflect current situation.

As you might have guessed, I am interested in Austrian Economics and economic history. I am also interested in other things and have read quite a few books on many a topic (long live generality!). I work hard, when I'm not goofing off and I like animals. Most of them.

'''Random notes:'''
* I am the creator of the [http://austrianeconomics.wikia.com/wiki/Austrian_Economics_Wiki Austrian Economics Wiki] (now closed), which became the foundation of the Mises Wiki.
* If you are looking for obscure topics on economics and history, particularly of the Austrian bent, try the "'''[http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=002223089408814149903:ja9hv5rob9c Economic Resources and Books]'''". It is a customized search engine and it may give you better results than a general search.
* The user [[User:Pesterbot|Pesterbot]] is a bot used for mass changes.
* If anybody needs to enter large numbers of similar references, consider using this [http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/108179 Greasemonkey] script.
* Preferably working on: [[MisesWiki:WikiProject Economic History]], [[MisesWiki:Call to Action|Calls to Action]], [[Argumentation:ABCT|other stuff]] or [[Intellectual property|this stuff]] - anything in fact. Currently on extended leave.

Have fun contributing to the wiki,<br />
Peter

{{User WikiProject Economic History}}
{{Clear}}

==History==
* April 23, 2009 - first edit on Austrian Economics Wiki
* August 1, 2010 - over 100 articles on AEW ( + 1 year 3 months)
* October 6, 2010 - over 300 articles after all countries were added (+ 2 months)
* November 5, 2010 - migration to Mises Wiki (+ 1 month)
* March 3, 2011 - 600 articles reached (+ 4 months)
* January 30, 2012 - 1000 articles reached (+ 11 months)

So in a third of time a highly active community produced about three times as much content, if only article count is concerned. There's more to it than simple count, but...

...not bad at all. :)

Then, it took almost a year to get to one thousand. Things have predictably slowed down. Let's hope there shall be more!

Principle of non-aggression

2012-01-17T00:08:19Z

141.101.70.180: /* Justification */

{{Refimprove|date=May 2008}}
{{Libertarianism sidebar |expanded=Concepts}}

The '''non-aggression principle''' (also called the '''non-aggression axiom''', or the '''anti-coercion''' or '''zero aggression principle''' or '''non-initiation of force''') is an ethical stance which asserts that "[[aggression]]" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or [[fraud]] upon persons or their property. In contrast to [[pacifism]], the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a [[deontological]] (or rule-based) ethical stance.

==Origin==
The principle has a long tradition but has been mostly popularized by [[market anarchism|market anarchists]] and other schools of [[libertarianism]] ([[consequentialist libertarianism|consequentialist libertarians]] do not base their libertarianism on it).<ref>[http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_01/editors-right.html What's Right vs. What Works]. Charles Murray, David Friedman, David Boaz, and R.W. Bradford. ''Liberty''. January 2005, Vol 15, No 1</ref> It is an [[axiom]] of some forms of [[anarchism]], and traces of it can be found in [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]], as well as in Eastern philosophies such as [[Taoism]].<ref>[http://mises.org/daily/3903 Libertarianism in Ancient China] Murray N. Rothbard ''Libertarianism in Ancient China''</ref>

==Definition==
Libertarians typically claim that the non-aggression principle includes [[property]] and [[freedom of contract]] as a part of self-ownership. The basis for this extension of self-ownership to one's property is [[John Locke]]'s argument (also called the [[homestead principle]]) that mixing of labor with an unowned resource makes that resource part of one's self. Subsequent [[exchange]] of such property (e.g. sale, rental) simply transfers this right. Hence, to aggress against someone's property is to aggress against the individual. As for freedom of contract, the right of self-ownership is held to imply freedom of action in the absence of aggression (e.g. in the absence of false or duress contracts, and the absence of contracts stipulating aggression against third-parties).

==Consequences==
If these two rights to private property and to freedom of contract are taken as given, then the non-aggression principle is held by its supporters to lead to the rejection of [[theft]], [[vandalism]], [[assault]], [[fraud]] and [[victimless crimes]].

When applied to the [[state (polity)|state]], it has been taken to prohibit many policies including [[taxation]], the [[military draft]], [[regulation]] of voluntary exchange and individual participation in non-defensive state wars. When taken to the logical conclusion, [[anarchists]] argue that it calls for abolition of the state itself, asserting that individuals would be protected from aggression by what amount to insurance contracts with private organizations, through a militia union, or completely by self-defense. This proposed system resembles fire protection services in colonial Philadelphia.

The [[United States Libertarian Party]] and others view it as an essential tenet of all [[libertarianism|libertarian]] thought.

==Justification==
The principle has been derived by various philosophical approaches, including:
* [[Argumentation ethics|Argumentation Ethics]]. [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]] has argued that [[property rights]] are [[praxeology|praxeologically]] necessary as they are presupposed in the very act of argumentation;
* [[Natural law]]. [[Murray Rothbard]] has made efforts to derive non-aggression from [[self-ownership]];
* [[Contractarianism]];<ref>[http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html A Positive Account of Property Rights]. David Friedman. Originally published in Social Philosophy & Policy, volume 11, number 2 (Summer 1994), published by Cambridge University Press.</ref>
* [[Objectivism (Ayn Rand)|Objectivism]]. [[Ayn Rand]] has made efforts in deriving the principle from the [[right to life]]; and
* [[Universally Preferable Behavior]]. [[Stefan Molyneux]] formulated an ethical theory that made an effort to validate the non-aggression principle.

