Murder by property (rights)

Reply

National Acrobat replied on Sat, Sep 29 2012 5:54 PM

rated by 0 users

nirgrahamUK:

My point is that the hypothetical posed originally, is not a special case, and does not require a special response NOR rejection of the theory as a whole. What needs to happen is a readjustment of expectations. I.e. You should consider why are so horrified about the idea that in a private property world there exists a theoretical possibility that you may get surrounded by uncooperative strangers. Are you so similarly horrified by the notion that it is morally permissable for all present owners of food that are not you to not sell or give you their food ? You confuse logically possible problem with problem worth worrying about at your own peril.

I think you're going to have a problem getting people to adjust their expectations to the idea that they are constantly in a game of cyanide Russian roulette. 

The moral outrage buried in the hypothetical is that of the believer in positive rights, the rights to the food, water, standing room of others. The rights of the thief that rejects his fellow being as moral agents with their own autonomy.

 

What you consider to be positive or negative rights depends on your theory of property. You can argue that libertarian property rights are positive rights as easily as food, water and standing room. 

Reply

nirgrahamUK replied on Sun, Sep 30 2012 6:36 AM

rated by 0 users

Yes, it is a great problem to get people to realise the truth of various matters.

I am happy to restrict myself to systems of property rights that are logically tenable. So I'm on solid ground. Yeah, there may be all sorts of theoretical property  systems, but why should I concern myself with them when they are not fit for purpose. (See De Jasay; Hoppe )