All right , Russell, I'll bite. No individual rights?

[Faber]

Thanks, guys 

As for Universally Preferable Behavior (by Stefan Molyneux, available with excerpt here, 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

[MaineShark]

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.

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

[Lex]

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.

[Eli]

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?

[MaineShark]

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?

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.

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.

"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

[srqrebel]

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:

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

[Lex]

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 

[MaineShark]

The 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

[Lex]

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. 

[srqrebel]

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.

[John Edward Mercier]

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?

[Eli]

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?

[Eli]

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 

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.

[srqrebel]

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.

[MaineShark]

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.

Inaction would be forgetting to pay.  Choose to sit around and not write a check is still an action.

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.

How do you imagine that stealing my firewood is different from agreeing to purchase it, then failing to pay?

Fraud 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.

Initiatory 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