Violations of Rights

Can rights be violated by a means other than the initiation of force?

Post 1

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 7:27pm

Probably not, if you view "initiating of force" as including "coercion" and "fraud," and interpreting the latter broadly.

For example, depriving one's children of the general support and education they need to survive in a modern world might not seem an "initiation of force" on its face, but given the child's helpless dependency on his parents, it would amount to a kind of coercive deprivation of his rightful entitlements. (Which to argue and demonstrate would require a long essay, and I don't have time for that right now.)

Post 2

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 8:14pm

Robert Bidinotto wrote:

For example, depriving one's children of the general support and education they need to survive in a modern world might not seem an "initiation of force" on its face, but given the child's helpless dependency on his parents, it would amount to a kind of coercive deprivation of his rightful entitlements.

I disagree. If the parents prevented others from providing that support and education, then that would be an initiation of force but inaction can hardly be considered a type of action.

Post 3

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 8:22pm

Okay, let's plod.

You have a kid. Your choice, not the kid's. In doing so, you of course know that the very nature of childhood is the fact of physical dependence upon a parent until the child is old enough to become self-supporting.

Now, knowing this, you choose to deprive your voluntarily produced infant or young child of his life-sustaining food. Or you leave him outside on the back porch to go fend for himself.

Are you seriously suggesting that such neglect does NOT constitute a violation of rights?

If so, then what exactly is your understanding of "rights" -- of what they are, and what they are for?

Post 4

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 9:24pm

The problem is the word deprive.

If we use the definition "1: take away possessions from someone" then it is impossible for the infant to be deprived since one cannot be deprived of what one does not have.

If we use the definition "2: keep from having, keeping, or obtaining" then we are talking about what I acknowledged was an initiation of force but I don't think that's what's usually intended.

As for leaving him on the back porch, I would consider that to be despicable but leaving him on the front porch of an orphanage to be merely cowardly.

Rights are a moral prohibition on certain actions of others. In no case are they a claim on others.

Post 5

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 8:23am

Rights can imply obligation to action. E.g., if you promise to pay someone for work they did and then don't you violated his rights. Having a baby is an even more solemn kind of action than a promise, and also implies an obligation to take care of it or find someone who will.

Post 6

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 8:46am

Rick, would you argue that if you stop your child from running into traffic, you are violating his rights by initiating force?

Anyone who argues thus would be making the error of rationalism--ignoring the genetic roots of concepts and merely applying principles on the basis of language. There is, I think, a similar error here in your position. Granted, it is not easy to formulate the basis of children's rights to care, but that merely means more thought is required. We sense a gross illogic in the idea that children may be left to starve.

Post 7

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 9:24am

Shayne Wissler writes:

Rights can imply obligation to action. E.g., if you promise to pay someone for work they did and then don't you violated his rights.

This is confused. You have brought in an extra element (an agreement). Rights in and of themselves imply only a negative with respect to others.

As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights. — Ayn Rand, "Man's Rights"

As for your example, at the moment of the agreement you have created a conditional transfer of ownership of (rights to) a certain sum of money. When the condition actualizes, ie, when the work is done, then that money becomes his. If you retain possession of it then that is where the force exists. The rights violation is the continued possession of that which is no longer yours.

It is not the case that rights can imply an obligation to action. It is, however, the case that a violation of rights implies an obligation to action � that is to rectify the violation.

Having a baby is an even more solemn kind of action than a promise, and also implies an obligation to take care of it or find someone who will.

What is the basis of that "obligation" and to whom is it? Certainly you're not trying to claim that the obligation is to someone who didn't even exist at the time of the action!

Post 8

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 9:30am

Rodney Rawlings writes:

Rick, would you argue that if you stop your child from running into traffic, you are violating his rights by initiating force?

"He who pays the piper calls the tune."

So long as the child is accepting the care of the parent, then he must obey the parent.

We sense a gross illogic in the idea that children may be left to starve.

We???

If you think there is an error in the logic, point it out. Your feelings about the matter are unpersuasive.

Post 9

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 9:37am

Rick, the ethics implied by your latest post ought to be music to the ears of young inner city males. Though they'd be sour notes to the young inner city females who are so typically manipulated sexually, then abandoned and left with the full living consequences of their mutual actions. And sour, too, to the offspring also left abandoned.

Sure...what does a kid have a moral right to expect from adults who voluntarily conceived him and gave him birth through their voluntary choices -- knowing full well at the time the potential consequences of their actions, and knowing full well the dependent needs of a child?

I asked earlier, "What are rights for?" I asked that question for a specific reason, and I'm curious as to your answer before I go on.

Post 10

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 9:48am

Well, what if I see a neighbor's child run out into traffic?
We???
No, we.

If you think there is an error in the logic, point it out. Your feelings about the matter are unpersuasive.

I was explaining how it is that one can recognize the need for more thought. Your purely transactional analysis of the parent-child relation goes beyond the context that created those transactional principles. This is the logical error that leaps out, and that tells us more thinking is required.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 3/07, 10:13am)

Post 11

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 10:07am

Rick: No, you're the one who's confused.

