Sticks and stones will break my bones, and so will words, so lets fight about it
-a motto for Aaron
p.s. the title might possibly be changed from 'reject voluntarism' to 'reject voluntarism and freedom of speech'
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
His criticism seems to be based on a misunderstanding, no doubt the result of youtube being his source.
Are fighting words a form of protected speech under libertarian law?
Yes, if those libertarians believe in a physical NAP. (As most libertarians do, e.g. Walter Block.) They see freedom as property, no exceptions.
I think this fails in practice "at the edges" though, because property is a means of action (so praxeological NAP). This would mean freedom before property in some cases, as judged in a decentralized utilitarian David Friedman kind of way by the community for cases where strict physical interpretations would be absurd (land encirlement, general ordering the deaths, copyright of one's name-signature combination, ...)
I wrote a wikipedia page on Frank van Dun, a Belgian Professor in philosophy of law that adresses the difference between physical and praxeological NAP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_van_Dun
What do you think?
Edit: To make myself clear: I think market competition in law will end up adopting Hoppean Argumentation Ethics as principle, with praxeological interpretations in practice to increase "robustness" of the system.
What are "fighting words"? Threatening someone is not "protected".
There are plenty of communists that would be quite happy to follow example 1 and 2 down a slippery slope. There must be a way to know the limits or creative exceptions will overtake the rule. 3 seems to be a case of excessive force.
The answer seems rather simple to me-The individual saying "bad words" is free to do it on properties that permit it. If he tries to follow and harass the target all the way into his home, that's a violation of the NAP.
Am I wrong?
The point is here, a right to punch in a face a guy, who is yelling at you even when he is not on your property.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
@Maiku: So in this case, local arbitrators will weight the property owner's right to be left alone vs the right not to be hit by the guy yelling. Market outcome in such cases will on average reflect local preferences of the consumers/civilians.
@Caley McKibbin: Yes indeed, but as always we can only point to market competition to prevent this. The market here is social ostracism by neighbors. Communities will decide the weight of property rights in cases where they conflict.
I for one would have prefer to have a PDA that sees my own name+signature as my copyright, I think it's convenient for contracting. (Until the market finds a better solution that is.) It all comes down to weighing property rights, and realizing non-physical conflicts can arise praxeologically.
If I'm missing something, which is certainly possible, I'm eager to know so I can change my position.
Verbal threats are a great example of the two options for governing principles: the voluntarist approach and the natural order (in this case, private common law).
In the old British common law, which developed through a competing system of courts, only threats concerning the immediate future were considered crimes, and only if the victim was aware of the threat. Also, affronts to someone's dignity or attacks on their honor were prosecuted as battery (as in assault and battery), because they were just as likely to result in violence.
Would a NAP scholar or voluntarist scholar consider vague threats about the future, which the victim was not aware of, to be aggression (or imposition on voluntary action)? What about affronts to someone's honor? Or is this self-evident to the average person?
This brings the question home: Which is preferable, a system of designed law or a system of emergent law?
Why anarchy fails
AJ, emergent law for sure.
I always saw both voluntarist and common law as the same emergent system, with NR theorists as defining what rights there should be to respect.
So NR = what rights, emergent system = which rights get preference in conflicts. I see this as one consistent whole, both theoretically and practically.