Self-ownership problems

[liberty_student]

I saw the title and had to LOL

Self-ownership problems

[MnoruS]

Self-ownership is actually a pretty good euphemism.

As for voluntary slavery, I don’t see it happening anytime soon. Call it moral hangups or whatever, but those who try to enforce it even though a slave changes his mind to ‘not be unfree,’ will have to go up against the prevailing morality, where most people would reject the notion of voluntary slavery. Sure I might be merely projecting my moral prejudices here, but I think people in an anarchist society would not enforce such a thing in the name of ‘self-defense.’

It’s like hypothesizing an anarchist society that considers everything emanating from a person to be of the person, including a baby. Thus, if a slave gives birth to a baby, that baby would be property of the slaveowner as well. Such a situation is as unlikely as the prevalence of ‘voluntary slavery.’ To suppose that any arrangement could occur just because government coercion ceases to exist is mistaken, and is a variation of legal positivism, which ignores the means by which social arrangements have evolved over time and by which the concept of law has come about.

[Chyd3nius]

I don’t want to sound too “cynical”, but there is no issue at all,

I’m anarcho-capitalist too. I’m OK if property owners won’t follow Rothbards ethics with their laws(and I mean not in most stricest ways, jewish circumcision is still good example), I’m just curious do these ethics have any role in stateless society. GooPC gave me some answers:

Now it is very likely that market chosen laws could drift away from strict libertarian ethics, however if the laws drift too far from self-ownership and private property, society will likely break down. For this reason there are market forces to make market chosen laws similar to libertarian ethics.

And this was my question:

So in a world where laws are created and used by their workability, not by how axiomaticly ethical they are, where do we need Rothbards self-ownership theory?

I saw the title and had to LOL

Self-ownership problems

I’m not native English-speaker so my use of language is sometimes quite creative.

[liberty_student]

@Chyd3nius

I saw the title and had to LOL

Self-ownership problems

I’m not native English-speaker so my use of language is sometimes quite creative.

Your english is better than a lot of english speakers here. I appreciated the opportunity to smile.

[GooPC]

So in a world where laws are created and used by their workability, not by how axiomaticly ethical they are, where do we need Rothbards self-ownership theory?

Robert Murphy covered part of that issue in my quote above.

Now, after we have reached such agreement and are secure in our lives, we can let the philosophers and theologians argue about why murder is wrong**. Legal scholars offering a priori constructions of just law would certainly have a place in market anarchy; after all, their tracts might influence the judges’ decisions.**

Private judges will need some rational for how they make their decisions. They probably won’t just give a ruling and say “well this is how I feel!” Given the mentality of an an-cap society, Rothbardian natural rights will probably be a popular place from which judges will base their opinions.

Here’s Hoppe on the subject:

A conflict is only possible if goods are scarce. Only then will there arise the need to formulate rules that make orderly—conflict-free—social cooperation possible.

This is the purpose of rights, to settle disputes between individuals which arise from the inherent scarcity in the environment. Rothbard has shown that libertarian ethics are the only logically consistent ethics, thus the only ethics which are capable of logically and rationally solving the conflicts which arise between men.

[Chyd3nius]

Thanks for more accurate answer.