Harry Felker: 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...
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...
My natural law theory allows for theft, because you have a right to those things even if others don't want to share.
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...
I never said they must not. In my theory you can own any amount if there is sufficient left for others. I also never talked about whether himself or society owns him. I see no contradiction.
scineram:My natural law theory allows for theft, because you have a right to those things even if others don't want to share.
YOUR natural law theory is basically the road to slavery, are you claiming slavery is natural for man? The standard of theft being wrong is the logical deduction of ownership...
scineram:I never said they must not. In my theory you can own any amount if there is sufficient left for others. I also never talked about whether himself or society owns him. I see no contradiction.
You do not have to say must not, since resources are not unlimited a definition for what has to be left for others has to be set, by whom one may ask? Your theory either does not allow for self ownership or allows for stagnation, either case is unacceptable. The contradiction is that you limit the individual on the needs of others, so either your individual is owned by "others", meaning they will be within rights to take from him their needs, or he will stop producing when he reaches his need or his limit (other's needs). Regardless he cannot own himself, he is not free to pursue beyond the predesignated limit dictates by "others"...
Your natural law is flawed by lack of liberty, self ownership and property...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
you know we mostly agree Harry ,but in the endeavour for rigour here are my suggested refinements.
'right to life' is not so useful a concept, it is often misunderstood as a positive right to life, whcih just extends out to all those previous rights you denied. and so long as you have a bodily right against other peopel to not injure you, and a right that others dont damage or steal your property, you hardly need to mention your life to them, given that you can your body and your things. your life will persit or not regardless...
also the effort thing is a lose;
reductio - you have the right to own what you put effort into. you put a lot of effort into making someone love you. you have the right to own someones love for you.
owning material/ownable things is enough i think....
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
I understand meaning. And is. Just not natural law, ethical law, rights. What do these mean?
What do half the things you assert from high mean, half the time? Who knows?
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Let's call it parasite theory, then.
What is "sufficient" anyway? And why the hell should I leave "sufficient" for anyone? What obligation do I have to them to do so?
nirgrahamUK:you know we mostly agree Harry ,but in the endeavour for rigour here are my suggested refinements.
I thank you for your input....
nirgrahamUK:'right to life' is not so useful a concept, it is often misunderstood as a positive right to life, whcih just extends out to all those previous rights you denied. and so long as you have a bodily right against other peopel to not injure you, and a right that others dont damage or steal your property, you hardly need to mention your life to them, given that you can your body and your things. your life will persit or not regardless...
I see your point, Maybe it is because I automatically think there is a right to pursue the rights I deny, not necessarily a right to have them period...
nirgrahamUK:you have the right to own what you put effort into. you put a lot of effort into making someone love you. you have the right to own someones love for you.
That becomes a philosophical issue, I do not agree that you can "make someone love you"
Jon Irenicus:Let's call it parasite theory, then.
I think that is more applicable a title for scineram's theory
Harry Felker: nirgrahamUK:you have the right to own what you put effort into. you put a lot of effort into making someone love you. you have the right to own someones love for you. That becomes a philosophical issue, I do not agree that you can "make someone love you"
My point is only that, having property rights to your things (which includes your body property) you get everything you need right-wise. So we can clear out extraneous-rights. It is never that you have expended efort on something (tangible or intangible), but always, because you have justly acquired the material property by homestead, transformation of previously owned property, or as a recipient in a voluntary transaction from a prior owner.
Think about, why does an independant artisan own the sculpture he puts effort in to sculpt, yet, the landscape gardener who improves your garden for pay, does not end up owning your garden. effort isnt a helpful concept in determining ownership.
That said
Keep on keepin' on
nirgrahamUK:why does an independant artisan own the sculpture he puts effort in to sculpt, yet, the landscape gardener who improves your garden for pay, does not end up owning your garden.
Because I pay the gardener to do the work, he recieves a wage for the effort he puts in his garden, there is a contract there...
If I commision a sculptor for a piece, and he creates it, it is mine for the same reason....
you pay him more the more effort he puts in? no, you pay him, for specific performance of a result, a good garden. he transforms your garden, and he receives money as compensation. did he put the effort into getting money? or into doing up the garden?, or both?. which is relevent to him being paid? his delivery of a garden regardless of whether it took him hardly any effort, or the effort of a lifetime. effort, is not helpful.
nirgrahamUK:you pay him more the more effort he puts in?
When I did home repair work, the amount of effort was a part of the price, I would think if I had a jungle of a front yard, and had a landscaping crew make it Stepford for me, I would be paying a lot more than if I were merely maintaining the look....
Maybe I am not understanding something?
are you telling me about the rate of compensation you asked for to make you willing to deliver the result, or are you telling me about what the person that hired you thought they were getting for their money?
J S Mill : the demand for goods is not demand for labour.
