Fundamental Question #4

[The Terrible Sweal]

What are 'rights'? How do they come into being and/or from where? Who gets to have them and why?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Terrible Sweal,

What are 'rights'?

As Hugo would say, there is no such thing, is is a metaphysical thing, not a tangible thing.

How do they come into being and/or from where?

There really isn't anything to 'rights', save what you are granted by others. You cannot create your own, it is all about recognition by others.

Who gets to have them and why?

Rights are generated by power (same as property ownership), that being a gun, an army or a government. A 'right' comes into being when others aquiesce to your wants and or needs. Even life itself is only a right in the metaphysical, it is our hope that everybody else agrees, but even then there are no guarantees.

[Guest eureka]

Rights are what society agrees to allow its members in return for the abdication of their natural rights as animals.

The natural right is to fight for their survival and share in the bounties of the earth. Ane equal right for all. Rights are what can be agreed as a fair compromise to compensate for the loss of the right to steal and kill.

[RB]

Moses help with the development of rights.

But I believe there is a pecking order of who delivers and enforce rights.

[moderateamericain]

http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/textbook.htm

[Black Dog]

The problem with Rand's thaory is that there's a tremendous amount of room between the two extremes. In other words, it is possible to strike a balance between individual rights and the collective good that benefits both. In other words, Rand's equation is a false dichotomy.

[moderateamericain]

The problem with Rand's thaory is that there's a tremendous amount of room between the two extremes. In other words, it is possible to strike a balance between individual rights and the collective good that benefits both. In other words, Rand's equation is a false dichotomy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

in your opinion you mean.

[I Miss Trudeau]

in your opinion you mean.

No, not in BD's opinion. In reality.

[Guest eureka]

My main objection to Rand is to her making a virtual absolute of reason and her insistence that people will always behave rationally.

Both ideas are fallacious. Rand believes that there is a moral paradigm that will govern a "Free Market" while all experience shows that is not the case.

She was actually a reactionary ideologue who took her beliefs into assisting HUAC in persecuting a part of society that held different views.

I will say no more lest Hugo weighs in with screeds from the Libertarian manual.

[moderateamericain]

in your opinion you mean.

No, not in BD's opinion. In reality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

id forgotten that BD's opinions were absolute truth. my apology

yes i understand that Rand preaches zero tolerance for the ideal of "rob the rich, to feed the undeserving"

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear moderateamericain,

yes i understand that Rand preaches zero tolerance for the ideal of "rob the rich, to feed the undeserving"

Yes, the 'undeserving', quite.

[I Miss Trudeau]

She was actually a reactionary ideologue who took her beliefs into assisting HUAC in persecuting a part of society that held different views.

I think she was just enraged that the entire community of scholars saw her and her "philosophical" system as an object of derision, so she decided to get even.

[I Miss Trudeau]

id forgotten that BD's opinions were absolute truth. my apology

So, I assume that you will agree that it is impossible to be a "moderateamericain?" You have to be either an extreme liberal or extreme conservative, I guess. Which is it?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear moderateamericain,

Ayn Rand makes me puke. Besides, she is a classic anarchist, as is Hugo (who makes me want to think, not puke... thought I'd clarify), yet they commit an unpardonable sin of double-standards when they wish to quote 'law' yet deny collectivism. What is law but a collective agreement? If it isn't, it is oppression, the will of the few (or even majority) imposed upon those who do not wish it. Just as Hugo argues against the almighty power of the government, how can one accept the existence of 'law'? Or 'Rights', for that matter. Pure hypocrisy.

Edited May 9, 2005 by theloniusfleabag

[Hugo]

As you all seem to be putting words in my mouth I will speak in my own defence - if you can all forgive that, in your arrogance.

