Quote from: Russell Kanning on November 29, 2007, 08:52 PM NHFT
... are you ready for this? .... I don't even think people have rights :)
I really would like to understand your take on this. What does it mean to have rights or not have rights. Where are you coming from on this one?
I'm not sure either, but I'll guess he was thinking no government to enforce rights.
Thank you Eli! You beat me to this... on the other thread.
Hey Russell - I, too, would appreciate a little enlightenment regarding this assertion :)
Quote from: Eli on December 04, 2007, 08:01 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on November 29, 2007, 08:52 PM NHFT
... are you ready for this? .... I don't even think people have rights :)
I really would like to understand your take on this. What does it mean to have rights or not have rights. Where are you coming from on this one?
I doesn't mean anything and I think that's the point. Rights are just a moral convention exaggerated to make people think it's some kind of absolute thing where if someone violates your rights immediately lightning will strike them down.
Rights are suggestions and you can't 'have' a suggestion, you can merely choose to follow it or not.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on December 04, 2007, 08:10 AM NHFT
...Rights are just a moral convention exaggerated to make people think it's some kind of absolute thing where if someone violates your rights immediately lightning will strike them down.
Rights are suggestions and you can't 'have' a suggestion, you can merely choose to follow it or not.
Whoa dude... wait till Maineshark gets hold of this one! ;D
Not that I can exactly rebuff what you are saying, though. There seems to be a longstanding belief out there, that individual rights are "inalienable" -- hence an intrinsic part of the human organism. I would like to believe this, and have long based my personal philosophy and actions on this premise -- yet I cannot articulate exactly
how this premise is supported in reality.
I think this is going to be an interesting conversation. A real 40 pager. I'm awaiting Russell's commentary, because I'm really not sure the direction he intended with the comment.
I know on a more personal level, he said he was happier without the idea of rights...like I have a right to be treated with respect by my wife, or I have a right to not be tailgated on the highway, or I have a right to my yard without my neighbor's kids running through it. Maybe it would be better if things were that way, but he's a lot happier ditching the 'justifiable' anger that comes when his 'rights' are violated.
Just another guess at what he was thinking.
Inalienable rights...I've thought of it in Ayn Rand fashion...that man has a certain nature, and based on that nature, there's a best way for men to interact with one another: don't kill one another, don't steal from each other, etc.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on December 04, 2007, 08:36 AM NHFT
Inalienable rights...I've thought of it in Ayn Rand fashion...that man has a certain nature, and based on that nature, there's a best way for men to interact with one another: don't kill one another, don't steal from each other, etc.
As in, the greatest good for the greatest number of people?
Quote from: Eli on December 04, 2007, 08:32 AM NHFT
I think this is going to be an interesting conversation. A real 40 pager...
So true... I just hope Kat won't tire of the "debate" just as it's getting interesting :)
Both Kat and Russell don't seem to have much tolerance for long debates :(
This doesn't seem like a debate so far. But you're right, I don't like debating.
Quote from: srqrebel on December 04, 2007, 08:29 AM NHFTQuote from: Lex Berezhny on December 04, 2007, 08:10 AM NHFT...Rights are just a moral convention exaggerated to make people think it's some kind of absolute thing where if someone violates your rights immediately lightning will strike them down.
Rights are suggestions and you can't 'have' a suggestion, you can merely choose to follow it or not.
Whoa dude... wait till Maineshark gets hold of this one! ;D
I'm waiting for Russell's response, first...
Joe
Quote from: srqrebel on December 04, 2007, 08:39 AM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on December 04, 2007, 08:36 AM NHFT
Inalienable rights...I've thought of it in Ayn Rand fashion...that man has a certain nature, and based on that nature, there's a best way for men to interact with one another: don't kill one another, don't steal from each other, etc.
As in, the greatest good for the greatest number of people?
I think the virtue of 'rights' is that they don't require that the greatest number of people benefit.
It makes sense that you shouldn't go around killing people for no reason. An individual who could be a victim of such things has as much to benefit by staying live as the 'greatest number' of people by not living in fear of someone running around killing people.
So, I think one of the virtues of some of the basic rights is that they trenscend the 'individual vs. collective' categorization.
I used to think rights were as natural and provable as the laws of economics that arise from the axioms of human action.
After many hours of thought, discussion, and a couple of half-baked "derivations" of natural rights (see, e.g., http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/halbrooks/halbrooks2.html (http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/halbrooks/halbrooks2.html)), I concluded I was wrong. Rights cannot be proven.
