A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

Zygote · #1 11-22-2007, 04:38 PM

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 · #2 11-22-2007, 07:53 PM

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 · #3 11-22-2007, 08:49 PM

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.

mrick · #4 11-23-2007, 03:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pssst : What you're advocating is pure ANARCHY.

These guys are advocating anarcho-CAPITALISM.

A world of difference-

DblBarrelJ · #5 11-23-2007, 03:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Pssst : What you're advocating is pure ANARCHY.

These guys are advocating anarcho-CAPITALISM.

A world of difference-

[/ QUOTE ]

ooohhhh.. I see the difference now! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

mrick · #6 11-23-2007, 03:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pssst : What you're advocating is pure ANARCHY.

These guys are advocating anarcho-CAPITALISM.

A world of difference-

[/ QUOTE ]

ooohhhh.. I see the difference now! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I see it every day.

ANARCHO-CAPITALISM is my monthly finances.

ANARCHISM is my garage.

OK?

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

tame_deuces · #7 11-23-2007, 06:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Pssst : What you're advocating is pure ANARCHY.

These guys are advocating anarcho-CAPITALISM.

A world of difference-

[/ QUOTE ]

Well someone slapped anarcho in front, and the use of anarchist rhetorics is pretty high from ACists so they'll have to live with the question. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

AlexM · #8 11-23-2007, 06:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pssst : 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.

mrick · #9 11-24-2007, 03:56 AM

[ 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".

AlexM · #10 11-24-2007, 04:58 AM

[ 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 ]

False. Anarchist just means !government. It doesn't imply anything about property. If you want to make a statement about what property should be, you need to add some form of adjective to the label "anarchist".