==Historical formulations and background==
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left;border-collapse:collapse;" cellpadding="2"
|+ Historical formulations of the non-aggression principle
|-
! style="background:#efefef;"| Year
! style="background:#efefef;"| Formulated by
! style="background:#efefef;"| Formulation
|-
|300's BC
|[[Epicurus]]
|"Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another."<ref>[http://classics.mit.edu/Epicurus/princdoc.html]</ref>
|-
|900's
|[[Abu Mansur Al Maturidi]], [[Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya]], [[Averroes]]
|These Islamic theologians and philosopher wrote that man could rationally know that man had a right to life and property.
|-
|early 1200's
|[[Ibn Tufayl]]
|In [[Hayy ibn Yaqzan]] the Islamic philosopher discussed the life story of a baby living alone without prior knowledge who discovered natural law, and natural rights, which obliged man not to coerce against another's life or property. Ibn Tufayl influenced Locke's notion of [[Tabula Rasa]].<ref>G. A. Russell (1994), ''The 'Arabick' Interest of the Natural Philosophers in Seventeenth-Century England'', pp. 224-239, [[Brill Publishers]], ISBN 9004094598.</ref>
|-
|1618
|[[John Locke]]
|In [[Second Treatise on Government]] he wrote "Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."<ref>http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-a.html#Sect.%206.</ref>
|-
|1682
|[[Samuel von Pufendorf]]
|In ''On the Duty of Man and Citizen'' he wrote "Among the absolute duties, i.e., of anybody to anybody, the first place belongs to this one: let no one injure another. For this is the broadest of all duties, embracing all men as such."<ref>http://www.constitution.org/puf/puf-dut_106.htm</ref>
|-
|1722
|[[William Wollaston]]
|In ''The Religion of Nature Delineated'' he formulated "No man can have a right to begin to interrupt the happiness of another." This formulation emphasized "begin" to distinguish aggressive disturbances from those in self-defense ("...yet every man has a right to defend himself and his against violence, to recover what is taken by force from him, and even to make reprisals, by all the means that truth and prudence permit.")
|-
|1790
|[[Mary Wollstonecraft]]
|("Vindication of the Rights of Men") "The birthright of man ... is such a degree of liberty, civil and religious, as is compatible with the liberty of every other individual with whom he is united in a social compact, and the continued existence of that compact."<ref>[http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/Book.php?recordID=0532]</ref>
|-
|1816
|[[Thomas Jefferson]]
|"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." and "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." (Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816)
|-
|1851
|[[Herbert Spencer]]
|The [[law of equal freedom]]: "Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man." This notion of equal freedom goes back to earlier liberal thought.
|-
|1859
|[[John Stuart Mill]]
| The [[harm principle]] formulated in [[On Liberty]], states that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".
|-
|1961
|[[Ayn Rand]]
|In an essay called "Man's Rights" in the book "[[The Virtue of Selfishness]]" she formulated "The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships. ... In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use."<ref>http://www.ccsindia.org/ccsindia/lssreader/2lssreader.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.freedomkeys.com/ar-rootsofwar.htm</ref><ref>http://freedomkeys.com/faithandforce.htm</ref> Note that she stipulated the context - civilized society.
|-
|1963
|[[Murray Rothbard]]
|"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." Cited from "War, Peace, and the State" (1963) which appeared [[Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays]]<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard26.html</ref>
|-
|
|[[L. Neil Smith]]
|The libertarian science fiction writer, claims, "No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation." This is considered an imprecise formulation, since it explicitly ignores context.
|-
|
|[[Walter Block]]
|"It shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another."<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html</ref>
|}

Natural law theorist [[Murray Rothbard]] traces the non-aggression principle to natural law theorist [[St. Thomas Aquinas]] and the early Thomist scholastics of the Salamanca school [http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard135.html].

Early formulations that use terms such as "harm" or "injury," such as those of Epicurus and Mill above, are today generally considered imprecise. "Harm" and "injury" are too subjective; one man's harm may be another man's benefit. For example, a squatter may make "improvements" that the owner considers detrimental. Modern formulations avoid such subjectivity by formulating the NAP in terms of [[individual rights]] or observable conduct (''initiation of force/violence'').

==Criticism==
The non-aggression principle faces three kinds of criticism: the first holds that the principle is immoral, the second argues that it is impossible to apply consistently in practice, while the third holds that the interpretation of the principle is too ambiguous to be useful; respectively, the consequentialist criticism, the inconsistency criticism, and the ambiguity criticism.

===Consequentialist criticism===
This moral criticism is based on [[consequentialism|consequentialist]] [[ethics]], usually [[utilitarianism]]. It holds that the non-aggression principle is unethical because it opposes the initiation of force even when the results of such initiation would be better than the results of any other course of action. Suppose, for instance, that you could save a million lives by killing one innocent man. The non-aggression principle holds that you should not kill that man. But this leads to a million deaths. While such extreme situations are unlikely, opponents of the non-aggression principle argue that milder forms of the same dilemma (for example the choice between taking away part of a wealthy man's property or allowing a poor person to starve) are very common. Of course, many formulations, such as Rothbard's and Block's, avoid this objection by either specifying that the NAP only applies to a civilized context (and not 'lifeboat situations')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://mises.org/daily/1628|title=Lifeboat Situations|last=Rothbard|first=Murray|authorlink=Murray Rothbard|accessdate=2010-05-13}}</ref> or that it applies only to legal rights (as opposed to general morality.) Thus a starving man may, in consonance with general morality, break into a hunting cabin and steal food, but nevertheless he is aggressing, i.e. violating the NAP, and (by most rectification theories) should pay compensation.

Some consequentialist libertarians promote the non-aggression principle by basing its advocacy on forms of consequentialism such as [[rule utilitarianism]] and [[rule egoism]]. These utilitarians do not believe that it is categorically immoral to engage in aggression, but because they believe situations where aggression would lead to the best consequences are rare, they promote the non-aggression principle with the justification that if others accept it as a rule it would lead to better consequences than if they did not accept it as a rule. They believe the consequences of advocating the rule are superior to advocating that other individuals attempt to calculate each of their own actions to determine whether aggression or non-aggression would lead to better consequences. Other consequentialist libertarians do not promote the non-aggression principle at all; they simply believe that allowing a very large scope of political and economic liberty results in the maximum well-being or efficiency for a society, even if securing this liberty involves some governmental actions that would be considered violations of the non-aggression principle. It just so happens that these actions are limited in the free society they envision. This type of libertarianism is associated with [[Ludwig von Mises]] and [[Friedrich Hayek]].<ref>Barry, Norman P. Review Article:The New Liberalism. B.J. Pol. S. 13, p. 93</ref>

===Inconsistency criticism===
The second type of criticism focuses on the difficulty of determining who exactly ''initiated'' force in many real-life conflicts. As a general rule, each side in a conflict claims that the other "started it". Sometimes it is plainly clear who initiated force - for example, when a mugger demands a person's wallet. Other times, however, the situation is more complicated. For example, one side may have been the first to ''threaten'' force and the other side may have been the first to actually ''use'' force, or the conflict began such a long time in the past that no one remembers who started it. [[War]]s are a particularly difficult case, because very few of them begin with a country openly declaring that it wants to initiate force on another.

