Thoughts on the Latecomer and Homesteading Ideas; or, why the very idea of “ownership” implies that only libertarian principles are justifiable
The following is an edited version of my recent post on a libertarian discussion list.
The following is an edited version of my recent post on a libertarian discussion list.
Coasian ethics have come to roost in Ohio, or roast as the case may be (roasted soybeans in this instance).
Madison stated the historic fact: in democracy there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. There is no protection for liberty. Hence it is, that democracies always destroy personal security (the Gestapo, the concentration camps) and the rights of property (what rights of property ownership are there in Europe, now?) and are as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.
The remains of the Roman Forum, Coliseum, and the palaces of Palatine Hill, are proof that empires fall, despite the wonders created by the political class in attempts to placate the masses. In addition, these sites show that every empire needs a war for victories, and enemies for threats. Sadly, we have not learned these lessons.
[This article is taken from chapter 19 of The Ethics of Liberty.
Economic freedom in fact reduces unemployment to levels significantly below those in less free countries. The Amish may hold the secret to full employment, but rejection of modern capitalism is full employment in poverty and hardship, not the rich fruits of progress.
Not only are there no human rights which are not also property rights, but the former rights lose their absoluteness and clarity and become fuzzy and vulnerable when property rights are not used as the standard.
There is no such thing as a right to privacy except the right to protect one's property from invasion.