I caught a few of the Sunday political shows and apparently discussing the calamitous effects of collective bargaining, especially in the public sector where certain checks simply do not exist, has been deemed an immoral attack on civil liberties. The ability to establish a government supported labor cartel has been deemed a “right” by the left, the same way that universal healthcare, and social security are “rights,” even though they will inevitably bankrupt the entire nation.
I don’t know about you guys, but the whole concept of “rights” is really starting to fucking piss me off.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Make it two.
There is clearly no reasoning behind it. It's just a play on words to screw with people's emotions. And since we're not taught to think critically in school, we just cry wolf anytime a right is violated. Without ever really giving a thought as to what that right might allegedly be.
I honestly couldn't have said it better myself lol.
David Sherin: I don’t know about you guys, but the whole concept of “rights” is really starting to fucking piss me off. I honestly couldn't have said it better myself lol. If only libertarians would stop talking about them. I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living. | Post Points: 20
And if you want to see what these things mean for the protesters in Wisconsin here is a great photoblog put together by a libertarian with some pictures of the worst of the signs
http://politicalmeansinwi.wordpress.com/
I can't wait until the USG goes belly up so all these losers are unemployed and/or unable to drift through life on government secured college grants. Oh, that will be a sweet, sweet day.
There is no intellectual concept so simple that it cannot be destroyed by the perversion of language. Even verbalized mathematics relies on a set of concrete definitions that the communicating individuals must share.
I don't think the problem stems from libertarians talking about rights--it stems from masses of people having an opposing definition of rights.
Insofar as a libertarian mentions the "right to property" or whatever, they're on solid ground because their definition of rights is consistent with reality.
When unscrupulous but silver-tongued individuals see that, by subtly altering the definition, they can declare something they want as a right--that's the problem.
Unfortunately, this ability to fiddle with definitions and use other forms of verbal subterfuge are a feature of any form of communication between individual beings.
Terrigan:There is no intellectual concept so simple that it cannot be destroyed by the perversion of language. Even verbalized mathematics relies on a set of concrete definitions that the communicating individuals must share. I don't think the problem stems from libertarians talking about rights--it stems from masses of people having an opposing definition of rights. Insofar as a libertarian mentions the "right to property" or whatever, they're on solid ground because their definition of rights is consistent with reality. When unscrupulous but silver-tongued individuals see that, by subtly altering the definition, they can declare something they want as a right--that's the problem. Unfortunately, this ability to fiddle with definitions and use other forms of verbal subterfuge are a feature of any form of communication between individual beings. This. The only thing I would add is that there is no correct definition for "rights" - or any other word, for that matter. The keyboard is mightier than the gun. Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem. Voluntaryism Forum | Post Points: 35
This.
The only thing I would add is that there is no correct definition for "rights" - or any other word, for that matter.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Certainly. It's not a matter of correctness, but of commonality.
Autolykos: This. The only thing I would add is that there is no correct definition for "rights" - or any other word, for that matter.
They are nothing more then claims to action. They aren't set in stone, and they certainly aren't divine!
I wrote that a time ago. IDK how much of it I still agree with but it's likely that most of it I would still agree with.
I've become distraught with the practice of going back and re-defining terms. I think its best to avoid it, though I am begining to realize that our culture have adopted definitions of terms that really doesn't do anyone party any good. There are terms understoood on the left, defined differently on the right, but in all cases the terms helps no one. The terms are constructed and used for the soul purpose of perpetuating disputes between ideologies. The practice effectively is designed to segment people apart. It creates a sort of language barrier.
Most of the times the terms are re-defined in a defamatory way to disgrace an opposing ideology. The underlying or original meanings is lost. This seems most prevelent in the communist/syndicalist communities IMHO. As a result it seems necessary from time to time to really hash out the meanings of certain terms. To come to concensus of understanding between all parties. Not to define to rights(or any word) as a bias term, with an underlying agenda attached to it, but instead to formulate a neutral understanding of the word. One that would apply to nearly all parties that employ the word. One that would help all parties reach a concensus or agreed truth.
Let me provide an example.
Define: Capitalism -A political philosophy designed to pillage proletariat class.
