A Critique of Rothbardian Natural Rights (sorta long)

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

But whose gonna run the lighthouses!!?!?!??

Seriously I dont get the statists in this thread. If property rights are a problem for AC then its an ever bigger problem for statism. If there are no property rights then we should be satisfied with the madmax type anarchy. Obiously the statists wont go this far. They just want their particular preference of property rights enforced, but there is nothing more inherantly objective in the statist definition of property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

But "statists" entire belief system, at least in the political sense, isnt based on an a concept of absolute, inviolable property rights. Anarchists/libertarians do believe in that. Get it now?

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shooting a gun at someone is a violent act. Flying a plane over someone's land isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
What if it's a helicopter, meant to intimidate the owner into selling their land to the local monopolist?

The point which all you fine AC intellects are missing is that a million scenarios can be thought of (many of them realistic) where your absolute rights mantra gets shown up as a logical and practical farce.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well mabey you could provide a positive theory of property rights. Or do you just want the government to own everything and control everyone?

The problem with you example and many of the abstract examples that come up is there is no cost to the actors in abstract land. Whos gonna pay for the pilot and helicopter in your example? At some point the owner is going to sell his property and at some point it doesnt make economic sense to do rediculous things. Its when you have the state to externalize the cost of the rediculous things that you want to do that we get massive amounts of violence. Why dont you go have a discussion with those poor people in Iraq about property rights.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
But "statists" entire belief system, at least in the political sense, isnt based on an a concept of absolute, inviolable property rights. Anarchists/libertarians do believe in that. Get it now?


[/ QUOTE ]

But the value of the protection of property rights isnt absolute. Nobody is going to go shoot someone because there was a light put on their house. Retribution is still going to be a case of degree.

But I dont see what bothers you about absolute property rights? Does the idea of the welfare state being immoral bother you?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Shooting a gun at someone is a violent act. Flying a plane over someone's land isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
What if it's a helicopter, meant to intimidate the owner into selling their land to the local monopolist?

The point which all you fine AC intellects are missing is that a million scenarios can be thought of (many of them realistic) where your absolute rights mantra gets shown up as a logical and practical farce.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well mabey you could provide a positive theory of property rights. Or do you just want the government to own everything and control everyone?

The problem with you example and many of the abstract examples that come up is there is no cost to the actors in abstract land. Whos gonna pay for the pilot and helicopter in your example? At some point the owner is going to sell his property and at some point it doesnt make economic sense to do rediculous things. Its when you have the state to externalize the cost of the rediculous things that you want to do that we get massive amounts of violence. Why dont you go have a discussion with those poor people in Iraq about property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

A simple no would have sufficed. Why do I need to provide some theory of private property rights. Im pretty satisfied with how it works now. Im not the one advocating radical change.

I love the nitpicking of the analogies. I admit I have done it in the past, but only when it actually matters. It doesnt matter here.

And LOL Iraq, I stand in awe of your rhetorical genius. I appreciate the attempt at shifting the debate though, but Im not going to be sucked off into a ridiculous digression.


BTW, helicopter example wasnt mine.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

Well mabey you could provide a positive theory of property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academ.../Property.html

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do I need to provide some theory of private property rights. Im pretty satisfied with how it works now.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your theory of property rights is that some people have the right to take others property? Yes my Iraq line was a little rhetorical, but seriously what do you think is going to happen when you let one group in society define property rights? You are going to get massive amount of theft and violence as these people define property rights to be whatever resources they want for themselves. Iraq was one example I could have stated countless others of corruption in the American government so I hope it didnt distract you from the core point I was trying to make.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

A second problem is that simple statements of libertarian principle taken literally can be used to prove conclusions that nobody, libertarian or otherwise, is willing to accept. If the principle is softened enough to avoid such conclusions, its implications become far less clear. It is only by being careful to restrict the application of our principles to easy cases that we can make them seem at the same time simple and true.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
One solution to this problem is to reject the idea that natural rights are absolute; potential victims have the right to commit a minor rights violation, compensating the owner of the gun afterwards to the best of their ability , in order to prevent a major one.

[/ QUOTE ]

vulturesrow,

The author is not at all softening his stance on property rights in this article, as he seems to think he is. The above quotation is evidence of that. The fact that he admits that a person would have to compensate the misanthrope for the use of his rifle is evidence of the fact that the author believes in personal property rights. The issue he misses is that Rothbard never said that natural rights should never, ever no matter the circumstances, be violated, but that when they are violated the victim is due compensation proportional to the violation. The recognition of this distinction invalidates all of the authors absurd examples. Sure, I violated my neighbor's property rights by shining a flashlight on his door, and I owe him compensation for the damage caused. If I have caused damage I owe him, if not I don't, from a practical standpoint this is where arbitration steps in.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well mabey you could provide a positive theory of property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academ.../Property.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the link, the schelling points seem particularly relevant to the type of nit picky criticisms that plagued the OP. But I dont get why friedman brought them up in the OP when he clearly refutes them in this link. Is there something I'm missing.

[AlexM]

[ 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.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

But "statists" entire belief system, at least in the political sense, isnt based on an a concept of absolute, inviolable property rights. Anarchists/libertarians do believe in that. Get it now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anarcho-capitalists do, most anarchists don't.