Libertarians usually respond by stating that such pragmatic issues are well dealt with already in today's legal systems. For instance, an example of a dissipative game is a situation where a person starts insulting another in a bar, the other person responds by shoving, the other throws a punch, and the situation dissipates into a fight. In such cases, both parties are simply guilty of aggression toward the other because the aggression clearly went beyond self defense.{{Citation needed|date=September 2009}}

A version of this second criticism is often upheld by [[libertarian socialism|libertarian socialists]] and others, who claim that almost every patch of land on Earth was stolen (i.e. obtained through initiation of force) at some point in its history. The stolen land was later inherited or sold until it reached its present owners. Thus, property over land and natural resources is based on the initiation of force. Among those who make this argument, some (such as followers of [[Henry George]]) claim that private property over natural resources is unique in being based on the initiation of force, while others hold that, by extension, private property over ''all'' goods derives from violence, because natural resources are required in the production of all goods.

Libertarians often reply to the "who started it?" problem by contending that the difficulty in determining who is the transgressor should not dissuade us from engaging in that process.

Furthermore, libertarians often reply to either variant of this last point with the "water under the bridge" argument: that transgressions of the past cannot all be rectified, and that an act of theft which happened very long ago can reasonably be ignored - since it is irrelevant to people living today. This, however, can generate more charges of inconsistency, because it implies that peaceful possession of property in the present legitimizes theft and/or trespass in the past{{ndash}} the principle known in some contexts as "squatters' rights" and in other contexts as "the right of [[adverse possession]]". This requires a "cutoff" point: a point in time when illegitimate property becomes legitimate property. Opponents argue that any such point is arbitrary.

One prominent [[Anarcho-capitalism|anarcho-capitalist]] theorist, [[Murray Rothbard]], argued that much private property in the U.S. southwest ought to be taken from its present private owners, and given to the lawful heirs of those who had claim to it under Mexican law before the [[Mexican–American War]], although he also regarded this case as historically unique.

Another reply can be made on the basis of the existence of proof of possession and individuality of owners. That is: if current heirs of long dead property owners can identify the property that has been stolen and ''prove'' that the owner has passed down to him or her his initial right of property - then those persons must be recognized as the rightful owners. This is similar to the "innocent until proven guilty" proposition of modern law, that owners should be regarded as legitimate until proven differently.

===Ambiguity criticism===
In addition to the above two kinds of criticism, there is also a debate around the manner in which libertarians typically ''interpret'' the non-aggression principle. Specifically, some libertarians see [[tax]]es as a [[Taxation as theft|form of government aggression]]. However, unless their libertarianism is of such an absolute degree that it opposes any kind of state, some consider taxation as a "necessary evil." They may argue that because of the [[free-rider problem]], enough funds would not be obtainable by voluntary means to protect individuals from aggression of a greater severity. Hence, they will accept taxation as long as no more is levied than is necessary to ''optimise'' protection of individuals against aggression (from other individuals and from government itself). On the other hand, many libertarian anarchists, as strict adherents to the non-aggression principle, argue that security should be maintained by voluntary payment to [[Private defense agency|private defense forces]], rather than taxation. Both anarchists and opponents of libertarianism in general have made the argument that the non-aggression principle, if embraced in a pure or absolute sense, forbids the existence of states. Anarchists use this argument in their attempts to convert other libertarians to their views, while opponents of libertarianism use it to support the claim that consistent application of libertarian principles would result in the complete abolition of the state - which, in their view, is an [[extremist]] and absurd position to hold.

Some radical libertarians argue that [[minarchism]] stemming from the non-aggression principle is logically inconsistent, and consider anarchism to be the natural-rights doctrine applied in full. Others feel that minarchism from a consequentialist libertarian perspective is more cogent and a better alternative to rights-libertarian minarchism.

===Social contract===
There are many who oppose the libertarian idea that taxation is a form of aggression on [[social contract]] grounds. Specifically, advocates of most social contract theories see taxes as analogous to contract fees, and tax-collecting governments as agents of an (implicit) agreement among the members of a society to share certain common burdens. However, [[Herbert Spencer]] argues that: "If every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the state - to relinquish its protection and to refuse paying toward its support. It is self-evident that in so behaving he in no way trenches upon the liberty of others, for his position is a passive one, and while passive he cannot become an aggressor. It is equally self-evident that he cannot be compelled to continue one of a political corporation without a breach of the moral law, seeing that citizenship involves payment of taxes; and the taking away of a man's property against his will is an infringement of his rights" [http://www.panarchy.org/spencer/ignore.state.1851.html]. Some social contract supporters argue that a person is obliged to adhere to the "social contract" by staying within the confines of a state. Rebuttals to this view often turn on whether there is a genuine choice, whether there is a possibility to "opt out." One possible obstacle is that leaving a country can be difficult and require sacrifice, especially in the case of state-controlled borders (e.g. through the use of border guards, dogs, and walls). Another take on the issue might be that a contract implies willful adherence. Laws of the state are, by their definition, imposed. A state can be compared to the [[Mafia]], from this perspective; meaning that people are 'free' to pay protection tax, but they are still coerced. Other libertarians point out that, as long as all the land on Earth is administered by states, a person may not exit a state without entering another state and, hence, opting out of a social contract would be impossible unless one decides to live in the ocean. Supporters of social contract theories, on the other hand, argue that opting out of many contracts that libertarians do not oppose is also difficult. For example, if a private corporation owned the water supply in a region ''(see "''[[Monopoly]]''")'', and disgruntled residents of the region found it impossible to establish a new entrant in that market, then the revocation of one's contract with that corporation would mean that one would have to move out of the region. Thus, the argument goes, one's contract with the water corporation is very similar to a social contract.

