[ ]      [ ]   [ ]

2016 Elections - Beaker - Sep 28, 2016 - 11:28am
 
RP3 Beta Player - buddy - Sep 28, 2016 - 11:03am
 
Donald Trump and the exodus to Canada - sirdroseph - Sep 28, 2016 - 10:59am
 
ONE WORD - Red_Dragon - Sep 28, 2016 - 10:36am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 28, 2016 - 10:29am
 
Films you're excited about. - Red_Dragon - Sep 28, 2016 - 9:23am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - lily34 - Sep 28, 2016 - 8:05am
 
Regarding dogs - sirdroseph - Sep 28, 2016 - 7:27am
 
Ask the Libertarian - oldviolin - Sep 28, 2016 - 7:02am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Sep 28, 2016 - 6:12am
 
Make Lily34 Laugh - lily34 - Sep 28, 2016 - 6:05am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos; Please Limit to 510 ... - fractalv - Sep 27, 2016 - 9:48pm
 
Trump - kcar - Sep 27, 2016 - 9:45pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - Red_Dragon - Sep 27, 2016 - 8:00pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - oppositelock - Sep 27, 2016 - 7:51pm
 
how do you feel right now? - PoundPuppy - Sep 27, 2016 - 7:00pm
 
What Makes You Sad? - GeneP59 - Sep 27, 2016 - 7:00pm
 
The Obituary Page - GeneP59 - Sep 27, 2016 - 6:49pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - pontfarrer - Sep 27, 2016 - 6:33pm
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - GeneP59 - Sep 27, 2016 - 5:49pm
 
Back to the 00's - rhahl - Sep 27, 2016 - 5:25pm
 
Caretakers Of Our Parents - FourFortyEight - Sep 27, 2016 - 4:46pm
 
Regarding cats - DaveInVA - Sep 27, 2016 - 3:38pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Antigone - Sep 27, 2016 - 3:33pm
 
Would you drive this car for dating with ur girl? - DaveInVA - Sep 27, 2016 - 1:27pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Sep 27, 2016 - 12:46pm
 
Name My Band - Red_Dragon - Sep 27, 2016 - 12:34pm
 
Coffee - miamizsun - Sep 27, 2016 - 11:55am
 
Question for hard-core Firefox techies - BillG - Sep 27, 2016 - 11:52am
 
Books read recently - rhahl - Sep 27, 2016 - 10:27am
 
Science benefitting us old codgers - aflanigan - Sep 27, 2016 - 9:08am
 
Word of the Day - lily34 - Sep 27, 2016 - 6:45am
 
Poetry Forum - Manbird - Sep 26, 2016 - 9:57pm
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - Sep 26, 2016 - 7:33pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - oldviolin - Sep 26, 2016 - 5:07pm
 
DQ (as in 'Daily Quote') - oldviolin - Sep 26, 2016 - 4:50pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - oldviolin - Sep 26, 2016 - 4:21pm
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - DaveInVA - Sep 26, 2016 - 2:54pm
 
Make Jrzy Laugh - JrzyTmata - Sep 26, 2016 - 1:56pm
 
How's the weather? - BlueHeronDruid - Sep 26, 2016 - 12:40pm
 
Jrzy Updates - JrzyTmata - Sep 26, 2016 - 12:27pm
 
Unindicted felon: candidate Hillary Clinton - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Sep 26, 2016 - 10:26am
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - lily34 - Sep 26, 2016 - 8:59am
 
What makes you smile? - Coaxial - Sep 26, 2016 - 7:16am
 
Beer - Proclivities - Sep 26, 2016 - 6:52am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - kurtster - Sep 25, 2016 - 7:01pm
 
Australia has Disappeared - haresfur - Sep 25, 2016 - 5:08pm
 
The war on Funk is over! - rhahl - Sep 25, 2016 - 5:05pm
 
What Did You Do Today? - triskele - Sep 25, 2016 - 4:46pm
 
Back to the 90's - rhahl - Sep 25, 2016 - 3:16pm
 
Back to the 10's - rhahl - Sep 25, 2016 - 2:58pm
 
FOUR WORDS - rmgman - Sep 25, 2016 - 2:23pm
 
THREE WORDS - rmgman - Sep 25, 2016 - 2:22pm
 
TWO WORDS - rmgman - Sep 25, 2016 - 2:21pm
 
Cloud Gazing (Photos You've Taken) - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Sep 25, 2016 - 1:10pm
 
