“Inalienable Rights: Part I The Basic Argument” - what Nozick and Rothbard got wrong

https://www.ellerman.org/inalienable-rights-part-i-the-basic-argument/

“An inalienable right is a right that may not be ceded or transferred away even with the consent of the holders of the right. Any contract to alienate such a right would be an inherently invalid contract, and, vice-versa, a right such that any contract to alienate it was inherently invalid would thus be an inalienable right.”

@libertarianism

  • J Lou@mastodon.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    A group of people is de facto responsible for a result if it is a purposeful result of their deliberate and intentional joint actions.

    @minnix, that is the definition of de facto responsibility. It is meaningful concept outside of a legal context. Ellerman’s theory is a theory of how the legal system should operate. However, he does draw an equality between the tenet of imputation and the labor theory of property. I would recommend anyone interested to read his other work

    @libertarianism

    • minnixA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t see how this relates to my comment regarding individual sovereignty or the existence of natural rights as an extension.