I hate to be the one to do it because I feel it's somewhat aarogant. English is one of my greatest shortcomings. I can't even write gramatically correct sentences so who am I to explore the meaning of words and then correctly communicate those meanings? Still it would be nice if more people would take the initiative to do so, so that I wouldn't feel compelled to!
I feel like this is one of the many ways we could resolve the issue of talking past people. More importantly in the example that Esuric provided, a few cleverly placed words have a very foul impact on our culture. It would be nice if that were not the case!
Thoughts?
No, they're not. The word 'right' is just meaningless rhetoric outside of contract law.
The word 'right' is just meaningless rhetoric outside of contract law.
What kind of contract theory do you use? The title-transfer one? If yes, then don't you classify title as a right?
No, I adhere to the 'meeting of the minds'; a contract is an agreement of understanding, property is just an extension of liberty; which means it is a tort to interfere with it unless you can provide a specific reason; an agreement is a specific reason. Titles, like written contracts, are just graveyards of agreements; not 'rights'.
Mr. Moore,
Why is it a tort to interfere with liberty or property without a specific reason?
Whatever complex argument you provide can, with proper definitions, be reduced to the sentence, "Because one has a right to liberty/property."
That was the point I was trying to make. As long as you and I can agree on a definition of "rights," we can argue with one another about them. But if I try to argue about one thing, while you are arguing about another, but we use the same word to describe both things, then we will arrive at an impasse.
For example, what if my definition of "tort" differs from yours? What if I am convinced that certain things you think are torts aren't? What if your definition of tort is not observed by most people?
Language as a medium of exchange of information suffers from the problem that different people can understand the same words differently. This is an inherent problem in the communication between individual beings who are unable to know the other's thoughts. Adding more words does not solve the problem; that would be a recursive solution.
Now, this doesn't touch on the practicality of calling certain things, which indeed can be taken away, "rights." That is, as you seem to be hinting, a totally different story.
Because that's what a tort is. The presumption of liberty is a logical thing (asking someone to prove there is no reason he should not be interfered with is asking him to prove a universal negative. Thus if you interfere with someone's liberty it is, prima facie, a tort.
For rhetorical purposes that might be used, but logically it is nonsense. The use of the word 'right' is mistaken, it makes no sense put into that context. A person can only have a right to property if another person has agreed to provide it; property is not a 'right' in any way, property is things that people are at liberty to do as they please with; barring some customary reason to obstruct them.
Which brings up thing that makes this 'rights' talk painful to me, a right is always the correlary of a duty; a duty which someone holds - a right with no equipoised duty is no right at all. Saying someone has a 'right to a fair trial' implies that someone is obligated to provide them with a fair trial, which is crankish. These floating 'rights', like 'property rights' are ghostly nonsense and useless for anything other than rhetoric and appeal to the mystical bullshit that is liberalism.
Rights are delimited and prescriptive, liberties are unlimited and non-specific; the two are not only different they are in fact the opposite of one another; a right and duty are correlary - where rights and duties exist, liberty does not.
a right is always the correlary of a duty; a duty which someone holds - a right with no equipoised duty is no right at all.
According to at least some definitions, these are claim rights (as opposed to liberty rights).
First off, you've used circular logic. You say that a tort is an interference with liberty, so interference with liberty is a tort. Your point about proving a negative, though true, doesn't help in explaining why this isn't circular, it's basically a non-sequitur.
Second, perhaps my omission of the word "own" from "the right to [own] property" was a mistake that led to confusion. What I'm referring to is not the necessity to provide property but rather the ability of a person to dispose of his own. Basically, we're using different words to say the same thing.
Next, on torts:
Okay, I'm not 100% up on legal terminology, so I just looked up the definition of tort, to make sure I'm getting it right. The first definition I found is:
"A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a wrong that involves a breach of a civil duty owed to someone else.", from Wikipedia, just as a starting point.
But that definition refers to civil duty already--yet I understand you are arguing that rights and duties are mutually exclusive, so clearly that definition must be deficient. However, you're still making the assumption that your definition of "tort" is the correct one.
