[ / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / fur / irc / just / liberty / polk / tk / v9k / vore ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


A recognized Safe Space for liberty - if you're triggered and you know it, clap your hands!

File: 2c5c988334117b3⋯.jpg (37.8 KB, 500x374, 250:187, 2c5c988334117b32931318eb08….jpg)

 No.61865

are there any famous ancaps who do not espouse the concept of natural law?

 No.61867

>>61865

>are there any famous ancaps who do not espouse the concept of natural law?

Maybe David Friedman, but I've never actually read his works. He comes from a Chicago school perspective, so there is very much the possibility that he doesn't come into Anarcho Capitalism from the traditional Austrian view.


 No.61924

>>61865

Michael Huemer and David Friedman. The first is an intuitionist, the second a consequentialist. They're both very good, but I like myself some natural law.

Technically Hoppe, maybe, but only because of his way of reasoning. In basically all his conclusions on ethics, he's congruent with Rothbard.


 No.61925

>>61924

Sage was left over from a shitpost.


 No.61949

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>61865

Here is David Friedman with his take on Anarcho-Capitalism.


 No.61970

>>61865

Well, since Caplan's mug is blocking our path only a few threads down, it is only right to post his take on anarchism with his Anarchist Theory FAQ.

"Probably the main division between the anarcho-capitalists stems from the apparent differences between Rothbard's natural-law anarchism, and David Friedman's more economistic approach. Rothbard puts more emphasis on the need for a generally recognized libertarian legal code (which he thinks could be developed fairly easily by purification of the Anglo-American common law), whereas Friedman focuses more intently on the possibility of plural legal systems co-existing and responding to the consumer demands of different elements of the population. The difference, however, is probably over-stated. Rothbard believes that it is legitimate for consumer demand to determine the philosophically neutral content of the law, such as legal procedure, as well as technical issues of property right definition such as water law, mining law, etc. And Friedman admits that "focal points" including prevalent norms are likely to circumscribe and somewhat standardize the menu of available legal codes."

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm#part19


 No.62172




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / fur / irc / just / liberty / polk / tk / v9k / vore ]