Inspired by such considerations, some [[minarchist]]s have suggested establishing social contracts (and taxes or "fees") only at local or regional levels, the smaller the better, since leaving a neighborhood, for example, is less burdensome and is much better at preserving freedom of choice, than having to leave an entire country. Such a system also introduces an element of competition among the various taxing entities to which a monopolistic central government does not have to answer. On the other hand, this system also makes it difficult to undertake any sort of large-scale public project, since an agreement between different regional governments would be needed. The additional challenges would limit the implementation of large-scale public projects to only those with widespread support, perhaps consolidated through an umbrella organization of smaller governments (e.g., the [[United Nations]], [[European Union]], [[North American Free Trade Agreement]], [[NATO|North Atlantic Treaty Organization]]). Furthermore, lacking a centralized point of taxation control, this system also allows for the creation of "tax havens": if a certain region has little or no local taxes, many of the rich people from neighboring regions may move to it, thus depriving their original home regions of tax revenue. Whether this is good or bad depends on one's political views.

Of course, the existence of a social contract, much like the non-aggression principle, is itself a matter of dispute among the advocates of different political ideologies and views. Many libertarians argue that no contract can exist without conscious and voluntary assent by all participants. [[American individualist anarchist]] [[Lysander Spooner]] is a noted proponent of this view, while espousing the non-aggression principle as [[natural law]]. Spooner holds that the fact that governments hold the threat of force over the heads of those who would not pay taxes, any supposed social contract to pay taxes would not be legitimate since legitimate contracts can only be made in the absence of coercion (i.e., they must be voluntary).

Others argue that a social contract can indeed exist, but that it is an implicit contract between individuals to adhere to the non-aggression principle; these argue that taxation is therefore a violation of the social contract. For example, anarchist [[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]] maintains that rather than being a contract between man and government, the "social contract is an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society" to "abdicate all pretension to govern each other."

==Notes==

{{Reflist}}

==Notes and references==
# {{note|Block2003}} Source: [http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html (Walter Block 2003)]
# {{note|Block2001}} Source: [http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/block1.html (Walter Block 2001)]
# {{note|Rothbard}} Murray N. Rothbard, in "War, Peace, and the State"
# {{note|lpmembership}} [https://www.lp.org/membership Libertarian Party Membership Form]

==See also==
* [[Harm principle]]
* [[law of equal liberty]]
* [[Natural law]]
* [[Nonviolence]]
* [[Self ownership]]
* [[Simple living]]
* [[Taxation as theft]]
* [[Victimless crime]], [[public order crime]]

==Links==
* [http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf ''The Ethics of Liberty''] e-book by [[Murray Rothbard]], Mises.org
* [http://mises.org/books/Socialismcapitalism.pdf ''A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism''] e-book by [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]], Mises.org
* [http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism] by [[Walter Block]], LewRockwell.com
* [http://www.mises.org/asc/2002/ASC8-Machan.pdf Against Utilitarianism; or, Why Not Violate Rights if it'd Do Good] by [[Tibor Machan]], Mises.org
* [http://www.mises.org/story/2103 Economics and Its Ethical Assumptions] by [[Roderick Long]], Mises.org
* [http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_2/12_2_5.pdf New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory] by [[N. Stephan Kinsella]], Mises.org
*[http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html The Philosophy of Liberty], an animated production, derives a [[libertarianism|libertarian]] philosophy from the principle of self-ownership. Central to this is the non-aggression principle.

{{Libertarianism}}
{{Anarcho-capitalism}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Non-Aggression Principle}}
[[Category:Libertarian theory]]
[[Category:Anarchist theory]]
[[Category:Anarcho-capitalism]]

[[de:Nichtaggressionsprinzip]]
[[es:Principio de no agresión]]
[[fr:Principe de non-agression]]
[[fi:Nonaggressioperiaate]]
[[nl:non-agressieprincipe]]
[[zh:互不侵犯原則]]

Principle of non-aggression

2012-01-17T00:07:33Z

141.101.70.180: /* Justification */

{{Refimprove|date=May 2008}}
{{Libertarianism sidebar |expanded=Concepts}}

The '''non-aggression principle''' (also called the '''non-aggression axiom''', or the '''anti-coercion''' or '''zero aggression principle''' or '''non-initiation of force''') is an ethical stance which asserts that "[[aggression]]" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or [[fraud]] upon persons or their property. In contrast to [[pacifism]], the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The principle is a [[deontological]] (or rule-based) ethical stance.

==Origin==
The principle has a long tradition but has been mostly popularized by [[market anarchism|market anarchists]] and other schools of [[libertarianism]] ([[consequentialist libertarianism|consequentialist libertarians]] do not base their libertarianism on it).<ref>[http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2005_01/editors-right.html What's Right vs. What Works]. Charles Murray, David Friedman, David Boaz, and R.W. Bradford. ''Liberty''. January 2005, Vol 15, No 1</ref> It is an [[axiom]] of some forms of [[anarchism]], and traces of it can be found in [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]], as well as in Eastern philosophies such as [[Taoism]].<ref>[http://mises.org/daily/3903 Libertarianism in Ancient China] Murray N. Rothbard ''Libertarianism in Ancient China''</ref>

==Definition==
Libertarians typically claim that the non-aggression principle includes [[property]] and [[freedom of contract]] as a part of self-ownership. The basis for this extension of self-ownership to one's property is [[John Locke]]'s argument (also called the [[homestead principle]]) that mixing of labor with an unowned resource makes that resource part of one's self. Subsequent [[exchange]] of such property (e.g. sale, rental) simply transfers this right. Hence, to aggress against someone's property is to aggress against the individual. As for freedom of contract, the right of self-ownership is held to imply freedom of action in the absence of aggression (e.g. in the absence of false or duress contracts, and the absence of contracts stipulating aggression against third-parties).