But I see from the rest of your post that you appear to be using a positive definition of the word, "right." Yet my earlier argument was precisely against the use of such a definition, seeing as how it leads to the kind of conflation of rights and duties that you're arguing. Basically, I'm arguing for a definition of the word "right" that avoids the conflation with duty to others that you pointed out. With my definition of "rights", and using your definition of tort, I can simply equate the meanings of the phrase "violation of rights" to "tort." In attempting to get these ideas across, the words we use are unimportant; the question is whether the meaning gets across.
Moreover, that some people have tried to hijack the definition of the word "rights" doesn't mean that I should relent in my use of the term.
If everyone else started using the word "tort" to refer to breaches of civil duties, which you argue don't exist, would you stop using it? What about the next word you use, and the next?
It is impossible to separate language from rhetoric. Logic, expressed in imprecise language, is also inseparable from rhetoric.
It will be impossible to gain any ground in the argument against the forces of statism by simply retreating without a fight whenever they try to redefine terms to suit themselves and muddy the waters.
Ricky James Moore II: Why is it a tort to interfere with liberty or property without a specific reason? Because that's what a tort is. The presumption of liberty is a logical thing (asking someone to prove there is no reason he should not be interfered with is asking him to prove a universal negative. Thus if you interfere with someone's liberty it is, prima facie, a tort.
That runs into the same issue as Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics: no one is prima facie obligated to refrain from believing and/or arguing logical contradictions. Furthermore, why does A have to ask B to prove that B should not be interfered with? A needs no justification - he can simply interfere with B and be done with it.
Ricky James Moore II:Which brings up thing that makes this 'rights' talk painful to me, a right is always the correlary of a duty; a duty which someone holds - a right with no equipoised duty is no right at all. Saying someone has a 'right to a fair trial' implies that someone is obligated to provide them with a fair trial, which is crankish. These floating 'rights', like 'property rights' are ghostly nonsense and useless for anything other than rhetoric and appeal to the mystical bullshit that is liberalism.
Is it not a duty for one to refrain from invading others' property? Is it not a duty for one to refrain from killing others when they haven't already tried to kill him?
You say that a tort is an interference with liberty, so interference with liberty is a tort.
That's not circular reasoning, that's what it is. That's what 'tort' means, an interference with liberty. If someone was not, in fact, at liberty to do something then interfering with them would not be a tort.
"the right to [own] property" was a mistake that led to confusion. What I'm referring to is not the necessity to provide property but rather the ability of a person to dispose of his own. Basically, we're using different words to say the same thing.
What I am saying is that 'right' makes no sense in this context, people do not have a 'right to own property', people are at liberty to do as they will and property is what most liberties involve; i.e. using stuff.
However, you're still making the assumption that your definition of "tort" is the correct one.
I am presuming my definition is the one that makes sense in the logical context of dispute resolution, the one you cite - involving 'civil duties' - comes out of the confused tradition of modern legal theory; which is half positivist and half Rightsism. People do not have any non-contractual duties for the same reason they don't have non-contractual rights, neither rights nor duties has any positive meaning outside of these contexts. Anyone who goes about talking about 'rights' or 'duties' without these two being paralells in a contract is just using words with no cognitive content; we might as well say a man has a 'fnord' to property.
Yet my earlier argument was precisely against the use of such a definition, seeing as how it leads to the kind of conflation of rights and duties that you're arguing.
Which is basically the 'negative rights' approach, but I think this is still mistaken because 'right' doesn't make any sense outside of the rights-duty paralell; further rights are specific and dilimited whereas liberty is unlimited and non-specific.
I am basically saying that the use of the term 'rights' by yourself and, for example, Rothbard and Locke, comes out of a confused liberal tradition that conflates liberties and Anglo-Germanic rights/duties as part of a covenant between the ruler and ruled. A subject of a king might have a 'right to property' as guaranteed by some concession of the King, but his liberty is something altogether different and no one has any 'floating' rights or duties; such as 'civil rights' or 'civil duties'. I've never seen any definition of 'rights' in this sense that made any sense, whereas the contractual sense is perfectly coherent and is not soon to be abandoned. Where libertarians try to use a 'natural rights' sort of theory they are wrong and speaking nonsense, and where what they mean by it is something like 'liberties' it is just pointless and confusing.
