This text presents the foundations of libertarian ethics, establishing a logical, deductive, and natural law-based approach to legal ethics, free from relativism and supernaturalism. Through this approach, it objectively and universally identifies which fundamental legal principles are just or unjust. It is logically deduced that private property is the only consistent ethical basis for a legal system, as it avoids the contradictions inherent in other conceptions of justice.
Topics explored include the origin of property through original appropriation, the validity of contracts, and the distinction between real crimes—involving victims and violations of property—and so-called "victimless crimes," which are not recognized by libertarian ethics. Additionally, we discuss proportionality in punishment, the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), and the possibility of creating artificial laws through voluntary contracts without compromising individual freedom.
The text also examines freedom of expression, fraud, censorship, crime punishment, and the distinction between natural and artificial laws. The conclusion reinforces that libertarian ethics, by being founded on private property and respect for voluntary contracts, is the only ethical framework capable of ensuring a truly free and coherent society.
"Ethics": Clarification
The word "ethics" has been used in the history of philosophy with various meanings, so it is important to clarify its use here to avoid ambiguities. For example, "ethics" can refer to the study or domain of what is good or bad, what constitutes duty, moral obligation, or virtue. Alternatively, the term can be used to mean a system of established rules and norms that guide human behavior within a social group or organization.
In the case of libertarian thinkers from the Austrian school, such as Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "ethics" is considered the domain of interpersonal rules—not just for a specific society but for any society—and the study of which laws would be just or unjust in any society, based on logical and rational principles. It is in this last sense, inherited from Austrian libertarianism, that the term "ethics" is used in this book. It refers, therefore, to laws and the most fundamental legal domain, ultimately seeking to discern which laws and their applications are just or unjust.
To ensure this use of the word does not obscure the domain related to concepts of good and evil, virtue, duty, and responsibility outside the legal scope, we will use the word "morality" to refer to that domain.
Ethics
What we call "ethics" here is the domain and study, derived from praxeology, of which interpersonal actions can be consistently permitted or prohibited in society. That is, ethics is the legal domain of the most fundamental interpersonal rules that can form the idea of "justice." Logically consistent systems of interpersonal rules that do not violate natural laws or basic principles of order formation are just, while inconsistent systems are unjust.
Since society is a system of interpersonal actions, a social system based on the correct ethics would be just, while a system contrary to ethics would be unjust. The rules adopted in a society, which determine which actions are permitted or prohibited, are "laws" in the legal sense. All legal systems—whether authoritarian, democratic, feudal, or of any other type—that include rules defining permitted or prohibited actions in society fit this legal definition of "law": a rule that determines which actions are permitted or prohibited in society.
Before determining any rule as just or unjust, it is necessary to establish which fundamental and basic rules are just or unjust. For example, a society may allow individuals to create their own rules within certain territories or properties, or to establish contracts, but there must be fundamental and universal laws upon which all local and particular rules are based so that they are not contradictory. Ethics must first determine which universal laws are just so that other local rules can be deemed just or unjust according to their conformity to these universal laws.
To determine which of all possible laws are just and which are unjust, we can start with the principle that any law that is logically inconsistent, or that results in contradictions or ambiguities, must be unjust, as it fails in the basic function of law: determining which interpersonal actions are permitted and which are prohibited. A just law, whatever it may be, must be logically consistent in all situations involving interpersonal actions.
"Conflict" is defined here as an opposition between two possible actions taken by agents with different preferences at the moment of conflict, where one action prevents the other due to both using a common scarce resource to achieve different and incompatible ends. For a law to be logically consistent and applicable to all actions, all applications of that law must be free of conflicts. That is, if two individuals wish to take conflicting actions or disagree on what the just action is, with their actions being incompatible, the law must be able to resolve this conflict clearly and unequivocally, without allowing further ambiguities. If correctly understood and followed, the law should result in the absence of conflicts. It is important to note that the law does not resolve conflicts because it inherently has this role, but because consistency requires it.
