DOCSLIB.ORG

Libertariańska Filozofia Polityczna W Świetle Koncepcji Państwa Minimalnego Roberta Nozicka: Próba Analizy Krytycznej

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Libertariańska Filozofia Polityczna W Świetle Koncepcji Państwa Minimalnego Roberta Nozicka: Próba Analizy Krytycznej UNIWERSYTET MARII CURIE-SKŁODOWSKIEJ W LUBLINIE Wydział Filozofii i Socjologii Eryk Maciejowski LIBERTARIAŃSKA FILOZOFIA POLITYCZNA W ŚWIETLE KONCEPCJI PAŃSTWA MINIMALNEGO ROBERTA NOZICKA: PRÓBA ANALIZY KRYTYCZNEJ Rozprawa doktorska przygotowana w Zakładzie Historii Filozofii Nowożytnej i Współczesnej pod kierunkiem naukowym dr hab. Jolanty Zdybel Lublin 2019 Spis treści Wstęp......................................................................................................................................4 CZĘŚĆ PIERWSZA: ANTROPOLOGIA LIBERTARIANIZMU......................................13 1. Metodologiczne wprowadzenie do problematyki rozprawy............................................14 1.1. Cel analizy: próba analizy krytycznej i materiał badawczy.....................................14 1.1.1. Materiał badawczy: filozofia polityki Roberta Nozicka...................................17 1.1.2. Miejsce filozofii polityki w dorobku filozoficznym Nozicka...........................20 1.2. Metoda analizy: antropologia filozoficzna jako podstawa filozofii polityki............23 1.3. Przedmiot analizy: uwagi ogólne na temat libertarianizmu.....................................27 1.3.1. Problem definicji libertarianizmu.....................................................................27 1.3.2. Wewnętrzna struktura teorii libertariańskich....................................................35 1.4. Nozick o pierwszeństwie antropologii w budowaniu filozofii polityki....................42 2. Panorama teorii libertariańskich.......................................................................................45 2.1. Problem klasyfikacji libertarianizmu........................................................................45 2.1.1. Podstawowe podziały wewnątrz libertarianizmu..............................................45 2.1.2. Główne osie podziału i próba nowej klasyfikacji.............................................47 2.2. Przegląd filozofii libertariańskich............................................................................51 2.2.1. Prawica libertariańska.......................................................................................51 2.2.2.1. Propertarianizm.........................................................................................52 2.2.3. Lewica libertariańska........................................................................................54 2.2.3.1. Geolibertarianizm......................................................................................56 2.2.3.2. Zielony libertarianizm (ekolibertarianizm)...............................................59 2.2.4. Agoryzm............................................................................................................61 2.2.5. Anarchokapitalizm i minarchizm......................................................................63 2.2.6. Paleolibertarianizm...........................................................................................65 2.2.6.1. Fuzjonizm..................................................................................................67 2.2.6.2. Chrześcijański libertarianizm....................................................................67 2.2.7. Neolibertarianizm.............................................................................................69 2.2.8. Libertarianizm transhumanistyczny i technolibertarianizm..............................70 2.2.9. Bleeding-heart libertarianism i szkoła arizońska.............................................71 3. Zarys libertariańskiej ontologii społecznej i teorii praw..................................................73 3.1. Uwagi wstępne.........................................................................................................73 3.2. Indywidualistyczna ontologia społeczna libertarianizmu.........................................73 3.3. Libertariański spór o źródło normatywności............................................................79 3.3.1. Libertarianizm deontologiczny.........................................................................81 3.3.2. Libertarianizm konsekwencjalistyczny.............................................................93 3.3.3. Libertarianizm kontraktariański........................................................................96 3.4. Dwa aspekty prawa własności prywatnej.................................................................96 3.4.1. Samoposiadanie................................................................................................97 3.4.2. Zasada nieagresji...............................................................................................99 4. Własność prywatna i teoria sprawiedliwości.................................................................108 4.1. Związki zasady nieagresji i własności prywatnej...................................................108 4.2. Teoria sprawiedliwości uprawnieniowej.................................................................112 4.2.1. Ogólny kształt teorii sprawiedliwości.............................................................112 4.2.1. Krytyka własności wspólnej i własności publicznej.......................................114 4.2.2. Powstawanie własności: pierwotne zawłaszczenie.........................................117 4.2.3. Zasada naprawy niesprawiedliwości...............................................................121 4.2.3.1. Schematyczność i nieschematyczność....................................................121 4.2.3.2. Historyczność sprawiedliwości...............................................................123 2 4.2.3.3. Zadośćuczynienie: uprawnione naruszenie zasady