FOUNDATIONS OF

PRIVATE PROPERTY SOCIETY THEORY:

ANARCHISM FOR THE CIVILIZED PERSON

By Robert Wenzel
Cover design by Thomas Rossini

Wenzel photo by SteveSimar.com

2
 FOUNDATIONS
OF
PRIVATE PROPERTY
SOCIETY
THEORY:
ANARCHISM FOR THE
CIVILIZED PERSON

3
 FOUNDATIONS
OF
PRIVATE PROPERTY
SOCIETY THEORY:
ANARCHISM FOR THE
CIVILIZED PERSON

Robert Wenzel

i
III
III
Bl I
■ ■
[Gallatin House

5
Copyright 2018 by Gallatin House LLC

All rights reserved. Printed in the United States

of America. No part of this book may be used
or reproduced in any manner without written
permission, except in the case of brief
quotation embodied in critical articles and
reviews. For information contact
[email protected].

FIRST EDITION February 2018

ISBN 978-1-387-61517-9

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Wenzel, Robert

Foundations of Private Property

Theory/Robert Wenzel

Subject headings:

Anarchy

Government

Social policy

Published by Gallatin House LLC

6
For Sourface

7
8
The world does simply not need governing; in
fact, it should not be governed.

-Chuang Tzu (399 - 295 B.C.)

9
10
For upwards of two years from the
commencement of the American war, and a
longer period in several of the American states,
there were no established forms of
government. The old governments had been
abolished, and the country was too much
occupied in defense to employ its attention in
establishing new governments; yet, during this
interval, order and harmony were preserved as
inviolate as in any country in Europe. There is
a natural aptness in man, and more so in
society, because it embraces a greater variety of
abilities and resources, to accommodate itself
to whatever situation it is in. The instant
formal government is abolished, society begins
to act. A general association takes place, and
common interest produces common security...

-Thomas Paine

11
12
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 15
CHAPTER 1 19
THE NECESSITY OF GOVERNMENT IS A MYTH
CHAPTER 2 29
TYPES OF ANARCHISTS
CHAPTER 3 33
WHY SOCIETY?
CHAPTER 4 37
THE PROBLEM WITH NATURAL RIGHTS
CHAPTERS 4 1
THE PROBLEM WITH UTILITARIANISM
CHAPTER 6 45
THE IMPORTANCE OF SUBJECTIVISM IN
SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF GREAT CONFLICT
IN A CIVIL SOCIETY
CHAPTER 7 51
LAND PROPERTY
CHAPTER 8 55
RULES BEYOND LAND PROPERTY RESPECT
CHAPTER 9 57
CULTURE IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY SOCIETY

13
CHAPTER 10 63
CRIME RESOLUTION IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY
SOCIETY
CHAPTER 11 69
PUNISHMENT IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY
SOCIETY
CHAPTER 12 75
POLICE PROTECTION IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY
SOCIETY
CHAPTER 13 79
“NATIONAL” SECURITY IN A PRIVATE
PROPERTY SOCIETY
CHAPTER 14 85
LAND DISTRIBUTION IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY
SOCIETY
CHAPTER 15 89
ON PROMOTING A PRIVATE PROPERTY
SOCIETY
CONCLUSION 97
ENDNOTES 101
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 107
ABOUT ROBERT WENZEL 109

14
 INTRODUCTION

This book will come as a shock to most.

It advances the idea that no government is

needed for a fully functioning civil society.
Indeed, the point will be made in this book that
governments hinder - rather than advance -
civil society.

The book may also come as a shock to those

few who today favor a non-governmental
society as it will reject both the natural rights
and utilitarian justifications that are generally
advanced for what I call a Private Property
Society. And it will also reject the left-wing
anarchist perspective.

While my perspective is based significantly on

the ideas developed by Ludwig von Mises,
Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard, and
while I rely heavily on their important
observations about society, my view at a
foundational level differs from that of all three
men.

My initial idea when considering writing a book

on Private Property Society theory was to
examine the thoughts of many thinkers beyond
those of just Mises, Hayek and Rothbard. I had

15
planned to discuss for example, the ideas of
John Locke, David Hume, Lysander Spooner,
Karl Marx, Vilfredo Pareto, Max Weber, Jean
Jacques Rousseau, John Rawls, Robert Nozick,
John Hospers, Jane Jacobs, Karl Popper, Ayn
Rand, Walter Block, Hans-Hermann Hoppe,
James Buchanan and David Friedman, to name
just some, and to give you a sense for the broad
ambitious project I had in mind.

However, the current state of world turmoil

and a seeming global intensification of
demands for various government interventions
in society has led me to put my bigger project
on hold. This much shorter work does little
more than provide an outline of why in my
view a Private Property Society is a sound idea
and what it could look like.

Foremost, the idea behind a Private Property

Society is a counterweight to these prevalent
interventionist perspectives. And I believe this
counterweight contains a sounder justification
for a non-governmental society than those
arguing for such from left-wing, natural rights
or utilitarian perspectives.

The notion that men must be ruled by other

men and that the problem is one of how rulers
should emerge, via a democracy, a republic, a

16
dictatorship, etc., is one that is also rejected
here. But beyond this, even the idea that all
men must live under the same law is rejected.
Indeed, the idea that there is some specific
method of divined society that will guide us all
is rejected.

This book will take readers into uncharted

waters, but it will guide readers into these
waters in a logical step-by-step fashion.

It is not a call for a new man on earth that

somehow must change his fundamental
characteristics. It is not a book that promotes
the idea that there are predetermined stages to
the history of man. It is not a book that denies
evil exists in the world.

Rather, it is a perspective that recognizes the

world as it is and merely says, “Hey look, we
are currently putting the pieces to the puzzle of
civilized man on earth together in this fashion,
perhaps they will fit better if they are put
together in this fashion.”

Robert Wenzel

San Francisco

February 2018

17
18
 CHAPTER 1
THE NECESSITY OF GOVERNMENT
IS A MYTH

The idea that a society could take hold in a civil

fashion without the presence of a government
is not a view held by most today. Indeed, the
prevailing view is that without government,
things would quickly turn into chaos and
violence.

But the idea that government is necessary is a

myth. Upon deeper examination, non­
government entities - including police and
“national” defense - can more efficiently
provide services than governments currently
provide. Later chapters will discuss non­
governmental police and defense. At this point
it should simply be recognized it is possible
that a lot of so-called government services are
not as mandatory for a civilized society as
generally believed.

As an example, let’s review government role of

police versus the role of residents in
neighborhood safety. In any large city and
many small towns, there are neighborhoods
known as “good and safe” areas and other
neighborhoods known as the “bad sections of

19
town.” Both areas are generally policed by the
same police department, but the difference in
safety in the two areas can be dramatic. It is
not because of the police operating differently
in the two sectors; it is because of the people
living in the two areas. The police don’t provide
complete security to either area. It is only the
neighbors in the good part of town that provide
a type of self-security. If it was really
government police that provided complete
protection, there would be no such things as
good parts of town and bad parts.

Everyone knows that such different parts of

town exist and most of us just stay away from
the bad parts, especially late at night and in the
very early morning hours before the great
protector, the sun, rises for the day.

But even in the good parts of town, it is

generally not realized private protection’s
crucial safety function. Doormen in large cities’
residential buildings are in the lobbies partly as
a crime deterrent. Shopping malls and major
office buildings maintain private security
guards. And in our modern age, privately
installed security cameras are spread
throughout the land.

20
The economist Jane Jacobs observed as to how
people on the street help bring safety to an
area. It is what she called “eyes on the street”:

[E]yes belonging to those we might call

the natural proprietors of the street. The
buildings on a street equipped to handle
strangers and to insure the safety of
both residents and strangers must be
oriented to the street. They cannot turn
their backs or blank sides on it and leave
it blind...

[S]torekeepers and other small

businessmen are typically strong
proponents of peace and order
themselves; they hate broken windows
and holdups; they hate having
customers made nervous about safety.
They are great street watchers and
sidewalk guardians if present in
sufficient numbers.1

She even saw people out grabbing lunch as

providing important safety:

[T]he activity generated by people on

errands, or people aiming for food or
drink, is itself an attraction to still other
people.

21
Good people going about their daily business
help to create safety and protection in areas
much more so than government police.

On the “national” defense front, a government

military is often used in an aggressive manner
rather than for protection of the homeland. The
United States military, for example, operates in
many theaters around the globe that are more
in line with an empire’s adventures than
protecting the homeland. The US maintains
nearly 800 military bases in more than 70
countries and territories abroad.2

And it should not be forgotten that government

nuclear bomb shelters are designed and
available for high ranking members of the
government, but not for the common man.
There is no government protection for most of
us against a horrific nuclear attack - only for
the government that is allegedly protecting us.

Outside of government officials, the only

citizens safe from a nuclear attack are those
who have built their own private bomb
shelters.

After Hawaii recently issued a false

intercontinental ballistic missile warning to its
residents, a libertarian observer remarked,

22
“Well at least we know what the government is
going to do when there is a nuclear attack
headed our way. They are going to send us a
text message.”3

In other words, not only is the necessity of

government a myth but the idea that
government protects us to any important
degree is a myth. The streets are only protected
if there are good people on them and the
regular citizen will not be allowed in a
government nuclear fortified bunker. It is not
there to protect the average citizen.

As for other government services, it requires

some deep thinking to break out of the box that
sees only government as a legitimate service
provider in many sectors. Maintenance of
roads and highways is something that many
point to which they believe must be provided
by government. But, there are plenty of
examples today of private sector routes that are
maintained without government support.
Private sector multiple-level garages, hotel
lobbies and mall strolling areas are all
examples of passages that are provided without
government assistance.

No store would ever rent mall space if the

owner didn’t guaranty access for customers. In

23
the same manner, no one would buy a house at
a specific location in a private society if road
access wasn’t provided as part of the package.
The first roads, in fact, were privately owned.

