hashem: @Stephen Forde, Off the top of your head, what have you by Murray Rothbard? Maybe I haven't read more than you, but I think I've read enough by him to get a feel for the basis of his arguments. For me, its: The Ethics of Liberty 5 timesFor a New Liberty 6 timesWhat has Government Done to Our Money 2 timesThe Case for a 100% Gold Dollar 2 timesThe Case Against the FedThe first dozen pages from Economic Though Before Adam SmithThe first 10 chapters from the Concieved in Liberty volumesThe first 17 chapters of Man, Economy, StateAt least 7 articles by him at LRCEverything from the first page of his complete bibliography at Mises.org2 essays from Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature and Other Essays I have read more by him that I can't think of off the top of my head, but the list is what I've read by him only.
@Stephen Forde,
Off the top of your head, what have you by Murray Rothbard? Maybe I haven't read more than you, but I think I've read enough by him to get a feel for the basis of his arguments.
For me, its:
The Ethics of Liberty 5 timesFor a New Liberty 6 timesWhat has Government Done to Our Money 2 timesThe Case for a 100% Gold Dollar 2 timesThe Case Against the FedThe first dozen pages from Economic Though Before Adam SmithThe first 10 chapters from the Concieved in Liberty volumesThe first 17 chapters of Man, Economy, StateAt least 7 articles by him at LRCEverything from the first page of his complete bibliography at Mises.org2 essays from Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature and Other Essays
I have read more by him that I can't think of off the top of my head, but the list is what I've read by him only.
In Defense of Extreme ApriorismLaw, Property Rights, and Air PollutionPraxeology: The Methodology of Austrian EconomicsStatistics: Achilles’ Heel of GovernmentThe New Banner Interview with Murray N. RothbardThe Political Thought of Etienne de La Boetie by Murray N. Rothbard (Audio)Anatomy of the StateHow and How not to DesocializeIntimidation by RhetoricLeft and Right: The Prospects for LibertyMan, Economy, and State (chapters 1-11)“Defense Services on the Free Market” Power and Market (chapter 1)Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-StateRothbard’s Confidential Memorandom to the Volker Fund, “What is to be Done?” (Audio)The Ethics of LibertyThe Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: an Economists ViewWhy be Libertarians?Hutus vs. TutsisEgalitarianism as a Revolt Against NatureThe Bringing Down of Liz HoltzmanWithin a Month! The Bringing Down of Bobby Ray InmanSaint Hillary and the Religious LeftOn Resisting EvilThe Conspiracy Theory of History RevisitedThe JFK FlapAmericas Most Persecuted MinorityThe Menace of the Religious LeftNational Self-DeterminationThe Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists‘Doing God’s Work’ in Somalia‘Date Rape’ on CampusRape or ‘Rape’?Exhume, Exhume, Or, Who Put the Arsenic in Rough and Ready’s Cherries?Sports, Politics, and the ConstitutionGuilt SanctifiedMax Lerner: Again?!I Hate Max LernerHoppephobiaThe Great Women’s Liberation Issue: Setting It StraightA Strategy for the RightFrank Meyer and Sydney HookThe Religious Right: Toward a CoalitionA New Strategy For LibertyRight-Wing PopulismPat Buchanan and the Menace Anti-Anti-SemitismEducation: Rethinking “Choice”New York Politics’ 93The Apotheosis of Tricky DickThe New York Political CircusBig-Government Libertarians1996! The Morning LineNotes on the Nintendo WarWhy the War? The Kuwait ConnectionKorean War Redux?Invade the WorldThe Nationalities QuestionYugoslavian BreakupWelcome, Slovenia!“Tolerance,” or Manners?Behind WacoKulturdampf!From the Bench-Down With the De-e-e-fenseThe Right to Kill, With Dignity?Wichita Justice? On Denationalizing the CourtsBobby Fisher: The Lynching of the Returning HeroFluoridation RevisitedNever Say “JAP”!Some Reflections on the OlympicsThe Evil Empire Strikes BackLiberal Hysteria: The Mystery ExplainedKing KristolThe Women/Ladies/Girls/Spoiled Brats of MillsMarshall, Civil Rights, and the CourtTheir Malcolm…And Mine“Debauchery! Debauchery!” At TailhookRace! That Murray BookThe Clintonians: “Looking Like America”Coping With the InauguralIs Clinton a Bastard?Clintonian UglyPC Cinema: Psychobabble Gets Nasty“Kid Lib” Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays“Conservation in the Free Market” Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays
Stephen Forde:In Defense of Extreme Apriorism [etc.]