nieagresji................125 4.3. Libertariańska koncepcja człowieka w świetle poglądów Nozicka.......................135 CZĘŚĆ DRUGA: LIBERTARIAŃSKA FILOZOFIA PAŃSTWA...................................138 5. Libertariański spór o państwo........................................................................................139 5.1. Ogólny zarys sporu.................................................................................................139 5.2. Krytyka państwa w myśli anarchokapitalistycznej.................................................142 5.2.1. Argument z przymusu.....................................................................................144 5.2.2. Argument z zepsucia.......................................................................................150 5.2.3. Argument z ekonomii......................................................................................156 5.2.4. Problem prawa w społeczności anarchokapitalistycznej................................157 5.3. Państwo minimalne: ogólny zarys doktryny..........................................................162 5.3.1. Problem kompetencji państwa........................................................................164 5.3.2. Problem finansowania państwa.......................................................................169 5.3.3. Problem rozrostu państwa...............................................................................171 6. Metodologiczne podstawy teorii państwa minimalnego................................................174 6.1. Wprowadzenie i ogólna struktura nozickowskiej filozofii państwa.......................174 6.2. Metodologia nozickowskiej filozofii państwa........................................................176 6.2.1. Dwa modele wyjaśniania: zasada skrytej ręki i zasada niewidzialnej ręki.....176 6.2.2. Krytyka metodologii Nozicka w świetle teorii umowy społecznej................180 6.3. Koncepcja fundamentu pod utopię.........................................................................188 6.3.1. Nozickowska krytyka utopii pozytywnych.....................................................188 6.3.2. Model światów możliwych.............................................................................192 6.3.3. Krytyka koncepcji fundamentu.......................................................................194 7. Uzasadnienie koncepcji państwa minimalnego w Anarchii, państwie, utopii................201 7.1. Ogólny kształt argumentacji...................................................................................201 7.2. Od stanu natury do agencji ochronnych.................................................................203 7.2.1. Stan natury......................................................................................................203 7.2.2. Powstanie agencji ochronnych........................................................................210 7.3. Od agencji ochronnych do państwa ultraminimalnego..........................................216 7.3.1. Wzajemne relacje między agencjami..............................................................216 7.3.2. Monopolizacja usług ochronnych i powstanie państwa ultraminimalnego....218 7.4. Od państwa ultraminimalnego do państwa minimalnego.......................................223 7.4.1. Problem osób niezależnych.............................................................................223 7.4.2. Krytyka koncepcji zadośćuczynienia..............................................................228 8. Praktyczna realizacja libertarianizmu............................................................................241 8.1. Paradoks Linda i problem utopijności....................................................................241 8.2. Strategie działania w libertarianizmie....................................................................246 8.2.1. Ścieżka pokojowa: Rothbard, non-voting
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 109-120 Tucker Book Review
    BOOK REVIEWS Libertarianism—A Primer. By David Boaz. New York: The Free Press, 1997. Libertarianism: A Reader. David Boaz, ed. New York: The Free Press, 1997. What It Means to Be A Libertarian. By Charles Murray. New York: Broadway Books, 1997. Reviewed by Jeffrey Tucker* he American anti-statist intellectual tradition includes a wide variety of thinkers, from left utopians to secessionist T agrarians to right anarchists. Seemingly small theoret- ical differences between them can produce hugely different an- swers to the all-important question: what is to be done? Murray Rothbard’s primary contribution to this tradition was to firmly tie anti-statism to a strict adherence to property rights, rights which the state tramples on by its very existence, and rights which are best protected and enforced by private parties. The answer to the question of what is to be done follows clearly: gov- ernment power must be curbed and eliminated, to be replaced by private association. But modern libertarians haven’t always fol- lowed up on this radical Rothbardian project. Some libertarian writers—let’s call them left-libertarians—prefer to concentrate on the personal liberties associated with this political doctrine, while submerging property-centered social theory and a radical critique of the State, especially of the imperial state, within a larger laundry list of other aspects of libertarian policy. David Boaz’s primer may not be the prime example of ap- plied left-libertarianism (the post-Goldwater works of Karl Hess better deserve this moniker) but it nonetheless fits comfort- ably in that category. The reader is left with no doubt about where Boaz stands on lifestyle issues (drugs, sex, speech, etc.) and the policy concerns of the punditry class (how this or that program can be improved), but is left to speculate on precisely how strict Boaz’s utopia would be with regard to the protection of property rights, or how or on what level of society those rights would be enforced.