Dr. Walter Block informs us

Privately owned and operated turnpikes

were the backbone of the highway
network in England in the eighteenth
century...

The early American experience of

private road building was entirely in
keeping with England...4

Wooldridge provides details:

From 1800 to 1830 private investment

poured into thousands of miles of
turnpikes in the United States...
hundreds of turnpike companies built
roads...

The history of the grandfather of all

turnpike companies, the Philadelphia
and Lancaster Turnpike corporation,
chartered in 1792, has much in common
with all the rest.5

Charity is another area where government

proponents allege that government is

24
necessary. Former President Barack Obama is
fond of saying that charity “is the neighborly
thing to do.” But he is distorting charity with
government welfare operations. Most people
are not against helping a neighbor in a time of
need. Whenever there is a hurricane,
earthquake or some other disaster, people
donate willingly of their own free will, even for
people in far off lands. Private charity used to
be the method to care for the downtrodden in
the United States before government
involvement began.

The government’s current vast welfare system

is not about helping those in need as much as it
is a large vote buying scheme. The scheme is
promoted Obama-style as helping neighbors
precisely because people really want to help
those down on their luck - politicians are
masters at muddying the waters when they are
doing one thing and making it look like they
are doing another. It is the generosity and
kindness of most people that politicians take
advantage of with their vote buying schemes
when they claim they are running needed
charity work.

Indeed, government charity may be a great

negative.

25
Murray Rothbard wrote:

Since welfare families are paid

proportionately to the number of their
children, the system provides an
important subsidy for the production or
more children. Furthermore, the people
being induced to have more children are
precisely those who can afford it least;
the result can only be to perpetuate their
dependence on welfare, and, in fact, to
develop generations who are
permanently dependent on the welfare
dole.6

Thomas Sowell has made the same point:

The black family, which had survived

centuries of slavery and discrimination,
began rapidly disintegrating in the
liberal welfare state that subsidized
unwed pregnancy and changed welfare
from an emergency rescue to a way of
life.7

Ludwig von Mises makes the further point:

It is highly probable that the funds of

the charitable institutions would be
sufficient in the capitalist countries if
interventionism were not to sabotage

26
 the essential institutions of the market
economy... The greater part of those
assisted by charitable institutions are
needy only because interventionism has
made them so.8

And so, we can make a strong case that

government does not do what it says it is doing.
Government’s very structure aims to protect
and expand its operations, while pushing the
propaganda that it provides necessary services
that would otherwise be impossible without its
existence.

But what is the alternative? How can we have a

better society, a non-governmental society that
doesn’t turn into a wild west shootout?9 Who
are the anarchists that call for the abolition of
government? What are their ideas?

27
28
 CHAPTER 2
TYPES OF ANARCHISTS

One definition of anarchy is that it is simply the

absence of government.10 This is a good
working definition to begin to understand the
different types of anarchist movements that
exist and where the Private Property Society
fits in on the spectrum of anarchist groups.

One current group of anarchists are not only in

favor of the collapse of government but the
entire current societal structure, including
private property.

Their view is expressed at Crime Inc. They are

not only against government but against
capitalism and even money.

The foundation of capitalism is property

rights - another social construct we
inherited from kings and aristocrats.
Property shifts hands more rapidly
today, but the concept is the same: the
idea of ownership legitimizes the use of
violence to enforce artificial imbalances
in access to land and resources...
Without money or property rights, our
relationships to things would be

29
 determined by our relationships with
each other.11

This type of anarchist thinking can best be

described as destructionist. Not only are these
anarchists against government, but they also
oppose even peaceful, private independent
exchanges that exist in a society, such as the
exchange of goods and services for money. But,
without a medium of exchange (money) and
respect for property rights, it is difficult to see
how such a society would advance beyond the
subsistence level.

The economist Percy Greaves wrote on Ludwig

von Mises’ thoughts on money:

Money is an indispensable factor in the

development of the division of labor and
the resulting indirect exchanges on
which modern civilization is based.12

Without money, a society would be reduced to

the primitivism of barter. This may appear
attractive as we now sit and read printed books
in lighted, heated homes in the winter and air-
conditioned homes in the summer - all the
result of the division of labor. But without the
division of labor (only possible with money),
life would be, as Thomas Hobbes wrote, “poor,

30
nasty, brutish, and short.”13 (For more on the
division of labor, see Chapter 3.)

Another group of anarchists, left-wing

anarchists, are best labeled socialist-anarchists.
They desire an end to government but seek
socialist rules of order in its place. Thus, it is a
self-contradicting philosophy. A new set of
socialist rules applicable to all is simply a
different governmental structure, not the
elimination of government.

There are also libertarian anarchists who follow

the lead of the great libertarian social
philosopher and economist Murray Rothbard,
who advocated what he called an anarcho­
capitalist structure. This is a structure without
government but that also embraces a capitalist
system. Rothbard justified his perspective on
natural rights grounds. But here again, as with
the socialism, if there is an overarching set of
rules for a society - whether based on natural
laws or socialist perspectives - this is just a
different, subtle governmental structure, but
not the elimination of government.

While there is much that is attractive in

Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalist structure,
especially its support of capitalism, the
weakness is its integration with natural rights

31
law that presumably everyone must universally
recognize.

The alternative to the anarcho-capitalist system

is the Private Property Society, where respect
for private property is the only anchor and no
rules are set for any property... other than the
rules set by the property owner. The PPS is, in
an important sense, the only consistent
anarchist view that supports no governing
body, no overarching laws based on socialism,
the theory of natural laws, utilitarianism or
anything else. At its foundation, it is about
respect for private property and that is all.

The remainder of this book is about the

foundations of a Private Property Society, a
non-government society where truly no one
makes grand rules for anyone.

32
 CHAPTER 3
WHY SOCIETY?

Before we examine the attractiveness of a

Private Property Society, we should first ask
what is society and why do we want a society?

The Oxford Dictionary defines society as:

the aggregate of people living together in

a more or less ordered community14
This leads to the question, why do almost all
people choose to live in a society rather than
isolated from others, as hermits?
The answer is, of course, that most people
believe they benefit from living in a society.
Most people enjoy the friendships and general
interaction that are available in a society.
Economics teaches us that the division of labor
available through societal co-operation
increases the general standard of living.
The economist Murray Rothbard writes:
No one, for example, can become a
creative physicist on a desert island or in
a primitive society. For, as an economy
grows, the range of choice open to the
producer and to the consumer proceeds
to multiply greatly. Furthermore, only a
society with a standard of living
considerably higher than subsistence
can afford to devote much of its
resources to improving knowledge and

33
to developing a myriad of goods and
services above the level of brute
subsistence. But there is another reason
that full development of the creative
powers of each individual cannot occur
in a primitive or undeveloped society,
and that is the necessity for a wide-
ranging division of labor.
No one can fully develop his powers in
any direction without engaging in
specialization. The primitive tribesman
or peasant, bound to an endless round of
different tasks in order to maintain
himself, could have no time or resources
available to pursue any particular
interest to the full. He had no room to
specialize, to develop whatever field he
was best at or in which he was most
interested. Two hundred years ago,
Adam Smith pointed out that the
developing division of labor is a key to
the advance of any economy above the
most primitive level.
A necessary condition for any sort of
developed economy, the division of
labor is also requisite to the
development of any sort of civilized
society. The philosopher, the scientist,
the builder, the merchant—none could
develop these skills or functions if he
had had no scope for specialization.
Furthermore, no individual who does
not live in a society enjoying a wide
range of division of labor can possibly
employ his powers to the fullest. He

34
 cannot concentrate his powers in a field
or discipline and advance that discipline
and his own mental faculties. Without
the opportunity to specialize in whatever
he can do best, no person can develop
his powers to the full; no man, then,
could be fully human.15
Notice here that in the discussion of
friendships, general interaction and the
division of labor, no argument is made that
there is a “natural right” to such. Indeed, it is
acknowledged that while most seem to be
attracted to friendships, general interactions
and the benefits of the division of labor, there
may be some who prefer the hermit life. Thus,
even the utilitarian argument, in the objective
sense - that something is good for the greatest
number - is not used here to explain why
societies form.
Societies form precisely because almost all
view the societal form of life as attractive and
preferable - and yet there can be outlier
individuals who reject such a life. But the key is
that those who do participate in society do it
from an individualistic perspective. That is,
they do it because they prefer living in society
rather than the hermit life, since if they
preferred the hermit life they would adopt that
form of living.

35
36
 CHAPTER 4
THE PROBLEM WITH NATURAL
RIGHTS

The idea of natural rights has a long history.

Elements of the concept date back to ancient
Greek philosophy, the Roman philosopher
Cicero and in the Middle Ages by Catholic
philosophers such as Albert the Great and his
pupil Thomas Aquinas. The 17th-century
English philosopher John Locke discussed
natural rights in his work.16
However, there is a problem with the natural
rights perspective. Indeed, it is difficult to
understand how the idea of natural rights is
nothing but a statement without a logical
progression of the sort “this is part of nature,
therefore this.”
In attempting to justify the idea of natural
rights, John Locke writes:
[E]very man has a property in his own
person. Thus nobody has any right to
but himself.17
But where is the causal link here that because a
man has a property in his own person that
therefore this should not be taken away from
him by someone else?
It is certainly attractive for most of us to think
that we have a property in our own person in
such a manner that nobody has a right to take
control of our person. But is this desire a
logical conclusion from observed fact?

