Aggression and Property Rights Plank in the Libertarian Party Platform

[From my Webnote series]

Related:

• Activism, Achieving a Free Society, and Writing for the Remnant
• KOL359 | State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PFS 2021)
  • re-podcast at PFP231 | Stephan Kinsella, State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PFS 2021).
• KOL345 | Kinsella’s Libertarian “Constitution” or: State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PorcFest 2021)
• Stephan Kinsella, “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” ch. 13 in , Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023)
• “The Voluntaryist Constitution,” Mises Wire (10/24/2017).
• A New Covenant by L. Neil Smith
  • Unanimous Consent and the Utopian Vision or I Dreamed I Was a Signatory In My Maidenform Bra by L. Neil Smith
  • Kinsella, How much richer would be in a free society? L. Neil Smith’s great speech
• Amend the LP Platform to Abolish IP!
  • It’s A Fucking Disgrace that the Libertarian Party Platform Does Not Condemn “Intellectual Property” (Patent and Copyright)
  • Colorado IP Socialists Trying to Amend LPCO Platform to Include IP

Others:

• Oceania—The Atlantis Project
  • Same people: Project Lifeboat: “From the people who brought you the Oceania project so many years ago comes the Lifeboat project. An attempt to create a spaceship for the purposes of saving the human race from the singularity predicted by Vernor Vinge.”
• The “Creative Common Law” project, an anarcho-capitalist project in which I was enlisted as an advisor, only for it to later turn from “Creative Common Law 1.0: Anarcho-Capitalism” to “Creative Common Law 2.0: Anarcho-Socialism/Syndicalism”
  • Creative Common Law Project, R.I.P. and Waystation Libertarians
•  “The Libertarian Constitution” by Ilya Shapiro, Tim Sandefur, and Christina Mulligan: “This was probably an easier project for us than for our conservative and progressive counterparts because the current United States Constitution is fundamentally a libertarian or, more precisely, classical liberal document. So much so that, at the outset, we joked that all we needed to do was to add “and we mean it” at the end of every clause
• Tom Bell’s “Ulex,” or “Open Source Legal Operating System”;
• Galt’s Gulch Chile, a scam that ended in disaster;
• the Honduras special economic zones; Próspera ¹
• The Free State Project; archived: The Free State Project
• General Governance, the idea of leveraging Indian tribes’ special status to extend their federal tax-free enclaves or zones; ²
• National Constitution Center’s “The Libertarian Constitution”
• Roderick Long’s “Imagineering Freedom: A Constitution of Liberty Part I: Between Anarchy and Limited Government” and Michael Darby’s “Draft Constitution for a Reviving or New Nation,” both at http://freenation.org/a/
• Dennis Pratt https://www.quora.com/What-would-a-libertarian-bill-of-rights-look-like/answer/Dennis-Pratt-3
• Siegen, Bernard H. (1994) Drafting a Constitution for a Nation or Republic Emerging into Freedom. 2d ed.  Fairfax, Virginia: George Mason University Press.
• Seasteading Institute (Patri Friedman)
• Limón REAL Project
• (current) “Sealand” and Prince Roy; crazy guys homesteading abandoned oil rigs and declaring sovereignty;
• Principality of “New Utopia”
• “Oceana”
• Setting Sail on a Giant, Floating City

Update: Colorado IP Socialists Trying to Amend LPCO Platform to Include IP

Update: Tweet:

“The @LPRadicals agree; our platform plank on IP:
2.13 Intellectual Monopoly and File Sharing

The phrase “intellectual property” is a misnomer. What the state calls intellectual property is more accurately referred to as “intellectual monopoly” as the state grants a monopoly on the use of an idea, or goods and services derived from an idea, to a certain limited group. We call for the elimination of the protection of such monopoly thereby freeing the market, encouraging content providers and product developers to improve on existing products thereby bringing more and better choices to the market.

In particular, we call for the end of the prohibition of online file sharing, just as we oppose all victimless crimes. When content is shared it is not stolen as no one loses any property, only a potential loss of some future revenue, which is natural in any open market.”