    [Show full text]
  • Editorial ...Tibor R. Machan
    Editor Tibor R. Machan/Phi/osophy Managing Editor Marty Zupan Editorial Assistant Lynn Scarlett Associate Editors Walter Block/Economics John Cody/Classics Douglas J . Den Uyl/Philosophy Davis Keeler/La w J. Roger Lee/Philosophy Leonard Liggio/History Eric Mack/Phi/osophy H . Joachim Maitre/Znternational Relations John 0. Nelson/Philosophy Ralph Raico/History Marry Sirridge/Philosophy Advisory Board D. T. Armentano/ University of Hartford Richard Bilas/California State College, Bakersfield Yale Brazen/ University of Chicago Nicholas Capaldi/Queens College R. L. Cunningham/ University of San Francisco John Hos per$/ University of Southern Californirs Israel M . Kirzner/New York University Kenneth G. Lucey/State University of New York College, Fredonia Fred D. Miller, Jr ./Bo wling Green State University Herbert Morris/ University of California, Los Angeles Paul Craig Roberts/Georgetown University Morton L. Schagrin/State University of New York College, Fredonia Thomas S. Szasz/State University of New York Medical Center, Syracuse E. G. West/Carleton University, Ottawa A Journal of Interdisciplinary Normative Studies Articles Is Economics Independent of Ethics? .............. .Jack High 3 How the Jacksonians Favored Industrialization ............... .Paul McGouldrick 17 Economic Warfare in Defense of Liberty. .................Juliana Geran Pilon 33 Choice and Rationality ........................ Antony Flew 49 On Improving Mankind by Political Means ....................... .Lester H. Hunt 61 Constraining the Choice Set: Lessons from the Software Revolution. ................ .David Levy 77 Discussion Notes The Randian Argument Reconsidered: A Reply to Charles King ................. .Paul St. F. Blair 91 Is "Flourishing" a True Alternative Ethics? ............... .David L. Norton 101 Review Essays & Reviews John Gray's Mill on Liberty: A Defence and Hayek on Liberty ...................Nicholas Capaldi 109 Tom Regan's The Case for Animal Rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Libertarian Forum
    A Monthly Newsletter THE Libertarian Forum - - Joseph R. Peden, Publisher Murray N. Rothbard, Editor VOLUME IV, NO. 2 February, 1972 PHASE I1 CRACKING Richard Milhous Nixon has achieved another "first": large amounts of excess capacity!) The problem, as acknow- generally it takes a year or two of price-wage controls ledged by Argus investment research, is that Phase I and before they visibly begin to collapse, and the heady euphoria Phase I1 "evidently had a more depressing effect on business of the public turns to sour recrimination. But in his wisdom, spending for inventories and other requirements of economic Richard Nixon has managed to have Phase I1 visibly recovery than anyone had expected" (not us!). Connally cracking before it has hardly begun. The bloom is off the will find out that no amount of Texas toughness is going to rose, for the public, for unions, and even for the staunchest induce businessmen to suffer losses voluntarily in order to supporters of the controls, the nation's businessmen. As pull the Nixonite chestnuts out of the fire. Finally, the the ardently pro-control Business Week put it (Jan. 29) Administration sternly insists that they will keep wage and "The Phase I1 honeymoon is over." Prices skyrocket in the price controls indefinitely; or as Connally told businessmen stores, coal miners gain a 17% wage increase, while other in a burst of madcap illogic that will make old pragmatist people's wages are frozen and rent controls are firmly John Dewey turn over in his grave, they will keep the control imposed. Some businesses are allowed price increases; program "until it works." In an age of socio-economic others are brought sharply to book.
    [Show full text]
  • 9780748678662.Pdf
    PREHISTORIC MYTHS IN MODERN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY 55200_Widerquist.indd200_Widerquist.indd i 225/11/165/11/16 110:320:32 AAMM 55200_Widerquist.indd200_Widerquist.indd iiii 225/11/165/11/16 110:320:32 AAMM PREHISTORIC MYTHS IN MODERN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY Karl Widerquist and Grant S. McCall 55200_Widerquist.indd200_Widerquist.indd iiiiii 225/11/165/11/16 110:320:32 AAMM Edinburgh University Press is one of the leading university presses in the UK. We publish academic books and journals in our selected subject areas across the humanities and social sciences, combining cutting-edge scholarship with high editorial and production values to produce academic works of lasting importance. For more information visit our website: edinburghuniversitypress.com © Karl Widerquist and Grant S. McCall, 2017 Edinburgh University Press Ltd The Tun – Holyrood Road, 12(2f) Jackson’s Entry, Edinburgh EH8 8PJ Typeset in 11/13 Adobe Sabon by IDSUK (DataConnection) Ltd, and printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon CR0 4YY A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978 0 7486 7866 2 (hardback) ISBN 978 0 7486 7867 9 (webready PDF) ISBN 978 0 7486 7869 3 (epub) The right of Karl Widerquist and Grant S. McCall to be identifi ed as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI No. 2498). 55200_Widerquist.indd200_Widerquist.indd iivv 225/11/165/11/16 110:320:32 AAMM CONTENTS Preface vii Acknowledgments
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright by Rhiannon Jade Goad 2013
    Copyright by Rhiannon Jade Goad 2013 The Thesis Committee for Rhiannon Jade Goad Certifies that this is the approved version of the following thesis: “Dr. Paul Cured my Apathy”: Ron Paul’s Libertarian Discourse APPROVED BY SUPERVISING COMMITTEE: Supervisor: Susan S Heinzelman Christopher King “Dr. Paul Cured my Apathy”: Ron Paul’s Libertarian Discourse by Rhiannon Jade Goad, B.A. Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of Master of Arts and Master of Public Affairs The University of Texas at Austin August 2013 Abstract “Dr. Paul Cured my Apathy”: Ron Paul’s Libertarian Discourse Rhiannon Jade Goad, M.A.;M.Paff The University of Texas at Austin, 2013 Supervisor: Susan S Heizelman During the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, many young white men found a political hero in the 77-year-old Republican Congressman from Texas, whose rallies often center on obscure, technical arguments concerning the Federal Reserve. It is because of the grassroots support of the young white men who adore him that Ron Paul has become a major figure in today’s political scene. What attracts young white men to Ron Paul? This paper explores the history and discourse of Libertarianism to better understand the political subjectivity and identity of Ron Paul supporters. In Chapter 2, I historically contextualize Paul’s libertarian discourse. I argue that the discourse of libertarianism is characterized by claims to an apolitical, ahistorical past in which Libertarian rhetoric naturalizes discourses of free market capitalism, “classical” liberalism, and “authentic” Americanism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dark Enlightenment
    The Dark Enlightenment Nick Land Part 1: Neo-reactionaries head for the exit March 2, 2012 Enlightenment is not only a state, but an event, and a process. As the designation for an historical episode, concentrated in northern Europe during the 18th century, it is a leading candidate for the ‘true name’ of modernity, capturing its origin and essence (‘Renaissance’ and ‘Industrial Revolution’ are others). Between ‘enlightenment’ and ‘progressive enlightenment’ there is only an elusive difference, because illumination takes time – and feeds on itself, because enlightenment is self-confirming, its revelations ‘self-evident’, and because a retrograde, or reactionary, ‘dark enlightenment’ amounts almost to intrinsic contradiction. To become enlightened, in this historical sense, is to recognize, and then to pursue, a guiding light. There were ages of darkness, and then enlightenment came. Clearly, advance has demonstrated itself, offering not only improvement, but also a model. Furthermore, unlike a renaissance, there is no need for an enlightenment to recall what was lost, or to emphasize the attractions of return. The elementary acknowledgement of enlightenment is already Whig history in miniature. Once certain enlightened truths have been found self-evident, there can be no turning back, and conservatism is pre-emptively condemned – predestined — to paradox. F. A. Hayek, who refused to describe himself as a conservative, famously settled instead upon the term ‘Old Whig’, which – like ‘classical liberal’ (or the still more melancholy ‘remnant’) – accepts that progress isn’t what it used to be. What could an Old Whig be, if not a reactionary progressive? And what on earth is that? Of course, plenty of people already think they know what reactionary modernism looks like, and amidst the current collapse back into the 1930s their concerns are only likely to grow.