I've got a blog where I'm trying to introduce the layman to our political worldview. Today I posted on the subject of natural rights. (also seen here: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979264662)
I'm interested in any critiques of the article. Did I provide a good snapshot of the concept? Is there anything I should change?
Hey Mattew, you seem to have a pretty good understanding overall of rights. That said, here is my critique:
I think in your initial definition of rights, you should make it even clearer that you are emphasizing negative rights (which you go into later). But it is absolutely important that you define negative rights immediately.
I think you can add just a little bit more to self-ownership. You already quoted the Declaration, so I think you just need to emphasize "inalienable" - that is, non-transferable. You own yourself because you cannot transfer your will to anyone else. This is why I don't believe in voluntary slavery. You could "sell" youself to me as a slave, but your will is still your own. Only you can control your body and mind. I can give you incentives (discussion, monetary, violence, etc), but I cannot control your will. This is self-ownership.
I think you should be careful when defining things you have a right to, as you don't actually have a right to any of those things. You did state they are derived from property rights, so I'm just saying to be careful with how you demonstrate that those concepts are derived from property rights. For example, you have a right to free speech on your property; on anyone else's property, you have to follow their rules on what you can say.
The rest of your article was pretty good, though it was more of a survey of ideas. My suggestion is to lengthen those sections and post them as articles. As you said at the end, it is a snapshot, but I think you could write a "Part 2" expanding on these sections.
If you haven't already, I suggest reading http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp
My critique goes along with gotlucky's recommendation on clarification of Negative Right's from the onset. As well as Self-Ownership, and his clarification on private property right's. I say the Private Property Right's for the purpose of pointing out that if this right is denied to anyone, then slavery is surely to follow.
I would add that your usage of Morality is off base. See my thread here : http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/24249.aspx
I say this on Morality, as Natural Right's are a set of Principled Ethic's that are inherited at the moment of conception. Morality is the singling out of a certain position and is definitive of justifiable Right and Wrong, which doesn't exist outside the individual human's perception. Justifiable action's lead to further greivances conducted by the action's of the state, and I don't see anyone Individual being able to hold their responsibility when they are acting on the basis of Justification.
I would recommend you clarify this so called social contract, and point out more of the fallacy with that idea as well. I like the part on the whole idea of a "Living Contract". That's been a point of contention of mine since I heard that idea in High School at the same time I was learning about binding contract theory on my own. The whole idea seemed prone to failure, and now I see it as a scapegoat for further justification (there's that word again) of state action's.
Of course it's your article, and you have the right to alter it as you see fit.
gotlucky and NidStyles, many thanks for your responses. I've already made one edit (clarifying that our rights can be restricted when we are on the property of others).
I'm still thinking over your other suggestions. Not sure how I will incorporate them in the article yet, but I plan to make more changes.
Well thank you for the kind partial praise. I am always willing to help when it's within my mean's.
I dig it. I'll be linking people I get to jump aboard the free market wagon to this.
Matthew,
I highly recommend that you check out this article by Anthony de Jasay. It voices my viewpoint of rights better than I ever could, and at the very least should give you some things to think about.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
Did you notice his argument made the passage of right's to come from action and allowance through law? That a very dangerous argument to support, as the law can be perceived by any advocate of Communism to remove Personal Property Right's from the Individual, and place it into the hand's of the state. This is the folly that would make those pro-Democracy people salivate, as they like the weigh the right's of the collective over the right's of the Individual.
The inherent flaw in this is that there is no such thing as a collective, just individual's that go along to coerce the rest through the threat of force.
Also, it's worth noting that your right to speech presupposes a property from which to speak. Owning your vocal chords gives you control of them. But this doesn’t give you the right to use them.
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
[ DELETED - watch the name calling please. William]
Did you notice his argument made the passage of right's to come from action and allowance through law?
Yes, and I agree with him.
That a very dangerous argument to support, as the law can be perceived by any advocate of Communism to remove Personal Property Right's from the Individual, and place it into the hand's of the state.
This is not a sufficient reason to reject an argument.
