I’m starting this thread based on a link that Student shared in a post. My personal, recent attraction to libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism is a strong belief in the idea that it is not ok to take/disrupt someone else’s private property against his or her will. However, Student posted a link that contains a couple examples where it seems difficult to apply that precise principle (the link also contains a few arguments that I feel are weak, so please see the example with the laser beam vs. lamp in the window).
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_41.html
My question is: how do you reconcile the idea of the right to/defense of one’s private property with the example of a neighbor shining a bright laser on someone’s front door (this would seem to certainly be a violation of their property) vs. turning on a lamp in the window which other neighbors can still see (this would seem to not be a violation of their property, but is essentially the same action as the laser but just to lesser degree) ?
I know I’ve only laid out some very basic thoughts and this can be seen as quite a loaded question, but I’d be interested to hear how people reconcile what I think is the foundational principle behind libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism (a right to and defense of one’s private property) with a practical example that seems to make it difficult to apply that exact guiding principle.
MJG,
A good rule of thumb, I've found, is that if you think something written by DF can be "easily dismissed", you're probably not fully registering what he is saying.
I believe the stumbling block is that you are packing a lot of things into JH's rule that are not there. For example, no one ever mentioned a judge. Indeed, even if he did, it isn't clear (based on this single simple rule) why I should give a hoot what he says anyways. To get there you have to either start making new rules or amending the existing one, as I noted previously.
If you still Friedman is missing something obvious, I can only recommend re-reading the chapter more closely. If you still feel that way, I guess we can only agree to disagree. Good luck!
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
please delete
I believe the stumbling block is that you are packing a lot of things into JH's rule that are not there. For example, no one ever mentioned a judge. Indeed, even if he did, it isn't clear (based on this single simple rule) why I should give a hoot what he says anyways.
The judge was my own opinion as to how societies would/should determine what constitutes a disruption of another's property. I quickly regretted bringing it up, as 1) it may be inconsistent with the more Rothbardian framework which Friedman criticizes and JH likely means and 2) it is beside the point. I did not pack anything into the 'rule;' I clarified an obvious condition of the rule. The rule also does not actually say what property is; would I be adding/packing a lot into it by explaining what does and does not constitute property?
The laser beam disrupts the person's use of his private property, the lamp does not. The photons striking the property are not the grounds for a property rights violation; the photons disrupting the person's use of his property are the violation. I don't know how Rothbardians would determine the line between disruption and non-disruption, but that's a separate issue. You certainly cannot determine what constitutes a disruption from JH's rule itself, any more than you could determine what constitutes property!
This is why I think Friedman may be guilty of a strawman here. He defines interfering with property a certain way, and then draws conclusions from that definition. The question, then, is whether any libertarians arguing from the 'absolutist' position define interfering the way Friedman does. Perhaps there are some who do, but I've always understood it as interfering with a person's use of their property, not the strict physical sanctity of the property. A cantankerous man could insist that his neighbor's lamp interferes with the use of his living room, and there does need to be some way of telling him that this does not count as a disruption. Appealing to custom, as I suggest, is neither "judging legal rules by their consequences" nor is it "softening" the principle such that "its implications become far less clear."
Yes, I do dare to challenge Dr. Friedman (I also gave his recent novel only 4 out of 5 stars, cause I've got big brass ones!). But as I said, I agree with him and believe most of the other problems are well put. I think this is a fairly weak example, relying on a strawman of traditional conceptions of property rights. It's one small example among many; I'm not challenging his whole corpus of work here! Nor, for that matter, am I challenging his general point.
Law, Property Rights and Air Pollution - Rothbard
/thread
Chyd3nius: All these kind of questions might be a problem by a Rothbardian view, but really, think about an an-cap society. Property owners won't read For a new Liberty when these problems arise, they will call to their lawyers. And problems will be solved on private courts. I really don't see any point with these kind of moral questions.
All these kind of questions might be a problem by a Rothbardian view, but really, think about an an-cap society. Property owners won't read For a new Liberty when these problems arise, they will call to their lawyers. And problems will be solved on private courts. I really don't see any point with these kind of moral questions.
Sorry that it has taken me so long to respond. Chyd3nius, your response is intriguing. I don't feel that this thread has really settled the issues that the laser or rifle examples bring to light. But are you saying that isn't what we should be debating? Is the point that our discussion should not be aimed at determining exactly how many photons of light constitute a violation of one's private property, but rather, we should be explaining why a private court system settles the conflict far better than a system of public/gov't run courts?
Can anyone comment / critique / expand on this?
Said a little differently... If someone says "Ok, you're an an-cap, and you believe in a system of private property, including private courts. But how do you deal with the issue of... [insert laser/neighbor example here]."
Should the response be that my personal thoughts on what constitutes a violation of private property are not the issue we should be focusing on? But rather, we first understand that there will be conflicts between people and their private property, and an an-cap believes that a system of private courts is far better as settling and minimizing these conflicts than a public/gov't court system.
I would also appreciate if anyone can point me towards a source for an explanation of how a private court system would function. I've read about this Chaos Theory and in some pieces by Hans Hoppe, but i'd like to check out other sources. Thanks
This may seem unrelated, but it seems like it may the place to ask:
What is the general libertarian stance on free speech? Is it always protected? Couldn't the laser be considered free speech?