I am currently writing a paper in which I am examining both the natural rights view of property versus a communal or public view. I am trying to apply these two views of property to determining the legitimacy of a specific law. As a test of legitimacy, I want to use the nonaggression principle, but by referencing Rothbard or any other scholars who hold a firm stance on private property, I think that critics may point out that I am setting up my argument in a way that favors private property over any other view from the beginning. Are there any other scholars or principles that do not rely on a natural rights viewpoint or a firm stance on private property that I can reference to show that I am trying to approach this paper without an inherent bias in my argument?
Given that Mises did not believe in natural rights, you might start looking in his books.
And perhaps you shouldn't be too worried about being 'biased,' as long as you are able to consistently maintain your position with logic.
Also, look into Hayek's distinction between nomos and taxis.
Clayton -
Thanks, I'll take a look at it.
"Are there any other scholars or principles that do not rely on a natural rights viewpoint"
Hoppe.