They are an artificial safety blanket which restricts real protection. Claiming you have 'individual rights' hides the fact that you still need to protect your rights. PDA's and DRO's are the best way to protect the individual. Hoping that some involuntary set of 'rights' will protect the individual against the realities of the world is not the best way to to protect the individual. Be realistic, it has been tried, and it has failed miserably. A new approach is necessary.
It also leads to involuntary 'protective' laws, and restricts individuals rights to voluntary behavior. Voluntary contract should always be upheld over involuntary social contracts.
Pablo,
Are you advocating murder? Natural laws are voluntary. You break them voluntarily and it's an abomination. Why advocate murder, stealing, and rape? You don't have your property either, unless violence is how you keep it, cause you are not supportive of just property in the first place. So your reasoning becomes circular and when humans abandon reason then a "might makes right" full of despicable dangers are ever-present.
Really? Are you questioning your own sanity? (read: antonym of insanity is reason)
Pablo:If Trigger-Happy inc. granted authority for 'summary executions', and the thief was in violation of Forde's property, then LibertarianLaw inc. would have little to no ground to stand on in a case.
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."
hashem:They can trade the labor of their body presently, but cannot guarantee it in the future for the will can change.
So I can't sign a one year contract to work? If I do sign it, and change my mind in six months, the employer has no right to sue for specific performance? I dont see how this is any different from any other contract. One offer is being exchanged for another. The damaging party is liable.
hashem:A slave contract (one which transfers title of the person himself) is the only title transfer which cannot be binding.
I guess I am missing what you are saying. Why is requiring someone do labor any different than requiring someone give up something of which their labor has produced?
I would interject, if the Natural laws are voluntary in a psychological sense. Can an individual still retain his/her sense of humanity after committing an act such as murder or rape? Do we rationally committ crime or are we guided under an irrational mind?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Anarchist Cain: I would interject, if the Natural laws are voluntary in a psychological sense. Can an individual still retain his/her sense of humanity after committing an act such as murder or rape? Do we rationally committ crime or are we guided under an irrational mind?
Good question. I do believe there are cultural interpretations of what a psychiatrist will decide in giving such an answer. Also though to be able to define if free-will occurred or not inclines towards mind-reading. I assume criminals know what they are doing and if not they still committed a crime that ought to have the same repercussions in my opinion.
What do you think?
Oh, and I would add. By irrational I mean the absence of reasoning and thus discourse during the event in question. A natural law criminal would be leaping to anti-social behaviors that are not necessary recognizing humans are rational and social animals.
Juan: Pablo: Well, replace 'natural law' with 'individual rights'. Are those bs as well ? They are an artificial safety blanket which restricts real protection. Claiming you have 'individual rights' hides the fact that you still need to protect your rights.
Pablo: Well, replace 'natural law' with 'individual rights'. Are those bs as well ?
PDA's and DRO's are the best way to protect the individual.
Voluntary contract should always be upheld over involuntary social contracts.
wilderness: Also though to be able to define if free-will occurred or not inclines towards mind-reading.
Walter Block can have his death machines, I want my mind-reading skills.
wilderness:"might makes right" full of despicable dangers are ever-present.
I don't believe 'might makes right', but that might is what wins unless right has a better way to defend itself. I am simply stating that claiming rights without sufficient ability to protect them is ludicrous and very dangerous. Look where it has gotten us today.
wilderness:Why advocate murder, stealing, and rape?
I believe in voluntary should always be held over involuntary, no matter the case. I don't advocate murder, theft, or rape, because these imply an involuntary action. Now, if we made them voluntary, it would be assisted suicide, mutually beneficial trade, and love making.
wilderness:Natural laws are voluntary
Could you clarify who you are getting your definition of natural laws from for me?
@Pablo: Read The Ethics of Liberty. The answers to all your questions are contained within.
Rights are not something that you claim to have and then suddenly you DO have. They are something intrinsic in the nature of human beings, that we have whether we know it or not. We are facilitated with reason, and thus we are able to learn what rights nature has given us.
Pablo: wilderness:"might makes right" full of despicable dangers are ever-present. I don't believe 'might makes right', but that might is what wins unless right has a better way to defend itself. I am simply stating that claiming rights without sufficient ability to protect them is ludicrous and very dangerous. Look where it has gotten us today.
Rights have never been protected fully. Rights though have been sneaking their way into public discourse for centuries and have been gaining ground in my opinion. And of course self-defense is necessary (noting you mentioned protecting rights).
Pablo: wilderness:Why advocate murder, stealing, and rape? I believe in voluntary should always be held over involuntary, no matter the case. I don't advocate murder, theft, or rape, because these imply an involuntary action. Now, if we made them voluntary, it would be assisted suicide, mutually beneficial trade, and love making.
Oh you are orienting your perspective on the "victim" or "receiver" of an action by another. I've been orienting my perspective from the where rights come from - the individual, not the other. Meaning a criminal voluntarily murders, but yes, as you say, the victim isn't volunteering to be murdered.
Pablo: wilderness:Natural laws are voluntary Could you clarify who you are getting your definition of natural laws from for me?
I don't know. Why?
Anarchist Cain: wilderness: Also though to be able to define if free-will occurred or not inclines towards mind-reading. Walter Block can have his death machines, I want my mind-reading skills.
Joking? Or could you explain.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block34.html
Juan:The thief did not contract with Trigger-Happy to be executed. End of your fallacy.
I never implied that he did. I stated that the thief was in violation of Forde's property, which is protected by a DRO (Trigger-Happy) which allows for summary executions.
Juan:From the point of view of the thief's DRO (and natural law) Forde is a murderer.
If I shoot someone whom is robbing my home, am I a murderer? It has been done whilst he was acting with involuntary aggression towards me or my property. He is subject to my whims if he is violating me. The same way that I fully support a woman if she uses deadly force to protect herself from being raped.
Juan:Trigger-Happy inc. has NO AUTHORITY to murder and can grant NO AUTHORITY to murder.
For the purposes of this conversation, I agree. They can however defend the use of deadly force in the event that someone is violating you or your property, which is exactly what the analogy depicts.
The thief is commiting violence. He is opening himself up to any form of involuntary action. Fordge is acting in defense of his property. Forde is not a murderer.
Why are you defending the thief? He has a right to use violence, while another has no right to defend himself? That is absurd.
The thief is commiting violence. He is opening himself up to any form of involuntary action.
Why are you defending the thief?
Juan:You reject individual rights/natural law because they undermine...what ? Your rights ??
Let me know which definition of natural rights you are using. Individual rights exist because they are protected, not because they are granted. They undermine my ability to voluntarily contract.
Juan:According to what moral framework pray ?
Voluntary upheld over coercive or involuntary.
Juan:might-is-right
No. Voluntary is right.
@Pablo:
Simple question: Where do rights come from?
Juan:you've done absolutely nothing to prove that proportionality doesn't apply.
I never said it does not apply. I specifically said it is between the DRO and contractee. If they decree proportionality applies, then it does.
Juan:You did not address the counter arguments and just assume that the action you are expected to rationally justify - cold-blood-killing - is justifiable (it is not).
You have created a strawman and are demagoging the issue. I have addressed all arguments put forth thus far. I am not attempting to justify 'cold-blood-killing', I am justifying the defensive use of force against an aggressor in any form the defender chooses. This does not mean that I personally endorse their method of protection, but I fully support their ability to choose.
Juan:I'm attacking the nonsensical idea that the death penalty administered by a wholly biased party is the proper and morally correct response. It is not, by any means.
What exactly is the universally applicable moral response? Please don't use arbitrary numbers like, "double the damage inflicted", or any other subjective value played off as an objective truth. It is impossible to determine how much damage has actually been inflicted to the injured party.
hashem:Simple question: Where do rights come from?
Define what you mean by rights.
Depending on your definition, they could be: a figment of your imagination, secured through protection of an otherwise absence in nature, or arrive from contractual agreement.
What they are not, is a mystical force that prevents 'bad' things happening to individuals.
Pablo:Individual rights exist because they are protected, not because they are granted.
I am justifying the defensive use of force against an aggressor in any form the defender chooses.
What exactly is the universally applicable moral response ?
It is impossible to determine how much damage has actually been inflicted to the injured party.
Pablo:or arrive from contractual agreement.
And if I refuse your contract, then what? Do you then have any rights?
Pablo:What they are not, is a mystical force that prevents 'bad' things happening to individuals.
Of course, we call can see that you are, but I figured I'd be nice here and make some effort.
Pablo come back we miss you.
[EDIT: I miss you.]
I will read it. I've got a couple others in line before it. But I definitely will add it to the list.
wilderness:I don't know. Why?
Because I'm not sure what you are intending to mean by it.
Anarchist Cain: http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block34.html
So you are against capital punishment?
By mind reading skills are you talking about psychiatrists?
I noticed Walter Block said this in that article, "It is fallacious to regard murderers as irrational: very few conduct their business in police stations."
Irrational is a very general concept and I see what Block means here. I still find criminals to be irrational though, in the context that I mean it, which is they are not trying to reason with other people to come to agreeable terms by each individual involved. A criminal has thrown out reason and isn't trying to be have intellectual discourse with their victims. They have abandoned the mind for brute force. But I see what Block means.
I personally am not for capital punishment, as of yet, meaning I haven't been convinced yet. But if somebody was trying to kill me I would defend myself to the death if need be. I see capital punishment and self-defense as two different concepts.