I'm rather confident that the person that wanted a garden and did not want to labour themselves. wanted to pay someone to deliver a garden, and that they were not concerned with how much 'effort' it would take the gardener to deliver, in itself, if they had concern it would only be as you say, vis-a-vis that possible gardens are liable to demand higher wages for doing 'more' work, but in this sense the gardener is cost concerned, not effort concerned.. (although of course it would certainly concern the gardener!)
to imagine otherwise, one would have to suppose that the garden wanter, was also an effort wander, who derived some particular pleasure from observing people go through physical motions that he would correlate / understand as expressing of 'effortful behaviour'.
more directly addressing whether right 'to product of effort' is worth having. consider. when you strike the deal, a garden for x$. if you deliver garden but are not paid the agreed X$, are you deprived of 'effort' or are you deprived of the X$ which was rightly yours under condition of garden completion. i suppose you might be circularly defining the money you earn for putting effort into gardening as the 'fruit of your labour' but what is the point? you will never meaningfully be deprived of the 'rightful' fruit of your labour, whilst not also simultaneously and coincidentally being deprived of your rightfull property claim to money transferred to you at the point of forming the contract for prompt delivery of a physical product(garden).(iotw. effort is hardly useful, we have property to get us by even without it)
more-so, you might produce from effortful labour and have no right to claim any physical material property for this 'effort'. example. if you go into someones backyard that did not invite you, and as a trespasser you put effort into improving their lawn uninvited. (iotw, focus on effort and you will be misled to attribute property rights to people that have no such legitimate rights, trespassers or thieves that work on 'improving' the trespassed or stolen property)
nirgrahamUK: more-so, you might produce from effortful labour and have no right to claim any physical material property for this 'effort'. example. if you go into someones backyard that did not invite you, and as a trespasser you put effort into improving their lawn uninvited. (iotw, focus on effort and you will be misled to attribute property rights to people that have no such legitimate rights, trespassers or thieves that work on 'improving' the trespassed or stolen property)
Fair enough....
Effort is not useful....
Stephen Kinsella has written that kind of analysis in the literature.
nirgrahamUK: Stephen Kinsella has written that kind of analysis in the literature.
Can you give me a source?
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/kinsella6.PDF
page 26
nirgrahamUK: http://mises.org/journals/scholar/kinsella6.PDF page 26
Thanks!!!
Sphairon: 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. Sorry, but truth is not determined by the value it has for creating a civil, peaceful and maintained society.
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 would say the value of liberty is what provides any valuing of what truth is in the first place. If not, the lid of truth would be very small and narrow, but with liberty our horizons of truth grow in science and justice, etc...
Sphairon: 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 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.
It's not so much about liberty being unprovable, but about liberty allowing science to take place. If people bash heads all day, then I don't see where truth can even find root in any science to happen. The labs would never even be thought about even set-up without destruction. Only how to murder, steal, and rape would rule and the truth sought in such a world would not be of what gravity scientifically is. Human nature would disappear down to one person with a frenzy to kill and so a complete implosion in suicide. That's the logical conclusion of anti-liberty. It's a choice. Just as it's a choice for me to accept gravity being provable. I don't even know how to prove gravity. That's more complex than simply dropping an apple. It took Newton's calculations to actually "prove" gravity. Even Einstein had something to add onto the provability of gravity that Newton didn't even do. Prove in science is more complex than something falls and that's gravity. That's not enough science. And without the valuing of gravity to pursue it's complexity in the first place, Newton would not have desired the subject matter. Gravity, obviously, does not originate from human nature, though, it still would need to be valued by a person to "prove" it and know it for any pursuit of a growing knowledge of what gravity is.
Sphairon: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.
And that proves natural rights lead to such results. I, this human, can experiment my life and demonstrate with human action that this is true.
Sphairon: 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.
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.
Well that's simply your interpretation. I see human nature being proven by individuals. The collective isn't reasoning the natural law of human nature. The individual has the mind to do such an event.
Sphairon: Peace Indeed.
Peace
Indeed.
Thanks for proving that peace can be demonstrated not only in my mind. You accept peace as I do. Thus in this one post two humans demonstrated an event through dialogue that the pursuit of peace is not only in my head.
hashem: 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.
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.
Own = ethical concept of right to use, transform, or transfer property.
All you are proving is that we use our bodies, not that we have an exclusive right to use our bodies.
Textbook example of an equivocation.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
zefreak: hashem: 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. Own = ethical concept of right to use, transform, or transfer property. All you are proving is that we use our bodies, not that we have an exclusive right to use our bodies. Textbook example of an equivocation.
No, own literally means to be in possession of. We derive natural rights through reason by implications of the fact that, naturally, we own our selves.
