Rothbard states in most of his books that all human rights are derived from the basic property right, which in turn is the primary natural right of man qua man. Now, I get the derivation he makes from the property right and the logic there seems to be airtight. However, I am a little confused on how to scientifically (without introducing the God, please) establish the property right as a natural right. Could anyone direct me to some works that address this issue? Thank you.
As human beings, we have needs, which we like to satisfy. Some of those needs can be satisfied through resources, or 'goods'. If you couldn't grab those resources from your neighbor, how would you satisfy your needs? You can either make all your own things, or you trade with others. But to sell something you must first use your brain and your body to transform some things from something less valuable into something more valuable. And you can only sell those things that people actually desire. Productive people are constantly trading. In order to satisfy their own needs they will trade essentially every day of their lives. They trade in other things besides goods and services as well. They trade information with others to better understand the world. They trade in companionship, in support, and in love. Every extra peaceful person also adds to our security. Peaceful people are very beneficial. Peaceful people who have accrued large amounts of wealth have been, and generally are still, particularly beneficial to other people. Contrast this with an unpeaceful person. Someone who steals, or rapes, or murders. These actions are harmful to people who are beneficial to us. Secondly, we ourselves or someone close to us could be the next victim. An unpeaceful person shows through his actions that he doesn't know what society is about; he regards other people and their property as his own, and he tries to live at the expense of others. This has no place in society. Morality is that set of principles of action that state that you cannot hurt other agents, or their property, who participate in society; for doing so must be detrimental to society.
Agents that can participate in society are so-called 'moral agents'. An agent is a being that can act. The second quality is that the agent should be able to understand the consequences of its actions. Finally, and most importantly, it should be capable to act in such a way as to not hurt other moral agents (other participants of society), or their property.
If an intelligent species were to arrive on earth, they would most likely be peaceful. It is hard to imagine how an unpeaceful group of individuals would ever develop the technology required for such a journey. Secondly, technological advances make the spread of information easy so that good ideas beat bad ideas; and so peaceful and productive ideas would have long beaten unpeaceful and destructive ideas. In that case there would be no reason to regard such individuals as anything less than human societal participants; and so inter-species societal integration is entirely possible.
If someone is asleep they are, for all intents and purposes, still a productive member of society. Hurting someone who is asleep (or taking their property) is just as detrimental to society as hurting someone who is awake. The same is true for someone who is in a coma, if it can be reasonably assumed that they will wake up.
Children are beings who gain moral agency capacity as they grow and learn. As such, they should not be hurt. It is moral agency capacity that allows one to live in society. Children are also the next generation.
Proto-children are beings who haven't started their journey of gaining moral agency. At that point it is generally up to the mother to decide what the best future for her and her child is. One element that gives insight into the development of a fetus are the establishment of thalamocortical connections in the brain, which processes and relays sensory information and plays a major role in regulating awareness and activity. Before these connections are established, the fetus cannot be consciously aware of things in its environment. And so it doesn't quality for the first part of moral agency (the agency part). One source states that sensory impulses cannot be reliably detected in the cortex at 29 weeks of gestation.1 From a societal view you could say that after that age, and if someone is willing to raise the child, and there are no particular risks to the mother, that she should carry it through.
It is possible that a group of moral agents live separately from another group of moral agents. The best way to go about would be to have the insight and to stress the insight that both would be better off engaging in trade. This would also be the strongest way to avoid conflict, because if no trading occurs then the two groups will view each other as an opponents fighting for scarce resources.
http://www.vforvoluntary.com/wiki/MoralityFromASocietalPerspective
Not exactly what I am looking for. I am looking for an answer to the following question "why is the property right a right natural to human beings". Say, we consider monkeys. They always have an alpha male who gains control of the population, and essentially, makes all the property and food distributions. How are humans different? What makes it unnatural for certain person to be in power over others and command their property.
YAHA wrote: Not exactly what I am looking for. I am looking for an answer to the following question "why is the property right a right natural to human beings". Say, we consider monkeys. They always have an alpha male who gains control of the population, and essentially, makes all the property and food distributions. How are humans different? What makes it unnatural for certain person to be in power over others and command their property.