Look, when I say something like "The United States Government has a right to levy an income tax against its citizens," I am talking about an actual, existing right that it really does have and exercises. I am not saying that it ought to, that I support it, or that it is granted that right by nature or god. When you say something like "[you] have the right not to be taxed," I have to ask you to point to that right. Where does that right exist in reality? You can present all sorts of arguments why that ought be the case, but you can never prove that you have that right.
Also, check out more stuff from Jasay before dismissing him. He has added some really fresh ideas to libertarianism in the last 20 years.
That is by far the dumbest thing I have read on here.
I assume this is meant toward my post?
If so, ask yourself if a child may be born as a trespasser? May someone give birth to a child without first having proper authority to reside in the place they are about to give birth? You must have access either through permission or implicit permission to a geographical space before you can begin to pontificate what rights are deemed to you. I can imagine no more of an inconsistency of rights than to weigh one property right over another. A right to your life, or your speech, cannot trump my right to property. If someone wishes your silence within their property, you no longer have access to your right to speech.
I think I see what your point is Jeremiah, it was just awkwardly worded.
I'll just quote something from my article which seems to be making your point:
It is important to note that when you are on other's property (e.g., a theater), that property is under control of the theater owner. Hence, he can regulate or prohibit you from exercising your natural right to speak, for instance; since you have voluntarily agreed to enter his property, you must abide by his rules. This solves that "crying fire in a theater" problem. Yes, you do have the absolute natural right to speak, but only on your property can you be unhampered exercising your rights.
Say's whom? You? You would advocate giving your right's of self-ownership over to another person so willingly?
Look, when I say something like "The United States Government has a right to levy an income tax against its citizens," I am talking about an actual, existing right that it really does have and exercises. I am not saying that it ought to, that I support it, or that it is granted that right by nature or god. When you say something like "[you] have the right not to be taxed," I have to ask you to point to that right. Where does that right exist in reality? You can present all sorts of arguments why that ought be the case, but you can never prove that you have that right. Also, check out more stuff from Jasay before dismissing him. He has added some really fresh ideas to libertarianism in the last 20 years.
You do support it, your statement gave tacit approval for that Government that was built on top of the state to participate in theft from the Individual's without consent from those Individual's through coercion and Inflationary measures. Taxes are Inflationary. Whether you agree with this or not does not matter, because it's a tangible fact.
You also just argued against Private Property Right's and one's ownership to their labor and good's produced from it. I don't have to prove anything here to you, because any person that's read anything about economic theory whether it be Mainstream Keynesian, Keynesian Supply-Side, or even Austrain School could slap that argument down. You basically advocated Communism/Socialism by saying that the state has authority of the right's of the Individual's Personal Property.
You sound like a Chomsky bot with a Hegel twist.
Jasay may call himself a Libertarian all he want's, that doesn't mean I would give him two sticks to rub together. I certainly will not waste my time on such an ignorant and obvious Socialist.
I will say this however, I am not a Libertarian, I am not a Socialist, I am an Individual. I will not ascribe to the conclusion's of any other human being on this planet, but I will form my own opinion based on their output. As of right not, my opinion of Libertarian's of that sort is very low.
I assume this is meant toward my post? If so, ask yourself if a child may be born as a trespasser? May someone give birth to a child without first having proper authority to reside in the place they are about to give birth? You must have access either through permission or implicit permission to a geographical space before you can begin to pontificate what rights are deemed to you. I can imagine no more of an inconsistency of rights than to weigh one property right over another. A right to your life, or your speech, cannot trump my right to property. If someone wishes your silence within their property, you no longer have access to your right to speech.
Yes it was. I was referring more so to the way you stated it. My apologies for the lack of explanation. I was slightly intoxicated.
I agree that a person through implicit agreement can speak their mind if you invite them into your home or on your property. You always have the ability to tell them to leave as well. It's sort of non-verbal agreement in my mind.
NidStyles,
I'm not sure if you just don't understand what I'm saying, or if you are really opposed to the ideas I'm trying to express. Either way, you are starting to spew nonsense.
This is not a sufficient reason to reject an argument. Say's whom? You? You would advocate giving your right's of self-ownership over to another person so willingly?