Back to the 60's - rhahl - Sep 25, 2016 - 11:14am
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Sep 25, 2016 - 10:55am
 
punk? hip-hop? metal? noise? garage? - rhahl - Sep 25, 2016 - 10:29am
 
songs that ROCK! - rhahl - Sep 25, 2016 - 7:46am
 
Protest Songs - kurtster - Sep 25, 2016 - 3:28am
 
Show us your NEW _______________!!!! - JrzyTmata - Sep 24, 2016 - 5:00pm
 
Back to the 70's - rhahl - Sep 24, 2016 - 3:12pm
 
Curious; why is RP discontinuing the merchandise? - Steely_D - Sep 24, 2016 - 10:56am
 
The All-Things Beatles Forum - miamizsun - Sep 24, 2016 - 10:46am
 
Questions. - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 23, 2016 - 8:32pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - ScottFromWyoming - Sep 23, 2016 - 8:27pm
 
No more commercials please - aflanigan - Sep 23, 2016 - 1:59pm
 
Celebrity News - DaveInVA - Sep 23, 2016 - 1:41pm
 
Best Song Comments. - Proclivities - Sep 23, 2016 - 11:30am
 
RPeeps I miss. - Antigone - Sep 23, 2016 - 10:47am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - LowPhreak - Sep 23, 2016 - 10:00am
 
Re-written stories or headlines - Red_Dragon - Sep 23, 2016 - 9:48am
 
End of the Journals ? - steeler - Sep 23, 2016 - 6:40am
 
Covers that are better than the original - olivertwist - Sep 22, 2016 - 4:21pm
 
Surfing! - miamizsun - Sep 22, 2016 - 3:36pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Ask the Libertarian Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 147, 148, 149  Next
Post to this Topic
oldviolin
ab origine
oldviolin Avatar

Location: esse quam videri
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Leo


Posted: Sep 28, 2016 - 7:02am

{#Good-vibes}
rexi

rexi Avatar

Location: far out
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Sep 28, 2016 - 1:31am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Likewise, I really like our discussions,

as this opens up the forum for discussion, makes everything much more flexible, avoids the need for mental contortions and we can all sit down and decide how we are going to play this game. There are no meta-ethics, just the plain vanilla ones we choose. 
 
I admire the both of you for your civility. I don't know how you do it, I'm already having flash backs of Ground Hog Day.
But anyway, I think it is precisely the flexibility you mention that they are trying to argue away. If only it could be made to disappear, there would be less wiggle room for abuse by the powers that be. That seems to be the main motivation, imo. The quest for certainty at more or less any cost. Deontologists need to find laws of nature to justify the laws of man. I personally think a consequentualist approach to designing laws is more promising and does not in any way preclude the rule of law, as opposed to the rule by law (of the powerful).
NoEnzLefttoSplit
Being Norwegian is over-rated.
NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male
Zodiac: Taurus
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Sep 27, 2016 - 11:54pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

Thanks, end of a long-assed day here and I'm working on my second glass of Madeira so my coherent time is limited. Fun discussion so far, way too target-rich an environment for me to keep up, but nicely civil so far. {#Cheers}

As for my question:  I'm just pointing out that without rights there is not framework under which I need pay any attention at all to what you want or require. If you require that I refrain from insisting you have rights you're asserting some kind of right to insist I refrain.

I cannot endow you with rights, you already have them. I can only recognize them, and either respect them or fail to do so. Rights being violated does not make them disappear, they are just being violated. Yes (for the I-don't-know-how-manyeth-time) rights matter only in a social context, as they govern relations between people (read "sentient beings" if you prefer for dealing with invading aliens) and have no effect when you find yourself alone on a desert island. You can only violate someone else's rights and yours can only be violated by someone else. The absence of recourse to enforce your rights doesn't eliminate them any more than all the stores being closed means you don't have any money. The case for rights is a moral argument, not a legal or utilitarian one.

