David Osterfeld on natural rights

[nirgrahamUK]

ha, lets consider that sorted and never speak of it again..

ho! ho!

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

How do you conclude that “nuclear weapons are immoral” or that “violent retribution is immoral” merely from Hoppe’s “self-ownership” argument? You can’t.

Red herring. Want to try again?

[primer]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

How do you conclude that “nuclear weapons are immoral” or that “violent retribution is immoral” merely from Hoppe’s “self-ownership” argument? You can’t.

Red herring. Want to try again?

Let me rephrase this claim: You can derive those two statements if you incorporate additional ‘consequentalist-like’ arguments, but not with Hoppe’s mere “self-ownership” argumnent.

[nirgrahamUK]

Red herring is right. at first i thought it was a strawman, but the fact that you arent even pretending we hold the claims you are mocking must make it a red herring

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Anarcho-Mercantilist

Let me rephrase this claim: You can derive those two statements if you incorporate additional ‘consequentalist-like’ arguments, but not with Hoppe’s mere “self-ownership” argumnent.

I wasn’t talking about that. Want to try again?

[Juan]

@AM

Generally, we should justify the non-aggression principle from strictly ‘consequentialist-like’ arguments such as how free trade and ownership of capital goods will maximize prosperity, how the prohibition of drugs and prostitution will increase crime, how economic interventions allow rent-seeking, how the free market will solve the free rider problem and externalities, how the free market will provide better defense and roads than the state, etc.

Why ? Why is ‘economic efficiency’ desirable ? Besides, things like prostitution and drugs are ‘immoral’, ‘forbidden by the bible’ ‘unhealthy’ or ‘whatever’ and, more important, the state says they are illegal and that’s the end of the story.

You see, there’s such a thing as ‘the law’ and the ‘law’ is whatever the lawmakers say it is. You wouldn’t want to argue against might-makes-right would you ?

Like most self-identified ‘consequentialists’, most self-identified ‘deontologists’ will also choose to infringe the property rights in lifeboat situations. For example, most self-identified ‘deontologists’ will justify that Klemm should break into Tom’s cabin.

No, Klemm is not justified, that’s why he must pay damages. And at any rate, life-boat scenarios are just a diversion.

Libertarians, for example, will also conflate ‘deontology’ with the the belief that ethical prescriptions are inherent to the essence of a human.

That’s closer.

…please check out Jim Peron’s article (2001) concluding that the ‘deontology/consequentialist’ dichotomy between the schools of libertarianism is a matter of semantics.

It is not, though it is true that there are people who love to quibble about semantics.

[wilderness]

@wilderness

@Nitroadict

What do you mean by “are they being”? As concepts? Or as things that literally exist? It all sounds almost too vague to warrant a discussion.

objects. objects that can be intellectually apprehended. The conceptual, knowledgeable aspect as in what do they mean, etc… doesn’t need to be brought up now.

I guess it’s too difficult for some people to be able to point at something and state: ‘that’s liberty’ - ‘that’s life.’ - ‘that’s property.’ If you can’t even perceive and point-out life, liberty, and property, then be default you have no knowledge about them to begin with.

[Amanojack]

@AJ

@Hoppe

Arguing is an activity and requires a person’s exclusive control over scarce resources (one’s brain, vocal chords, etc.).

So far so good.

@Hoppe

More specifically, as long as there is argumentation, there is a mutual recognition of each other’s exclusive control over such resources.

Here Hoppe can charitably be interpreted in one of two ways:

1. Recognition = acknowledgment of the fact of “each other’s exclusive control over such resources.”
2. Recognition = acknowledgment of each other’s right of exclusive control over such resources.

@Hoppe

It is this which explains the unique feature of communication: that while one may disagree about what has been said, it is still possible to independently agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement.

Note that this implies Interpretation (1) above, and does not imply Interpretation (2). So far he consistently means (1); no equivocation yet.

@Hoppe

(Lomasky does not seem to dispute this. He claims, however, that it merely proves the fact of mutually exclusive domains of control, not the right of self-ownership. He errs: Whatever - such as the law of contradiction, for instance - must be presupposed insofar as one argues, cannot be meaningfully disputed, because it is the very precondition of meaningful doubt, and hence must be regarded as indisputable, or a priori valid.

