News Flash: rules imply exceptions

[moorobot]

I think one of the main problems with what generally would be considered extremist libertarianism is that it fails to recognize this. It should never be assumed that a principle applies to all cases and in all circumstances or that there are no exceptions to a rule/principle. Sometimes failure to avoid making this assumption is called the "fallacy of accident".

The following example is straight from T. Edward Damer's "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" (Wadsworth, 4th edition, 2001, pg. 120-121):

"Suppose Ms. Hoel plans to operate a used car business on her property in a residential area of town, and she argues that zoning restriction do not apply because it is her property and she can anything she wants with it (Does this sound like any claims that are made on this board?-Moorobot)."

The mistake here is to assume that it follows from a general principle that most would except, namely, that people should be able to own property and use it in certain ways they choose, that "no restrictions should or could be imposed on the use of one's property" (ibid.). The unspoken assumption that the principle has no exceptions and is absolute is completely unwarranted.

Hence, we could have, without inconsistency, a general commitment to property rights, and still have redistribution, regulation, and zoning laws. These things are exceptions to the principle of property rights, not violations of it.

[WordWhiz]

[ QUOTE ]

Hence, we could have, without inconsistency, a general commitment to property rights, and still have redistribution, regulation, and zoning laws. These things are exceptions to the principle of property rights, not violations of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider zoning laws (if legitimate) to be part and parcel of property rights, not exceptions thereto. Enjoyment of one's property rights necessarily infringes upon those of another. As an extreme example, CO2 is a pollutant, produced through respiration. Likewise, anything that is visible from my property on yours indicates that I have "trespassed" upon your land by emitting a photon. Friedman mentions these and other examples in Machinery of Freedom, which is why he (and I) reject simplistic libertarian principles like "non aggression."

The proper use of one's own property (as would be expressed in free-market zoning regulation) takes into account its affect on one's neighbors. If all property rights are clearly outlined in advance, zoning is largely unnecessary--the woman's neighbors, in this example, would all have restrictive covenants in effect. Absent such prior contracts, custom, usage, and transaction cost analysis serve to resolve what one may and may not do on one's property.

I would disagree that redistribution follows along the same lines.

[moorobot]

I don't understand how this in anyway contradicts what is said in the passage; we can simply assume that zoning laws, or the specific zoning laws in question, are an exception to property rights for the sake of discussion.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Hence, we could have, without inconsistency, a general commitment to property rights, and still have redistribution, regulation, and zoning laws. These things are exceptions to the principle of property rights, not violations of it.

[/ QUOTE ]


stop trying to justify and cover up violence; when someone points a machine gun at you it doesn't matter how you call it, what costume they are wearing or what the majority or anyone's opinion is

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I think one of the main problems with what generally would be considered extremist libertarianism is that it fails to recognize this. It should never be assumed that a principle applies to all cases and in all circumstances or that there are no exceptions to a rule/principle. Sometimes failure to avoid making this assumption is called the "fallacy of accident".

The following example is straight from T. Edward Damer's "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" (Wadsworth, 4th edition, 2001, pg. 120-121):

"Suppose Ms. Hoel plans to operate a used car business on her property in a residential area of town, and she argues that zoning restriction do not apply because it is her property and she can anything she wants with it (Does this sound like any claims that are made on this board?-Moorobot)."

The mistake here is to assume that it follows from a general principle that most would except, namely, that people should be able to own property and use it in certain ways they choose, that "no restrictions should or could be imposed on the use of one's property" (ibid.). The unspoken assumption that the principle has no exceptions and is absolute is completely unwarranted.

Hence, we could have, without inconsistency, a general commitment to property rights, and still have redistribution, regulation, and zoning laws. These things are exceptions to the principle of property rights, not violations of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Half shell-game, half bait-and-switch, with a side order of circular logic. Nice. A new take on the old classics.

[moorobot]

News flash 2 Nielso: You are strongly in support of the use of the threat of force to protect what you believe in, namely property rights. Until you change your view on this, you will not have a consistent position.

[moorobot]

pvn, 5810 posts, zero content.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
pvn, 5810 posts, zero content.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed!

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
News flash 2 Nielso: You are strongly in support of the use of the threat of force to protect what you believe in, namely property rights. Until you change your view on this, you will not have a consistent position.

[/ QUOTE ]


Do you really think I'm going to take your claims about logic seriously after OP like this?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
pvn, 5810 posts, zero content.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am as strongly against AC as anyone here, and this:

1. Is absolutely false.
2. Adds nothing to the discussion.