A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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".

[/ QUOTE ]

Ofcourse not, if you want to make claims to authority over property in an anarchist society you have to make contract. Property rights beyond right of use (gathered through cooperative means) is meaningless to a true anarchist, if property rights are an inviolable absolute then you give the state legitimacy over land in the same degree you give someone who pointed at an unowned piece of land 500 years ago legitimacy over it. There would be no difference.

As for the anarchism = no government thingy, that is...well...half true.