Say's the rules of logic which determine whether a statement is valid. You rejected the argument because you didn't like the consequences which followed. Just because nuclear physics can lead to atom bombs doesn't mean their science is wrong.
You do support it, your statement gave tacit approval for that Government that was built on top of the state to participate in theft from the Individual's without consent from those Individual's through coercion and Inflationary measures.
I don't know how to defend myself here. As I've said, just because a right exists doesn't mean I support it, advocate it, think its moral, or think it will lead to positive outcomes. I am only pointing to a right which is codified and acted upon and not passing judgement upon it. For the record, I am against taxation for numerous reasons but I don't delude myself into believing that by my very nature as a human being I have an inherent legal right not to be taxed.
Taxes are Inflationary. Whether you agree with this or not does not matter, because it's a tangible fact.
You are correct that whether I agree or not doesn't matter. You are wrong that taxes are inflationary since they don't increase the supply of money.
You also just argued against Private Property Right's and one's ownership to their labor and good's produced from it.
I kind of did, in that individuals are not granted rights to property or ownership of labor by natural law--it is a matter of long standing social conventions that this is true. But I am very much in favor of private property.
I don't have to prove anything here to you, because any person that's read anything about economic theory whether it be Mainstream Keynesian, Keynesian Supply-Side, or even Austrain School could slap that argument down.
I'm not making economic arguments.
You basically advocated Communism/Socialism by saying that the state has authority of the right's of the Individual's Personal Property.
You are denying reality to say otherwise. If aliens were to land in America and ask what organization has the authority to levy taxes you would say that there is none? And when the aliens see everyone paying their taxes they are to expect that you and everyone else are doing so voluntarily? Of course not!
I certainly will not waste my time on such an ignorant and obvious Socialist.
You look foolish saying these things. It would be like me calling Mises an interventionist.
NidStyles, I'm not sure if you just don't understand what I'm saying, or if you are really opposed to the ideas I'm trying to express. Either way, you are starting to spew nonsense.
If your argument had any logical and rational ground's, you would be able to argue it on those ground's rather than posting this nonsense that is borderline Ad-Hom with a hint of Logical Fallacy. Prove your point if you have one. Otherwise keep your emotional bantering of being some sort of Intellectual Giant to yourself. You have not posted anything of genuine intellectual thought here, and if anything have proposed that very same collectivist ideal that I am in direct opposition to.
Where is this Logic at then? Just because you can claim something doesn't make it so without the rational line being laid out to prove how you came to this said conclusion. How you came to me not liking something is pure conjecture at best. You have no idea of my reasoning, because it's evident you have never read Mises or Rothbard. Had you read the writing's of these two, which would be something that would impress those of us that are Individual's here, you would know better than to bring up this emotional diatribe with a touch of Moral Relativism.
It wouldn't matter if you could muster a defense, because you are already advocating slavery. By stating that there is a right there in the first place is advocating it tacitly.
You say you consider this as a right of the Government, and that it's moral. Yet, you said in the next sentence that you are not passing judgement on it. You are aware that Morality is a system of judgement with absolutes in right and wrong. You can't even support your own collectivist argument without being just as inconsistent as those collectivist ideals.
There is no such thing, as a legal right. There are only Postive and Negative Right's. The law has no right's other than what you give it. Law is based purely on the idea of justification on moral grounds, and thusly is irrational and inconsistent at best. The very idea that a coded set of morality could provide a civil society is spurious and insane at best. Civil society comes from willingness to be civil, not from a codified set of morals.
Taxes are collected to pay for the loan after the fact, and rarely are used to cover the principle in the first place. They are also used as a measure for the Treasury to expand the Money Supply. Thus they are indirectly Inflationary.
Natural Law was an evolution of this social convention as it used to be done through the rules of Religion before Government's were established in perpetuity separately from the religious instituation's of those said countries. You are in favor pf Private Property, yet your posting here suggests otherwise. So does your support of law over right's.
Now, you either simply are not understanding the consequences or the implications of the rest of your argument, or you really don't understand this topic very well. You were directly refering to property right's, and the right of law over the right of the Individual. You were also speaking on taxes. This all has everything to do with economics. Economics is not a singular and closed system, and this is part of the problem with people that they can't seem to understand this simple concept. Economics are effected by, and effects everything they interact with. See the root word, "Eco", for clarification.
