For vols. 1-3 (2009-2011), cite articles as: Author, “Title,” Libertarian Papers [volume #], [article number] (year). Example: Jan Narveson, “Present Payments, Past Wrongs: Correcting Loose Talk about Nozick and Rectification,” Libertarian Papers 1, 1 (2009).
For vol. 4 (2012) onward, cite articles as: Author. Year. "Title." Libertarian Papers. Volume # (issue #): [page numbers]. Example: Michael F. Reber. 2012. "The Role of Work: A Eudaimonistic Perspective." Libertarian Papers. 4 (1): 1-26.
18. “Rand, Rothbard, and Rights Reconsidered”
by Kathleen Touchstone
Abstract: This paper examines rights and the protection of rights from both the minarchist and the anarchist perspectives. The former relies on Objectivist (and Neo-Objectivist) perspectives and the latter relies primarily on Murray Rothbard’s views. My view is that government protection as put forth by Objectivists is coercive, as are all methods of financing. However, under anarcho-capitalism, children (and those with diminished capacity) who have been killed or abused by their caregivers do not have equal (or any) protection under the law. The principle of equal protection is one with which both Objectivists and Rothbard agree. A case is made for government protection of rights under those circumstances. In addition, a case is made for positive rights to parental care for children, and also for government protection of those rights if they have been violated by their caregivers. I also argue for government oversight in instances when the rights of children (and those with diminished capacity) have been violated and as a consequence the children (and those with diminished capacity) have no alternative means of care.
![[RSS Feed]](https://web.archive.org/web/20120227143502im_/http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/rss.gif "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Site Feed")
![[iTunes]](https://web.archive.org/web/20120227143502im_/http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/itunes.png "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Podcast with iTunes")
![[Mises Institute]](https://web.archive.org/web/20120227143502im_/http://mises.org/Community/resized-image.ashx/__size/500x400/__key/CommunityServer.Components.PostAttachments/00.00.08.00.78/80x15.png)
![[CC Attribution 3.0]](https://web.archive.org/web/20120227143502im_/http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/us/80x15.png)
Minarchism and anarchism are views on the usefulness of government. I don’t see how such has any primary relationship with rights as government is not the source of rights. They are sourced in our nature as beings. Thus the question of whether or not you need a government as such to avoid as much violation of those rights as possible is orthogonal. In fact the first paragraph of this paper says that the question of government is relevant to the protection of rights, not their existence or what they consist of. So the title is a bit misleading.
But then the paper does claim that their are positive rights requiring forced compliance. Which of course does indeed require coercion of others to supply these purported “rights”. The example of children is given. But this is surely a strange example in that no analagous logic can be drawn that would apply to the rights of adult human beings with any unarguable validity.
I don’t acknowledge any “right of retaliation”. Right of defense of course but that is hardly the same thing and I find the wording rather chilling. Enforcement of contract is not “retaliation” but laws against fraudulent dealings depriving others of property (or other values) against their will.
Rand viewed rights as negative just as much as Rothbard did. I don’t believe Rothbard ever said that contractual commitments are invalid or unenforceable as the author implies.
With regard to your last paragraph, see p. 177 of Man, Economy and State, where Rothbard says that certain personal contracts are indeed unenforceable