If moral arguments don't matter then human interaction is all about power and nothing more. Think about your Amnesty International example: the jailer may see AI wielding power, but what gets all those people to write those letters? AI has no power to make them, just a moral argument.

And again (forgive me for not doing in a forum post what took Robert Nozick—who is way better at this than I am—a whole book to do) rights being intangible doesn't make them fictional. We can tell each other true stories as well as false. There are no lines of longitude and latitude on the ground, but they accurately describe the location of every point on the globe. They are intangible, but they are not fictional—and damned useful. Insisting they don't exist doesn't take any spot on the earth off the map, and a spot on the earth we can't reach doesn't mean we can't describe its position.

 
Likewise, I really like our discussions, even if I can't match your reading.. currently ploughing though the selfish gene (I know, I am that late to the party).. and realising I should go and brush up on game theory again, which I remember digesting with some distaste many years ago..  and to do you justice I have just put Nozick on the reading list.

But for now, I am not saying that rights do not exist, I am merely saying they exist in the collective consciousness (sorry if that phrase makes you choke, but yes, I believe there is such a thing). They are like money. Credit. That particular word is in itself another word for belief. Money only works as an instrument of exchange when we collectively believe in it. Not just you and me, but the bloke down the road as well, because then I am happy to sell you my artichokes for dollars with which I can buy my pastis from him. The actual form the money takes, be it shells, shekels, or securitised debt, doesn't matter. It only works when we (or enough of us) collectively believe in it. It is a collective fiction. This doesn't mean it doesn't work as a system of social organisation. In fact it works brilliantly precisely because it is a collective fiction. It is the same with rights. We don't need to posit them as some intangible out there existing independent of any human existence. This is kind of reminiscent of the concept of aether and the Michelson-Morley experiment, if you pardon the analogy.

In other words, it is sufficient to posit them as a product of a collective fiction. Works fine, we don't need aether to explain the movement of light through space either. In fact I think it works much better when you  ditch the need for a prime mover or "objective existence independent of the mind of man" on which to base your moral edifice as this opens up the forum for discussion, makes everything much more flexible, avoids the need for mental contortions and we can all sit down and decide how we are going to play this game. There are no meta-ethics, just the plain vanilla ones we choose. This doesn't make them any weaker. Likewise, it does not make my belief any less cogent, when I acknowledge that it is a belief and all I can appeal to when moving around the game board is that we share beliefs.

Or do you believe in the objective existence of a dollar (independent of the mind of man) on which our entire financial system is based?

PS as for this:

As for my question:  I'm just pointing out that without rights there is not framework under which I need pay any attention at all to what you want or require. If you require that I refrain from insisting you have rights you're asserting some kind of right to insist I refrain.


I am not insisting that you refrain from insisting that I have rights. You are quite welcome to your own beliefs. Just as if you told me God loves me. Well, thanks. Same thing. I feel blessed!


 


Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 27, 2016 - 10:20pm

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
Good morning.. sitting here with my first coffee of the day, it's tipping down outside and I'm contemplating how long I can postpone the trauma of getting out and facing the day... so my brain might not be firing on all cylinders at the moment..  whatever, 

Firstly, forgive me for not answering your question.. the reason I didn't is because it is a tautology (your point I guess). You are quite welcome to endow me with rights if you so wish. In fact I am quite partial to people, legal systems, foreigners and while we are at it, aliens, endowing me with rights. Experience has shown to me that I have a much better time of it when people endow me with rights so I have no problem with people doing it. My point is merely that this act of endowing someone with rights is in the head of the person doing the endowing. When we have a body politic doing this on a collective basis we even get something approaching a norm and by extension a body of law arising from it. I am a fan of this (when it suits me and the people dear to me). This doesn't make them any more or less a product of  a mental act, a fiction, a collective belief system.

This has two implications: first, an individual whose concept of rights is not shared (let's say by an invading army of sensate aliens or tax collectors) is bereft of all recourse to his imagined rights. Second, and the corollary of the first: rights only take on material substance when they are acknowledged and practiced by a collective.

you once argued that under my reasoning a political prisoner who is incarcerated or tortured under a brutal regime has no rights because no one in his environment acknowledges them except the prisoner himself.