Ayn Rand is not an anarchist at all, but a minarchist. If you had read any of her texts, Thelonius, you would know that she advocates a state and state-provided monocentric law. This is the fundamental split between her and true anarchists such as Thoreau or Rothbard. Rothbard's theory of rights is the most advanced yet developed in political theory and is completely consistent. Of course, it leaves absolutely no room for any violence, including the state as the primary agent of violence in human society. Law does not have to be a collective argument at all, which you would know, Thelonius, if you had studied Rothbard or David Friedman at all, and examined their theories of polycentric, market-provided law.

The fact is that the state requires a huge double standard in rights. The state daily commits violations of property rights (taxation), yet for the state to even exist this must be the case. The state also reserves the right to kidnap (conscription), to murder (resisting arrest), to racketeer (those who attempt to offer services similar to state monopolies risk fines and imprisonment) and so forth. Because the state is based on coercion it violates all notions of rights, because any rights theory based on coercion can be ultimately reduced to full rights for only one person, and none for anyone else. Rights theory that involves a state basically creates one set of laws for the ruled, and another for the rulers.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

Ayn Rand is not an anarchist at all, but a minarchist. If you had read any of her texts, Thelonius, you would know that she advocates a state and state-provided monocentric law

I have a copy of "We, The Living", and started it twice, but the taste of the bile in my throat became overwhelming. I guess, however, that by your definition she is a 'Conservative', not a true anarchist.

because any rights theory based on coercion can be ultimately reduced to full rights for only one person, and none for anyone else.

Dear Hugo, this is the entire premise of anarchy! Every other derivitive implies "with the exception of...", whether it be based in Fantasyland or in 'Big Man' Thingi, Iceland, it means the immediate and total exclusion of rights from anyone else but yourself. Then, you negotiate what they will or will not have as 'rights' in your eyes, an endless and impossible process.

However, I do promise to read some Thoreau and Rothbard, but Rand? Yeccch.

[Hugo]

I guess, however, that by your definition she is a 'Conservative', not a true anarchist.

No, and this is her self-contradiction. She also has far too many peculiar habits, such as the championing of "captains of industry" as superheroes, when anarcho-capitalists are aware that they are just men and as fallible as anyone else.

Dear Hugo, this is the entire premise of anarchy!

No. The premises of anarchy can be summed up in two statements:

1) Keep your hands to yourself.

2) Mind your own business.

Basically, anarchy depends upon full property rights that can only be alienated by the holder. The existence of a state depends upon a person being able to abrogate anothers rights, in the case of a monarchy, the king, in a democracy, the majority voters.

Every other derivitive implies "with the exception of..."

Then give an example, and I will be happy to explain to you why it is that you are wrong.

However, I do promise to read some Thoreau and Rothbard

Thoreau's writing is beautiful and a pleasure to read. Rothbard is downright funny in places, but generally less poetic than Thoreau. I would, however, recommend both above Rand. If you want to read minarchist theory, I suggest von Mises, he is far easier to read and has a much more pleasant style.

it means the immediate and total exclusion of rights from anyone else but yourself

Rights to what - my body and my property? You are absolutely right! And what is more, it means that my rights to other peoples bodies and property are also immediately and totally revoked, too. If I want anything from anyone else, I will have to resort to persuasion, but never violence, as the state only can.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... the state as the primary agent of violence in human society. 

The problem with this formulation is that it implies a state which has an existence/agency separate from the collected individuals comprising it. Such separation is imaginary.

... market-provided law.

The market, and any law it "provides", is a collective undertaking.

... any rights theory based on coercion can be ultimately reduced to full rights for only one person, and none for anyone else.

Any practical uderstanding of the concept of rights necessarily implies that violations thereof will be coercively prevented if necessary.

But anyway, Hugo, what are your answers to the fundamental questuons of this thread?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Basically, anarchy depends upon full property rights that can only be alienated by the holder.

Unfortunately, there is no discernible meaning in that sentence, until some sensible understanding of 'proprerty' and 'rights' is acheived.

The existence of a state depends upon a person being able to abrogate anothers rights,

No. The state arises from the claim that an individual's 'rights' end where those of the others begin. The state is the means of enforcing this principle.

Rights to what - ... my property?

