Someone wrote an essay about what ancaps normally consider negative rights as simply another form of an economic good. I can't remember who that person was, nor can I find the thread and the link that person posted therein to their essay.
Does anyone know what I am referring to, and if so, can you point me in the right direction?
Me.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
"In reality, rights only exist if they are enforced" <=
So, what philosophy of law class did you take?
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
Philosophy of law what I tell you law is - by Thomas Hobbes
Nice one Stranger!
MrSchnapps: So, what philosophy of law class did you take? Philosophy of law what I tell you law is - by Thomas Hobbes
I have no idea what point you are trying to make, though.
"In reality, rights only exist if they are enforced"
Hobbes is virtually the founder of modern, positivistic law. That sentence is Hobbes.
Awesome! Thank you, Stranger.
One of the people who commented on your article said, "This is literally a case of might makes right.", and I agree.
I was recently arrested, kidnapped and held against my will at the Clark County Detention Center (Las Vegas, Nevada). (I was in close proximity to a few flowers that certain individuals don't want anyone (except themselves, of course) being close to.)
After this experience, I _know_ that might makes right, physically speaking. I also _know_ that those douche bags were nothing more than thugs in fancy uniforms with LOTS of like-minded friends, but nevertheless, their might exceeded my own and my "rights" were no where to be seen. I have, in the past, been of the mind that even though one's rights may be violated, they still exist. Now I'm not so sure. What good is a right to travel if it's so easy to get kidnapped and put in prison.
Had the location I was in at the time it happened been equipped with douche bag-seeking turrets and 12-inch walls of steel, perhaps I would have been able to defend myself better, but that's neither here nor there.
Anywho... I just wanted to re-read the essay and reflect on my experiences. Thanks again.
- edit -
I have to say this: despite the physical fact that "might makes right", doesn't mean it's a great system. I still whole-heartedly believe that a system based on private property (like that described in Boundaries of Order) would, in the long run, yield a better quality of life for more individuals than any collectivist system.
If you need proof that might does not make right, just think of criminals robbing a bank and taking people hostage. Let's assume they do it in a small town and they outnumber and outgun law enforcement. Although they will probably win, nobody will consider what they did to be "right". The same goes for police officers who are exposed as abusers of the system (in the eyes of the public, not libertarians). Sure they probably won't be arrested and imprisoned for their crimes like regular mortals will, but they'll at least probably be fired.
It's more difficult to see why might does not make right when one organisation has usurped the legitimate use of force for an entire jurisdiction, but what makes right is in people's minds - their conception about what is right, which is based off of ideals and principles more so than raw power.
A more accurate description is might makes things happen, but whether those things are right is up to people to decide.
edit: also, "what is right" in the moral sense is not to be confused with your "rights". Although those are just concepts in people's minds too. If the people around you agree you have a certain right, for example a right to bear arms, then you have that right. If they don't, well then you don't have that right. This is democracy.
You're looking at it from the wrong angle. If everyone in town gives up on pursuing the robbers, what will the bankers think of their own rights?
Fred Furash:A more accurate description is might makes things happen, but whether those things are right is up to people to decide.
This. In other words, just because a majority enforces its will (so to speak) on a minority does not mean the minority has no choice but to approve of it. So "might makes right" is contradictory in the context of universal morality. Of course, it seems that most people who actually support "might makes right" only do so as long as (they believe) might is on their side.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Stranger:You're looking at it from the wrong angle. If everyone in town gives up on pursuing the robbers, what will the bankers think of their own rights?
They will think that their rights were violated. Why would they think otherwise?
Daniel,
You should probably know that Stranger's opinions do not really in any way represent most Ancaps here. I know he would say that this is not his intent, but your OP makes it seem as if your accepting his opinion, as a reflection of ancaps as a whole. Many of us disagree with him, on a great deal of many things! :)
At least in my case, he does not present a good representation of what my beliefs are.
Just an FYI
Stranger,
Although I like your essay, and I concur with most of what you have said, I do not agree with the concept that rights only exist if they are enforced, because the concept of enforcement is too indistinct to have any real meaning. After all, many contracts (rightholder/obligor relationships) are simply enforced by convention or good will, or even mutual self-interest. The enforcement therefore has no third party enforcer, and is tacit and implicit.
One of your main points is that rights are economic goods because their enforcement involves material scarcity, however the rights I describe above are by your definition not economic goods. If I had to guess, and it really would be a guess, I would imagine that the majority of rights in any society including under a state are of the form I describe.
Your error lies in confusing rights with exchange. Exchanges are done on a voluntary, contractual basis, while rights simply are facts based on force. I do not need to have a contract with you for me to have rights to oppose to your acts. (Confusion over this fact is one of the fallacies of intellectual communism btw) My rights are prior to any relationship I establish with you.