The state is a figment of your imagination. It's nothing more that the adovcation to the declination of responsibility of Individual's in the name of the fictional organization of the state. Taxes are done involuntarily through coercion. If all of the people stopped paying, the Federal Government would have no recourse to force them to. This is why your argument is ficticious at best. The fact that you had to bring up such an absurd example is poignant to the weakness of your stance.
I don't care what you think either. When are you going to learn that your word's have no bearing over me, and your judgement has no weight over my own self-worth? I learned long ago how to judge my own self-worth, and it wasn't by any other human's morality.
You speaking on Mises is humorous. You have yet to show any sense that you grasped what he was stating. Just like the people saying Nietzsche was a NAZI when he was Jewish.
Another pseudo-intellectual that can barely grasp the concept of their own existence. That's my opinion of you. So do you have any other childish remark's or weak handed jab's at my rationality here?
NidStyles:I was slightly intoxicated.
A little more than slightly tonight, I hope. This is a mess.
Let's try to make sure this thread doesn't get too out of hand please.
I am tempted to, but I have a whole week of hearing about this Osama debacle, and see a lot of me commenting on how convenient that they captured his corpse, and have DNA evidence of a man that has been on the run for nearly 30 years. (Nice run on sentence there) I guess I could comment on the great timing with the birth certificate debacle, and start of someone's re-election campaign. Gotta keep my mind clear to deal with this absurdity.
I have long ago stopped believing in coincidences as nothing more than a fairy tale, that just also happened to coincide with human interaction. Now that is a statement that I'm sure will confuse someone. I'm sure if I was in such a position with so much of that human ingenuity and inefficient ability at my command, I could make a lot of coincidences happen as well. I do not believe in conspiracy, when the truth is, that they exist without my believing in them.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is that this week should prove to be more interesting than the last, and that I keep seeing these great announcement's being made on Sundays.
"Look, when I say something like "The United States Government has a right to levy an income tax against its citizens," I am talking about an actual, existing right that it really does have and exercises. I am not saying that it ought to, that I support it, or that it is granted that right by nature or god. When you say something like "[you] have the right not to be taxed," I have to ask you to point to that right. Where does that right exist in reality? You can present all sorts of arguments why that ought be the case, but you can never prove that you have that right."
Why does the government have this right and since you wish to be so grounded in reality then how can you claim governments have any rights since they are not actual entities but metaphors for a cabal of individuals?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Andrew Cain:Why does the government have this right
Anthony de Jasay:A right properly speaking is a logical relation between two persons and an act. It signifies that the first person, the right-holder, has the option to require the second person, the obligor, to perform the act (or to forbear from performing it). The second person has a binding obligation to do as required. ... A right is either acquired by contract (in the wide, Humean sense of reciprocal promise) or conferred by authority. Symmetrically, the obligation is either assumed, as in a contract, or imposed, as in the tax code.
Andrew Cain:how can you claim governments have any rights since they are not actual entities but metaphors for a cabal of individuals?
Does it matter? Is it any different if I replace government with business, or church, or club?
Hegel argued that the state is the upmost morality, and was grounded as the only real giver of right's. He went along the method's of using the Right's of the Individual violated the Right's of the group/state by allowing property to be collected by the Individual and denied access by the other individual's within that group/state. This is where I would recommend everyone read some Hegel, as this is where the majority of this whole modern collectivist idealism is coming from.
I found his argument to be muttled as he resorted to using the rationalism from Ancient Greece and Hume to ground most of his argument's. Never once did he ever think about the level of technological advance that allowed people to live as Individual's, rather than a collection of tribes that bonded together for their own defense.
I find many of the same argument's made by Spinoza, but he based his purely in the realm of religious governance, which in itself was a collection of irrational hubris through morality. His argument was negated several times, as well as Hegel's, by Nietzsche during the 19th century.
