Month: March 2020

No comments

Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 8, Revisited

  By
Rothbard asserts that everybody owns their own bodies, as we saw earlier. Of the available choices (ownership by ownself, or by all of society, or by some arbitrary other person), he chose self-ownership. Naturally, it extends to every man’s labor. The same choices apply, and Rothbard again picks self-ownership. Every man owns his own body, and his own labor. 前に書いたようにロスバードがみんなは自分の体を所有すると主張する。選べる選択（自分所有、共同所有、他人所有）から自分所有を選ぶ。もちろんみんなの労働にも同じ選択があって、ロスバードがまた自分所有を選ぶ。人々全員が自分の体と自分の労働を所有する。
Who owns everything else, the resources of the natural world? It starts off unowned, but Rothbard says that if a man mixes his labor with it, then he owns that part of it. This creates property in tangible resources. He then owns that property thereafter, until he abandons it or transfers it to another. では、誰が世界の自然資源を所有する？始めに所有者がないけど、ロスバードがこう主張する：人が自分の労働と自然資源を混ぜたら、その自然資源を所有する。それで所有権が現れる。そのときからあの人がその物を所有する、捨てるか他人に上げるまで。
I take a different approach. As we found that men own their own bodies, and their own labor, they also own the fruits of their labor. When they exert labor on natural resources, they can rightfully claim and control the benefits that result; this “right to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor, by having rightful control over those fruits as embodied in transformed resources” we can call “property rights.” 拙者は別の理屈を主張する。人の体のように、人の労働のように、人の労働の成果をも自分所有になる。自然資源に労働を行使すればその利を権利として制御できる。この「変えた資源を権利の制御で労働の成果を享受する権利」は「所有権」と言う。
This formulation has a couple important corollaries; one is that all property rights degrade over time. For instance, if one man builds a sandcastle on an unowned beach, he has a property right in it, and if another man comes and kicks it down, that is a criminal violation of the first man’s property rights. If, however, he leaves the sandcastle unmaintained for some time, the ocean will destroy it. Then, he owns nothing, although he used to have a property right. この理屈には大事な系がある。一つは、全所有権は時が経つと落ちる。例えば人が所有者のない海岸に砂の城を作り上げたら、その砂の城を所有する。他人が蹴り落としたらそれは所有権に犯罪だ。所有者が砂の城を保たずに放って置いてて海が破れば、所有権が持ったけどそれで何の所有権がない。
(Typically, serious labor investment is reserved for property rights much less ephemeral than this, but it applies, on some time scale, to all property rights.) （本気な労働投資は普段こんなはかない所有権に使われていないがある時間の比較で全所有権に当てはまる。）
Another corollary is that, since property rights are functionally defined rather than spatially defined, they can spatially overlap without conflict. One example is a shared road. All parties using it (and by doing so, transforming it from a natural state of plant growth to a dirt road) have a property right in it, for the functions it serves. Each can contest changes that impact functionality, such as erecting a building on the road, but they can’t contest changes that do not, such as paving the road while no other parties happen to be using it. またの系は、所有権が空間ではなく機能で定義されるから、複数の所有権は同じ空間で対立せずに重ねる。共有の道路は一例だ。複数の利用者の通りかかりで道路が自然の植物を踏みにじって道を作れ、使用者の全員がその道に所有権を持つ。道に建物を立つような機能を害する行動を論争できるが道を舗装するような機能を害しない行動を論争できない。
It can be argued that overlapping claims such as these are not all of the same strength; those that invest more labor (and other resources) have more claim on the property, such as the one who paves the road in the previous example. We might say he “owns the road,” a property right in the road, but the other users would have an easement to use it, which are also property rights in the road. こんな重ねた所有権は全て同じ力じゃないと主張できる。もっと労働と別の資源を投資したものはもっと強い所有権を持つ。上の例では舗装したものが所有権を持つと他の使用者が地役権を持つように定める。
So, this is how men come to own property in the material world. これで人が自然の資源を所有することができる。
No comments

Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 9: Property and Criminality

