A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is. In Friedman's article he asks what if the gun had a million chambers and then switches to the plane example. This is why it is a bad example, he should have stuck with the gun. If he had, it would be quite clear that it is still not right to shoot the gun at someone.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why it was a great example. In terms of the % chance of your dying, the gun with a million chambers and the plane flying overhead are no different. Why is one bad and the other not bad when they both represent another individual's actions posing the exact same threat?

Perhaps the difference is that there's no other point to aiming a gun at someone, but that brings back the question of where to draw the line. How much utility must an individual derrive before it justifies violating someone else's rights? Who gets to decide how much utility is actually gained? Where's the line between the pointlessness of the gun and the utility of flying the plane?

[/ QUOTE ]

The line is active vs passive. Me buying a burger drives up the price of burgers for you (though by an inperceptable amount) but that is a passive "loss" to you. Activly stealing from someone is different, just like pointing a gun a someone and pulling the trigger is different from flying a plane near them.