I had started a debate here.
I contend that Natural Law proves the illegitimacy of the state, using the axiom that just government derives from consent of the governed, and only a just government is legitimate.
I make the claim derived from the likes of Spooner and Long that consent cannot be proven so therefore it cannot be just, if it is not just then it is illegitimate...
Giles, bring it....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
I think you're asking me to prove a position I don't hold, I'm all for keeping this short, I've got things to do and I don't want to get bogged down with this. But you've never really proven anything, I don't think the government is legitimate, but at the same time I don't think you can find a good reason that it is moral for people to not rule over others without their consent without resorting to faith. As you well know, I'm a Christian, so this poses no problems for me. You, on the other hand, might find this difficult. Now, I'm sure neither you nor I wish to get into yet another debate about religion, so let's not go there.
When I said you'll have problems proving natural law, I didn't think you'd have this sort of answer in mind. Mainly because this isn't really natural law (at least not of the sort eluciated by Den Uyl, Rasmussen, Rothbard, Veatch or the sort of which Finnis and Grisez are proponents). All you've really done is asserted that the government does not have the right to rule over those who do not concent, since government derives its consent from the government. Which leaves me open to ask the question "why?".
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
It is the Natural Law that is eluciated by Jefferson...
Natural Law draws its meaning from ethics, natural, ethical law does not restrict the rights of others, just enunciates that the rights are there to act, but to act unethically incurs a consequence...
can you disprove this?
Harry Felker: Natural Law draws its meaning from ethics, natural, ethical law does not restrict the rights of others, just enunciates that the rights are there to act, but to act unethically incurs a consequence...
What is ethics? Is it not just another set of preferences? Can something that rests on an arbitrary axiom ever leave the realm of preference?What is natural law? Was it chiselled in stone somewhere by Gaia, thus the word "natural"?What consequence is being provoked by acting unethically, except rejection by those who hold a different ethical preference? How does this prove anything?
Harry Felker: Natural Law draws its meaning from ethics, natural, ethical law does not restrict the rights of others, just enunciates that the rights are there to act, but to act unethically incurs a consequence... can you disprove this?
First of all, what the hell does this mean?
Natural =
A. existing in or formed by natureB. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by natureC. of or pertaining to nature or the universeD. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land
Law = any rule or injunction that must be obeyed
Natural Law = The truths/rules of nature. I.E. you own yourself; apples are subject to gravity; humans breathe; laws of physics; grass is green etc etc etc.
hashem: Natural Law = The truths/rules of nature. I.E. you own yourself; apples are subject to gravity; humans breathe; laws of physics; grass is green etc etc etc.
You're trying to smuggle in an assertion together with verifiable observations.Why do I own myself? How do I know this? Who told you? Can it be disproved?
hashem:Natural Law = The truths/rules of nature. I.E. you own yourself;
Ownership is prescriptive (unless you wish to equivocate as Rothbard and Hoppe did), the rest are descriptive. The problem is if you wish to make an ought statement you must justify it, and that means appealing to facts or values. In the case of the former, your theory becomes subjective. In the case of the latter, you get stuck in an infinte regress.
The way out of this is to choose an axiom on the basis of faith.
Harry Felker:Natural Law draws its meaning from ethics, natural, ethical law does not restrict the rights of others, just enunciates that the rights are there to act, but to act unethically incurs a consequence...
Can I disprove what? You've just described what you take to be "natural law", you've not justified it. Other than that you've stated to act unethically incurs a consequence, in which case you lapse into subjectivism.
Sphairon:Why do I own myself?
Because you ARE yourself. Can YOU disprove it? If you do, please turn youself over to me immediately because I would like to homestead you.
GilesStratton:Ownership is prescriptive (unless you wish to equivocate as Rothbard and Hoppe did), the rest are descriptive. The problem is if you wish to make an ought statement you must justify it, and that means appealing to facts or values.
The fact is that I am myself, and I have an unalienable will. Another fact is that I must constantly act, and therefore choose actions and reject others. Therefore because I am me, and I must necessarily control me, then I am necessarily in possession of me, which is the definition of own.