Two actions are conflicting if and only if both require the use of the same scarce resource as a means to achieve their ends, and the resource cannot be used for both but only for one. Therefore, the basis of all conflict is the intention of multiple agents to use the same resource for different purposes. A universal and just law must, therefore, to be consistent and allow no conflict, be capable of determining, among multiple conflicting agents, a single one who may use each scarce resource in each action. The legitimate user of a resource can be called its "owner," and the resources over which they have exclusive use rights constitute their "property."
Thus, property is a fundamental concept in ethics. Property can be understood as the right to use, control, and dispose of a scarce resource. According to the private property rule, all actions are permitted in which an owner uses their property without violating others' property or using them against their owners' will. If private property is adopted as a rule and consistently followed, it results in the resolution of all conflicts. If it is not adopted, conflict resolution becomes impossible, since if two users could legitimately use the same scarce resource simultaneously, it would result in conflict, which cannot be permitted by universal interpersonal law.
Therefore, the law of private property is the just and universal law in the ethical and legal domain. Any action consistent with this law is just, while any violation of it is unjust. The law of private property is also natural, as it is based on the natural reality that resources used as means of action are scarce. It is the only logically consistent rule that, if applied, results in the absence of conflicts in interpersonal actions. Thus, the universal and natural law of private property is not derived from the will of any individual or specific authority but from logic, which all natural rules must conform to when applied to the ethical and legal domain.
This position in ethics can be called "libertarian ethics" because it does not depend on the state or any authority, "natural law ethics" because it derives from naturalist principles and does not rely on subjectivism, and "rationalist legal ethics" because it is based on logic and reason rather than subjective or cultural ideas.
Appropriation and Storage
A scarce resource may not belong to any owner, such as resources found in the wild or abandoned by their previous owners. The first use of an unowned scarce resource is conflict-free and is therefore always permitted. Since all use, by law, must occur within an exclusive right, whoever first makes use of a scarce resource becomes its owner. Therefore, first use is the legitimate form of original appropriation of unowned scarce resources, making them, from that moment on, the property of the agent who made the first use.
Since all use of property, like all actions, occurs over time and may involve different periods to achieve the end of each action, there can be no determined expiration period for private property. Thus, once appropriated, the property continues to belong to its owner indefinitely until it is voluntarily transferred or abandoned. The storage of property, as a type of use intended to keep the resource available for future use, is a valid use, and a stored resource is not the same as an abandoned resource. Property may, therefore, be stored indefinitely and remains the possession of the same owner.
Natural Law Theory
Here, we define "natural law theory" as the ethical position that holds that the most fundamental foundations of law are natural, meaning they are determined by natural laws, such as logic, or derived from nature. Natural law theory opposes legal positivism, which holds that legal rules are determined and imposed by certain human beings upon all others. Dictatorships, for example, are a form of legal positivism in which an authority dictates laws and their applications over all subjugated individuals. However, even the freest forms of government, such as democracy, are also legal positivist. In democracy, the will of the majority can impose rules on the minority as long as these rules receive the most votes.
In natural law theory, no individual can forcibly impose rules on another’s property, and all rules must be derived from natural law. Each individual can only make decisions about the rules and use of their private property, and all relationships between individuals must be voluntary and respect voluntary agreements between property owners.
As a form of naturalism, natural law theory opposes legal positivism as a form of subjectivism, since the latter depends on the arbitrary will and decisions of individuals or groups, whereas the former is based on objective and universal principles derived from nature and logic. While legal positivism can vary widely based on the preferences, cultures, and opinions of those in power, natural law remains steadfast, guided by principles that are true and consistent in any context or culture. Natural law theory, being the application of naturalism to ethics, does not depend on the will or actions of subjects but only on the logical structure of any rule that classifies interpersonal actions as permitted or prohibited.
As an application of naturalism to interpersonal actions, natural law theory, or ethical naturalism, is an extension of praxeological naturalism, which applies to the structure of action itself, deriving it from naturalist principles. Legal natural law also belongs to a different category than economic natural laws, since while economic natural laws describe how agents handle scarce resources according to their preferences to achieve their ends—forming economic value—legal natural laws outline which actions are permitted or prohibited in interactions between these agents. Both economics and ethics are, therefore, derived from praxeology.
