View Single Post
  #60  
Old 11-24-2007, 06:32 PM
mrick mrick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 159
Default Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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".

[/ QUOTE ]I have in mind the classics. Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon were calling themselves anarchists, pure and simple. And it was the latter who famously proclaimed that property is theft.

BTW, is it true that the following lines were written, in 1969, by Murray Rothbard ?


[ QUOTE ]
But how then do we go about destatizing the entire mass of government property, as well as the "private property" of General Dynamics? ... One method would be to turn over ownership to the homesteading workers in the particular plants; another to turn over pro-rata ownership to the individual taxpayers. But we must face the fact that it might prove the most practical route to first nationalize the property as a prelude to redistribution. Thus, how could the ownership of General Dynamics be transferred to the deserving taxpayers without first being nationalized enroute?

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
One of the tragic aspects of the emancipation of the serfs in Russia in 1861 was that while the serfs gained their personal freedom, the land--their means of production and of life, their land was retained under the ownership of their feudal masters. The land should have gone to the serfs themselves, for under the homestead principle they had tilled the land and deserved its title. Furthermore, the serfs were entitled to a host of reparations from their masters for the centuries of oppression and exploitation.

[/ QUOTE ]
Reply With Quote