Homo sapiens are a cooperative species. That is what made them succesful and what was selected for. The trait that allows them to cooperate is their capacity for rational thought.
Self-interested cooperation is a thousand times more productive than self-interested fighting.
YAHA,
It all centers around what is meant by "natural". That term corresponds to another term: aprior.
It's a complicated subject, and depends on how much you are willing to spend on discovering what that further means. The simple definition of what 'natural' or 'nature' means in the Aristotelian tradition that Rothbard was kin to is this: what is intellectually comprehended of reality
Check this out (url: http://mises.org/Community/groups/natural_rights/blog/archive/2010/04/10/tom-woods-on-natural-rights.aspx). Other items of interest could include this and this.
There are a number of ways that society can be organized: 1. Nobody owns anything (nihilism). 2. Everybody owns everything (communism). 3. Everyone owns their own body (capitalism). 4. Some own others (slavery/fascism).
The nihilist method of organizing society is impossible, because if nobody owned anything, then nobody would be able to act, since they would not have ownership over their own bodies. The communist method of organizing society is impossible, because if everyone owned everything, then an individual would need permission from everyone else in order to act, but in order to grant that permission, others would have to seek permission in order to act. Thus, nobody would be able to initiate action in a communist society, so this method of organizing society is impossible. The capitalist method of organizing society, self-ownership, is clearly possible, because everyone owns themself, making the initiation of action possible. The slave/fascist method of organizing society is also possible, but it falls by the wayside since it is not a universal ethic that can be adopted by all of mankind. Thus, we are left with the capitalist ethic of self-ownership.
Rights over property outside of one's own body (e.g. rights over land-use) come from self-ownership. If A owns hiself, then A owns his labor. By mixing his labor with land or other property (e.g. by farming some land or by building a house), A comes to own that property. From this starting point we can derive more complicated forms of property ownership (e.g. the ownership of stocks).
Note 1: Please notice that I'm not using terms such as "communism" properly in this context. Many political communists would agree with self-ownership, but then they fail to take the next logical step and extend self-ownership to the ownership of property outside the body. By "communism" I mean "communism of bodies," not political or ideological communism.
Note 2: I believe that utilitarianism also falls within category three, or the capitalist ethic of self-ownership. This is because the impossibility of interpersonal utility comparisons dictates that the most utilitarian society is one in which the force is never used. Thus, I believe that utilitarianism and natural rights can go hand in hand.
Political Atheists Blog
krazy kaju: There are a number of ways that society can be organized: 1. Nobody owns anything (nihilism). 2. Everybody owns everything (communism). 3. Everyone owns their own body (capitalism). 4. Some own others (slavery/fascism).
That's an awesome categorization.
Why thank you. I remember first reading it in Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty. You can find this in a footnote on one of the first few pages. Tom Woods brought this up in a lecture presented to a C4L conference. You can watch Woods' lecture here.
wilderness wrote: That's an awesome categorization.
That's new for you?
In that case, here is the full explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI-RUPQ9RdA
No. That's not new to me. I was simply saying it was awesome.
There was a nice article by Wirkman Virkkala recently I think you guys should read here.
Attempts to summarize all morality into a simple principle are ancient. Long before Kant’s categorical imperative we were blessed with the Silver and Golden Rules. Indeed, there is a sort of progress in the development of these rules: Silver: Do not do unto others that which you do not want done to yourself. Golden: Do unto others that which you want done unto you. Cat. Imp.: Act only in such a manner that you can at the same time will that your act should become a universal law. But the progress may be illusory. The Silver standard may be best. The negative formulation does not entail perversities that can develop from very particular values. Under the Golden Rule, my preferences could be so “out there” as to cause disharmony, not increase it. For example, I might prefer to greet strangers with impromptu opera arias. After all, I would prefer it if everyone sung to me. So, taking my strange preference for improvised singing, I inflict upon society a mad barrage of baritone assaults... ...
Attempts to summarize all morality into a simple principle are ancient. Long before Kant’s categorical imperative we were blessed with the Silver and Golden Rules. Indeed, there is a sort of progress in the development of these rules:
Silver: Do not do unto others that which you do not want done to yourself. Golden: Do unto others that which you want done unto you. Cat. Imp.: Act only in such a manner that you can at the same time will that your act should become a universal law.
