Kinsella the libertarian answer man strikes again:
From Twitter: "Hi Stephan. In your opinion, what is the most precise and complete way to express the non-aggression principle?
I'm working on a critique of the NAP and I do not wish to fight a strawman."
Kinsella:
Yesterday, 11:06 AM
You accepted the request
I think the NAP is just another way of saying "you own your body," and as such, it's just shorthand for a cluster of libertarian principles. It's more like metonymy. Libertarian principles IMO can best be explained by saying we believe in allocation of property rights so as to reduce or prevent conflict and to permit cooperation and productive use of resources. As such, we follow the principle "better title" when deciding how to allocate property rights-that is, in who owns what disputed resource or thing. If you apply a bit of economic sense and logic, you will see that this means the principles have to be: 1. In the case of one's body, each person is the presumptive owner of his body. 2. In the case of external, previously unused and unowned resources, the owner of a given scarce resource is determined in accordance with three rules: (a) who used it first (homesteading); (b) who transferred it to someone else (contract); (c) did the owner harm someone else and owe restitution (rectification). Those principles, which can be summarized as saying self ownership plus homesteading and contract, is what the NAP really refers to as a type of shorthand.. And those principles by the way are almost always recognized *to some extent* by most private law systems -- except not fully consistently. What's unique to libertarians is we are simply consistent about this since we oppose injustice on principle.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário