Political Theory

Re: We can't use natural law to defend libertarianism/anarchism.

Albert — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 21:35:15 GMT

OK I just started following this thread today, so tell me if I'm missing something Silentx.

1. Is your point that you don't believe in "natural law" because it doesn't "universally" exist? Are you confusing the ligitimacy of a law with the enforcing of a law? Are you saying that because there are many instances of people being oppressed that means there is no such thing as a universal principle that it is wrong to oppress people?

The law against running a red light is not universally enforced either, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.

2. Or is it your opinion that man made law is superior ? Do you have examples of places where natural law is ignored and man made law is enforced where people live in total bliss?

Re: We can't use natural law to defend libertarianism/anarchism.

kritarchist — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 20:46:22 GMT

How can we say that something is or isn't consistent with natural law? The test is whether it is or isn't conducive to the ability of each person in human society to achieve their fullest human potential. Natural law, as it relates to humans and human society, is determined by observation of how actions effect people and society.

When we look at human society, what we seek most, after life itself, is peace. Violence comes into human society when individuals seek their own good over the good of another (zero sum). Limiting violence by widespread acceptance, and proper enforcement, of the non-agression principle (NAP) leads to a society where both life and peace have a greater chance.

Government (the state), by contrast, increases violence in human society, by allowing a limited number of people to exercise coercion against others in violation of the non-agression principle. Natural law, i.e., those conditions that are conducive to life and peace in human society, is the perfect foundation for libertarianism, which opposes the illegitimate (according to natural law) actions of one group of people against another. All international law is based on natural law, because there is no global organization capable of producing binding global positive law. Judging the state as being illegitimate (such as when it acts contrary to the NAP) can only be done via-a-vis natural law, not positive law.

Do people wish to live? Yes, generally.

Do people wish to live in peace? Yes, almost always.

However, when a government takes from a person their right to choose, for example, what chemicals they will put into their own bodies (but such offenses against the non-agression principle are legion), is this action conducive to peace and human good? Certainly not! The ever-increasing violence spawned by the so-called "war on drugs" proves that it is contrary to natural law. But even without the level of violence we are now seeing as a result of the drug war, it is easy to say that every government action which exceeds the level of coercion permitted by the NAP is contrary to natural law insofar as it diminishes the dignity of human persons. No small part of human dignity is based on our right to choose, i.e., freedom.

Re: We can't use natural law to defend libertarianism/anarchism.

Bert — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 19:05:35 GMT

I'm sure Paul Krugman has high readership, too.

Re: We can't use natural law to defend libertarianism/anarchism.

Marko — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 19:02:37 GMT

I don't even bother to follow links to Stranger's blog. It's the same stuff he was peddling here for 2 years.

On the other hand at least he has readership. Look at the number of comments. I'm green with envy.

Re: We can't use natural law to defend libertarianism/anarchism.

liberty student — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 18:27:09 GMT

I don't even bother to follow links to Stranger's blog. It's the same stuff he was peddling here for 2 years.

Re: We can't use natural law to defend libertarianism/anarchism.

Bert — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 18:23:01 GMT

Stranger:

Rights are whatever acts that other people have agreed to provide protection for.

Half of myself wants to ask, "Are you serious?".

Re: We can't use natural law to defend libertarianism/anarchism.

John Ess — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 18:01:39 GMT

It seems to me today to be used as a shallow argument for religion via guilt. Like when people used to say that the US is Christian, the Soviet Union is atheist. Ergo, atheism will lead to Leninist hellhole. For these people, Christianity means nothing but a useful buffer between themselves and the government or some other foreign government. Or a reinforcement of the religious purpose that the US government has. Believed largely by Mormons, especially, but certainly other conservatives.

On the other hand, it is often used by conservatives as a means to irrational-y clarify their differences with liberals. Usually the conservative comes by this belief in natural rights by some magic that the liberals didn't; so "I believe in it because I'm a conservative, and I'm conservative because I believe it." "We believe in transcendental whatchamacallit, while the liberal mind only believes in materialism and big government and relativism." Usually, it is someone with very little or no belief in 'liberty' using the religious or political argument for natural rights. Like Limbaugh or Hannity.