Perfect! You are officially in a position to stop asking me questions like I know everything, and instead to start providing the answers.
I'm looking forward to your Rothbardian wisdom, sensei.
[edit: At least one was redundant, and you missed an important one: The Mantle of Science, so I'll give you an A flat. You are still certified to start answering more and stop expecting me to know all the answers. I think I am allowed to debate without knowing everything, especially given that I am at least still reading and learning.]
Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.[1] The phrase natural law is sometimes opposed to the positive law of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law. In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.
Kristine Normal 0 false false false EN-SG X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 fast slim
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Normal 0 false false false EN-SG X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
kskristinesmith: Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.[1] The phrase natural law is sometimes opposed to the positive law of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law. In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.
Excellent post! That's why natural law of human nature is transparent, unlike the arbitrary laws of positivism. They are transparent cause they are logical and open to each person by use of intellect. The logical path to natural law conclusions is why they are unbiased. There's definitely more to this, but I thought your post was very good and wanted to give honor to it.
Rothbardian 'natural law' theorists isolate the functions of the 'mind' into several dichotomies. Examples include the means/end dichotomy, the 'reason'/'emotion' dichotomy, the 'will'/'instinct' dichotomy, and the 'natural'/'unnatural' dichotomy. Those Rothbardians also assert that reason can override 'instincts'. Evolutionary psychology have countered this idea.
We will denote an 'instinct' as a hard-wired 'emotion' of the brain. Some examples of 'instincts' include thirst, pain, hunger, and sex drive. Without the feeling of thirst, humans have a decreased chance of survival because of possible dehydration. Therefore, humans have evolved a trait that make themselves feel thirsty when their body dehydrates.
Why do most humans avoid suicide? They avoid suicide because they have an 'instinct' to avoid death. Almost all humans cannot override this 'instinct'. If they can override it, then they would not exist. Over human evolution, the death-avoidance gene has propagated to almost all living humans. The use of 'reason' or 'intellect' cannot override this instinct.
'Emotions', 'instincts', 'passions', and desires precede 'intellect', 'reason', and 'logic'. 'Reason' cannot override the ultimate 'emotions' that precede it. Indeed, some humans can sacrifice short-term pain for long-term happiness. But that does not deny that pain and happiness are 'instincts'.
Besides humans, every organism has some sort of 'reason' that can modulate 'emotions'. They can trade-off short-term pain for long-term happiness, and predict the expected 'emotions' into the future, just like humans.
If dogs and cats do not 'reason' and only follow their 'instincts', then they cannot learn and memorize. Organisms strictly limited to their 'instincts' only respond to reflexes, and cannot memorize or apply past experiences. But we all know that most animals learn and memorize. Therefore, they do 'reason' to a certain extent.
The Rothbardian 'natural law' theorists seem to be ignorant on evolutionary biology.
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:The Rothbardian 'natural law' theorists seem to be ignorant on evolutionary biology.
you seem to be ignorant on just about everything you choose to speak about.
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
Anarcho-Mercantilist: We will denote an 'instinct' as a hard-wired emotion on the brain. Some examples of instincts include thirst, pain, hunger, and sex drive. Without the feeling of thirst, humans have a decreased chance of survival because of possible dehydration. Therefore, humans have evolved a trait that make themselves feel thirsty when their body dehydrates.
We will denote an 'instinct' as a hard-wired emotion on the brain. Some examples of instincts include thirst, pain, hunger, and sex drive. Without the feeling of thirst, humans have a decreased chance of survival because of possible dehydration. Therefore, humans have evolved a trait that make themselves feel thirsty when their body dehydrates.