Pablo: wilderness:I don't know. Why? Because I'm not sure what you are intending to mean by it.
Ok. Please ask me a question to help me figure out what you are trying to understand so I don't ramble on about something that you already know about.
Juan:but can't kill the thief in the process because the thief has not renounced his right to life
Why would the thief renounce his rights? Who must he renounce this right to? Does initiating violence not announce his want for coercive over voluntary relationships?
Juan: I don't think the thief is voluntary agreeing to be killed.
Why would he? The thief has commited violence (involuntary behavior), which subjects him to involuntary behavior of others in response. The criminal who chooses an involuntary relationship over a voluntary relationship should be dealt with as such. Any coercive act done to him is legitimized by the criminals own actions. He chooses involuntary over voluntary.
Juan:I said there are two DROs involved.
Just as I am subject to the laws of another country for violating them, I am also subject to the laws of each individuals property. The laws of the DRO which represents the citizens property would be superior to the DRO of the criminal.
What is this "DRO" thing?
Juan:Dispute resolution (organizations?).
thank you
Knight_of_BAAWA: Pablo:What they are not, is a mystical force that prevents 'bad' things happening to individuals.As far as I can see, no one is claiming that they are. Could you provide quotes where people here are saying such? I would very much appreciate it so we can see if you're concocting a strawman or not. Of course, we call can see that you are, but I figured I'd be nice here and make some effort.
I was asked where rights come from. I wasn't saying any particular person on the forums was saying that. Generally speaking, talking about rights in the abstract lends itself to just that. The only purpose of such is to say what are 'bad' and 'good', while clearly the only person that can determine that is the individual himself. I believe it is much better to allow the individual to choose his 'good' and 'bad' than to attempt to find a 'one size fits all' approach. Voluntary contractual law allows for this. Individually chosen DRO's will account for this.
Pablo: Knight_of_BAAWA: Pablo:What they are not, is a mystical force that prevents 'bad' things happening to individuals.As far as I can see, no one is claiming that they are. Could you provide quotes where people here are saying such? I would very much appreciate it so we can see if you're concocting a strawman or not. Of course, we call can see that you are, but I figured I'd be nice here and make some effort. I was asked where rights come from. I wasn't saying any particular person on the forums was saying that. Generally speaking, talking about rights in the abstract lends itself to just that. The only purpose of such is to say what are 'bad' and 'good', while clearly the only person that can determine that is the individual himself. I believe it is much better to allow the individual to choose his 'good' and 'bad' than to attempt to find a 'one size fits all' approach. Voluntary contractual law allows for this. Individually chosen DRO's will account for this.
And I will side with the people that are not murderers.
Pablo, did you forget our little talk? I asked you where rights came from.
You suggested that, depending on the definition, they are imagined, or that they rely on a contractual agreement.
I said "And if I refuse your contract, then what? Do you then have any rights?"
[EDIT: Also, how are you getting so many points per post? And if you're getting 20-35 points per post, how is it that I am getting 5 and yet have more points than you with less posts?]
Rothbard, whose position was repeated unthinkably here several times, was wrong on 'voluntary slavery contracts'. See Block: A Libertarian Theory of Inalienability
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Pablo:Why would the thief renounce his rights? Who must he renounce this right to? Does initiating violence not announce his want for coercive over voluntary relationships?
Why would he? The thief has committed violence (involuntary behavior), which subjects him to involuntary behavior of others in response.
The criminal who chooses an involuntary relationship over a voluntary relationship should be dealt with as such. Any coercive act done to him is legitimized by the criminals own actions.
Just as I am subject to the laws of another country for violating them,
I am also subject to the laws of each individuals property. The laws of the DRO which represents the citizens property would be superior to the DRO of the criminal.
E. R. Olovetto:Rothbard, whose position was repeated unthinkably here several times, was wrong on 'voluntary slavery contracts'.
Juan:It is impossible to determine how much damage has actually been inflicted to the injured party. Uh oh. You mean a $1 item is actually worth $1000000000 to the shop owner ? But isn't he selling it for $1 ?
Selling an item for $1 does not mean that having someone steal that same item from you will only harm you $1. It could be worth much more, or much less. This is demonstrated in that if he were to shoot the man for stealing it, one of three things is occuring- either the item is worth a whole lot to the shooter, the mans pain/life is worth very little to the shooter, or inflicting pain on the man is something the shooter values.
Juan:The shop owner can try to stop the thief using proportional force - which obviously doesn't include murder.
That is an entirely subjective statement. I am sure you and your DRO can figure out a policy which will fit in perfect for you. How is proportional force measured? Calories burned? Time taken? What happens if the defender accidently miscalculates?
What is a slave? Are they held against their will or not?