9 votes

Do You Have a Right to a "Monopoly on Force" In Your Own Home?`

The title speaks for itself:

Do you have the right to a "monopoly on force" in your own home?

Discuss!

This is an off shoot of the thread "On Definitions and Straw Men"

UPDATE: For the record, this is not meant as a "trick" question, nor is it one I have a complete answer to. The issue is somewhat complicated, especially in regards to how one define's a "monopoly on force", but for purposes of this post I am using it in the way faithkills used it in the other thread, essentially as '"a monopoly over the legal use of violence over a given region", and in this case the region in question is one's own property.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You don't have a right to any monopoly, ever

This is why if you want to discuss concepts you need to define terms and use the correct meanings.

A monopoly does not just mean ownership.

You have a right to dispose of your property how you wish. This means you can say who can be armed, who can come on your property at all, or who can come on your property and sell stuff.

None of that is what monopoly means however.

Monopoly means you are telling other people what they can do with their property or persons.

Monopoly also applies to a category not a specific thing.

You don't have a monopoly on your house. You are the only one who can sell your house or bulldoze it, but that is not monopoly.

You can claim a monopoly on houses. That would mean no one can buy houses except from you. (or your firm or w/e)

Using 'monopoly' to mean 'ownership' is confusing the issue and confusing coherent discussion of the issue.

I am trying very hard here Marc to assume this is innocent misuse.

So when the AMA secures a monopoly on the provision of physician services they aren't saying you can't sell physician services on their property, as anyone could do, because that is what property means, 'your property' means, it means you are the 'decider' on your property.

They are saying you can't buy or sell (or even give away) physician services on your property to anyone.

Monopoly is a claim against other peoples' rights to association, rights of property, and rights of person.

So when we call the state as the entity that claims sole legitimate monopoly (ethical oxymoron) of violence in a region, they are making a universal claim against every person and their property in that region.

.

.

You are completely mistaken

You are completely mistaken about the definition of monopoly.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

You should stay in your zone of competence

Whatever that is, it is not economics, economic terminology, or history.

Monopoly is a grant of exclusive privilege in a market originally given by a monarch.

Monopoly is not owning something. Monopoly is a claim against how other people may dispose of their own property, their capital and wtih whom and how they may exchange it.

Surely you are not trying to float out the keynesian redefintion of 'natural' monopoly, which is the definition of a chimera. The idea that in a free market some approximation of a real monopoly can be obtained? This has been shown logically to be impossible and historically it has never happenned. Marc understands this. Does that argument need to be recapitulated? Perhaps Marc will be so kind as to explain it to you. If not I certainly can.

yes, according to the (YAD) you're a dick principal

Introducing the YAD principal

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY
http://www.dailypaul.com/303151/bitcoin-has-gone-on-an-insan...

Could not summarize it any better

I think this video answers any questions one may have on this topic. Marc could pretty much just put this video into the original post and mark this question "Answered."

wolfe's picture

No.

"Do you have the right to a "monopoly on force" in your own home?"

If you did, it would make child abuse acceptable and leave no recourse for defense by the child.

Simple enough?

If I smack a child, that child has a right to smack me back.

Private property of a real estate nature does not negate the first property, self.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

very good point Wolfe

While one has the right to establish their own systems on their own property, a "monopoly" would entail that no one else can even enforce natural law on the property of another.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

wolfe's picture

Let's take the concept one step further....

And see if it still holds up.

Someone enters my property, and I tell them that I dislike the color of their pants so as punishment I am going to lock them in my basement for 3 months.

Do I have a right?
Do they have a right to use lethal force in defense?

What if me and all my neighbors agree it is an offensive color?
Do I have a right now?

What if I put on a shiny badge?
Do I have a right now?

What if we wrote it down and even posted the rule on a large sign?
Do I have a right now?

Is there anything that would give me the right to violate his property rights(himself), using mine(my home)?

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Mmmmmm....

...nope!

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

wolfe's picture

You just agreed with all anarchist thought...

in a single word.

Change basement to jail.
Change pants color to having weed.
Change rule to law.
Change neighbors to citizens.

Now reread.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Anarchy

Is non coercive government consistent wih your view of anarchy? And if so, how can you call it anarchy, which explicitly calls for a lack of government, by definition?

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

To make a finer point, however...

just because a nosy neighbor suspects something about their neighbor, doesn't give them a right to trespass and look through windows and such.

Trespass, no

Looking through windows could be a bit foggier, if he is simply looking from his own property or street. The onus to protect one's own privacy is by and large on the property owner (short of literal violations of property of course.)

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

wolfe's picture

Another example....