Instinct is inborn behaviour, not emotion. Pain is centripetal experience, not an instinct. Thirst is a craving for fluids, to fulfill biological needs. These feelings certainly result in instincts (i.e. avoidance of pain, drinking without being taught how, etc...) but aren't instincts themselves.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Why do most humans avoid suicide? They avoid suicide because they have an instinct to avoid death. Almost all humans cannot override this instinct. If they can override it, then they would not exist. Over human evolution, the death-avoidance gene has propagated to almost all living humans. The use of 'reason' or 'intellect' cannot override this instinct.
How is that provable, couldn't people simply be death-neutral, where reason leads them to avoid death (as its beneficial) while emotion make them less weary of it (crime of passion, people do stupid things for love, etc...)?
Lying is also bad according to natural law. Should it be illegal?
scineram:Lying is also bad according to natural law. Should it be illegal?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Did hashem not say murder is bad according to natural law? What is the difference between lying and murder?
scineram: Did hashem not say murder is bad according to natural law? What is the difference between lying and murder?
Murder = humans end. Lying = humans don't end.
hashem: scineram: Did hashem not say murder is bad according to natural law? What is the difference between lying and murder? Murder = humans end. Lying = humans don't end.
Murder = humans end. Theft = humans don't end.
Therefore, "theft is not bad."
(I had defined 'theft' as seizing property from another without his consent.)
scineram:Lying is also bad according to natural law.
scineram:Did hashem not say murder is bad according to natural law? What is the difference between lying and murder?
If you cannot tell the difference between murder and lying then no wonder you are having trouble understanding natural law.
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."
Lying is agent relative.
Is lying to save a life truly bad?
AC:Lying is agent relative.
Murder in its fullest expression, or taken to its final conclusion, means the end of humans. All humans murder each other, they cease to exist.
Theft, if taken to its logical conclusion, means each person steals each other person, which means nobody is allowed (or even able) to do anything, which means the end of humans.
That is how we know, or at least part of the grounds for, the fact of, and therefore the natural law of, and therefore the right of self-ownership. I.E. Humans cease to exist if they do not own themselves; or conversely, because we own ourselves (because each person does not steal each person), we are able to do things, i.e. perpetuate our existence.
Juan:Everything can be seen as agent-relative ...
Not language or natural rights.
Juan:lying per se is bad but in that particular case the benefits far outweigh any possible harm.
hence the agent-relativism.
hashem:Theft, if taken to its logical conclusion, means each person steals each other person, which means nobody is allowed (or even able) to do anything, which means the end of humans.
You are being absolutist, because you only allow two options--either Lockean theft or no theft. How about theft limited to capital goods only (i.e. Proudhonian usufruct of capital goods)? Humans will not live as prosperously, but still will exist.
You are doing the slippery slope fallacy by equivocating a tiny bit of theft with the loss of life.
The logical conclusion is not a tiny bit of theft. The principal against theft, the natural law that theft is bad, accounts for all scenarios; it is universal, so we consider the universal application.
hashem: The logical conclusion is not a tiny bit of theft. The principal against theft, the natural law that theft is bad, accounts for all scenarios; it is universal, so we consider the universal application.
Determining if an action violates 'property rights' begs the question. You must list all the scenarios that violate and that does not violate 'property rights' in order to define 'property rights'. For example:
Setting self-defense aside, libertarians classify these actions as violating 'property rights':
Setting self-defense aside, libertarians do not classify these actions as violating 'property rights':
So determining if an action 'violates' property a 'tiny bit' or not a 'tiny bit' depends on the definition of 'property rights'. Ethical apriorism cannot deduce whether or not if these specific actions violate 'property rights', unless you define whether each instance violates 'property rights' or not.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: Ethical apriorism cannot deduce whether or not if these specific actions violate 'property rights', unless you define whether each instance violates 'property rights' or not.
