A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[Dan.]

[ 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?

[applejuicekid]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bah I tried to respond to your other post, this is one is much better. The two don't only differ in degree. One interferes with your ability to use your property the other doesn't.

I suppose one could make the point that there could be subjectiveness in terms of damage to property, but I don't think that makes property rights any less absolute. It is still valid to say that damaging other people's property is wrong even if there is some disagreement of what actually causes damage.