Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Lorenzo Sleakes's avatar

Joseph, it can also be viewed simplistically as follows.

Property rights are a form of dualism: I OWN THIS..

That dualism is the direct result of a "natural" dualism: My mind owns my body and only my body.

I do not naturally control your body and therefore murder and slavery violate natural law but suicide does not.

Because I control my body I and nobody else controls my behavior (thus personal liberty) and my labor and the product of my labor (John Locke and the libertarian principle of the derivation of property rights).

Henry George went beyond Locke to explicitly say that objects that are not the product of labor should be collectively owned... that is Land. Silvio Gesell went beyond George in saying that additional objects, for example artificially created social monopolies such as "legal tender" should also be collectively owned. That is the foundation of a natural rights based left libertarianism.

see: https://philpapers.org/rec/SLETNR

Expand full comment
Edward Dodson's avatar

I have trouble with the use of the term "natural law" as conveying how things ought to be. What is natural is not necessary "good" for humans, for other animals or even plants. A hurricane is natural. A tornado is natural. Disease is natural. Conflict between humans that results in injury or death to ourselves and others is natrural. Thus, the laws of nature are descriptive of "what is". When we ask "ought" questions, we are applying our moral sense of right and wrong to what we humans are in a position to influence.

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts