Dormin111 Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 I was wondering what Objectivists around here thought about Murray Rothbard's Title-Transfer Theory of Rights. It is a subject which I haven't quite wrapped my head around yet and I am not sure of its validity (or at least eh validity of one of its key components). As far as I understand it, the theory states that individuals have the right to transfer property conditionally. However, one's wllful action is not technically owned, but is actually an inalienable component of one's concious. Therefore, the state cannot legally enforce a slavery contract, regardless of the consent of both parties involved. If John contractually agrees to be Mary's slave for life, but John gets cold feet at the last moment, the courts should not be able force John to be Mary's slave, nor force him to pay a fine or go to jail for such crimes. That is a pretty extreme example, but the same thing can be said for marriage. I am having trouble reconciling when a contract can EVER be legally validated under this theory. Aren't I always be asked to go against my will any time I am fined or punushed for contract breach? Can someone put forth a better explanation of how this idea fits into Objectivist philosophy. Wikipedia Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title-transfer_theory_of_contract Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairnet Posted February 23, 2012 Report Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) Murray Rothbard, and his types, tend to put forward the idea that reputation will be the primary means of enforcing social norms. Instead of forcing people to do stuff, they threaten blacklisting instead. I am not sure about this specific theor thoughy. Edited February 23, 2012 by Hairnet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.