37
That slaves have existed on this planet shows
that this “natural right” to one’s own person
can be overruled. And there are plenty of
people living under kings and dictators who
will tell you that there is nothing natural about
natural rights.
Can a right with the potential to be overruled
be considered a fact the way, say, that water is
composed of two parts hydrogen and one part
oxygen is a fact? The same slave owner, king or
dictator who can overrule natural rights of
individuals cannot overrule what is a true
scientific fact, such as water is made up of a
certain combination of elements or that the
earth revolves around the sun.
As Henry Hazlitt writes
The term Natural Rights like the term
Natural Law is in some respects
unfortunate. It has helped to perpetuate
a mystique which regard such rights
having existed since the beginning of
time; as having been handed down from
heaven as being simple self-evident, and
easily stated; as even being independent
of the human will, independent of
consequences inherent in the nature of
things...18
Because the declaration of natural rights is
nothing more than a statement of what is
desirable by a given person or group, rather
than founded in logical fashion from an
observation about the nature of the world, the
idea of natural rights can go off in many
directions.

38
Ludwig von Mises writes:
There is... no such thing as natural law
and a perennial standard of what is just
and what is unjust. Nature is alien to the
idea of right and wrong. “Thou shalt not
kill” is certainly not part of natural law.
The characteristic feature of natural
conditions is that one animal is intent
upon killing other animals and that
many species cannot preserve their own
life except by killing others. The notion
of right and wrong is a human device, a
utilitarian precept designed to make
social cooperation under the division of
labor possible....
From the notion of natural law some
people deduce the justice of the
institution of private property in the
means of production. Other people
resort to natural law for the justification
of the abolition of private property in the
means of production. As the idea of
natural law is quite arbitrary, such
discussions are not open to settlement.19
The items that others have put on the list of
natural rights seems never ending.
The declaration of human rights adopted by the
General Assembly of the United Nations in
1948 states that everyone has the right to rest,
leisure and reasonable limitation of working
hours, including holidays with pay.
The 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women
requires State parties to ensure women the

39
right to “enjoy adequate living conditions,
particularly in relation to [...] water supply.”
In the current day, we also see statements that
there is a right to education, housing, non­
discrimination, a “living” wage, medical care
and freedom from verbal attack.
In October 2009, Finland’s Ministry of
Transport and Communications announced
that every person in Finland would have the
right to internet access.
Because it is impossible to identify a specific
element of nature and deductively determine
what is a right (and what is not), the rights
argument becomes a trap. It is a train that can
stop frequently and anywhere.
It is about wishes, desires and opinions. Since
there is no-logical foundation for identifying
natural rights, natural rights set up the
potential for serious conflict. One group
declares A is a natural right, while another
declares B and C are natural rights but not A.
Anyone calling on “rights” to demand specific
action of his fellow man is using a weapon that
can be turned against him. It is a boomerang
bomb that soars through non-logical thin air.

40
 CHAPTER 5
THE PROBLEM WITH
UTILITARIANISM

The most popular, generally advanced

alternative to the natural rights justification for
a civil society is utilitarianism.
Turning once again to the Oxford Dictionary
The dictionary states that utilitarianism is:
The doctrine that an action is right in so
far as it promotes happiness, and that
the greatest happiness of the greatest
number should be the guiding principle
of conduct.
But, of course the greatest happiness of the
greatest number is simply the tyranny of
majority rule. It is certainly not the society
someone would want to live in who may have
tastes, desires and views that are not generally
popular. And this assumes that we can, in the
first place, measure happiness to know what
civil society rule will be the rule that promotes
the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
Murray Rothbard raises some further problems
with utilitarianism:
[TJhis doctrine is hardly scientific and
by no means value-free. For one thing,
why the “greatest number”? Why is it
ethically better to follow the wishes of
the greater as against the lesser
number? What’s so good about the
“greatest number”? Suppose that the

41
 vast majority of people in a society hate
and revile redheads, and greatly desire
to murder them; and suppose further
that there are only a few redheads extant
at any time. Must we then say that it is
“good” for the vast majority to slaughter
redheads? And if not, why not? At the
very least, then, utilitarianism scarcely
suffices to make a case for liberty and
laissez-faire...
Secondly, what is the justification for
each person counting for one? Why not
some system of weighting? This, too,
seems to be an unexamined and
therefore unscientific article of faith in
utilitarianism.20
The great problem here is that utilitarianism
sets up, just like natural rights theory, the
potential for great conflict. This will be most
observable when a society is split roughly
50/50 on an issue. Because victory of one
group over another means that the desires of
one large group will be denied. It may result in
methods used to attempt to achieve victory that
can be very aggressive, malicious,
Machiavellian and even violent if each side
strongly desires its (conflicting) goal to be the
law of the land.
The displeasure will be less visible when a
small minority does not gain influence on an
issue or issues but the unhappiness with the
situation remains for such a minority7. Such
small minority groups may not really go along
but may just correctly believe they do not have

42
the sufficient strength in numbers to directly
battle the outcome.
Thus, whether we are considering a natural
rights solution or a utilitarian solution, edicts
are made that will interfere with the freedoms
and desires of some.
Is there some other alternative which can
eliminate many of the conflicts that are part of
the structures of a natural rights society and a
utilitarian society?
That is the subject of the next chapter.

43
44
 CHAPTER 6
THE IMPORTANCE OF
SUBJECTIVISM IN SOLVING THE
PROBLEM OF GREAT CONFLICT IN A
CIVIL SOCIETY
“It is probably no exaggeration to say that
every important advance in economic theory
during the last hundred years was a further
step
in the consistent application of subjectivism.”
-F.A. Hayek

Subjectivism in the sense that I use it as a

starting point in this chapter (subjectivist
economics) was well defined by Percy Greaves:
Subjectivist economics: Economics
based on the theory that the value of
goods is not inherent in the goods
themselves but is in the minds of acting
men; that economic value is a matter of
individual judgement which may vary
from person to person and for the same
person from time to time.21
The Nobel Prize winning economist F.A.
Hayek, as the quote at the start to this chapter
reveals, considered the consistent application
of subjectivism in economic theory extremely
important. Can subjectivism applied to social
theory be as important? Is it possible that
attempting to find laws, natural or utilitarian,
that apply to all is barking up the wrong tree,
so to speak? Is it possible to argue that a good
societal structure could form that does not seek
out grand laws that apply to everyone?

45
Is it possible that a society could be formed
where individuals subjectively set their own
rules? Can we apply subjectivism to the theory
of civil society to advance the notion that a
society based on the recognition of individuals’
subjective desires is the best society for most of
us? And can we reach this conclusion not via a
utilitarian framework, where we claim that
such a structure is best for us, but via a
subjective methodological individualist
approach, where individually we say, “This type
of society would be good for me”?
My answers to all these questions are a full
throated “Yes.”
David Gordon, a student of Hayek, tells us:
[Hayek] was keen to stress
methodological individualism, the view
that only individuals act. References to
collectives such as nations and classes
that act must in principle be capable of
being reduced to individuals’ actions....
Methodological individualism, as Hayek
taught it, went together with
subjectivism. To explain social
phenomena, one had to start from the
preferences and perceptions of
individual actors.22
The problem with natural rights theory and
utilitarian theory7 is that they both attempt to
impose order from above. That is, in some
manner, someone makes rules (allegedly
discerned) that must all must obeyed by all.
They break Hayek’s rule that to explain social
phenomena we must start with individual

46
actors, with methodological individualism,
with subjectivism.
We all have our own subjective values. We
most certainly will not be happy with all the
rules imposed on us by others. Coercion will be
the result to keep us in line with whatever rules
a ruling body sets, be it a congress, a
parliament, a direct majority rule society, a
king, a dictator, etc.
Ina region, a large group of individual actors
may support a government, but this is much
different than saying that the rules are in some
sense natural and predetermined. If it is
individual actors that support a governing body
then it is possible for those individual actors to
pull support from such a governing body.
Some societies with a governing body may be
less oppressive than others, but the
fundamental foundation of a society with a
governing body that sets rules is some type of
oppression of individuals to the demands of the
rule makers.
Governmental rule must, by its very nature,
lead to grand conflicts.
Mises once said:
The worst thing that can happen to a
socialist is to have his country ruled by
socialists who are not his friends.23
It may not be such a large jump to say:
The worst thing that can happen to a
government advocate is to have his

47
 country ruled by government officials
who are not his friends.
Is there a way to get around this government
problem?
The answer is yes, if we begin to understand
that we all live on this tiny planet together and
that fundamentally there are only two ways to
go about surviving with the other roughly 7.5
billion people on this planet. We can either act
like thugs and fight and steal to get what we
want, or we can enter into exchange and co­
operation.
If we go the thuggish route, there are a few
problems. Others are going to fight back.
Others will hide what they have in their
possession and others are not going to willingly
co-operate with us.
On the other hand, if we come with goods and
services and offer them in exchange for other
goods and services, we will generally be
welcome with open arms.
Less battles, more goods and services. This is
the route most of us have chosen. Indeed, it is
because of the decision for most to co-operate
that we have a vast, complex economy that
makes available all sorts of goods and services.
But once we have made things and provided
services and have acquired things and received
services in exchange, we will want to store the
things we have made and acquired.
Do we really want to lug things around and lay
them down in a different place every night or

48
would it be better to find a place where we
would store things that we could return to
every evening? It would allow us the ability to
control more than what we can just carry and
free us from lugging things around all day.
This problem of what to do with things is not a
problem limited to us; the problem is pretty
much universal. And so, it could be wise for
each one of us as individuals to agree with
others that we should allow each of us to
control our own property and not bother the
other on his property. This is not because of
some natural law or natural rights. It is not
because of some utilitarian declaration that this
will be good for the most, but rather from our
own subjective view where we say individually:
“Hey, I need a place to put my things and so do
the other people around me. I’ll cut a deal with
them. They leave my property alone and I will
leave their property alone.”
And thus, a Private Property Society is born.
No one makes rules on my property as to what
I can and can’t do. I am left alone. And I will
leave others alone on their property.
Of course, over time, trading can occur where I
turn my property over to another for cash,
goods, services or another property, on a
temporary or permanent basis, but this is all
within the general trading and exchange that
can occur in a Private Property Society.
I hasten to add that this kind of society could
not exist without a general recognition by most
in a region that such a private property society
made sense to live in. And such a society could

49
handle any occasional thug or other criminal
who happened to attempt to violate the general
respect for property.

