David Osterfeld on natural rights

[Amanojack]

Osterfeld is “on to something” in that he correctly points out what seems pretty obvious: natural rights have not been proven, and all attempts at proof so far have been invalid. He explains with a moderate amount of precision why this is so, and it may prove illuminating for readers who still think natural rights or natural law have been logically proven.

He then instead takes a emperico-logical approach to defending natural rights. Osterfeld is very pro-natural-rights, but he points out that the premises have not been proven. For example, he takes Rothbard’s syllogism:

@David Osterfeld

Since Rothbard argues that these two premises are prerequisite not only to man’s fulfillment of his nature, but to life itself, the Rothhardian natural rights ethic can be formulated as follows:

1. Self-ownership and property ownership are necessary means to sustain life.
2. Everyone values life more highly than death.
3. Hence, everyone ought to adopt the principles of self-ownership and property ownership.

Osterfeld says the premises 1 and 2 cannot be proven logically, but can be demonstrated emperically. He provides evidence for Premise 1, but falls short of making an emperical case to a scientific standard. Here is his support for Premise 1:

@David Osterfeld

Since the major premise is a factual statement asserting an indispensable or necessary causal connection between a particular goal, viz., life, and a particular set of means, viz., self-ownership and property ownership, the causal connection can be objectively examined and the truth of the claim ascertained. The thrust of Rothbard’s analysis lies in establishing the logical relationship between life and property rights, and in depicting the inevitable consequences of the violation of those rights.

Briefly, Rothbard has pointed out that if one denies the premise of man’s self-ownership then one must conclude that either “(1) a certain class of people, A, have the right to own another class, B; or (2) everyone has a right to his equal quotal share of everyone else.” The first proposition is correctly dismissed since it violates the rules of formal logic. Since both group A and group B belong to the same class, “human beings,” they must possess the same essential characteristics of that class.

(1) does not violate any rules of logic as stated, and I trust the reader will note the error upon re-reading (if not, ask). Also, what if no one “owns” anyone? I can only be charitable and assume that Rothbard and Osterfeld might have meant, “‘No one being owned by anyone’ is a necessary means to sustain life.”

@David Osterfeld

Thus A cannot own both himself and B for that would negate B’s right of ownership. This means that one must either grant every individual’s right of self-ownership or adopt the second proposition that everyone has a right to an equal quotal share of everyone else. But the second proposition, as Rothbard notes, means that no one in the world could “take any action whatever without prior approval or indeed command by everyone else in society. It should be clear,” he continues, “that in that sort of ‘communist’ world, no one would be able to do anything, and the human race would quickly perish.” And not only does Rothbard cogently establish this logical relationship…

We’ll take Osterfeld’s word on this and assume Rothbard does explain the possibility of no one owning anyone.

@David Osterfeld

…but there is considerable empirical support for it as well. The only concerted effort within a large society to abandon the principle of private ownership was in the “War Communism” period in the Soviet Union immediately following the Bolshevik Revolution. This effort was short-lived and was abandoned in early-1921 after the entire society had been brought to the verge of collapse and an estimated six million had died of starvation." The major premise appears, therefore, to have been satisfactorily established.

By “private ownership,” Osterfeld obviously means “private property” - not “self-ownership.” Oops, no emperical defense for half of the major premise! (No, he doesn’t offer any additional support elsewhere.)

At best, Osterfeld’s entire defence of natural law boils down to: “There exists a strong historical case for respecting property rights, therefore everyone ought to respect property rights.” I agree that the historical case is strong, but that’s all Osterfeld has for us, and he only gives two sentences of historical evidence himself. The extra logical constructions add nothing to the historical case.