But even if we concede that rights are not absolute, provable laws of ethics, that does not mean we need discard them altogether. For example, I can look at a work of art and believe it is "great" and yet recognize that there is no way to prove this greatness to others. I can look upon the world and see "beauty" without any way to prove its absolute existence.
And so with rights. Discussing rights is one way to communicate about what we believe is ethical human action. I can believe that certain acts and interventions are wrong and always will be wrong, yet also believe that this belief cannot be proven as law.
I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with using the word 'rights' in our dialogue but it's important to understand that 'rights' mean different things to different people and are not inherent in our existance. Heck, some people believe that socialized medicine is a right and I think most of us here would disagree with that. And there are some people that may even say that self-defense isn't a right, etc.
I think rights are a more specific set of morals.
They are organic and depend on the society in which they are developed and utilized.
Rights are not absolute in any way.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on December 04, 2007, 12:14 PM NHFT
I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with using the word 'rights' in our dialogue but it's important to understand that 'rights' mean different things to different people and are not inherent in our existance. Heck, some people believe that socialized medicine is a right and I think most of us here would disagree with that. And there are some people that may even say that self-defense isn't a right, etc.
I think rights are a more specific set of morals.
They are organic and depend on the society in which they are developed and utilized.
Rights are not absolute in any way.
Self-defense (preservation) is inherent. So would exist without the State (government).
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on December 04, 2007, 12:26 PM NHFT
Self-defense (preservation) is inherent. So would exist without the State (government).
But is it a right?
Do you mean "Is there a moral rule that one has the right to defend oneself?" Good question. what is a right?
I take issue with the idea that a right is socially dependent. That kind of postmodern social relativism leads to collectivism every time IMO. Culture is no more real than government or the state (though I'll admit that 'right' may be the same kind of abstraction.)
Actually a 'right' is a mental construct, that becomes a social construct in the presence of State (authoritative unit).
After some thought my opinion is as such...
Is it a right if you must rely on some one else to give it to you or ensure that you do not have it taken away?
Existence is simple in nature as a design of such scope must be. You have only what you bring with you; your mind and your spirit or what ever monikers/variation thereof you wish to use. You can make your own decisions and reap the consequences. Even freewill can be subverted through sinister and clandestine means.
Your life, liberty and prosperity are all fragile and can be broken by anyone with the will and strength to do so.
A group of individuals recognized this and in an effort to uphold and preserve - life, liberty and prosperity - created a document that would become law. This Constitution (the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or the like, is governed) set forth a rule made by man and enforced by man that declared life, liberty and prosperity to be sacred facets of a civilized and free existence to be shared equally with all who would fall under the governance of this document. In tandem an idea was created that duplicated the above declaration and this idea was propagated to be understood by all who could understand it.
Rights are relevant only to those who made the decision to accept them and those who made the decision to enforce them.
I just can't see how I have "rights" .... the way most people think of "rights".
Do I really have the right to life, liberty and property?
Who will guarantee them? How can I be sure of them?
I can see how it is wrong for someone else to take them from me ... but it happens anyways.
God hasn't promise them to me. Governments talk about them.
When I stay focused on the idea that nothing is owed me ... or that I have certain rights ... then I can be satisfied with reality.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on December 04, 2007, 05:22 PM NHFT
I just can't see how I have "rights" .... the way most people think of "rights".
Do I really have the right to life, liberty and property?
Who will guarantee them? How can I be sure of them?
I can see how it is wrong for someone else to take them from me ... but it happens anyways.
God hasn't promise them to me. Governments talk about them.
When I stay focused on the idea that nothing is owed me ... or that I have certain rights ... then I can be satisfied with reality.
With all that reality is, I am not so sure satisfied would be the correct term. Reality is poverty around the world, murder, rape, theft. Reality is also sex on a Monday morning, raises, children. Reality has many positives and negatives, but I don't think I could ever be satisfied with reality. Not to mention that reality just is whether I am satisfied with it or not.
Quote from: Nikiya on December 04, 2007, 06:42 PM NHFT
With all that reality is, I am not so sure satisfied would be the correct term. Reality is poverty around the world, murder, rape, theft. Reality is also sex on a Monday morning, raises, children. Reality has many positives and negatives, but I don't think I could ever be satisfied with reality. Not to mention that reality just is whether I am satisfied with it or not.
So... what are you saying?
Okay, I said I'd respond once Russell did.
There are rights, but not the usual nonsense.