Is--Ought
hashem: GilesStratton:Ownership is prescriptive (unless you wish to equivocate as Rothbard and Hoppe did), the rest are descriptive. The problem is if you wish to make an ought statement you must justify it, and that means appealing to facts or values. The fact is that I am myself, and I have an unalienable will. Another fact is that I must constantly act, and therefore choose actions and reject others. Therefore because I am me, and I must necessarily control me, then I am necessarily in possession of me, which is the definition of own. Is--Ought
That's not an equivocation in the slightest....
hashem: Because you ARE yourself. Can YOU disprove it? If you do, please turn youself over to me immediately because I would like to homestead you.
I am me, therefore I own myself. Non sequitur. Is a bacterium also a self-owner? If not, you are contradicting your own value system. If yes, have fun applying your value system.
scineram: First of all, what the hell does this mean?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
hashem: Sphairon:Why do I own myself? Because you ARE yourself. Can YOU disprove it? If you do, please turn youself over to me immediately because I would like to homestead you.
I declare myself, my body the full and absolute property of yours.
I understand meaning. And is. Just not natural law, ethical law, rights. What do these mean?
Then slavery is not wrong. The slaves were also selfowners.
First of all - everything is based on a value system. Even gravity. I dismiss your gravity and call it a magical horse. You can say anything you want. People have lived for thousands of years without calling gravity - gravity. It used to be aether in Greece that moved the planets.
So everything being valued in the first place, I value Natural Law and dismiss murder. If you can't figure out the facts of murder, stealing, and rape increases violent conflict and distracts human life from a more quality way of living, then that's you.
Everything is either preferred or not. That's a baseless way to start any intellectual argument. A murderer prefers to murder. A rapist - rape. Justice - to rid these as best as possible so society can flourish. Call it what you will, but I'm for a better life than admiring blood dripping of a knife as the flesh of a human sits in idle waste as some people argue this might be ok, might not - it's idle thinking detached from reality, in other words, extreme anti-social preferences.
scineram: I understand meaning. And is. Just not natural law, ethical law, rights. What do these mean?
wilderness: First of all - everything is based on a value system. Even gravity. I dismiss your gravity and call it a magical horse. You can say anything you want. People have lived for thousands of years without calling gravity - gravity. It used to be aether in Greece that moved the planets.
Sure thing. But the purpose of this thread was to "prove" natural rights.How do you prove gravity? Observations and evidence, which are then used to form a theory which is open to debate or dismissal. The claim that it's a magical horse that causes the gravity effect lacks evidence. Gravity theory simply has more evidence to back it up.How do you prove natural rights? Asserting self-ownership as an axiomatic deus ex machina, then proceeding to make questionable deductions? I don't think so. That's not evidence, it's a belief.Denying gravity will not cause the natural consequences of gravity to go away. It's a truly natural law. When someone denies natural rights and acts accordingly, nature remains suspiciously silent.It's a human law, not a natural law.
wilderness:Call it what you will, but I'm for a better life
Me, too. The first step is to get off the high moral horse and find good reasons why a libertarian society is superior to a statist one, instead of claiming that by ethical fiat, we have won and that's about it.
Sphairon: wilderness: First of all - everything is based on a value system. Even gravity. I dismiss your gravity and call it a magical horse. You can say anything you want. People have lived for thousands of years without calling gravity - gravity. It used to be aether in Greece that moved the planets. Sure thing. But the purpose of this thread was to "prove" natural rights.How do you prove gravity? Observations and evidence, which are then used to form a theory which is open to debate or dismissal. The claim that it's a magical horse that causes the gravity effect lacks evidence. Gravity theory simply has more evidence to back it up.
Sure thing. But the purpose of this thread was to "prove" natural rights.How do you prove gravity? Observations and evidence, which are then used to form a theory which is open to debate or dismissal. The claim that it's a magical horse that causes the gravity effect lacks evidence. Gravity theory simply has more evidence to back it up.
Well, to murder is wrong and is against the purpose of a civil, peaceful, and maintained society. So Natural Law has plenty of proof and evidence. Science is used to track down a criminal and to stop somebody from killing people is common sense and can be applied. I call gravity a magical horse and that's what I see. Sure it's not the same physical horse you see, but hey, it's magical. Eventually at one point in time I made a decision that murder is wrong and to say otherwise is an abomination, of course that's my opinion as much as there is gravity is my opinion. Evidence can be shown both ways. Unless somebody likes murdering, then I can't help that and will do what I can to stop it. That's justice for ya.
Sphairon: How do you prove natural rights? Asserting self-ownership as an axiomatic deus ex machina, then proceeding to make questionable deductions? I don't think so. That's not evidence, it's a belief.