Silver: Do not do unto others that which you do not want done to yourself.
Golden: Do unto others that which you want done unto you.
Cat. Imp.: Act only in such a manner that you can at the same time will that your act should become a universal law.
But the progress may be illusory. The Silver standard may be best. The negative formulation does not entail perversities that can develop from very particular values. Under the Golden Rule, my preferences could be so “out there” as to cause disharmony, not increase it. For example, I might prefer to greet strangers with impromptu opera arias. After all, I would prefer it if everyone sung to me. So, taking my strange preference for improvised singing, I inflict upon society a mad barrage of baritone assaults...
...
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
@ Kaju: I'm not sure how nihilism equates to "nobody owns anything", as I know plenty of nihilists who believe in property. Could you elaborate further on whether you are targetting a specific strain or interpretation of nihilism, or generalizing nihilism as a whole?
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
The fallacy of Rothbard is that if all our rights derive from property rights, then humans only have rights to the extent that they own property. In practice, this creates a society where some people have unimaginably expansive rights (often unearned) while others have effectively almost no rights. Such an unequal society is repulsive to decent people.
Rothbardians like to talk about "self-ownership," but a man or woman with no property has no means of supporting themselves other than to "rent" their self ownership out to others for wages. Rothbardians would insist that even a person who has to rent themselves full-time to obtain subsistence is "free," but almost no one who is actually in this situation agrees.
Our rights don't stem fundamentally from property rights. All rights stem from the condition of life; only living beings have rights. Ask yourself, how in Rothbard's system would the initial acquisition of "ourselves" originate? We have rights because we are ourselves, not primarily because we "own" ourselves. We "own" ourselves as a consequence of being free, but owning ourselves does not wholly encompass
The right to liberty follows from the right to life, because liberty is required to make life worthwhile. If human life is to be worthwhile, humans have to be "at liberty" to do the things that we consider as making life worthwhile,( to the extent that this doesn't interfere with this same right for others).
The right to property follows from our right to liberty. Doing the things that make life worthwhile usually require the use or acquisition of property, and an economic system based on the voluntary exchange of property is the most efficient way to produce desired goods. We have a right to trade, exchange and own property so that we can actually accomplish the things that we consider as making life worthwhile, Our right to property, however, is not valid if it interferes with the life, liberty or property of others.
The right to liberty can justifiably be infringed upon to preserve life: a person with plague can be temporarily involuntarily quarantined, for example, and the right to property can be justifiably infringed upon to preserve either life or liberty; bribery which interferes with the liberty of others can rightly be outlawed for example.
This is simply the a formulation which will lead to the most possible happiness for the most possible individuals. We "are different" than the monkeys you cite because we can make social systems with concious forethought and with considerations of the wider conseqences of our actions, while the monkeys are mostly acting with consideration to their present impulses. I'd say it's not true that we "are" different, only that we're capable of being different.
Benjamin:Our rights don't stem fundamentally from property rights. All rights stem from the condition of life;
That's what property means also. Learn what Rothbard means before you reach the level of being able to critique him.
Benjamin: Ask yourself, how in Rothbard's system would the initial acquisition of "ourselves" originate? We have rights because we are ourselves, not primarily because we "own" ourselves.
Rothbard was a praxeologist. We own ourselves because we are (being) ourselves.
Benjamin:We "own" ourselves as a consequence of being free,
That's why property rights mean by definition, right of life, meaning we exist, right of liberty, meaning our original nature is peaceful (life doesn't exist in pure destruction).
It's not philosophically prudent and conductive as to what philosophy means, ie. truth-finding, lover of wisdom; when strawmen are erected which only leads into red herrings, i.e. unwarranted tangents. Just some advice.
Before learning what the theory of natural rights are it is important to know what scarcity means.
But they're not rightfully in the same category on a co-equal basis.
And what I find really interesting about scarcity is how it's an evolving and malleable social condition.
Benjamin:But they're not rightfully in the same category on a co-equal basis.