Well, yes, precisely! This is an excellent argument, for it illustrates the power of the collective: only when the odd guard or two takes compassion, or a movement like Amnesty brings this situation into the collective consciousness, and there is a groundswell of opposition to the prisoner's plight will his rights "materialise" - in the wider sense of taking on material significance.

Now, maybe I should go and earn some money.   enjoy your evening! 

Thanks, end of a long-assed day here and I'm working on my second glass of Madeira so my coherent time is limited. Fun discussion so far, way too target-rich an environment for me to keep up, but nicely civil so far. {#Cheers}

As for my question:  I'm just pointing out that without rights there is not framework under which I need pay any attention at all to what you want or require. If you require that I refrain from insisting you have rights you're asserting some kind of right to insist I refrain.

I cannot endow you with rights, you already have them. I can only recognize them, and either respect them or fail to do so. Rights being violated does not make them disappear, they are just being violated. Yes (for the I-don't-know-how-manyeth-time) rights matter only in a social context, as they govern relations between people (read "sentient beings" if you prefer for dealing with invading aliens) and have no effect when you find yourself alone on a desert island. You can only violate someone else's rights and yours can only be violated by someone else. The absence of recourse to enforce your rights doesn't eliminate them any more than all the stores being closed means you don't have any money. The case for rights is a moral argument, not a legal or utilitarian one.

If moral arguments don't matter then human interaction is all about power and nothing more. Think about your Amnesty International example: the jailer may see AI wielding power, but what gets all those people to write those letters? AI has no power to make them, just a moral argument.

And again (forgive me for not doing in a forum post what took Robert Nozick—who is way better at this than I am—a whole book to do) rights being intangible doesn't make them fictional. We can tell each other true stories as well as false. There are no lines of longitude and latitude on the ground, but they accurately describe the location of every point on the globe. They are intangible, but they are not fictional—and damned useful. Insisting they don't exist doesn't take any spot on the earth off the map, and a spot on the earth we can't reach doesn't mean we can't describe its position.
rexi

rexi Avatar

Location: far out
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Sep 27, 2016 - 2:19pm

 miamizsun wrote:

the idea of wikipedia is great

the challenge is who edits (especially history and politics)

i think it is very unlikely that many or any "libertarians" are granted an editorial pass

there may be some editors who have libertarian notions or leanings of human rights, peace and/or prosperity, etc.

one notable hatchet job i found is on wiki is dr carlos finlay

so your inquiry is on liberty as opposed to property?

we would need to define property (which you didn't do)

my current definition of property, which i agree with isn't necessarily libertarian but obviously overlaps

there are three forms of property

from wiki

Property

Galambos’ concept of property was basic to his philosophy. He defined property as a man’s life and all non-procreative derivatives of his life.

Galambos taught that property is essential to a non-coercive social structure. That is why he defined freedom as follows: “Freedom is the societal condition that exists when every individual has full (100%) control over his own property.”Galambos defines property as having the following elements:

  • Primordial property, which is an individual’s life
  • Primary property, which includes ideas, thoughts, and actions
  • Secondary property, which includes all tangible and intangible possessions which are derivatives of the individual's primary property.

Property includes all non-procreative derivatives of an individual’s life; this means children are not the property of their parents,and also "primary property" (a person's own ideas).

Galambos emphasized repeatedly that true government exists to protect property and that the state attacks property.



 
Everyone wants to be free. Most will choose liberty, however defined, among other goods, when considering what makes them happy. Almost no one will agree that a society that chooses to protect private property above all other possible goods will be particukarly free, let alone happy. Those who do should thus rather be called propertarian than libertarian.
rhahl
If it sounds good, it is good.
rhahl Avatar



Posted: Sep 27, 2016 - 1:11pm

 aflanigan wrote:

Most people who argue economics in these forums are aware that the Economics prize is not a real Nobel Prize, just like Economics is not a real science.

