Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well mabey you could provide a positive theory of property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academ.../Property.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the link, the schelling points seem particularly relevant to the type of nit picky criticisms that plagued the OP. But I dont get why friedman brought them up in the OP when he clearly refutes them in this link. Is there something I'm missing.

[/ QUOTE ]

he doesnt think the problems cant be solved. He just doesnt think they can be solved by entirely moral, non-aggression-style means.

Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But "statists" entire belief system, at least in the political sense, isnt based on an a concept of absolute, inviolable property rights. Anarchists/libertarians do believe in that. Get it now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anarcho-capitalists do, most anarchists don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets say a state of anarchy is created. Now an anarcho-capitlist stands his ground and proclaims that the land he stands on his to preach from.

An anarcho-socialist comes along and wants to make use of his share of the property that the anarcho-capitalist claimed to be of his right of use. The anarcho-capitalist refuses and, trying to play devil's advocate, says if this society is socialist then before you protest my action you need permission to preach from the land you stand on. The anarcho-socialist redirects this argument to him. This continues back and forth ad-infinitum. In the least both anarchists must concede that all have the right to use their body and the land they stand on. This is inherently anarcho-capitalist and private property based. How far the private property extends is debateable, this much is not, however.

The question is what basis of action does the anarcho-socialist have against the anarcho-capitalist in terms of protesting the anarcho-capitlist's attempt for private property use? How can he accomplis his goal without either creating a state or admitting he's at least a hypocrite anarcho-capitalist?

In anarchy, there can be quasi socialists but they must respect private property to prevent descending into a state. A kibbutz can live side by side capitalist institutions but they can't make all the land under kibbutz rule without become a state.

Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
The question is what basis of action does the anarcho-socialist have against the anarcho-capitalist in terms of protesting the anarcho-capitlist's attempt for private property use?

[/ QUOTE ]
He can simply walk onto the land that the capitalist claims as his own. The capitalist is then forced to either accept his claim or violently assert his own dubious moral beliefs to the exclusion of everything else.

Some of the core private property arguments start to break down once you've got enough room to live and store a few things.

Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
He can simply walk onto the land that the capitalist claims as his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

They both have this claim so is anarchy supposed to be defined as people endlessly trampling on each other?

How can that represent a non-coercive society by any measure?

[ QUOTE ]
The capitalist is then forced to either accept his claim or violently assert his own dubious moral beliefs to the exclusion of everything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let say the capitalist abandons his belief. Now what does the society disolve into?

Does socialism not imply ownership of your body either? Do i have a right to use your body without permission too?

Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The question is what basis of action does the anarcho-socialist have against the anarcho-capitalist in terms of protesting the anarcho-capitlist's attempt for private property use?

[/ QUOTE ]
He can simply walk onto the land that the capitalist claims as his own. The capitalist is then forced to either accept his claim or violently assert his own dubious moral beliefs to the exclusion of everything else.

Some of the core private property arguments start to break down once you've got enough room to live and store a few things.

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't caught the ACist in any sort of tautology or broken reasoning here. He can still claim to be coerced - you just add the pejorative "dubious". Which is important - practically. Not abstractly.

Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you're advocating is pure ANARCHY.

These guys are advocating anarcho-CAPITALISM.

A world of difference-

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not different at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

ANARCHIST : "Property is theft".

Anarcho-CAPITALIST : "Property is sacrosanct".

Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you're advocating is pure ANARCHY.

These guys are advocating anarcho-CAPITALISM.

A world of difference-

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not different at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

ANARCHIST : "Property is theft".

Anarcho-CAPITALIST : "Property is sacrosanct".

[/ QUOTE ]

False. Anarchist just means !government. It doesn't imply anything about property. If you want to make a statement about what property should be, you need to add some form of adjective to the label "anarchist".

Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
He can simply walk onto the land that the capitalist claims as his own. The capitalist is then forced to either accept his claim or violently assert his own dubious moral beliefs to the exclusion of everything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you explain this further and how it differs from me claiming a right to your body?

Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
 

[ QUOTE ]

Could you explain this further and how it differs from me claiming a right to your body?

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW I'm actually very sympathetic to AC, but I think playing the devil's advocate is never a bad thing, so I'll bite:

Self ownership (i.e. the right of people to own their body) in no way entails the possibility of world ownership (i.e. the right of people to own parts of the external world). It is completely consistent for someone to believe in one and not the other, and so to equate them is just wrong.

Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Could you explain this further and how it differs from me claiming a right to your body?

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW I'm actually very sympathetic to AC, but I think playing the devil's advocate is never a bad thing, so I'll bite:

Self ownership (i.e. the right of people to own their body) in no way entails the possibility of world ownership (i.e. the right of people to own parts of the external world). It is completely consistent for someone to believe in one and not the other, and so to equate them is just wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

But to sustain your body you have to eat. In eating food you are denying it to everyone else on the planet and are taking ownership of it.