| This chapter attacks the idea some hold that property rights should be curtailed, but yet human rights should be protected. Rothbard asserts that this is unworkable: “the concept of rights only makes sense as property rights. For not only are there no human rights which are not also property rights, but the former rights lose their absoluteness and clarity and become fuzzy and vulnerable when property rights are not used as the standard” (p. 113). Two examples he gives are: “A person does not have a “right to freedom of speech”; what he does have is the right to hire a hall and address the people who enter the premises. He does not have a “right to freedom of the press”; what he does have is the right to write or publish a pamphlet” (p. 113, emphasis in original), and try to distribute it. | この章が所有権を切り詰めても人権を守る意見を責める。これが不可能だ、とロスバードが述べる。「権利の概念は所有権でしか筋が通りません。所有権ではない人権はないの他にも所有権を基いてない人権は絶対性と明瞭さを失いはっきりしなくて傷つきやすくなる」（ｐ．１１３）。二例として「人には“表現の自由”を持ちません。持つのはホールを借りて入る人に演説する権利です。“報道の自由”を持ちません。持つのはパンフレットを書く・出版する権利です」（ｐ．１１３）。 |
| He’s right; these rights are basically moot without a property right through which to exercise them. Soapbox oration in public may be a cultural image, but their actual prevalence is less than that of beggars. Without a place to assemble an audience, “freedom of speech” is nearly useless. Without a press to print with you’ll print nothing at all, “freedom of the press” notwithstanding. | ロスバードが正しい。こんな人権は所有に通じて使用しないと無力になる。文化には街頭演説の心像があるが実際に乞食より少ない。聴衆を集める場所がないと表現の自由は不用に近い。印刷機を所有しないと出版することはない、報道の自由など言われても。 |
| These right arose in response to government edicts that, “You can’t say that,” “You can’t write that,” “You can’t assemble unless we approve it.” Governments were attempting to stifle dissent and impose conformity, and these right were expressions of opposition. | この権利は政府の「それは言えない」「それは書けない」「許可なしで集めれない」のような政令に反して表した。政府は反対を押えて社会を支配しようとした、そして反抗の表現はこの人権でござった。 |
| But they were strictly secondary. The original proponents of these rights would never consider giving up property rights for these. | だが二次的だった。この権利の発案者達は所有権を引き渡してそんな人権を得るなんて考えていなかった。 |
| Yet some now think that keeping these secondary rights while losing the more primary right to property would somehow be acceptable. Rothbard is spot on in reframing human rights in this way, both logically and strategically. | けれども今では一次的な所有権を失いこの二次的な権利を持ち続けることが結構と思う人がある。この人権を所有権の派生物に変えたロスバードが理論的にも戦略的にも明哲でござった。 |
Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 15: “Human Rights” As Property Rights
Bookmark the permalink.