Introduction

I’ve answered this question at some point, but I think I should probably do it again.  I am going to break this up into a series.  I thought at first I would write it in one long blog, but it’s hard to digest that way.  This is going to be something akin to a platform to explain in more depth how a person who views the world from the assumption of private property would view various issues from a moral/ethical perspective.

Foundation

A proprietarian views his body as inherently (by definition) his own property.  This is the most basic tenet in his worldview.  From this flows the idea that he is the only rightful beneficiary of the skills and use of his body.  All others who might benefit from his body must do so only upon his express consent.  In order to remain consistent in this worldview, he must also view any act by himself or anyone else which would deprive anyone else of their rightful ability to be the sole beneficiaries of their bodies (absent expressed consent, of course) as wrong, morally.  He cannot view such invasions upon others as moral while simultaneously viewing those same invasions immoral if committed against him.

Property external of the body is a direct result of benefit from a man’s own body.  He either acquires unowned property by his own effort or he trade his skills/property with others.  His non-body property therefore exists as an extension of the idea that he owns himself. In a world where this was the “common” moral foundation, the only “sin” against your fellow man would be attempts to circumvent the rightful ownership of property.  Everything a proprietarian would find morally (or ethically) reprehensible could be boiled down to a form of theft.

Definitions

Before we dive into specific issues and how a proprietarian would likely view them morally or ethically, I am going to define some terms I’ll be using.  Please mouse over them for definitions.  There seems to be a technical issue with my Dictionary plugin when I directly quote the definition as well.  Thanks.

• Violence - The use of physical force against a person or his property
• Coercion - The use of the threat of violence in order to obtain compliance
• Aggression - Initiating the unprovoked use of violence or coercion
• Defense - The use of violence or coercion in order to prevent or mitigate acts of aggression already in progress or reasonably believed to be imminent (i.e. credible threats)
• Escalation - The use of more force than was initially applied or more than was necessary to stop/mitigate the initial aggression
• Government - A body of individuals who share decision making authority within a group (i.e. a board of trustees, city council, etc.)
• State - A government which employs aggressive means in order to achieve the compliance of people who have not otherwise consented to such a relationship

There is, amongst people who generally agree to these terms, some dispute between when an act crosses the line from “defensive” to “aggressive.”  For example, a man steals your television by whatever means.  He makes a clean get-away, and your television is now (after some period of time) in his house.  You know who the man is and where he lives.  The dispute is whether or not you should go break into his house to reacquire your television.  I do not have a hard and fast answer to this, but I will provide how I would treat the situation were I the victim… but that will be later in this post.

Issues

This is the meat…  where most people want to dive right in.  But what I’m going to do here is try to work out something somewhat logical in order, and hopefully build on it as time progresses.  It will be an ever changing “work in progress.”  Look for the first of these posts to appear in the coming days/weeks.

Thanks for taking the time to read.
~LP (Erin)