Can Rights Clash, According to Libertarian Law? No.
Question 1: Based on my understanding, rights only clash if the NAP is violated. Is this true?
Answer 1: No. Suppose you and I both claim the same hat. The hat is sitting there. Our rights over that hat clash, even though neither of us used violence against the other. We’re having an honest disagreement.
Question 2: So when we say rights don’t clash, it assumes everything has been clearly defined and everyone is at peace?
Answer 2: People THINK rights clash, and they fight over them, but, the libt view is that if rights seem to clash, then one or both of them are mis specified. Right now, you and I are still claiming that hat. But only one of us, or none of us, may properly be the owner of that hat, if you exclude the possibility that we both own a share in that hat. If rights clash then, according to the mainstream viewpoint, they must be “balanced.” But no principle is ever forthcoming that would answer the question of which principles are to be used in this “balancing” act. Balancing, here, is always arbitrary, capricious and unprincipled.
3:14 pm on September 18, 2018
