Liberal Principles and Sending Leaflets to North Korea

The most fundamental principle of libertarianism is the logically consistent defense of individual self-ownership and private property rights. The logical application of this first principle naturally leads to the free market and pacifism. Here, the free market means an economic system in which voluntary cooperation among individuals is free from external interference, while pacifism means an attitude of refraining from interfering with such voluntary cooperation.

As the government moved in 2020 to push legislation banning the sending of anti-North Korea leaflets, conservative groups have reacted strongly. Their argument is that banning such leaflets suppresses freedom of expression. This claim has gained even greater force as the United Nations and the United States have also recognized the ban on anti-North Korea leaflets as an infringement on freedom of expression.

The libertarian theorist who explained citizens’ rights, including freedom of expression, in the most logically consistent way was Murray N. Rothbard. Rothbard discussed freedom of expression seriously in works such as *For a New Liberty* and *The Ethics of Liberty*. According to Rothbard, freedom of expression is an application of private property rights:

“A person’s right to freedom of speech is nothing more than the right to rent freely, or to own outright, a meeting hall, that is, a private property right. A person’s right to freedom of the press is likewise no different from the right to buy paper and ink freely, print newspapers or books, and sell them to whoever wishes to buy them. As explained above, ‘freedom of speech’ or freedom of the press requires nothing more special than the guarantee of private property rights. Moreover, disputes arising in connection with all human rights can be resolved by identifying and understanding which private property rights are involved.”

In other words, there is no such thing as unlimited freedom of expression. All freedom of expression must be exercised within the bounds of using one’s own property. We are not required to provide someone with the means of expression simply to guarantee that person’s freedom of expression. At least from a libertarian perspective, that is the case. Freedom of expression in this sense is absolute.

However, according to Rothbard, falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater is clearly an instance of absolute freedom of expression, yet it is still a crime. That is because spreading a falsehood interferes with the audience members who paid to watch the performance and infringes on the theater owner’s ability to earn revenue. Therefore, while it falls under freedom of expression, it is a crime that should be prohibited because it violates private property.

The sending of anti-North Korea leaflets is clearly an act carried out by conservative groups or North Korean defectors using their own funds or donations, so it qualifies as freedom of expression. Then is the sending of anti-North Korea leaflets by conservative groups or North Korean defectors justified? Two issues must be considered here. One is the private property of North Korean residents, and the other is the private property of South Korean residents living near the Military Demarcation Line.

Because the North Korean authorities very harshly suppress the exercise of private property rights by North Korean residents, those residents cannot explicitly express their wishes regarding anti-North Korea leaflets. Let us assume for the moment that such leaflets do not have any particularly negative effect on North Korean residents and that they are in fact urgently needed.

When anti-North Korea leaflets are considered in relation to the private property of South Korean residents, a slight problem may arise. Once the leaflets are sent, South Korean residents are faced with thousands of pieces of trash that fail to make it to North Korea and instead fall on South Korean territory. Unless local residents consent, and insofar as these leaflets fall on the houses and streets where they live, this may be regarded as an infringement of property rights. In fact, many local residents in northern Gyeonggi Province have raised this issue and clashed with conservative groups.

Does libertarian principle, then, call for a ban on sending anti-North Korea leaflets? Is the Moon Jae-in government’s push to ban such leaflet campaigns libertarianly justified? It cannot simply be said that it is. Above all, granting the government greater authority to resolve social conflicts is not libertarian at all.

If we assume that North Korean residents welcome anti-North Korea leaflets, then the fundamental way to resolve the possibility of infringing the property rights of South Korean residents in connection with leaflet campaigns is to expand private property rights.

If anti-North Korea leaflets that fail to cross into North Korea are dumped into the sea or rivers and become environmentally polluting waste, disputes arising in connection with property rights are not easy to resolve under the current situation in which the government effectively monopolizes ownership of the sea and rivers. Likewise, if conservative groups and North Korean defectors launch anti-North Korea leaflets from hillsides or vacant lots that are not privately owned, it is difficult to determine whether local residents can actively prevent them from doing so, since ownership is unclear.

If private ownership rights over the sea, rivers, mountains, vacant lots, and the skies were expanded, property-rights disputes surrounding the sending of anti-North Korea leaflets would be fundamentally resolved. The owners of the sea or rivers could strongly demand that conservative groups and North Korean defectors not dump trash into the waters they own. If the owners of hillsides, vacant lots, or roads dislike conservative groups and North Korean defectors sending anti-North Korea leaflets, they could prohibit them from entering.

For conservative groups and North Korean defectors, if they wish to send anti-North Korea leaflets, they could purchase ownership rights to the sea, rivers, skies, mountains, vacant lots, and so on near the Military Demarcation Line, and carry out their activities while eliminating concerns about illegal dumping and infringement of property rights.

A more realistic and easier provisional alternative would be to strengthen local autonomy so that local governments receive from the central government the authority to resolve property-rights disputes related to areas under their jurisdiction. Certainly, just like the conservative groups or North Korean defectors who want to send anti-North Korea leaflets, members of the National Assembly and bureaucrats in the executive branch are not members of the local community either. The most appropriate way to resolve local problems is for local residents to do so voluntarily.

The reason we oppose the North Korean regime is that it tramples on private property. If we want to make North Korea free, then beginning by respecting property rights would be the truly libertarian attitude.

---

Original title: 자유주의 원칙과 대북전단 살포

Author: Kyeong-hun Kim

Date: 2021-02-19

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=free_opinion&pn=12&idx=23512