Political Theory

Re: Rights, Property, and State

wilderness — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:50:36 GMT

I think that could go in the other thread on "war" I think. that's where a discussion on nuclear weapons was.

Re: Rights, Property, and State

Conza88 — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:41:34 GMT

This may be of use to some of you.

"It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course, one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives, the difference is a very big one.⁴ But another answer that the libertarian is particularly equipped to give is that while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even "conventional" aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use or the threat thereof of nuclear or similar weapons, is a sin and a crime against humanity for which there can be no justification."

Re: Rights, Property, and State

hashem — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:03:26 GMT

Anarcho-Mercantilist:
As we have proven above, the terms 'non-aggression', 'property rights', and 'individual sovereignty' all refer to the same exact thing.

No, they can be understood, in the context of the Rothbardian system, only after the system is built, or at least only when building upon previously defined terms.

Once you start inter-changing words, their specific meanings become worthless. Logically, all languages would fall apart, since all words are defined by other words ad infinitum. Languages have different words that can be used to mean very similar things in certain contexts, but they are still different words with different meanings.

Aggression is aggression. (A=A; A doesn't equal not A.) Well, how can we understand the meaning? With language; by using different words. If the words meant the same thing, there would be no use for both of them -- then, logically, no use for any of them. If English or even Rothbard aren't accurate or precise enough, consider learning German.

The rule is non-aggression. Aggression is concretely defined. The job then becomes to determine whether each individual case falls within the boundaries of "the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else." To catalog specific definitions of individual terms, dictionaries have been invented, or in Rothbard's case, language and his own system.

Re: Rights, Property, and State

Luming Zhou — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 18:42:14 GMT

hashem:
"“Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else."

That definition is circular in the sense that it uses terms that refer to the same thing as the word as you are defining. For example, property rights exist if and only if non-aggression exists. However, that definition uses the term 'property' in the phrase "violence against the person or property of anyone else."

In addition, the term 'violence against the person' used here can refer to 'violence against his individual sovereignty'. As we have proven above, the terms 'non-aggression', 'property rights', and 'individual sovereignty' all refer to the same exact thing.

Therefore, you can replace the word 'person' with 'individual sovereignty' and 'property' with 'property rights'. After that, because those terms function as synonyms to 'non-aggression', you can replace those two with 'non-aggression'. So your definition will turn out as: "aggression" is defined as the initiation of the threat of physical violence against that a person's 'right to non-aggression'. That seems circular in this sense.

Also, I did not mean that we must define the 'non-aggression principle' as 'ad hoc' in the sense that we must define it very precisely up to the emmission of carbon dioxide and blocking sunlight from a farm. Rather, I meant that we should define it with at least some real-wold case-by-case examples in order for it not to be circular. For example, we should classify taxation as a form of 'aggression' and abortion as not as a form of 'aggression'.

Re: Rights, Property, and State

hashem — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 03:18:39 GMT

Anarcho-Mercantilist:
My point was that one must define the term 'aggression' in a case-by-case basis about real-life situations.

Yes and no. Yes, we must define aggression. No, we mustn't redefine it ad hoc. "“Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else." Therefore the job of the law is to decide whether a given scenario meets that criteria, but never to redefine the criteria ad hoc.

Re: Rights, Property, and State

Luming Zhou — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:09:49 GMT

hashem:
In all fairness, let me clarify that you know nothing about Rothbardism. You are the one who falsely claimed that Rothbardians consider nuclear weapons to be in violation of property rights, an absurd claim at best, an absolutely unfounded one at worst, strictly in contradiction to the very words of the text from which it fails to be drawn, For a New Liberty.

I have not read For a New Liberty.

hashem:
In these texts, he makes it Windex clear that freedom and liberty are not the same thing.

Rothbard had defined 'freedom' as a synonym for 'liberty' within the eighth note of chapter six.

hashem:
Now you are falsely claiming that to Rothbard certain terms mean exactly the same thing (granted, "within the Rothbardian context"), again in outright contradiction to the very texts that I suspect these ideas come from.

I have never claimed that Rothbard treated those terms as exact synonyms. I meant that we should treat those terms as synonyms, in order to be logically consistent. For example, it would be logically inconsistent to have a different denotation of 'property rights' from the denotation of the 'non-aggression principle'. The above proof demonstrates that we must treat those terms as synonyms in order to be logically consistent.

hashem:
He makes it clear that aggression is the initiation of, or the threat of initiation of force; that abortion is an act of defense and thus cannot be called murder, whether you consider the fetus a human being or a potential human being.

I never have said that Rothbard had defined a 'person' as a child outside the womb to prove the legitimacy of abortion. It seems like you had misinterpreted my paragraph by treating the third sentence as an extension of the second sentence. Let me rephrase my paragraph below.

My point was that one must define the term 'aggression' in a case-by-case basis about real-life situations. Otherwise, the definition of 'aggression' will become a "floating abstraction." This "floating abstraction" will have multiple different interpretations when we apply it in a case-by-case basis. This is similar to the notion that some people will classify the emmission of carbon dioxide and the blocking of sunlight on a farm as acts of aggression and others will not. Unless we classify whether if the emmission of carbon dioxide and the blocking of sunlight constitutes as 'aggression' in this case-by-case basis, we cannot define 'aggression' without leaving the possibility that it can lead to multiple interpretations. This is my point.

