An Addendum to Private Law Creation

I had something of an epiphany the other day, which spawned out of a discussion on externalities; I'm not sure if it's been suggested by an economist already, though in my somewhat-extensive reading of Block, Hoppe, Rothbard, Murphy and Friedman-- likely the five greatest contributors to propertarian anarchist thinking, certainly within both the Austrian and Chicago schools, I've never come across it: that law could persist on private property above and beyond the capabilities of its very owner.

First I'll define a term which is not exactly defined by consensus:

Pascal's Gamble Revisited

Pascal's Gamble has always sparked my interest because it soundly rejects a norm I've always detested-- that the theory which is most likely true should always be preferred as utterly superior. In fact, choosing to believe with rational intentions requires knowledge of the probability of many competing theories, with the best choice being, oftentimes, "inferior."

Justice?

You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.

In order to be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are — at least in certain crucial mental respects.

But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.

So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.

The argument above, posed by the delightfully interesting Galen Strawson, a British philosopher of mind, has the ethics-guts of many in terrible knots. It transcends the typical squabbling of free will- whether the self is physical, whether one's consciousness acts, etc.- by cutting to the heart of the matter: nothing is causa sui.