50
 CHAPTER 7
LAND PROPERTY

My emphasis on land property in the last

chapter should not suggest that I do not
consider recognition of all types of property an
important factor in advancing society, but
rather that land property holds a special place.
In addition to supplying a place to hold other
goods we have accumulated, a regular space we
can return to and close our eyes at night seems
to be inherent in our nature. Indeed, those of
us who wander the streets of major cities late at
night can spot the same homeless individuals
in the same spots each night. These individuals
choose the same spots because they perhaps
feel safe in the same spots and sleeping in the
same spots eliminates the necessity of every
night having to look for a new place to sleep.
At a very basic level, the homeless person who
sleeps in the same spot every night is signaling
the value individuals put on land property -
even by those who may not have any physical
belongings.
Certainly, as we consider those beyond the
homeless stage, the significance of land
property becomes even more important. It is a
necessity if we want to build a home, have a
family, have a group of workers and computers
and machinery that meet at the same place
every day.
I rush here to add that the land property we use
daily may not be owned by us, but merely

51
rented from a landowner. From a fundamental
Private Property Society perspective, land
ownership would remain respected, but it
could be assigned over to another for a limited
period and under certain conditions or via a
complete permanent transfer.
The key here is general respect by people of
land property as the fundamental instrument
to keep peace and freedom. The world is a very
complex place and individuals have all sorts of
views on religion, culture and so on. To
demand that all others globally or in a region
respect and follow the tenants of a specific
religion or culture on their property is to
immediately set up conflict. Respect for land
property as a fundamental principle of respect
is a way to move away from this conflict. It
says, “Do whatever you choose on your
property. Honor any gods you choose to honor
(or none at all). Set any rules you choose on
your property. I will respect your property
boundaries and in turn I only ask that you
respect my property boundaries and allow me
to honor any gods I choose on my property (or
none at all) and set any rules I choose on my
property.” It is “live and let live” at the land
property level.
A society that generally adopts a PPS
perspective is a society that has taken a giant
step towards a structure that will promote a
great and general freedom, but this does not
mean a society must have no other rules.
Respect for the allowance of an individual to do
what he chooses on his property and to set the
rules for his property does not mean a given

52
group of individuals may not set other rules for
their properties. The respect for land property
is simply a first step, but a very important step
in eliminating much conflict.

53
54
 CHAPTER 8
RULES BEYOND LAND PROPERTY
RESPECT

Certainly, all societies will want to set up some

rules beyond respect for private land property.
In a PPS, this would occur by like-minded
individuals adopting similar rules on their
properties. Respect of land property should be
considered an umbrella, under which others
can set up their own rules on their own
properties or groups of properties. If some
individuals desire to live in a socialist
community, the PPS supporter should have no
objection to this as long as the individuals are
not attempting to impose their socialist views
on those who live on tracts of property where
individuals do not choose to live under
socialism.
That said, a libertarian society appears to be
the best society to live under. It is essentially a
society where the non-aggression principle
(NAP) is the fundamental law.
Dr. Walter Block has provided the best
definition of the NAP. Note, he calls it an axiom
rather than a principle because of his natural
rights position, rather than from the extreme
subjectivist perspective of the PPS:
The non-aggression [principle] ...is the
lynchpin of the philosophy of
libertarianism. It states, simply, that it
shall be legal for anyone to do anything
he wants, provided only that he not

55
 initiate (or threaten) violence against
the person or legitimately owned
property of another. That is, in the free
society, one has the right to
manufacture, buy or sell any good or
service at any mutually agreeable terms.
Thus, there would be no victimless
crime prohibitions, price controls,
government regulation of the economy,
etc.24
But a libertarian-NAP society would be just one
form of society that might emerge on some (or
all) properties in a PPS. Anything else would be
allowed on any other properties. The PPS is
simply a method that would allow libertarians
(and others) to be left alone to live under the
rules they choose to live under. It is not an
attempt to force the world under one set of
rules as determined by majority rule, a king or
a dictator. It would be a great advance from the
current situation where battles, killings and
political intrigue are used to gain power over
wide swaths of people.
The PPS is about removing power and thus
battles for power.

56
 CHAPTER 9
CULTURE IN A PRIVATE PROPERTY
SOCIETY

Beyond respect for land property and the

general rules in a given society, one may ask
what about culture?
There is no conflict here with the PPS. A given
society can respect land property boundaries,
adopt the libertarian NAP and still add further
rules on the properties of its societal members.
They can demand that only individuals of a
certain religious group, ethnic group,
individuals without children, etc. use their
land. On the other hand, there could easily be a
given society that respects land property
boundaries, adopts the NAP and allows all
comers, regardless of religion, ethnicity or
anything else.
Remember, the PPS is about eliminating
conflict by allowing people to do as they please
on their property, without forcing them to live
by someone else’s rules, regardless of how
much we object to the way they live on their
property. The trade-off is that no one bothers
us on our property.
What’s more, although we should expect that in
a PPS many would congregate in sub-societies
with more specific rules and likely with similar
people living next to each other, the PPS would
allow for anyone to live his own life on his own
property with his own rules.

57
Thus, it is an error to argue that at the the
umbrella Private Property Society top level,
where respect for private property is the only
guide, there must be a specific culture beyond
respect for private property that must be
observed by all. Cultures can be good or bad,
but to demand a certain type of culture must be
accompanied at the top PPS level or even the
libertarian non-aggression principle sub-level
is to introduce an unnecessary point of conflict.
A conflict that somehow must have winners
and losers, that is, oppressors and the
oppressed. It requires an adoption of rules
beyond respect for private property and the
non-aggression principle.
Certainly, it is not difficult to conceive that
under the umbrella of the PPS, we have a
libertarian non-aggression subset that then is
broken down into further subsets under the
libertarian non-aggression subset. But, there is
no reason to cry out and demand that all live
under certain specific rules of culture. This
would be a violation of PPS where we allow
others to do as they choose on their own
property.
There are many who now call themselves
anarcho-capitalists, that is those who believe
there should be no government, but who fail in
fully advocating an anarcho-capitalist society
because of their demands for a certain culture
as a necessary part of anarcho-capitalism. Not
all anarcho-capitalists hold that a certain
culture must accompany an anarcho-capitalist
society but those who do are limited
government advocates, that is, conflict

58
creators, if they demand that all must respect a
specific culture on all properties.
You can call a group that overrides full respect
for private property by many names, but in the
end, if it is some sort of over-ruling body it is
some type of government. It may be advocacy
for an extremely limited culture rules, but it is
still an advocacy for some sort of ruling body.
People who believe such an over-ruling body is
necessary should realize this. They are not hilly
anti-government in the sense that they do not
want any rules placed on individuals.
The fears that most hold about a non­
government society, specifically a Private
Property Society, even when viewed from a
culture perspective are unjustified. We must
keep in mind what was discussed in Chapter 1,
“The Necessity of Government is a Myth”.
Despite the supposed protection of
government, for the most part we protect
ourselves and our children by staying away
from danger. It is a myth that government
protects us from danger. If government was the
key driver of protection of person and property,
locks on doors wouldn’t exist, nor would
babysitters.
Anyone who demands an overarching dictate of
what amounts to some type of cultural
“protection” on all private property, regardless
of the property owner’s desires, can’t possibly
believe that we protect ourselves. They, to at
least a minor degree, buy into the idea that
government protects. It is an extremely
dangerous notion, since one can think of many
government rules that can be made to protect

59
us all, starting with rules to “protect children”
and, say, the low IQ, the handicapped and so
forth. And once we accept that government is a
necessity, then the slippery slope begins. The
propertarian25 rejects this.
For the propertarian, it is at the core of PPS
that each person be left alone on his property.
A second foundational concept of the PPS is
based on the idea that people are capable of
taking care of themselves (and their children)
and that there is no need for over-ruling
bodies. It is the observation of the propertarian
that the actions of over-ruling bodies, despite
possibly initial good intentions, turn evil. The
danger with creating a central power is that it
creates a focal point that can be corrupted and
attempted to be controlled. There are
differences in what people desire and setting
up one set of rules for all results in conflict. It
results in attempts to gain control of the power
setting regime and we are once again left to
keep in mind the paraphrased warning of
Mises:
The worst thing that can happen to a
government advocate is to have his
country ruled by government officials
who are not his friends.
The message of the PPS advocate to the world
should be that central powers are extremely
dangerous, and that Lord Acton was very right
when he warned power corrupts. We really
protect ourselves. Creating any central power,
even on cultural questions, is creating a seed
that has always led to great death—hundreds
of millions of deaths.26

60
A PPS advocate would simply say. ’’Fine, if you
want to recognize and enforce Catholic Canon
Law, Islamic Sharia law, the Jewish Halakha,
be a hippie free spirit or have any other laws on
your property go for it.” But the PPS advocate
would recoil in horror at the idea that a set of
laws, irrespective of how they developed, must
apply to all properties.
Such a society with outside laws applying
everywhere would not be a non-governmental
society. It would be pretty much what we have
now, people butting into the actions of those
who are minding their own business on their
own property. Some will demand warning signs
from barking dogs, some will demand smoking
bans, some will demand punishment for
“offensive” speech, some will demand that
young men be drafted to fight and kill and be
willing to die.
Where does it stop? Who will make the rules
for all? Isn’t a private property society
preferable, where one can make one’s own
rules for one’s own property?

