General

Re: Anarchy only for libertarians?

hayekianxyz — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:58:15 GMT

Sage:

I think Rothbard may have been talking about his "libertarian law code", which is wholly rejected today (as far as I can tell). Basically, he was saying that a free country would be governed by a libertarian law code agreed upon by the founders of the country.

There are obvious problems with this (e.g. inconsistent with NAP), so most anarchists favor the "legal positivism" as put forth by David Friedman, where people buy what type of law they want (e.g. Catholic law, muslim law) just like any other good.

As far as I know all Rothbard meant that providers of law would have to agree to abide by the NAP and the homesteading principle as only this would be compatible with a free society. Which, as far as I can see is correct, and compatible with other forms of law. I don't see any reason why it would be rejected.

Re: Anarchy only for libertarians?

Sage — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:49:54 GMT

I think Rothbard may have been talking about his "libertarian law code", which is wholly rejected today (as far as I can tell). Basically, he was saying that a free country would be governed by a libertarian law code agreed upon by the founders of the country.

There are obvious problems with this (e.g. inconsistent with NAP), so most anarchists favor the "legal positivism" as put forth by David Friedman, where people buy what type of law they want (e.g. Catholic law, muslim law) just like any other good.

Re: Anarchy only for libertarians?

Marko — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:14:12 GMT

No really, what are the practical implications of this?

Isn`t this a sort of open door for gradualism and minarchism? Does this mean we should have a night-watchman state until people become more acquianted with the non-agression axiom and libertarianism? Wouldn`t this be sort of like the communists arguing for a transition period of socialism and dictatorship of proletariat to be followed by stateless comunism?

Re: Anarchy only for libertarians?

Marko — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 02:33:07 GMT

Only if we are practical, but not otherwise.

Re: Anarchy only for libertarians?

scineram — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:48:04 GMT

I mean, isn't that obvious?

Anarchy only for libertarians?

Marko — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 01:15:24 GMT

I seem to vaguely remember reading somewhere (LRC Blog I think) that Rotbard only argued for anarchy in conditions where most people that would be included into it agreed with the non-agression axiom and were therefore Libertarian leaning or something like that.

Can anyone confirm this? (Or did it I dream it? :s) Where did Rothbard express this view?

What does it mean in practice and did he ever specify what sort of a system he favoured where people were clueless about the non-agression axiom and perhaps even unwilling to accept it?