Talk:The Market for Liberty
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Libertarianism||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
This article says, "Unlike Murray Rothbard who advocated the establishment of a libertarian legal code for anarcho-capitalist societies, the Tannehills oppose statutory law."
What a misrepresentation of Rothbard's views! Rothbard, likewise, opposed statutory law. What he argued for was, essentially, the same thing as the Tannehills: viz. a system whereby private arbitors decide matters for those who wish to have matters decided by a third party. It's not that Rothbard was aiming to establish statutory law; rather, when Rothbard discussed there being a libertarian legal code, he was attempting was to illustrate what sort of decisions, on the basis of the non-aggression axiom, such arbitors would be inclined to make. Both Rothbard and the Tannehills believed in natural law as a basis for a stateless society, and further, Rothbard was an influence on the Tannehills.
Allixpeeke 05:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I made a change. Hopefully it's a satifactory one. It still notes a difference in Rothbard's and the Tannehills' approach, but does not go so far as to incorrectly claim that the libertarian legal code Rothbard discuses constitutes somehow statutory law.
- Allixpeeke 05:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
In reference to the paragraph on page 24 (in Chapter 3, The Self-Regulating Market) about government regulations freezing people into an 8-to-5 grind, what regulations is he talking about? Just the fact that employees are paid by the hour? But couldn't the same effect (freeing people from the 8-to-5 grind) be achieved through contracting, in which people are paid by the job? EVCM (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Freedom of speech?
Is freedom of speech, its importance and its preservation treated in the book? It seems like an obvious flaw or weakness in the argument - its heavy dependence on 'reputation' - that they assume everyone can find out the truth about other people's dealings, which requires complete and accurate reporting. Which at the very least requires a reliably protected right of speech. --Tdent (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- The concept of freedom of speech is incoherent in a propertarian judicial system. Whether or not certain types of behaviour (e.g. criticism of institutions) is allowed in a given area or medium is up to the owners of that area or medium. Skomorokh 13:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
That seems clear, but it also seems like a fatal flaw in such systems, at least if one wanted them to be compatible with usual notions of morality: bad deeds will not be punished if they cannot be spoken of. Anyway, the point was whether the book makes any clear statement on speech rights. --Tdent (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
There was a section (third paragraph in the intro) that had (7) as its reference. I checked that reference and its gone, I looked around on the internet for anything similar to what that paragraph said, and I cannot find it anywhere. So I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have found and fixed the reference, thanks! Skomorokh 13:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)