 
So was I. That story is very enlightening about how the libertarians came to power. And the picture is pretty good.


aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Sep 27, 2016 - 1:04pm

 rhahl wrote:

The Nobel Prize in Economics? There Is No Nobel Prize in Economics
http://exiledonline.com/the-nobel-prize-in-economics-there-is-no-nobel-prize-in-economics/

 
Most people who argue economics in these forums are aware that the Economics prize is not a real Nobel Prize, just like Economics is not a real science.
rhahl
If it sounds good, it is good.
rhahl Avatar



Posted: Sep 27, 2016 - 12:59pm



The Nobel Prize in Economics? There Is No Nobel Prize in Economics
http://exiledonline.com/the-nobel-prize-in-economics-there-is-no-nobel-prize-in-economics/
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 27, 2016 - 4:30am

 rexi wrote:
I like the term because it emphasizes property, as opposed to liberty, which is more in line with my perception. I don't like this particualr definition of the term because, judging by the tendentious wording, my guess is it was written by a libertarian.
 
the idea of wikipedia is great

the challenge is who edits (especially history and politics)

i think it is very unlikely that many or any "libertarians" are granted an editorial pass

there may be some editors who have libertarian notions or leanings of human rights, peace and/or prosperity, etc.

one notable hatchet job i found is on wiki is dr carlos finlay

so your inquiry is on liberty as opposed to property?

we would need to define property (which you didn't do)

my current definition of property, which i agree with isn't necessarily libertarian but obviously overlaps

there are three forms of property

from wiki

Property

Galambos’ concept of property was basic to his philosophy. He defined property as a man’s life and all non-procreative derivatives of his life.

Galambos taught that property is essential to a non-coercive social structure. That is why he defined freedom as follows: “Freedom is the societal condition that exists when every individual has full (100%) control over his own property.”Galambos defines property as having the following elements:

  • Primordial property, which is an individual’s life
  • Primary property, which includes ideas, thoughts, and actions
  • Secondary property, which includes all tangible and intangible possessions which are derivatives of the individual's primary property.

Property includes all non-procreative derivatives of an individual’s life; this means children are not the property of their parents,and also "primary property" (a person's own ideas).

Galambos emphasized repeatedly that true government exists to protect property and that the state attacks property.




rexi

rexi Avatar

Location: far out
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Sep 27, 2016 - 1:52am

  1. The bible reads: Thou shall not kill. For Christians, the bible is God’s word and not killing is thus a divine commandment and, conversely, not being killed a divine right.

  2. There exists an inalienable right not to be killed. For believers in natural law this is an ontological certainty from which one can derive justification for punitive state action on behalf of victims and / or personal retaliation.

  3. Personal wellbeing depends strongly on the integrity of one’s body and mind and history has shown that ignoring this will have deleterious effects on society. The best way to avoid such effects is by having the collective impose norms that prevent or at least minimize human casualties. Sadly, avoidance is not always in the interest of all, and thus there are exceptions to the rule, most notably when it comes to protecting  entities such as the nation state.

 

From a logical point of view, 1) and 2) are identical. Even if the believer in 2) does not believe in a deity, he or she will have to come up with some sort of origins story to justify the purported real existence of said natural law / to logically argue what is in effect a leap of faith. In the case of property rights, the Lockean proviso is such an origins story - or a convenient fiction, as Enzie puts it.

 

In all three cases, there is no way around getting together, finding a consensus and  fleshing out man-made laws which, in the best case, a majority will agree with and all will have to subordinate to. And the problem with having proponents of 1) and 2) at the table is the prejudice, quite literally, one has to first break through before a consensus can be found.


rexi

rexi Avatar

Location: far out
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Sep 27, 2016 - 12:40am

 miamizsun wrote:
a bit crushed at work

how are we defining propertarian? 

will this work? (from wikipedia)
Propertarianism is an ethical discipline within libertarian philosophy that advocates contractual relationships as replacements for monopolistic bureaucracies organized as states. 


 
I like the term because it emphasizes property, as opposed to liberty, which is more in line with my perception. I don't like this particualr definition of the term because, judging by the tendentious wording, my guess is it was written by a libertarian.
NoEnzLefttoSplit
Being Norwegian is over-rated.
NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male
Zodiac: Taurus
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Sep 26, 2016 - 10:53pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

Equality of rights doesn't mean equality every aspect of life. My inability to play basketball like Lebron James doesn't mean my rights to play basketball are being violated. And if you want to find starving people the best place s to look is where rights are not acknowledged or respected.