  By
Here Rothbard defines crime as an aggression against property. Rothbard laid out a system of just property definition in the last chapter, which I haven’t commented on yet. I shall return to it tomorrow. ロスバードがここで犯罪を財産に侵略することとして定義する。ロスバードが前の章で財産の定義をしたけど、いまだ拙者がそれについて書いていない。明日にその話題に戻る。
This chapter takes some time to emphasize that only just ownership can make for crime in this way, and mere possession is not ownership. Some possessor may be a criminal rather than an owner. We can determine who is the owner only by examining the data of the case. この章は公正な所有だけに犯罪が起こる。所有するだけで公正になるとは限らない。所有者は犯罪者であることもある。公正な所有者を明確するために情報を調査しなきゃならない。
Later I will speak of interlopers. These are passersby who intervene in a violent altercation. They risk defending an unjust property claim, because they do not know the case data. They take other risks as well, which I will canvas when the time comes. 拙者は後で余計者のことについて話す。これは乱暴な状況に干渉するものだ。情報が知らない限り公正でない所有を守る危険をもたらす。他の危険をももたらすが、時が来たら話そう。
Rothbard takes the time to attack utilitarians- they must defend any property title they are presented with, because they have no theory of justice. But is that really their only option? As a branch of Consequentialist Ethics, which we described last time, they just want the best outcome. Can’t we make a case that the best outcome results from upholding property titles that are justly derived, rather than some other arbitrary system of property titles? ロスバードが功利主義を攻める。「正義の原理がないゆえどんな所有権でも守らなきゃならない」と。でも本当にそれしかできないのか？前回に話した帰結主義の支部である功利主義は最善な帰結を目指す。公正な所有権を持ち上げることが最善な帰結を起こすと議論できるじゃないか？
Rothbard speaks his conviction that the impetus for many social changes (for the worse) “in [his] time [was] a moral indignation.” He lists Marxism and anarchosyndicalism. ロスバードが“私たちの人生で道徳的な憤りが”様々な（不利な）社会変更を起こした信念を言う。マルクス主義と無政府組合主義を例として引く。
The answer is to harness such moral indignation to a good cause, by securing just ownership in the seat of moral dignity. Moral indignation then denounces criminality instead of property. その道徳的な憤りを善良な効果に誘導する。公正な所有権を道徳的な尊厳として立証すれば、その憤りは所有権じゃなく犯罪に向ける。
Rothbard did not state it that way, but by directly asserting that capitalist property ownership is just. ロスバードがそういってなかったが、直接に資本主義の所有権が正しいと述べた。
Pages 56 through 60 contain Rothbard’s proposal for restoring justice to a property system. Let me highlight two mistakes; it is otherwise a good plan. ５６ページから６０ページまでがロスバードの所有権を正す提案だ。拙者が二つの間違いを攻めるがそれ以外では良い提案だ。
First, he asserts that criminal possessors should be dispossessed even if their victims cannot be found. In a few chapters, he finds that we punish criminals to get retribution for the victims; that is what justifies punishment. Yet here we dispossess criminals because “it is quite clear that […] the criminal cannot be allowed to keep the reward of his crime” (p. 58). I contest this assertion; nobody but the victim has the right to punish the criminal- nobody. If the victim is lost, it does not become some free-floating right that anybody (but the criminal) can “homestead” by punishing the criminal on their own initiative. 一つ目の間違いは被害者を見つけれなくても泥棒から盗んだ財産を取らなきゃならないとの主張だ。後の章では被害者に報いを得るために犯罪者を罰する。罰はそういうものだ。だけどこの章で“犯罪者が犯罪の利を保つことが許されないのは明白だ”（５８ページ）。拙者はこの主張を否定する。被害者以外に誰も犯罪者を罰する権利を持たない。被害者を見つけれないと犯罪者を罰する権利が犯罪者以外の誰でも引き取れる権利にならない。
This is an exception to his theory of justice that Rothbard does not justify. “It is quite clear” that it must be so? This is no justification at all! これはロスバードが申し開かない例外だ。そうするのは“明白”だと？申し開きにならない！
The exception is void. Until and unless the victim is found, the criminal can rightfully use the property. その例外は無効だ。被害者が現れない限り犯罪者が財産を公正な所有として持てる。
The second mistake is Rothbard’s finality: Once his plan finds a break in chain of title or a criminal dispossession where the victim is lost, he states that the current possessor is to be held as the just owner. 二つ目の間違いはロスバードの確定力だ。提案のついでに所有権の源を見つけれなければ現状の所有者が公正な所有権を取る。
