What’s the justification of the universalizeability principle? Your probable response: it’s natural to man’s nature, and so on.
But how exactly? I don’t think Rothbard provided any firm proof of this principle in The Ethics of Liberty.
How do legal norms follow from these natural facts?
A novice giving advice to an intermediate.
Not quite! Perhaps property rights were only recently instituted, but they have always existed, as all natural rights must and have.
Everyone has the same rights, at all times, in all places, regardless of circumstance. Whether their rights are suppressed is a different question. To be “perfectly free” while having your property rights suppressed is contradictory.
I disagree. Everything produced by nature is, by definition, natural.
No. The state is the institution that has a monopoly over ILLEGITIMATE use of aggression. Murray Rothbard, Hans Hoppe, Lew Rockwell, et al. Stealing and aggression are illegitimate no matter how many humans are tricked into accepting it.
Allow the market to function.
Some tribes, the more primitive ones had no property, and comrade, don’t try to teach my country’s history. I know that the native societies in my country didn’t have property rights, they were collective societies with collective property.
VSHas clothes dances naked
Survived cold winters lives an endless summer
you say this one has property? Ok what about this one?
I guess you imagined the inca maya or asteca:
Don’t try to teach me my country’s history. I know some of the native here lived without private property and lived better in their villages many live in cities:
I’m trying to slow my responses due to you undoubtedly are having a flood of posts to respond to.
I looked at the first. It said nothing about property either way. The latter only came up as a term describing people who are not Hebrew.
One person can buy all TV’s, radio’s, etc…?
How does a monopoly institution assure property rights for each individual but at the same time in your proposition a “monopoly” necessitates that no individual, except for the monopoly entity, would have property? This proposition you assert is illogical. Maybe you can state it another way?
A gun threatens anybody’s liberty if a person initiates this gun with threat or action upon another, the gun being a property, but to generalize property violates liberty is to state my pencil writing on a piece of paper in my house is violating your liberty - clearly that’s false.
Capitalists everywhere physically coerce? I don’t see that - “everywhere” - clearly false. And somebody physically coercing is not a capitalist for a capitalist is a person that participates in a voluntary transaction.
No. That’s not a monopoly cause somebody could build another factory. A monopoly is only enforced by physical coercion.
I have yet to see that evidence.
I have yet to see that evidence.
No. Property is an extension of my will such as a material object for I am born naked into this world and need culture to survive. Culture is not only intellectual, but material such as a clay pot or a stick I pick up to stake tomatoes.
That’s your abstraction of this particular poetry, but not my abstraction.
“[F]or in order to be able to claim a rule to be a “law” (just), it is necessary that such a rule be universally – equally – valid for everyone.”
“Thus, one is left with the initial principles of self-ownership and first-use-first-own, i.e., original appropriation, homesteading. They pass the universalization test – they hold for everyone equally – and they can at the same time assure the survival of mankind.”
The Ethics of Liberty isn’t the only thing written by Rothbard. I honestly doubt you have read as much Rothbard as me, and yet I don’t claim to present his arguments even reasonably well.
I consider it good to expose arguments to ruthless criticism. I also consider it good to be asked for clarification on weaker points. This helps provide feedback on how good your presentation is. I don’t see why you have to take it personally.
None of my professors had mercy when they viewed a poor quality presentation or when they graded poor quality documentation. And there’s good reason for it. I don’t see why your presentation of a scholars arguments shouldn’t face some criticism either. This is, in essence, an open, academic discussion.
Rather than be something you should detest, criticism should be something you embrace so you can go back and make a stronger presentation.
The univeralizeability principle is crucial to Rothbard’s argument, and yet, this is the first time you’ve mentioned it on these forums. Maybe I know of it, but I doubt others who agree with you (wilderness, Anarchist Cain, ect) have even heard of it, let alone your opponents. So it is probably something that should be mentioned if you are trying to prove the private property ethic, Rothbard-style. And I still don’t think you can justify the principle.
Comarade, you had agreed, but I will forgive you this time. No they haven’t always existed, this isn’t a natural right. If property was natural, the most primitive societies would have private property, and yet some haven’t.
I’d have to disagree, if you agree rights may come from natural conditions, social agreement or force, some of them change from place to place. If you don’t and think only “natural rights” are rights, I’d still have to disagree once I don’t consider property rights natural, because as I had explained, natural societies have no private property and the other natural rights (life and liberty) do not requires property.
But it is the very market that creates such circunstance, this’d mean to allow the tyran to stablish his power. That would lead us to a state (we already had one before: the security companies) that is why under ANY circunstances, the market cannot exist without a state.
It is quite late I’ll be back tomorow to refute over and over againg you property rights as natural ones. Its quitte hard to debate in a foreign language against many native speakers, and it has tired me enougth today.
Stephen you border on arrogance look at my signature that I’ve had for days now. And how you think you can think for “Anarchist Cain, etc…” - please.
Why?
So what is the principle? And why is it crucial to rothbard’s justification of the private property ethic?
I’m not playing your question game. You floated yourself up as somebody that seems to know more than others, so, you figure it out.
this will be the last post I will answer before going to sleep.
I am sorry, I will find a link revealing this and show it tomorow about the “povos gentilicos” (in portuguese) they were people that lived in a society with no property in ancient greece, I’ll find more dada abot them as well.
it is not the TV it is the TV channel, not the Radio, but the frequency, got it? this is what I meant by means of communucation, sorry english is not my native language.
If you hire a company to defend your property, this company has monopoly of the legitimate uses of force and violence inside your property, this is a STATE, following Max Weber definitions. A monopoly doesn’t necessitates that no individual have property, today the police has a monoploly over such legitimate uses of force and violence, and yet you have your property, I have mine and I guess none of is a member of the police.
You don’t need property, our decendents evolved millions of years without private property, only in ths last 10000 years it has existed (and not in all societies, some would remain without it up to 1500 and beyond) .
Despite the fact that Plato’s cave and Rousseau phyilosofy can (and) reach the same conclusions, I’d like to know what is your abstraction.
Well, that is it. See you tomorow when I’ll refude 20 more times that property right is not a natural right.
So, I’m arrogant for making a claim that you think is wrong but refuse to prove wrong. I would hope that I would know more if I study more and read more.
I think you are both using ‘natural’ in a different context. In fact, I think what you guys mean be natural at different times is the source of alot of confusion in your debate.
You are joking right?
I think he’s right. Property hasn’t always existed. Property (economic goods) are something produced by humans and humans have not always been in existence. So property hasn’t always been in existence.
I think he is taking ‘natural’ to mean not man-made. A natural habitat would, for example, be a forest or a cave. A man-made habitat are definite artifacts such as tents or houses. He means that property rights are a convention that was invented by humans, similar to something like language or technology. I think that there is a misunderstanding by both sides of the debate by what the other means by ‘natural.’
For private property to be respected, it must be a socially recognized institution, not just an individually recognized one.
<3
The delusion plaguing some people never ceases to amaze me.
Depends on the version.
Wow this should be sent to are all threads serious? sticky!
