Mithun - when you referred to the debate between David Friedman and Walter Block, I am assuming you were referring to this paper: libertarianpapers.org/articles/2011/lp-3-35.pdf Ive read this over the last few days and find most of Blocks rebuttals of Friedman nowhere close to being as convincing as Block seems to think they are. To give just one example of the kind of errors that Block makes in this paper, in Page 5, in response to Friedmans criticism that a strict interpretation of the NAP and the notion of absolute property rights would mean that no radio waves should be allowed to invade someones property, Block approvingly quotes Rothbard who says that radio waves are not an invasion of property because they are not detectable and because the senses of the property owner are not interfered with. What Block (and Rothbard) dont seem to realize is that with this logic, they have just declared that trespassing is not a property rights violation under libertarian law as long as the trespasser does his act in such a way that the property owner never comes to know that his property was in fact trespassed. So, if I enter your house when you are away, sit in your couch, watch TV etc. and leave before you return, and as long as you have no idea that I was in your house, since I have not interfered with your senses, then everythings kosher according to this logic and I have not violated your rights. So failure to detect a crime, according to Block, is equivalent to no crime having been committed at all. And a few of Blocks arguments are completely absurd in my opinion (for instance, where he suggests in Page 14 that the appropriate libertarian punishment for theft is not only for the thief to compensate the victim to the extent of twice the amount that has been stolen - which I am ok with - but also for the victim to then have the right to play Russian Roulette with the thief in order to compensate the victim for the fact that the theft scared him. Really?). It seems to me that in this paper, Block has taken the idea of defending the indefensible a bit too literally :) I also came across another paper by JC Lester where he has pretty much invalidated almost each and every one of Blocks rebuttals and has then provided his own responses to Friedman where he acknowledges the validity of many of Friedmans criticisms. I am assuming that you have read this paper because the burning building example you provided earlier was mentioned here: la-articles.org.uk/block.pdf Although I dont agree completely with Lester, I find his arguments far, far more convincing than Blocks. And one of the things he says in his paper (page 6) is that libertarian property rights are not in fact absolute in nature.
Posted on: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 05:44:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015