vaguely, and you can search it out below if you like. I attempted to bind my reply to the specific context presented in a comment regarding Rothbard. He flirted with pro-IP. He flirted with anti-IP [certainly by general standards]. He sought definition just as we are doing here. I am a fan of Rothbard.
It was Spooner that caught my eye here.
I have a similar perspective on Spooner. I adore almost all he wrote but for his definition of property. I don't specifically find anything amiss with his definition of wealth but for his redefinition of wealth as he defines property. His definition of wealth is utterly bound to subjectivity as he ultimately ties it to happiness. As he introduces his definition of property, he unsubstantively introduces the concept of wealth unpossessed. This is absurdly out of nowhere as his definition of wealth up to that point does not actually allow for the notion of wealth unpossessed. As such, much of the brilliance he writes from that point forward is essentially rendered gobbleldygook.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherw