I would argue that your problem is caused by ignoring the praxeological contribution: actions aren't mechanistic cause and effect: actions have meanings. People act because they want to achieve ends. If the ends are unjustifiable, i.e. killing someone, then pursuing this plan in a meaningful way is injustice. I'm not talking about standing in a bar and saying 'I'm gonna kill him!'; I'm talking about meaningful trying to achieve the goal of killing someone, in this case: by using an hitman.
You are correct in saying that determining this could be difficult in certain situations; but that shouldn't be a rebuttal of the theoretical argument for it.
Justice and injustice isn't about objective movements; it's about actions that people perform. Actions have meanings, i.e. we can 'verstehen' their meaning. That's why Obama and Bush are as much criminals as the IRS. That's why the janitor probably isn't.
Similarly: when there is an accident, people could be liable when they weren't careful enough, i.e. they didn't consider other peoples legitimate claims in their actions.
On the incite-argument: Rothbard is wrong in the way he approaches it: incitement could and should be considered a crime, if there is a causal connection - with reference to the actors and their meaningful actions - between the actions of the inciter and the actions of the crowd, just as their is a meaningful causal connection between the mafiabos and his minions. This doesn't mean that all inciters should be prosecuted, but it does mean that inciters don't go off the hook a priori. Rothbard was wrong in thinking that he had to mix a theoretical framework - 'what judges should use in their guidance of the decisions' - with practical applications - 'what judges should decide'. Those are 2 different ball games and Rothbard confused those two.
I would also add to anyone who wants to hear it:
If you are engaging into (political) philosophy, you have to understand that Rothbard's 'The Ethics of Liberty' relates to libertarian philosophy as 'Economics in One Lesson' (or 'Economics for Real People') relate to Philosophy. Rothbard was a brilliant economist (especially and foremost in MES), a sort of mediocre philosopher and a very ideological commited historian. (But that's just my personal opinion; if you don't like it, I'm fine with that.)
If you want to seriously engage in economics (and be relevant now a days); you have to get acquainted with everyone from Hulsmann and Garrison to Boettke and Leesson within the Austrian School and outside the Austrian school with people like Coase, Buchanan, Ostrom, Williamson and all the others; depending on the subject you seriously want to engage in. Don't think that just because you read the daily articles and MES; that you *know* the Austrian school.
If you want to seriously engage in (political) philosophy; it's relevant to know what people like Nozick, De Jasay, Hoppe, Narveson, Lomansky, Schmitdz, Otteson, Long, Rasmussen & Den Uyl within the libertarian philosophy and people like Hart, Sen, Rawls and the others wrote outside it. (I would, however, argue that it's not that important to know 'the non-libertarians' if you want to engage in defining your libertarian views in general.)
Rothbard did a lot; but he isn't the alpha, nor the omega; but sure as hell was his own letter in libertarian history.
2 opmerkingen:
Mooi punt, volledig mee eens
Danku, anoniem!
Een reactie posten