Molyneux' FDR controversy is going too far

[BillKauffman]

Even a wild animal knows that if it attacks another animal, that animal will naturally do it's best to defend itself, and attack back.

This is not true Dale.

Unfortunately Locke's golden rule was never properly derived.

Locke wrote: "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."

[dalebert]

This is not true Dale.

Wow, you're just going to assert that all by itself? Well, I'm convinced. Heck, you had me at "This"!

[BillKauffman]

This is not true Dale.

Wow, you're just going to assert that all by itself? Well, I'm convinced. Heck, you had me at "This"!

How do you know what an animal "knows" vs. what is instinctual?

[dalebert]

How do you know what an animal "knows" vs. what is instinctual?

Isn't instinct just knowledge that a creature is born with? It doesn't matter. I don't really care to argue which one it is. In fact, if it's instinctual, I think that's even more relevant to my point.

[Caleb]

It is a very sensible social contract. I simply contend that the attempt by many to distort that into the version we commonly hear to defend statism is a fraud used to exploit others to benefit an elitist hierarchy. The NAP as a pretty good approximation of the natural social contract is logically defensible. The statist version, on the other hand, falls apart when subjected to logical scrutiny.

Ok, but let me play Devil's advocate here for a moment.

Let's assume that you are holding a bag full of 25 ounces of gold. I decide I want that gold. I think to myself, "If I were in Dale's shoes, if Caleb attacked me, I think I would fight back."  But then I also size you up; I observe that I have a baseball bat whereas you do not. "Hmmmm...I think I can take Dale" I think.

If the only implied obligation is the fact that the person might fight back, then is there really an ethical obligation? Isn't that more expediency than ethics? And if its only expediency, I can plunder you at my first fortuitous opportunity.

So you band together with 10 of your buddies. I get 20 of mine to plunder you.  There is an implied, unstated benevolence that the NAP presumes.

[John Edward Mercier]

Correct. But there is an 'implied' peace until you break it with the baseball bat.
Its what allows humans to be social animals... thus social (implied) contract.

[Giggan]

Even a wild animal knows that if it attacks another animal, that animal will naturally do it's best to defend itself, and attack back.

This is not true Dale.

Unfortunately Locke's golden rule was never properly derived.

Locke wrote: "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."

Locke was 'on his way' but didn't quite get it. Right there, he expresses what is essentially the NAP, but would additionally say silence=consent to the will of the people calling themselves government.

Like Plato and Aristotle being unable to imagine a world without slavery, I think Locke was the same way with government. The Stateless Society is an incredibly modern concept. It wasn't a serious idea until midway through the nineteenth century, long after Locke had come and gone. He was a libertarian for his time. Times have changed.

I'm of the school that we know longer take the words of those considered sages at face value. Let's evolve, as the Durden says.

[John Edward Mercier]

Locke could imagine a world without government... what he couldn't reason is natural order.
In natural order, might makes right.
Locke didn't agree with that, and thus created natural rights unto humans from divine origin
Much the same as monarchs declared their sovereign power to arise from divine right.

Locke conceived that divine right was equal among all men, but never questioned whether such a divine right truly existed.
Even if one were to consider the divine being nature itselve, are humans superior amongst species?
Or equal amongst them, but unwilling to perceive such?

[memenode]

Dalebert, I can to an extent concede to your definition of an implied "social contract" with negative obligations, if you insist, but I still think it's fairly irrelevant. It's just putting a label on something that simply is, a natural process, and can be described in more ways than one, depending on the context.

So I choose to avoid using that term if anything then to avoid diluting the meaning of a contract, which I see as something that must be consensual, which must involve a "meeting of the minds". If Joe never met Jack, I simply don't see them having a contract of any kind, not even this "social contract". They never met. They're irrelevant to each other. No contract between them exists.

No law needs to state that if you're in a freely accessible area (what they call 'public') that if someone stands in front of you, your right to toss your arms in that particular direction is lost.

Not a "right" I'd say, but an "ability". And that's just physics, not ethics or a contractual relationship.

I remember someone arguing for so called "positive liberty" exactly because she insisted that one must have a "right" to have certain options and opportunities provided to them. This led her to justify government, as if people need to be forced to provide for someone elses free lunch and free opportunities. Effectively it would mean that if you're alone in the desert you're less free than if you're in a bustling city, just because in the desert you don't have housing, water, food etc. offered to you and in the city you do, which is IMHO utter nonsense. Further following this logic would lead to such absurdities as claiming that not being able to fly by merely flapping your arms means you are not a free person.

But, obviously, these are not freedoms, they are merely physical opportunities or abilities, or lack thereof. And I don't believe in the concept of "positive liberty" because it leads to self contradiction, as for one's "positive liberty" to be fulfilled, another's must be infringed.

