Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-23-2007, 03:16 AM
mrick mrick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 159
Default Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[ 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-
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-23-2007, 03:20 AM
DblBarrelJ DblBarrelJ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,044
Default Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[ 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]
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-23-2007, 03:29 AM
applejuicekid applejuicekid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 903
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-23-2007, 03:37 AM
mrick mrick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 159
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-23-2007, 03:40 AM
mrick mrick is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 159
Default Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[ 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]
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-23-2007, 03:42 AM
Dan. Dan. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The European Phenom
Posts: 3,836
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-23-2007, 03:55 AM
applejuicekid applejuicekid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 903
Default Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[ 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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-23-2007, 06:08 AM
tame_deuces tame_deuces is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,494
Default Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[ 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]
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-23-2007, 06:10 AM
tomdemaine tomdemaine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: buying up the roads around your house
Posts: 4,835
Default Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

This is just a string of ridiculous, nonsense, pointless, grey area null zone scenarios designed to hurt the cause of freedom. Why does anyone anywhere care about the possibility of a photon hitting my door when there are millions dying through the corruption of a bloated evil violent coercive state, trillions of dollars in debt and wasteful spending forcing people to spend half their time working for no pay and hundreds of thousands in gulags being beaten and raped for the mere "crime" of setting fire to a plant and putting it in their mouth. [censored] your stupid laser crap.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-23-2007, 06:38 AM
DrunkHamster DrunkHamster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: There\'s no real \"evidence\" for it but it is scientific fact
Posts: 753
Default Re: A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

I really get the impression people here are missing the point; Friedman knows his examples are ridiculous, and that in practice no one will have any trouble deciding that a candle is fine while a laser beam is not.

But that's not his point. His point is that if you take a natural rights approach there is no dividing line between the two cases. To take his aeroplane example: no one here seriously questions that you should be able to forcibly disarm someone playing russian roulette with you against your will (1 in 6 chance of dying), just as no one here questions that someone flying a plane over your land is legitimate (say a 1 in 10 000 chance of dying). The problem that Friedman raises is that this seems entirely arbitrary if you look at it from a natural rights point of view.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.