Where the Enlightenment philosophers (including Locke) fell short was not in their formulation of the rights of humans but in who they considered human. We've made significant progress since then without changing the fundamental concept because the fundamental concept is sound.

Locke was not trying to justify the emerging new order, that order was (at least in the case of the American revolution) a hundred years in the future. He was laying the intellectual foundations that would inspire it.

We may disagree on what they are, but as to the question of whether they exist at all I'm going to repeat a question from an earlier conversation that you've never answered:

And—silly me—here I am trying to convince you that you have rights that I must respect. And I shouldn't try to impose this on you because it would violate your...rights? That I should respect?


 
Good morning.. sitting here with my first coffee of the day, it's tipping down outside and I'm contemplating how long I can postpone the trauma of getting out and facing the day... so my brain might not be firing on all cylinders at the moment..  whatever, 

Firstly, forgive me for not answering your question.. the reason I didn't is because it is a tautology (your point I guess). You are quite welcome to endow me with rights if you so wish. In fact I am quite partial to people, legal systems, foreigners and while we are at it, aliens, endowing me with rights. Experience has shown to me that I have a much better time of it when people endow me with rights so I have no problem with people doing it. My point is merely that this act of endowing someone with rights is in the head of the person doing the endowing. When we have a body politic doing this on a collective basis we even get something approaching a norm and by extension a body of law arising from it. I am a fan of this (when it suits me and the people dear to me). This doesn't make them any more or less a product of  a mental act, a fiction, a collective belief system.

This has two implications: first, an individual whose concept of rights is not shared (let's say by an invading army of sensate aliens or tax collectors) is bereft of all recourse to his imagined rights. Second, and the corollary of the first: rights only take on material substance when they are acknowledged and practiced by a collective.

you once argued that under my reasoning a political prisoner who is incarcerated or tortured under a brutal regime has no rights because no one in his environment acknowledges them except the prisoner himself.

Well, yes, precisely! This is an excellent argument, for it illustrates the power of the collective: only when the odd guard or two takes compassion, or a movement like Amnesty brings this situation into the collective consciousness, and there is a groundswell of opposition to the prisoner's plight will his rights "materialise" - in the wider sense of taking on material significance.

Now, maybe I should go and earn some money.   enjoy your evening! 


Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 26, 2016 - 10:24pm

NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
Ok, I get you. You are going back to the origins of the American Declaration of Independence and the foundations of the Enlightenment... a social upheaval that originated in revolts against various monarchies by "free" men in the colonies and the bourgeousie back in Europe and whose full implications are still getting teased out. In the beginning though, they were thinking of a certain class of individual when they came up with these ideas and this is why Locke had no problem with investing in slaves while simultaneously espousing the rights of man. Moreover, in a revolution, where the old authority is no longer recognised, there is always a scramble to install some kind of foundation for a new one. Locke, like many in his day, was struggling to find some objective rationalisation for the new order - one reason why he came up with his rather naive "mixing his labour" idea to establish the origin of property rights, basically a bourgeois reaction against the land-owning gentry. 

Now, before anyone gets me wrong, I am a great fan of the concept of inalienable rights and do believe they have led to an improvement in the lives of millions. That said, they are just as much a fiction as any religion out there. The Declaration of Independence even reads like the credo:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
This is pure fiction. A very nice fiction but it will only work when we all believe in it or, gasp, the elected governments resort to coercion against those free radicals out there who beg to differ with the elected majority. So my charge against Libertarianism still stands: it is a contradiction in terms. You can't simultaneously set as your credo a set of negative rights and then "impose" them on the wider population, for that would be an exercise of positive rights or coercion in your parlance. So you are left castrated, hoping that reason and argument will win over converts to your new church.

And that is just the underpinnings of it. The last gazillion pages have covered how libertarianism might not even enshrine the very fundamentals of its credo. If all men are created equal, how can people be born into different (and entrenched) wealth regimes? What does equal even mean in that context other than some vacuous abstract right that doesn't even save you from starving when others are living in a world of abundance?