This still implies Interpretation (1), and not (2), because at best only the fact of “each other’s exclusive control over such resources” need be presupposed, and only that fact cannot be meaningfully disputed. One could of course meaningfully dispute the right of exclusive control without pressupposing such a right. All that is actually required is presupposition of the fact, not the right. Lomasky may be wrong (or not), but in any case Hoppe must still intend Interpretation (1) here if Hoppe is to be interpreted charitably.

Note that switching to Interpretation (2) without explicit reference to that switch would be a bald equivocation. So far, Hoppe is in the clear.

@Hoppe

In the same vein, the fact of self-ownership is a praxeological precondition of argumentation. Anyone trying to prove or disprove anything must in fact be a self-owner.

If his argument is to coherently follow from what he wrote above, Hoppe must here define “the fact of self-ownership” as “the fact of ‘each other’s exclusive control over such resources’.” And he must define “self-owner” as “one who has ‘exclusive control over such resources’.”

Hoppe still clearly means Interpretation (1) above. Still no equivocation.

@Hoppe

It is a self-contradictory absurdity then to ask for any further-reaching justification for this fact. Required, of necessity, by all meaningful argumentation, self-ownership is an absolutely and ultimately justified fact.)

From above, all Hoppe is saying here is, “each other’s exclusive control over such resources” is an absolutely and ultimately justified fact. But the dear reader will note that this statement - taken at face value - does not imply Hoppe’s argumentation ethics (right to exclusive control), only argumentation facts (fact of exclusive control).

No, for Hoppe’s purposes, the sentence will have to carry the implication that “the right of self-ownership is an absolutely and ultimately justified fact.” Sadly, Hoppe can only achieve this by pulling the old switcheroo, by equivocating between Interpretation (1) and Interpretation (2).

@nirgrahamUK

in fact, he is not switchign from 1 to 2, but everywhere using 2.

Oh?

@Hoppe

It is this which explains the unique feature of communication: that while one may disagree about what has been said, it is still possible to independently agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement.

[nirgrahamUK]

2 does not exclude 1 , does it?

[Amanojack]

Neither does Interpretation 2 imply Interpretation 1. Below I explain from yet another perspective how this is fatal for Hoppe’s claim:

@AJ

@Hoppe

(Lomasky does not seem to dispute this. He claims, however, that it merely proves the fact of mutually exclusive domains of control, not the right of self-ownership. He errs: Whatever - such as the law of contradiction, for instance - must be presupposed insofar as one argues, cannot be meaningfully disputed, because it is the very precondition of meaningful doubt, and hence must be regarded as indisputable, or a priori valid.

This still implies Interpretation (1), and not (2), because at best only the fact of “each other’s exclusive control over such resources” need be presupposed, and only that fact cannot be meaningfully disputed. One could of course meaningfully dispute the right of exclusive control without presupposing such a right. All that is actually required is presupposition of the fact, not the right. Lomasky may be wrong (or not), but in any case Hoppe must still intend Interpretation (1) here if Hoppe is to be interpreted charitably.

In order to refute the above, one must argue that mere presupposition of the fact of “each other’s exclusive control over such resources” (Interpretation 1) is not enough to avoid contradiction. One must argue that presupposition of additional norms or rights is required to avoid falling into a contradiction. One must articulate why the argument would be contradictory without that addition.

[Brainpolice]

@Juan

@Brainpolice

But to address the original question, I’m not exactly a utilitarian (in the sense of making use of a pleasure/pain principle or in the sense of trying to make morality metric).

By calling you a utilitarian, I meant that you don’t believe in universal, ‘natural’ human rights that can be logically justified.

Am I right about your position, that is, you don’t believe in ‘objective’ individual rights ?

That all hinges on what one means by “objective”. If by “objective” one means that rights can be justified as having a rational connection to self-interest, then I do believe in “objective” rights. I just don’t use a deontological basis for rights.

[Nitroadict]

@wilderness

@wilderness

@Nitroadict

What do you mean by “are they being”? As concepts? Or as things that literally exist? It all sounds almost too vague to warrant a discussion.

objects. objects that can be intellectually apprehended. The conceptual, knowledgeable aspect as in what do they mean, etc… doesn’t need to be brought up now.

I guess it’s too difficult for some people to be able to point at something and state: ‘that’s liberty’ - ‘that’s life.’ - ‘that’s property.’ If you can’t even perceive and point-out life, liberty, and property, then be default you have no knowledge about them to begin with.

Ah an interesting new social development.

Apparently, if I don’t immediately respond, it must be because I’m too stupid to provide an answer; it couldn’t possibly be because I can’t man the internet all day.

