New Working Paper
Libertarianism and Positive Rights: Comments on Katz’s Reply
Nicolás Maloberti (Ph.D. Candidate, Bowling Green State University)
From Working Papers:
In “Why Libertarians Should Reject Positive Rights,� Joshua Katz offers a critical response to a paper I presented at the Austrian Scholars Conference 2006 entitled “Why Libertarians Should Believe in Positive Rights.� Although Katz raises some interesting points regarding the limits of a particular line of argumentation that can be found in my paper, I think his response fails on two accounts. First, it fails to grasp the nature of the problem my paper is ultimately concerned with. Second, it fails to present a solid case for the rejection of the type of positive right that I argue libertarians should endorse as a solution to that problem. Contrary to what Katz seems to suggest, the purpose of my paper is not to provide a justification for the state.
Comments (2)
heterodox
The problem comes down to calculation and subjective value.
Who will decide what is "reasonable cost", and "when there is no other solution available"?
Cost is inherently subjective and whoever decides these things will be deciding them in their own self-interest, whether the majority, judges, law makers, etc... they will be weighting the cost to _themselves_ of you or I's cost to save the person in peril vs. their perception of that hypothetical person's value to them, as is always the case.
Published: May 1, 2006 5:25 PM
quasibill
It still strikes me as somewhat of a tempest in teapot. The hypothetical put forth in the previous thread of using a neighbor's ladder without permission is an easy one, that was satisfactorily solved by common law courts hundreds of years ago - you have a "defense" (meaning it's your burden to establish it) to a trespass action in such a case. If you establish your defense, you are liable only for compensatory damages, which would likely be negligible in the ladder case, even if your neighbor were enough of a jerk to sue you.
Switching to harder cases such as rescuing a person drowning in a river, now you are getting into what heterodox notes - the values and risk are highly subjective, so all 4 of the requirements in the paper become guessing games. What if you have a trained lifeguard who sees the helpless person? What if because of that training, the lifeguard recognizes that that part of the river is extremely dangerous, and his rescue attempt has a 50% chance of catastrophic failure? What if he believes that, based on his training, but someone else who knows the river better knows that the river is deceiving and not that dangerous? What if the lifeguard is a single parent raising 3 children under 5? What if its not a lifeguard, but someone who was an elite swimmer 20 years ago, but hasn't gotten in water in 10 years?
It's just too much to make people make that sort of tough, on the spot decision under the threat of law. Besides, you are turning an act of heroism into "not failing your duty". People should be lauded for risking their lives or property to help others. They shouldn't be yawned at and described as "just doing their duty."
They shouldn't be "rights," but there should be defenses based on necessity.
Published: May 2, 2006 7:57 AM