Demarcation
For natural law to be followed and private property to be respected, it must be evident that certain properties belong to certain owners. The owner must therefore demarcate their property, which can be done with fences, walls, signs, and documents. The way property is arranged can also publicly communicate whether entry is permitted. For example, an open market with products for sale socially communicates that entry is allowed, and an individual cannot be punished as a trespasser for entering such an environment, but the owner may explicitly ask them to leave. For more explicit and unequivocal communication of what is permitted on each property, contracts, documents, and other forms of communication may be used.
Abandonment
Property can be considered abandoned only if it is not demarcated and there is no evidence that it belongs to a certain owner. For example, a piece of land without a fence, signs, documents, or any witnesses proving it belongs to a certain individual may be considered abandoned and can be appropriated through the first use by a new owner.
Transfer and Contract
An owner can transfer part or all of their decision-making power over a property to another person. A transfer of the entirety of decision-making power over a property is simply a transfer of the property itself, whereas a partial transfer of control is a voluntary agreement or contract. A contract is a set of rules, commitments, and consequences for compliance or non-compliance, voluntarily accepted between two or more owners.
A contract is a type of voluntary exchange in which commitments are exchanged between two or more owners. For example, an owner may commit to providing a certain good or service to another owner in exchange for a specified payment. If one of the parties fails to fulfill their commitment, this constitutes a breach of contract and a violation of the natural law of private property, from which all contracts are derived. The consequences of this violation may be explicitly stated in the contract, but even if they are not, breaching a contract is still a violation of natural law.
A contract applies only to individuals who have agreed to it, with such agreement being evident, for example, through a signature, and only the explicit commitments in the contract can be enforced. Verbal contracts, even if not recorded in a written document, are also ethically valid as long as there are witnesses or sufficient evidence of agreement between the parties. A contract cannot apply to individuals who have not voluntarily accepted it.
Ethical Society
The group of acting individuals to whom private property law applies can be called an "ethical society." Since the natural law of private property applies to all interpersonal actions, it must apply equally and indiscriminately to all individuals capable of acting. Therefore, every acting individual has a natural right to private property and retains this right as long as they act in accordance with natural law. This right does not need to be granted by an authority or any form of consensus, nor even explicitly claimed—every acting individual has this right automatically.
However, for an individual to remain part of the ethical society over time, they must follow and respect natural law. If the law is not followed and respected, it cannot function and be implemented, and instead, force and monopolies will dominate. If natural law protected those who violated it, it would not be able to organize actions conflict-free and consistently. If the law applied to aggressors, it would be inconsistent and contradictory, as it would work against itself. Therefore, the law must apply only to those who follow and respect it, and who do not aggress against or threaten others. Thus, the ethical society consists of all individuals capable of acting praxeologically, as long as they have not significantly violated the law and thereby lost part or all of their participation in its application.
Crime
The violation of the natural law of private property occurs when an individual, intentionally or negligently, invades, uses, damages, or misappropriates another's property without the owner's proper authorization. This violation, if it causes significant harm to another’s property, may be considered a crime. Every crime, being a violation of property, therefore has at least one victim—the individual whose property was violated by the crime.
Punishment
When an individual violates property, they communicate that their actions do not align with natural and ethical law. Thus, they can be considered someone acting outside the law. Since the law ceases to apply to those who violate it, the criminal loses part or all of their right to property. Consequently, those who act within the law may take action to punish them without such punishment itself constituting a violation of the law. While punishment may serve restitutional purposes or incentivize legal compliance, the natural law basis of punishment is the loss of the criminal’s right, rather than any specific goal the punishment must achieve.
Proportionality
On the one hand, widespread, systematic, and significant violations of natural law would completely prevent it from functioning. On the other hand, minimal violations of the law would not be obstructive. For example, a psychopathic criminal who kills his victims and steals their property is entirely incompatible with an ethical society and must completely lose his rights, whereas someone who accidentally bumps into another person and knocks their glass of juice to the ground does not violate ethics in the same way, even though they have damaged someone else's property. Therefore, the loss of rights and participation in an ethical society must be proportional to the damage caused and the degree of threat that the individual represents to the fulfillment of natural law. Hence, there is a principle of proportionality in the violations of the law and their consequences.
