It seems that you have not been reading this thread. I referred to the definition of the term “rights”, not the demarcation of who has what right.
you referred to KoB and Kinsellas (and by extension, mine and other libertarians) definition of rights. which if you are familiar with the tradition, you know that the rights that are valid are negative rights.
I do not care about that. I referred to the definition of the abstract concept “rights”, not to the demarcation of which rights are “valid”.
If you want to understand what I am talking about, you should read this:
negative rights are rights, positive rights are not rights, they are right fails, they dont work as rights, they are candidates for rightdom that dont cut the mustard. they are would be chairs that dont get made properly in the chair factory and end up on the heap outside, mangled wood and metal that you wouldnt want to sit on. i.e. not chairs.
I really do not know what you are talking about. If you want to know what I meant, you should read the exchange between me and BAAWA which I requoted in my previous post.
yes, pay attention to what you wrote, that they are certain particular rights. i.e. of non-interference. these certainly are not so broad as to collapse all meaning of the term.
I implied that if an individual acts, he immediately demonstrates that he believes that he possesses certain rights which correspond to the action which he performed. An individual chooses what actions to perform and thereby chooses whether to believe that he possesses a certain right.
If the definition of rights is that broad, the recognization of rights become a fundamental category of action. But that does not convey to use any information about who should possess what rights.
wow, if you want to drag that analysis out of KoB saying ‘yes’ in answer to your wording of a torturous question…
i better leave it to KoB
I do not know what it means to be a “torturous question” and I also, because you failed to explain your point, do not know what your objection to my argument is.
you misunderstood what KoB was telling you. you had an agenda, you wished to hear ‘yes’ to a question so you could slew in with some nonsense. but it doesn’t represent an attack on the actual position you claim to have been attacking.
If that actually happened, BAAWA necessary misunderstood his own position (which is not my fault). If you want to actually construct an argument, I will both listen and respond. But the above post is not an argument, it is merely an empty and inflammatory assertion.
KoB has assented that the agent has whatever beliefs he has. this does not give us your ‘definition of rights’ that you harped on about.
An agent can freely alter what beliefs he possesses. If an agent cannot alter what beliefs his possesses, free-choice does not exist and, as a result, no separation between thought and action, mind and matter, the psychical world and the physical world exists.
agreed. thats all fine and dandy. its also a non sequitur that doesnt move this discussion anywhere.
As such, the hedonistic nihilism it represents comes to a rapid dead-end.
I have reached a dead-end. I cannot both upkeep my defense of some random view which I do not subscribe to and upkeep my offense against BAAWA’s definition. I actually believe that his definition demarcates the scope of ethical inquiry effectively and is therefore expedient. It is merely a demarcation, however, because it does not provide an explanation regarding why who possesses what rights. If some one (e.g., nirgraham, BAAWA, Kinsella, Juan) wants to reignite this thread via an explanation of how their nonconsequentialistic method allows them to explain why who possesses what rights, I will listen and respond.
There are only property rights, beginning with self-ownership and extending outward.