You have the right to be free of initiated force. That's it. All other rights are derivatives of that one. There are myriad rights, because of the sheer number of things you can do, which do not initiate force against anyone. For every thing meeting that rule, you have a right to do that thing. You have an inalienable right to stab yourself in the foot with an icepick while singing "Mary Had a Little Lamb" and smoking a pipe filled with shavings from old tires. Why? Because you aren't hurting anyone else by doing it. You do not have the right to do that in my kitchen, because your bloody foot and that burning-rubber-smoke will damage my property. Do it in your own kitchen.
Absolutely anything you can think of, which does not involve initiating force against others, you have the right to do.
Joe
What is a right, but more specifically what makes a right inalienable? What if you wanted to stab yourself in the foot with an ice pick but someone had tied you to a tree with your hands behind your back where you could no longer do this, wouldn't this mean that your right has been alienated?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on December 04, 2007, 10:03 PM NHFTWhat is a right, but more specifically what makes a right inalienable? What if you wanted to stab yourself in the foot with an ice pick but someone had tied you to a tree with your hands behind your back where you could no longer do this, wouldn't this mean that your right has been alienated?
If would mean that your rights had been violated. You still have them, but are forcibly prevented from exercising them. If your rights no longer existed, by the simple method of interfering with them, there would be nothing wrong with that interference, because none of your rights would be violated.
Joe
Just wondering what you're thoughts would be on this one: If you have a 2 month old baby and it depends on you for survival, would it still be your right to embed ice picks into your flesh?
Another way of asking, "What are my rights?" is to ask, "What are other people morally obligated to do?" All that "rights" talk is is just an expression of what people should and should not do. If someone claims to have a right to medical care, they're saying that other people are morally obligated to provide them medical care. If someone claims a right to not be aggressed against, then other people are morally obligated to not aggress against you. The corollary to that is that force may morally be used to assert your rights. For someone claiming a right to healthcare, that might involve taxation or enslavement of doctors. For someone claiming a right to not be aggressed against, that includes self-defense or hiring a body guard to defend you.
Rights language is the language of morality.
That's a great explanation Faber. I agree.
Faber beat me to it. I think rights are a moral framework. They exist only as ideas but they are derived teleologically. I am a person who is an end in himself (so is everyone) and because of that we have rights. I haven't read "Universally Preferred Behaviour" but this is what it makes me think of. If each person is an end in themselves, then that reality means that a certain set of moral principles (rights) governs right behaviour. Those principles are expressed most succinctly by ZAP, but before it was clearly formulated were generally laid out as rights. I think the Bill of rights is a pretty good early formulation, the 10 commandments a less good earlier formulation with sexism and some other things thrown in. Between the two were alot of attempts to peg what the rights of people are. Eventually I hope ZAP helps build a body of moral philosophy that sets people up as ends in themselves. My question, for libertarians, anarchists, and Kant, is does the fact that people are ends in themselves create positive obligations, like with your infant. Or mine. I feel obligated to my children, but I feel like I chose that obligation. Worked hard to get it ;) So it is a chosen positive obligation. So with the ice pick example, I would be obligated morally not to do away with myself, but I chose to accept that obligation. In my case way back before conception of Molly and Micah.
I think generally my rights aren't what people are obligated to do but what they are obligated not to do, morally. Negative obligations.
Thanks, guys :)
As for Universally Preferable Behavior (by Stefan Molyneux, available with excerpt here (http://freedomainradio.com/books.html), if anyone doesn't know what we're talking about), I don't know enough about philosophy to declare it perfect, but it's a damn good read, and very convincing. I think it works as a great framework for thinking about ethics and morality; I'd be interested to hear what you think once you get a chance to read it :)
Quote from: Eli on December 05, 2007, 07:07 AM NHFTMy question, for libertarians, anarchists, and Kant, is does the fact that people are ends in themselves create positive obligations, like with your infant. Or mine. I feel obligated to my children, but I feel like I chose that obligation. Worked hard to get it ;) So it is a chosen positive obligation. So with the ice pick example, I would be obligated morally not to do away with myself, but I chose to accept that obligation. In my case way back before conception of Molly and Micah.
I think generally my rights aren't what people are obligated to do but what they are obligated not to do, morally. Negative obligations.
Indeed. If you undertake a contract, you are obligated to follow-through, because violating that contract is an aggression against the other party/parties.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on December 05, 2007, 07:48 AM NHFT
If you undertake a contract, you are obligated to follow-through, because violating that contract is an aggression against the other party/parties.
So, a contract/obligation to your 2 month old baby alienates your inalienable right to hurt yourself?
