Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Randy Barnett: libertarianism is the middle way

rated by 0 users
This post has 11 Replies | 3 Followers

Not Ranked
Male
Posts 478
Points 10,295
FlyingAxe Posted: Mon, Mar 11 2013 10:31 AM
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2221998
  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 1,687
Points 22,990
Bogart replied on Mon, Mar 11 2013 2:49 PM

I read the Abstract and then went into the article and do give it credit for discussing Private Property Rights but as usual the discussion is in the wrong context and therefore not correct.  Libertarian Philosophy is based upon two concepts: 1. Non-Aggression, and 2. Private Property Rights.  The first is always Non-Aggression.  I did not find the work aggress much less anything about the NAP in the PDF of the article.  But the NAP is first, all private property rights do is to give meaning to situations where individuals are morally able to use force to defend their lives and property.

If you include the NAP then Libertarian Philosophy can not be the center of a bunch of extreme ends but it is the end itself.  The end is the absence of violence and since most violence comes from the state, it is the end of a political spectrum running opposite extreme violence where the state, an agency of force, threats and violence would not wither away but simply could not exist.  The violent end would include the murderous ideas take up by the Communists and other totalitarians. 

Unfortunately, the Western World is much closer to the end of extreme violence and getting close daily.  And unfortunately, the Western World is dragging the rest of the planet in the same direction.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 478
Points 10,295
FlyingAxe replied on Mon, Mar 11 2013 3:13 PM

How do you define aggression?

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 1,133
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Mon, Mar 11 2013 3:17 PM

Meh.

I read the abstract. It's like repackaging everything the mainstream says about libertarianism; an excuse to own guns and smoke pot at the same time. Granted I didn't read the rest of it.

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 1,687
Points 22,990
Bogart replied on Mon, Mar 11 2013 5:20 PM

I like this definition:

Aggression is any act of force, theft or fraud committed against the property of another including the self with the exceptions:

1. The act not be to immediately protect persons or property from force, theft or fraud, and then only with the minimal amount of force necessary to thwart the force, theft or fraud.

2. Retrieve persons or property, or get restitution from previous force, theft or fraud, and then only with the minimal amount of force necessary to retrieve the property or restitution.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 478
Points 10,295
FlyingAxe replied on Mon, Mar 11 2013 6:24 PM

So, this means one's concept of property must exist first, before we define aggression. And once we have the concept of property, the concept of aggression becomes obsolete. While without it, aggression is ambiguous.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 1,687
Points 22,990
Bogart replied on Mon, Mar 11 2013 9:48 PM

Ahh, I forgot to include threats of force, theft or fraud in addition to the acts themselves.  If you include threats of force, theft or fraud then you have to have the two concepts as one person could threaten another and get them to act in a certain way against the preference of the threatened individual AND not violate the private property rights of the individual.

So reword the definition to include threats:

Aggression is any act or threat of force, theft or fraud committed against the property of another including the self with the exceptions ...

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 478
Points 10,295
FlyingAxe replied on Tue, Mar 12 2013 10:42 AM
So, can you not use threat of force to make someone get off your property? Or must you reason with every trespasser and wait for private arbitration until you're justified kicking him out?
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 267
Points 5,370
Meistro replied on Tue, Mar 12 2013 4:14 PM

You can use retaliatory coercion but you're not being aggressive in threatening someone who will not leave your property, you are in fact repeling their aggression.

 

... just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own - Albert Jay Nock

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 478
Points 10,295
FlyingAxe replied on Tue, Mar 12 2013 4:54 PM
Once again: whether or not this is an aggression depends on whether the person is on your property. Repelling someone from your property is not aggression. Repelling someone from a public park or from his property is aggression. This shows that we need to understand what property is before we talk about aggression.
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 98
Points 1,895
Primetime replied on Wed, Mar 20 2013 1:21 AM
FlyingAxe:
This shows that we need to understand what property is before we talk about aggression.

So what?

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 267
Points 5,370
Meistro replied on Wed, Mar 20 2013 4:08 AM

SEMANTICS

 

... just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own - Albert Jay Nock

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (12 items) | RSS