Gray Areas in Ethics
Although proportionality in punishment is theoretically permitted—since not every crime necessarily results in the total loss of the criminal's rights—this proportionality can be difficult or even unfeasible to determine objectively. In some cases, it may also be difficult to determine whether a crime has been committed, as in cases of unintentional offenses. For instance, suppose someone spills a glass of juice on the floor, and another person slips on the juice and breaks their neck. At what point or under what circumstances do accidents become unintentional crimes? And to what extent? Some specific cases, and the proportionality with which a crime can be punished, are very difficult to determine precisely and may be considered gray areas of ethics.
These difficulties, caused by gray areas and the challenges of precisely determining limits and punishments, can, however, be resolved through voluntary social contracts. For example, a basic contract, accepted by a society or group of people, in which those who sign commit to engaging only in voluntary exchanges among themselves while boycotting others, can establish the proportionality of punishments administered by the participants. If an individual or institution within this society commits or punishes a crime, the punishment may conform to what was established in the contract. However, such a contract cannot limit the punishments applied to or increase those received by individuals who have not signed it. In cases where punishments are not determined by a contract previously accepted by the criminal, proportionality should be debated as rationally as possible, though there is no guarantee that it can be determined objectively.
Judgment
Punishment, like natural law itself, and as a derivation of it, does not depend on authorities. Once a criminal has lost their rights and the crime has been recognized as evident, any individual within an ethical society may punish them. However, individuals can establish voluntary contracts among themselves, committing to following some form of legal process recognized as more civilized or moral. For example, contracts and artificial laws may determine that criminals undergo trials with certain organization and criteria and that punishments include restitution and compensation to victims whenever possible. Those who participate in such contracts must respect specific rules on how to deal with crimes and criminals. However, natural law concerns only the loss of the criminal's rights and the requirement that the crime be objectively evident, not what must be done afterward.
In an ethical society, there can be no monopoly imposed by authority or force, including a monopoly on justice, laws, judgment, or punishments. Any institution or court claiming to hold exclusive power over judgment or law enforcement is, in essence, acting unethically and contradicting the very law and ethical society it claims to uphold. Individuals and organizations offering investigation, judgment, punishment, restitution, and similar services must do so in an environment of free competition, voluntarily, and within the limits of natural law, never violating it. However, this voluntary aspect of justice services does not apply to criminals whose crimes are objectively evident. Once criminals are susceptible to punishment, it may be applied against their will.
Non-Aggression Principle (NAP)
The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) states that it is ethically wrong to initiate force or coercion against an individual or their property. Simply put, it is the idea that each person has the right to live their life as they choose, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others in doing so.
It is important to note that for this principle to correctly represent natural law ethics, the initiation of aggression, force, or violence must be strictly understood as a violation of property, even in ways that may seem nonviolent. For example, theft may appear to be a nonviolent form of property violation, but under the NAP, it must be understood as aggression. Justified defense against theft, such as recovering a stolen object, even if violent, is not aggression against property. Likewise, just punishment for crimes cannot be considered aggression under the NAP. Only property violations should be counted as "aggression" for the NAP to be ethically sound.
The NAP is the principle of non-aggression against the property of innocent or "peaceful" individuals—meaning those who are not criminals—derived from private property, which is a natural law. The NAP is not a "pact" of non-aggression but rather a natural and naturalistic principle of law. Like property law, it applies to all individuals, even if they do not agree with it or do not understand the principle. All agreements, pacts, and voluntary contracts derive from natural law ethics and the NAP, meaning that ethics and the NAP themselves cannot be agreements but rather a universal law underlying all agreements, ensuring their validity.
Self-Defense
Self-defense is the natural right of an individual to protect their property—including their body and possessions—against aggression or imminent threats. The right to self-defense is natural and directly derived from property rights, as it is simply the use of property for its own protection. An individual who significantly aggresses against or threatens another's property—for example, by threatening the victim's life—is subject to self-defense, even if it causes them harm or death. However, lesser aggressions, such as minor thefts, may justify only a limited use of force in self-defense. For example, an armed robbery threatens the victim's life, making it proportional for the victim to use lethal force in defense. Meanwhile, using lethal force against petty theft could be considered disproportionate and an act of aggression. The criterion for determining proportionality in self-defense is the potential or actual harm caused by the aggression.
