Ideology sucks.
So, the only reason natural-law / deontic Austro-libertarians rail against drug prohibition is because of the process that generated it, not the actual policy?
I don’t like the Austro-libertarian label. I don’t know what it means.
As far as private property is concerned, its not just the process but the actual ban: it violates your right to self ownership because it forbids you to do to your body as you so choose to do so on your own private property.
As far as public property is concerned, then it is not the ban per se that is illegitimate, but the illegitimate ownership over the actual property. The rules and regulations are then illegitimate on the account that they were devised by an illegitimate owner.
Obviously, we can then go on to theorize about the loss in utility and freedom of action, as compared to some comparative institution, i.e., a free market.
For example, a private owner of a road can set a speed limit. You have no right, as a customer, to drive as you wish. You are not compelled or forced to use that road, just as you are not compelled by force to eat hamburgers at Mcdonalds. You can’t walk in and demand a steak dinner. And you can’t also walk in and harass the other customers. The owner has a right to demand that you leave his property.
But yes. Drug prohibition is illegitimate because it violates individual rights, private property, etc…
If you have some really weird allergies, you should form a mutual aid society with everyone else that suffers from the same problem. Then you could pool your resources and test every product to see if it contains stuff you are allergic to or not. No need to force companies to print on their packaging any sort of information. If YOU want to know some information YOU have to pay for it.
I have an even better idea: Let’s allow the FDA to continue requiring food companies to print labels on their products. It’s one of the more useful agencies in that it’s practical.
I call it pragmatism.
I call it interventionism
I call it barbarism
DD5, if in a privately owned land, there was a sign at the entry that said, “All who enter shall be raped,” and if a person entered and was forcibly raped, is that legitimate according to Austro-libertarianism?
P.S. “Austro-libertarianism” is a term I first discovered from LvMI scholars describing libertarians who adhere to Austrian economics, and many seem to have a natural law / deontic bent on their morality.
P.S.S. I surely do seem to have a challenge understanding the bounds of “coercion” as construed by NAP; I consider coercion socially ubiquitous.
Your example is ambiguous so we must clarify it. If the person agrees to be raped then there is no rape in the real sense of the term. People should be allowed to participate in such roll playing in a free society. Don’t you think?
But what about if the person agrees to the terms (putting the question aside of whether a sign would be a sufficient implied contract), but then changes his mind while he’s already on the premises in the hands of the “rapist”. Is that your question?
The answer to that question is controversial among libertarians and is basically the question about the legitimacy of voluntary slavery. Rothbard would say -not legitimate, however, Walter Block for example (also a natural law libertarian) says: Yes, it is legitimate.
I know what it means but I think it is nonsense.
That’s my point: our notions of “rights” or “moral reasons” actually mask customs and instincts that are only in practice due to efficiency and welfare-maximization (e.g., property rights are only praised in this world contingently, in accord with their consequent benefits). If property rights diminished efficiency, then I very much doubt we would line our yards with fencing.
Indeed. Homsteading should be seen more as an elastic concept that is based more off of effecient use of land, rather than some dubious fantastic idea of ownership, that probably doesn’t exist. Of course, the terms “ownership”, “coersion”, etc are all legal/cultural/aesthetic terms and fall within the language of those practiced arts and outside of the language and methodology of value free logic and science. So long as we are not speakiong of the aesthetic or legal theory “rights”, etc can not be spoken of with much sense in this case; “effeciency”, “if x than y”, or “how to achieve x, y, and z” can be spoken of.
P.S: Nice name change to the GEB reference.
the folks in favor of government regulations requiring food allergen labeling might want to check out this article by lew rockwell: http://mises.org/daily/1572
i just read that article last night and couldn’t stop thinking about it during my lunchbreak. then, when i got home, i logged on and saw this thread. weird.