I think Rothbard was eventually persuaded away from natural law by Hoppe's "Argumentation Ethics" framework which is ultimately consequentialist.
reply
128 sats \ 1 reply \ @Roll OP 16 Feb
really, so totally diferent
Thanks for the precision
reply
It's a better foundation that ultimately reaches most of the same conclusions. However, it is indeed totally different philosophically.
reply
The fact that natural-law theorists derive from the very nature of man a fixed structure of law independent of time and place, or of habit or authority or group norms, makes that law a mighty force for radical change.
— Murray Rothbard
reply
Those lines, once more, are very closed to a spiritual dimension :)
reply
I'm with this - the observable facts of reality on a pragmatic basis are natural law. Where I estimate them to be, and where I estimate them to overlap with evidence of a power greater than myself, change over the course of time.
A state exists to describe and protect what ethics already exist in its founders. That government is best which most accurately describes and protects ethics that match the nature of reality.
"The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man—what ends man should pursue that are most harmonious with, and best tend to fulfill, his nature."
Is close, though it leans individualistic. 'his nature and those around him'
reply
Indivualist ? but in the sense of indivulaism for the whole, no ?
reply
For sure, was trying to think of a better word there, one that doesn't describe what I otherwise believe in fully (individual liberty, sovereign individualism). Also didn't want to use 'selfish' or even 'Randian selfishness' but the idea being I shouldn't just be fulfilling my nature today, I also ought to be thinking how I can facilitate same from my kids and in consideration of obligations to others.
reply