tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3616617274406183578..comments2024-03-19T00:20:18.049-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Rothbard as a philosopherEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53301319089225163872023-02-09T20:32:00.440-08:002023-02-09T20:32:00.440-08:00“Self ownership is axiomatical, because a person c...“Self ownership is axiomatical, because a person cannot do anything without owning himself.”<br />Incredible: you just ignored Feser’s arguments and repeated Rothbard’s error!<br />Also, you don’t seem to get what an axiom is: axioms are freely chosen! If self-ownership is axiomatic we are free to adopt the idea or not!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77896236009774984542020-10-13T02:04:03.104-07:002020-10-13T02:04:03.104-07:00The last time I checked in order to be an American...The last time I checked in order to be an American required the acceptance that our rights came to us by the Laws of Nature and of Natures God. It also required the understanding that for the truth to be self evident meant that these weren't matters of belief or opinion subjected to the Ego but the selfless Self which wasn't many but One. All authority of our Republic would rest with the people's will to Govern ourselves as free natural born men and women not subjects or slaves to dictators thieves tyrants or any other king or queen or title not even President of the United States but that we will be making our own decisions and live our own lives the way we see fit period. Who believes all men are created equal endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights among them life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Most certainly not our Ego and those that represent the biggest most racist Ego of them all that claim they are the Chosen People and Manifest Destiny is their Religion. Or better put, we were in Baghdad when you were in dad's bag.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35155988598550734222018-05-02T17:25:31.267-07:002018-05-02T17:25:31.267-07:00Rothbard did not consider those alternatives becau...Rothbard did not consider those alternatives because they fail the criterion of ethical universality which he strongly defends: an ethic for human being must be valid for all human beings all of the time. You would know that if you read the whole book The Ethics of Liberty.Svenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06752058861409981879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63707253339605467742014-05-13T12:57:19.017-07:002014-05-13T12:57:19.017-07:00Professor Feser,
I find your writing extremely int...Professor Feser,<br />I find your writing extremely interesting; it is one of the reasons I am no longer a Rothbardian. However, I have a few questions about your theory of rights. You claim that we have property rights so that we can realize our purpose in nature and fulfil our obligations; therefore, we do not have a right to do anything contrary to our end as human beings. I know you do not support government intervention in order to remedy all immoralities, but I am still troubled by the implications of the theory. For example, such things as fast food and excessive sunlight can hinder our flourishing and interfere with our ability to fulfill our obligations. Do you therefore claim that we do not have the right to eat fast food or to take in more sunlight than is necessary? Is it merely a matter of prudence that governments ought not to prevent these things? Also, it is a non sequitur to claim that because something is bad for us, we have no right to it. You must first prove that we have an obligation to abstain from those things that are bad for ourselves. I agree with you that Rothbard’s justification of rights is weak; however, there are problems with your theory as well.<br />Ronny O'Learyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17641295780164725500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39481650682780605632012-07-19T19:02:11.139-07:002012-07-19T19:02:11.139-07:00I am reading your critiques of Rothbard with pleas...I am reading your critiques of Rothbard with pleasure. <br /><br />I have been very uneasy about a lot of Austrian arguments about ethics.Lila Rajivahttp://www.mindbodypolitic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63967550372544518962009-12-01T22:27:55.398-08:002009-12-01T22:27:55.398-08:00Define "own".Define "own".Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67099951069698840962009-09-03T12:24:39.915-07:002009-09-03T12:24:39.915-07:00Mistakes:
