You are being absolutist, because you only allow two options–either Lockean theft or no theft. How about theft limited to capital goods only (i.e. Proudhonian usufruct of capital goods)? Humans will not live as prosperously, but still will exist.
You are doing the slippery slope fallacy by equivocating a tiny bit of theft with the loss of life.
The logical conclusion is not a tiny bit of theft. The principal against theft, the natural law that theft is bad, accounts for all scenarios; it is universal, so we consider the universal application.
Determining if an action violates ‘property rights’ begs the question. You must list all the scenarios that violate and that does not violate ‘property rights’ in order to define ‘property rights’. For example:
Setting self-defense aside, libertarians classify these actions as violating ‘property rights’:
Setting self-defense aside, libertarians do not classify these actions as violating ‘property rights’:
So determining if an action ‘violates’ property a ‘tiny bit’ or not a ‘tiny bit’ depends on the definition of ‘property rights’. Ethical apriorism cannot deduce whether or not if these specific actions violate ‘property rights’, unless you define whether each instance violates ‘property rights’ or not.
Translation: We cannot say if these actions violate property rights until we say whether or not these actions violate property rights. The sheer brilliance of this argument astounds me to the point of desiring an intellectual quest to reach the highest summit in my area and ponder upon its cliff top.
No, it doesn’t.
Does the production of nuclear weapons violate property rights? Rothbard in the Ethics of Liberty says that it does, because it constitutes as a threat to life. Some will not define this scenario as violating property rights because it has not already killed people.
Does blocking someone’s farm from adequate sunlight violate the farmer’s property rights? Some will say yes, but some will say no because no person can own photons.
Does emitting tons of carbon dioxide into the air constitute a violation of property rights? Some will agree, because it can cause other person’s plants to die. Some will disagree, because “air is a public good.”
These examples suggest that people can interpret ‘property rights’ in many different ways, so it begs the question to find a single ‘correct’ interpretation. Unless you specifically define your own interpretation of it.
So you are mad that libertarianism has diversity yet when a libertarian postulates natural law as objective you scoff at that too? Truly this is astounding.
Some people will interpret ‘property rights’ as the Proudhonian use-and-occupancy of capital goods. Some will interpret ‘property rights’ as the Tuckerite prohibition of absentee ownership of land.
Why does Rothbardian ‘natural law’ claim to disallow the Proudhonian and Tuckerite interpretations of ‘property rights’ while allowing the three examples in the quote?
Well, maybe proudhon ( a socialist) and tucker (kinda socialist and confused too) are wrong ?
Why they are wrong? Because they are ‘unnatural’, or because their economics produces bad consequences, such as the distorted allocation of resources?
Rothbardian ‘natural law’ is based on ‘economic science’ and is consequentialist in a sense.
Big text doesn’t help. As I explained to you, Proudhon only allows for personal possessions but not land or capital for they are commons. Why is one allowed to own possessions yet not land? Possessions come from the commons directly or indirectly.
Concerning Tucker, I am not familiar with his system but from what I can deduce by the name it seems that one cannot own property where one is not stationed. How are we to trade goods across oceans? Does Tucker propose we just become self-sufficient or only trade with those in our vicinity? Is there such a difference between owning things from afar and owning things near?
Concerning nuclear bombs, carbon emissions and blocking sunlight:
Nuclear bombs: From what I can deduce concerning nuclear war from Rothbard’s For a New Liberty on the chapter concerning foreign policy and war, Rothbard was against the use of nuclear arms because they are indiscriminate killers of innocents. Now I have not heard him say ’ Let’s kill everyone who tries to make a nuclear bomb or at least lock them up.’ From what I can deduce, he used the method of persuasion as a means to achieve his ends.
Carbon emissions: Concerning this ‘dilemma’ it is a matter of property rights in the sense that smog, slug, toxic waste etc has creep into my land thus transgressing my property rights. I have a right to seek compensation for the damages to my land which were not of my consent against the individual who did such a deed.
Blocking Sunlight: This is actually a Walter Block issue with his famous circle argument. It is not of Rothbard and since I don’t follow the works of Block and there are those who do in this group, I feel no need to answer it.
Rothbard’s natural law is purely Aristotelian.
I have read TEoL 5 times and Rothbard certainly does not contend that the production of a nuclear weapon necessarily violates the property rights of anyone, no less everyone. Besides, who’s to say it wasn’t built to be launched defensively at aggressive space-invaders? Or that it won’t rest in a museum as an example of the atrocities of mankind? Or that it won’t be launched for profit at targets in outer space to paying viewers?
It can if we’re talking about a lot of people in a small area.
What are you trying to get at—the fact that you don’t know what begging the question actually means?
No.
So does every physical object on earth.
That is for a court to decide. The question is too broad.
Does farting a lot violate a violation of property rights? No. Neither does emitting carbon dioxide into the air.
I haven’t read TEOL in over 2 years but I believe Rothbard condemned the use of nuclear weapons, the weapons themselves aren’t any violation.
If they used the land for farming before you built the skyscraper next-door then yes, similar to the railroad scenario.
If it ruins one’s property, like killing plants, than obviously yes.
You certainly can, but consistent libertarians shouldn’t.
No, building a skyscraper would not constitute a violation of property rights in this scenario. I am sure the crops would still get plenty of light, even with a skyscraper. In fact, it may even help the crops. This is why I say the question is too broad.
Again, his question is too vague. What exactly is “tons of carbon dioxide”?
I think his point was that they wouldn’t get adequate sunlight, the skyscraper was just my example, consider the giant movable disk, that could block out the sun from The Simpsons - surely that would be a violation.
The exact amount doesn’t really matter, whatever is enough to kill anothers plants.
Which is why his example is ludicrous. There is no giant movable disk that you can stick over someone’s property to block out the light…
There is not a single business on earth that I know of that could emit that much. So the question is just ridiculous.
Roderick Long has proven that only the ‘right to be not aggressed’ exists.