61
62
 CHAPTER io
CRIME RESOLUTION IN A PRIVATE
PROPERTY SOCIETY

There are plenty of reasons not to lie, cheat,

steal, injure and kill and there are plenty of
reasons to protect oneself from those who lie,
cheat, steal, injure and kill. But how does one
do this in a PPS?
A Private Property Society would not be a form
of the wild west where anything would go
almost everywhere. Just because there is no
“government law” or “natural right” to protect
someone doesn’t mean that most people are
going to allow aberrant behavior on their
property.
There is no reason to divine what is “inherently
wrong” or debate “positive obligations” in a
PPS. The owner sets the rules for his property
- any way he wants.
To be sure, there could be areas where all kinds
of criminal nut jobs roam, but sane people are
just going to stay out of these dangerous “bad
areas” just like the way they stay out of
dangerous “bad areas” now. We as individuals,
even now, consider where it is safe to travel
and where it is not. It would be no different in a
PPS. Good people would congregate around
other good people.
How this would work in a PPS is not
complicated to grasp once we think outside the
box of current government operations. There is
no need for a government to determine for all

63
what is a “violation” of some abstract guideline
and what is not. Each property owner in a PPS
gets to set his own rules, which over time
would likely result in some degree of rough
uniformity in many regions.
The key difference between a PPS and a
government set of laws is that in a PPS each
property owner gets to determine his own
rules. This means that if he so chooses he can
base his rules on what he thinks is “inherently”
right or wrong, a religious code, on “positive
obligations” or phases of the moon for that
matter. The key being that no other property
owner would be required to honor such laws on
his own property and that others will stay away
from properties where they view the rules as
oppressive, dangerous or even just unclear.
It should be emphasized that there may be
some yahoos who have some insane rules for
their properties. Where the rules and
punishments are dangerous, most of us would
simply avoid those areas. To think, however,
that government or some over-ruling cultural
values must have power over all private
property is the first step away from freedom.
And once we take a step in that direction, it is
very difficult to reverse because most have a
pet law or cultural value that they want to see
instituted on all property. And then the battles
begin: Which rules, which laws, which cultural
values should be imposed on everyone?
Freedom is always about moving toward a PPS.
But let us think more about the individual that
has crazy rules. Indeed, this is going to result in

64
one of most controversial discussions in this
book, but it is applying PPS consistently.
Let us consider the most horrific underlying
case under a PPS and what would consistency
would mean here. We can highlight such a case
in the form of a question: “Should we have an
outside body institute some sort of rules or
regulations to protect us against the Crazy
Harry’s of the world when they have crazed
outlier rules for their property? Where they
shoot to kill a simple lost trespasser on their
property?”
The consistent propertarian must answer that
if we are going to adopt the boundaries of
property as the only rule and respect the rules
set by anyone on their property, then we should
not call for an over-riding rule to cancel a given
individual’s rules on his property. A
propertarian can certainly proclaim a rule
insane, even warn others about the rule. But
the minute we institute a regulation over all
private property, we have moved beyond the
Private Property Society into a world of
government where a man is no longer free to
set his own rules and do as he pleases on his
own land.
Of course, it is terrible that Crazy Harry would
shoot either a trespasser for failing to heed to a
bizarre regulation or, say a child for stealing an
apple. But we would just keep potential
trespassers and children far away from such an
individual’s property, the way we now do not
let four-year old’s roam alone on highways or
alone in bad sections of town. The minute we
start imposing rules on an individual’s property

65
we are moving in the direction of government,
which sets up conflicts and has resulted - I
emphasize once again - in the deaths of
hundreds of millions.
To avoid the fear of a potential crazed outlier
that can be easily avoided, and call for a
specific structure of society beyond respect for
property (that is, government rules), that has
definitively led to deaths and deaths and deaths
and more deaths is an error of looking at the
specific as opposed to the general.
Recently in New York City, a three-year old
child playing with a stove caused a horrific fire
where 12 died.27 It was the worst death toll by
fire in New York City in 25 years. But no one
will call for the banning of all stoves because of
the tragedy. It is recognized as an extreme
outlier event.
The world we live in is far from perfect, but to
introduce the great killer government because
of extreme outlier events is to suffer from
pathological altruism, that is blindness to logic
of the best way to act despite a specific event.28
We live in a world of disequilibrium where all
facts are not known to us in advance. To
attempt to design the world as though we know
in advance all possibilities leads to the most
horrific totalitarian states. It must because the
only way you can even attempt to control
masses of people is by making all kinds of rules
that limit all kinds of activity.
Hayek called it a fatal conceit to think we can
plan the entire world.29

66
Most people do recognize this on one level on a
daily basis. That’s why people get into cars
every day even though death occurs to people
in cars. It’s why people get on planes even
though planes crash. Should we have a
governmental rule that says no cars and no
planes are allowed because there are deaths?
Of course not.
Indeed, some people die every year by falling
out of bed.30 Should we have a governmental
rule that bans beds?
Should we ban all mushroom picking because
someone may not be aware what is a poisonous
mushroom and pick it?
We cannot eliminate risk from the world, even
when totalitarians attempt to ban almost all
activities - and what a “life” that would be with
so many bans.
Now, let’s return to the far-out possibility of a
Crazy Harry, who has crazy rules. A new person
to the area wanders onto the property and
breaks one of Crazy Harry’s rules, resulting in
Harry killing the person. That would be just as
terrible of a death as automobile accidents,
plane crashes and mushroom poisonings.
But we must ask, what is the alternative to this
incredible stretch of how a person could die in
aPPS?
And the answer is rules overriding private
property. That is, some form of government
that sets rules for all properties, thus
overriding the freedom of an individual on his
own private property.

67
Thus, the question becomes: To prevent the
one off-the-wall death that hypothetically
might occur, a death seemingly less likely to
occur than from an automobile accident or a
person eating a poisonous mushroom, do we
want to install a government- structured
society that has resulted in hundreds of
millions dead? A form of society where, as
Hayek pointed out in Chapter 10 of the Road to
Serfdom, the worst get on top31. Do we really
need to be reminded that Hitler, Stalin, and
Mao were all government men, government
leaders? If we ever end up with a PPS, do we
really want to overthrow it for a form of society
that has been led by such monsters?
This planet we live on is a very harsh place.
Using our minds, we cannot end all harshness
but only attempt to structure things in a
manner to minimize the harshness. Given the
nature of our planet, anyone can point out that
a form of society may result in bad, outlier
outcomes. The real question becomes the
comparative question of the economist, “The
harshness of the PPS compared to what?”
It seems a great folly to promote a society that
moves in a direction away from PPS and
toward a society that overrules private property
respect and has brought us true monsters via
the government structure.

68
 CHAPTER 11
PUNISHMENT IN A PRIVATE
PROPERTY SOCIETY

The next question that must be addressed is

how do we derive punishment theory in a
Private Property Society?
The first answer is that any property owner
could set any punishment rules on his property
that he chooses. Most of us would then just
avoid areas that set where draconian
punishments were set or where the punishment
was unclear and perhaps dangerous. This
would not be much different under the
libertarian subsection under the PPS umbrella.
The libertarian Murray Rothbard has argued32
that in a libertarian society, punishment should
be “proportional.” There are other libertarians
who have adopted Rothbard’s suggestion and
have argued that the penalty in a libertarian
society should be an eye for an eye, while
others suggest it should be two eyes for an eye.
But, these suggestions violate subjective value
theory, and Rothbard’s initial suggestion also
violates subjective value theory. An outsider
can’t possibly know what will satisfy a victim of
a non-aggression principle violation. Only a
victim can judge what he values as a sufficient
penalty in terms of compensation and
deterrence for further NAP violations against
him.
Thus, in a Libertarian-Private Property Society,
the default rules of the property owner where

69
an event took place would be supreme. This
framework would not be inconsistent with “set
your own rules on your own property,” since
there are no objective measures of
compensation for NAP violations, only
subjective ones.33
This is not as alarming as it sounds. Few would
dare enter a wild west area, where no one
stipulates penalty codes in advance.
I suspect what would occur in a libertarian-PPS
is that property owners would stipulate that
they operate under an XYZ penalty code. That
is, different penalty codes would develop and
an owner could choose to recognize a certain
set.
But the rules would be civil, except for outliers
that everyone would avoid - just the way we
avoid bad areas now. In the great general
arena, things would be civilized. No one is
going to enter a Macy’s retail store if the
penalty for accidentally knocking over a vase in
one of their stores is death by beheading.
Each property owner would establish a penalty
code, either a generally recognized set of
penalty codes, or his own independent code.
There would be no fear of outrageous penalties
under these situations because if people
wanted to interact with others, they must have
“reasonable” penalty codes, but they would still
be in line with their own subjective values. Of
course, in these situations it would also benefit
most property owners to post and otherwise let
others know what penalty codes are in
operation and enforced on their properties.

70
Though there would be no requirement to post
punishment codes, since you can do whatever
you want on your property in a PPS, including
not posting punishments.
Still, there could be wild west areas, but most
would stay away from these areas, just like
most women alone, wearing short skirts and
expensive jewelry would stay off the streets of
San Francisco’s Tenderloin or Cologne,
Germany at 3:00 A.M.
In general, in the greater libertarian-PPS
society, reasonableness would win because
people wouldn’t enter, from their perspective,
unreasonable areas with extreme or unclear
punishment risks. It is just that none of us can
say for anyone else, as an outsider, what
reasonableness is for everyone in every case.
Thus, an outsider cannot determine the penalty
for a violation of NAP. An outsider, just as we
do now, must be aware of where he travels and
where it is dangerous. We know now, for
example, the countries and areas where
terrorists roam where an American would be
grabbed off the streets.
Regarding children, there is no parent who is
going to let a child near a situation where
penalties are not disclosed (and reasonable), in
the same way that no parent now lets a 3-year-
old girl wander alone on the streets of the bad
section of town at 3:00 AM.
In other words, there is an underlying trust of
free markets in a PPS, even when it comes to
punishment. People are not going to expose
themselves to dangerous situations. Again, the
alternative is government which has resulted in
many examples of horrific situations where
millions and millions have been killed.
As far as “proportionality” in punishment, what
exactly does this mean?
Let’s take the example of two eyes for an eye.
What happens if the blind singer Stevie
Wonder pokes someone’s eye out? Does that
mean that the victim only gets to poke out the
eyes of the blind Stevie Wonder? How is that
proportional?
There is simply no way that anyone outside of
the victim can tell us when the victim feels
sufficient compensation for a NAP violation.
The victim must demonstrate his
compensation parameters based on the
property rules of the property he is on, be it his
own property or the property of another that he
chooses to be on.
Macy’s is not going to have a policy of torturing
someone who drops a product on the floor.
Who would go to Macy’s under those
conditions? Reasonableness will develop in a
private property society but free exchange
driven reasonableness, not decrees from on
high.
The idea of “proportionality” suggests some
type of objective perspective. There is no such
thing. Let us look at a few more examples.
Suppose someone destroys the only picture I
have of my dead grandmother who was very
important to me. Who but me could determine
adequate punishment?