Translation: We cannot say if these actions violate property rights until we say whether or not these actions violate property rights. The sheer brilliance of this argument astounds me to the point of desiring an intellectual quest to reach the highest summit in my area and ponder upon its cliff top.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Determining if an action violates 'property rights' begs the question.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Anarcho-Mercantilist:Determining if an action violates 'property rights' begs the question. No, it doesn't.
Does the production of nuclear weapons violate property rights? Rothbard in the Ethics of Liberty says that it does, because it constitutes as a threat to life. Some will not define this scenario as violating property rights because it has not already killed people.
Does blocking someone's farm from adequate sunlight violate the farmer's property rights? Some will say yes, but some will say no because no person can own photons.
Does emitting tons of carbon dioxide into the air constitute a violation of property rights? Some will agree, because it can cause other person's plants to die. Some will disagree, because "air is a public good."
These examples suggest that people can interpret 'property rights' in many different ways, so it begs the question to find a single 'correct' interpretation. Unless you specifically define your own interpretation of it.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: Does the production of nuclear weapons violate property rights? Rothbard in the Ethics of Liberty says that it does, because it constitutes as a threat to life. Some will not define this scenario as violating property rights because it has not already killed people. Does blocking someone's farm from adequate sunlight violate the farmer's property rights? Some will say yes, but some will say no because no person can own photons. Does emitting tons of carbon dioxide into the air constitute a violation of property rights? Some will agree, because it can cause other person's plants to die. Some will disagree, because "air is a public good." These examples suggest that people can interpret 'property rights' in many different ways, so it begs the question to find a single 'correct' interpretation. Unless you specifically define your own interpretation of it.
So you are mad that libertarianism has diversity yet when a libertarian postulates natural law as objective you scoff at that too? Truly this is astounding.
Anarchist Cain: Anarcho-Mercantilist: Does the production of nuclear weapons violate property rights? Rothbard in the Ethics of Liberty says that it does, because it constitutes as a threat to life. Some will not define this scenario as violating property rights because it has not already killed people. Does blocking someone's farm from adequate sunlight violate the farmer's property rights? Some will say yes, but some will say no because no person can own photons. Does emitting tons of carbon dioxide into the air constitute a violation of property rights? Some will agree, because it can cause other person's plants to die. Some will disagree, because "air is a public good." These examples suggest that people can interpret 'property rights' in many different ways, so it begs the question to find a single 'correct' interpretation. Unless you specifically define your own interpretation of it. So you are mad that libertarianism has diversity yet when a libertarian postulates natural law as objective you scoff at that too? Truly this is astounding.
Some people will interpret 'property rights' as the Proudhonian use-and-occupancy of capital goods. Some will interpret 'property rights' as the Tuckerite prohibition of absentee ownership of land.
Why does Rothbardian 'natural law' claim to disallow the Proudhonian and Tuckerite interpretations of 'property rights' while allowing the three examples in the quote?
Juan:Well, maybe proudhon ( a socialist) and tucker (kinda socialist and confused too) are wrong ?
Why they are wrong? Because they are 'unnatural', or because their economics produces bad consequences, such as the distorted allocation of resources?
Rothbardian 'natural law' is based on 'economic science' and is consequentialist in a sense.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: Some people will interpret 'property rights' as the Proudhonian use-and-occupancy of capital goods. Some will interpret 'property rights' as the Tuckerite prohibition of absentee ownership of land. Why does Rothbardian 'natural law' claim to disallow the Proudhonian and Tuckerite interpretations of 'property rights' while allowing the three examples in the quote?
Big text doesn't help. As I explained to you, Proudhon only allows for personal possessions but not land or capital for they are commons. Why is one allowed to own possessions yet not land? Possessions come from the commons directly or indirectly.
Concerning Tucker, I am not familiar with his system but from what I can deduce by the name it seems that one cannot own property where one is not stationed. How are we to trade goods across oceans? Does Tucker propose we just become self-sufficient or only trade with those in our vicinity? Is there such a difference between owning things from afar and owning things near?