Mind you they where the two most influencial people in the mind's of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It all seem's to be more of a moral argument based on irrational rules of judgement rather than any sort of measure of economic prosperity, or Individual thought. I think this was made clear after the numerous criticism's by Austrian proponents over the years that this that particular line of thought was dangerous, and had pushed the law of unintended consequences to the very limits of belief. One only need to look at the atrocities perpetrated by the states in the name of the greater good for reference.
I certainly hope, that I do not have to go into much detail about those situations, as I would prefer not to re-read some of that stuff.
It seem's what was all the rage in Europe during the 20th century is now becoming all the rage everywhere else during the 21st. It's a shame that so many people seem to not understand the difference between rational conclusion's from existing evidence and the irrationality of requiring evidence for "theories" without them being based in the realm of this previously existing evidence. Especially when the lack of ethical backing to these "theories" creates a situation where it's in the best interest of that said Individual to manufacture the evidence to prove their proposed theories correct. The intellectual dishonesty that perputrates this line of thought endlessly deceives those that fall into the category of ignorance on such matter's, and creates the situation we see today.
Andrew Cain:Why does the government have this right and since you wish to be so grounded in reality then how can you claim governments have any rights since they are not actual entities but metaphors for a cabal of individuals?
Piggy-backing off of what Michael Green just said, its no different than a contract that says "Bank of America reserves the right to fine you $x in the event you overdraw your account."
A "right" can only be given willingly.
The difference is that the Government will imprison you, or outright murder you, if you do not comply. That is not a right of the "state", that is coercion with implied force. If compliance is gained through the threat of force, then it's a "right" that is stolen from a person, and not given willingly. Thusly, it's not really a right of the "state", as one has to comply with the threats from the state to assert it's own non-existent "right" for it to work. The state exist's purely through tacit coercion.
Furthermore, there were no contracts signed when I was born stating that I agreed with this "state's" supposed "right's". Even though they are not "right's" at all, but grievances of this said 'contract' that you are using to prove your point. This same 'contract', which does not exist in the first place. The idea that I could enter into such a contract by simple act of me being born, which is completely out of my control, is inately absurb. Not to mention it violates the very laws that you are implying the "state" has a "right" to establish.
Unless you are clearly trying to indicate that we enter this contract unwillingly, and then the only logical conclusion is that we are all born as slaves to this "state". With this in mind I would dare point out that the "state" is merely an idea held by Individual's, and you have forfeited your entire right of being and property to a mere idea without any greivances on your own part. Congratulations, you have been conned out of your entire life's prosperity on the notion that an idea is more important that your existence as an Individual. That my good sir, is Orwellian from the start.
I like your new response (not nearly as mean spirited).
I mostly agree until the state gets involved, rights have always been agreements between two people (the right holder and the obligee) and an act. The state has the power (not that it should) to essentially override the conventions and mores of society regarding consent which allows its members to dicate rights from above.
Furthermore, there were no contracts signed when I was born stating that I agreed with this "state's" supposed "right's".
I also reject the ideas of social contract.
With this in mind I would dare point out that the "state" is merely an idea held by Individual's, and you have forfeited your entire right of being and property to a mere idea without any greivances on your own part. Congratulations, you have been conned out of your entire life's prosperity on the notion that an idea is more important that your existence as an Individual. That my good sir, is Orwellian from the start.
The state is no more a mere idea than a church, club or business are.
I wanted to go into more, but I gotta get to work.
'Does it matter? Is it any different if I replace government with business, or church, or club?'
Yes it does. How one enters into a church, business or club is different from a government. Of course there are other differences but I think that is central to the question at hand. Do you presume to think that a business, church, or club is in fact a government?
'Piggy-backing off of what Michael Green just said, its no different than a contract that says "Bank of America reserves the right to fine you $x in the event you overdraw your account."'
Ah so you presume that governments can be freely entered into and exited out of but what shows this to be the case? You are confusing a contractual voluntary agreement with a coercive contractual agreement.
Andrew Cain:Yes it does. How one enters into a church, business or club is different from a government. Of course there are other differences but I think that is central to the question at hand. Do you presume to think that a business, church, or club is in fact a government?
Huh? We were both responding to your question of how a government could have rights since it is not an "entity" but only a "metaphor for a cabal of individuals," which I took as some nitpicking about methodological individualism vs collectivism. What does the more voluntary nature of clubs or businesses have to do with this? Does the voluntary nature make businesses actual "entities" and not mere "metaphors for a cabal of individuals?"