How do you prove natural rights? Asserting self-ownership as an axiomatic deus ex machina, then proceeding to make questionable deductions? I don't think so. That's not evidence, it's a belief.
So? Everything is based on belief. I can choose to not believe gravity is made by (we don't even know fully how gravity works in the first place). I can show evidence of natural rights leading to minimize conflict.
Sphairon: Denying gravity will not cause the natural consequences of gravity to go away. It's a truly natural law. When someone denies natural rights and acts accordingly, nature remains suspiciously silent.
Denying gravity will not cause the natural consequences of gravity to go away. It's a truly natural law. When someone denies natural rights and acts accordingly, nature remains suspiciously silent.
Nope. Natural rights are truly natural law of human nature. Somebody wants human nature, then don't murder humans or else no more human nature. Murder, rape, and stealing are perversions of natural law.
Sphairon: It's a human law, not a natural law.
It's a human law, not a natural law.
Of course it's natural for humans to make these laws. It's natural that humans reason. We are humans and in telos of a having human nature in the first place it is perfectly natural for us to come up with these natural laws and to naturally reason them.
Sphairon: wilderness:Call it what you will, but I'm for a better life Me, too. The first step is to get off the high moral horse and find good reasons why a libertarian society is superior to a statist one, instead of claiming that by ethical fiat, we have won and that's about it.
Well, I'm staying on my high moral horse and I'm not caving in to trying to maximize conflict - I'm about minimizing conflict to ever-complete my fulfillment of living a good life.
Peace
Sphairon:Asserting self-ownership as an axiomatic deus ex machina, then proceeding to make questionable deductions? I don't think so. That's not evidence, it's a belief.
OK genius, how do you DISPROVE self-ownership?
Own = possess. If you possess something, you own it by definition.
Are you suggesting that we are not in possession of ourselves? That's laughable.
I have to apologize, I had to go to work...
The consistent lack of civilized ingenuity when it comes to the basic axiom of living in a community, do not kill, do not steal are the basis of thought that we call self and property ownership, therefore it is considered natural to humans to have these particulars when acting socially, unless killing and stealing comes naturally to you and everyone you have ever met, I think we can accept that killing and stealing is culturally frowned upon across a firm majority of civilizations, therefore a trend.
Now natural law in this sense is the "rule of thumb" for the basis of ethical decision, as summed in the NAP, do not aggress another, this reasoning is very simple to adhere to, and it comes naturally to much of humanity, of course there are exceptions, some people think it is a good idea to kill other people, but a solid majority understand this is probably not the best course of action for each individual interaction...
Where does natural law come from, obviously from nature, but its reasoning is based on natural rights of man, that is the right of Life, Liberty and Property, these three rights are self affirming, without any one of these you lose the other two and if you assert to one of these the other two are logical conclusion....
Right of Life, as your life is your own, that is you control the actions you do, which is Liberty, the results from the actions are your own, these products of which are property.
Without the Right of Liberty your actions are in another persons control, therefore your Life is not your own, and the property derived from such actions are not your own...
The Natural Laws regarding Life, Liberty and Property are the results from this reasoning, and IMO really boil down to theft...
Murder (Theft of Life)
Tyranny (Theft of Liberty)
Stealing (Theft of Property)
Now for Ethics, it gets a little subjective if you think that theft is a right of people, and only if you do....
Ethics is a set of principles of conduct governing an individual, therefore consistent with self ownership (Derived from the Right of Life)...
Now, where is your objection, or did you not want to debate because your argument boils down to a religious one which automatically places you in subjective argument?
