|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What you're advocating is pure ANARCHY. These guys are advocating anarcho-CAPITALISM. A world of difference- [/ QUOTE ] No, it's not different at all. [/ QUOTE ] ANARCHIST : "Property is theft". Anarcho-CAPITALIST : "Property is sacrosanct". [/ QUOTE ] Anarchists cannot say any property ownership is theft without being a hypocrite. They privately use their body and the land they stand on to make such pronouncements. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
The following is a chapter from David Friedman's (Milton's son) first anarcho-capitalistic book, "The Machinery of Freedom". So far as i can tell, this critique seems very directed at the Rothbard school of thought rather than anything strictly Austrian. Mises, from what i understand, was a consequentialist in similar ways as Friedman. Do any of the supporters of Rothbard's ideas on natural rights and libertarinism want to provide a rebuttal or point towards one provided by someone else? I personally agree with his overall conclusion but think some of the problems he presents have more of an objective answer than is given credit for. Here's the argument: http://daviddfriedman.com/Libertaria...hapter_41.html [ QUOTE ] Article deleted for copyright reasons. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Zygote, An interesting read, and I've been meaning to read this book for a while. Friedman's points echo some of my own thoughts. I need to read it more carefully before I respond further, but I would say some of the AC folks and libertarians on this board would do well to take Friedman's admonition to heart. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
It's great to see a prominent libertarian state what normal people instinctively recognize and debunk what certain ACers on this board (pvn, Nielsio) unreasonably claim as absolutes when they're losing a debate.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
i read the first third and so far, as i understand it, people can't be free b/c someone might point a laser with the intensity of a flashlight at your house.
pretty compelling stuff. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
i read the first third and so far, as i understand it, people can't be free b/c someone might point a laser with the intensity of a flashlight at your house. pretty compelling stuff. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, also it shouldn't be hard to see why pointing a partially loaded gun at someone is coercive while flying a plane over someone's property isn't. The draft example was also pretty poor. If people do not want to spend the money necessary to defend themselves it does not mean they have the right to steal the money and enlist from the same people who are against defending themselves int he first place. I'd be surprised if the people praising this article actually took the time to read it. There was nothing in there that was especially troubling for natural rights ACists. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
i read the first third and so far, as i understand it, people can't be free b/c someone might point a laser with the intensity of a flashlight at your house. [/ QUOTE ]It's obvious you got to read it again a couple of times. Friedman is not saying that "you can't be free" if someone shines a laser beam at your ranch. He is saying that when someone shines a laser beam at your ranch, it becomes evident that the supposedly very straight-forward notion of private property needs to be re-visited by libertarians, because it has been abused by some of them. As the author states, "Although we give some value, perhaps very great value, to individual rights, we do not give them an infinite value." Friedman's other example of a society (even a libertarian society) being invaded and proclaiming a military draft is spot on -- and another heart breaker for some ACists round these here parts. Yep, definitely, you should read it again a couple of times... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
riedman is not saying that "you can't be free" if someone shines a laser beam at your ranch. He is saying that when someone shines a laser beam at your ranch, it becomes evident that the supposedly very straight-forward notion of private property needs to be re-visited by libertarians, because it has been abused by some of them. [/ QUOTE ] You seriously can't see the difference between shinning a laser beam at someones house and lighting a candle in your house? It is not the act of emitting light that is the problem it is the damage to the person's property that needs to be protected. Lighting a candle does no damage to your property. A high powered laser beam that destroys your house is obviously coercive and should not be allowed. The article is full of poor analogies like this that aren't really a critique of property rights. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
You seriously can't see the difference between shinning a laser beam at someones house and lighting a candle in your house? Lighting a candle does no damage to your property. A high powered laser beam that destroys your house is obviously coercive and should not be allowed. [/ QUOTE ]Again, you are going to extremes - and Friedman's piece is, if anything, a plea to libertarians to avoid absolutes and notions of infinite. E.g. what if the laser beam is NOT destroying your house but is BOTHERING you? It would not bother me, if I were in your place. But it would provoke extreme anger in my uncle if HE were in your place! Friedman argues that limitations are bound to exist, i.e. the notion of an absolute and infinite value of "private property" is ultimately false. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)
[ QUOTE ]
You seriously can't see the difference between shinning a laser beam at someones house and lighting a candle in your house? It is not the act of emitting light that is the problem it is the damage to the person's property that needs to be protected. Lighting a candle does no damage to your property. A high powered laser beam that destroys your house is obviously coercive and should not be allowed. The article is full of poor analogies like this that aren't really a critique of property rights. [/ QUOTE ] The two only differ in degree. If rights are absolute, either both are allowed or both are outlawed. The author then asks--and you seem to know the answer--where is the line drawn? |
|
|