On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Sandwichman <[email protected]> wrote:
The following article does not argue against either the value of individual liberty or a preference for limited government but demonstrates that attempts to derive the latter from the former are illusory. Scanlon's remarks on what is natural and what is not about property rights [follow link] are germane to this discussion.
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR36.5/ndf_t_m_scanlon_libertarianism_liberty.ph...
This does not IMO invalidate attempts at such a derivation. It just complicates it. The core principles of libertarianism are self-ownership and non-aggression. But no particular property rights template can be deduced directly from these principles. What constitutes aggression or defensive force, in any particular circumstance, depends on the property rights template chosen. And property rights templates -- Lockean, non-proviso Lockean, Ingalls-Tucker occupancy-and-use ownership, Georgism, anarcho-communist, etc. -- are a matter of local community mores, based largely on consequentialist grounds. -- Kevin Carson Research Associate, Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Desktop Regulatory State: The Countervailing Power of Super-Empowered Individuals http://desktopregulatorystate.wordpress.com Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html