You have a lot of words there, but it still boils down to the same thing: the other person has a right to money in your possession, and if you don't act by giving him the money, you violate his rights. I.e., his rights implies your obligation to act.

Incidentally, I see you have a quote from Ayn Rand. I also see that it doesn't support your case. The word "negative" isn't doing it for you. She doesn't say that to "abstain from violating his rights" only implies that you not take certain actions.

But you know, I think it's pointless to debate this with you. Putting a baby on the back porch and leaving him there is murder. One doesn't get that far off the track, and argue it fervently as you do, honestly. Only a corrupt method can lead to such a heinous conclusion; only persistent evasion over years can create such a corrupt method.

Post 12

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 12:05pm

Robert Bidinotto writes:

Rick, the ethics implied by your latest post ought to be music to the ears of young inner city males.

Why? I have said nothing about what the father ought to do (based on his own self-interest). BTW, which 'last' post? I don't see how my response to Rodney could possibly prompt your comment.

One's expectations as such do not constitute a claim on others.

I asked earlier, "What are rights for?" I asked that question for a specific reason, and I'm curious as to your answer before I go on.

The purpose of rights is to protect each individual's moral autonomy, or, as Rand put it, "Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law." The purpose of rights is to specify those actions a person can morally take regardless of what others may wish or desire.

Post 13

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 12:25pm

Shayne Wissler writes:

Rick: No, you're the one who's confused.

Why the personalization?

You have a lot of words there, but it still boils down to the same thing: the other person has a right to money in your possession, and if you don't act by giving him the money, you violate his rights. I.e., his rights implies your obligation to act.

That right exists only because of the agreement you made. Absent that agreement with him, absent that initial action on your part, he has no right to any action on your part.

Incidentally, I see you have a quote from Ayn Rand. I also see that it doesn't support your case. The word "negative" isn't doing it for you. She doesn't say that to "abstain from violating his rights" only implies that you not take certain actions.

Correct. It implies � explicitly says � that others not take certain actions.

But you know, I think it's pointless to debate this with you. Putting a baby on the back porch and leaving him there is murder. One doesn't get that far off the track, and argue it fervently as you do, honestly. Only a corrupt method can lead to such a heinous conclusion; only persistent evasion over years can create such a corrupt method.

My, my! So soon the name calling, the ad hominem.

I guess it's much easier to "debate" with someone you already agree with.

BTW, you didn't answer my question: "What is the basis of that "obligation" and to whom is it?"

Post 14

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 12:33pm

Rodney Rawlings writes:

Well, what if I see a neighbor's child run out into traffic?

Oh, please! What if you see your friend (or anyone) unknowingly place himself in harms way? The age of the other person makes no difference.

We???

No, we.

Simply repeating the question without the question marks does not answer it.

I was explaining how it is that one can recognize the need for more thought.

I would say that you first need to understand what I've written. So far, it's quite clear that you have not.

Post 15

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 12:47pm

I don't know where one gets the idea that one should politely debate with someone who's advocated letting murderers get away with it. It's also tiresome to see those ignorant of the laws of logic twist them, crying "ad hominem" when clearly the only thing that's been issued is a personal insult.

Post 16

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 1:00pm

Rick you said: "As for leaving him on the back porch, I would consider that to be despicable ... "

Just despicable? Or would you consider it criminal as well? (Criminal, in the sense that this act should result in legal prosecution). If your answer to this question is, yes; then you may need to re-think your entire line of argument.

Shayne summed up my position when he said:
"Rights can imply obligation to action. E.g., if you promise to pay someone for work they did and then don't you violated his rights. Having a baby is an even more solemn kind of action than a promise, and also implies an obligation to take care of it or find someone who will."

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/07, 1:01pm)

Post 17

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 1:18pm

In Rand�s essay, �Man Rights�, she says, "As to his (man�s) neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of the negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.� I always understood her use of the word negative here as: none, as a repetition of no obligation. My understanding is not unfounded as she goes on to say in the same essay: "No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty, or an involuntary servitude on another man." and "Remember that rights are moral principles which define and protect a man's freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other men."

Is David Kelley, for example, not to single him out, correct when he says �Liberty rights impose negative obligations: the obligation not to interfere with one's liberty�.

I always thought I had to fight for my rights, that others were free to ignore them, but only at their own peril.

Post 18

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 1:40pm

When Rand is describing Rights as not conferring obligations on others, she is speaking about adult to adult relationships. A baby is not someone who can enter into these types of agreements, so this argument is being used completely out of context!

In other words, to say to me I have a moral obligation to make my car payments because I signed a contract with the bank (which I do) and then to tell me that on the contrary, I can have a child and just leave it to die of exposure, is a complete moral inversion.

If this is what you feel objectivism tells us, you should not be surprised when people reject your ideas and instead turn to religion. I would say that having a baby is a biological contract that you willingly take on by having a child.

Post 19

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 1:52pm