I think both Rothbard’s system and the additional considerations you suggest*, as well as any others, would inevitably lead to absurdities. Common law traditions show us that actual, workable social rules that resolve disputes are highly nuanced and could never be derived from any axiomatic system, no matter how many axioms it may have (unless it has every single law as an axiom, in which case it would be common law).
*Except that you mention they may not be “closed”, and Rothbard claimed the same, but then one wonders why propose a system at all and how to determine how much “closure” is needed
Fractal image compression is an attempt to compress the immense detail of a large image using fractals, which are iterated based on certain carefully chosen equations (rules). The programs undertaken by Rothbard, Block and some others are analogous to this. They attempt to find certain carefully chosen rules from which a whole set of other social rules can be derived.
Meanwhile praxeologic is a rule, an axiom, about how each individual chooses, in other words, in liberty is deliberate and purposeful. It is already happening. You have no power to change that.
Maybe you should learn what you are talking about before doing so JLR??? Have you read Human Action? I doubt it, but if you have you need to reread.
Praxeology is just about the undeniable fact that man acts. Maybe you are talking about psychology trying to explain how or why people come to certain valuations. If what wilderness said confused you, then learn what action is.
This isn’t even a sentence scineram. I didn’t think it was possible for you to become an even worse poster.
I do not believe property rights grant someone ultimate decision making power. Only that the owner has a right to prevent others from excluding him from his property.
The only difference I can see that I have with this guy is that he his belief for what constitutes abandonment is different from my own and that he believes renting something out is unethical and that paying someone to work with your equipment is exploitation.
If you can’t rent something out or own something that you aren’t currently using, why would anyone build a hotel, apartment or dormitory?
Let’s see what would happen. Okay the land owner spends 10 million on the building. Upon completion the building is rushed by squatters. The squatters claim ownership of the rooms and since the building owner wasn’t occupying them he can’t claim ownership. Say for a dorm or a hotel you would have to be able to buy the room and then sell it when you wish to leave and that just isn’t doable for most people. So these buildings wouldn’t be built.
For an apartment you would need to find X number of families wanting to live in an apartment in the same location. All of you would then have to finance this, agree on a design and contractor and wait for years for this whole thing to be completed before you can live in an apartment.
I mean you could always buy an existing apartment unit but I don’t see any new ones being built. So the no rent thing is virtually unworkable. I just don’t understand why someone would build it when squatters could rush in and claim their newly built apartment complex.
So there is no difference between a man who is coerced by another into action and a man who follows his own reason? I can see the poor slave who was recently freed realize the sudden burden of his supposed freedom: “So wait, now instead of being free I have to follow my own will. I am just a slave to myself. I have accomplished nothing.”
AJ, have you heard of principle based systems as opposed to rule based ones? Ones built on the NAP fall in the former category, i.e. are not mutually exclusive with the common law elaborating on and interpreting the core principle. You seem to think the NAP is a rule-based system with detailed rules for every scenario, but I don’t think even Rothbard argued for such.