A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[Zygote]

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 ]

[tame_deuces]

If you want a truly free society you have to let go of the property rights, you can't have both. I don't see how property rights beyond right of use can be defended principally in anything claiming to be a free (as in anarchist) society.

[DrunkHamster]

A very interesting chapter of a very interesting book, and I'd love to see how the ACists (at least the ones who believe in natural rights) respond.

[vulturesrow]

[ 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.

[Phil153]

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.

[DontRaiseMeBro]

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.

[applejuicekid]

[ 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.

[mrick]

[ QUOTE ]
The following is a chapter from David Friedman's (Milton's son) first anarcho-capitalistic book, "The Machinery of Freedom".

link

[/ QUOTE ]

The man makes sense.

[mrick]

[ 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]

[DontRaiseMeBro]

this seems like a bunch of nitpicky what-if's to me... it's almost... well, childish really.

Instead of looking for ways that we can't be free let's start looking for ways that we can be.

It's very possible that this is over my head though as I am a simpleton compared to the better minds here so I'll leave it to pvn, borodog etc to answer. Maybe this article does point out something important and I've missed that essence but it doesn't seem that way to me.