Frank Van Dun | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Born | (1947-02-22)22 February 1947 (age 78) Antwerp, Belgium |
| Philosophical work | |
| Era | Contemporary philosophy |
| Region | Western philosophy |
| School | Classical liberalism |
| Institutions | University of Ghent Mises Institute Rothbard Institute [nl] |
| Main interests | Philosophy of law Philosophy of human rights |
| Website | users |
Frank Van Dun (Flemish:[vɑnˈdʏn]; born February 22, 1947) is a Belgianphilosopher of law andclassical liberalnatural law theorist. He is associated with the law faculty of theUniversity of Ghent. In 2013 he was awarded thePrize for Liberty by the Flemish classical-liberal think tankLibera!.
Van Dun published his bookHet Fundamenteel Rechtsbeginsel (Dutch forThe Fundamental Principle of Law) in 1983, in which he argued that a rationally convincing answer to the question "What is law?" can only be found by respecting dialogue and argumentation. He is thus an adherent ofargumentation ethics. Based on this premise, Van Dun argues that every natural person (individual) has a lawful claim on his life, freedom and property. This claim is absolute, insofar as it does not prohibit the equivalent claims of other natural persons, i.e. insofar as argumentation is respected.
Van Dun clearly distinguishes thelawful (ius) and thelegal (lex). In his view, Western positive law systems reduce people to human resources, artificial persons with merely legal status. Positive law defines thelegal but can only belawful insofar as individuals have full secession rights from the institutional framework that is making said positive law. It logically follows that no judge can be forced upon a person who is willing to search a lawful solution for any conflict.
Van Dun claims that the correct interpretation of thenon-aggression principle (NAP) ispraxeological rather than physical, because property is a "means of action". He thus claimsfreedom before property instead offreedom as property.[citation needed] This implies that it's not necessarily only the last action in the chain of social causations that is unlawful. Consider the following examples:
Thefreedom before property interpretation of the NAP is not widely accepted within the libertarian community. For example,Walter Block adheres to thefreedom as property interpretation.[1]
Van Dun sees human rights as fundamentally different from the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". According to him when you have a right you have a right. Therefore, human rights are, e.g., the right of self-determination for one's own life, liberty and the products of one's liberty (property) and he call these rights fundamental rights. This is not the case in the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". He sees the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" equivalent to "Animal Rights", since the rights enumerated in the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" are sometimes conflicting with each other and many of these rights are only valid insofar as legislation of the government is not contradicting it. Therefore, he sees rulers which are acting as masters of the "human" animals (i.e. "slaves") in the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights".[2]
The Belgian newspaperLe Soir reported on 8 June 2012, that between 1988 and 2000, Belgian scientists Van Dun and Marcel Javeau were paid by thetobacco lobby, through the group 'Associates for Research in the Science of Enjoyment' (ARISE).[3] Van Dun responded in the BelgianEos-magazine[4] that while indeed he gave two presentations for ARISE in which he presented his visions, he wasn't paid to do so and he never was a member of ARISE. However, theLegacy Tobacco Documents Library contains a document[5] that lists Van Dun as an "associate".
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