Concerning nuclear bombs, carbon emissions and blocking sunlight:
Nuclear bombs: From what I can deduce concerning nuclear war from Rothbard's For a New Liberty on the chapter concerning foreign policy and war, Rothbard was against the use of nuclear arms because they are indiscriminate killers of innocents. Now I have not heard him say ' Let's kill everyone who tries to make a nuclear bomb or at least lock them up.' From what I can deduce, he used the method of persuasion as a means to achieve his ends.
Carbon emissions: Concerning this 'dilemma' it is a matter of property rights in the sense that smog, slug, toxic waste etc has creep into my land thus transgressing my property rights. I have a right to seek compensation for the damages to my land which were not of my consent against the individual who did such a deed.
Blocking Sunlight: This is actually a Walter Block issue with his famous circle argument. It is not of Rothbard and since I don't follow the works of Block and there are those who do in this group, I feel no need to answer it.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Rothbardian 'natural law' is based on 'economic science' and is consequentialist in a sense.
Rothbard's natural law is purely Aristotelian.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Does the production of nuclear weapons violate property rights? Rothbard in the Ethics of Liberty says that it does, because it constitutes as a threat to life.
I have read TEoL 5 times and Rothbard certainly does not contend that the production of a nuclear weapon necessarily violates the property rights of anyone, no less everyone. Besides, who's to say it wasn't built to be launched defensively at aggressive space-invaders? Or that it won't rest in a museum as an example of the atrocities of mankind? Or that it won't be launched for profit at targets in outer space to paying viewers?
Knight_of_BAAWA:No, it doesn't.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Does the production of nuclear weapons violate property rights?
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Does blocking someone's farm from adequate sunlight violate the farmer's property rights?
No.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Rothbard in the Ethics of Liberty says that it does, because it constitutes as a threat to life.
So does every physical object on earth.
That is for a court to decide. The question is too broad.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Does emitting tons of carbon dioxide into the air constitute a violation of property rights?
Does farting a lot violate a violation of property rights? No. Neither does emitting carbon dioxide into the air.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Does the production of nuclear weapons violate property rights? Rothbard in the Ethics of Liberty says that it does, because it constitutes as a threat to life. Some will not define this scenario as violating property rights because it has not already killed people.
I haven't read TEOL in over 2 years but I believe Rothbard condemned the use of nuclear weapons, the weapons themselves aren't any violation.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: Does blocking someone's farm from adequate sunlight violate the farmer's property rights? Some will say yes, but some will say no because no person can own photons.
If they used the land for farming before you built the skyscraper next-door then yes, similar to the railroad scenario.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:Does emitting tons of carbon dioxide into the air constitute a violation of property rights? Some will agree, because it can cause other person's plants to die. Some will disagree, because "air is a public good."
If it ruins one's property, like killing plants, than obviously yes.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:These examples suggest that people can interpret 'property rights' in many different ways, so it begs the question to find a single 'correct' interpretation. Unless you specifically define your own interpretation of it.
You certainly can, but consistent libertarians shouldn't.
Angurse: Anarcho-Mercantilist: Does blocking someone's farm from adequate sunlight violate the farmer's property rights? Some will say yes, but some will say no because no person can own photons. If they used the land for farming before you built the skyscraper next-door then yes, similar to the railroad scenario.
No, building a skyscraper would not constitute a violation of property rights in this scenario. I am sure the crops would still get plenty of light, even with a skyscraper. In fact, it may even help the crops. This is why I say the question is too broad.
Angurse: Anarcho-Mercantilist:Does emitting tons of carbon dioxide into the air constitute a violation of property rights? Some will agree, because it can cause other person's plants to die. Some will disagree, because "air is a public good." If it ruins one's property, like killing plants, than obviously yes.
Again, his question is too vague. What exactly is "tons of carbon dioxide"?
Spideynw:No, building a skyscraper would not constitute a violation of property rights in this scenario. I am sure the crops would still get plenty of light, even with a skyscraper. In fact, it may even help the crops. This is why I say the question is too broad.
