My name is [x], and I am an independent scholar specializing in Austrian Economics. I am familiar with your work on Estoppel and this is a reason why I contact you. Recently, I encountered a problem that I can’t resolve definitively. The issue involves the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) and its apparent ambiguity. I haven’t found any references addressing the role of bystanders, except for discussions of their use as shields in self-defense contexts. My question is: should a bystander remain neutral, or is voluntary intervention on the side of a victim consistent with the NAP? What would be considered the default action or non-action according to the NAP?
Reason has had its 25 staffers say who they will vote for: 12 in favor of Chase Oliver, 6 will not vote, 3 for Harris, one Nikki Haley write-in, one Kennedy write-in, two two undecideds. None for Trump. Wow.
Daniel Klein and Host make the case that Trump is obviously the lesser evil, yet the leading libertarian organization won’t say this (other mainstream “respectable” groups like Cato, Mercatus, AEI, etc won’t even come clean, as Reason at least did) I think he’s right. [continue reading…]
The right way to look at it, IMO, is that people do and should want “freedom” and that is why they should want property rights–as the only means to achieve the end of genuine freedom. Just as Rand almost defined happiness as the emotion that comes from successful living, freedom is whatever you are able to enjoy when your property rights are respected. Property and justice must be more fundamental and freedom dependent and based on property rights and defined in terms of property rights. [continue reading…]
DENVER — A conflict brewing in southwestern Colorado pits ranchers and outdoors enthusiasts against survivors of former polygamist leader Warren Jeffs after the latter group declared itself the Free Land Holders Committee and began fencing off about 1,000 acres of public U.S. Forest Service land. [continue reading…]
Talking with Jeff Tucker, he wondered how I ever got sucked into the Bitcoin Maximalism cult. He obviously sides with people like Aaron Day, Roger Ver, Steve Patterson, the ones who bemoan the “hijacking” of Bitcoin. See Steve Patterson, Hijacking Bitcoin: The Hidden History of BTC. Am I a maxi? Let’s think about it.
Our views evolve over time. My core libertarian beliefs have not changed much in the last thirty years, as I note in the preface to Legal Foundations of a Free Society, except for a couple of areas that I explicitly call out, and for some matters of terminology and usage:
In one case I now disagree with something I originally wrote; I retained the original text and added an explanatory note (chapter 13, Part III.C). And in chapter 9 (Part III.C), I note that, regarding my earlier criticism of Rothbard’s argument for inalienability: “I now think it is possible that his approach is more compatible with my own than I originally realized.” But otherwise, I today still stand by most of the original content of those articles, in terms of substance. However, as noted several places in the text, I often now use terminology somewhat differently, e.g., the term state instead of government; rivalrous or “conflictable” instead of scarce; using the word property to refer to the relation between humans with respect to owned resources, instead of referring to the owned resource itself, and so on. “I have in some cases updated the text to my current, preferred usage, but not always since it would have been too drastic and tedious.
As for the change of mind indicated above, ch. 13, “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” as my Introductory Note to Part III.C explains, “In this section (Part III.C), I relied heavily on Bruno Leoni’s interpretation of Mises’s and Hayek’s views on the economic calculation problem and his related criticism of legislation by analogy to central economic planning. Subsequently, I gained a deeper understanding of the difference between Mises’s and Hayek’s approach to this issue, after Joseph Salerno initiated the “dehomogenization” debate.” 1
But earlier in my development I did change my mind or modify my views on several issues, and in the ensuing years on some applications. Here are a few, in roughly chronological order:
God. I initially was strongly Catholic, having been reared that way and attending 12 years of Catholic school, serving as an altar boy, and so on. When I was around 14 or 15 I started to develop serious doubts and soon became a die-hard atheist. I have not changed my view but I have become less militant and less hostile to religion, as I see now that it necessarily encodes and encapsulates much practical wisdom, and is preferable to the modern religion of statism and state worship.
Anarchy. Initially a fairly orthodox Objectivist (starting around 10th grade in high school) and thus minarchist and hostile to anarchy, by law school I was a full-fledged Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist (though I prefer the term anarcho-libertarian now).
Intellectual Property. Initially I assumed IP must be legitimate but was dissatisfied with arguments for it, when I decided to switch, as a young attorney, from oil & gas law to patent law in 1993 or so, I turned my attention to this issue and tried to come up with a better justification. The result was my complete change of mind and rejection of all forms of IP.
Abortion. Initially pro-choice on Objectivist and libertarian grounds, I for a long time held the view that early-term fetuses don’t have rights, late-term fetuses probably do, and thus only late term abortion should be prohibited. My view has only changed a bit here: first, after becoming a parent, I started to feel more strongly that even early-term abortion is usually immoral, even if it’s not murder; and now, I believe it should not be outlawed even in the later term, at least not by the criminal law of any external legal system. (see KOL443)
Rothbard’s Argument for Inalienability. I originally criticized Rothbard’s argument for inalienability. With a deeper understanding for the argument for self-ownership, based on the work of Hoppe and my own work, and thus for the argument for inalienability and against voluntary slavery contracts, I think Rothbard’s argument is basically correct, even if it’s incomplete and fairly sketchy, or that at least this is one way to construe it (even if his own view of contract and “implicit theft” and debtor’s prison is incompatible with his inalienability views). See LFFS, “A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability,” Part III.C.1; see also “The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract.”
Israel. I was always strongly Israel, having written an embarrassing Randian-style defense in college, 2 and a controversial article on LewRockwell arguing for moving Israel to Utah, 3, but arguments in light of the recent Israel-Gaza conflict, by Hans Hoppe, Saifedean Ammous, and others 4, and getting more educated on the history of Israel, have made me reevaluate some my views. At this point I feel like my heart is with Israel, but my head recognizes what Israel has done and is doing cannot be justified.
Ukraine. I still despise the commies and think Russia is in violation of international law and evil, and I still do not believe NATO is an actual threat to Russia 5 and I believe Ukraine has the right to join NATO and the EU, but my view on this has been softened by the anti-war types and Hoppe’s comments. 6
Recent Comments