Talk:The Market for Liberty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
This article says, "Unlike Murray Rothbard who advocated the establishment of a libertarian legal code for anarcho-capitalist societies, the Tannehills oppose statutory law."
What a misrepresentation of Rothbard's views! Rothbard, likewise, opposed statutory law. What he argued for was, essentially, the same thing as the Tannehills: viz. a system whereby private arbitors decide matters for those who wish to have matters decided by a third party. It's not that Rothbard was aiming to establish statutory law; rather, when Rothbard discussed there being a libertarian legal code, he was attempting was to illustrate what sort of decisions, on the basis of the non-aggression axiom, such arbitors would be inclined to make. Both Rothbard and the Tannehills believed in natural law as a basis for a stateless society, and further, Rothbard was an influence on the Tannehills.
Sincerely,
Alex Peak
Allixpeeke 05:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I made a change. Hopefully it's a satifactory one. It still notes a difference in Rothbard's and the Tannehills' approach, but does not go so far as to incorrectly claim that the libertarian legal code Rothbard discuses constitutes somehow statutory law.
- Allixpeeke 05:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
