When two strangers meet, and one desires something which the other has, the two have two options before them, whether they be individuals, ethnic groups, corporations, or nations.
The first option is force: violence or the threat of violence. This option is chosen unilaterally by one party, believing themselves stronger, to take what they desire.
The second option is trade. This option is chosen mutually by both parties, deeming themselves equal, to negotiate and agree a trade which is acceptable to both.
Is there a moral dimension to these two options? Are one or both of these options intrinsically virtuous or intrinsically wicked?
The Ethics of Trade
Most systems of ethics will be content with a freely chosen trade, honestly executed, without mis-representation or fraud.
A few systems of ethics might assert that some of the assets being traded cannot be owned, or else are owned by all, or owned by the state. A personal trade in such un-owned assets could not therefore be said to be honestly executed within the framework of that ethics.
It can be seen that trade is dependent on ownership of property; that the parties to the trade have the right to dispose of the assets being traded, regardless of whether the asset is a tangible thing such as a chicken or some land, or else the deployment of labour or skills. These rights are dependent on the prevailing system of law; does the law support the right to own this property and make this trade, and will the law defend and uphold the freely-chosen agreement, the contract between the parties? Will the law make restitution after mis-representation, fraud, or failure to deliver? Does my law recognise yours, and does your law recognise mine?
I am defining property here as the set of legal rights to use or sell or rent an asset; specifically property ownership rests with the person or group who can legally determine the use or disposal of the asset. Under this formulation, it can be seen that attempts within communist frameworks to remove the concept of private property instead just re-assign ownership rights over the property to whichever committee or soviet or bureaucrat is now the decision maker for the relevant asset. Notably, any no-private-property state must recognise property rights in order to engage in international trade.
In summary then, trade depends upon property, and property depends upon a shared system of law.
It can be seen that trade is dependent on peace, the absence of violence. A freely chosen trade is only possible in the absence of coercion or the threat of violence. Peace allows and enables trade.
But also trade allows and enables peace. By trading, I can get what I want from you, without having to threaten you, or steal it. A mutually profitable trade makes us both better off. 2+2 can equal 5. Better still, I can come back again next week. You will be happy to see me, and maybe we can trade again. Trade is the harbinger of peace.
The Ethics of Force
Systems of ethics are divided on the use of force. Perhaps force is forbidden within the community but legitimised for use against those outside the community. Perhaps force can also be legitimised for use within the society for sanctioning those who have broken the laws of the community. Or perhaps all force, all violence, is forbidden, as with the Jains.
Where there is no ethics, no morality, only force remains.
Adherence to complete renunciation of force and violence is problematic if there is anyone else who does not share that renunciation. Even some Jains accept the use of force, to defend the Jain community. Forbidding everyone to use violence is not a solution, as there remains no method to sanction an unrepentant aggressor. It works for a small sect such as the Jains who are content to enhance their karma for the next life via non-violence, but cannot work for a larger more ethically diverse society.
If we recognise the self-sovereignty of other people, then we should decry violence and force, and only tolerate such things in extremis, as a defence against the violence of others. Violence in self-defence. Force in the pre-emptive imprisonment of the recurringly violent. Perhaps execution of the recurringly murderous. A defence-only military like Japan. In each case, the justification for the force and violence is to respond to or prevent an even worse violence.
Many systems of ethics support a graduated and proportionate use of force. Theft to be met with repayment and disgorgement. Persistent criminality to be met with imprisonment. Armed robbery to be met with police shooting. Multiple murder to be met with execution. Invasion to be met with bombing. And the first resort to force is always wrong.
At the other end of the spectrum, where there is no ethics, no morality, all force is legitimate. Nothing constrains the lion from eating the antelope, or the bear from eating the salmon. The locusts eat everything. The predator would be wise not to eat all the prey, lest they go hungry next year, but that is a pragmatic choice and not an ethical one.
In practice, governments of numerous flavors act based on the Ethics of Force, flouting the law, regardless of their pretensions to ethical behaviour. The Chinese appropriate all of the South China Sea, regardless of international treaties and the prior claims of their neighbours. Having looted Iraq, the US military seizes oilfields in Syria via its puppet rebels the SDF.
Notably, state powers often legitimise their use of force externally, in ways which their internal laws would prohibit: a state which criminalises murder, also simultaneously legalises overseas killings by its soldiers or drones, even where those soldiers were the aggressors, rather than merely the defenders.
The Ethics of the Frontier
Some might assert there is a third option in between legal trade and extra-legal force; a trade at the frontier. The USA and USSR might swap captured spies at a border post, or the settlers pushing west might trade with the indigenous population. In each case, the parties do not recognise the laws of the other. At the time of the trade, they meet as equals in force, not equals in law. But in this moment, they prefer to make a mutually beneficial trade rather than risk the losses incurred from a fight. Mutual respect of force is what stays their hand. Each party recognises only the power previously deployed by the other party to acquire the assets to be traded, and there is no one to whom either party can appeal against mis-representation or fraud.
If the trade is deemed satisfactory, there may even be subsequent trade on similar terms, on another occasion. Yet, in the back of their minds, each party may already be considering whether to bring a larger force next time, or else how they might overrun the lands or property claimed by the other.
RJ7: Nov 2023
Part 2 looks at the history of property, and justice
Pingback: On Property : 2 : Justice – Net Donor