Rights?

Rick,

I sanctioned you too, so we're even.

"You, however, were talking about some "social contract". What is that?"

You said: "The purpose of rights is to provide moral sanction for independent action, which means against rights violators."

Why do you need this "moral sanction"? Who is granting this "moral sanction"? I think "society" grants you this moral sanction, but only under certain proscribed circumstances. I'm calling that a "social contract".

Also: "The justification is to others who might very well regard you as an aggressor."

Ok. Understood. But the need for this "justification" also implies a "social contract".

"Rights exist only in a social context, that is, when there is more than one person involved. Rights are not a property of the individual alone but of the individual in society."

Well, we agree on this one. Actually, I believe this point is quite important, I'm startled to feel actual optimism.

"If you think that a society of 100% non-aggressors would have no need of the concept of rights you are very much mistaken. Perhaps you are considering only intentional aggression?"

You'll have to explain this a little better. Unless you are talking about legal liability in accident cases.

"Unfortunately, your understanding of the concept of rights is quite lacking."

Hah. You are the anarchist, I'm moving farther away from that viewpoint, not closer. I think as far as rights protection you have some explaining to do.

Post 61

Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 10:48pm

Mike, I can't presume to speak for Rick, but I think that what he means by "non-intential aggression" (a notion which I arrived at by inference from his disparaging remark about the idea that all aggression is intential aggression), might be pictured by examining the supposed non-aggression of leftist nutjobs.

Things like ...

-minimum wage law

-anti-trust law

-gun control

-affirmative action

-millionaire farmers getting billions in subsidies (all farmers count here, but it is especially wrong for my money to be "redistributed" to millionaires -- it highlights how it is a policy of pure aggression, intended or not)

-multi-billion-dollar corporations getting corporate welfare (all corporations count here, but it is especially wrong for my money to be "redistributed" to faulty, mult-billion-dollar corporations)

-National Flood Insurance (where my money pays for house insurance for rich folks living on the coastline)

-tax-funded sports stadiums costing hundreds of millions of dollars, because billionaire team owners would rather not invest (they'd rather that I'd do that for them, and they pull the necessary political strings to make that happen)

-eminent domain for some private individuals against other private individuals (e.g. Kelo)

-tax-funded outhouses costing $330,000 -- I shit you not (pun intended)

Many of the mediocre-minded folks involved in perpetuating the atrocities above might not have intended aggression -- but they accomplished it, nonetheless.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/11, 10:49pm)

Post 62

Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 7:45am

Thanks Ed,

But I think all of the things you mentioned are a consequence of a false conception of "rights" and not useful when trying to discover the roots of the idea of rights. I think Rick was talking about liability for unintentional acts done by otherwise peaceful individuals. For instance, if I lose control of my car and run onto your property destroying your fence and running over a couple of your chickens. Do you have a RIGHT to compensation for your lost property? Of course you do. I suppose disputes of this type would always come up but I don't see how you extrapolate those kinds of disputes into things like "minimum wage laws" unless you already have a false view of rights.

I'm not comfortable with the "social contract" view I expressed earlier and I expect Rick to take especial exception to it given his anarchist viewpoint. But I don't see how you can get away from it. I, personally, have always had a problem with the "social contract" justification for government. As if we've all personally signed a contract and agreed to every piss ass law of every politician local to state to federal, now WORLD, who has ever come along. And especially, if you VOTE, that supposedly means you AGREE with everything that happens. I called myself an anarchist for some years. At least I thought an anarchist world had as much a shot at being a peaceful one as any. But with an unreal conception of rights, with a "something for nothing" vision that creates pacifists on the one hand and opportunists on the other I don't think there will ever be a significant number of people who will choose anarchism. Thus, default government.

Post 63

Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 8:46am

Mike,

===================
all of the things you mentioned are a consequence of a false conception of "rights" and not useful when trying to discover the roots of the idea of rights
===================

On the contrary, understanding what something is not, is often THE MOST useful method of getting around to understanding what the heck it is. If you set up enough reductio ad absurdums, utilizing enough envisionable alternatives, then you can get a pretty good handle on what, possibly, something is. Think of the Tree of Porphyry (234?�305? A.D.). Think of the game 20 questions. Is it an animal? A vegetable? A mineral? Person? Place? Or thing? --yadayadayada

===================
I'm not comfortable with the "social contract" view I expressed earlier and I expect Rick to take especial exception to it given his anarchist viewpoint. But I don't see how you can get away from it.
===================

Think of Jim Donaldon's words about individual, unorganized violence, Mike. Don't they mesh quite well with your idea -- stated far above -- that there's "consequences" to everybody else's actions toward you? Now, picture pretty much all rational folks having that self-same sentiment ...

That's my proof.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/12, 8:47am)

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/12, 8:48am)

Post 64

Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 9:01am

Ed,

You're jumping around too much. I can't follow you. Think of Occam's razor.

Think of "The Unforgiven". Little Bill says "I don't deserve to die like this".

Answer: "'Deserves' got nothing to do with it".

Actions have consequences. I have NO problem with all rational people having that same sentiment.

P.S.: I don't think the "shotgun" approach works with "proofs". WAY too many landmines.
(Edited by Mike Erickson
on 2/12, 9:08am)

Post 65

Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 4:35pm

Good point, Mike.

