I largely agree here, but with the addition that the “communities” (more accurately associations) that people form need not be geographically contiguous.
Forgive me for asking what may seem like a silly question, but what is your definition of “law”? I ask because I see cooperation between men as by-and-large instinctive in nature. That is, people are social animals - nearly everyone has an instinctive need to be around others and to be approved by them. Dogs have essentially the same instinct, which is why they get along so well with people. I think this instinct drives people to generally cooperate with those around them. No statute or set of statutes is necessary here.
He has the name disciple on his screen, calls himself an anarcho-monarchist - and I think (?) this is the offshoot of a thread in which people were being dubious, coy, and perhaps gleefully reactionary in their attitudes on rape to sound “hard nosed” about cultural norms that can be deduced to “scientific axiomatic fact” which suposedly has something to do with economic issues.
I think that’s a bit unfair. RothbardsDisciple could be referring to an openness to literature in general, including both prose (Rothbard (non-fiction) and Tolkien (fiction)) and poetry (Shakespeare).
Here’s an example, although it isn’t really theoretical. However, since all property rights are use rights, it follows that two or more people could be considered to each have the same use rights over a given property. Typically such an arrangement would include a procedure or set of procedures to govern use within the group.
He has the name disciple on his screen, calls himself an anarcho-monarchist.
1). What is wrong/weird about being a disciple? Definition: “Somebody who believes in and follows the teachings of a leader, a philosophy, or a religion.”
2). Don’t take the Anarcho-Monarchism too seriously =). It is merely my personal, ideal, and utopian conception of Anarcho-Capitalism. (Hence my embarrassment to mention it).
Left libertarians seem to be just nerds with zero understanding of women or even feminist issues.
That seems to be the only explanation for the assertion that the phenomenon of rape is caused by contracts.
They seem to have even less knowledge about the mises institute. And have simply mined a quote from someone who has envisaged a ‘rape contract’. Whether or not it has anything to do with Rothbard, Mises, or the views of anyone else.
Oh, and I might not post my response to Neo for a while. I am going to have to do a lot of research, and shall probably read several more Rothbard texts before writing this essay.
I consider law to be similar to what you call ethics, the rules under which individuals are officially and generally allowed to act in without fear of violence being used against them. Not only must these be the “offical” rules of the society but it must also be the way that the society is generally run as well. I agree although I think that order is a construct shaped in large part by the society in which one was born and raised in, but the fact is that there will always be those wishing to overide that order, the frequency and intention of which is in large part dependent on other social factors. In such a stiuation law in the sense of force is necessary.
RothbardsDisciple, you believe that Rothbard’s views on libertarianism are absolute, yet when brought forward to a challenge you say that you need to read more of his books before you can write a reply, which means you don’t fully understand the views and matters at hand, which shows that you hold on to what he says dogmatically. Again, you need to read other books (pertaining to political philosophy) than Rothbard. Try The Law from Bastiat for a start.
Bert - that is plainly incorrect. I have studied Rothbard from MES, some Conceived in Liberty, his articles, etc. I merely have not read those particular books, which I feel shall be conducive to my research project here with Neodoxy. I am going to write a full, lengthy essay on this matter, not merely write dribble. I feel that your assertions that I am being “dogmatic” are in themselves dogmatic.
Sure, I will certainly read the book you recommended at some point. Seriously, I am not appreciating being compared to Marxists (Neodoxy) and called dogmatic (Bert) when I have proven on numerous occassion that I am open-minded to reading any literature presented to me.
Bert - that is plainly incorrect. I have studied Rothbard from MES, some Conceived in Liberty, his articles, etc. I merely have not read those particular books, which I feel shall be conducive to my research project here with Neodoxy. I am going to write a full, lengthy essay on this matter, not merely write dribble. I feel that your assertions that I am being “dogmatic” are in themselves dogmatic.
And? You’ve read Rothbard, obviously, but the point is you assert that his form of libertarianism is absolute, yet clearly you are not completely knowledgable about the subject otherwise you wouldn’t have to read more books from Rothbard to give you time to write some thesis on your position. Why do I state it’s rather dogmatic? For the reason I state just now. It’s like asking a Marxist to defend their position, and they reply with, “Hold on, let me finish Das Kapital first.” If you’re not fully knowledgable about Rothbard or his views how can you say he’s correct and his form of libertarianism is absolute? My assertions aren’t dogmatic, because the facts are right in front of my face, and I don’t need to read another thread to figure it out.
Sure, I will certainly read the book you recommended at some point. Seriously, I am not appreciating being compared to Marxists (Neodoxy) and called dogmatic (Bert) when I have proven on numerous occassion that I am open-minded to reading any literature presented to me.
I’m not saying you wouldn’t, but out of curiousity what other works of a political nature have you read?
My assertions aren’t dogmatic, because the facts are right in front of my face, and I don’t need to read another thread to figure it out.
Well, I mean, you really ought to consider that Rothbard wrote a lot of work. More than I have read so far. And I am humble enough to admit that I have not read all the works of the master yet. Like I said, I have only read Rothbard from the more economical-historical side, but I agree with all of his political points (that I have read and probably that I will read) because of consistent application of the Non-Aggression Axiom.
I’m not saying you wouldn’t, but out of curiousity what other works of a political nature have you read?
I would highly reccomend it, in terms of its overall quality considering the subject material I believe it’s his greatest work. The only things that come close are MES and Power and Market.
Oh, definitely, that is what I am going to be reading before I reply to your question. (Right now my argument is based upon my understanding of his phrase “every man has a right to his own” and the NAA, as well as various articles I have read. And Power and Market too, as far as ethics).
But the Rothbardian philosophy is a nice simplistic one in essence, so I am not too uneducated.
Suppose there is no state but there are some private criminals, as seems likely under almost any circumstances. You don’t have absolute liberty, since your rights will sometimes be violated. Is that still anarchy?
That question raises the further and more difficult question of how you define a state–what distinguishes a state from a particularly successful non-state criminal organization?
A subject I will be discussing in the course of a talk I’m giving at GMU this afternoon.
I think it depends on the definitions used for “liberty”, “rights”, and “anarchy”. For example, if someone defines “liberty” such that it inherently excludes the Rothbardian concept of “aggression”, then what RothbardsDisciple said would seem to logically follow. On the other hand, I don’t think that’s what you’re talking about in the above - instead, it seems to me that you’re implicitly defining “liberty” as “the absence of rights violations”.
I’d say the distinction is one of legitimacy. More specifically, a state enjoys widespread legitimacy, while a non-state criminal organization - however successful - does not.