Are all rights Inalienable?

Steve,

Close. I feel like I've been saying this all along, but I'll say it again. Under Objectivism, what legal rights does a visitor necessarily keep (i.e., that a visitor cannot contracted) upon entering another's land? The corollary to this question is: What legal *obligations* does an owner necessarily owe (i.e., cannot contract away) to visitors? (I'm leaving be the rest of your post; I think responding to it would only distract.)

Jordan

Post 41

Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 11:58am

Jordan, I'm still surprised that you don't understand or appreciate your part in the confusion here!

And a peculiar aspect to your questions are that you frame them as if we were discovering natural laws or as if we were historians examining some past culture: ("What legal rights does a visitor have when...") If you are asking from the perspective of Objectivism, shouldn't you be asking, "What legal rights should a visitor have when..."?

The law is intended to arise out of an ethical/political context. One must have that as a foundation before determining how to frame a given law or legal philosophy. What are the attributes of this moral rights, or what moral right is applied in this legal context, or how would one make a law for this context that arise from this moral right? Those questions can be answered from the perspective of Objectivism.

Post 42

Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 12:17pm

Jordan:

No, John. I used "border" in the abstract. Geez. Where is the "border" between your freedom and my control of my property? Reiterating: What freedoms do you keep when you enter my property, irrespective of the terms and conditions I set for entering?

I keep all of my rights. But again a right is a moral principle that sets rules for social relationships. When you set conditions to me for entering your property, you are only stating "you the visitor, may not restrict my (property owner) freedoms". As in "you do not have the right to dispose of my property in this manner". So you never had the right to dispose of my property. Not having the right to dispose of my property doesn't mean I am restricting your freedoms. If you think that means restricting the freedoms of the visitor, that is totally non-sensical since the opposite implies the visitor, not the property owner, owns the property. I honestly can't say this any other way and I don't understand why you keep phrasing the question in the manner of the visitor having his freedoms restricted? You have it completely backwards, the visitor is told not to restrict the freedoms of the property owner.

It'd be lovely if you would answer this directly.

Well, it would be lovely if you just made an effort to understand my direct answers.

But really your questions are just non-sensical. You keep assigning a definition of freedom that is contradictory in your question. As if you had the freedom to dispose of my property in a manner I didn't consent to!! Which obviously implies you wish to restrict my freedom! Which is a contradiction to the notion of rights!

Would you also say Jordan, the Universe has restricted your freedom to fly with wings through the air? What exactly is your definition of freedom?

Rights are based on political freedom. I will refer you to Michael Dickey's excellent blog on the "Four Freedoms". Here is a summary:

http://matus1976.blogsome.com/category/politics/

To summarize then, the four types of Freedom are:

Material Freedom � free from cost, cost as labor or effort or money
Physical Freedom � a literal freedom of action and movement, constrained only by the laws of physics
Metaphysical Freedom � literal volitional freedom unrestrained by the laws of physics, being able to do absolutely anything you wish instantly without effort. Includes being free from being forced to do something against your will by the laws of nature. Metaphysical freedom is a philosophical impossibility.
Political Freedom � Freedom from being forced to do something against your will by someone else.

I urge you to read the whole essay to understand what political freedom means. Because it seems you are operating from a definition of freedom that describes "Physical freedom", meaning any kind of literal freedom of movement.

(Edited by John Armaos on 2/12, 12:48pm)

Post 43

Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 1:26pm

Luke,

Yes. Both "legal" and "logical" positivists suck (my colorful way of saying that they are philosophically wrong).

The "legal positivism"-apologetic quote -- at the end of your post 37 -- is a prime example of this. Notice how, in that quote, that a reference is made to the rules of logic. Laws, for instance, can't be "baldly contradictory". What this means is that laws can contradict empirical experience, but that they may not contradict "logic" -- which is assumed to be something totally excluded from the reality of empirical experience. In truth, however, logic isn't something mutually exclusive to experience.

Not being grounded in anything but a fantasy notion of floating logic, with sparkly sprinkles of subjective experiences (from pompous folks wearing white wigs), legal positivism is subject to Kant's criticism of utilitarianism -- i.e., as something riddled with "serpentine windings," folding back on itself in all directions (with no first principles nor any no final ends). At best, it may approach internal validity (as it roots out its own contradictions).

It will never approach reality, however, until it denies itself (i.e., when folks understand that positive law gets all of its philosophical grounding from natural law -- that there is no other way around this; no other truth of the matter).

Ed

Post 44

Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 2:45pm

John, you said (to Jordan):

I urge you to read the whole essay to understand what political freedom means. Because it seems you are operating from a definition of freedom that describes "Physical freedom", meaning any kind of literal freedom of movement.

