If I illegally appropriate someone else’s property, it is aggressive violence and a violation of the NAP. But if I buy someone else’s property that was illegally appropriated by another person, will that be considered a violation of the NAP? And what if I place an order for certain goods with a person who deals in such things?

Emmanuel Goldstein

This question echoes the question of whether ordering a hit violates the NAP. And similarly, the answer to it is a definitive “no.” It is completely irrelevant whether someone created a positive material motivation for the thief, robber, or killer — the decision to commit aggressive violence was made by the perpetrator themselves. However, if someone threatened the executor with certain sanctions in case the theft/robbery/murder was not carried out, then, of course, both the client and the executor bear responsibility: one for the threat of action, and the second for the actions they took to avoid the threat.

Does this mean that a fence acquires legal rights to what they buy? No, they do not. That is precisely why they buy things at a massive discount: they obtain the item only in factual possession and factor into the price the risk that the previous owner will be found, to whom the item must be returned without any compensation.

So, if a service station owner buys a stolen car and dismantles it for parts to make it harder to find, will nothing happen to him? Something will. He will still be obligated to return the car to the owner, but due to the technical impossibility of doing so, he will have to negotiate compensation, which will clearly include a significant premium over the market price of the car.

Finally, I want to note that property claims are not always linked to a violation of the non-aggression principle. If you become a victim of fraud, the NAP has not been violated, but you still have a claim, and a court, given the evidence, has every reason to side with you. In effect, a fence, in relation to the legal owner, is precisely a fraudster: they deceive you by claiming they were unaware of the item’s status, and that they just desperately needed parts, so why not buy a practically new car for scrap.

So, while there is no violation of the NAP in this activity, it does not mean impunity.