72
Suppose three men are intentionally hit by a
car and all three end up with paralyzed right
legs. One of the men is a couch potato, one is a
young man that used to love to play pick-up
basketball and the third is basketball superstar
LeBron James.
Is there a right answer to “proportional
punishment” for intentionally causing paralysis
of a right leg?
It could very well be the young man who liked
to play pick-up basketball lost the most. Maybe
Lebron has enough money and was pretty
much sick of playing and this gave him an
excuse to stop. You can’t measure
proportionality objectively. It is not an
objective fact.
As for dangerous areas of insane rules and
punishment, in this day and age it is not
inconceivable to think apps would emerge for
our cellphones, warning if we are about to
enter a private property area with hazy or
dangerous rules or hazy or dangerous
punishment. □
As for culture (beyond recognition of the PPS),
it could very well play a role in a Private
Property Society, but not in the manner most
would expect. In a true PPS, cultural values
wouldn’t act as a blanket on all members of
society, because this wouldn't recognize the
supreme superiority of property ownership
rules over rules set by others. That is, it would
not be the case where the cultural rules would
be above the sanctity of private property. That
doesn’t mean, however, that a large group of

73
people may declare that certain cultural rules,
religious rules, whatever, are the rules that are
respected on their properties.
It is likely many people would set rules on their
property in a PPS that will include set
punishments and culture. Say, for example,
some will subscribe to Walter’s rules of
property behavior, culture and punishment,
while others might subscribe to Murray’s rules
of property behavior, culture and punishment.
The point is that individuals would be able to
set up their own rules of behaviors and
punishments and except for the very daring,
the Marco Polos, people would stay out of areas
where the rules aren’t clear or dangerous.

74
 CHAPTER 12
POLICE PROTECTION IN A PRIVATE
PROPERTY SOCIETY

Murray Rothbard has made the important

observation that government “asserts and
usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the
provision of defense service (police and courts)
over a given territorial area.”34
Recognizing that even under the conditions
where property is generally respected,
outsiders could still wander in and do damage
or disputes could arise with neighbors, we must
now consider how we would protect our
property and body in a PPS.
Since the PPS is about rejecting over-riding
oversight, how can we possibly protect what is
ours without government police? Rothbard’s
insight puts us on the right road to consider
this question. Do we really need a monopolist
in police protection?
The answer from a PPS perspective suggests
the answer is “no.” One could simply hire a
private security agency to protect property.
Does this mean that different private security
police agencies would be shooting as each other
all the time? Of course not.
If I hire a private agency, I would want to hire,
in most cases, a large agency that would be able
to protect me against all sorts of threats, big
and small. But, if I hire a big agency, they
would have other clients and say to me, “Look,
we will back you up on what is your property

75
and your rules, but if you have a dispute with
one of our other clients, we want you to agree
that we can take this to our private court, were
we have the most wise and fair judges in the
world to determine the outcome based on our
rules.”
Now at this point. I can say “No thanks” or
because I am reasonable and have checked out
to see that the security agency’s judges are
indeed the wisest and most fair in the land and
the rules are fair, I sign up.
Notice here: No one is forcing me to use this
court and follow their rules, I am agreeing to
do so. I don’t have to. I can live without the
agency and court if I want. Or I can hire
another agency and a different court. What if
my agency comes up against my NAP violator
who has a different agency? I would imagine
such agencies would come up against each
other many times in a PPS. And if they are
profit seekers, they would just reach an
agreement in advance that if they come up
against each other they would use certain great,
wise and fair judges that they both have
decided on.
Of course, in my contract with my agency, they
would stipulate that when coming up against
other agencies, they would have the option to
determine how a dispute is resolved in which
court, by an agreement between the two
agencies.
All agencies would compete to be the wisest
and fairest in the land since that is how they
would get clients - and compete that their

76
rules are the best. An agency that was crooked
wouldn’t last long.
Notice again, no over-ruling laws. Choose your
security agency by the way it operates with its
own clients and rules, and how they operate
with other agencies that might have different
rules.
And so, without an over-ruling body, a private
property society could exist, with paramount
respect for the rules set by the property owner,
and at the core security agencies would agree to
protect a property.
Rothbard discussed how something close to a
PPS police protection system existed for an
extended period in ancient Celtic Ireland:
For a thousand years, then, ancient
Celtic Ireland had no state or anything
like it...
The basic political unit of ancient
Ireland was tuath. All “freemen” who
owned land, all professionals and all
craftsmen were entitled to become
members of a tuath... which decided all
common policies... An important point
is that in contrast to other tribes, no one
was stuck or bound to a given tuath,
either by kinship or of geographical
location. Individual members were free
to, and often did, secede from a tuath
and join a competing tuath.35
It is only because we were born under a certain
system and have lived under it our entire lives
that it makes it difficult to understand how a
different system could exist or, indeed, how it
might have existed.

78
 CHAPTER 13
“NATIONAL” SECURITY IN A
PRIVATE PROPERTY SOCIETY

It is a bit misleading to identify something as

“national” security in a society where anyone
can do whatever they want on their own
property and there is no over-riding
rulemaker(s), but there is a way the concept of
“national” may apply in a very limited sense.
If there is an area where people have adopted
and live by PPS principles, this area may be
called a nation in the sense that in the region
people all live by the same general PPS rule.
That is, basically live and let live on land
property.
But what if a non-PPS nation threatens
invasion of this nation? Certainly, the
propertarian should not be as naive as the
Morori of the Chatham Islands who were
invaded in 1835 by the Maori.
Groups of Maori walked through the Morori
settlements announcing that the Morori were
now their slaves. However, the Morori had a
tradition of resolving disputes peacefully. They
decided in a council meeting not to fight back,
but to offer peace, friendship and a division of
resources. This was a big mistake.
Before the Morori could deliver their offer, the
Maori attacked and killed hundreds of Morori.
If the Morori had organized, they could have
defeated the Maori whom they outnumbered 2
to 1. Instead, it was a brutal victory for the

79
Maori who cooked and ate many of the Morori
bodies.36
What could propertarians have done in such a
situation where no government military
existed?
First, we must consider how governments
consider attacks and how it would be different
in a PPS.
All governments consider attacks inside their
boundaries as attacks on the entire nation. But
why should this be so?
Let us take the United States as an example.
North Korean missiles may be a threat to parts
of the U.S. especially the West Coast, but it is
unlikely that North Korea is a serious threat to,
say, Key West, Florida.
An invasion by Mexico might be a concern for
Texas or Arizona, but it would be a stretch to
think there is much concern about such an
invasion by residents of Maine.
In other words, threats to different parts of the
United States are different, but the U.S.
government lumps them altogether as though
the cost of support should be spread across all.
That is the residents of, say, Maine are coerced
to pay for defense of all kinds of places, e.g.
Texas and California, even though Maine does
not face these threats.
If an area is too difficult to protect the residents
of an area, perhaps they should pick up and
walk away rather than force residents of Maine
to help in their protection. This is not such a

80
radical notion if the cost is great. In real life
these types of decision are made all the time.
If a category 5 hurricane is about to hit the east
coast of Florida, we do not pitch a tent on the
sands of Miami’s South Beach and then build a
million-dollar protective building around the
tent and demand the residents of Maine
contribute to the cost of the structure. We pick
up our tent and let nature take its course.
Something of the same might occur in a PPS. If
there is a real threat of attack or invasion, it
may be too expensive to protect the land. The
best option may be to leave. On the other hand,
another option might be that some may see the
threat as insignificant and stay on the land.
There is also a third and fourth option.
A third option might be that, say, builders see
fertile ground for building in an area, but
recognize that people would be afraid of attacks
in the region by outside forces. Thus, the
builders must provide the necessary protection
as part of the building package. Clearly, this
would require either builders working together
to provide protection or one large builder to
provide what is necessary - a nuclear missile
defense, a standing army, whatever. Indeed,
builders may even consider it cost effective to
take out a nuclear threat. Remember, under the
NAP, people can respond to the threat of
violence. Under the libertarian part of the PPS
umbrella, it would be perfectly justifiable for a
builder group, or any other group, to take out a
nuclear threat. With their own dime, of course.

81
As Rothbard put it in recognizing the difference
between nuclear weapons and conventional
weapons:
[An] answer that the libertarian is
particularly equipped to give is that
while the bow and arrow and even the
rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be
there, against actual criminals, modern
nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a
crucial difference in kind. Of course, the
bow and arrow could be used for
aggressive purposes, but it could also be
pinpointed to use only against
aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even
“conventional” aerial bombs, cannot be.
These weapons are ipso facto engines of
indiscriminate mass destruction...We
must, therefore, conclude that the use of
nuclear or similar weapons, or the threat
thereof, is a sin and a crime against
humanity for which there can be no
justification.37
A fourth option might be some type of non­
profit that raises money from residents to
develop different defense protections. Not
everyone would participate and donate but few
donate even to intellectual institutions that
attempt to spread ideas “to save the world,” or
art museums, or the local symphony, or local
hospital - but some still do. It is difficult to
think that donations wouldn’t be robust for
local defense.
In a PPS, therefore, only by those in the area
who fear the risk and are willing to pay for it
would absorb the protective costs. It may be

82
that some areas are so vulnerable to attack that
it would cost so much to protect, just like it
would be too expensive to protect a tent on a
beach during a hurricane. But since defense
against attack in a PPS would not be
susceptible to the crony military-industrial-
complex and government collusion that makes
national defense so expensive, total net defense
expenditures in a PPS would be much more
efficient and less costly than they are now
under government operation. A region would
only want and pay for defense protections that
they would consider necessary for their region,
so say goodbye to the military-industrial­
complex.