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Santa Cruz Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC Santa Cruz UC Santa Cruz Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Unbecoming Silicon Valley: Techno Imaginaries and Materialities in Postsocialist Romania Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0vt9c4bq Author McElroy, Erin Mariel Brownstein Publication Date 2019 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ UNBECOMING SILICON VALLEY: TECHNO IMAGINARIES AND MATERIALITIES IN POSTSOCIALIST ROMANIA A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in FEMINIST STUDIES by Erin Mariel Brownstein McElroy June 2019 The Dissertation of Erin McElroy is approved: ________________________________ Professor Neda Atanasoski, Chair ________________________________ Professor Karen Barad ________________________________ Professor Lisa Rofel ________________________________ Professor Megan Moodie ________________________________ Professor Liviu Chelcea ________________________________ Lori Kletzer Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Copyright © by Erin McElroy 2019 Table of Contents Abstract, iv-v Acknowledgements, vi-xi Introduction: Unbecoming Silicon Valley: Techno Imaginaries and Materialities in Postsocialist Romania, 1-44 Chapter 1: Digital Nomads in Siliconizing Cluj: Material and Allegorical Double Dispossession, 45-90 Chapter 2: Corrupting Techno-normativity in Postsocialist Romania: Queering Code and Computers, 91-127 Chapter 3: The Light Revolution, Blood Gold, and
    [Show full text]
  • Abortion and Rights: Applying Libertarian Principles Correctly by Doris Gordon Libertarians for Life Copyright 1995
    Abortion and Rights: Applying Libertarian Principles Correctly by Doris Gordon Libertarians for Life Copyright 1995 About this Article According to Ron Paul, "Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in In arguing that abortion should not be legal, pro- abortion, the statists have found a most effective lifers generally focus on proving that a human being's life method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the begins at conception. This argument often fails to persuade, individual."1 Dr. Paul, an obstetrician and a former because it does not confront the right of the woman to member of Congress (R-TX), was the Libertarian control her own body. Many pro-lifers talk as if they have Party's candidate for President in 1988. lost the rights argument — or worse that they can never win it — and they end up painting rights as irrelevant and The Libertarian Party's "Statement of running away from it. Principles" itself defends "the right to life." The Turning this weakness on rights to their advantage, platform adds, "Children are human beings and, as abortion choicers contemptuously attack abortion such, have all the rights of human beings."2 Are opponents as "anti-choice" and claim that to be anti-legal- children human beings prenatally? Despite the fact abortion is to be anti-liberty. that this is the pivotal question in the abortion debate, Actually, however, pro-lifers own the libertarian high the platform is silent. ground. This article, "Abortion and Rights: Applying In response to such shortcomings, Libertarians Libertarian Principles Correctly," shows why. for Life (LFL) was formed in 1976.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism Mathias Risse
    John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Faculty Research Working Papers Series Can There be “Libertarianism without Inequality”? Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism Mathias Risse Nov 2003 RWP03-044 The views expressed in the KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or Harvard University. All works posted here are owned and copyrighted by the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only. Can There be “Libertarianism without Inequality”? Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism1 Mathias Risse John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University October 25, 2003 1. Left-libertarianism is not a new star on the sky of political philosophy, but it was through the recent publication of Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner’s anthologies that it became clearly visible as a contemporary movement with distinct historical roots. “Left- libertarian theories of justice,” says Vallentyne, “hold that agents are full self-owners and that natural resources are owned in some egalitarian manner. Unlike most versions of egalitarianism, left-libertarianism endorses full self-ownership, and thus places specific limits on what others may do to one’s person without one’s permission. Unlike right- libertarianism, it holds that natural resources may be privately appropriated only with the permission of, or with a significant payment to, the members of society. Like right- libertarianism, left-libertarianism holds that the basic rights of individuals are ownership rights. Left-libertarianism is promising because it coherently underwrites both some demands of material equality and some limits on the permissible means of promoting this equality” (Vallentyne and Steiner (2000a), p 1; emphasis added).
