2. Natural Rights approach: “This is the logically consistent set of rights any rational person has to accept.”
Natural rights theories try to find objective truth about the rights we have as humans. I have not seen any that succeeds, as they can not bridge the is/ought gap; that is, it is impossible to derive a prescription (ought, objective truth) from a description (is, subjective truth). A natural rights theory I like though, is Hans-Herman Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. Hoppe argues that self-ownership is implicit in argumentation; it’s not rational discourse if you hit each other.
Moreover, if you refuse to accept argumentation by violating other people’s self-ownership, you give up your own self-ownership too as it would be contradictory for you to argue for it. You have basically chosen to become an animal, to give up your communicative rationality. (Ancaps won’t need zoo’s, they can simply visit anarcho-communist villages!)
Such theories can be a good logical framework for libertarian minded private courts and defense agencies, but provide no authority to impose these views on others (as they are not objective, just the logical consequence of accepting reason).
I read what you are referring to in the past and brought it up to some friends who are libertarians. They agreed that it is true that one would have too accept that rights exists under those conditions, but without someone to enforce those rights the stronger individual can just assert that you dont have them simply becauase you have no way of enforcing your rights. So it then becomes an issue of social darwanism.
Regarding speech that implies imminent danger, here we need to realize that property is a “means of action”, it is thus praxeological, not merely physical.
For example, if I for no reason put my hand 1 cm before your face without touching you, have I violated your rights? Physically no, praxeologically most probably yes (as your head is your property and you need space to use it as a “means of action”).
Now, how different praxeological rights compare will depend on the situation and on the community (see my explanation above on self-segmenting communities with different views on rights). For example, in a cramped elevator it’s normal to stand very close to you. In a nudist community it can be considered hate speech to advertise clothes.
In conclusion, rather than coming up with definitive answers for each situation (which nobody can), it’s better to understand the dynamics of it all, which I hope I have explained well.
-
Can you give me a short run down of praxeology?I’m reading some stuff but still haven’t came across it even though i’m swamped.
-
Wouldn’t a threat to violence come with the inevitable result of you being agressed upon which could have the consequence of your life being taken? Under this premise wouldn’t be wise to take action(ie a restraning order) to stop this outcome instead of waiting for it to happen before acting?
Edit; Did this convince you to become an ancap? If not, please tell me what’s still bothering you.
Outside of societal defense that a centralized state would have the benefit of, my main issue lies mainly in law and order in an anarchists society since there are no standard set of laws that something like a constitutional republic would have to abide by. Along with courts and police I also have other issues with education and environment(such as air pollution).
Many libertarians oppose the initiation of violence. I used to like that definition until I read a slightly better one: nonconsensual initiatory aggression. Why?
Viception: Consensual aggression can be boxing, two fighters consenting to aggression for sport. Nonconsensual retaliatory aggression can be you physically attacking someone who was about to or did attack you.
A threat of violence may be acceptable in consensual combat. A threat of violence is acceptable for self-defense against a likely aggressor (for example, a bully pushing you proceeding to likely punching you).
Thanks that was helpful