Part of Rothbard’s purpose in presenting his plan is to give certainty to owners going forward; he doesn’t want to throw all property rights into chaos. But we cannot give certainty unless we have all of the evidence, and we cannot prove that no evidence has been missed. Presentation of theretofore unknown evidence can upset established property, and always will be able to. A degree of uncertainty, in this no less that other matters, is an eternal constant. 提案の目的の一つは全ての所有権を乱れないために確実性を作ることだ。だけど全ての証拠を持たないと確実性を上げれない。証拠の全てが手に居ることが証明できない。それまで知らなかった証拠が確立した所有権を狂わせれる。不確実度はどの話題でも永遠に続けるものだ。
With that, Rothbard claims that we now have theories of property and criminality. 章を終わらせてロスバードが所有と犯罪の原理を述べた。
No comments

Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 8: Interpersonal Relations: Ownership and Aggression

  By
Rothbard now considers options for the question of who should own (control) what, first specifically with regard to everybody’s physical bodies, then extending that to other physical property. Then he condemns aggression against property. 今章ではロスバードが誰が何を所有するかを考える。はじめに人たちの肉体、そして他の物理所有へ。所有への攻撃行動を非とする。
There are three absolute and universal answers to who should own our bodies. Either (a) we each own our own bodies, (b) we all collectively own all our bodies, or (c) nobody owns anyone’s bodies. There are also non-absolute answers, including the non-universal answers, such as “these people own those people’s bodies.” (A) is the most common answer of people who pose and consider this question. (B) is what we might call the socialist or communist answer, though few people who describe themselves as either would go so far. (C) is a null universe; there is no ownership, therefore nobody has the right to do anything, and therefore everybody is wrong all the time, with no exceptions. 誰が体を所有するかには絶対な普遍原理は三つだ。（Ａ）個人は自分の体を所有するか、（Ｂ）我々は共同で全ての体を所有するか、（Ｃ）誰も何も所有しないか。普遍じゃない回答も絶対じゃない回答もある、たとえば「この人たちがあの人たちの体を所有する」。こんな問題を考える人には（Ａ）が一番よくある返事だ。（Ｂ）は社会主義や共産主義の答えだと言えるが、その主義者の中ではそこまで行くものは少ないかも知らない。（Ｃ）は無の世界、所有権は誰にも無いと誰もが何の行動をしても権利を持たないから不正しか無いんだ。
Rothbard relegates (c) to a footnote, with some justification: that footnote is the only place I’ve seen it mentioned, and nowhere advocated. He also dismisses (b) for practical reasons, leaving him to argue that (a) is correct. He does not consider any compromises between (a) and (b), although this is closest to our current situation; individuals have some rights, but the collective has some rights, too. Now, this position should be rejected, but not by simply failing to mention it. ロスバードが悪くない判断で脚注に（Ｃ）を降格する。その脚注にしか見たことは無い。実地で達成できないため（Ｂ）を否定するから（Ａ）が正しいと結論する。現状の状態に一番近い（Ａ）と（Ｂ）の妥協案を考えない。今では個人には権利があるが、共同にも権利がある。否定するべき姿勢だが、この姿勢を言わずに結論するのは間違いだ。
This discussion deserves much more space than Rothbard gave to it. Why would we choose this one versus that one, and what would the consequences be? And why would we choose a compromise, and what results from that? Ethics can be decided by many paths, and they deserve some mention- here I will refer specifically to the Virtue Ethics and Consequentialist Ethics ideas. この議論はロスバードが熟考したほどより値する話題だ。どう選ぶ？選んだ原理の結果は何だ？妥協案を作る理屈は？そしてその結果は何だ？倫理は複数の道を渡って結論に着く。そのいろんな道を同列に論じるべきだ。今日は徳倫理学と帰結主義を視る。
Virtue Ethics is the idea that one should behave in congruence with certain virtues: Honesty, or Compassion, or Courage, and so on. It’s a bad fit for a legal system, because a legal system necessarily needs to be deontological. But one can construct a deontological system based on some matrix of virtues, and conversely take a deontological ethic and reconstruct the virtue or virtues it embodies. 徳倫理学は人がある徳（正直とか悲とか勇気とか）に従うべきと言う原理だ。法規が義務論的で居られなければならないから徳倫理学は法学に相性が悪いだが、徳の集で義務論を作り上げれる、そして義務論から具象した徳に分かてる。
