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.