I don't know what 'equal' has to do with this. Law of marginal utility comes to mind. It's a declarative proposition, meaning, it's semantics. It's what the word means and has meant for hundreds of years at least. I know Locke wrote that property includes in ones own person.
Benjamin:And what I find really interesting about scarcity is how it's an evolving and malleable social condition.
The universe is finite. The earth is round with distinct boundaries that end. Etc....
anything else?
Benjamin thinks that in a free society all people who didn't own land would literally not be able to speak and constantly forced from one place to another by the landed class.
This forum needs a real rolleyes smiley.
Do you believe that all humans have limitless material wants and needs?
Needs seem to me to be very finite, while wants are subjective and thus changeable (in extent, for example).
I think on my better days my material wants are not infinite...
Benjamin:Do you believe that all humans have limitless material wants and needs?
How would I know? I mean I've heard of monks who supposedly live on minimal material possessions. I don't understand the question.
Benjamin:Needs seem to me to be very finite, while wants are subjective and thus changeable.
ok, but seeing that the universe is scarce those wants have finite boundaries.
Benjamin:I think on my better days my wants are not infinite...
ok
"Needs seem to me to be very finite, while wants are subjective and thus changeable (in extent, for example). "
Let us know what the standard number of "Needs" a human being SHOULD have in their lifetime. Now let us know what the quantifiable standard number and combination of needs every individual in society will have in the next 1 year.
If you can't answer that then the point is conceded.
Ultimately though it's not that we cannot fathom the number of needs that could potentially exist. It's that needs typically or tend to always outweigh the number of possible solutions to address them, IE Scarcity.
P.S. FYI, needs are also subjective. What you a need the next person may not.
"However, I am a little confused on how to scientifically (without introducing the God, please) establish the property right as a natural right. Could anyone direct me to some works that address this issue? Thank you."
It's naturally occurring. For example, God isn’t necessary to understand that a rock exists. The rock simply exists and occurs due to natural phenomena. Property likewise also occurs naturally, as do rights. Let me dumb it down because there are many people on this forum who shriek at the word "Rights" and "ethics" and assign all kinds of crazy mystical or arbitrary otherwise values to those concepts as if they were divine. They are not, rights(In the economic sense) do not come from God, and the concept of property and rights occur naturally as consequences to various phenomena that man must contend with in this life. You can argue that there is an ethical(Ethics are nothing more than codes of conduct, and they can influence rights for sure) structure that God requires of you, but that does not invalidate that fundamental purpose of rights, and they exist with or without his proclamations.
First Property
Property is quite simply a consequential axiom which occurs due to the following 3 reasons. (Notice the praxeological connection)
Since we know objects are scarce, and only one man(In general) can occupy an object at any given time to satisfy his own ends we know that other people must wait, contend, or build their own objects to satisfy their ends as well. The fact remains however that only one object can be in control by a person at any given time (IN general). This simple fact is what property is, nothing more. Do not fall into fallacy of assigning more weight to it than that. It’s simply a concept which shows that a tangible object (Like your body) is currently in occupation by someone.
Second Rights, Claims to Action (Again notice the link to praxeology)
Rights are just as much of natural phenomena as the rock, and property. It may be argued that some rights come from God, as subjectively appraised by a group of people, but rights would exist with or without the divine, at least as far as how the structure of man and his behavior is concerned. This neither proves nor disproves credits nor discredits the legitimacy of religion. The point I am making is that rights, in the economic sense, operate outside of the scope of religious scrutiny of all types (Atheism included). Rights are simply Claims to specific Human Action. A claim on a specific action is making a claim to a right. That claim may be to occupy a specific scarce object for some duration of time. Rights simply help us ascertain who presently has a claim to a specific action. In this way rights form economically on the market and serve the interest of people, who hold property (Currently occupying tangible objects) that they desire to protect. In other words, Rights is more or less an economic phenomenon, not a divine one.
