> what do you say to the implicit threat of force which establishes the principle of property in the first place?
One has a natural right to at least one property: one's own body. A natural right that is routinely violated in most so called 'free' societies; I should add. This notion of property is established (and recognized) without the threat of force, implicit or otherwise.
Now assume the existence of only one person on the entire planet. None of our political philosophies have any effect on the dealings of that one person. If another person is added however, the two have now the possibility of interaction over a limited resource. The two can attempt aggression as a means of securing the resource, or they can attempt to set out a contract. That is, a set of rules that determine how the two deal with scarcity. For example, they can agree that the person who finds something first shall consider it their property.
The two can reach this conclusion in the absence of any force, implicit or otherwise. They can reach this conclusion in the spirit of cooperation, or for entirely selfish reasons: to avoid or at least minimize the stress of conflicts.
The two can indeed introduce the possibility of aggression as a means of enforcing the contract. But if you think closely, you will see that this aggression is not defined as an initiation of force, but rather as a response to it. That is, contract or not, the first person to go against the will of the other is the aggressor. And since there is no political philosophy which prohibits one to defend themselves - libertarianism included - it seems safe to assume that everyone would agree: the return aggression is justified.
So all the contract winds up doing, is codifying the interaction and determining exactly what the two view as aggression. For example, unilateral contract termination is typically viewed as such.
When scaled up to more than two persons, the complexities increase, but the principles remain the same. A contract is a document that governs interaction. This is markedly different from a person who governs interaction in that the contract requires the agreement of all parties involved, whereas a tyrant simply imposes his or her will, unconcerned about the will of others.
Libertarianism is a way of thinking that rejects the initiation of force. It is not a way of thinking that denies the existence of force. Neither does it deny the necessity of force -- but only in response to it.
One has a natural right to at least one property: one's own body. A natural right that is routinely violated in most so called 'free' societies; I should add. This notion of property is established (and recognized) without the threat of force, implicit or otherwise.
Now assume the existence of only one person on the entire planet. None of our political philosophies have any effect on the dealings of that one person. If another person is added however, the two have now the possibility of interaction over a limited resource. The two can attempt aggression as a means of securing the resource, or they can attempt to set out a contract. That is, a set of rules that determine how the two deal with scarcity. For example, they can agree that the person who finds something first shall consider it their property.
The two can reach this conclusion in the absence of any force, implicit or otherwise. They can reach this conclusion in the spirit of cooperation, or for entirely selfish reasons: to avoid or at least minimize the stress of conflicts.
The two can indeed introduce the possibility of aggression as a means of enforcing the contract. But if you think closely, you will see that this aggression is not defined as an initiation of force, but rather as a response to it. That is, contract or not, the first person to go against the will of the other is the aggressor. And since there is no political philosophy which prohibits one to defend themselves - libertarianism included - it seems safe to assume that everyone would agree: the return aggression is justified.
So all the contract winds up doing, is codifying the interaction and determining exactly what the two view as aggression. For example, unilateral contract termination is typically viewed as such.
When scaled up to more than two persons, the complexities increase, but the principles remain the same. A contract is a document that governs interaction. This is markedly different from a person who governs interaction in that the contract requires the agreement of all parties involved, whereas a tyrant simply imposes his or her will, unconcerned about the will of others.
Libertarianism is a way of thinking that rejects the initiation of force. It is not a way of thinking that denies the existence of force. Neither does it deny the necessity of force -- but only in response to it.