Okay so I saw a philosophy website that bashes rothbard calling his ethics "contract fetishism". He seems to be of the opinion that there is no such thing as absolute property rights and that they are somehow incapatible with self-ownership and consent.I saw it here: http://www.blazingtruth.com/contract-fetishism/. Now as a libertarian I don't agree with this and his critique I actually find confusing to read because it seems like he is in support of the social contract bullshit I don't even understand how that makes sense since it just seems like a jedi mind trick to me.
What I would like to know is how contracts would work in AnCap society and what absolute property rights are and how is consent defined? You don't have to look at the link it just kind of pissed me off and at the end the douche bag takes the yellow and black flag and puts a pirate symbol on it.
In a contradictory kind of way, we have on one hand A) Absolute Property and B) Consent on the other. Rothbard says B requires A in order to be possible, whilst it is clear that for a Lockean (e.g. absolute private property) civil society to function as Rothbard wishes, then A requires B. The two in require each other and are parasitical upon each other for their substance. In a deconstructivist fashion, we find the infinite gap between the two emerge as the dialect itself collapses.In reconciliation of the aforementioned conflicts, I would alternatively propose that absolute property rights be discarded in favor of more usufruct or flexible configurations.
In a contradictory kind of way, we have on one hand A) Absolute Property and B) Consent on the other. Rothbard says B requires A in order to be possible, whilst it is clear that for a Lockean (e.g. absolute private property) civil society to function as Rothbard wishes, then A requires B. The two in require each other and are parasitical upon each other for their substance.
In a deconstructivist fashion, we find the infinite gap between the two emerge as the dialect itself collapses.In reconciliation of the aforementioned conflicts, I would alternatively propose that absolute property rights be discarded in favor of more usufruct or flexible configurations.
Do I need a degree in German Literary Theory to understand this? :P
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
I recommend that you google
rothbard title transfer theory of contract
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Thanks for some directions. It sounded like some sort of convulted semantical problem anyway. But I thought I could get some directions on what to read after reading trash talk. Thanks again.
ok now I have a new question how would bankruptcy be handled in Title Transfer theory if someone would be unable to pay? I mean one option is pray for mercy from the creditor and another I see is private charity coming to the rescue. What kind of options does a debtor now have?
I would recommend listening to Kinsella's class, "Libertarian Legal Theory," which he taught at the Mises Academy. He released it for free here:
http://libertarianstandard.com/2012/01/01/kinsellas-libertarian-legal-theory-course-audio-and-slides/