I guess, what I'm also getting at is how far are you willing to go with "as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else". There are always negative affects on others of merely existing. We all to some extent pollute and participate in things that harm other people, most of us still pay taxes which then fund wars killing many people.
So Lex what are you saying? What right of yours, for instance, am I violating by existing. Let me formulate it again, in what way is my existence an initiation of force against you?
If I make a contract with you, then don't follow through, then that might be theft and tantamount to force. But the externalities of our economic relationships aren't necessarily initiations of force are they? My CO2 etc?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on December 05, 2007, 08:06 AM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on December 05, 2007, 07:48 AM NHFTIf you undertake a contract, you are obligated to follow-through, because violating that contract is an aggression against the other party/parties.
So, a contract/obligation to your 2 month old baby alienates your inalienable right to hurt yourself?
No. You still have your right. If you can think of a way to hurt yourself without violating the contract, go right ahead.
As I've said, you have the right to do anything which does not initiate force against others. Violating a contract initiates force against others, so you do not have that right.
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on December 05, 2007, 08:06 AM NHFTI guess, what I'm also getting at is how far are you willing to go with "as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else". There are always negative affects on others of merely existing. We all to some extent pollute and participate in things that harm other people, most of us still pay taxes which then fund wars killing many people.
"Hurting" others is irrelevant to rights. "Initiating force against" others is the issue. Many might try to reduce the level of harm they cause others, but that is a personal choice, not a matter for morality.
Joe
The initiation of force is certainly wrong, but so is the
threat of force, as well as fraud.
It is grossly inaccurate to say that defaulting on contractual obligations constitutes the use of force. Most of the time, default occurs through
inaction, and the proper term would be
fraud, not force.
Years ago, Dr. Frank R. Wallace penned an exquisitely concise concept of individual rights, which he called
The Constitution Of The Universe:
Quote
Preamble
The purpose of human life is to live happily.
The function of government is to guarantee those conditions that allow individuals to fulfill their purpose. Those conditions can be guaranteed through a constitution that forbids the use of initiatory force, fraud, or coercion by any person or group against any individual:
* * *
Article 1
No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.
Article 2
Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Article 1.
Article 3
No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.
http://www.libertyzone.com/NeoActionsConstitution.html
Quote from: Eli on December 05, 2007, 08:43 AM NHFT
So Lex what are you saying? What right of yours, for instance, am I violating by existing. Let me formulate it again, in what way is my existence an initiation of force against you?
If I make a contract with you, then don't follow through, then that might be theft and tantamount to force. But the externalities of our economic relationships aren't necessarily initiations of force are they? My CO2 etc?
Your consumption and disposal of products produces polution. Polution can make me sick and die.
Also, the Georgist philosophy comes into play here to an extent. There is a finite amount of land on this planet. At some point there will not be enough room for everyone. Your existance could harm my existance by virtue of there not being enough room. This is obviously theoretical, I know, but so are morals and rights :P
Quote from: srqrebel on December 05, 2007, 10:01 AM NHFTThe initiation of force is certainly wrong, but so is the threat of force, as well as fraud.
The credible threat of force
is force. Fraud is also force.
Joe
Quote from: srqrebel on December 05, 2007, 10:01 AM NHFT
Quote
Preamble
The function of government is to guarantee those conditions that allow individuals to fulfill their purpose. Those conditions can be guaranteed through a constitution that forbids the use of initiatory force, fraud, or coercion by any person or group against any individual:
And how does he foresee paying for such a government. ;)
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on December 05, 2007, 10:37 AM NHFT
Quote from: srqrebel on December 05, 2007, 10:01 AM NHFT
Quote
Preamble
The function of government is to guarantee those conditions that allow individuals to fulfill their purpose. Those conditions can be guaranteed through a constitution that forbids the use of initiatory force, fraud, or coercion by any person or group against any individual:
And how does he foresee paying for such a government. ;)
I don't have access to any of his writings at the moment, so I can't quote him... but basically, he envisioned all valid government services as being delivered strictly through the business model, via voluntary contracts and open to free market competition.
In other words, you pay for the services you want, or you don't get them -- in contrast to the current model whereby some benefit at the
involuntary expense of others.
This exists everywhere...
How many people use something that they didn't pay for... or paid unequally? I drive a low cost fuel efficient vehicle, so I pay less for the roads than others. Its a nice model, but won't come about by simply 'awakening the populace'. I seriously doubt it would even come about politically.
From what source does your right against 'force' spring?
