-
Hasn't the government homesteaded those parts of the land it has transformed? (E.g., roads that were built directly by the government?)
-
[quote user="Sukrit"] I just read point 1; doesn't make sense to me. The NAP doesn't prohibit all pollution. Even if I pollute your lake, yes technically speaking that might be aggression on your property right, but you can allow me to pollute if I pay you a fee to do so. Many people would voluntarily enter into such arrangements.
-
I think the point of point 5 is that NAP is tautological. The concept of property is "that which is legitimately under control of only one person (owner) or set of people (owners) and not others; that which is illegitimate for others to control or to force the owner not to control". That idea already includes in it the concept that it is not
-
A friend of mine asked whether the government is to blame for this: Assuming the answer is "yes", what is one single best source that explains how? Best in the sense that it's concise and to the point, addressing this specific question (so, don't recommend reading all of Human Action, please). Can be an article, excerpt from a book
-
Machinery of Freedom , by David Friedman. PDF available online.
-
www.salon.com/2013/03/29/north_dakota_is_bringing_socialism_back_partner/ Comments?
-
I've heard three views regarding granting homosexuals "right" to marry: 1. This right will give them a privilege to sick leaves, etc.: i.e., it will create positive rights for them, which means more violation of others' negative rights. As such, it should be opposed. 2. This right will protect their negative rights to some extent from
-
Actually, I was wrong. He believes in NAP: econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/01/huemers_common-.html The only difference is: he defends it on moral intuitionist grounds, not either a priori approach like Hoppe or Rothbard or consequentialist grounds (which in my opinion is not a defense at all). Which may or may not be a strong approach.
-
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.
-
I have asked before if anyone has read Michael Huemer's libertarian book, and aparently nobody has. (David Gordon told me over e-mail that he is planning to review it one day.) I still haven't had a chance to read it myself, but here is an article on Cato Unbound in which Huemer outlines basic points of his book: http://www.cato-unbound.org