Equality of rights doesn't mean equality every aspect of life. My inability to play basketball like Lebron James doesn't mean my rights to play basketball are being violated. And if you want to find starving people the best place s to look is where rights are not acknowledged or respected.

Where the Enlightenment philosophers (including Locke) fell short was not in their formulation of the rights of humans but in who they considered human. We've made significant progress since then without changing the fundamental concept because the fundamental concept is sound.

Locke was not trying to justify the emerging new order, that order was (at least in the case of the American revolution) a hundred years in the future. He was laying the intellectual foundations that would inspire it.

We may disagree on what they are, but as to the question of whether they exist at all I'm going to repeat a question from an earlier conversation that you've never answered:

And—silly me—here I am trying to convince you that you have rights that I must respect. And I shouldn't try to impose this on you because it would violate your...rights? That I should respect?

kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Sep 26, 2016 - 9:27pm

 islander wrote:

Well said. I'm with you on this. I like a lot of the ideas of libertarianism, but I have real issues with the way they (general/larger they) refuse to acknowledge that we exist within a community that benefits us all, and that has value and should be supported. 

 
Not to be too much of a snark, but I sum up the boldfaced bit above as "they refuse to acknowledge reality." 

I got a bit lost in Lazy8's posts but it struck me that his mention of individual rights was overly broad and lacking in discussion of the scope or limitations of those rights. (I don't mean to pick on Lazy8 but he fleshed out a Libertarian position more than others). His positions seemed to delegitimize any attempt at collective action not solely focused on the protection of individual rights.

 

Lazy8 wrote on 9/16/16 @ 6:22pm (emphasis is mine):

"People enthusiastic for lots of laws to guide and manipulate society tend to look at the law as a fence, a boundary that keeps people on a certain path. This is absolutely not how laws work; they are more like a minefield. A wall keeps you on one side; a minefield punishes you for stepping on the other. It doesn't always punish you; sometimes you're lucky and your foot misses the mine, sometimes the mine is a dud, sometimes you're a well-connected person who can call on allies who administer the minefield to give you a pass. And sometimes mines go off and clobber you when you haven't left the path at all.

So having a lofty goal (reducing obesity, or preventing drunk driving, or whatever) isn't enough. You're threatening people with violence. There are very very few reasons worth that threat, and they directly relate to behavior that violates people's rights."
  

While certain sections of the law are in need of pruning (miamizsun, again, has pointed to lawyers decrying the excessive growth and vagueness in recent federal criminal law), the law in general is not an incomprehensible minefield. And every law, even Lazy8's best laws (the ones devoted solely to the protection of individual rights, if I read him correctly) has the threat of state violence behind them. Without the power of enforcement backing it, any law is meaningless. 

Communities of voters do have the right to enact lofty goals such as the reduction of drunk driving and the wearing of seat belts and the possession of health insurance, provided those lofty goals don't infringe on a core group of individual rights or violate commonly agreed-upon rules of government such as the Constitution. Not all individual rights are equally inviolable. Every community has to find a balance between collective action and individual rights, because any collective action will likely infringe on some individual rights. Without the ability to legally ground collective actions and enforce obedience to them, a community of voters wouldn't get anything done or even remain a community. 

I don't understand the Libertarian response to the notion of collective action. Maybe I don't have it right, but...
.

As for this topic thread's discussion of natural laws...were y'all referring to this sort of thing?:

"Natural law is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature and can be universally understood through human reason. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The law of nature, as it is determined by nature, is universal."


Admittedly, I haven't read much at all on the concept, but it strikes me as a laughable idea best left back in the days of the Enlightenment era. 



miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 26, 2016 - 11:26am

a bit crushed at work

how are we defining propertarian? 

will this work? (from wikipedia)
Propertarianism is an ethical discipline within libertarian philosophy that advocates contractual relationships as replacements for monopolistic bureaucracies organized as states. 



rexi

rexi Avatar

Location: far out
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Sep 26, 2016 - 10:48am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Actually, I think our views are diametrically opposed. Where Lazy8 is of the belief that natural rights are founded in objective reality, I believe they don't exist except in the collective minds of citizens.

The distinction is important, as when you accept this, you can get rid of a pile of dogma and sit down around a table with people who believe in different fictions and hammer out some kind of consensual solution on an ad hoc basis ... whatever works best for all involved. All morals and rights have their sole foundation, not in God or objective reality, but in the collective fiction. 

