[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

A second problem is that simple statements of libertarian principle taken literally can be used to prove conclusions that nobody, libertarian or otherwise, is willing to accept. If the principle is softened enough to avoid such conclusions, its implications become far less clear. It is only by being careful to restrict the application of our principles to easy cases that we can make them seem at the same time simple and true.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
One solution to this problem is to reject the idea that natural rights are absolute; potential victims have the right to commit a minor rights violation, compensating the owner of the gun afterwards to the best of their ability , in order to prevent a major one.

[/ QUOTE ]

vulturesrow,

The author is not at all softening his stance on property rights in this article, as he seems to think he is. The above quotation is evidence of that. The fact that he admits that a person would have to compensate the misanthrope for the use of his rifle is evidence of the fact that the author believes in personal property rights. The issue he misses is that Rothbard never said that natural rights should never, ever no matter the circumstances, be violated, but that when they are violated the victim is due compensation proportional to the violation. The recognition of this distinction invalidates all of the authors absurd examples. Sure, I violated my neighbor's property rights by shining a flashlight on his door, and I owe him compensation for the damage caused. If I have caused damage I owe him, if not I don't, from a practical standpoint this is where arbitration steps in.