-
I think Fuller, without knowing it, was the first to apply praxeology to the study of law, with his 'eunomics' being a branch of praxeology alongside economics. One can sense a praxeological flavor in this explanation of his 'procedural naturalism' , and here's a short piece in Liggio's Literature of Liberty . Just a small point
-
You are still confused. When you exchange property with someone, you must exchange your property rights to this property. That means that your property rights are prior to any exchange. As an example of a right that involves no exchange is the right to life. You do not need to contract with every stranger you meet in order to guarantee that he will
-
Your error lies in confusing rights with exchange. Exchanges are done on a voluntary, contractual basis, while rights simply are facts based on force. I do not need to have a contract with you for me to have rights to oppose to your acts. (Confusion over this fact is one of the fallacies of intellectual communism btw) My rights are prior to any relationship
-
Stranger, Although I like your essay, and I concur with most of what you have said, I do not agree with the concept that rights only exist if they are enforced, because the concept of enforcement is too indistinct to have any real meaning. After all, many contracts (rightholder/obligor relationships) are simply enforced by convention or good will, or
-
Presumably then he intends to eliminate himself?
-
Danny, I completed my political science degree without a scrap of economic knowledge, and got a decent grade to boot. Looking back ten years later, I can say with some conviction that the beliefs of a political philosopher who is not well grounded in economics, are highly likely to be fecal matter of the gloopiest kind. The two cannot and should not
-
I find it incredibly disappointing, as a member of this board, that people feel the need to post garbage articles like the above. We all know that Rothbard had some kind of personal grudge against Rand, and as a result we get this kind of pseudo-academic rant. Is it in any way helpful to throw around meaningless pejoratives like 'cult'? Go to
-
"It is perfectly rational to choose death over life in certain situations" This is the crux of it. You are wrong here, it is ALWAYS rational to choose death over life IF that is what is actually chosen. From what I can gather you appear to be designating an act irrational on the basis of an arbitrary distinction between the circumstances of
-
I'm currently reading - Justice and its Surroundings by Anthony de Jasay, and rereading Human Action. For anyone else that has read Justice and its Surroundings what do you make of Chapter 5 (the very short chapter). Unless I've read it wrongly it seems a little incongruous, and quite statist. I'm also reading a fascinating fiction book
-
One might expect that an egoist ethics whose purpose is eudaimonia might prohibit suicide, but if we examine the issue we can see that this is not so. It depends on the context involved. Suicide can be proper under certain circumstances and improper under others, The choice between life and death is identical in every respect to the choice between apples