We have both said, following Jasay, that rights can be conferred by authority and the matching obligation imposed by force. Obviously, we all (I assume, mikachusetts?) prefer rights to be created and obligations assumed though voluntary contract, but these politically created rights still exist. Would you deny that American children have a right to enrollment in a local public school, and that local property owners are obligated to fund the school?
Andrew Cain:Ah so you presume that governments can be freely entered into and exited out of but what shows this to be the case? You are confusing a contractual voluntary agreement with a coercive contractual agreement.
I had a feeling you would call me on this. I didn't mean to say that the government is like Bank of America in that they are both voluntary institutions (banks are, gov't's aren't), I just wanted to point out that the language of collective rights is not just crazy statist thinking and makes perfect sense in the context of non-state institutions.
'Huh? We were both responding to your question of how a government could have rights since it is not an "entity" but only a "metaphor for a cabal of individuals," which I took as some nitpicking about methodological individualism vs collectivism. What does the more voluntary nature of clubs or businesses have to do with this? Does the voluntary nature make businesses actual "entities" and not mere "metaphors for a cabal of individuals?"'
If that is what you mean by it then no churches and businesses don't have rights because they are not entities, merely a collection of individuals. Individuals in churches and businesses have rights especially ones to property though.
'Would you deny that American children have a right to enrollment in a local public school, and that local property owners are obligated to fund the school?"
Yes I would deny it because this right of enrollment subjectates another individual or individuals to provide such a school. Thus enter the local property owners who you ask whether they are obligated to pay. You stated that a right brings with it the ability to impose it by force. Do you think it correct to impose by force the acquisition of funds from a person or persons in order to carry out a public institution aimed at the welfare of the masses?
"I had a feeling you would call me on this. I didn't mean to say that the government is like Bank of America in that they are both voluntary institutions (banks are, gov't's aren't), I just wanted to point out that the language of collective rights is not just crazy statist thinking and makes perfect sense in the context of non-state institutions."
But there are no collective rights. It's not as if past a certain point there stops being individual rights and starts being collective ones. An individual does not have the right to impose coercive measures to extract wealth from another individual (thievery or robbery). Being in a government does not confer any addition rights beyond an individual, therefore governments do not have the right to commit thievery or robbery because they are infact individuals under a given title. It is like what these Constitutionalists are trying to say about the Constitution. The Federal government does not have powers beyond what the states secede to it therefore it cannot carry out a lot of what it does today legitimately.
'Would you deny that American children have a right to enrollment in a local public school, and that local property owners are obligated to fund the school?" Yes I would deny it because this right of enrollment subjectates another individual or individuals to provide such a school. Thus enter the local property owners who you ask whether they are obligated to pay. You stated that a right brings with it the ability to impose it by force. Do you think it correct to impose by force the acquisition of funds from a person or persons in order to carry out a public institution aimed at the welfare of the masses?
I know this was MJG's question but I wanted to respond. If local property owners are not obligated to fund local public schools, then wouldn't you have to agree that they are paying voluntarily? I mean, why would they if they were not obligated? Because if you HAVE to pay taxes due to laws, then you have an obligation; there is no way around it (and this does not mean that taxation is moral, beneficial, or nice).
The reason the state can proclaim rights while everyone else must be granted rights voluntarily by obligees is that the state has the raw power and ideological support to force obligations. I think you and I both agree that this is "wrong" for a lot of reasons, but to say that it is a false statement is to insist that rights must be tied to an objective ethics which are neither verifiable nor falsifiable.
But there are no collective rights. It's not as if past a certain point there stops being individual rights and starts being collective ones.
Individuals can exercise certain rights in their capacity as members of a collective group. Returning to my bank example, the contract that says "Bank A reserves the right to fine you $x in case of an overdraft" is not actually suggesting that Bank A is an individual capable of action. We all recognize it to mean that certain individuals acting as agents of Bank A hold that right, but only insofar as they are agents of Bank A.
