-
NAP is the foundation of libertarian legal theory. It defines what act is considered lawful and what act is considered unlawful. The consideration is based on whether the act is aggressive or not. According to libertarians "...[aggression] is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone
-
This bridge question does not make any sense at all. What is disturbing is that there are economists (or should I say "economists") who spend their time designing and then trying to resolve such "economic problems". I know that this is not a valid logical argument against the question, it is my opinion. I do not write about the logic
-
This is a very good article!
-
I believe that homesteading is merely used in natural law terminology to describe the method in which a human individual can have a legitimate claim of ownership over previously unowned resource. The natural law does not state what you should do with this resource once you have finished the original appropriation, which meaning is contained in the method
-
Some argue that the word law means order. I do not know whether there is lexical semantics involved in this argument, i.e. that law is a synonym for order. If it was so, then I could use both of them interchangeably in a sentence, because their meaning is supposed to be identical or very close. Actually, these two words do not have the same lexical
-
The one who is at fault is the same person who violated someones property rights. A company which has a total stock of X diamonds does not violate anyone's property rights if it offers on the market only X minus Y.
-
Is the argument which you call "best" also valid? What is the formulation of the argument against the apodictic arguments of Mises?
-
every law that comes into existence through the process of the free-market means that there is a consent of two parties willing to cooperate in a definite manner. the very fact of two human individuals interacting in a manner that is freed from coercion or the threat of such means there is voluntarism which implies that the non-aggression principle
-
"If a group of people would voluntarily get together and decide to use money that no intrinsic value, well that would be an interesting experiment. My guess is that the money would fall by the wayside." well, fiat currencies do exist because of government monopoly and legal tender law, otherwise it would be highly unlikely for an individual
-
guy A stealing guy B's property is a coercive act. a coercive act that results in something taken away from someone without his consent is considered theft. if guy B surrendered with his property voluntarily then this is not considered theft. as you can see the very definition of theft includes some violent act on the part of one guy that results