Message from @Drywa11
Discord ID: 614354277875318796
There is a reason Rothbard became a Statist later in his life
Once he realized the failures of libertarianism
Well, his argument that parents should be allowed to abandoned their children, if only exclusively operating on the NAP.
I believe his argument, even with exclusive reference to the NAP, is incorrect.
Because he doesn't account for the fact that procreation is generally a voluntary act for the parents, but not voluntary to the new party being created, the child.
Basically, having a child, through consensual intercourse, is like two parties engaging in an activity that they have good reason to believe can incapacitate a non-consenting third party.
Ergo, they should be accountable for having placed that third party in the position of vulnerability.
In must the same way that, if your deliberate recklessness were to result in a car accident which paralyzed someone.
Rothbard became a statist?
I though he only started opposing open borders
I know he made strategic judgement involving the state and government. But that's triage more than anything. If you behave like you exist in a libertarian order, when you don't, you're just being an idiot.
True
Things like, "as long as the state does exist, I will argue it ought serve my interests" is not statism. It's just being practical.
And if that state is *always* going to violate the NAP, making an argument for a process of violation which is less destructive to libertarian goals is also strategic.
What's funny is, from what I understand of propertarianism, that's pretty close to my position. So, I'm not really sure why we're arguing. I guess just over definitions of what constitutes a libertarian order.
My basic argument is that, for any kind of NAP or property oriented system of law to persist, it must be perpetuated by capable people whose priority is doing so, and who can recognize when that objective isn't being served, reacting accordingly.
Like, one could even argue that many of the original US stated values are not particularly terrible, but that the chief failing in their manifestation and persistence is simply that, for the people whose actions could have secured it, they simply, didn't regard it as a sufficient priority to do so.
And this is almost always the core problem, in any given system
People don't often prioritize high minded ideals over their own comfort and convenience.
I don’t know enough about propertarianism to critique it. The Wikipedia page on it isn’t very detailed, but it doesn’t look objectionable.
Often only doing so when they feel there are sufficient, and immediate costs to inaction.
@Drywa11 The Wikipedia article is mostly about Minarchism. What I'm referencing is different.
I myself am not particularly sure how it really differs from the hoppean model.
If you could explain that, it would be appreciated.
It basically expands the NAP to include more immoral acts
And relies on reciprocity
It is significantly different from Hoppeanism
which immoral acts?
Although I think it is a step in the right direction, it is still not complete. Nevertheless, it is much better than the current mainstream theories.
also, why can't those just be supplemented to the NAP via contract?
Yeah, i was just going back up to look at that
most of those are either already violations of the NAP, or something which could easily be covered via contract law
I also recently came across this system, so still learning about it
Religion specifically is kind of a sticky point. I think I know what it's getting at, but there's a lot of ambiguity. And I'm not sure what it means by "privitization"
since people often use it different ways in different contexts
Most of these things should be discouraged, even if they're not argued to be covered by the NAP.
Free-riding, for instance.
I came across this here for the first time