For two centuries, economics and ethics (political philosophy) had
diverged from their common origin in natural law doctrine into seem-
ingly unrelated intellectual endeavors. Economics was a value-free “posi-
tive” science. It asked, “What means are appropriate to bring about a given
(assumed) end?” Ethics was a “normative” science (if it was a science at all).
It asked, “What ends (and what use of means) is one justifi ed to choose?” As
a result of this separation, the concept of property increasingly disappeared
from both disciplines. For economists, property sounded too normative; for
political philosophers property smacked of mundane economics.
In contrast, Rothbard noted, such elementary economic terms as direct
and indirect exchange, markets and market prices, as well as aggression,
crime, tort, and fraud, cannot be defi ned or understood without a theory
of property. Nor is it possible to establish the familiar economic theorems
relating to these phenomena without the implied notion of property and
property rights. A defi nition and theory of property must precede the defi -
nition and establishment of all other economic terms and theorems.
Rothbard’s unique contribution, from the early 1960s until his death in
1995, was the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common
foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic
reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist econom-
ics and natural law political philosophy into a unifi ed moral science: liber-
tarianism.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, The Great Fiction, 2nd edition, page 21
Decentralize_everything
npub155…a6ly8
2024-09-08 02:47:07
Author Public Key
npub155kdyaltpxaek29wkeza9prkr0t398ayn24wlp6pg68z57s8l67qka6ly8Published at
2024-09-08 02:47:07Event JSON
{
"id": "4a0070311931c9de0b3b82b1050cca5c949a17853432f0cd40fdfe6649cefade",
"pubkey": "a52cd277eb09bb9b28aeb645d284761bd7129fa49aaaef8741468e2a7a07febc",
"created_at": 1725763627,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [],
"content": "For two centuries, economics and ethics (political philosophy) had\ndiverged from their common origin in natural law doctrine into seem-\ningly unrelated intellectual endeavors. Economics was a value-free “posi-\ntive” science. It asked, “What means are appropriate to bring about a given\n(assumed) end?” Ethics was a “normative” science (if it was a science at all).\nIt asked, “What ends (and what use of means) is one justifi ed to choose?” As\na result of this separation, the concept of property increasingly disappeared\nfrom both disciplines. For economists, property sounded too normative; for\npolitical philosophers property smacked of mundane economics.\nIn contrast, Rothbard noted, such elementary economic terms as direct\nand indirect exchange, markets and market prices, as well as aggression,\ncrime, tort, and fraud, cannot be defi ned or understood without a theory\nof property. Nor is it possible to establish the familiar economic theorems\nrelating to these phenomena without the implied notion of property and\nproperty rights. A defi nition and theory of property must precede the defi -\nnition and establishment of all other economic terms and theorems.\nRothbard’s unique contribution, from the early 1960s until his death in\n1995, was the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common\nfoundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic\nreconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist econom-\nics and natural law political philosophy into a unifi ed moral science: liber-\ntarianism.\n\nHans-Hermann Hoppe, The Great Fiction, 2nd edition, page 21",
"sig": "2405a92d3e54b63e705bc75736323ca3280877987f7c69edbb91ddd69350589c8d2716676473e587efa1bf12f6f5b95b5d61c749e15d84909349a3647a4b3f46"
}