So tell me then, what would what would settle it, Mike (no sarcasm)? I like settling things, it makes me feel cool (still, no sarcasm). In the altruism thread, it had gotten to the point where I was forced to tell the opposition just what behavior would allow them to decisively win (ie. what would settle it, once and for all). I told them to put their arguments for altruism into syllogistic form -- they, of course, told me to go to hell (okay, NOW there's some sarcasm there)!

Presuming that you'd appreciate something just like that from me, I'll deconstruct Peikoff on the subject (adapted from OPAR, p 353-6) and then we -- and others? -- could (if you're game?) dissect and analyze his sorites on rights ...

LIFE
A1. Man is a certain kind of living organism

A2. which leads to his need of morality

A3. which leads to man's life being the moral standard

A4. which leads to the right to act by the guidance this standard (ie. the right to life)

LIBERTY
B1. Reason is man's basic means of survival

B2. which leads to rationality being the primary virtue

B3. which leads to the right to act according to one's judgment (ie. the right to liberty)

PROPERTY
C1. Unlike animals, man does not survive by adjusting to the given

C2. which leads to productiveness being a cardinal virtue

C3. which leads to the right to keep, use and dispose of the things one has produced (ie. the right to property)

PURSUIT of HAPPINESS
D1. Reason is an attribute of the individual, one that demands, as a condition of its function, unbreached allegiance to reality

D2. which leads to the ethics of egoism

D3. which leads to the right to the pursuit of happiness

A GENERAL (shotgun?) DEFENSE of RIGHTS
E1. Rights are rights to the kinds of actions necessary for the preservation of human life.

E2. Rights are rights to the actions necessary for the preservation of a rational being.

E3. All rights rest on the fact that man is a productive being.

E4. All rights rest on the ethics of egoism. Only a being who is an end in himself can claim a moral sanction to independent action.

E5. Rights are corollaries of ethics as applied to social organization--if one holds the right ethics.

E6. Rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness -- all rest, directly, on universal ethical principles.

E7. If rights are defined in rational terms, no conflict is possible between the rights of one individual and those of another.

E8. If my right to life entails a right to your labor or its product, you cannot have a right to liberty or property.

E9. The "right to enslave" is a contradiction in terms; it means the right to infringe rights.

Comments?

Ed

Post 66

Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 7:50pm

Ed,

I'm not arguing that rights do not exist. My argument has to do with the definition (derivation) of rights. Referring to my recent post "My point of view": I think the meme function for rights is broken. My evidence for this is the bad "output". There is no consensus on what may be defined as "rights". I believe strongly in self ownership. No one has a right to enslave others or to take the property of others or compel others in any way other than through convincing them that what you want them to do is in their interest. Not even objectivists uniformly believe what I just said is true. Tibor Machen recently advocated that persons not accused of a crime could justifiably be compelled to testify about that crime even if they declined to do so of their own free will. In my mind this is an obvious violation of self ownership, I informed Tibor of my concern in a post on his thread, he declined to reply. So here is a person that I agree with on 99% of the things he says, yet we have a different viewpoint on what constitutes a "right". We need a simple, crystal clear definition of rights, which also describes the mechanism for their enforcement.

There is an anecdote about Charles Ohm, an early researcher on electricity. He was to give a presentation at the Royal Society on his research. Studying his many pages of data and calculations in his room the night before he suddenly realized that all of his pages of equations could be expressed as a very simple formula. So, the next day he got on the stage, walked up to the chalkboard and wrote: E = IR and sat down. I think the understanding of rights is in a similar state right now. Waiting for someone to write the equivalent of E = IR on the board. If there was ever a job to do for a philosopher, this is it.

Of course, Rick and a hundred others will now say it already exists, I'm just too stupid to understand it. Bah! [waves hand].

Post 67

Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 8:32pm

Persons may be compelled to testify where their refusal would violate a victim�s right to justice. If your wife is raped and I know who did it, and I possess the facts that would prove he did it, and I don�t feel like saying�then I am violating her right to justice through a bogus �right� to protect a rapist. Indeed, I am �complicit after the fact.�

Post 68

Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 8:49pm

You have asserted an exception to the principle of self ownership for a utilitarian purpose which simply invites other exceptions for other utilitarian purposes.

There is no "bogus right to protect a rapist" there is a principle of self ownership. It is unlikely that a reasonable person would choose to be silent in such a case. I doubt that the testimony of an unreasonable man could be used to dispense any kind of justice.

Post 69

Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 9:05pm

�You have asserted an exception to the principle of self ownership for a utilitarian purpose which simply invites other exceptions for other utilitarian purposes.�

Correct. I am happy to force anyone who is protecting a criminal whenever a prosecutor wants it and a judge agrees there is cause.

�It is unlikely that a reasonable person would choose to be silent in such a case.�

Right. It is unlikely that the rapist�s buddies will be unreasonable.

�I doubt that the testimony of an unreasonable man could be used to dispense any kind of justice.�

Right. We jail his buddies until one of them tells who the rapist was, we test that individuals� blood and it was his semen all over the victim, after all. No jury is going to convict based on that.

Post 70

Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 8:42pm