It is the dogmatic approach of liberalism that gets up my nose most. In this I don't see the various shades of liberalism as being very much different to a religion. Their blind adherence to property rights and the preeminence of the individual over collective interests has real implications for others, which they do not want to acknowledge, or at least they wash their hands of it, e.g. someone in need has no "right" to my assistance but he could politely request it and I might, from the good of my heart, help out.

I don't know of any collective body where this has actually worked in practice. It is a myth born of the pioneering spirit when there was unlimited land and adventure available to indulge in such fantasies. 

 
That's what I meant with religious blinders. Makes all the difference. And yes, they probably apply to a bunch of other isms, too. Very much agree that the pioneering spirit and Propertarianism go hand in hand. It's a typically American disease. We Europeans have our own resistant strains {#Laughing}.
islander
Dog is my copilot
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Sep 26, 2016 - 8:55am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Actually, I think our views are diametrically opposed. Where Lazy8 is of the belief that natural rights are founded in objective reality, I believe they don't exist except in the collective minds of citizens.

The distinction is important, as when you accept this, you can get rid of a pile of dogma and sit down around a table with people who believe in different fictions and hammer out some kind of consensual solution on an ad hoc basis ... whatever works best for all involved. All morals and rights have their sole foundation, not in God or objective reality, but in the collective fiction. 

It is the dogmatic approach of liberalism that gets up my nose most. In this I don't see the various shades of liberalism as being very much different to a religion. Their blind adherence to property rights and the preeminence of the individual over collective interests has real implications for others, which they do not want to acknowledge, or at least they wash their hands of it, e.g. someone in need has no "right" to my assistance but he could politely request it and I might, from the good of my heart, help out.

I don't know of any collective body where this has actually worked in practice. It is a myth born of the pioneering spirit when there was unlimited land and adventure available to indulge in such fantasies. 

 
Well said. I'm with you on this. I like a lot of the ideas of libertarianism, but I have real issues with the way they (general/larger they) refuse to acknowledge that we exist within a community that benefits us all, and that has value and should be supported. 
NoEnzLefttoSplit
Being Norwegian is over-rated.
NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male
Zodiac: Taurus
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Sep 26, 2016 - 7:59am

 rexi wrote:

Sorry, thought you were consenting adults. {#Laughing}

Just joking, of course. But apart from the libertarian religious blinders, your respective views don't seem too far apart.
 
Actually, I think our views are diametrically opposed. Where Lazy8 is of the belief that natural rights are founded in objective reality, I believe they don't exist except in the collective minds of citizens.

The distinction is important, as when you accept this, you can get rid of a pile of dogma and sit down around a table with people who believe in different fictions and hammer out some kind of consensual solution on an ad hoc basis ... whatever works best for all involved. All morals and rights have their sole foundation, not in God or objective reality, but in the collective fiction. 

It is the dogmatic approach of liberalism that gets up my nose most. In this I don't see the various shades of liberalism as being very much different to a religion. Their blind adherence to property rights and the preeminence of the individual over collective interests has real implications for others, which they do not want to acknowledge, or at least they wash their hands of it, e.g. someone in need has no "right" to my assistance but he could politely request it and I might, from the good of my heart, help out.

I don't know of any collective body where this has actually worked in practice. It is a myth born of the pioneering spirit when there was unlimited land and adventure available to indulge in such fantasies. 


NoEnzLefttoSplit
Being Norwegian is over-rated.
NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male
Zodiac: Taurus
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Sep 26, 2016 - 7:41am

 rexi wrote:

Sorry, thought you were consenting adults. {#Laughing}
 
to my own surprise (every morning), my body is indeed my own.
Edit: though I am not so sure it belongs to me or the godzillion of other organisms I share it with.
rexi

rexi Avatar

Location: far out
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Sep 26, 2016 - 7:28am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

well, hang on a minute mate.. 

 
Sorry, thought you were consenting adults. {#Laughing}

Just joking, of course. But apart from the libertarian religious blinders, your respective views don't seem too far apart.

Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 147, 148, 149  Next