I was asking what constitutes life, liberty, property in your view. I thought this was implied by “what do you mean?”

I don’t know why you are getting cross over this, aside from me not instantly agreeing to you or knowing exactly what you mean.

[Brainpolice]

@Knight_of_BAAWA

@Brainpolice

I don’t advocate the Kantian Golden Rule and the universalizability test. In fact, I’ve blogged repeatedly on why I think that universality by itself is insufficient, and sometimes too rigid.

Question: if someone says “I believe it’s ok for me to initiate force against others, but it’s not ok for them to do it to me”, what fallacy is that called?

It would simply be hypocrisy. But the reason why initiating aggression is wrong is not a universality test in the mold of Molyneux’s UPB, which actually does not give a reason for why it’s wrong, it only rules out alternative inconsistent moral theories.

[wilderness]

@Nitroadict

@wilderness

@wilderness

@Nitroadict

What do you mean by “are they being”? As concepts? Or as things that literally exist? It all sounds almost too vague to warrant a discussion.

objects. objects that can be intellectually apprehended. The conceptual, knowledgeable aspect as in what do they mean, etc… doesn’t need to be brought up now.

I guess it’s too difficult for some people to be able to point at something and state: ‘that’s liberty’ - ‘that’s life.’ - ‘that’s property.’ If you can’t even perceive and point-out life, liberty, and property, then be default you have no knowledge about them to begin with.

I was asking what constitutes life, liberty, property in your view. I thought this was implied by “what do you mean?”

I don’t know why you are getting cross over this, aside from me not instantly agreeing to you or knowing exactly what you mean.

As I stated you started on the wrong foot with the whole dots thing so weather the storm. And I asked you is life, liberty, and property something you can point at and state for each of them - ‘That’s what ____ is.’ I’m not asking a difficult question - really I’m not.

[Nitroadict]

@wilderness

@Nitroadict

@wilderness

@wilderness

@Nitroadict

What do you mean by “are they being”? As concepts? Or as things that literally exist? It all sounds almost too vague to warrant a discussion.

objects. objects that can be intellectually apprehended. The conceptual, knowledgeable aspect as in what do they mean, etc… doesn’t need to be brought up now.

I guess it’s too difficult for some people to be able to point at something and state: ‘that’s liberty’ - ‘that’s life.’ - ‘that’s property.’ If you can’t even perceive and point-out life, liberty, and property, then be default you have no knowledge about them to begin with.

I was asking what constitutes life, liberty, property in your view. I thought this was implied by “what do you mean?”

I don’t know why you are getting cross over this, aside from me not instantly agreeing to you or knowing exactly what you mean.

As I stated you started on the wrong foot with the whole dots thing so weather the storm. And I asked you is life, liberty, and property something you can point at and state for each of them - ‘That’s what ____ is.’ I’m not asking a difficult question - really I’m not.

Are you asking me is “life liberty and property” objective or subjective? That they actually exist or only exist if we think they exist? Or are you asking me something else?

[wilderness]

@Nitroadict

Are you asking me is “life liberty and property” objective or subjective? That they actually exist or only exist if we think they exist? Or are you asking me something else?

Are life, liberty, and property things in themselves? Are they objects that can be intellectually apprehended?

• I’m avoiding objective and subjective cause I don’t like their baggage. So forgive me if I don’t use those terms yet.

• I’m asking if you think they exist cause they actually exist.

[Nitroadict]

@wilderness

@Nitroadict

Are you asking me is “life liberty and property” objective or subjective? That they actually exist or only exist if we think they exist? Or are you asking me something else?

Are life, liberty, and property things in themselves? Are they objects that can be intellectually apprehended?

• I’m avoiding objective and subjective cause I don’t like their baggage. So forgive me if I don’t use those terms yet.

• I’m asking if you think they exist cause they actually exist.

Life & liberty are not literal objects.

Property can be represented by literal objects, but the concept of property varies from various stateless societies to state societies, just as the concept of property can be interpreted by different individuals (which may result in vast ideological differences we see accordingly from anarchism to communism to socialism etc.).

Is that better?

[wilderness]

@Nitroadict

@wilderness

@Nitroadict

Are you asking me is “life liberty and property” objective or subjective? That they actually exist or only exist if we think they exist? Or are you asking me something else?

Are life, liberty, and property things in themselves? Are they objects that can be intellectually apprehended?

• I’m avoiding objective and subjective cause I don’t like their baggage. So forgive me if I don’t use those terms yet.