I like Descartes, 'I think therefore I am'
I control my thoughts which are my conscious existence therefore I control myself. Control subsumes property. Therefore to control myself [my thoughts] is to lay claim to controlling my body thereby establishing my principle of self-ownership.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Harry Felker: I have to apologize, I had to go to work... The consistent lack of civilized ingenuity when it comes to the basic axiom of living in a community, do not kill, do not steal are the basis of thought that we call self and property ownership, therefore it is considered natural to humans to have these particulars when acting socially, unless killing and stealing comes naturally to you and everyone you have ever met, I think we can accept that killing and stealing is culturally frowned upon across a firm majority of civilizations, therefore a trend. Now natural law in this sense is the "rule of thumb" for the basis of ethical decision, as summed in the NAP, do not aggress another, this reasoning is very simple to adhere to, and it comes naturally to much of humanity, of course there are exceptions, some people think it is a good idea to kill other people, but a solid majority understand this is probably not the best course of action for each individual interaction... Where does natural law come from, obviously from nature, but its reasoning is based on natural rights of man, that is the right of Life, Liberty and Property, these three rights are self affirming, without any one of these you lose the other two and if you assert to one of these the other two are logical conclusion.... Right of Life, as your life is your own, that is you control the actions you do, which is Liberty, the results from the actions are your own, these products of which are property. Without the Right of Liberty your actions are in another persons control, therefore your Life is not your own, and the property derived from such actions are not your own... The Natural Laws regarding Life, Liberty and Property are the results from this reasoning, and IMO really boil down to theft... Murder (Theft of Life) Tyranny (Theft of Liberty) Stealing (Theft of Property) Now for Ethics, it gets a little subjective if you think that theft is a right of people, and only if you do.... Ethics is a set of principles of conduct governing an individual, therefore consistent with self ownership (Derived from the Right of Life)... Now, where is your objection, or did you not want to debate because your argument boils down to a religious one which automatically places you in subjective argument?
It's always a shame to see somebody write quite a bit and say absolutely nothing. All you've really said is "it'd be nice if people didn't aggress against one another". Which is doubtful, and not a proof in any sense.
wilderness: Well, to murder is wrong and is against the purpose of a civil, peaceful, and maintained society. So Natural Law has plenty of proof and evidence.
Well, to murder is wrong and is against the purpose of a civil, peaceful, and maintained society. So Natural Law has plenty of proof and evidence.
Sorry, but truth is not determined by the value it has for creating a civil, peaceful and maintained society.I call gravity a magical horse and that's what I see.It's not so much about gravity being a magical horse, but about gravity pulling you down. If you deny gravity, it will still pull you down. If you deny natural rights, then you might be punished by humans who value this ethics, but it's in no way comparable to the effects of denying gravity - which are immediate and calculable.
I can show evidence of natural rights leading to minimize conflict.And that's what I would do. But it doesn't "prove" natural rights. It indicates that natural rights might have value for minimizing conflict.
Of course it's natural for humans to make these laws. It's natural that humans reason. We are humans and in telos of a having human nature in the first place it is perfectly natural for us to come up with these natural laws and to naturally reason them.I was always bothered when Rothbard was talking so much about human nature in his books. It's a speculative concept at best, and actually quite inappropriate for libertarians who claim to look at the individual instead of the "collective" - e.g., the collective human nature.
Indeed.
hashem: Sphairon:Asserting self-ownership as an axiomatic deus ex machina, then proceeding to make questionable deductions? I don't think so. That's not evidence, it's a belief. OK genius, how do you DISPROVE self-ownership? Own = possess. If you possess something, you own it by definition. Are you suggesting that we are not in possession of ourselves? That's laughable.
Then again what is wrong with slavery? Or murder?
People here don't get that conflict minimization and non-aggression are begging the question. You would have to define aggression first and why it should be minimized. And the state also minimizes conflict. If you obey force will not be used against you.
GilesStratton:It's always a shame to see somebody write quite a bit and say absolutely nothing. All you've really said is "it'd be nice if people didn't aggress against one another". Which is doubtful, and not a proof in any sense.
Likewise it is always satisfying that when someone has no answer that he reverts to claiming the other says nothing...
It is equally satifying to know that you base your entire life on the false assumption of a scary ghost in the sky has nore influence over life your than you...
I was hoping something worthwhile would come from you but this is sufficient...
GilesStratton:All you've really said is "it'd be nice if people didn't aggress against one another".
This leads to the next reasonable conclusion (I know reason is not good enough for scary ghost people) since you own property, as it is a result of your voluntary action, or Liberty, and your life is your property, this is supported by the voluntary action taken to sustain it, and also by the fact that you are a sentient creature, so the concept of self-ownership is a logical axiom (unless murder and slavery are acceptable results to your life). Since you have your property, it stands to reason that you should be able to support your possession of such property, in the case that the natural law is broken, hence the Right of Defense, which correlates with the Natural Law to defend oneself and property from aggression.
So can you disprove anything said? Can you counter explain anything I have said?
felker, giles is right, youre asserting and not proving anything, he's correct in that remark. thats not to say giles argument is not poor, it is, an axiom based on faith is patently absurd, and in my mind does not help elucidate anything.
