A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[Misfire]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

While both raise the price of burgers, actively stealing from Burger King has a victim that purchasing a burger doesn't have. A better example might be pollution, or drunk driving where there is no specific victim against whom the action is intended.

Either way, since there is an argument that everything you do has the possibility of injuring another, at what point do your intrusions on their rights, passive or active, become unacceptable? Can I smoke a cigarette? Can I drive an SUV? Can I operate a factory with a smelly smokestack?

[Luxoris]

It is not true that one person buying a burger raises the price (even with the imperceptibly caveat). I assume the basis for the proposition is an overly simplistic supply and demand analysis?