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Maryland's Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016
    A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 Published by: Maryland State Board of Elections Linda H. Lamone, Administrator Project Coordinator: Jared DeMarinis, Director Division of Candidacy and Campaign Finance Published: October 2016 Table of Contents Preface 5 The Electoral College – Introduction 7 Meeting of February 4, 1789 19 Meeting of December 5, 1792 22 Meeting of December 7, 1796 24 Meeting of December 3, 1800 27 Meeting of December 5, 1804 30 Meeting of December 7, 1808 31 Meeting of December 2, 1812 33 Meeting of December 4, 1816 35 Meeting of December 6, 1820 36 Meeting of December 1, 1824 39 Meeting of December 3, 1828 41 Meeting of December 5, 1832 43 Meeting of December 7, 1836 46 Meeting of December 2, 1840 49 Meeting of December 4, 1844 52 Meeting of December 6, 1848 53 Meeting of December 1, 1852 55 Meeting of December 3, 1856 57 Meeting of December 5, 1860 60 Meeting of December 7, 1864 62 Meeting of December 2, 1868 65 Meeting of December 4, 1872 66 Meeting of December 6, 1876 68 Meeting of December 1, 1880 70 Meeting of December 3, 1884 71 Page | 2 Meeting of January 14, 1889 74 Meeting of January 9, 1893 75 Meeting of January 11, 1897 77 Meeting of January 14, 1901 79 Meeting of January 9, 1905 80 Meeting of January 11, 1909 83 Meeting of January 13, 1913 85 Meeting of January 8, 1917 87 Meeting of January 10, 1921 88 Meeting of January 12, 1925 90 Meeting of January 2, 1929 91 Meeting of January 4, 1933 93 Meeting of December 14, 1936
    [Show full text]
  • Libertarian Party at Sea on Land
    Libertarian Party at Sea on Land To Mom who taught me the Golden Rule and Henry George 121 years ahead of his time and still counting Libertarian Party at Sea on Land Author: Harold Kyriazi Book ISBN: 978-1-952489-02-0 First Published 2000 Robert Schalkenbach Foundation Official Publishers of the works of Henry George The Robert Schalkenbach Foundation (RSF) is a private operating foundation, founded in 1925, to promote public awareness of the social philosophy and economic reforms advocated by famed 19th century thinker and activist, Henry George. Today, RSF remains true to its founding doctrine, and through efforts focused on education, communities, outreach, and publishing, works to create a world in which all people are afforded the basic necessities of life and the natural world is protected for generations to come. ROBERT SCHALKENBACH FOUND ATION Robert Schalkenbach Foundation [email protected] www.schalkenbach.org Libertarian Party at Sea on Land By Harold Kyriazi ROBERT SCHALKENBACH FOUNDATION New York City 2020 Acknowledgments Dan Sullivan, my longtime fellow Pittsburgher and geo-libertarian, not only introduced me to this subject about seven years ago, but has been a wonderful teacher and tireless consultant over the years since then. I’m deeply indebted to him, and appreciative of his steadfast efforts to enlighten his fellow libertarians here in Pittsburgh and elsewhere. Robin Robertson, a fellow geo-libertarian whom I met at the 1999 Council of Georgist Organizations Conference, gave me detailed constructive criticism on an early draft, brought Ayn Rand’s essay on the broadcast spectrum to my attention, helped conceive the cover illustration, and helped in other ways too numerous to mention.
    [Show full text]
  • A Regulatory and Economic Perplexity: Bitcoin Needs Just a Bit of Regulation
    Washington University Journal of Law & Policy Volume 47 Intellectual Property: From Biodiversity to Technical Standards 2015 A Regulatory and Economic Perplexity: Bitcoin Needs Just a Bit of Regulation Daniela Sonderegger Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy Part of the Banking and Finance Law Commons, and the Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics Commons Recommended Citation Daniela Sonderegger, A Regulatory and Economic Perplexity: Bitcoin Needs Just a Bit of Regulation, 47 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 175 (2015), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol47/iss1/14 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Journal of Law & Policy by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Regulatory and Economic Perplexity: Bitcoin Needs Just a Bit of Regulation Daniela Sonderegger [T]here is something special about Bitcoin that makes it inherently resistant to government control. It is built on code. It lives in the cloud. It is globalized and detached from the nation state, has no own institutional owner, operates peer to peer, and its transactions are inherently pseudonymous. It cannot be regulated in the same way as the stock market, government currency markets, insurance, or other financial sectors. —Jeffrey Tucker1 INTRODUCTION Set aside all of the legal and regulatory parameters and simply take a moment to imagine a world that functions on a single digitalized currency, regulated not by a central authority, but rather by the individual users who take part in the system.
    [Show full text]