Self ownership is axiomatical, because ...Mistakes:<br /><br />Self ownership is axiomatical, because a person cannot do anything without owning himself. In fact the very fact that his body can only function if he is owning it - that is, in control over it - shows that self ownership is a prerequesite to life.<br /><br />You dont understand the idea of owning something. It comes from "mixing one's labour" with something. And in that sense<br /><br />You say:<br />"I have a certain “range of control” over my neighbor’s flower bed – he couldn’t stop me if I walked over right now and pulled some flowers out of it – but it doesn’t follow that I own it."<br />You DO own it, by mixing your labour with it, you have ownership. The thief owns what he stole, aswell. Although in the flowerbed case it is illegitimate ownership, due to the lack of consent of your neighbour.nandnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63496919364366499572009-08-22T11:23:17.574-07:002009-08-22T11:23:17.574-07:00Edward--I wouldn't go so far as to call Rothba...Edward--I wouldn't go so far as to call Rothbard a "bad philosopher." His view strikes me as extreme. Let's accept it as such. I certainly don't agree that "government per se is evil" for the same reason that guns don't kill people, people do. What's Rothbard talking about owning people in the first place for? That violates good common sense. He's simplifying things to get his point across, in fine. What you're so perspicacious with here is in citing numerous ramifications that Rothbard leaves out. OK, good. I admire the astute nature of that writing. Perhaps Rothbard didn't see the need for all those complexities entering the picture. That's all I see.Fredericnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67289929268297859322009-08-13T19:45:15.117-07:002009-08-13T19:45:15.117-07:00As a teenager, I was swayed to atheism by Ayn Rand...As a teenager, I was swayed to atheism by Ayn Rand's arguments. Over the course of two years, I gradually detected some of her flaws and stopped agreeing with her in toto, preferring Rothbard's worldview. I was a fanatical anarcho-capitalist. "Natural rights" had taken the place of religion for me. It provided me with dogma and something "holy." <br /><br />As a collegian, I took several philosophy courses and became more adept at b.s.-detection and asked myself one day, "Now why do I accept 'natural rights' again?" <br /><br />I pored over "For A New Liberty" again and found the crux of the matter, Rothbard's "self-ownership" case. I read it and reread it and searched the rest of the book and I said to myself, "That's it?" I immediately saw through it, and my primary objection was much like what you've said, that maybe the concept of anyone owning anyone is invalid, certainly one Rothbard never justified. <br /><br />I sat down hard, no longer believing in anything. The universe seemed empty. I no longer had a dogma. There were no natural rights. I had grown up and it hurt. It took me a long time to get up, as I no longer saw the point, but I realized I couldn't just sit there forever. <br /><br />I resolved never to believe anything again except simple, empirically verifiable truths, like "The cat is on the mat." I was a logical positivist for a year or two after that. I was so bummed. <br /><br />Glad to see someone else point out Rothbard's inadequacy.Zorro-3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21161282776476052542009-08-10T08:58:14.068-07:002009-08-10T08:58:14.068-07:00Thanks for dealing with Rothbarth quite thoroughly...Thanks for dealing with Rothbarth quite thoroughly.<br />He offers some valid observations when it comes to economy - but even those have to be checked back against his weltanschauung.<br />Interestingly, if I got him right, his stance on abortion is rooted in his "thesis of self-ownership" and is quite parallel to that of Liberalism: ...<br />as you put it @ The Evolution of Liberalism<br />"[the unborn]...they still intrude on the mother's right to do whatever she wants with her body...".<br /><br />Libertarianism, leaving God out of the picture, shares with Liberalism this basic sin: deified and idolized Man substitutes the Allmighty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31267849365272190122009-08-10T01:58:39.554-07:002009-08-10T01:58:39.554-07:00I think Rothbard's main flaw, by which you not...I think Rothbard's main flaw, by which you noticed inadequacies in his reasoning, was his belief in natural rights, which serves as a logical dead-end. <br />In some ways, Rothbard improved on Mises, by including defense and security in the idea of a free market. In other ways, he was a step backward, in that he didn't realize that his arguments were ultimately utilitarian.Paulhttp://colorfulrag.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78658790061590647882009-08-09T08:46:48.710-07:002009-08-09T08:46:48.710-07:00Rothbard was an atheist or agnostic, although in l...Rothbard was an atheist or agnostic, although in later years he became sympathetic to religion (he was never hostile).Neil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21537941761878868812009-08-08T19:45:31.980-07:002009-08-08T19:45:31.980-07:00I have only read a little of Rothbard, so I may ha...I have only read a little of Rothbard, so I may have gotten an unfair glimpse of his thinking, but: did he even consider the possibility of a God interested in His creation? Did he even think the question relevant to his "philosophy?" If so, how could Rothbard possibly NOT be aware of the theory in (b), that God owns all of us?Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6316397863089438602009-08-08T12:31:39.349-07:002009-08-08T12:31:39.349-07:00Dr. Feser,
I think I have a higher opinion of Rot...Dr. Feser,<br /><br />I think I have a higher opinion of Rothbard as a philosopher than you do, but I do agree he could have done a better job responding to (or considering) counterarguments. In this respect he reminds me of Ayn Rand (whom he knew for a time).Neil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.com