83
84
 CHAPTER 14
LAND DISTRIBUTION IN A PRIVATE
PROPERTY SOCIETY

If individuals begin to accept a Private Property

Society in a region, the natural question that is
likely to occur is “How should property be
divided at the start of a PPS?”
There is a strong argument that at such time
that individuals are ready to adopt a PPS, they
should recognize property ownership already in
place. It must be kept in mind that this book
has rejected natural rights theory and
utilitarianism. Thus, there is no magical
determination of land ownership via the
mixing of land and labor, or any other method
of determination from on high.
Thus, the question should become a
methodological individualist one: “I see a PPS
is very desirable for me. What is the best way I
can get others to join in advocating for a PPS?”
Certainly, those who currently have property
are not going to be happy with any system that
calls for them to lose their property. If one
really believes strongly in PPS, then the answer
becomes let those who currently hold property
continue to maintain ownership, since any first
distribution of property is in some sense
arbitrary (and always has been). By allowing
those who currently own property to keep what
they own, more property supporters will desire
a PPS. And since no one loses any property

85
under this plan, no one will be losing any
property from the period of the pre-PPS.
It should be kept in mind that initial
distribution of land has nothing to do with
preventing changes in land ownership over
time. Land is simply one good and some
owners will certainly be willing to part with
some ownership to gain services or other
goods, which means the ownership structure of
property amongst individuals in a PPS could
very well change over time - and very likely
would.
Indeed, this may be a good point to introduce
the important observation of the economist
Israel Kirzner, that an entrepreneur need not
have any land or capital of his own to discover
potential entrepreneurial profit opportunities
and take advantage of them.38 If we recognize
this very important observation, it is easy to see
how an entrepreneur without any initial land or
capital may be able to gain land ownership.
Further, it may occur in a PPS that landowners,
just as they do now, may be willing to sell
properties for cold hard cash.
The world we live in as a world of inequality.
One individual may be born into land, but with
little in way of skills. Another may be born with
nothing in terms of land ownership, but may
have great skills, say a major league baseball
player that makes many millions of dollars.
Most of us fall in the middle of these two
extremes, some of us with a little more in skills,
other with a little more in land property. The
important thing to keep in mind is that free

86
exchange will increase the general standard of
living and is generally beneficial for most of us
and why, from an individualist perspective,
most of us should desire such a society.
When it comes to virgin land, again it is not
extremely significant how it is divided at the
start. If the United States government were to
end ownership of the 640 million acres it
currently owns and in some fashion divided up
ownership, how the division takes place is of
secondary importance to a PPS outcome for the
land. The division may occur by Lockean
homesteading (the mixture of land and labor),
by lottery or by a billionaire taking control of
all the land. In the end the billionaire is likely
to trade some of the land for other goods and
services (or even different lands). Initial
ownership of new land does not hurt our
current spot in life if we don’t own any of the
initial land. And advancing the PPS, even if
others initially get the land, will be a plus for
us. The more land available (even if owned by
others) means greater supply of land and lower
land prices for all of us in the long run. It’s
basic supply and demand.
Therefore, it is important to support the
takeover of land currently controlled by the US
government, on a PPS-basis, even if we don’t
initially get any of the land. The same goes for
explorers who gain property on the moon,
Mars or beyond the galaxy. The breaking in of
new land by pioneers who hold a PPS
perspective is always a plus. That John D.
Rockefeller owned the land at Rockefeller
Center and built the Center has been a plus for

87
us. It is a place for us to shop, eat and, in the
winter, skate and view the great Rockefeller
Center Christmas tree for free. And it provides
office space for many more. The same goes for
the land owned by Walt Disney, J. W. Marriott
and the many developers throughout the
country. We don’t need to be the initial owners
of virgin property in a PPS to gain an increase
in our standard of living because that property
now has other owners. It can happen because
in many cases the virgin owners will want to
convert their land into profitable enterprises by
providing something of value to the rest of us.

88
 CHAPTER 15
ON PROMOTING A PRIVATE
PROPERTY SOCIETY

I really don’t expect a full Private Property

Society to emerge any time soon. If you think it
is going to occur in the near future, you are
fooling yourself.

If you would like to see a PPS, but really don’t

like to do intellectual battle with
interventionists, then you really shouldn’t
spend a lot of time on PPS. 39 This is a battle for
those who like to mix it up. If you are going to
be a crybaby about the fact that the world isn’t
going to go PPS next week, you really should be
doing something else with your time, perhaps
watching baseball games on television.

The world is a very complex place, so we don’t

know what series of events could occur to make
the public open to moving towards a PPS or
when this transition could occur. The more we
give thought to what a PPS means and explain
its foundation, the more likely it could take
hold sooner rather than later.

The PPS is a very simple concept: “Leave me

alone on my property and I will leave you alone
on yours.” It is a concept that is in sync with

89
our basic nature. It is a concept that the masses
can easily grasp and it’s difficult to wander too
far from the basic concept.

Battle each other, follow the leader and the PPS

are the three basic directions in which the
masses can move. We all have natural
tendencies that pull us in all three directions,
but the PPS offers more peace, more freedom
and the greatest opportunity for increasing our
living standards. It is truly results in the
outcome that should be most attractive to
civilized individuals.

For liberty-propertarians (advocates of the PPS

and libertarianism under the PPS umbrella), in
a world of interventionists, they must guide by
communicating the PPS and libertarian ideals
and act in a manner that is consistent with
being a propertarian and a libertarian. We just
never know when the ideas will “go viral,” but
the more promoters of the concepts, the greater
the foundation for the liberty and PPS ideals to
explode amongst the masses. Our weapons are
truth and logic - and the promise of civility and
higher standards of living. With these weapons,
we can mix it up with any statist advocates and
power seekers. The intellectual battle against
these power freaks should be fun - and it is

90
noble pursuit. It should be the engine that
drives us against the evil of power seekers.

That said, while we should not refrain from

promoting libertarian and PPS ideals with
anyone, there should be specific focus on what
Hayek called the “second-hand dealers” in
ideas. These are the intellectual trendsetters, if
you will.

Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, Ayn Rand and even

John Maynard Keynes all recognized that the
masses were all influenced by great
philosophers and the intelligentsia.

As Keynes put it:

Practical men who believe themselves to be

quite exempt from any intellectual influence,
are usually the slaves of some defunct
economist... Madmen in authority, who hear
voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from
some academic scribbler of a few years back.40

The term intelligentsia has gotten a bad rap

because the intelligentsia have been mostly
socialists. But the term itself signals the
importance of the intellectual trendsetters and
there should be no hesitancy by propertarians
to co-opt the term.

91
The intelligentsia is a status class of educated
people engaged in the complex mental labors
that critique, guide and lead in shaping the
culture and politics of a society. The
intelligentsia generally includes artists,
teachers, academics, writers, journalists and
the literary hommes de lettres.41 They are,
indeed, second-hand dealers in ideas. They are
very important.

They are an important part of the division of

labor. The masses do not have the time nor
inclination to study and think about different
societal structures. They are influenced by the
intellectual trendsetters. This is where the
intellectual battle is, for the attention and
conversion of the second-hand dealers and the
battle amongst first-hand dealers, that is, the
original thinkers. These are both very powerful
and important groups. The first-hand dealers
being those that influence the intelligentsia, the
second-hand dealers.

And it should be noted that among the first

intelligentsia to be formally identified as such,
capitalists were among them.

The Polish intelligentsia played a unique and

vital role in nineteenth century Polish history
and in the early twentieth century. The

92
twentieth century intelligentsia divided
philosophically into conservative idealizers of
the past (whose landholdings gave them a
vested interest in maintaining the status quo)
and liberal reformers advocating development
of capitalism.42

And E. M. Oblomov writes of the Russian

intelligentsia during the years of the Soviet
Union:

Intelligentsia, a very Russian concept, is

difficult to pin down with precision.
Russia has always been a caste society
and the intelligentsia was a particular
caste, consisting of educated people who
did not fit into one of the traditional
categories—clergy, nobility, peasants,
merchants, or the urban middle class.
But the line of demarcation for
membership was never clear. When I
was a child in the Soviet Union, I
thought it meant nice Jewish people
who read books, wore spectacles, tucked
in their shirts, and didn’t slurp their
soup. In my parents’ circle, these were
mostly engineers and scientists, with a
smattering of musicians and doctors.
None had any sort of formal connection

93
 to academic social science or the
humanities, since in the U.S.S.R. these
fields were political minefields, difficult
for decent people to negotiate. But most
seemed to dabble in poetry or
playwriting, and all could recite large
chunks of Evgenii Onegin from
memory.

The concept of the intelligentsia was

easier to define negatively. Anyone
connected with the organs of state
power—government functionaries, law
enforcement, the military—fell way
outside the pale. Party membership was
disqualifying. A more-than-casual
interest in sports, while not in itself
disqualifying, was deeply suspect.
Ultimately, membership came down to a
self-designation, a certain recognizable
set of manners, turns of phrase, and
habits of mind.43

Murray Rothbard recognized the importance of

reaching out to the second-hand dealers in an
unpublished paper on strategy.44

He quoted Hayek in his paper:

94
 The main lesson which the true liberal
must learn from the socialists is that it
was their courage to be Utopian which
gained them the support of the
intellectuals and thereby an influence on
public opinion... Unless we can make the
philosophic foundations of a free society
once more a living intellectual issue and
its implementation a task which
challenges the ingenuity and
imagination of our liveliest minds, the
prospects of freedom are dark. But if we
can regain that belief in the power of
ideas which was the mark of liberalism
at its best, the battle is not lost.

