Journal of Libertarian Studies 19, no. 2 (Spring 2005)
- COMMON PROPERTY IN ANARCHO-CAPITALISM by Randall G. Holcombe. Speculation on the nature of anarcho-capitalism has typically proceeded under the assumption that all property in anarcho-capitalism would be privately owned...
- IS LOOKISM UNJUST?: THE ETHICS OF AESTHETICS AND PUBLIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS by Louis Tietje and Steven Cresap. Lookism is prejudice toward people because of their appearance. It has been receiving increasing attention, and it is becoming an important equal-opportunity issue...
- THE HABERMASIAN MOMENT by Paul Gottfried. Among spokesmen for the Post-Marxist Left, Jürgen Habermas (1923–) may be the most prominent and, in his own country, the most honored. An advocate of “militant� democracy since the 1950s...
- QUOD OMNES TANGIT: CONSENT THEORY IN THE RADICAL LIBERTARIAN TRADITION IN THE MIDDLE AGES by Carl Watner. The origin of natural rights thinking and “the doctrine of consent . . . [are] drawn from a long tradition in ancient and medieval thought.� In fact, the idea of consent played “an increasingly important role� in political, legal, and religious thought during the Middle Ages...
- ARCHIPELAGOS OF EDUCATIONAL CHAOS by Benjamin Marks. The defense of government schooling, like government itself, is based on fallacies. In this article, I directly refute many of the main arguments for government schooling...
- RESTORING THE LOST CONSTITUTION by Randy E. Barnett, reviewed by J.H. Huebert. Randy Barnett is among the world’s leading libertarian academics and lawyers. In fact, Mr. Barnett has defended anarcho-capitalism in these very pages, which makes his most recent book most curious. In it, he attempts to legitimate the United States government . . .
SUBSCRIBE NOW
Comments (6)
Lookism? It is definitely unjust that swimsuit models are all very attractive.
Published: October 21, 2005 1:50 PM
Wow. That is one scathing review of Barnett's "Restoring the Lost Constitution." I wonder why Barnett doesn't realize that tyranny runs free in the halls of "justice."
Published: October 22, 2005 1:09 AM
I've read Restoring the Lost Constitution and can agree with the review. Barnett also supports centralism (strong federal government to keep an eye on the states), the 14th amendment (incorporation means more federal control) and yes, even judicial review (continuing the centralist meme). Very Hamiltonian to me.
Of course, it was supposed to be The Other Way Around, where the several states would tell the Feds to "back off" (to put it mildly), and yes taht didn't happen either. Federalism failed and now we're being homogenized under a strong central state.
Published: October 22, 2005 10:39 AM
Regarding “Restoring the Lost Constitution�, the U.S. would have been better off, from the standpoint of the liberty of its citizens, had the Constitution never been ratified. At most, minor modifications to the Articles of Confederation would have sufficed. For many years, this country has been largely ruled by a leviathan federal government that grows ever larger and more powerful, all to the detriment of our civil and economic liberties. The concept of state nullification of a federal law deemed by a state to be unconstitutional likely could have provided an important check to the growth of the federal government, but despite the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions this important principle was never implemented. And succession, the other practical check on federal government power, is wrongly viewed by the overwhelming majority of Americans as unconstitutional.
Published: October 22, 2005 7:51 PM
Re: Common Property in Anarcho-Capitalism
Mr. Holcombe, I appreciate your analysis of common property and how it may arise in a free society. To repeat your argument, one facet of how such instances arise was pointed out by Rothbard: at the time common property is established through communal use, it was unquestionably not a scarce resource. In a sparsely settled valley, a bit of otherwise undeveloped land might be commonly used for a park, and considered as such in perpetuity. However, there generally is no similar consideration for an undeveloped lot within an otherwise developed community.
I recall a situation a few years ago in New York City. Although I'm fuzzy on the details, the general story went like this. A vacant lot had fallen into disrepair while various parties were haggling over it in the courts. Some members of the neighborhood started planting gardens in the lot, and a kind of common-use park sprang up over several years. Nice. However, as soon as the sale of the lot was completed, the owner demanded the lot be cleared so he could make improvements. There was a great wailing and gnashing of teeth, of course, and police were called in to physically remove the protesting neighbors from the lot. Too bad for them, but how on earth could anyone have had a reasonable expectation of homesteadable land in New York City?
My first thought when I see a seemingly abandoned piece of property in a commercially-zoned area is that it's tied up in court somehow. Similarly, I think that your suggestion of adjudication of the property rights of those who already use the property and of those who would make improvements is the correct path to solution, and could be expanded in a future thought experiment.
Published: October 23, 2005 8:50 PM
I'm reading "Restoring the Lost Constitution" right now, and I agree with the critique. I think Mr. Barnett was trying to establish a path for restoration through right thinking, and to inspire young would-be jurists to consider blazing the trail. However, people who are not interested in the exercise of power rarely aspire to be judges, Mr. Barnett included.
Published: October 23, 2005 8:56 PM