I mention that because this is the kind of reasoning that confusing "right" with "ability" leads to.

[dalebert]

Caleb, the point is that there is a common sense understanding (or even an instinctive understanding) that a conscious entity forfeits the right to be left alone when it ceases to leave other entities alone, that violence is to be expected in return when violence is initiated. It's fundamental to the most basic awareness of entities other than one's self, instinctual even. It's based in the awareness that that other entity shares some key traits with itself.

It's very much like the notion of rights. If you believe in fundamental rights, then no one can take your rights away. They can only violate your rights. Demonstrating that the social contract may be, and often is violated does not mean it doesn't exist. One can be aware of a contract and then choose to violate it. I'm only arguing the common awareness of a very basic "contract"; not that it is consistently followed or effectively enforced.

[BillKauffman]

The Stateless Society is an incredibly modern concept.

This is not true. See the Iroquois Confederation.

[John Edward Mercier]

I think they meant State in its broadest interpretation...
A Confederation would most likely fit that interpretation.

[BillKauffman]

This led her to justify government, as if people need to be forced to provide for someone elses free lunch and free opportunities. Effectively it would mean that if you're alone in the desert you're less free than if you're in a bustling city, just because in the desert you don't have housing, water, food etc. offered to you and in the city you do, which is IMHO utter nonsense. Further following this logic would lead to such absurdities as claiming that not being able to fly by merely flapping your arms means you are not a free person.

If all locations (which pre-exists human labor) were privately owned can those who don't own be considered in any meaningful way "free"?

The housing, water, and food are not provided for free in a city.

I don't believe in the concept of "positive liberty" because it leads to self contradiction, as for one's "positive liberty" to be fulfilled, another's must be infringed.

Water is a "free" good in nature, some housing (a cave) and some foods are also free goods in nature. What are the obligations to others to enclose "free" goods and how does that effect your notion of negative liberty?

[BillKauffman]

How do you know what an animal "knows" vs. what is instinctual?

Isn't instinct just knowledge that a creature is born with? It doesn't matter. I don't really care to argue which one it is. In fact, if it's instinctual, I think that's even more relevant to my point.

Knowledge requires sentience so that you have learned behavior by understanding the consequences of your actions via feelings. Animals don't have sentience.

Sentience - the faculty through which the external world is apprehended.

If it is instinctual then you can not ascribe human "knowing" to an animals actions. An animal does not "know" the consequences of it's actions.

[BillKauffman]

Even a wild animal knows that if it attacks another animal, that animal will naturally do it's best to defend itself, and attack back.

This is not true Dale.

Unfortunately Locke's golden rule was never properly derived.

Locke wrote: "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."

This "law of nature" or natural moral law from Locke is formulated by rules that make up the universal ethic. The ethic assigns the moral values of good, evil, and neutral to all human acts. But where do these values come from? The premise of independence, that persons think and feel independently, implies that values are ultimately subjective, coming from individual desires and feelings. The premise of human equality gives these values an equal status.

The universal ethic's rule for moral goodness is that acts which are welcomed benefits to others are morally good. Helping another person the way that person wants to be helped is a good act. If you think you are doing something for another's own good, but he does not think it's good for him, then by the u.e., it is not good.

The rule for evil is more complicated, because there are two types of acts that individuals feel are personally bad. One is an offense that exists within the subject's mind, and the other is an invasion into the person's body and possessions, thus involving more than just his mind. For example, if someone wears a T-shirt with a message that some find displeasing, that is an offense, since whether one is pleased or displeased depends on one's personal viewpoint. In contrast, if one person shoots a bullet into another person's body, that is an unwelcomed invasion. For the universal ethic, only unwelcomed invasions are evil, while mere offenses are morally neutral. Also, acts which only affect yourself are either neutral or good, but not evil, since there is no invasion into another's domain.

We now have the three basic rules of the universal ethic:

Acts are good if and only if they are welcomed benefits.
Acts are evil if they coercively harm others as invasions.
All other acts are neutral.

A society has complete liberty or freedom if its laws prohibit and punish evil as prescribed by the universal ethic, and if any act which is good or neutral is allowed but not required. The u.e. also tells us what our human or natural rights are: we have the right to do anything that does not coercively harm others, and the right to be free from coercive harm.

We have a property right to our own bodies and lives, since if some control others, this violates the premise of equality and becomes an invasion. This self-ownership right implies a property right to our labor and the products of our labor. But self-ownership does not extend to what labor does not produce: natural resources. The premise of equality implies that all persons have an equal property right to the benefits of nature other than our own bodies.