Restitution and Revenge
Natural law allows the punishment of aggressors, but due to the loss of the aggressors' rights, not because of a duty or objective that must be achieved. The reason for applying punishments is subjective and is up to those who administer just punishment—whoever they may be—to decide their motivations. Furthermore, society and the justice market evolve to establish the most efficient and demanded artificial contracts and rules. Thus, punishment can serve various objectives: preventing new crimes, discouraging potential criminals, seeking revenge, ensuring restitution, or fulfilling any other morally accepted or demanded goal. However, it is crucial to clarify that these objectives—and punishment as a whole—are not intrinsic to natural law but rather to the objectives of those who enforce punishments. Even if moral foundations exist for these objectives, natural law ethics itself does not dictate a duty but only the permission to punish. Natural law merely establishes that violators lose their rights according to the extent of their violation.
Freedom of Speech and Censorship
Under natural law ethics, only property violations can be considered crimes. In addition to physical violations of property, crimes may also be committed indirectly through fraud, threats, or inciting others to commit crimes. Actions that offend individuals or groups without invading or damaging their property are not crimes.
Censorship is only ethically permissible when a property owner prevents another individual from expressing themselves on their own property, provided that this does not violate a contract or private rule previously established by the owner. However, censorship over others' property and contracts—such as when states control what individuals and businesses may express—is always criminal and unethical. No individual, company, or state may control expression within another's property for any reason.
False Imputation of Crime
False imputation of crime occurs when a person falsely accuses another of committing a criminal act, knowing that such an accusation is false, or irresponsibly, in the absence of or through distortion of evidence. False imputation can make an innocent person appear guilty before the legal society, subjecting them to undue punishments, which are therefore criminal aggressions. Whoever manipulates information and evidence to make an innocent person susceptible to punishment is thus committing a crime and may be punished accordingly.
Crime of Threat
Threats constitute a crime because the aggressor communicates their intention to damage another person's property, usually with the intent of coercing the victim into acting according to their will. Therefore, a threat is, in itself, an aggression, as it endangers the victim's freedom and property. Likewise, an attempt to commit a crime is, in itself, a crime, and a criminal who fails to carry out their plan can still be punished, as they have already put another person's property at risk. Acts that endanger property due to negligence can also be considered crimes. For example, if someone throws a brick from the tenth floor of a building, there is a considerable probability that this act will cause someone's death if the brick lands on their head, and therefore, this act is a crime.
Victimless Crimes Do Not Exist
Victimless crimes do not exist because every crime is an aggression against private property, which is individual and specific. Nor can the victim of a crime be a collective or "society," as only individuals act and have the right to private property, not collectives or societies. If an alleged crime has not specifically violated the property of specific individuals, it is simply not a crime.
An individual also cannot commit a crime against themselves, as private property is the full right of an individual to use their resources, limited only by the use of others' property. Libertarian natural law is interpersonal, and a violation of private property is only possible between two individuals, not one alone. Therefore, acts such as drug use, attempted suicide, or religious or ideological practices carried out privately are not crimes under natural law. However, attempting to control what others do with their property against their will is a crime.
A person’s free expression on their own platforms and physical or digital spaces, attended only voluntarily and under private rules, cannot be a crime unless fraud, threats, or direct incitement to crimes are committed. Freedom of expression has no subjective limits within private property, being restricted only if it violates another's property.
Similarly, smuggling and the trade of state-prohibited products, such as drugs or weapons, are not crimes under natural law, as exchanging or selling these products does not inherently violate another individual’s private property. If two individuals voluntarily consent to a trade, without coercion or deception, then under natural law, no crime has occurred. The possession of potentially harmful resources, such as drugs and weapons, is not a crime—only their use to aggress others is. Any attempt to restrict or prohibit the trade of certain resources, unless among individuals who voluntarily accept such rules, is itself a crime. Individuals, under natural law, may voluntarily trade any type of resource among themselves.