Choosing (a) above and constructing the ethic of the free society could be said to enshrine the virtue of Respect for the Autonomy of Your Fellow Men. Choosing (b) and constructing a collectivist ethic could be said to deify Cooperating with Your Fellow Men for the Greater Good. Choosing (c) really doesn’t resonate with any virtues that I know of. 上の（Ａ）を選んで自由社会の倫理を作る上げるのは「人間同士の自律を尊敬する」徳の義務論だ。（Ｂ）を選んで集団主義の倫理を作り上げるのは「社会協力」の徳の義務論だ。（Ｃ）には拙者の知ってる徳で相当なのが無い。
Some might say that (a) embodies not a virtue, but a vice: that of selfish Greed. Others assert that (b) is simply organizing society around resentful Envy. 「（Ａ）は徳じゃなく不徳である貪欲の原理」だと言う人がある。別の人も「（Ｂ）は羨望の社会を作る」と言う。
Then there’s the idea of Consequentialist Ethics. Under this system, one judges actions as good or bad based on their results. Again a bad fit for a legal system; we would need omniscience to judge any action, due to the complexity of cause and effect, and to know whether some action or other is justified beforehand, we would need prescience as well. But, with knowledge of philosophy- particularly economics- we can paint (with broad strokes) the results of different deontological ethical systems, and then assess those results. 次に帰結主義を考えよう。この主義の下で行動は帰結に依存して善か悪になる。また、法学に相性が悪い。どの行動を考えても判断するには因果の複雑さのゆえに全知が必要だ。事前に行動を正しく選ぶには未来予知も必要になる。だが、哲学（特に経済学）の知識ではいくつかの倫理の帰結を一般的に記述すれば、その帰結を評価できる。
(A) above results in harmony and is conducive to prosperity. (B) results in impoverishment, and, if there are disagreements as to what constitutes The Greater Good, can produce strife. (C) results in nihilistic anything-goes. 上の（Ａ）は調和を起こして、繁栄に資する。（Ｂ）は貧窮化を起こす、そして一致が無いと騒乱が上がれる。（Ｃ）は虚無主義の弱肉強食を起こす。
From a consequentialist perspective, (a) is the obvious choice, if you favor peace and prosperity. 帰結主義の観点から、平和と繁栄を支持すれば（Ａ）を選ぶべき選択だ。
Now, let’s consider the question of practicality: which, if any, of these can be realized in practice? (A) is easy to implement, and in fact almost automatic. We, by nature, have autonomous individual wills. (B) has never been implemented successfully; as Rothbard observes, every single time it devolves into (if it didn’t originate as) an oligarchy ruling for their own good, but in the name of the “Greater Good.” Men simply do not possess a collective will, and in order to use it as our guiding principle, we would have to organize and operate some system of aggregating our individual wills into a “collective will,” without degradation or manipulation. This has never happened for a very good reason: it is impossible; our individual wills cannot be added together into an aggregate “collective will,” any more than gathering together a pile of stones results in them becoming one big boulder. (C) is thoroughly impossible; since it denies that anything can be right, there is no way to do it right. 今から実用性を考えよう。どれかを実用できる？（Ａ）は簡単だ。自動的に近いだ。自然で人間は個々に自律な意思を持つ。（Ｂ）は歴史上では実用されたことが無い。ロスバードが述べるように、例外なく寡頭制として生まれなかったらそうなることは時間の問題だけだ。「社会」の名の下に一部が自分のために支配する。人間は共同意志を持たない。導く原理として使うには全社会の人の個人意思を「共同意志」に落たなく操られなくまとめる体系が必要だ。不可能性だから実現したことは無い。小石を集めても大石にならないように個人意思は共同意志にまとめられない。（Ｃ）はどう考えても可能性の無いものだ。正しい権がないと正しく果たすこともない。
(A) should be the obvious choice; it upholds a noble virtue, it results in (almost) universally-desired outcomes, and it’s practical to boot. (B) does attempt to pursue a virtue, but its outcomes are generally unappealing, and it is impossible in practice. (C) really has no popular case, except perhaps to nihilists. （Ａ）が当たり前の選択だ。上品な徳を持ち上げ、多少一般に欲された帰結を起こして、実用することもある。（Ｂ）も徳を持ち上げようとするが、帰結は冴えなくて、実用することもできない。（Ｃ）は虚無主義者だけに興味をそそるものだ。