Get a dictionary.
the dictionary is unsophisticated, and in this case, could do better.
lets say i own/possess a football, and you ask to borrow it to play a game and then you will come back and return it to me, we are friends, i decide to allow you to borrow the ball. you go and are playing with it. would we deny that you posess the ball on the grounds that i am the owner?
or rather, would we make a distinction between ownership and possession, and say that mere posession might be control oriented, and ownership is is ethically so.
i suggest the latter.
nirgrahamUK:would we deny that you posess the ball on the grounds that i am the owner?
No, I would deny that I am the just title holder of the ball.
Own = possession. They don't just make up definitions and hope people believe them.
zefreak:Own = ethical concept of right to use, transform, or transfer property.
You have it backwards zefreak. Own is not an ethical concept. Right is an ethical concept. Thus, you own something, and therefore derive the right to control it.
well, your answer, that you would deny that you possess it, should have been a yes, since you are positively for denying that you own+posess the ball.
the question is what is your relationship to the ball? do you 'have' it?
my perspective is not unique,
Reisman: Carson simply does not understand that ownership is not the mere possession and use of property but rather the moral and legal right to determine the possession and use of property.
Carson simply does not understand that ownership is not the mere possession and use of property but rather the moral and legal right to determine the possession and use of property.
Stephan Kinsella: the distinction between mere possession, and ownership, is a central tenet of libertarianism.
the distinction between mere possession, and ownership, is a central tenet of libertarianism.
hashem: zefreak:Own = ethical concept of right to use, transform, or transfer property. You have it backwards zefreak. Own is not an ethical concept. Right is an ethical concept. Thus, you own something, and therefore derive the right to control it.
Fine, have it your way. It doesn't change the fact that you are equivocating property, or right, both ethical concepts, with ownership or posession, both ontological facts. You can not derive the right to use from the fact of using without basing such analysis on assumptions that themselves cannot be justified. It is not self-evident.
zefreak: hashem: zefreak:Own = ethical concept of right to use, transform, or transfer property. You have it backwards zefreak. Own is not an ethical concept. Right is an ethical concept. Thus, you own something, and therefore derive the right to control it. Fine, have it your way. It doesn't change the fact that you are equivocating property, or right, both ethical concepts, with ownership or posession, both ontological facts. You can not derive the right to use from the fact of using without basing such analysis on assumptions that themselves cannot be justified. It is not self-evident.
OK, have it your way then. But since you don't believe in property or rights, then turn yourself over to me immediately, as I am now claiming title to you.
It is a strawman to say that zefreak does not believe in property and rights.
Why do your natural laws need proving? Shouldn't they be self evident and undefiable? If so, why...is there a state?
Jacob Bloom: Why do your natural laws need proving? Shouldn't they be self evident and undefiable? If so, why...is there a state?
What is natural law?
is it self-evident that Pythagorean theorem is true in euclidean geometry? if so why is it necessary for kids to be instructed in math?
p.s. get a clue.
nirgrahamUK: is it self-evident that Pythagorean theorem is true in euclidean geometry? if so why is it necessary for kids to be instructed in math? p.s. get a clue.
So then natural laws aren't really laws, they're theorems?
wilderness: What is natural law?
I've been told all my life it's "he who has the gold rules."
Jacob Bloom:So then natural laws aren't really laws, they're theorems?
now you are going to demonstrate your ignorance concerning 'thoerems'?!
i can't wait. i have my popcorn ready.
nirgrahamUK: Jacob Bloom:So then natural laws aren't really laws, they're theorems? now you are going to demonstrate your ignorance concerning 'thoerems'?! i can't wait. i have my popcorn ready.
Well, what I'm asking is if natural laws are like laws of physics? Like...I can't argue that the law of gravity is an illusion and suddenly float to the ceiling now can I?
If they were laws proper, no one would have to prove them, they would just BE. Right?
natural laws are laws of morality.
Jacob Bloom: wilderness: What is natural law? I've been told all my life it's "he who has the gold rules."
Well since you can't answer the question I therefore understand your lack of knowledge on a concept. Here's a good read to start with. Have fun learning.
nirgrahamUK: natural laws are laws of morality.
O, I see. Well...what happens if you break them?
Or wait, can they even BE broken?
Jacob Bloom: I've been told all my life it's "he who has the gold rules."
Have you not observed this?
Jacob Bloom:O, I see. Well...what happens if you break them?
what happens is that 'you were wrong' to do have transgressed them.
the rules themselves are unimpaired if you steal something. you dont 'break the rule' that stealing is wrong. the rule stands.
nirgrahamUK: Jacob Bloom:O, I see. Well...what happens if you break them? what happens is that 'you were wrong' to do have transgressed them. the rules themselves are unimpaired if you steal something. you dont 'break the rule' that stealing is wrong. the rule stands.
So it's kind of like a human law where murder is deemed illegal and I can transgress the law but the law still stands? So do these laws exist if humans don't exist? And if so, why is it that we can transgress them? Because gravity exists whether or not I exist or you exist. When someone trangresses a natural law, what happens to them?