I think his point was that they wouldn't get adequate sunlight, the skyscraper was just my example, consider the giant movable disk, that could block out the sun from The Simpsons - surely that would be a violation.
Spideynw:Again, his question is too vague. What exactly is "tons of carbon dioxide"?
The exact amount doesn't really matter, whatever is enough to kill anothers plants.
Angurse: Spideynw:No, building a skyscraper would not constitute a violation of property rights in this scenario. I am sure the crops would still get plenty of light, even with a skyscraper. In fact, it may even help the crops. This is why I say the question is too broad. I think his point was that they wouldn't get adequate sunlight, the skyscraper was just my example, consider the giant movable disk, that could block out the sun from The Simpsons - surely that would be a violation.
Which is why his example is ludicrous. There is no giant movable disk that you can stick over someone's property to block out the light...
Angurse: Spideynw:Again, his question is too vague. What exactly is "tons of carbon dioxide"? The exact amount doesn't really matter, whatever is enough to kill anothers plants.
There is not a single business on earth that I know of that could emit that much. So the question is just ridiculous.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: hashem: Anarcho-Mercantilist: hashem:When we speak of someone having a right, we mean that it is impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right. This sounds almost circular. The phrase "impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right" seems redundant. That simply means that "all rights are non-aggressive." I was describing the nature of rights. The important characteristic of a right is that it is wrong to use aggression to prevent someone from exercising it. This does not mean that "all rights are non-aggressive." How did you define the term "aggression"? You probably had defined the term "aggression" to constitute the following actions: Killing innocent people without consent Seizing property from someone without consent Enslaving people Vandalizing homes Taxing people without the option to secede Regulating people's lives For example, when you say that a person has a 'right to free speech', that means that they can say anything they want without suffering from aggression. However, because you had defined the term 'aggression' as the above list, the person that has a 'right to free speech' cannot have their income taxed, and lives regulated. Therefore, you had defined that all rights are necessarily synonymous to 'non-aggression'. Contrastingly, a "right to regulate people's lives" is self-contradictiory by definition. Because you had defined 'rights' as necessarily synonymous to non-aggression, and that regulations are aggressive, you had contradicted yourself. 'All rights are necessarily non-aggressive', at least according to your definition of 'rights' and 'aggression'.
hashem: Anarcho-Mercantilist: hashem:When we speak of someone having a right, we mean that it is impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right. This sounds almost circular. The phrase "impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right" seems redundant. That simply means that "all rights are non-aggressive." I was describing the nature of rights. The important characteristic of a right is that it is wrong to use aggression to prevent someone from exercising it. This does not mean that "all rights are non-aggressive."
Anarcho-Mercantilist: hashem:When we speak of someone having a right, we mean that it is impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right. This sounds almost circular. The phrase "impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right" seems redundant. That simply means that "all rights are non-aggressive."
hashem:When we speak of someone having a right, we mean that it is impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right.
This sounds almost circular. The phrase "impermissible to use aggression to prevent him from exercising that right" seems redundant. That simply means that "all rights are non-aggressive."
I was describing the nature of rights. The important characteristic of a right is that it is wrong to use aggression to prevent someone from exercising it. This does not mean that "all rights are non-aggressive."
How did you define the term "aggression"? You probably had defined the term "aggression" to constitute the following actions:
For example, when you say that a person has a 'right to free speech', that means that they can say anything they want without suffering from aggression. However, because you had defined the term 'aggression' as the above list, the person that has a 'right to free speech' cannot have their income taxed, and lives regulated. Therefore, you had defined that all rights are necessarily synonymous to 'non-aggression'.
Contrastingly, a "right to regulate people's lives" is self-contradictiory by definition. Because you had defined 'rights' as necessarily synonymous to non-aggression, and that regulations are aggressive, you had contradicted yourself.
'All rights are necessarily non-aggressive', at least according to your definition of 'rights' and 'aggression'.
Roderick Long has proven that only the 'right to be not aggressed' exists.