Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project, which aims to promote the Non-Aggression Principle as a universal peace agreement, and I discussed various issues including: immigration and open borders, and so on.
The unholy alliance between Big Pharma and the FDA and Federal Government is truly breathtaking to behold. Unfortunately, its nature is so arcane and obscure that only a few notice this, other than those who benefit from it and keep their lips shut. To unpack this we must explore a few separate but interrelated issues. [continue reading…]
I’m a fan of your work, and appreciate your input into unalienable rights and the Blockean homestead problem. I’d like to add a bit of angel-pin nuance to them.
1) You’ve mentioned multiple times that the human physical body is unalienable, in the vein of Rothbard. I’d like to clarify that it is the mind/will, or in a quasi-Christian sense “soul”, that is unalienable, and not the physical body, since consensual organ sales and prostitution are perfectly fine in libertarianism (of course, this is for consensual transactions of one’s physical body, so stuff like infant circumcision is still out).
I have a question regarding your defence of the ‘Title Transfer Theory of Contract” pursuant to Ch. 9 of your book Legal Foundations of a Free Society.
The question is as follows: ‘Are you familiar with Lukasz Dominiak and Tate Fegley’s 2022 criticism of the title transfer theory of contract? If so, what are your thoughts regarding the arguments made by Dominiak and Fegley? Do you feel that the title transfer theory of contract– as advanced by yourself, Rothbard and Evers– ought to be abandoned or amended in light of Dominiak and Fegley’s criticisms? Alternatively, do you believe that Dominiak and Fegley have erred in their analysis? If so, how?’
Thank you for your time Mr Kinsella, and I hope to hear from you soon. I am most interested to hear your views! 🙂 [continue reading…]
I just recently had a long conversation with my philosophy professor whose specialty is to study Kant’s works. He began to talk about the universalizability principle,1 so I asked him whether a State’s existence (which I clarified is an issue because one group of people essentially says “I can hit you but you can’t hit me”) can be coherently justified with a Kantian ethic. He said “yes,” which led to a long conversation and then me asking whether any initiation of force by one group of privileged individuals over a group of non-privileged individuals can be justified with a Kantian ethic. He proceeded to tell me that the initiation of force can be justified in circumstances in which the victimized party has no reason for resisting the force except for “it’s mine.” However, he also said that slavery is inconceivable because it treats people as a mere means, and gives people no “respect,” which they require for being autonomous beings. He also told me that Kant supported a confederation of nations and that any given maxim could be correct if it is conceivable that a “society” within a nation could exist that all adhere to this maxim. [continue reading…]
Let’s say I buy an apple with BTC but the apple is rotten and the seller knows this. Has the apple seller engaged in fraud and therefore “stolen” my BTC? Since BTC is not ownable then it can’t strictly speaking be stolen right? Does this mean I can’t get my BTC back? [continue reading…]
I had a question on marriage contracts: are they enforceable contracts or just promises? I don’t see any title ownership claims being exchanged when the people just say “I will be faithful,” it sounds just like a promise, would this part of the marriage contract be enforceable and would someone who cheated be held liable for breaking this contract? I don’t see how they would… I don’t know what the wording is on the contracts, but I don’t see how someone should pay restitution or go through the legal trouble for cheating if it’s just breaking the promise. [continue reading…]
You have made the point that technically speaking a property right is not the right to control a resource but the right to exclude others from using a resource. [See LFFS, ch. 2, Appendix I, the section “Property as a Right to Exclude” —SK] If you have the time I would like to ask 2 questions regarding how this applies to easements like a right of way.
Positive easements like a right of way are commonly looked at as the right to USE OR DO something to the land that is the subject of the easement.
How would one look at a right of way or other such easements from the perspective of the “right to exclude”? What do you have the right exclude the primary owner from doing with their land in this case? [continue reading…]
Recent Comments