If everyone else started using the word "tort" to refer to breaches of civil duties, which you argue don't exist, would you stop using it?
No, because their use would make no sense; but neither does the use of 'rights' in the sense most libertarians use it, either. 'Right' and 'duty' both have perfectly coherent meanings in contract law, as do 'torts'; and the attempt to use them to explain liberties is just nonsensical.
The point is that all this 'rights' talk doesn't make any sense to begin with, no one has ever defined 'rights' in a coherent way that isn't contract-based, whereas a perfectly good term - often used interchangeably and mistakenly - is liberties or liberty. The word 'rights' in the libertarian world is just as nonsensical as its use by left-liberals, even if you have slightly different ideas about what you want out of it; it's just useless linguistic baggage that makes no philosophical or legal sense.
Read these articles by de Jasay:
Freedom, Rights and "Rights" Property or "Property Rights"
Also, if you can get a copy of Anthony de Jasay's Political Philosophy, Clearly read the essay from part three Freedom from a Mainly Logical Perspective. That is exactly the tact I take, as I think the moralization of jurisprudence is useless.
Collective bargaining is a right. I should have a right to freely associate with my employees and form a union.
no one is prima facie obligated to refrain from believing and/or arguing logical contradictions. Furthermore, why does A have to ask B to prove that B should not be interfered with? A needs no justification - he can simply interfere with B and be done with it.
I never said they were. I'm talking about the logic of law, whether or not people want to use coherent jurisprudence is their own affair. Act like an animal and get treated like one.
No, it's not. I do not believe in moralization.
Ricky James Moore II:I never said they were [prima facie obligated to refrain from believing and/or arguing logical contradictions]. I'm talking about the logic of law, whether or not people want to use coherent jurisprudence is their own affair. Act like an animal and get treated like one.
Apparently some people get treated very well when they "act like animals", as you would put it. How do you reconcile that with what you just wrote?
Ricky James Moore II:No, it's not [a duty for one to refrain from invading others' property or to refrain from killing others when they haven't already tried to kill him]. I do not believe in moralization.
So then, if I have no pre-existing contractual arrangment with you to not kill you or invade your property, why shouldn't I do either or both of those things?
In one of the two articles, de Jasay mentions that, without the presumption of liberty, the notion of liberty becomes less coherent and difficult to define. How do you argue the existence of specific freedoms (e.g. the freedom to dispose of one's property in some collection of conventionally accepted methods) with someone who denies the presumption?
For example, if I were to say, "Maybe a hundred years ago it was okay for an employer to ignore the demands of his workers, but today conventions and laws exist which make such an act a wrong." Or I could argue that social conventions made the welfare state necessary. But as long as I refuse to presume liberty, it becomes very difficult to argue that the status quo is somehow mistaken.
If you posit that the employer has the freedom to pay or not pay whomever he wants, and I simply deny it, what is the next step? Suppose I make a case that the permission of collective bargaining (while prohibiting the employer from simply firing the lot) is a social convention.
Even if the logical structure de Jasay wrote about is useful in dealing with those who are willing to presume liberty, I suggest it doesn't provide much help when dealing with those who deny it. And, to reiterate, that a set of definitions has utility for whatever reason still has no bearing on the correctness of the definitions. The conventions of language are not decided purely by utility. In order to use the definitions you propose, you must still convince all those with whom you argue to accept them.
Also, to address your most recent post:
I do not believe in moralization.
What do you think moralization is? Moralization, at its core, is just the discrimination between freedoms and unfreedoms ("wrongs"), as de Jasay might put it. Even if you avoid rhetorical baggage about rights or justice, when you decide to not commit a crime for which you will benefit but can reasonably expect to not be caught, you are moralizing.
Nope. I think contract and tort law is a logical structure, and what exists of civilization depends on it. That being the case, I really don't think you 'have' to respect civilization or law. That's up to you. There are no 'good guys' or 'bad guys', just people with conflicting ideas and goals.
I was just reading Will Provine, a historian of science, so I'll quote him: "No gods, no life after death, no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, are all deeply connected to an evolutionary prospective. You're here today and you're gone tomorrow; and that's all there is to it."