Quote from: srqrebel on December 05, 2007, 10:01 AM NHFT
It is grossly inaccurate to say that defaulting on contractual obligations constitutes the use of force. Most of the time, default occurs through inaction, and the proper term would be fraud, not force.
srq, what do you mean by fraud? I've always been confused about this part of zap. Seems redundant to me. In a contract there are property rights, violating your contract violates the property rights of the other party, thus violence. (possibly) What fraud violates zap absent a contract?
Quote from: Lex Berezhny on December 05, 2007, 10:09 AM NHFT
Your consumption and disposal of products produces polution. Polution can make me sick and die.
Also, the Georgist philosophy comes into play here to an extent. There is a finite amount of land on this planet. At some point there will not be enough room for everyone. Your existance could harm my existance by virtue of there not being enough room. This is obviously theoretical, I know, but so are morals and rights :P
I can see you point on the first issue. If my externality causes harm it might be considered violence. Though how it can consitute an initiation of force, (which seems to me requires intent) I'm not sure, But the land issue doesn't make sense to me at all (of course no georgist argument has ever made sense to me). Substitute and other commoditiy for land and see the sillyness of the argument. Further land is not finite in any meaningful sense. It's a big effing universe. And what you mean when you say land is really space right? A place to be a spot to call your own? Practically limitless. Even land is common as dirt, pardon the pun.
Quote from: Eli on December 07, 2007, 01:39 PM NHFT
Quote from: srqrebel on December 05, 2007, 10:01 AM NHFT
It is grossly inaccurate to say that defaulting on contractual obligations constitutes the use of force. Most of the time, default occurs through inaction, and the proper term would be fraud, not force.
srq, what do you mean by fraud? I've always been confused about this part of zap. Seems redundant to me. In a contract there are property rights, violating your contract violates the property rights of the other party, thus violence. (possibly) What fraud violates zap absent a contract?
Sorry Eli, I missed this earlier.
I am not aware of any fraud absent a contract. (By contract I mean any reciprocal agreement between parties, not necessarily in writing.)
I was simply confronting the incorrect use of the term
force. Force denotes aggressive
action. Defaulting on a contract usually occurs through
inaction. If I contract with you to deliver a load of firewood to me, with the understanding that I will pay you next week, and you deliver the firewood to me but I fail to pay as agreed, then I have committed
fraud, not
force. On the other hand, if I compel you to deliver the firewood to me at gunpoint, or I physically help myself to your firewood without your permission, then I have used force (or the threat thereof) against you.
Force, threat of force, and fraud are simply separate methods of aggression. All three violate individual (or, more correctly:
property) rights.
Fraud does not constitute
violence at all -- only deception. Initiatory force alone constitutes violence, while the threat of force constitutes implied violence.
Quote from: srqrebel on December 10, 2007, 01:23 PM NHFTI was simply confronting the incorrect use of the term force. Force denotes aggressive action. Defaulting on a contract usually occurs through inaction. If I contract with you to deliver a load of firewood to me, with the understanding that I will pay you next week, and you deliver the firewood to me but I fail to pay as agreed, then I have committed fraud, not force.
Inaction would be
forgetting to pay.
Choose to sit around and not write a check is still an action.
Quote from: srqrebel on December 10, 2007, 01:23 PM NHFTOn the other hand, if I compel you to deliver the firewood to me at gunpoint, or I physically help myself to your firewood without your permission, then I have used force (or the threat thereof) against you.
How do you imagine that stealing my firewood is different from agreeing to purchase it, then failing to pay?
Quote from: srqrebel on December 10, 2007, 01:23 PM NHFTFraud does not constitute violence at all -- only deception.
I had to work to cut that firewood. Let's say it took 100 hours for my labor to obtain and deliver that firewood that you didn't pay for. Because of your actions, I was made to work for your benefit for 100 hours. In other words, I was enslaved for 100 hours, against my will (my will was to work for my benefit for those hours), which is certainly a violent action.
Quote from: srqrebel on December 10, 2007, 01:23 PM NHFTInitiatory force alone constitutes violence, while the threat of force constitutes implied violence.
If someone points a gun at you and says, "give me your wallet or I'll kill you," so you give him your wallet and he doesn't kill you, that wasn't violent, because he didn't actually kill you?
Joe
Here's an interesting video that's not too long talking about moral relativism and I think it has relevence to the notion of rights. I do believe rights are a human fabrication and a good and useful one. The law of the jungle will always apply, but the notion of a civilized society is built upon the notion that we, as social creatures, are all better off if we reject the use of aggressive force.
[youtube=425,350]hTCikmnys2o[/youtube]