Feser rips Rothbard a new one:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/08/is-self-ownership-axiomatic.html
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/08/rothbard-revisited.html
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/08/rothbard-as-philosopher.html
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton:http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/08/is-self-ownership-axiomatic.html
Wow. This one is easy to dispute.
'Is it strictly axiomatic or self-evident that you must not use force to prevent him from killing himself – such as by stealing his glass of hemlock, locking him in a padded room, or whatever? Because that is what the libertarian principle of self-ownership entails.'
Stealing, kidnapping are violations of the NAP. I don't see how self-ownership entails the violation of the NAP. I do not 'own' the body of a friend, nor his thoughts and therefore what he thinks and acts is from his own accord. What am I to do if he tries to commit suicide yet I use force to stop him? Will I constantly have to watch over him, ensuring that he does not do it again, such is the argument for the state apparatus. Therefore I submit that the example is a falsehood and presupposes that the violation of the NAP is necessary [ therefore causing self-ownership to be censored ]. One is not acting out of 'self-ownership' in such an action but out of despotism, tyranny, coercion, whatever you wish to call it.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
GilesStratton:Feser rips Rothbard a new one:
How so? He seems to be mixing up self ownership with things you can deduce from self ownership, and saying because the latter aren't axiomatic then neither is self ownership itself. Sounds like BS to me. His own example, the law of non contradiction, belies his approach. Just because two statements can't predicate the same thing at the same time doesn't mean in real world applications things get more complex because your out of the world of pontificating asses and in real life, where one statement can be true now but not in the future, when another seemingly contradictory statement is true. He makes the claim "that the principle is not strictly axiomatic or self-evident," but fails to back this up with any actual reasoning or example.
Just because he finds a situation where one person may have the moral right to end their life and another may want to violate that right doesn't mean he's invalidated self ownership. Because what the principle entails isn't the same or as inarguable as the principle itself. His fire department argument is equally moronic. It's tantamount to saying that because rights can be violated they don't exist, or because someone assumes to place a burden of duty on me that I have to accept it and it therefore nullifies any rights I may have.
His argument is actually quite moronic. Rothbard is arguing ethics and morality, this guy brings legality into the argument as if it trumps ethics and morality. Laws are subject to ethical and moral review, ethics and morals are not subject to legal restriction or modification. It's the same type of argument that leads to the conclusion that the Jews actually committed voluntary suicide in the holocaust because Hitler was technically elected voluntarily. Property rights do have extreme implications. That does not mean in practice they wil always lead to extreme results and are thus negated.
His premise that self-ownership isn't axoimatic is *true*. His conservatism is *wrong*.
"In everyday life, we are all well aware that the fact that you own your back yard (say) does not entail that you have no obligation in justice to allow the fire brigade access to it in order to get to the burning building behind it"
That was enough to end my reading in disgust. I in fact keep my rifle loaded JUST in case a band of wiley fire fighters decide to trespass.
twistedbydsign99: "In everyday life, we are all well aware that the fact that you own your back yard (say) does not entail that you have no obligation in justice to allow the fire brigade access to it in order to get to the burning building behind it" That was enough to end my reading in disgust. I in fact keep my rifle loaded JUST in case a band of wiley fire fighters decide to trespass.
Nobody can walk across my lawn to possible save another person's life!
I am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
laminustacitus:Nobody can walk across my lawn to possible save another person's life!
I would be inclined to let them as long as they asked me. But they are definitely not justified in doing it without my permission.
twistedbydsign99: laminustacitus:Nobody can walk across my lawn to possible save another person's life! But they are definitely not justified in doing it without my permission.
But they are definitely not justified in doing it without my permission.
Of course not: justia fiat pereat mundi.
twistedbydsign99:I would be inclined to let them as long as they asked me. But they are definitely not justified in doing it without my permission.
Exactly. And, should you bring charges against them if they went against your wishes, you'd still have to live in a world full of reasonable people who know what a bastard you are (not good for personal advancement) and/or a judge would likely give them at most a slap on the wrist because their actions, while technically wrong, could reasonably be considered subsumed in the greater act of stopping mass property damage while doing little to no damage to your property. And all the rest of your life you have to live being known as the prick who let his neighbor's house burn so his picnic wouldn't be interrupted or some such.
I really love how these nitwits argue.
"It's wrong for the police to randomly search you at the airport."
"Not it's not! Because I was there yesterday and I saw them doing just that, so it must be right!"
"You're missing the point a bit..."
"No no no! I really saw them doing it!"
"Good God..." *takes a shot of whiskey*
Laughing Man: Will I constantly have to watch over him, ensuring that he does not do it again, such is the argument for the state apparatus.
Will I constantly have to watch over him, ensuring that he does not do it again, such is the argument for the state apparatus.
I saw that first-hand. At my old job we not only received criminals or suicidal people (that may not have been criminals but their parents or the state, a social worker, agreed with their parents to send them to the facility), but we had to watch over anybody that inclined towards suicide. Sometimes 24-7, sitting in their doorway, watching them with their rooms totally stripped down to the clothes they are wearing, a bed, one sheet, and one pillow (cause state law says they have to have these still). Sitting in the doorway was always dangerous cause they tend to get aggressive sitting in that room with nothing to do, since they are already inclined to be aggressive to begin with. So constant watch and reading their body language was a priority not only to watch them so they didn't try to bang their head off the wall or something (that's happened or they sneak in stuff - some were very, very crafty in where they hid items). But also had to watch in self-defense mode the whole time. Night time is when they usually got aggressive (cause they slept all day from being up all night) or on the weekends it can go all day and all night. They like to do these things when other people are around so during the weekdays while the other girls or boys were in school or out doing something they tended to not do anything and could be quite friendly.
anyways...
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
Brainpolice: His premise that self-ownership isn't axoimatic is *true*. His conservatism is *wrong*.
Unless self-ownership means free-will, then it's true. But I didn't read the blog and from what I gather in this thread I didn't miss anything.
GilesStratton:Feser rips Rothbard a new one
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap