| 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。 |
Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 9: Property and Criminality
Bookmark the permalink.