A couple of points:
1. Saying man has natural rights grounded in the nature of man is the same as a pronouncement. It is an unsupportable assertion of fact which refers to itself for proof of its veracity. Circular logic at its worst.
Not really. It would be circular if he said that man was a part of nature, had a nature, and thus had natural rights. Notice the unexamined
nature of that statement.:-) Man's natural rights were a result of
analysis of Man's nature, and that is what Rothbard was saying. Surely from Aristotle to the modern philosopher, the study of man's nature has been a prime method of learning about ourselves and our place in the world?
2. To have dominion over certainly is not equal to "doing what you want with". A shepherd does have dominion but is charged with caring for and protecting the flock, and if necessary killing one of it for his survival. The notion that the creation is here for our pleasure is so absurd and revolting that to assert it offends the spirit of life itself.
Agreed. And a point I have occassionally made. But, do you agree that Man has natural Rights? Do you agree that they are negative Rights? Do you think animals have the same or similar rights?
Yours,
Issodhos