An individual does not have the right to impose coercive measures to extract wealth from another individual (thievery or robbery). Being in a government does not confer any addition rights beyond an individual, therefore governments do not have the right to commit thievery or robbery because they are infact individuals under a given title.
An individual does not have the right to steal, rape, or murder because those acts are generally impermissible; they cannot be commited free from recourse of some kind. There is no need to appeal to natural law or even utilitarianism to point out that it is neither socially acceptable nor legal to do those things. A government (or agent acting on behalf of a government) is permitted to do these things because it is a special case: it has massive idealogical support and enough force to undertake taxation without recourse.
Also, I want to make it really explicit that I am in fact an anarcho-capitalist and am not trying to justify state actions here.
NidStyles, I like your new response (not nearly as mean spirited).
[MODERATED - WILLIAM]
The state doesn't exist. Right's are not agreements between people. They are propagated by self-ownership. Agreements between Individuals are only a means to exercise your "right's".
The state doesn't exist, like I have already mentioned. It's an idea, a figment of imagination. It's merely a concept of serfdom from a bygone era when King's ruled and owned everything. The right's existed before the state, but the state uses the whole idea of right's being given by it to justify it's existence. It's a fallacy, and weak one at that.
Put it this way, if a Police Officer arrest's you on charges he created by dropping the 10lb bag of crack in you car, you are not consenting to go to prison. You are being forced, and your right's are being stolen from you. That is how the state work's. His motive to do such would be a promotion, or fame. It rewards situations of this manner by stealing right's from the Individuals.
No you don't. You just used the concept to justify the state having right's in the above quote. You are horribly inconsistent, and it's annoying that you can not see your own inconsistencies.
The state is no more a mere idea than a church, club or business are. I wanted to go into more, but I gotta get to work.
Those are ideas as well. Most of them are based on false assumptions, but being human that's only nature to make false assumptions. The worst one though is the state, because it relies merely on the threat of force to enact in theft. The state/government does not produce anything other that depression and misery.
The state doesn't exist.
Thats big news to me. All this time libertarians have been attacking dream deamons.
Right's are not agreements between people. They are propagated by self-ownership.
Self-ownership cannot be proven. The language of it doesn't make sense either, because if I showed you a slave, you would have to explain how he is both a self-owner and owned by someone else.
I also reject the ideas of social contract. No you don't. You just used the concept to justify the state having right's in the above quote. You are horribly inconsistent, and it's annoying that you can not see your own inconsistencies.
I said that states "override the conventions and mores of society regarding consent" by weilding significant force. A social contract would mean that because you use the services of the state you implicitly consent to its rule.
I'm really trying to grasp how clubs, churches, businesses, and the state are only ideas. The Baltimore Orioles are an actual group of people who play baseball. The United States Government is an actually group of people who rule over the United States (well, most of the world really).
gotlucky: I think you just need to emphasize "inalienable" - that is, non-transferable. You own yourself because you cannot transfer your will to anyone else. This is why I don't believe in voluntary slavery. You could "sell" youself to me as a slave, but your will is still your own. Only you can control your body and mind. I can give you incentives (discussion, monetary, violence, etc), but I cannot control your will. This is self-ownership.
I think you just need to emphasize "inalienable" - that is, non-transferable. You own yourself because you cannot transfer your will to anyone else. This is why I don't believe in voluntary slavery. You could "sell" youself to me as a slave, but your will is still your own. Only you can control your body and mind. I can give you incentives (discussion, monetary, violence, etc), but I cannot control your will. This is self-ownership.
wouldn't that mean that you don't believe in involuntary slavery either? If your right to self ownership is indeed inalienable, then your slave master cannot take it away. I think the problem is with the "you cannot sell yourself into slavery" argument is calling slavery different things for when its involuntary and when it is voluntary. I think you can certainly sell yourself into slavery, and it has nothing to do with giving up control over your own body, it just means that you AGREE to control your own body in the exact same manner as someone else wishes you to.
They may be more intelligent than the average statist, but they are still statists. Statist tend to be a bit fanatical in their belief's. Don't get me wrong I like a lot of what they stand for, and what they want is far better than what we have now.