==Consequences==
If these two rights to private property and to freedom of contract are taken as given, then the non-aggression principle is held by its supporters to lead to the rejection of [[theft]], [[vandalism]], [[assault]], [[fraud]] and [[victimless crimes]].

When applied to the [[state (polity)|state]], it has been taken to prohibit many policies including [[taxation]], the [[military draft]], [[regulation]] of voluntary exchange and individual participation in non-defensive state wars. When taken to the logical conclusion, [[anarchists]] argue that it calls for abolition of the state itself, asserting that individuals would be protected from aggression by what amount to insurance contracts with private organizations, through a militia union, or completely by self-defense. This proposed system resembles fire protection services in colonial Philadelphia.

The [[United States Libertarian Party]] and others view it as an essential tenet of all [[libertarianism|libertarian]] thought.

==Justification==
The principle has been derived by various philosophical approaches, including:
* [[Argumentation Ethics]]. [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]] has argued that [[property rights]] are [[praxeology|praxeologically]] necessary as they are presupposed in the very act of argumentation;
* [[Natural law]]. [[Murray Rothbard]] has made efforts to derive non-aggression from [[self-ownership]];
* [[Contractarianism]];<ref>[http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html A Positive Account of Property Rights]. David Friedman. Originally published in Social Philosophy & Policy, volume 11, number 2 (Summer 1994), published by Cambridge University Press.</ref>
* [[Objectivism (Ayn Rand)|Objectivism]]. [[Ayn Rand]] has made efforts in deriving the principle from the [[right to life]]; and
* [[Universally Preferable Behavior]]. [[Stefan Molyneux]] formulated an ethical theory that made an effort to validate the non-aggression principle.

==Historical formulations and background==
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left;border-collapse:collapse;" cellpadding="2"
|+ Historical formulations of the non-aggression principle
|-
! style="background:#efefef;"| Year
! style="background:#efefef;"| Formulated by
! style="background:#efefef;"| Formulation
|-
|300's BC
|[[Epicurus]]
|"Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another."<ref>[http://classics.mit.edu/Epicurus/princdoc.html]</ref>
|-
|900's
|[[Abu Mansur Al Maturidi]], [[Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya]], [[Averroes]]
|These Islamic theologians and philosopher wrote that man could rationally know that man had a right to life and property.
|-
|early 1200's
|[[Ibn Tufayl]]
|In [[Hayy ibn Yaqzan]] the Islamic philosopher discussed the life story of a baby living alone without prior knowledge who discovered natural law, and natural rights, which obliged man not to coerce against another's life or property. Ibn Tufayl influenced Locke's notion of [[Tabula Rasa]].<ref>G. A. Russell (1994), ''The 'Arabick' Interest of the Natural Philosophers in Seventeenth-Century England'', pp. 224-239, [[Brill Publishers]], ISBN 9004094598.</ref>
|-
|1618
|[[John Locke]]
|In [[Second Treatise on Government]] he wrote "Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."<ref>http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-a.html#Sect.%206.</ref>
|-
|1682
|[[Samuel von Pufendorf]]
|In ''On the Duty of Man and Citizen'' he wrote "Among the absolute duties, i.e., of anybody to anybody, the first place belongs to this one: let no one injure another. For this is the broadest of all duties, embracing all men as such."<ref>http://www.constitution.org/puf/puf-dut_106.htm</ref>
|-
|1722
|[[William Wollaston]]
|In ''The Religion of Nature Delineated'' he formulated "No man can have a right to begin to interrupt the happiness of another." This formulation emphasized "begin" to distinguish aggressive disturbances from those in self-defense ("...yet every man has a right to defend himself and his against violence, to recover what is taken by force from him, and even to make reprisals, by all the means that truth and prudence permit.")
|-
|1790
|[[Mary Wollstonecraft]]
|("Vindication of the Rights of Men") "The birthright of man ... is such a degree of liberty, civil and religious, as is compatible with the liberty of every other individual with whom he is united in a social compact, and the continued existence of that compact."<ref>[http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/Book.php?recordID=0532]</ref>
|-
|1816
|[[Thomas Jefferson]]
|"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." and "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." (Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816)
|-
|1851
|[[Herbert Spencer]]
|The [[law of equal freedom]]: "Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man." This notion of equal freedom goes back to earlier liberal thought.
|-
|1859
|[[John Stuart Mill]]
| The [[harm principle]] formulated in [[On Liberty]], states that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".
|-
|1961
|[[Ayn Rand]]
|In an essay called "Man's Rights" in the book "[[The Virtue of Selfishness]]" she formulated "The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships. ... In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use."<ref>http://www.ccsindia.org/ccsindia/lssreader/2lssreader.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.freedomkeys.com/ar-rootsofwar.htm</ref><ref>http://freedomkeys.com/faithandforce.htm</ref> Note that she stipulated the context - civilized society.
|-
|1963
|[[Murray Rothbard]]
|"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." Cited from "War, Peace, and the State" (1963) which appeared [[Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays]]<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard26.html</ref>
|-
|
|[[L. Neil Smith]]
|The libertarian science fiction writer, claims, "No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation." This is considered an imprecise formulation, since it explicitly ignores context.
|-
|
|[[Walter Block]]
|"It shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another."<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html</ref>
|}

Natural law theorist [[Murray Rothbard]] traces the non-aggression principle to natural law theorist [[St. Thomas Aquinas]] and the early Thomist scholastics of the Salamanca school [http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard135.html].

Early formulations that use terms such as "harm" or "injury," such as those of Epicurus and Mill above, are today generally considered imprecise. "Harm" and "injury" are too subjective; one man's harm may be another man's benefit. For example, a squatter may make "improvements" that the owner considers detrimental. Modern formulations avoid such subjectivity by formulating the NAP in terms of [[individual rights]] or observable conduct (''initiation of force/violence'').

==Criticism==
The non-aggression principle faces three kinds of criticism: the first holds that the principle is immoral, the second argues that it is impossible to apply consistently in practice, while the third holds that the interpretation of the principle is too ambiguous to be useful; respectively, the consequentialist criticism, the inconsistency criticism, and the ambiguity criticism.