Adapted from my Facebook post:

The Libertarian Party’s 2022 convention, in Sparks (Reno) NV is over. It was an exhausting but interesting 3 full days. The Mises Caucus swept the LNC. I was also elected to serve on the Judicial Committee (see below). A few ad-hoc amendments to the LP Platform were made as well as a larger set of amendments recommended by the Platform Committee.

My main goal in joining the LP about 5 years ago was to have it field more principled, libertarian candidates and to have clearer, more principled libertarian messaging.

To that end I worked to help develop a definition of aggression and property rights to add to the Platform, since there the current LP Platform (https://www.lp.org/platform/) contained no clear definition of aggression or property rights or the relation between these two fundamental concepts. It is critical to include a clear, general statement to this effect to distinguish what makes the Libertarian perspective unique and to clarify our political principles.

So one of the amendments that we succeeded in passing was a revision of Art. 2.1 of the Platform. Two new paragraphs were added, as follows, with the additional text [in brackets and underlined]:

“2.1 [Aggression,] Property and Contract

[Aggression is the use, trespass against, or invasion of the borders of another person’s owned resource (property) without the owner’s consent; or the threat thereof. We oppose all acts of aggression as illegitimate and unjust, whether committed by private actors or the state.]

[Each person is the presumptive owner of his or her own body (self-ownership), which right may be forfeited only as a consequence of committing an act of aggression. Property rights in external, scarce resources are determined in accordance with the principles of original appropriation or homesteading (whereby a person becomes an owner of an unowned resource by first use and transformation), contract (whereby the owner consensually transfers ownership to another person), and rectification (whereby an owner’s property rights in certain resources are transferred to a victim of the owner’s tort, trespass, or aggression to compensate the victim).] ³

As respect for property rights is fundamental to maintaining a free and prosperous society, it follows that the freedom to contract to obtain, retain, profit from, manage, or dispose of one’s property must also be upheld. Libertarians would free property owners from government restrictions on their rights to control and enjoy their property, as long as their choices do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. Eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, governmental limits on profits, governmental production mandates, and governmental controls on prices of goods and services (including wages, rents, and interest) are abridgements of such fundamental rights. For voluntary dealings among private entities, parties should be free to choose with whom they trade and set whatever trade terms are mutually agreeable.”

This is a clear and principled libertarian statement of aggression and property rights, and I’m glad we got it in the Platform! ⁴ In my view, by implication this formulation of property rights acquisition rules implies intellectual property is unjust, implies anarchy (since the state always commits aggression), ⁵ and also makes it clear that voluntary slavery contracts are unenforceable since body rights are inalienable. ⁶

Incidentally, although the convention went with the version indicated above, there were other possible iterations considered, such as this shorter, more streamlined version (text to be added is underlined):

[Aggression is the initiation of force, or the threat thereof, against, or the unconsented-to use of, another person’s body or other owned resource (property) without his or her consent, including fraudulent takings of property. We oppose all acts of aggression as illegitimate and unjust, whether committed by private actors or the state, and all laws that commit aggression.

Property rights in external, scarce resources are determined in accordance with the principles of homesteading of unowned resources, contractual title transfer of owned resources, and restitution to compensate a victim of aggression.

As respect for property rights is fundamental to maintaining a free and prosperous society, it follows that the freedom to contract to obtain, retain, profit from, manage, or dispose of one’s property must also be upheld. Libertarians would free property owners from government restrictions on their rights to control and enjoy their property, as long as their choices do not harm or infringe on the rights of others. Laws or policies such as, but not limited to, eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, governmental limits on profits, governmental production mandates, mandatory lockdowns of private businesses, government-granted monopoly privileges, and governmental controls on prices of goods and services (including wages, rents, and interest) are abridgements of such fundamental rights. For voluntary dealings among private entities, parties should be free to choose with whom they trade and set whatever trade terms are mutually agreeable.]

See also: Amend the LP Platform to Abolish IP!