Is this hypothetical slave chained, or otherwise impaired? Then the real question is why hasn't this perceived slave hung his assumed master yet? It goes back to the same thing, only the Individual can willingly give their right's away.
I see three things wrong with that statement alone. I will only cover one though.
As I have covered previously on this idea, in this same thread nonetheless.
A person being born in a "state" does not equate to consenting to any sort of contract, whether it be verbal or notarized for obvious reasons. This is in direct contradiction to Natural Law which this thread is about, and Common Law which is what the legal system of this "state" is based on. Even in Judicial Law no one under the age of 18 can be the character of a legally binding contract. This whole idea that you can bind someone at birth is absolutely insane, and this is why we have endless wars, and why any sort of welfare system will eventually bankrupt any economy it is placed upon. See the US's current financial status for reference on this. It's clear as day.
Take away all of the symbolism that goes with all of these ideas and what are you left with?
A bunch of people gathered together on the premise of an idea. The symbolism that is used by these groupings of Individual's are merely a way for formenting the idea into something tangible. It's all a facade.
Think of it like actors playing a role in a movie, and when the movie end's they all go to their respective places of living and retire for the night. It's the same concept that makes corporation exist, a mere idea, as a living entity through misguided interpretation's of other ideas. I will not get into my view on corporation's, but I see them as ethically corrupted as governments.
The whole concept is based upon the conceived idea that people will enter in these exchanges for a mediocre return.
The US Federal Government doesn't rule over anything. The Individual's within the Government go along with the ideas in exchange for a return. Trust me, I did back to back deployments because the pay was good, not because I believed in the war. You stop paying those soldiers, police, and everyone else that is on the states payroll, and you will find out how fast that idea can unravel. A lot of thing's that the Politician's in the Federal Government do is based on that fact. They know what will happen if the change is too fast. They know if they stop doling out the fiat like they are, there will be an all out war on this land. Too many people are caught up in this idea that the state is something tangible, and unbreakable, when it's not even real.
That's the idea behind consignment labor/contracting. Essentially Voluntary Slavery with conditions that must be met or the contractual agreement is terminated.
mikachusetts:Self-ownership cannot be proven. The language of it doesn't make sense either, because if I showed you a slave, you would have to explain how he is both a self-owner and owned by someone else.
Can it be proven that no one but you thinks for you?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Joe: wouldn't that mean that you don't believe in involuntary slavery either? If your right to self ownership is indeed inalienable, then your slave master cannot take it away. I think the problem is with the "you cannot sell yourself into slavery" argument is calling slavery different things for when its involuntary and when it is voluntary. I think you can certainly sell yourself into slavery, and it has nothing to do with giving up control over your own body, it just means that you AGREE to control your own body in the exact same manner as someone else wishes you to.
The only time I can support the idea of slavery is when it has to do with restitution, and even then it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. How about a thought experiment:
Abe's son needs medical treatment for some surgery that will cure him, but it is $100,000. Abe agrees to sell himself to Bob for $100,000 so that he may pay for his son's surgery. Suppose Abe decides he no longer wants to be Bob's slave, has Abe stolen from Bob? I think it depends on when. If Abe does not hold up his end of the agreement, he has defrauded Bob for $100,000. He must now give Bob restitution. The only question is how much of that $100,000 does Abe owe Bob. Suppose Abe renounces his end of the bargain right after paying for his son's surgery. Well, that's easy, he owes Bob the entire $100,000. However, suppose Abe decides he doesn't want to be a slave after 1 year. How much does Abe owe Bob then? That seems a hell of a lot trickier. The easiest answer is to just say $100,000 and be done with it. But I do not know if this is necessarily the correct solution.
It might be that Abe owes Bob $100,000 minus however much he earned for Bob while a slave. But we still need to determine how much that is. I suppose the answer I can give is I do not know, and a free market in arbitration will eventually figure out the appropriate answer. I'd like to hear what anyone else might think - but I think I might be hijacking the thread.
I think the best way I would describe the difference between voluntary and involuntary is to define slavery as involuntary and indentured servitude as voluntary. Again, I have my ideas of how an indentured servant should be treated (you can't violate their rights), but I think the separation in terms makes the difference clear.