Rights are nothing beyond that, and they can be formulated and fabricated in various ways. This is where the problem lies however, there are many who believe that since rights are so malleable that we can make them function in ways which operate counter to human action. This is why there are so many discrepancies for what are legitimate rights. For example, we can construct rights which stipulate that man must fly in the air like the bird, and that he is the natural owner of the sky. We could argue that man has a right to flight(A right to action) but such a claim would naturally prove to be folly. In the same sense many other schools of thought build their systems of rights on such folly, they try as hard as they can to force man to act like an Ant, but he is no such type of organism.
If left alone however Rights (Claims to human action) will naturally develop in the best interest of the market, and form as a need on the market. Rights will naturally formulate in a way which best fosters the environments of private ownership of property as this method is the most praxeologicaly consistent method. Moving away from this is like swimming up current, or moving against the grain of the wood, it simply won't work over a long period of time short of re-wiring the brain of man and altering his characteristics of action. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for a time. People can be indoctrinated into all sorts of beliefs, and for a time they will follow suit but eventually the economically detrimental effect of their beliefs will become apparent and they will abandon them and adopt new ethics(New codes of conduct)
I know I went off on a tangent but all you have to keep in mind is that Property occurs naturally due to various “natural” conditions we have on earth. And Rights occur also out of necessity (Who has the best claim to occupy said scarce resource). Once you understand that rights are simply claims to human action, and that property is nothing more than a phenomena that occurs due to natural worldly ailments, then it doesn't become so difficult to see how private property is a natural result of the two. People who put forth the effort in creating tangible objects for their own use will also protect their objects and attempt to keep ownership over them. It's really remarkably simple and it all occurs naturally. By that I mean it occurs based on the praxeological structure of man and as consequences to various earthly ailments, like scarcity.
krazy kaju:The communist method of organizing society is impossible, because if everyone owned everything, then an individual would need permission from everyone else in order to act, but in order to grant that permission, others would have to seek permission in order to act.
What do you say to the proposition that everyone is allowed to do anything they want, unless the people decide by majority vote (or some other way) that you shouldn't be allowed to do something? Then the permission-seeking problem is avoided, since everything is allowed by default.
krazy kaju:The slave/fascist method of organizing society is also possible, but it falls by the wayside since it is not a universal ethic that can be adopted by all of mankind.
Where do you draw the line between universal and non-universal? Any rule can be formulated universally as "Anyone who is X is a slave, and anyone else is free," but then X can be made as specific as you want, even so much as to single out a particular individual.
I think that "natural rights" is a good theoretical account of what human rights probably should be, as a first approximation. Where natural rights break down is at the point where rights are useful, and that is in ascertaining who is in the right in a legal dispute. For this, natural rights theory is essentially useless. The conundrum is that even though natural rights theory is no use in legal disputes, it seems reasonable to expect that a just world would be characterized by resolution of legal disputes in a manner consistent with natural rights theory. I have my own theories on this, though they are work-in-progress.
Clayton -
ClaytonB:I think that "natural rights" is a good theoretical account of what human rights probably should be, as a first approximation. Where natural rights break down is at the point where rights are useful, and that is in ascertaining who is in the right in a legal dispute. For this, natural rights theory is essentially useless. The conundrum is that even though natural rights theory is no use in legal disputes, it seems reasonable to expect that a just world would be characterized by resolution of legal disputes in a manner consistent with natural rights theory. I have my own theories on this, though they are work-in-progress. Clayton -
Thats just moving it from one arena to another. Property for example can be used in a legal sense, but it does not come from legal positivism. Courts, laws, and justice systems should be stewards or servants of the market(IE Adhering to consumer demand) in general, not dictate the market.
ClaytonB:I think that "natural rights" is a good theoretical account of what human rights probably should be, as a first approximation. Where natural rights break down is at the point where rights are useful, and that is in ascertaining who is in the right in a legal dispute. For this, natural rights theory is essentially useless. The conundrum is that even though natural rights theory is no use in legal disputes, it seems reasonable to expect that a just world would be characterized by resolution of legal disputes in a manner consistent with natural rights theory. I have my own theories on this, though they are work-in-progress. Clayton - Thats just moving it from one arena to another. Property for example can be used in a legal sense, but it does not come from legal positivism. Courts, laws, and justice systems should be stewards or servants of the market(IE Adhering to consumer demand) in general, not dictate the market.