Though I'm generally in favor of the distinction between liberties and rights, I'm not totally convinced rights-talk is entirely incoherent or is deserving of too much hostility. "I have the right!" meant something real and important. Still, we do not live in the 17th century, and rights-talk has - predictably and legitimately - been expanded to the abomination it is today. There may be some use in saying, "In our imagined society, these rights are to be respected," but it is best to avoid rights-talk and start using the perfectly serviceable word 'liberty'.
Terrigan:With my definition of "rights", and using your definition of tort, I can simply equate the meanings of the phrase "violation of rights" to "tort." In attempting to get these ideas across, the words we use are unimportant; the question is whether the meaning gets across.
Yes, the substance is what matters, but words are not unimportant. The whole point here is that the word 'right' is pliable enough to accomodate both the classic conception of "negative rights" and these arbitrarily declared positive rights. And do you not see a difference between "I have the right to crack my knuckles," and "I have the liberty to crack my knuckles"? The former is bound to inspire many different interpretations. If you have the right to do it, must we provide you the means to do it? Must we ensure you are well nourished and have the bone density to crack your knuckles safely? If you break your hand, must we make sure it is quickly repaired so that you may again enjoy your right to crack your knuckles?
Yes, you can go back to the concept of negative rights and clarify just what it is you meant, but we can avoid much of the confusion and disagreement by simply substituting liberty for right. "Right" carries considerable baggage. Best to leave rights to explicit "claim-rights" created by contract.
Terrigan:If you posit that the employer has the freedom to pay or not pay whomever he wants, and I simply deny it, what is the next step?
Try harder? Trace the implications of denying the presumption of liberty? The presumption of liberty is a logically sound principle which anyone interested in an orderly, peaceful society ought to adopt. It is a firm foundation on which to argue for a liberal society and severely constrained state (if it must exist at all). I would prefer not to abandon it for a less sound justification, such as appealing to the highly problematic doctrine of rightsism, in the effort to convince you that contracts ought to be respected or that people ought to be free to dispose of their property. What are you going to do about those who deny the existence of rights, or who think all rights exist because of the state? Or what about the many people who, seeing rights as a good thing, can't help but think, "the more rights, the better!"?
Ricky James Moore II: What do you think moralization is? Moralization, at its core, is just the discrimination between freedoms and unfreedoms ("wrongs"), as de Jasay might put it. Even if you avoid rhetorical baggage about rights or justice, when you decide to not commit a crime for which you will benefit but can reasonably expect to not be caught, you are moralizing. Nope. I think contract and tort law is a logical structure, and what exists of civilization depends on it. That being the case, I really don't think you 'have' to respect civilization or law. That's up to you. There are no 'good guys' or 'bad guys', just people with conflicting ideas and goals.
It seems like you're trying to solve the is-ought problem here. "Doing X is logical; therefore one ought to do X." For that to follow, you must first presume an ought-statement: "One ought to do what is logical." There's no way to derive that ought-statement from an is-statement.
It's one thing to talk about contract and tort law as a logical structure. It's another thing to talk about why or whether people will follow it.
Ricky James Moore II:I was just reading Will Provine, a historian of science, so I'll quote him: "No gods, no life after death, no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, are all deeply connected to an evolutionary prospective. You're here today and you're gone tomorrow; and that's all there is to it."
I also don't believe in gods, life after death, an ultimate foundation for ethics, or an ultimate meaning in life. Yet I've drawn some different conclusions about things than you have. Why would that be? Maybe there's something else to be taken into consideration?
Michael J Green:The presumption of liberty is a logically sound principle which anyone interested in an orderly, peaceful society ought to adopt.
How can a presumption - a premise - be logical or illogical per se?
http://mercedinstitute.blogspot.com/2011/03/unions-bad-good-and-ugly-by-alex-merced.html
"People voluntary organizing for common benefit is how most environment, safety, and other disputes should be resolved since it can be more dynamic and flexible than state and federal legislation. Although, if legislation takes out the voluntary nature of this organizing and negotiating then it turns to be just as onerous, frigid, and coercive as the government itself."