Right! And a synonym for what Michael Dickey describes as "physical freedom" is "license" (a "concrete" freedom of action) -- which can be communicated as "liberty gone wild" where there are absolutely no restraints, besides the laws of physics, on what actions you get to take.

I've been trying to get Jordan to see this point, too. Thanks for stating the same thing, but just in other terms. Hopefully, our limiting miscommunications with Jordan will now be transcended ...

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/12, 2:46pm)

Post 45

Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 9:00pm

Steve,

If you are asking from the perspective of Objectivism, shouldn't you be asking, "What legal rights should a visitor have when..."?

I do appreciate that that phrasing is peculiar. My intent is along the lines of asking what legal rights a visitor has in an Objectivist world. I think your phrasing is equivalent.

John,

Not having the right to dispose of my property doesn't mean I am restricting your freedoms.

This little tangent on "freedom" is probably not worth it, but. . .a freedom from always entails a freedom to. Freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by others ("political freedom" as you and Dickey might like to put it) entails freedom to do whatever you are otherwise capable of doing ("physical freedom," again, to use your terms). If I am not (politically) free from interference by others when I, without permission or privilege, dispose of your property, then I am not (physically) free to dispose of your property.

It looks like you think you can dictate unabatedly what others do to or with your property. Ok fine; I do believe Objectivism has a basis for that, and I've said as much. But the question is more: what of others can you require that they do on your property? Can you require them not to speak? Not to wear shoes? Not to smoke? Not to blaspheme? What actions of the visitors' are subject to removal at the owner's discretion? Whatever they are, those are the owner's "negative" requirements, but what about "positive" requirements? Can you require visitors to sing and dance upon your command? How about strip? Can you set those as terms and conditions for visitors? If you legally can require visitors not to speak or to sing and dance and strip, then their failure to abide by your requirements violates your rights, and the law can redress your grievances.

Folks, there is no convenient exit strategy for getting out of these threads. Forgive me; I'm getting weary. Shall we start wrapping up cordially?

Jordan

Post 46

Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 9:09pm

Well, I have said it before, and I'll say it again, you have the right to ask such people to leave, and to call the police and have them removed if they do not. What is so hard to understand?

And what, specifically, does Objectivism have to do with this? Objectivism is a philosophy, not a special science. There is no such thing as Objectivist physics, Objectivist Medicine, or Objectivist law. Objectivist philosophy requires that law be objective. Not Objectivist, but objective. The two are quite different things. Any system of law which is reasonable, treats all men the same, is understood before hand, and protects rights from violation is okay. You can stop people from entering your land with a fence and a requirement that they sign a waiver to enter. Or you can build a walk, install a bell, and ask them to leave yourself if they are no longer welcome.

To think that the law exists to serve your whim, ahead of time, to require of visitors that they jump through invisible hoops as quick as you can invent them is absurd. The law is not the servant of you whim. What is so hard to understand?

Post 47

Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 9:40pm

Jordon,

I'm sure that over time whatever questions you have in this area will rise again, and perhaps at that time, your question will be understood in a way that brings you an answer

Post 48

Friday, February 13, 2009 - 4:37pm

Thanks Ed. That is the heart of the problem with Jordan's misunderstanding. He keeps regarding political freedom as some kind of literal physical freedom to do absolutely anything one wants to do. For example freedom means to Jordan I get to go up to a complete stranger and punch him in the nose. According to Jordan's take on the definition of freedom, if I can't do that, than I am having my freedoms restricted. He may agree that freedoms should be restricted, but he then confuses this as restricting a "right" i.e. political freedom. But he's equivocating political freedom with physical freedom. Political freedom includes some physical movements one is free to do without interference, but not any kind of physical movements, including assaulting someone or disposing of someone's property in a manner they did not consent to.

Jordan:

This little tangent on "freedom" is probably not worth it, but. .

No it is absolutely worth it because it is the source of your confusion.

It looks like you think you can dictate unabatedly what others do to or with your property. Ok fine; I do believe Objectivism has a basis for that, and I've said as much. But the question is more: what of others can you require that they do on your property? Can you require them not to speak? Not to wear shoes? Not to smoke? Not to blaspheme? What actions of the visitors' are subject to removal at the owner's discretion?

Jordan, have you ever walked into a diner, and read a sign that says "We have the right to refuse service to anyone"? Of course you can place any conditions on the disposal of your property, if you couldn't, it wouldn't be your property. To own means you have the right to dispose of it the way you want to dispose of it.

Whatever they are, those are the owner's "negative" requirements, but what about "positive" requirements? Can you require visitors to sing and dance upon your command?

You have to state clearly to your visitors what the requirements are for disposing of your property. If I hired musicians to sing at my bar, your damn right I can require them to sing on my command!

