One of the key ideas of statism is that law and the order derived from it are phenomena external to society. People, left to themselves—or, in the terminology of social scientists, in a “state of nature”—are incapable of any organization; they immediately begin to rob and kill each other. Only the saving intervention from above, in the form of a wise state and its legislation, can stop this destructive process. Moreover, it is even believed that the state promotes all kinds of prosperity, “ensuring and guaranteeing” property rights, for example. We all know how important the inviolability of property is for economic development. And it is already quite obvious that since the state “ensures property rights” and, in general, law as such, it must hold the monopoly on coercion for this role.
In this column, I want to draw attention to obvious and well-known facts that clearly contradict this theory—facts that confirm the thesis that law, and property rights in particular, is a product of society, and that its existence and maintenance do not require the state or a monopoly on coercion. We will not now speak about how and why law arises in society, but simply consider two simple examples.
The first example is the “topiccaster’s right” that exists on the internet. It holds that a person who has posted something may further regulate the course of the discussion, up to and including the right to delete comments by other participants, or even remove their own post. This right is not “recorded” anywhere and is not “enforced” by anyone. It exists in practice and is upheld—that is, recognized by internet users. In fact, this is the same property right: the topiccaster creates something and disposes of it at their discretion; other members of the community may also use it, but the rules are set by whoever created it. This right, I repeat, exists objectively, regardless of the opinions of discussion participants who may personally be against all private property and “the exploitation of man by man.”
It is interesting that whenever the nominal owner of the platform—a specific site or forum—attempts to establish their own rules on this matter (for example, prohibiting topiccasters from deleting comments under their posts), conflicts inevitably arise. If such a platform is not a cesspool and a recruitment ground for paid trolls, it usually degrades as a result of such regulation. The public is not eager to use a resource that violates their property rights.
The second example from this same vein is the ban right, which is especially widely used on social networks. Not only can you delete a comment you don’t like, but you can also ban its author, and from that moment on, they and their contributions will no longer bother you in your feed. The ban right clearly demonstrates one obvious thing: there is a persistent demand for tools protecting property rights, and it exists outside of any state and without any of its assistance. To understand this, imagine a Facebook where you cannot ban a scoundrel. Can you imagine it? Neither can I. Such a Facebook, if it existed, would be a completely marginal network; no one would associate the surname Zuckerberg with new technologies and financial success. It was not the state and its wonderful laws that led the real Zuckerberg to provide for the ban right, nor was it his own invention or goodwill. This is an obvious demand from consumers who want a tool for protecting their property. And this means that property rights exist objectively, regardless of the goodwill of the state or Zuckerberg.
By the way, note that there is another type of ban on Facebook—the “government ban”—when the administration deprives some user of access to the delights of Facebook for reasons known to it alone (often related to the fantasies of the real state on the topics of racism, pornography, or hate speech). Unlike a regular ban, which at worst is limited to a scandal between two people and in no way affects all other participants in the network, here very often passions run hot, signatures are collected, petitions are written—in general, everything as in “real” political life. Meanwhile, it is quite obvious that an ordinary personal ban is more than sufficient to shield oneself from the activities of a person you don’t like. “Government bans” on Facebook harm not only the banned user but also everyone who has no complaints against them and would like to continue reading the cute nonsense that they post there. However, Zuckerberg is within his rights here; Facebook is his property and he sets his own rules on it, bearing all profits and costs. If his understanding of where the boundaries of his property end and the boundaries of users’ property begin is, let’s say, inadequate, he will simply go bankrupt. With the state, unfortunately, this will not happen—but that is a topic for another column.