I absolutely agree and that's part of the problem with a natural rights approach to law - only in a top-down, socialized, territorial law monopoly could a rational, theoretical rights framework be imposed upon legal decisions. If we take competition in law seriously, then we must expect to see the same variation in law that we see in the rules of sports organizations or homeowners' associations. This means that some law systems will look more natural-rights-ish and others less so. I suspect that the larger the scale on which a court operates (e.g. globally) and the larger the stakes involved, the more rational the approach that would prevail for dispute-resolution (in a free law market) though my reasons for believing this ignore the effects of mob sentiment.
Clayton,
Don't forget that the question 'what natural rights are?' is a theoretical question and involves dynamic circumstances. Some people confuse what is a principle with the theories about a principle, ie. principle being property/scarcity. Theories are evolutionary in nature as they are the practical application of principles. Debates will not end, societies will change etc.... Two hundred years ago there could have never have been an actual thought experiment and practical application of property rights in terms of computers. Look around you know at to how many different interpretations of dealing with scarcity conflicts arise. Of course determining what is logical, illogical; or evidential, lacking evidence are what humans are capable of distinguishing but it takes a maintenance in society of being able to make these distinctions that is one of exercise and development, not simply a static given.
Sometimes the evidential knowledge isn't corresponding with an object in question, or a poor judge (has poor judgment) sits bench, or the society in general decides various other ways to deal with things; but all of this is still centered upon private property, ie. the person or tangible object external to the person. The content isn't already decided upon, but the boundaries are implied.
If the court case isn't about a person but a person is on trial, then it's self-evidently a contradiciton of events. There's possibly always going to be different theories of natural rights as long as knowledge is limited due to dynamic circumstances, ie. innovation, social developments, etc... in other words dynamism exists in the world which I doubt will end. The universe will not become suddenly static. This is a very signficant understanding that I've noticed some people overlook.
ClaytonB:I absolutely agree and that's part of the problem with a natural rights approach to law - only in a top-down, socialized, territorial law monopoly could a rational, theoretical rights framework be imposed upon legal decisions. If we take competition in law seriously, then we must expect to see the same variation in law that we see in the rules of sports organizations or homeowners' associations. This means that some law systems will look more natural-rights-ish and others less so. I suspect that the larger the scale on which a court operates (e.g. globally) and the larger the stakes involved, the more rational the approach that would prevail for dispute-resolution (in a free law market) though my reasons for believing this ignore the effects of mob sentiment. Clayton -
The point is, one system does not invalidate the other but instead the two compliment each other as necessary objects of a functioning market. Justice systems are again nothing more then business's on the market offering a service. Rights, or claims to action, is a fairly liberal definition and can be mended, and molded to suit the needs of a specific market environment. Natural rights does not state that rights must be universally excepted across the entire world. Obviously things need to be adaptable to local markets and needs of local consumers. You will most definately see different rules and laws from one geographical region to another, but again this does not invalidate naturally originating concepts of rights and property. I explained their origins in my post above.
People will ofcoarse interprit things differently, but the lower down the pyramid you go the more uniform, fundamental, and naturally occuring objects you will see. Property for example, is un-avoidable naturally occuring phenomena as I explained above. No amount of legal positivism can remove it, such thoughts are simply wishful thinking. There is this common desire with opponents of natural rights advocates to attempt to dispel their theory by pointing out discrepancies between various societies and regions. All they are doing is missing the point of what naturally occuring rights are. And Vise Versa there is also a tendency for natural rights advocates to go too far, get sucked into the argument, and start drawing hasty conclusions in an effort to defend their case.
Legality will always exist as a market function, it however does not invalidate the praxeological origins of claims to action, and property. How those claims are handled is up to the consumers.
Great Post filc... Great Post.
Nitro:@ Kaju: I'm not sure how nihilism equates to "nobody owns anything", as I know plenty of nihilists who believe in property. Could you elaborate further on whether you are targetting a specific strain or interpretation of nihilism, or generalizing nihilism as a whole?
I'm not using nihilism as it's commonly used. By "nihilism" in this thread I mean that nothing is owned.
Yes, the ethical nihilists.