The exclusion of individuals by a private property owner, whether a commercial establishment, a residence, or any other property, is also not a crime under natural law. A property owner, having full rights over their property, has the freedom to decide who may or may not enter and remain in their space, or engage in trade within it, based on any criteria of their choosing—provided it does not violate previously agreed-upon contracts. Just as a person has the right to decide who may enter their home, a business owner has the right to decide who may enter their establishment for any reason. This does not violate anyone else's property rights, as no one has an inherent right to access another's private property without their consent. However, while exclusion based on private property rights is allowed, discrimination based on race, gender, or intrinsic characteristics may be considered morally reprehensible, may carry social repercussions, and may be restricted by private contracts that prohibit those engaging in such discrimination.
Any form of exclusion must be carried out within an individual’s own property. For instance, if 19 out of 20 residents in a neighborhood decide their community should be exclusive to Christians, they cannot forcibly expel the one resident who does not share their beliefs, as that person owns their property within the neighborhood.
Copying, Imitation, Plagiarism, and Counterfeiting
Copying is a victimless action; however, plagiarism constitutes fraud. This is because while copying something does not necessarily diminish or damage the original property, plagiarism is an attempt to falsely claim authorship or originality of an idea or work. Copying itself is not a form of appropriation or theft, as it merely reproduces a form, composition, or formula of scarce resources without necessarily altering the copied scarce resources. For example, copying a song, book, or digital file does not affect the original disks, books, or digital files, which remain intact. The form, formula, or intellectual content is not scarce, as it can be used indefinitely in new instances without degrading or reducing the original's quantity or quality. It is the material composing a book, disk, or physical computer memory that is scarce—not the information itself. For this reason, natural law regarding private property does not recognize "intellectual property," meaning ownership over ideas, formulas, or information, but only over the material in which they are contained. However, artificial private rules and contracts can restrict content copying among individuals who voluntarily agree to such rules. These contracts, however, cannot extend to individuals who did not explicitly agree at the time of a voluntary exchange. For example, a software seller may impose conditions on purchasing the software directly from them, but if the same software is obtained through other means, those conditions cannot be enforced simply because the software is being used.
Unlike copying, plagiarism is a form of fraud, as it presents content misleadingly, providing false information about the true author of a work. However, the true victim of plagiarism is not the original author but rather the buyers of the product, as they are misled into believing they are purchasing something different from what it actually is. For example, if John sells a copy of a book claiming he is the author, when in fact the book was written by Mary, he is deceiving his customers about the work’s origin. Even if Mary has not physically lost any copies of her book and the information itself cannot be appropriated, John's customers have been defrauded by purchasing something under a false premise.
Similarly, counterfeiting products or services is a form of fraud. When an individual or company produces or sells a product falsely claiming it to be of a certain brand, quality, origin, or author, they are committing a deceptive act. Plagiarism and counterfeiting are, therefore, crimes under natural law ethics, unlike copying and imitation.
Laws and Secondary Artificial Rights
Private property is a primary right, meaning it is natural and applies to all individuals capable of praxeological action—that is, those who act purposefully, understanding means and ends. However, this does not mean property is the only just law that can exist, only that it must be the foundation of all just laws and rights, which can never violate it. Private property law is also the only natural and universal law in the legal sphere. Any other laws implemented in society must be artificial.
Secondary laws and rights may be created and implemented among two or more individuals, but only voluntarily and never forcibly. The only law that does not require voluntary acceptance is natural law, which applies to all individuals in all interpersonal exchanges. Secondary and artificial laws and rights must arise from mutual agreements, meaning contracts that establish commitments and consequences for compliance or non-compliance.
Despite not being imposed aggressively against private property, these contracts can physically remove individuals from society through exclusion and blocking voluntary exchanges with them.
Furthermore, artificial laws can resolve disagreements in ethical gray areas. For example, it may be clear that deafening noise is an aggression against another's property, but there may be disagreement over the exact volume limit. A voluntary contract establishing an acceptable volume resolves this disagreement without requiring a more complex debate. Similarly, appropriate punishments for various crimes can be determined through such contracts.