Economics Questions

Re: "Right to life" an economic good

JohnnyFive — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:06:46 GMT

You are still confused. When you exchange property with someone, you must exchange your property rights to this property. That means that your property rights are prior to any exchange.

As an example of a right that involves no exchange is the right to life. You do not need to contract with every stranger you meet in order to guarantee that he will let you live. If he murders you, he will be punished for his transgression of your right to life by your protectors (assuming that you have provided for such an event).

To start with your last point first, the idea of a 'right to life' is an obvious nonsense. Your example is of 'a right to be taken care of by the criminal justice system' not of a 'right to life'. It is impossible to give someone a 'right to life' because by definition it woiuld mean that someone else is obligated to provide you with life! Life is a liberty, a freedom, it exists until transgressed regardless of whether you are on a desert island or in a state.

Your example is as equaly absurd as saying that you have a 'right to breathe' and that you do not need to contract with everyone you meet to guarantee that you can breathe. The fact is that breathing is a background condition, it is there until removed, it is a liberty. You could potentially create a 'right to breathe'; if for example you contracted with a doctor and speciified that in the event that you stop breathing for whatever reason he is obligated to keep you on a ventilator, and you have a right to be on a ventilator.

As for 'property rights' being prior to any exchange, again that is nonsense, property is a liberty. Say for example there are two men on a desert island who, because they have common sense, are cooperting. They each have their shelter, tools, and stocks of food that they have found/made/taken for themselves from nature. They have no property rights of any kind, because there is no obligation between them, they do not violate each other because it is in their mutual self interest. Yet they are perfectly capable of exchanging goods in any manner they wish.

The same thing holds for a complex modern economy. There are no property rights. If you buy a can of coke and you are walking down the street and someone steals it from your hand, can you shout after the thief 'I have a right to that property'? No, the phrase is meaningless. What you had was a liberty to use that property as you wished, which has now been removed. What a state does is provide you with a 'right to justice' that allows you to seek restitution for the violation of your liberty as provided by law. The only way in which a property right can exist is if someone is obligated to provide you with property, which would involve a rental contract, a mortgage, or something along those lines.

Re: "Right to life" an economic good

Stranger — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 00:26:24 GMT

You are still confused. When you exchange property with someone, you must exchange your property rights to this property. That means that your property rights are prior to any exchange.

Re: "Right to life" an economic good

JohnnyFive — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 08:15:27 GMT

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.

Having just reread your essay and the above response I must admit that I am now unclear about what exactly it is you are saying. I don't think that you have really dug deep enough to justify your claim that rights MUST involve force. Why must they involve force? If two parties have agreed to a contract then why is it unreasonable for me as the party that is 'owed' to say that I have a right to whatever it is I am owed? Then regardless of how that right is enforced, it is still a right. I can obtain a right, hold a right, and dispose of my right, without there ever having been any force in sight. Nor even the threat of force, after all in most societies enforcement of contract may come simply from the fact that people do not want to have a bad reputation. No force is involved in yourself and the community refusing to contract with someone in the future based on past rights violations.

I do not agree that I am confusing rights and exchange. Even by your own definition that 'rights are an economic good', rights must involve exchange. If there is no exchange of goods or services there is no legitimate use of the word right. This is why phrases such as 'The right to liberty' are empty nonsense, as no one can be given liberty, it can only be taken away. Give me an example of a right that involves no exchange?

Re: "Right to life" an economic good

Stranger — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 00:04:29 GMT

Re: "Right to life" an economic good

JohnnyFive — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:03:15 GMT

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.

Re: "Right to life" an economic good

filc — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:51:32 GMT

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

Re: "Right to life" an economic good

Autolykos — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:16:45 GMT

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?

Re: "Right to life" an economic good

Autolykos — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:14:59 GMT

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.

Re: "Right to life" an economic good

Stranger — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 14:33:25 GMT

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.

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?

Re: "Right to life" an economic good

Solredime — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:30:00 GMT

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.

Re: "Right to life" an economic good

Daniel Waite — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 05:19:04 GMT

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.

Re: "Right to life" an economic good

MrSchnapps — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 05:03:04 GMT

"In reality, rights only exist if they are enforced"

Hobbes is virtually the founder of modern, positivistic law. That sentence is Hobbes.

Re: "Right to life" an economic good

AdrianHealey — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 04:44:07 GMT

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.

Re: "Right to life" an economic good

Angurse — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 04:35:40 GMT

Nice one Stranger!

Re: "Right to life" an economic good

MrSchnapps — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 04:34:30 GMT

So, what philosophy of law class did you take?

Philosophy of ~~law~~ what I tell you law is - by Thomas Hobbes