Every individual has the natural right to acquire the necessary funds of food, clothing and shelter for his survival, provided he does not leave others without the necessities for them.
Care to disprove?
tacoface: felker, giles is right, youre asserting and not proving anything, he's correct in that remark. thats not to say giles argument is not poor, it is, an axiom based on faith is patently absurd, and in my mind does not help elucidate anything.
You can call me Harry, it is my name after all....
I am alive, therefore I have life, not all life, just mine
My life being my possession is my property
The only way to do with my property as I choose is by volition, and to act voluntarily is freedom, (aka Liberty)
And if anyone chooses to act against any of my property I have the Liberty to defend such
All because I own me, this is not an assertion, it is a maxim, and because this maxim is in every part of natural right and therfore natural law, it is proved. What anyone has to do is prove that I do not own myself, and I am quite interested to see this proof....
scineram: Every individual has the natural right to acquire the necessary funds of food, clothing and shelter for his survival, provided he does not leave others without the necessities for them. Care to disprove?
Lets try it....
scineram:Every individual has the natural right to acquire the necessary funds of food, clothing and shelter for his survival,
Ok, this is agreeable...
You have the natural right to aquire funds, by use of your effort, and not through theft, natural right does not give you rights over another individual...
scineram:provided he does not leave others without the necessities for them.
I disagree, since resources are not unlimited, the restriction that an individual must not aquire beyond essential need asserts that he does not own himself, rather society owns him. You have a contradiction...
Harry Felker: I am alive, therefore I have life, not all life, just mine My life being my possession is my property The only way to do with my property as I choose is by volition, and to act voluntarily is freedom, (aka Liberty) And if anyone chooses to act against any of my property I have the Liberty to defend such All because I own me, this is not an assertion, it is a maxim, and because this maxim is in every part of natural right and therfore natural law, it is proved. What anyone has to do is prove that I do not own myself, and I am quite interested to see this proof....
You are just plain lucky. I am not saying slavery is morally correct. I am just saying it happens and once it happens, natural law does not make a difference. Once a person is enslaved, the concept of who owns who is meaningless at best.
Harry Felker: I am alive, therefore I have life, not all life, just mineMy life being my possession is my property
I am alive, therefore I have life, not all life, just mineMy life being my possession is my property
See, this is just a never-ending semantics game.What does "you have life" mean? And how does your "possession" of life match with the fact that it can be taken away from you by a disease against your will? If concepts such as your self-ownership are indeed natural laws, wouldn't it be quite inappropriate for nature to act against its own laws?Look, individual rights are a sound human concept. But they are not "true" such as gravity or the sun. Nevertheless, they are a good method to structure human society. Can we agree on that?
Look, individual rights are a sound human concept. But they are not "true" such as gravity or the sun.
Juan:Really ? So you can logically prove that A has moral authority over B ?
No. I cannot prove this, just as you cannot prove that A has moral authority over A.
Juan: So your next move is start pushing amoralism.
So your next move is start pushing amoralism.
You have exposed my nihilist agenda indeed.
Charles Anthony:Easy. All I have to do is over-power you with force and put you in a cage. That is a physical possibility. There is no natural force that can always and everywhere prevent you from being encaged. Thus, you only own yourself to the degree that you can not be encaged.
And since this is MY responsibility, to see that I am not in a cage, I make certain precautions, I invite you to try Charles, but I will set out the warning, the State of Florida recognizies my individual right to use deadly force against a threat to my life, once one foot is on my property....
Sphairon:What does "you have life" mean?
It means I am alive
Sphairon:And how does your "possession" of life match with the fact that it can be taken away from you by a disease against your will?
Fault boils down to sentient awareness, apparently I did not do all I could to prevent my untimely death by disease, the fault is my own, this is because I have self ownership...
Sphairon:If concepts such as your self-ownership are indeed natural laws, wouldn't it be quite inappropriate for nature to act against its own laws?
It would be if nature was sentient, I am, nature is not....
Sphairon:Nevertheless, they are a good method to structure human society. Can we agree on that?
I can agree with this statement, but that is because I disagree with this one...
Sphairon:But they are not "true" such as gravity or the sun.
Our differing methods to go the the same place are different, but I do nto need to argue with you, we are going ot the same place...
Sphairon:No. I cannot prove this,
just as you cannot prove that A has moral authority over A.