• I’m asking if you think they exist cause they actually exist.

Life & liberty are not literal objects.

So you don’t think you can refer or point out life? I think it’s possible. A rock is not life. A micro-organism and tree are and are also classified biologically under the term life. It’s scientific.

I also think I can refer to liberty. It is free-will. When choice is able to occur and/or I am moving my body that’s liberty in action.

Do you therefore disagree with this? It is empirically based, meaning, these two terms are sensory receptive and my intellect can apprehend their existence. Maybe you disagree.

@Nitroadict

Property can be represented by literal objects, but the concept of property varies from various stateless societies to state societies, just as the concept of property can be interpreted by different individuals (which may result in vast ideological differences we see accordingly from anarchism to communism to socialism etc.).

Is that better?

Property is heavy fought over philosophically as you note. Property is my being. It is me, in other words, I am me. Property=me. property can equal you too. From the dictionary:

---

I am my own as the Latin “from proprius” states. These are the definitions from my computer dictionary that came with this apple computer of mine that I’m referring to. So I’m not using a unique dictionary at all, a simple run-of-the-mill one.

So I guess you are stating that life and liberty are not facts and only mental concepts. I would disagree for that would suggest that they are not of reality and are only mental constructs. The thing is, now that we’ve slightly begun to define and provide our knowledge about these terms suggests to me that they do exist. You have recognized that life, liberty, and property exist. The definitions though are what people debate. I was only wondering if you thought they existed and since you first state life and liberty are “not literal objects” therefore you had to have perceived them in some form or fashion or you wouldn’t have been able to define them. Same goes for property.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Brainpolice

It would simply be hypocrisy.

And in the context of debate/discussion, it’s called the special pleading fallacy. But you knew that, DIDN’T YOU?

And what Hoppe is doing is ruling out inconsistencies by showing the preconditions for discussion. But you knew that too, DIDN’T YOU?

[Nitroadict]

@wilderness

So I guess you are stating that life and liberty are not facts and only mental concepts.

When did I say that? You are over complicating things as usual.

Life and liberty are concepts that seem to only have meaning for human beings. Even then, they can be subjectively interpreted, no matter how long & loud one individual may scream amongst the crowd that they are objective concepts & not subjective.

Liberty, despite the best intentions amongst anarchists, libertarians etc. is a concept susceptible to politics. As a political concept, it has been repeatedly used for both purposes of abuse & self-defense.

No, I am not saying it makes it useless, I am not objecting to the concept of liberty (otherwise I wouldn’t give a damn about any of this), I am saying it is a concept that may and will be different from individual to individual, the same as one’s preferences for a favorite color is.

The observation that the majority of people are not libertarians reinforces the statement that liberty can be a subjective and relative concept, because the majority of people who are not libertarians most likely think they are already “free”.

@wilderness

I would disagree for that would suggest that they are not of reality and are only mental constructs.

Life & liberty most likely don’t exist as concepts for animals, possibly because they lack consciousness or the same neurological capabilities as human beings.

Yet, reality goes on regardless of them having these conceptions or not, & doesn’t halt to a stand still because animals cannot conceive concepts of liberty, property, or life.

Nope sorry, reality goes on perfectly fine with or without humans coming up with ideas, concepts, & new ways of killing each other. The physical universe exists regardless.

@wilderness

The thing is, now that we’ve slightly begun to define and provide our knowledge about these terms suggests to me that they do exist.

No. All it suggests is that I know what concepts you are talking about; this doesn’t prove anything beyond other humans are capable of knowing these concepts that may not exist (i.e. are abstract).

It would be as absurd as saying that a non-English speaker truly knows how to speak English because he is talking with an English person, despite not understanding a damn word he is saying because the non-English speaking person never took a day to learn English in his life.

If we talked about cold fusion / wormholes / wrap drives/ as (actual, not fictional) concepts, that does not prove they truly exists in the physical universe.

@wilderness

You have recognized that life, liberty, and property exist.

Inaccurate; I recognized the concepts can exist, & that they are interpreted differently. I did not say they inherently exist in the physical universe.

To say they exist because they exist in nature and/or the physical universe would be a naturalistic fallacy, methinks.

@wilderness

I was only wondering if you thought they existed and since you first state life and liberty are “not literal objects” therefore you had to have perceived them in some form or fashion or you wouldn’t have been able to define them. Same goes for property.

Please elaborate without wordiness & lectures :\