[ExI] Crying "fire" in a crowded theater: Rothbard's view

painlord2k at libero.it painlord2k at libero.it
Tue Apr 28 22:20:43 UTC 2009

Il 28/04/2009 16.06, Dan ha scritto:
> I'm surprised to see no one is looking at what Rothbard actually
> wrote on this subject at:
> http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
> (Just search on "fire" for the passage dealing with this issue.)
> Notice how this view actually clears up much.  No need for a judge or
> government to weigh one person's rights against another's (or against
> an collective or abstraction like "society" or the "community").  No
> need for fuzzy boundaries.  This is not to say that Rothbard's system
> completely banishes all ambiguities and fuzziness, but I believe, in
> this case, it confutes Holmes and his seconds.  (There is one fault
> in Rothbard's analysis: a third party -- neither owner nor patron --
> might cry "fire" in the theater.  But, in that case, in his system,
> it still resolves to a property rights issue.)

I agree that, in a libertarian society, a person living in a compact 
that don't fulfil his obligation to common defence or, worse, act in a 
way damaging the common defence obligation he accepted freely could be 
sanctioned using property rights and / or placing him in outlaw status.

For example, people could give up a collateral when accepting to serve 
in the local militia. If they don't show up to serve when a call is 
done, they forfeit the collateral that will be divided between the 
people showing. Something like his home.

In the case of Schenck v. United States this would become a breach of 
contractual duties.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list