Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

e it he r on his own proper ty or on the proper ty of someone
who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract,
t 0 a 1 low him 0 nth e prem i s e s • n C1ear I y, any leg i s I a ­
tion intended either to extend or restrict this scope
of free speech would be a violation of property rights.
S i mil a r 1y, wit h t he n righ t of as semb I y tt : " I f a I I ownership
were private, it would be quite clear that the
cit izens did not have any nebulous 'right of assembly.'
The i r rig h t wo u 1d bethe proper t y righ t 0 f us i ng the i r
money inan effort to buy or rent space on which to
make their demonstration, and they could do so only if
the owner of the street agreed to the deal."(30)
Rothbard then proceeds to apply his universal private
ownership approach to Just ice Holmes' argument that
rights cannot be absolute since they must be balanced
against the "common good"; that one does not have, for
instance, a right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
The trouble with Holmes' position, he says, is that
there is neither a right to free speech nor a "public
good." I t is therefore imposs i ble to 1 imi t one for the
sake of the other. Instead, the individualist anarchist
reasons as follows. The person yelling "fire"
must be either (a) the owner, (b) a guest of the owner,
or (c) a paying customer. If it is the owner then he
has commit ted f r a ud up 0 n his c us t om e r s by t a king the i r
money in exchange for the promise of showing a motion
picture, but instead disrupts the performance by his
action. "He has thus willfully defaulted on his contractual
obligations and has therefore violated the
pro per t y rig h t S 0 f his pa t ron s • " Ifit we r e e i the r a
patron or a guest who yelled, then that person has viol
ate d the 0 b I ig a t ion t 0 res pee t t he owner' s proper t y
rights as well as those of the customers who have paid
to see the performance, and must therefore make restit
uti 0 n tot h e vic tim s • " The per son wh 0 rna 1 i c i 0 usly
cries 'fire' in a crowded theater, therefore, is a
criminal, not because his so-called 'right of free
s pee c h ,. mu s t b e p r a gma ticall y res t ricted 0 n beha I f 0 f
the s 0 - c a lIe d 'pubI i c good' but be c a use he has c 1e 8 r 1y
and obviously violated the property rights of another
human being. There is no need, therefore, to place
limits upon these rights."(31)
We are now in a position to understand the individualist
anarchist's belief that "the State has always
beenth e g rea ten em y and in va de r 0 f the righ t s 0 f p r i ­
vate property."(32) In contradistinction to the collectivist
anarchists, the individualist anarchists argue
that by its very nature it is impossible for the
state to exist without violating property rights, and
63