How about strip?

What do you think strip clubs do?

Can you set those as terms and conditions for visitors?

Sure, people do it all the time.

If you legally can require visitors not to speak or to sing and dance and strip, then their failure to abide by your requirements violates your rights, and the law can redress your grievances.

Yes. If someone for example was hired to sing and dance at my club and he fails to do so, he is in breach of contract. I can remove him from my property and seek compensatory damages from him in a civil court.

Post 49

Saturday, February 14, 2009 - 12:55pm

Like shooting fish in a barrel, John. Jordan asks, can I require them to strip. You reply, what do you think strip clubs do? I love it!

Jordan, what is your point? You're not aware of conditional interactions and associations? You're not aware of contractual agreements and obligations? These things are not unique to Objectivism.

- Bill

Post 50

Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 11:25am

John,

You have revealed that you do not have a clue as to my view.

Bill,

I'm well aware of all that, of course. What no one here is able to offer (with Objectivist underpinnings) is an understanding of what terms and conditions an owner may set for what others must do upon entering his land. Discussers keep responding with obvious concretes or aphorisms. For instance, one example of an obviously acceptable term for permission to enter is that you keep quiet. One obvious aphorism is that you cannot restrict a right that someone doesn't even have (i.e., the right to break one of those reasonable terms for permission to enter). (Other discussers offer solutions but without appeal to Objectivist principles.)

The problem is that no one here is dealing with the harder terms. I'm investigating how far Objectivism will let an owner go (legally) in setting terms -- and correlatively, how much a visitor may (legally) give up at the owner's discretion.

Apparently, under Objectivism, the visitor does not have a (legal) right to be noisy on an owner's land if being quiet is a term the owner sets for entry. So what if the owner *without notice* sets a *seriously crappy* term for permission to entry -- e.g., all visitors may be groped at the owner's discretion, or all visitors (not just strippers for chrissakes!) must sing, dance, and strip upon the owner's command? Are those acceptable terms, legally, under Objectivism? (The terms seem pretty morally reprehensible, but I'm investigating the terms under the law.) Put otherwise, under Objectivism, does the visitor forfeit the (legal) right to be free from being groped by the owner upon entering the owner's land if that is a term for entry? How bout being free not sing, dance, and strip at the owner's command? If the visitor resists, isn't she violating the (legal) rights of the owner? Shouldn't the owner be (legally) allowed to enforce his terms?

But apparently, I'm unable to convey the nature of the issue, and my fellow discussers are unable to grasp it.

Jordan

Post 51

Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 12:03pm

What makes you think, Jordan, that the law is the instrument of your arbitrary whim?

"So what if the owner *without notice* sets a *seriously crappy* term for permission to entry -- e.g., all visitors may be groped at the owner's discretion, or all visitors (not just strippers for chrissakes!) must sing, dance, and strip upon the owner's command?"

Okay, "without notice, seriously crappy"? Doesn't your "question" answer itself? Are you seriously suggesting that the state exists to enforce irrational demands? "Shouldn't the owner be (legally) allowed to enforce his terms?"

How many times does this need to be answered? You have the right to ask visitors to leave. This is the right the police will enforce for you.

They will not pull down your visitors' pants for you.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 2/15, 12:42pm)

Post 52

Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 12:04pm

Jordan,

I have to point out that you appear to be unwilling to grasp that the difficulty in communication here is yours, and not mine, Ryan's, Luke's, Ed's, Mindy's, Ted's, John's, or Bill's. Objectivism includes ethics and the fundamental principles of politics- but there is no Objectivist Law.

You are trying to create a conflict where one does not exist. You keep asking about increasingly strange situations - like the owner who wants to grope strangers on his land and to order them to sing and dance. But there are people with even weirder desires - all kinds of strange sexual fetishes that have people coming onto some owner's property to engage in really bizarre things. But they come onto his property voluntarily to do exactly those things. If they don't want to do those things he doesn't have a right to force them, he can only order them off his property. His property rights are actions that relate to his property and it's defense - not anything beyond them. The property owner can set any terms his twisted mind can conceive, and do so instantly, but they have to be voluntarily accepted by the guests and if they don't agree, the worst he can do is order them to leave. Those are observations that arise out of a simple understanding of individual rights. Why you are attempting to 'discover' legal rights that are inalienable that would run counter to this view of individual rights, and then ask about Objectivism's position is beyond me.

Post 53

Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 1:03pm

Ted,

Under Objectivism, the law allows one's arbitrary whims so long he, with his whims, doesn't initiate force upon others, and the law will protect that him, whether he is whimsicial or rational, if force is initiated against them.

