Actually, my argument wasn't about the rights of the landowner to stop you from flying over. It was about whether you were morally entitled to do it. The sort of bright line natural rights position I was arguing against holds that it is wrong to violate people's rights, and I don't think it provides any way of deciding how large the violation has to be to count. If crashing your plane into someone's house violates his rights, then one would think imposing a risk of doing so violates them too, hence you cannot morally fly (or drive, as you suggest, or ... .).
I'd like to jump in here because it looks interesting. It looks like we are basicially having issue with the continualism of an individual's property skyward.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
liberty student:Ayn Rand - Mike Wallace Interview
Is it just me, or are her eyes really twitchy in those videos?
Mr. Friedman, I really enjoyed your talk at Google (my introduction to your ideas).
Your position on natural rights is very interesting.
David Friedman: The sort of bright line natural rights position I was arguing against holds that it is wrong to violate people's rights, and I don't think it provides any way of deciding how large the violation has to be to count.
I see. I had assumed we were talking from a legal standpoint. If libertarianism is the idea that all rights are property rights then libertarianism is inseparable from legality.
Legality and morality, however, are not interchangeable. For example, it is not an internal contradiction to believe that there can be no positive legal obligations, but still believe in some positive moral obligatons.
While an individual may consider himself morally justified in stealing the rifle, that does not translate into legal justification. Rights cannot conflict. The rifle owner and the potential rifle thief can not have an equal claim to the rifle, one must always be able to defend the rifle against the other.
This problem becomes much more clear when we look at your discussion of the draft. In order for the draft to be "defendable" in times of need it would have to happen that those draftable individuals would have to lose their self ownership which would then transfer to draftor. It can not be that everyone gains equal right to draft everyone else, as this also violates the axiom that rights cannot conflict.
But who should lose their self ownership and who should gain ownership of them must be completely arbitrary. Why should legislatures draft citizens into the army, instead of citizens drafting the legislatures? Why should Town A draft Town B to defend against Town C, instead of Town B drafting Town A to defend themselves from Town C?
Moral or immoral, stealing the rifle, or enslaving your neighbor, incurs a legal liability. A somewhat minor restitution would be required of the rifle thief for the temporary use of another's property, but to kidnap a person and sending them to die your place is murder. The law serves to remedy the externiality created by the criminal, preventing the temporary stealing of the rifle from becoming a tax imposed on the rifle owner for the sake of providing the thief's defense.
David Friedman: Do you approve of the same principle in the context of eminent domain? The government takes your property and then pays you what purports to be a fair price for it. Is the only think wrong that they may pay less than the land is actually worth?
Do you approve of the same principle in the context of eminent domain? The government takes your property and then pays you what purports to be a fair price for it. Is the only think wrong that they may pay less than the land is actually worth?
This is somewhat separate from the rifle scenario, as the government is not simply possessing property against the will of the owner but declares itself empowered to grant itself new ownership. But it does also suffer from the conflicting of rights. Granting the power exclusively to the state helps disguise it, but even that distinction is ultimately arbitrary.
Hope I didn't keep you waiting for a reply. I've been busy.
P.S. I hope you stick around the forum, too!
Peace