Re: Rights, Property, and State

hashem — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:24:19 GMT

@Anarcho-Mercantilist,

In all fairness, let me clarify that you know nothing about Rothbardism. You are the one who falsely claimed that Rothbardians consider nuclear weapons to be in violation of property rights, an absurd claim at best, an absolutely unfounded one at worst, strictly in contradiction to the very words of the text from which it fails to be drawn, For a New Liberty.

Now you are falsely claiming that to Rothbard certain terms mean exactly the same thing (granted, "within the Rothbardian context"), again in outright contradiction to the very texts that I suspect these ideas come from. I would assert this most recent allegation attempts to derive from For a New Liberty and The Ethics of Liberty, based strictly on my opinion that almost nobody actually reads anything from Rothbard besides random quotes from those two books.

In these texts, he makes it Windex clear that freedom and liberty are not the same thing. He makes it clear that aggression is the initiation of, or the threat of initiation of force; that abortion is an act of defense and thus cannot be called murder, whether you consider the fetus a human being or a potential human being.

All the terms are not exact synonyms, especially not freedom and liberty, which he distinguishes at length in his chapter on Hayek in TEoL. These words do not all mean the same thing. In these cases, various words merely imply characteristics of other words. I think it is strictly anti-Rothbardian to claim that two different words mean exactly the same thing.

Re: Rights, Property, and State

Luming Zhou — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:29:55 GMT

hashem:

Anarcho-Mercantilist:
Roderick Long has proven that only the 'right to be not aggressed' exists.

Then we are in perfect agreement -- as long as the "right not to be aggressed" is actually the right to have property, and defend it against aggression. The point is that aggression exists, so in order for a right to mean anything, it must be defended.

Correct. Rothbardians usually denote the terms the 'non-aggression principle', 'property rights', 'individual sovereignty', the 'non-initiation of force', 'liberty', and 'freedom' to mean the same exact thing. Although those terms may have different connotations, its denotations all mean the same exact thing within the Rothbardian context. We will show a proof below.

An individual has property rights if and only if he is not aggressed against. (premise)
An individual is sovereign if and only if he is not aggressed against. (premise)
An individual has liberty if and only if he is not aggressed against. (premise)
Rothbardians define 'aggression' as the 'initiation of force'. (premise)
Inversely, non-aggression equals the non-initiation of force. (4)
Liberty equals the non-initiation of force. (3, 5)
Rothbardians treat 'freedom' and 'liberty' as exact synonyms. (premise)
Freedom equals the non-initiation of force. (6, 7)
Individual sovereignty exists if and only if property rights exists. (1, 2)
Individual sovereignty exists if and only if liberty exists. (2, 3)

If one changes the definition of the 'non-aggression principle', then the meaning of all of the other terms will change. (All of the terms are exact synonyms.)

One must define such terms 'empirically'. For example, Rothbard does not classify abortion as an act of 'aggression'. "Abortion is always murder" is a value that would be contradicted by the belief if an embryo is not a person. Such belief would be 'empirical': what is recognized to be the biological prerequisites for manhood.

My point is that people will have different interpretations of 'aggression' unless you categorize whether if each specific case constitutes as an act of 'aggression'. For example, unless you specifically categorize 'abortion' as not an act of 'aggression', the anti-abortionists can logically interpret that the 'non-aggression principle' prohibits abortion.

Re: Rights, Property, and State

hashem — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 04:42:01 GMT

Anarcho-Mercantilist:
Roderick Long has proven that only the 'right to be not aggressed' exists.

Then we are in perfect agreement -- as long as the "right not to be aggressed" is actually the right to have property, and defend it against aggression. The point is that aggression exists, so in order for a right to mean anything, it must be defended.

Re: Rights, Property, and State

nirgrahamUK — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 20:54:56 GMT

Anarcho-Mercantilist:
you cannot logically...

lecturing about 'logic' again? oh dear. spare me the explosion.

the moon is french bread. elephants are putting on a show at the palladium. the cat is building nuclear bombs in your basement.

brave new world indeed.

Re: Rights, Property, and State

Luming Zhou — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 19:47:51 GMT

Brainpolice has posted an excellent opinion of why you cannot logically determine the specific scenarios which constitutes as 'aggression' without explicating whether each scenario constitutes as 'aggression'.

Anarchist Cain, by the way, I did not intentially enlarge the text. My browser did.

Re: Rights, Property, and State

Luming Zhou — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 19:42:49 GMT

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'.

Roderick Long has proven that only the 'right to be not aggressed' exists.

Re: Rights, Property, and State

Spideynw — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 04:03:10 GMT

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.

Re: Rights, Property, and State

Angurse — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 02:53:04 GMT

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.

Re: Rights, Property, and State

Spideynw — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:34:52 GMT

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"?