===Consequentialist criticism===
This moral criticism is based on [[consequentialism|consequentialist]] [[ethics]], usually [[utilitarianism]]. It holds that the non-aggression principle is unethical because it opposes the initiation of force even when the results of such initiation would be better than the results of any other course of action. Suppose, for instance, that you could save a million lives by killing one innocent man. The non-aggression principle holds that you should not kill that man. But this leads to a million deaths. While such extreme situations are unlikely, opponents of the non-aggression principle argue that milder forms of the same dilemma (for example the choice between taking away part of a wealthy man's property or allowing a poor person to starve) are very common. Of course, many formulations, such as Rothbard's and Block's, avoid this objection by either specifying that the NAP only applies to a civilized context (and not 'lifeboat situations')<ref>{{cite web|url=http://mises.org/daily/1628|title=Lifeboat Situations|last=Rothbard|first=Murray|authorlink=Murray Rothbard|accessdate=2010-05-13}}</ref> or that it applies only to legal rights (as opposed to general morality.) Thus a starving man may, in consonance with general morality, break into a hunting cabin and steal food, but nevertheless he is aggressing, i.e. violating the NAP, and (by most rectification theories) should pay compensation.

Some consequentialist libertarians promote the non-aggression principle by basing its advocacy on forms of consequentialism such as [[rule utilitarianism]] and [[rule egoism]]. These utilitarians do not believe that it is categorically immoral to engage in aggression, but because they believe situations where aggression would lead to the best consequences are rare, they promote the non-aggression principle with the justification that if others accept it as a rule it would lead to better consequences than if they did not accept it as a rule. They believe the consequences of advocating the rule are superior to advocating that other individuals attempt to calculate each of their own actions to determine whether aggression or non-aggression would lead to better consequences. Other consequentialist libertarians do not promote the non-aggression principle at all; they simply believe that allowing a very large scope of political and economic liberty results in the maximum well-being or efficiency for a society, even if securing this liberty involves some governmental actions that would be considered violations of the non-aggression principle. It just so happens that these actions are limited in the free society they envision. This type of libertarianism is associated with [[Ludwig von Mises]] and [[Friedrich Hayek]].<ref>Barry, Norman P. Review Article:The New Liberalism. B.J. Pol. S. 13, p. 93</ref>

===Inconsistency criticism===
The second type of criticism focuses on the difficulty of determining who exactly ''initiated'' force in many real-life conflicts. As a general rule, each side in a conflict claims that the other "started it". Sometimes it is plainly clear who initiated force - for example, when a mugger demands a person's wallet. Other times, however, the situation is more complicated. For example, one side may have been the first to ''threaten'' force and the other side may have been the first to actually ''use'' force, or the conflict began such a long time in the past that no one remembers who started it. [[War]]s are a particularly difficult case, because very few of them begin with a country openly declaring that it wants to initiate force on another.

Libertarians usually respond by stating that such pragmatic issues are well dealt with already in today's legal systems. For instance, an example of a dissipative game is a situation where a person starts insulting another in a bar, the other person responds by shoving, the other throws a punch, and the situation dissipates into a fight. In such cases, both parties are simply guilty of aggression toward the other because the aggression clearly went beyond self defense.{{Citation needed|date=September 2009}}

A version of this second criticism is often upheld by [[libertarian socialism|libertarian socialists]] and others, who claim that almost every patch of land on Earth was stolen (i.e. obtained through initiation of force) at some point in its history. The stolen land was later inherited or sold until it reached its present owners. Thus, property over land and natural resources is based on the initiation of force. Among those who make this argument, some (such as followers of [[Henry George]]) claim that private property over natural resources is unique in being based on the initiation of force, while others hold that, by extension, private property over ''all'' goods derives from violence, because natural resources are required in the production of all goods.

Libertarians often reply to the "who started it?" problem by contending that the difficulty in determining who is the transgressor should not dissuade us from engaging in that process.

Furthermore, libertarians often reply to either variant of this last point with the "water under the bridge" argument: that transgressions of the past cannot all be rectified, and that an act of theft which happened very long ago can reasonably be ignored - since it is irrelevant to people living today. This, however, can generate more charges of inconsistency, because it implies that peaceful possession of property in the present legitimizes theft and/or trespass in the past{{ndash}} the principle known in some contexts as "squatters' rights" and in other contexts as "the right of [[adverse possession]]". This requires a "cutoff" point: a point in time when illegitimate property becomes legitimate property. Opponents argue that any such point is arbitrary.

One prominent [[Anarcho-capitalism|anarcho-capitalist]] theorist, [[Murray Rothbard]], argued that much private property in the U.S. southwest ought to be taken from its present private owners, and given to the lawful heirs of those who had claim to it under Mexican law before the [[Mexican–American War]], although he also regarded this case as historically unique.

Another reply can be made on the basis of the existence of proof of possession and individuality of owners. That is: if current heirs of long dead property owners can identify the property that has been stolen and ''prove'' that the owner has passed down to him or her his initial right of property - then those persons must be recognized as the rightful owners. This is similar to the "innocent until proven guilty" proposition of modern law, that owners should be regarded as legitimate until proven differently.

===Ambiguity criticism===
In addition to the above two kinds of criticism, there is also a debate around the manner in which libertarians typically ''interpret'' the non-aggression principle. Specifically, some libertarians see [[tax]]es as a [[Taxation as theft|form of government aggression]]. However, unless their libertarianism is of such an absolute degree that it opposes any kind of state, some consider taxation as a "necessary evil." They may argue that because of the [[free-rider problem]], enough funds would not be obtainable by voluntary means to protect individuals from aggression of a greater severity. Hence, they will accept taxation as long as no more is levied than is necessary to ''optimise'' protection of individuals against aggression (from other individuals and from government itself). On the other hand, many libertarian anarchists, as strict adherents to the non-aggression principle, argue that security should be maintained by voluntary payment to [[Private defense agency|private defense forces]], rather than taxation. Both anarchists and opponents of libertarianism in general have made the argument that the non-aggression principle, if embraced in a pure or absolute sense, forbids the existence of states. Anarchists use this argument in their attempts to convert other libertarians to their views, while opponents of libertarianism use it to support the claim that consistent application of libertarian principles would result in the complete abolition of the state - which, in their view, is an [[extremist]] and absurd position to hold.