These are the absolute and universal answers. Non-universal treatments include ethics that separate men arbitrarily into groups that have different sets of rights; these are generally non-absolute as well. It has appeal, however; since it partitions men into Übermenschen and Untermenschen, those assigned a place amongst the former enjoy a privileged position, so they will often defend it. Note that above we observed that attempts at collective ownership devolve into oligarchy- this is another form of unequal ethical categories, where the oligarchs have rights that the lowly masses are denied. In accordance with the name of my blog, I reject ethics that divide men into unequal ethical categories. The Kantian Categorical Imperative also denies non-universal ethics such as these. これが絶対と普遍な解答だ。普遍じゃない解答は人を恣意的に別の団体に分かち、その団体に別の権利を上げる。典型的に絶対じゃない。とある魅力を認める。人を超人人種と劣等人種に分離して、超人に分かたれた人はその倫理を守ることはよくある。前に集団主義は寡頭制に落ちると述べた。これも匹敵しない種類だ。寡頭者は凡人に否定された権利を持つ。ブログの名のように、拙者は人を匹敵しない種類に分離する倫理を拒絶する。定言命法もこのような倫理を拒絶する。
Also deserving examination are the non-absolute answers. As observed above, when in theory (in practice, still an oligarchy) the current state of affairs is defended, it comes to a compromise between (a) and (b). “Pursuing only one virtue denies the other; we should find a happy medium. The results of both extremes have both benefits and detriments; we should choose the middle way to get the best of both worlds.” Ignoring for the moment the economical inaccuracy of claiming collectivism has any benefits, one cannot make an argument for this. One can only advance one’s opinion: “We should hold this virtue 60% of the time, and no more; the remainder should be taken by the other virtue. Here is where the benefits of both extremes are maximized and their detriments are minimized.” This will inevitably vary wildly between one man and the next. One man holds 60% is the right ratio, and the next holds it should be 50%, and yet another holds 70%. Assessing the relative value of different virtues, and the relative value of a matrix of benefits and detriments, must rely upon valuation, which is an individually subjective process. It changes not only from one person to the next but also from one point in time to another in the same person! Once allow any option but the absolutes, and nothing can be certain. We could enjoy 99% individualism one day, then 1% the next day, when men’s minds have changed. 絶対じゃない解答をも考えよう。前に述べたように、現状は理論上に正当化しようと（Ａ）と（Ｂ）の妥協案になる。「一つの徳を持ち上げて他の徳を拒絶するから、極端には利も不利もあるから、中に至摘があるはず」と。共同所有には利があるの経済学的な不明確さを置いても論法できない。できることは自分の恣意的な意見を述べることしかない。「この徳を６割に、その徳は４割に。この点に極端の利を至適し、不利を最小にする」と。必至に人々に激しく異なる。一人が６割を述べて、一人が５割を、一人は７割を。別の徳か様々な利と不利を評価することは個人的に主観的な過程だ。個人によって変わるだけじゃなく時によって同人にも変わる！絶対じゃない解答を許すと、確信するものはどこにもいない。一日に９９％な個人主義的な社会があっても、人の意見が変わって翌日は１％になれる。
Then there’s the thorny problem of reconciling all the viewpoints available at any given time into a single compromise plan. How are we to do it? Aggregate our individual wills into a collective will? Or, allow individuals the autonomy to choose for themselves? These options are the same two options, on a different level! Doing it by collectivist means (for instance, by putting it up to a vote) will mean that no individual has any rights, except so far as the collective deigns to allow it, and doing it by individualist means will mean that the collective has no rights, except so far as individuals choose to empower it. それに複数の意見を一つの妥協案に丸く収まることの問題だ。どうするか？みんなの個人意思を共同意思にまとめる？それとも人が個々に選ぶ自律を許す？これも別の階層に同じ問題になる！集団方法を使えば（たとえば票数で決めれば）個人権利は集団が許すほどしかならない。個人方法を使えば権限委譲されたほどしか集団は無力だ。
… 。。。
This blog entry could continue, but I have dwelt too long on this tangent. この書き込みは続けれるけどこの話題はもう長すぎだ。
Let me only say that Rothbard is mistaken when he describes criminals as violating the nature of their victims, and even of violating their own nature. This is an nonsensical as asserting that a rock could violate its own nature. 犯罪人は被害者の自然と自分の自然を破ると述べるロスバードが間違えた。石には自の自然を破る可能性があるほどの戯言だとしか、これで言わない。