Rothbard then added:

Naturally, I am convinced that it is

precisely we libertarians who have the
inspiring, adventurous, consistent
radical fulfillment of classical liberalism
to offer to intellectuals and to mankind.
We are the answer to Hayek’s call.

If you have read this far, you are well beyond

an average thinker and are at the vanguard of
intellectual discussion. I invite you to continue
the discussion at my website, Target Liberty
(targetliberty.com), where I will continue to

95
discuss libertarianism and the PPS. Please visit
the site and leave your comments and enter the
battle.

The PPS battle has just begun. During some

periods we may achieve only small victories in
the direction of a PPS, that is, battles won
which eliminate only some relatively small
governmental power centers. But somewhere
beyond the horizon a great advance to a full
libertarian-Private Property Society is possible.
We are its drivers. It is in our hands.

96
 CONCLUSION

I hope I have made clear that in many ways we

live a PPS life now, with a government veil over
us that pretends to protect us, when it is, in
fact, the case that we protect our own property
in many ways. If it were laws that protected us,
why would we stay out of bad areas? Why
would we have locks on our doors?
Governments mostly only suffocate life, take a
good portion of our money and tell us what to
do.
The opposite of the non-government society is
not evil.
Just because one does not believe that
government is necessary to protect one’s
property, it does not mean that such a person is
in favor of theft or wild west shootouts. To say
we shouldn’t have government police to protect
our property doesn’t mean we don’t want our
property protected.
To say that there should be no rules that are
not set by a property owner does not mean we
are an advocate of any kind of punishment,
that we are an advocate of anything goes
radical rules on properties etc.
It means that just like now, we avoid trouble
spots and act in a decent and reasonable
manner with the people we choose to deal with.
Just because young kids could start a fire
playing on a hot stove doesn’t mean we should
call for a ban on stoves. It means that we watch

97
kids so that they don’t get themselves in harm’s
way.
I view the idea that “government is necessary”
as a great myth. Government, for the most part,
is simply an organization that seeks to survive
and expand, driven by the people in charge of
it. A change in government power is simply
new people taking over power spots.
Government does not protect us against
terrorists, it does not improve healthcare, it is
terrible at charity and the police do little to
protect us against crime. Government is a
propaganda machine that creates the
impression that it is needed for all these
matters when in fact it is a suffocater of real
solutions in these areas.
A Private Property Society is a society where no
government exists, but where individuals
recognize private property and the individuals
on that property are respected and left alone.
But the PPS is only a great umbrella that
creates peaceful understanding amongst all of
us. Under that umbrella we do need laws on
properties. My perspective is that the
libertarian non-aggression principle is the
“under the PPS umbrella” form of societal
organization that would advance freedom and
the standard of living the most. However, as a
first principle, I hold to the PPS as the
foundation of peace amongst neighbors and
will not interfere with those who respect the
PPS principle but desire to go in a direction
different from the libertarian NAP.
To a limited degree, parts of the PPS principle
are in effect here the United States, but the

98
operative word is limited. On almost a daily
basis, people look to government to do more
and more, thus, setting up more power centers
and more potential for conflict.
The way of government, that is the way of
power centers, is not the way to freedom and
greater prosperity for all of us. Governments
have killed hundreds of millions and in the
current day limit the freedoms of billions.
Isolated government military battles and
related injuries and death continue, with the
constant threat of exploding battles
overhanging over us. The government structure
is a failed structure whose logical faults we can
easily recognize under careful examination.
Civilized people should not provide a welcome
mat for governments. Simple respect for
individuals and their property is the mark of
the civilized individual.

99
100
 ENDNOTES

1. Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of

Great American Cities (Vintage; Reissue
edition December 1,1992) 35-36

2. Politico: Where in the World is the U.S.

Military https://epj.doud/2H6FoCx

3. @jeffreyatucker

4. Walter Block, The Privatization of

Roads and Highways: Human and
Economic Factors (CreateSpace
Independent Publishing Platform 2012)
147-149
5. William C. Wooldridge, Uncle Sam, The
Monopoly Man (New Rochelle,
N.Y.: Arlington House, 1970) 129-130

6. Murray N. Rothbard, For a New

Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto
(Collier Books 1978) 156

7. Capitalism Magazine: War on Poverty

Revisited https: //epj.cloud/ 2EhIp3 H

8. Ludwig von Mises, Human Action: The

Scholars Edition (Ludwig von Mises
Institute 2008)

101
9. I am aware there has been some
revisionist history on the “Wild West”
that argues it was not so wild. I am not
using the term here in the sense of a
specific period in history but merely as a
metaphor for an out of control, that is,
wild society, whether in fact such a
period ever did exist in reality.

10. Merriam Online Dictionary

https://epj.doud/2Cc4v1D

11. Crimethlnc https://epj.d0ud/2EkuJVH

12. Percy L. Greaves Jr, Mises Made Easier:

A Glossary for Ludwig Von Mises'
Human Action (Free Market Books,
1990)91

13. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (Penguin

Classics 1982)

14. Oxford Dictionary Online

https://epj.doud/2G5KYSQ

15. Murray N. Rothbard, Egalitarianism as

a Revolt Against Nature and Other
Essays (The Ludwig von Mises Institute,
2000) pp 249-250

16. Wikipedia: Natural and legal rights

https: //epj .cloud/2G7169f

102
17- John Locke, An Essay Concerning
Human Understanding (Hackett
Classics, 1996) p 27

18. Henry Hazlitt, The Foundations of

Morality (Foundation for Economic
Education 2010)

19. Mises, Human Action, 716

20. Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of

Liberty (NYU Press, 2003)

21. Greaves Jr, Mises Made Easier 134

22. David Gordon, An Austro-Libertarian

View: Essays, Vol. 1 (Mises Institute
2018)268

23. Ludwig von Mises, Marxism Unmasked:

From Delusion to Destruction (Mises
Seminar Lectures, Vol. 2, (Foundation
for Economic Education, 2006))

24. LewRockwell.com The Non-Aggression

Axiom ofLibertarianism
https://epj.d0ud/2BplCjx

25. Education April 20, 2017 at 1:43 PM;

Target Liberty,
https://epj.d0ud/202NTUK

103
26. R.J. Rummel, Death by Government:
Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900
(Routledge; Revised edition,February 1,
1997)
27. CNN: Bronx fire started by child playing,
https://epj.doud/2CetQI9

28. Barbara Oakley, Ariel Knafo,

Guruprasad Madhavan, David Sloan
Wilson, Pathological Altruism (Oxford
University Press;December 19, 2011)
29. F.A Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The
Errors of Socialism, (University of
Chicago Press; October 4,1991)
30. Brainjet.com: 9 Unexpectedly High
Death Statistics You Wouldn’t Believe
https: //epj .cloud/2EzciZD
31. F.A Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (n
Routledge Classics 2001) 138
32. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty 85
33. Of course, it is possible via
agreement/contract an owner could
grant overruling sub-authority to any
one he rents the land to, or for any other
reason.
34. Murray N. Rothbard, The Rothbard
Reader, (The Mises Institute 2016)
Chapter 34
35. Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty
(Collier Books 1978) 231

104
36. Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and
Steel: The Fates of Human Societies,
(W. W. Norton & Company;(March 7,
2017)) 53
37. Rothbard, The Rothbard Reader
Chapter 32
38. Israel M. Kirzner, Competition and
Entrepreneurship, (University of
Chicago Press; September 15,1978)
39. Unless, of course, you like to think about
it for purely intellectual enjoyment.
40. John Maynard Keynes, The General
Theory of Employment, Interest, and
Money (Stellar Classics, May 5, 2016)
Chapter 24
41. Wikipedia Intelligentsia
https: //epj .cloud/2Br7aaK
42. Country Studies The Intelligentsia
https: //epj .cloud/2H4oD9w
43. City Journal Intelligentsia Elegy
https://epj.cloud/2EY6Gc9
44. Murray N. Rothbard, Toward a
Strategy for Libertarian Change
(unpublished private paper)

105
io6
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This early written commentary on Private

Property Society would never have been
considered and created were it not for the
“Oakland Duo” and Dr. Michael Edelstein all of
whom urged me to put something in writing
about PPS and never stopped asking “When is
the book going to be done?” They also made
valuable comments during the writing process.

The book would read nowhere near as

polished, if it wasn’t for the careful editing of
Harrison Burge.

Discussion, during the writing period, with

Joseph Ford Cotto and Chris Rossini helped to
bring focus on topics I might have missed
otherwise.

Circle Rothbard-SF members focused my

thinking many times during our monthly
gatherings.

107
io8
 ABOUT ROBERT WENZEL

Robert Wenzel is editor and publisher of

EconomicPolicyJournal.com and Target
Liberty.
He is also author of “The Fed Flunks: My
Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank.”
He considers himself “more radical than the
Founding Fathers.”
He lives in San Francisco.

109
What they say about Private Property Society Theory:

"No matter where you find yourself on the political

spectrum Foundations of Private Property Society Theory
will effect a paradigm shift in your view of the optimal
political structure of society, It was for me. Well reasoned
and innovative, Wenzel lays out a new foundation for a free
society based on a single principle having pervasive and
profound ramifications."

-Dr. Michael Edelstein author of "Therapy Breakthrough:

Why Some Pyschotherapies Work Better Than Others"

"People talk about government as if it has always existed.

People talk about government as if it is infallible. They talk
about government as if it is not simply a group of people
that has at least as many weaknesses as the rest of us.

"But the concept of a Private Property Society helps me to

reboot my mind."

-Victor J. Ward author of "The Smartest Christian in

Babylon "

Robert Wenzel is editor & publisher of

EconomicPolicyJournal.com and Target Liberty.

He is also author of "The Fed Flunks; My

Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank."

He considers himself "more radical than the

Founding Fathers."

He resides in San Francisco.