Some radical libertarians argue that [[minarchism]] stemming from the non-aggression principle is logically inconsistent, and consider anarchism to be the natural-rights doctrine applied in full. Others feel that minarchism from a consequentialist libertarian perspective is more cogent and a better alternative to rights-libertarian minarchism.

===Social contract===
There are many who oppose the libertarian idea that taxation is a form of aggression on [[social contract]] grounds. Specifically, advocates of most social contract theories see taxes as analogous to contract fees, and tax-collecting governments as agents of an (implicit) agreement among the members of a society to share certain common burdens. However, [[Herbert Spencer]] argues that: "If every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the state - to relinquish its protection and to refuse paying toward its support. It is self-evident that in so behaving he in no way trenches upon the liberty of others, for his position is a passive one, and while passive he cannot become an aggressor. It is equally self-evident that he cannot be compelled to continue one of a political corporation without a breach of the moral law, seeing that citizenship involves payment of taxes; and the taking away of a man's property against his will is an infringement of his rights" [http://www.panarchy.org/spencer/ignore.state.1851.html]. Some social contract supporters argue that a person is obliged to adhere to the "social contract" by staying within the confines of a state. Rebuttals to this view often turn on whether there is a genuine choice, whether there is a possibility to "opt out." One possible obstacle is that leaving a country can be difficult and require sacrifice, especially in the case of state-controlled borders (e.g. through the use of border guards, dogs, and walls). Another take on the issue might be that a contract implies willful adherence. Laws of the state are, by their definition, imposed. A state can be compared to the [[Mafia]], from this perspective; meaning that people are 'free' to pay protection tax, but they are still coerced. Other libertarians point out that, as long as all the land on Earth is administered by states, a person may not exit a state without entering another state and, hence, opting out of a social contract would be impossible unless one decides to live in the ocean. Supporters of social contract theories, on the other hand, argue that opting out of many contracts that libertarians do not oppose is also difficult. For example, if a private corporation owned the water supply in a region ''(see "''[[Monopoly]]''")'', and disgruntled residents of the region found it impossible to establish a new entrant in that market, then the revocation of one's contract with that corporation would mean that one would have to move out of the region. Thus, the argument goes, one's contract with the water corporation is very similar to a social contract.

Inspired by such considerations, some [[minarchist]]s have suggested establishing social contracts (and taxes or "fees") only at local or regional levels, the smaller the better, since leaving a neighborhood, for example, is less burdensome and is much better at preserving freedom of choice, than having to leave an entire country. Such a system also introduces an element of competition among the various taxing entities to which a monopolistic central government does not have to answer. On the other hand, this system also makes it difficult to undertake any sort of large-scale public project, since an agreement between different regional governments would be needed. The additional challenges would limit the implementation of large-scale public projects to only those with widespread support, perhaps consolidated through an umbrella organization of smaller governments (e.g., the [[United Nations]], [[European Union]], [[North American Free Trade Agreement]], [[NATO|North Atlantic Treaty Organization]]). Furthermore, lacking a centralized point of taxation control, this system also allows for the creation of "tax havens": if a certain region has little or no local taxes, many of the rich people from neighboring regions may move to it, thus depriving their original home regions of tax revenue. Whether this is good or bad depends on one's political views.

Of course, the existence of a social contract, much like the non-aggression principle, is itself a matter of dispute among the advocates of different political ideologies and views. Many libertarians argue that no contract can exist without conscious and voluntary assent by all participants. [[American individualist anarchist]] [[Lysander Spooner]] is a noted proponent of this view, while espousing the non-aggression principle as [[natural law]]. Spooner holds that the fact that governments hold the threat of force over the heads of those who would not pay taxes, any supposed social contract to pay taxes would not be legitimate since legitimate contracts can only be made in the absence of coercion (i.e., they must be voluntary).

Others argue that a social contract can indeed exist, but that it is an implicit contract between individuals to adhere to the non-aggression principle; these argue that taxation is therefore a violation of the social contract. For example, anarchist [[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]] maintains that rather than being a contract between man and government, the "social contract is an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society" to "abdicate all pretension to govern each other."

==Notes==

{{Reflist}}

==Notes and references==
# {{note|Block2003}} Source: [http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html (Walter Block 2003)]
# {{note|Block2001}} Source: [http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/block1.html (Walter Block 2001)]
# {{note|Rothbard}} Murray N. Rothbard, in "War, Peace, and the State"
# {{note|lpmembership}} [https://www.lp.org/membership Libertarian Party Membership Form]

==See also==
* [[Harm principle]]
* [[law of equal liberty]]
* [[Natural law]]
* [[Nonviolence]]
* [[Self ownership]]
* [[Simple living]]
* [[Taxation as theft]]
* [[Victimless crime]], [[public order crime]]

==Links==
* [http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf ''The Ethics of Liberty''] e-book by [[Murray Rothbard]], Mises.org
* [http://mises.org/books/Socialismcapitalism.pdf ''A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism''] e-book by [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]], Mises.org
* [http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism] by [[Walter Block]], LewRockwell.com
* [http://www.mises.org/asc/2002/ASC8-Machan.pdf Against Utilitarianism; or, Why Not Violate Rights if it'd Do Good] by [[Tibor Machan]], Mises.org
* [http://www.mises.org/story/2103 Economics and Its Ethical Assumptions] by [[Roderick Long]], Mises.org
* [http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_2/12_2_5.pdf New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory] by [[N. Stephan Kinsella]], Mises.org
*[http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html The Philosophy of Liberty], an animated production, derives a [[libertarianism|libertarian]] philosophy from the principle of self-ownership. Central to this is the non-aggression principle.

