Comments on: Working Paper on Human Rights

By: Paul Edwards

Paul Edwards — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:09:34 +0000

TGGP, Actually, the theme of a symposium held in 2001 at the Mises Institute was titled "Austrian Law and Economics". The purpose of the meeting was to explore the relationships between law and economics from an Austrian perspective. http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae7_4_1.pdf#search=%22%22Austrian%20law%22%22 Also, Block's "AUSTRIAN LAW AND ECONOMICS: THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF ADOLF REINACH AND MURRAY ROTHBARD ON LAW, ECONOMICS, AND PRAXEOLOGY" discusses Austrian Law; Kinsella submitted some references to it here: http://blog.mises.org/archives/003800.asp and there are several other references to it here: in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics here: http://blog.mises.org/archives/003640.asp . I think that when ever law is studied from a rigorous praxeological perspective, it may as well be considered Austrian Law.

By: Alexis

Alexis — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:10:30 +0000

AS far as I can understasnd from the first reading, this article contains leftwing treatment of “human rights” independently from any theory of individual rights. As can be seen from the summary author rejects libertarian concept of rights and encroaches “democracy” as a supreme value.

By: TGGP

TGGP — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 02:16:19 +0000

Austrian law? I thought it was just a school of economic thought.

By: jeffrey

jeffrey — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:10:34 +0000

We ran this by the editorial board, and it was approved based on its discussion of Constant.

By: Paul Edwards

Paul Edwards — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:03:14 +0000

Although this article is only intended to be a discussion of Human Rights and the Republican Moment, rather than of human rights that are implied from a recognition of Austrian and libertarian property rights, I would think this paper would be more interesting to a mises.org audience if it were presented as a comparison and contrast, or was otherwise presented with Austrian law as a backdrop to the discussion.

As an example of a lacking of libertarian theory, this article contains the word “property” precisely once, and only in a quotation of Constant. It is difficult for this article to draw my interest when it is so blatantly reflects the author’s disinterest in, or unawareness of Austrian and libertarian ethics.