Re: We can't use natural law to defend libertarianism/anarchism.

Stranger — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 17:50:23 GMT

What are rights?

Rights are whatever acts that other people have agreed to provide protection for.

Re: We can't use natural law to defend libertarianism/anarchism.

Autolykos — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 17:29:25 GMT

Legal philosophy tries to answer the question "What should be obeyed?" The two big branches of legal philosophy are legal positivism and natural law. Legal positivism answers the question with "Whatever those in power say", which is just a formalism of might-makes-right. Natural law, on the other hand, answers the question with some abstract or "higher" system of values.

Among libertarians, there seem to be two different interpretations of natural law. One is the idea that we all have natural or God-given rights, such as those espoused in the American Declaration of Independence. The other is more sophisticated, taking an emergent view of rights and instead focusing on human nature and what forms of order arise spontaneously from human action and interaction. We can call the former the natural-rights branch of natural law, and the latter the natural-order branch of natural law.

SilentXtarian, you wrote, "If natural law were correct we would probably be living in a libertarian paradise and we would have the most freedoms in the world." My response is as follows. First off, legal philosophy actually deals in values, not facts. The question "What is law?" is really the question "What should be obeyed?" Just because something has been declared as a law by someone doesn't entail a prima facie obligation to obey it, all other things being equal. Hence there's no way to prove one branch or another of legal philosophy as the correct one.

On the other hand, you talk about the real problem being with oppression. How do you define "oppression", however? If you're implying that there are certain near-universal standards for suffering (based on human nature), then you're actually still arguing from a natural-law standpoint. Your real dispute would seem to be about tactics, not principles.

Re: We can't use natural law to defend libertarianism/anarchism.

Lyle — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 05:48:55 GMT

Silent,

Pardon my confusion. I understand the Natural Rights position to be absolute and the Natural law position to be prima facie. I guess I err in my understanding.

Re: We can't use natural law to defend libertarianism/anarchism.

Bert — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 05:31:15 GMT

What are rights?

Re: We can't use natural law to defend libertarianism/anarchism.

SilentXtarian — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 05:23:16 GMT

Lyle, that is not what I am arguing. I am not arguing that rights are absolute. That's what the natural law position argues. Rather, I am arguing that rights are more of a desired position. However, in this current system that we live in there are many rules and there are laws that get in the way of our rights and keeps us from exercising (free speech codes, lack of privacy, protest codes, new camera laws, etc). So in short, natural law isn't something that should be expected in the real world.

Re: We can't use natural law to defend libertarianism/anarchism.

SilentXtarian — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 05:21:14 GMT

Aristippus- oppression can include any number of those things. I like to think of oppression as something that is intended to restrict the action of someone else and keep them from doing something that they would do otherwise if they were otherwise free. If you look at i that way, a lot of things in place in society are actually there to oppress us and keep us orderly. Now there is a difference between oppression and between rules. Rules help guide one and other people in their actions with what they can do or what they cannot do within the specific circumstance. Oppression to me is more like they would be able to get it, but there are rules or laws in place that prevents them from getting it.

On the flip-side oppression can also include forceful coercion, which MAKES them get something that they don't want. It can also include exploitation or all these other things. That's just the most basic definition of oppression to me... but certainly other things could be considered oppression. Censorship by the FCC is in my mind oppression. I hope that helps.

Re: We can't use natural law to defend libertarianism/anarchism.

Lyle — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 05:18:59 GMT

So what you are saying is that rights are absolute, not prima facie?

Re: We can't use natural law to defend libertarianism/anarchism.

Aristippus — Sun, 02 Jan 2011 04:45:47 GMT

Please define oppression. Can it include:

Price gouging?

Wage slavery?

Poverty?

Refusing someone free education and healthcare?