We are moving toward the end of our analysis of the means. There is a sense in which the means are everything. But, they are only means relative to ends. And ends are only ends relative to values. Enough. We looked to Kant (3.4.3) for prescription for the use of means. He fundamentally prescribes not using means users as means. I added the ingredient of no initiated aggression as a way of framing Kant’s recommendation. Kant, in the details of what he writes, was not that clear.
There is a school of thought that takes initiated aggression as the fundamental no-no. I have found the title “anarcho-capitalism” a useful historical name or title for that school. I am still interested in the employment of means and rules to guide such employment. Anarcho-capitalism, to my mind, as the clearest and most justified articulation of such rules. The same way that Kant’s categorical imperative follows apriori for rational beings, the following rules follow from apriori considerations. The rules apply to action-guidance. They are derived however from disagreement.
We begin from the scarcity of means and the possibility of conflict.
We take a step in distinguishing disagreement that is handled through war (initiated aggression) from disagreement handled non-aggressively. Is the latter possible? If so, what is presupposed? Everything is in the “yes” to non-initiated aggression as a mode of disagreeing. Say “no” to this mode, and you are left with war, violence, initiated aggression. Say “yes”, and you will find the anarcho-capitalist rules for the employment of means.
What MUST be the case for meaningful disagreement that is aimed at reaching the good which is the true? The two who disagree must have property title to the bodies that they employ for disagreeing. Each individual has right to his body (and all of its weight, size, talent or lack of each). He may use his body as he sees fit without aggressing against any other body to which he does not have title. This will include the use of the body to disagree non-violently. In fact, if he who I disagree with is merely parroting the position of another, then I am not arguing with that used body but with the other that is using it.
Given the non-initiated-aggression established for body disagreement is possible. But it is not possible to move beyond that bear possibility if there is not right to anything else through property title. If, in spite of my right to my body, I have no right to the acquisition of anything else, I am undone. For note that the continued employment of the body in non-initiated aggressive disagreement instead of through production depends on enough being produced to satisfy pressing demand. If I am able to procure no standing room for my body, or have no security in that which I produce with my body, my existence is done.
There are three possibilities: I have right to this body, others have acquired right to this body, or everyone has right to this body. It does not act but under right or wrong. I either act by the permission of others or by my own right. It is impossible that I have ever acted at the direction of everyone. And, I have never known any who have had right to this body for which I have had to ask permission (except parents when a child and government when an adult, but I do not think the latter legitimate).
How are property titles established? Three legitimate ways: first use of unowned, production with what is owned, voluntary trade. The right to body is established by each owner because he is the first user of that body. Everything else he gets he gets at the gift of others (parents especially). Later, he engages in production and trade with his inheritance.
Transfers of property rights that go beyond the ways of first use, production and trade ignore the property rights of others and use them through initiated aggression. These are the categories of assault, theft and fraud.
The government engages in fraud when it takes by force and theft to establish social security, then depletes it and breaks its promise through fraud. But note that the initial theft was made possible by threatening assault to any who did not comply (fining or jail time for not paying taxes).
There is but one way for disagreement to take place in a setting in which the free agent may choose his position and argue toward the truth. Property titles established through first use, production and trade must be respected. Otherwise there is threat, defense and preparation for war.