I borrow a friend's TV. Once it has entered my property, I decide to take a baseball bat to it. Did I have a right to since it was on my property? No.

The TV was his property. I only have the right to remove said piece of property from mine, whether that be a person or a TV.

If I tell him to take his TV back, and he refuses, I would then have the right to put on the curb with the rest of the trash since his property has now violated mine.

If I tell someone to leave, and they refuse, they are in violation of my rights, but if I invite the person and they accept, I do not have the right to hurt them simply because they are present.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

I as a Libertarian try to use the NAP in everything I do.

Let give you an example, of a true story. A neighbor boy was at my house and his dad knocked on my door, and asked to speak with him. I left the dad in and gave the 2 some privacy. After about five minutes of cursing and twice punching the boy in the face I asked the father to leave. He told me I have no athority to make him leave because my boyfriend owns the house and I don't. After asking 2 times I grabed the father by the throat and forced him out of the house.

To answer your question Yes I think it okay under libertarian philosophy to use force on your property.

Every person has a moral right to self-defense.

Anywhere.

If I walk into a store and am attacked without provocation by the store owner or his employee, I have every right to fight back with whatever force is necessary. Same thing for a visitor in a private home.

A property owner may forbid entrance to his property to anyone, for any reason, including carrying weapons -- but that does not give him a right to initiate force against visitors (trespassers are a different issue).

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

Moral right

What about the defense of others?

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Defense of other people, or other rights?

Not sure what you're asking, Marc, so I'll field both possibilities:

Do you have a right to defend your wife if she's attacked by a store clerk? Sure. Why do you ask?

Do you have a right to use force against a property owner, on his property, if he has NOT initiated force against you (or someone else), but he has done something else you don't like? No. Again, why do you ask? These don't sound like hard questions. What am I missing?

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...

I meant to defend other people...

Or, defend their natural rights, essentially the same thing.

I agree, it's just a thought experiment here that I'm trying to gauge people's thoughts on, essentially to try to get to the bottom of the "monopoly on force" arguments.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Perhaps some better questions...

Do you have the right to enforce natural law on your own property?

Do you have the right to create man-made rules on your own property?

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

You have a right to enforce

You have a right to enforce natural law on your own property, on unowned property, and on private property with consent of the owner.

I asked Walter Block this question. He said that when you violate rights, you are giving up your own rights. So that even if someone has not attacked you, you have the right to defend the victim by using force on the attacker.

This

I agree with this statement 100%!

I would only add, which you imply with your statement about block, that you even have the right to enforce natural law on private property *without* consent of the owner if they are in the process of violating rights (or aiding and abetting, or simply ignoring, etc...).

Nobody has a monopoly on natural law.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

This is the angle that I was going to take as well...

Natural law is present in any situation and trump man-made laws. As well, people typically recognize it when someone violates one. Drug War arrests are one example - especially when used as a tool to remove "undesirables" from society.

If a homeowner pulls out a gun and shoots an invited visitor, the others present are well within their rights to take action against him or her.

Are you planning to make a transition back to that essay?

I'm glad

We are largely in agreement here.

There are 2 points I'm aiming at.

1) is that, in reality, there is no such thing as a "monopoly on force". Though there certainly could be attempts at such, but even modern governments do not fully attempt this. This is a much larger point of contention here than

2) Natural law should be enforceable anywhere, at all times, regardless of private property or, even more absurd a claim for anarchists to make, regardless of "state sovereignty" or "sovereign nations" or what have you.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Here is an example of

Here is an example of governments attempting to keep their monopoly on force:

Myleene Klass was warned by police after scaring off intruders with knife. She brandished a knife at youths who broke into her garden – but has been warned by police that she may have acted illegally.

Miss Klass, 31, who was alone in her house with her two-year-old daughter called the police. When they arrived at her house they informed her that she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an "offensive weapon" – even in her own home – was illegal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/6957682/Myleen...

here is an example of...

Here is an example of when it doesn't...

"In an astonishing decision, a Texas grand jury refused to indict a Central Texas man Wednesday for shooting and killing an officer who entered his home serving a warrant unannounced, an outcome the man’s attorney says he’s never witnessed in his half-century long career."

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/150190-2014-02-09-murder...

The government allows for self-defense in many circumstances, so how does it maintain a "monopoly on force?"

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

It doesn't always have a

It doesn't always have a monopoly on force, but it tries its best.

If it doesn't *always*...

...then is it really a monopoly?

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Not a monopoly. But would yo

Not a monopoly. But would yo say that it has and enforces a monopoly on law (legislation) and its interpretation (courts)?