{{Libertarianism}}
{{Anarcho-capitalism}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Non-Aggression Principle}}
[[Category:Libertarian theory]]
[[Category:Anarchist theory]]
[[Category:Anarcho-capitalism]]

[[de:Nichtaggressionsprinzip]]
[[es:Principio de no agresión]]
[[fr:Principe de non-agression]]
[[fi:Nonaggressioperiaate]]
[[nl:non-agressieprincipe]]
[[zh:互不侵犯原則]]

Argumentation ethics

2011-12-29T18:15:55Z

141.101.70.180:

{{TOC right}}
'''Argumentation ethics''', [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]]'s "Argumentation Ethics" (1988) is a foundational defense of [[Libertarianism|libertarian]] rights. Argumentation Ethics relies on the work of philosophers [[Jürgen Habermas]] and [[Karl-Otto Apel]]'s concept of [[Discourse Ethics]], and further on the [[deontological ethics|deontological]] ethics of economist [[Murry Rothbard]]. Hoppe asserts that since verbal argumentation aims to resolve conflicts in a non-violent way, only the [[Non-aggression principle]] is consistent with that aim and therefore only it can be justified without contradiction. Hoppe's approach is a [[Praxeology|praxeological]] examination of the act of discourse.

==Justification==
The argument by [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]], a modern proponent of argumentation ethics, goes that an individual cannot consistently logically deny, in the course of argumentation, any of those things which the argument, or discourse, presupposes; doing so is to perform a performative contradiction.

The rationale on behalf of argumentation ethics is found on page 334 of Hoppe's book ''[[The Economics and Ethics of Private Property]]''.

<blockquote>Argumentation does not consist of free-floating propositions but is a form of [[action]] requiring the employment of [[Scarcity|scarce]] means; and that the means which a person demonstrates as preferring by engaging in propositional exchanges are those of private [[property]]. For one thing, no one could possibly propose anything, and no one could become convinced of any proposition by argumentative means, if a person’s right to make exclusive use of his physical body were not already presupposed. It is this recognition of each other’s mutually exclusive control over one’s own body which explains the distinctive character of propositional exchanges that, while one may disagree about what has been said, it is still possible to agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement. It is also obvious that such a property right to one’s own body must be said to be justified ''a priori'', for anyone who tried to justify any norm whatsoever would already have to presuppose the exclusive right of control over his body as a valid norm simply in order to say, “I propose such and such.” Anyone disputing such a right would become caught up in a practical contradiction since arguing so would already imply acceptance of the very norm which he was disputing.</blockquote>

===Axiomatic Foundation===
Hoppe notes that since [[scarcity]] exists, conflicts arise over the use of [[Rivalry (economics)| rivalrous goods]] between different agents. Agents can then choose to resolve their conflicts in a non violent way by engaging in argumentation. Therefore presupposed in the act of argumentation are norms contingent with the goal of non-violent conflict resolution. Among these are "''[[language]] has objective meaning''", "''Truth claims are preferable to false claims''" and "''claims must be justified''". These norms Hoppe terms the [[A priori and a posteriori|apriori]] of argumentation (APoA). The denial of norms presupposed in the act of argumentation constitutes a [[performative contradiction]], thereby voiding the argument of meaning. Hoppe shows that any moral justification for rules of human conduct must take place in an argument, as the very act of the denial of this assertion implies the denier is engaged in an argument.

===Non-Aggression Principle===
Hoppe argues that only universal norms are consistent with the APoA, as [[double standard|arbitrary categorical distinctions]], are not objectively justifiable. Hoppe then argues that since argumentation requires the active use of one's body, all universal norms for resolving conflicts over the human body aside from full [[self-ownership]] are inconsistent with argumentation. Hoppe then shows that since the resolution of conflicts over external [[resources]] must also be objectively justifiable in a conflict avoiding way, only the establishment of an original objective link vis a vis original [[appropriation]] (i.e. [[homesteading principle|homesteading]]) is consistent with argumentation. From these Hoppe concludes that only the non aggression principle of self ownership and [[John Lock|Lockean]] homesteading can be justified in an argument without an implied performative contradiction<ref>http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/hoppe_ult_just_liberty.pdf</ref>.

===Reception and Criticism===
Many modern libertarian scholars have accepted Hoppe's argument, among them [[Murray Rothbard]]<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard47.html</ref>, [[Walter Block]], [[David Gordon]], and [[Stephan Kinsella]]. Economists [[Bob Murphy]] and [[Gene Callahan]] have expressed criticism<ref>mises.org/journals/jls/20_2/20_2_3.pdf</ref>. Stefan Kinsella has addressed their criticism<ref>http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=312</ref>. Professor David Osterfeld has also expressed criticism, which was addressed by Hoppe<ref>http://www.scribd.com/doc/15691112/8/Appendix-Four-Critical-Replies</ref>.

Another criticism is that argumentation ethics conflates the ontological concept of control of one's self with the ethical concept of self-ownership. That is to say, just as someone has the ability to control one's self, that does not give rise to why another ought to refrain from physically interfering with that control.

==See also==
* ''[[The Economics and Ethics of Private Property]]''

==Links==
* {{md|5322|Argumentation Ethics and Liberty: A Concise Guide|[[Stephan Kinsella]]|May 2011}}
* {{mb|16747|The Power of Hoppe|Stephan Kinsella|May 2011}}
* {{mb|13557|Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics, Again|[[Jeffrey Tucker]]|August 2010}}
* {{mb|11095|Hülsmann on Argumentation Ethics|Stephan Kinsella|November 2009}}
* {{mb|9610|Revisiting Argumentation Ethics|Stephan Kinsella|March 2009}}
* {{mb|7194|Argumentation Ethics: some brief notes on the concept|Juan Fernando Carpio|September 2007}}

* Other media
** [http://mises.org/media/1507 "Law and Economics"] lecture by [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]], August 2005
** [http://mises.org/media/3965 "Law and Economics"] lecture by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, July 2009
** [http://mises.org/media/6538 "Property and the Social Order"] lecture by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, July 2011

* {{wplink}}

{{stub}}
[[Category:Logic|*]]
[[Category:Concepts|*]]