Yet again, this ignores the essential: what makes it yours?

[moderateamericain]

She was actually a reactionary ideologue who took her beliefs into assisting HUAC in persecuting a part of society that held different views.

I think she was just enraged that the entire community of scholars saw her and her "philosophical" system as an object of derision, so she decided to get even.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

under BD's interpetation you are either liberal extreme or conservative extreme. yes, if BD's responses were absolute truth then i would be in error in calling myself "moderate", but answer me this, if i prefer a republic with very limited governmental power, but i support abortion, which am i? you could argue i was liberal for supporting abortion, but yet i am extreme conservative for supporting a laissez faire style of government. therefore, i fall into neither category, thus proving Black dog wrong, therefore i must conclude that BD is not Absolute truth.

/sarcasm

excuse me i quoted the wrong quote. plz ignore poster.

[Guest eureka]

Could you be schizophrenic!

[I Miss Trudeau]

under BD's interpetation you are either liberal extreme or conservative extreme. 

Read the thread again. You're very confused.

yes, if BD's responses were absolute truth

I wouldn't say "absolute truth" (whatever that means), bur rather "accurate," "correct," or just plain old "true."

then i would be in error in calling myself "moderate",  but answer me this, if i prefer a republic with very limited governmental power, but i support abortion, which am i?  you could argue i was liberal for supporting abortion, but yet i am extreme conservative for supporting a laissez faire style of government.  therefore, i fall into neither category, thus proving Black dog wrong, therefore i must conclude that BD is not Absolute truth.

You're very confused. You've just supported BD's point.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Terrible Sweal,

Unfortunately, there is no discernible meaning in that sentence, until some sensible understanding of 'proprerty' and 'rights' is acheived

and again

Yet again, this ignores the essential: what makes it yours?

I think this may warrant an independent thread, as you have been doing, with your "Fundamental Questions". I have been thingking of some format to have these and other basic theories examined in their 'theorectical, pure form', but I haven't had the time recently. I also wasn't sure which category to put it under, Federal Politics (as it directly pertains to how our and other gov'ts process reality through dogmatic formulae) or under Moral and Religious Issues, as they are all founded on the moral principles of individuals, no matter how extreme.

[moderateamericain]

She was actually a reactionary ideologue who took her beliefs into assisting HUAC in persecuting a part of society that held different views.

I think she was just enraged that the entire community of scholars saw her and her "philosophical" system as an object of derision, so she decided to get even.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

under BD's interpetation you are either liberal extreme or conservative extreme. yes, if BD's responses were absolute truth then i would be in error in calling myself "moderate", but answer me this, if i prefer a republic with very limited governmental power, but i support abortion, which am i? you could argue i was liberal for supporting abortion, but yet i am extreme conservative for supporting a laissez faire style of government. therefore, i fall into neither category, thus proving Black dog wrong, therefore i must conclude that BD is not Absolute truth.

/sarcasm

excuse me i quoted the wrong quote. plz ignore poster.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no in point of fact im not a schitzo, and i dont appreciate the personal attack, which could be construed as a violation of the terms of service. but being the fair man that i am, ill let it slide.

To believe completely in extremist liberal ideals makes someone an extremist liberal; conversly to believe in extreme conservative values makes one an extreme conservative.

Now if i analyze each spectrum of (left and right for lack of better word) and draw conclusions based on my own opinion, drawn from my own values, and not from a political affiliation values, that makes me MODERATE. So if i, for example, support abortion, but not a government controlled market, that makes me neither extreme liberal or extreme conservative. thus its safe to say im some where in the middle. therefore it is possible to be neither extreme liberal or conservative.

[Black Dog]

I don't think I made my poasitionon rand clear enough earlier: she was a kook. Her writing was turgid, self-congratulatory and rife with contradictions.

Anyway, ModAm, I'm very flattered by all the attention you've been giving me, but you should realize that this is a discussion board and, as such, all views expressed herin represent the opinion of the poster. That said, some opinions are closer to the mark than others.