Steve,

I accept that in a miscommunication, each side plays his part, each of us included. As I said in my last post, I can't seem to convey the issue, and you can't seem to grasp it. I accept that Objectivist Law is seriously underdeveloped, but I believe Rand laid the principles for it when speaking of the government's role and the nature of rights. I ask about "increasingly strange" situations to test the bounds of the principles. Obvious situations hardly help to identify those bounds.

As of now, it sounds like you and maybe Ted accept that owner's are within their rights when they set crappy terms, without notice, for permission to enter. But first, you don't say what happens when the owner acts on those terms -- like when he gropes a visitor. Is the owner within his (legal) rights to do that, meaning the visitor lacks recourse and would be initiating force against the owner by resisting? And second, I don't see how asking someone to leave is the most that can be done, as you and Ted would have it. That is not a reasonable request when someone breaks a (lawful) contract. When someone breaks a (lawful) contract, we don't simply let them out of it and walk on. Under Objectivism, that breaching party initiated force against the other party to the contract, and the victim of that contract breach is entitled to compensation -- whatever it takes to restore that victim's rights, not just what would prevent those rights from being violated again later.

Jordan

Post 54

Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 1:51pm

"Under Objectivism, the law allows one's arbitrary whims so long he, with his whims, doesn't initiate force upon others, and the law will protect that him, whether he is whimsical or rational, if force is initiated against them. "

Exactly. Which is why the law does not initiate the use of force against invited visitors to one's property. You speak of a person changing the terms of the implied contract unilaterally and arbitrarily. That is fine, in so far as the property holder gives his guests reasonable time to vacate the premises if they will not agree to the new terms.

An invitation to visit is simply that. To visit implies to be allowed to leave.

Unless the host has explicitly notified his guests of his intent to hold them subject to his every whim, this sort of action is the violation of an implied contract to allow the visitor (i.e., not prisoner) to leave. Even then, the law is not required to enforce every contract such as religious vows.

Rand explicitly mentioned her opposition to ex post facto law as non-Objective. The host must give his guests notice of his intentions and time to react to them, else he is indeed initiating ex post facto law, imagining that his whim acquires the force of law and coercive redress (forcing one's guests to strip at gunpoint) as soon as the internal whim state of the would be tyrant fluctuates.

Visitors cannot stay without permission, this is trespass. Visitors cannot be detained against their will, this is kidnap. This is all a matter of common law, not a special Objectivist doctrine.

Post 55

Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 4:10pm

Jordon,

You said, "I accept that Objectivist Law is seriously underdeveloped..."

There is no Objectivist Law and there never will be. Objectivism is a philosophy and it has parts like ethics and epistemology. It will never have a part called "law." Philosophy doesn't include any of the sciences, any of the arts, or any of the humanities - outside of it's role as a foundation - which is provided by the parts that it does have: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics and political philosophy.

There are layers of knowledge, and ethics is one of the layers needed as foundation for the law. The law is its own field. A given law will or won't be in accord with Objectivism, just like a given description in aeronautical engineering will or won't accord with physics.
----------------

Talking about crappy terms set by an owner, you said, "...you don't say what happens when the owner acts on those terms -- like when he gropes a visitor."

But Jordan, I did say. Twice. "If they don't want to do those things he doesn't have a right to force them, he can only order them off his property." And, "The property owner can set any terms his twisted mind can conceive, and do so instantly, but they have to be voluntarily accepted by the guests and if they don't agree, the worst he can do is order them to leave."
-----------------

You said, "...when someone breaks a (lawful) contract." What contract? You haven't been talking about a contract before - are you making this up as you go along? You have been asking about laws relative to Objectivism's view of property rights. Are you now deciding to discuss the enforcement of service contracts? Because that doesn't require going onto someone's property or not.

Post 56

Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 5:45pm

Jordan,

An owner can set whatever terms he chooses, so long as he gives visitors the opportunity to accept or reject them. What part of this don't you understand?

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 2/15, 5:46pm)

Post 57

Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 6:25pm

Jordan:

John,

You have revealed that you do not have a clue as to my view.

Considering how unintelligible your view is, that's probably true. I don't think that's my problem though. I think you just stubbornly refuse to make any effort to come to any understanding of what political freedom means.

Post 58

Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 6:31pm

Ted addressing Jordan:

Exactly. Which is why the law does not initiate the use of force against invited visitors to one's property. You speak of a person changing the terms of the implied contract unilaterally and arbitrarily. That is fine, in so far as the property holder gives his guests reasonable time to vacate the premises if they will not agree to the new terms.

Exactly. Enough said. You can't just unilaterally make changes to a contract, implied or explicit, without the consent of both parties. Because otherwise you would be initiating force, and thus violating someone's political freedom.

Post 59

Sunday, February 15, 2009 - 8:40pm