My short speech when running for the JC:

The results announced:

1. See Prospera.co; Próspera ZEDE; Wikipedia, Próspera; Alex Voss on Prospera. I visited Prospera with about 80 other libertarians on the Tom Woods Cruise in Feb. 2025. See My Failed Libertarian Speaking Hiatus; Memories of Mises Institute and Other Events, 1988–20192025. [↩]
2. Discussed here and there on my site [↩]
3. The term “solatium,” “compensation for emotional rather than physical or financial harm,” is sometimes used as a synonym for or in connection with restitution or rectification, and in connection with eminent domain takings. Scotland: Damages Act, §4(3)(B): “The sums of damages are–– (a) such sum as will compensate for any loss of support which as a result of the act or omission is sustained, or is likely to be sustained, by the relative after the date of A’s death together with any reasonable expenses incurred by the relative in connection with A’s funeral, and (b)such sum, if any, as the court thinks just by way of compensation for all or any of the following–– (i) distress and anxiety endured by the relative in contemplation of the suffering of A before A’s death, (ii)grief and sorrow of the relative caused by A’s death, (iii)the loss of such non-patrimonial benefit as the relative might have been expected to derive from A’s society and guidance if A had not died.” Explanatory notes: “These damages are in addition to the damages that a victim is entitled to claim under the general principles of the common law of delict or under statute for solatium, that is damages for the pain and suffering that the victim endures as a result of the injuries, and for patrimonial loss that such a victim has suffered or is likely to suffer in the period up to the expected date of death.” South Africa: “a solatium is “[a]n award for non-financial deprivation, irrespective of what form it takes”. Outside the context of restitution, an award of a solatium is similarly defined as an award for sentimental damages that is “intended to neutralise the wounded feelings of the plaintiff of having to suffer a wrongful act.” Florence v Government of the Republic of South Africa [2014] ZACC 22, n.8; see also Shah and Others v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (LCC93/2014) [2024] ZALCC 41 (6 December 2024), p.9: “Solatium is compensation awarded for injury to the feelings.” Re eminent domain takings: India: SC Upholds Retrospective Application of 2019 Ruling on Solatium; Umamaheswari and Latha, “Doctrine of Eminent Domain in India,” International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics 120, no. 5 (2018): 1771–1780. [↩]
4. For elaboration of the basis for the property acquisition rules specified in the second sentence of the second paragraph, see Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward, n. [42] and accompanying text, including references such as: Kinsella, “How To Think About Property,” StephanKinsella.com (April 25, 2021); Kinsella, “The Limits of Libertarianism?: A Dissenting View” (citing Roderick Long and Robert Nozick [also quoted in On the Core Principles of Libertarian Property Rights]); also idem, “KOL345 | Kinsella’s Libertarian “Constitution” or: State Constitutions vs. the Libertarian Private Law Code (PorcFest 2021),” Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (June 26, 2021); and “Nobody Owns Bitcoin,” StephanKinsella.com (April 21, 2021). See also Gary Chartier, Anarchy and Legal Order: Law and Politics for a Stateless Society (Cambridge, 2012), at 64–65, et seq., elaborating on the “baseline possessory rules” corresponding to original appropriation and contractual title transfer. Regarding transfers made for purposes of rectification, see Chartier, Anarchy and Legal Order, ch. 5, “Rectifying Injury,” esp. §II.C.2, and Kinsella, “A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights,” Loy. L.A. L. Rev. vol. 30 (1997): 607-45, at §IV.B. Update: see also Rothbard, “Justice and Property Rights,” in , pp. and 359: “in this space I can only outline what I consider to be the correct theory of justice in property rights. This theory has two fundamental premises: (a) the absolute property right of each individual in his own person, his own body: this may be called the right of self-ownership; and (b) the absolute right in material property of the person who first finds an unused material resource and then in some way occupies or transforms that resource by the use of his personal energy. This might be called the homestead principle—the case in which someone, in the phrase of John Locke, has “mixed his labor” with an unused resource. … From our two basic axioms: the right of every man to self-ownership; and the right of every man to own previously unused natural resources that he first appropriates or transforms by his labor—the entire system of justification for property rights can be deduced.” [↩]
5. See What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist. [↩]
6. KOL004 | Interview with Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery and Inalienability; Thoughts on Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery, Alienability vs. Inalienability, Property and Contract, Rothbard and Evers; Batting about voluntary slavery; Slavery, Inalienability, Economics, and Ethics; A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability; Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith. [↩]