David Osterfeld on natural rights

[wilderness]

@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.

I said “objects”. You then changed the wording to “not literal things”. I have no clue what you mean by the latter and so guessed.

@Nitroadict

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.

Subjectively interpreted, I can only guess that means we can gather knowledge on them in our own ways, which I stated is getting ahead of the discussion. I only asked if they exist or not. You seem to not to be able to answer yes or no. That’s why I didn’t ask a difficult question cause a yes or no answer would have been sufficient.

@Nitroadict

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.

Again getting into the knowledge of what these are. Bringing the attention to definitions. I only asked you if they exist or not. yes or no.

@Nitroadict

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

i agree

@Nitroadict

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.

yes, but this doesn’t answer the question. Do they or do they not exist? I mean we are not animals that can’t intellectually apprehend the existence of things and we therefore are able to share what we think exists or not. So share away.

@Nitroadict

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.

getting ahead of the discussion, I mean you haven’t even stated if life, liberty, and property exists or not. You’ve implied they do by trying to define them, but you have yet to simply answer the question - yes or no.

@Nitroadict

@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).

I’m talking to you, not other people. Let’s not start thinking for them.

@Nitroadict

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.

fairy tales exist as fairy tales and exist none-the-less

@Nitroadict

@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.

ok, the concepts exist where then if not in this universe? It is assumed that concepts of fairy tales or atoms do appear in this universe, in your head and/or external to your head which is still in this universe. I assumed these are givens.

@Nitroadict

@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 :\

“elaborate without wordiness” now there’s a thought

[twistedbydsign99]

@AJ

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.

Can you give an example? That wasn’t clear enough for me.

[liberty_student]

@wilderness

“elaborate without wordiness” now there’s a thought

You guys are both very thoughtful posters, so I find it odd that you’re both at odds with the other. Must be a full moon.

[wilderness]

@liberty student

@wilderness

“elaborate without wordiness” now there’s a thought

You guys are both very thoughtful posters, so I find it odd that you’re both at odds with the other. Must be a full moon.

I keep asking a yes or no or he could even say “I don’t know” - question. And he hasn’t answered it yet, but goes on to say I need to stop with the wordiness and lectures - meanwhile he keeps asking me questions on what I mean. So I’m being polite and answering his questions but then he asks me not to be wordy and lecture him. I don’t know (picture me throwing up my hands in wonder). I should’ve took the hint when he started the discussion with the comment on the “dots”. I asked him if he was having a bad day - no answer. I’m not trying to be difficult.

[Amanojack]

@twistedbydsign99

@AJ

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.

Can you give an example? That wasn’t clear enough for me.

I contend that there are no examples. To simply engage in argumentation, the additional requirement to recognize a “right” not to be interfered with beyond mere recognition of the fact that someone has not been interfered with is extraneous.

[Juan]

I’m not sure what you mean by “argumentation” “recognition” “interfered” “contend” “requirement” “extraneous” & “right” - can you define those terms ?

[wilderness]

@AJ

@twistedbydsign99

@AJ

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.

Can you give an example? That wasn’t clear enough for me.

I contend that there are no examples. To simply engage in argumentation, the additional requirement to recognize a “right” not to be interfered with beyond mere recognition of the fact that someone has not been interfered with is extraneous.

And yet you have no knowledge of what a right is so your assertions are vacuous.

[Amanojack]

@AJ

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.

Still waiting…

[twistedbydsign99]

@AJ

I contend that there are no examples. To simply engage in argumentation, the additional requirement to recognize a “right” not to be interfered with beyond mere recognition of the fact that someone has not been interfered with is extraneous.

Ok I think I might see what you are saying, but correct me if I’m wrong. You are not saying that: arguing → non interference is a contradiction, but that arguing can stand on its own without the non interference part. Are you equating “right” with axiom in this usage? Its not only a fact that someone has not been interfered with, but also that the arguer in the act or arguing recognizes the self ownership of the other arguers.

[nirgrahamUK]

you must presuppose that you have no right to be violent to innocents as a preconditioning to rationally arguing.

if you dont make that presupposition then you can be arguing, like two drunks argue in the street, but you wont be rationally arguing. and the truth of propositional claims is tested in argument. in order to test arguments as a collaborative venture with ones peers, the peers must not be aggressed, to say otherwise is to admit that a rationally argument could be had in the face of coercion. the right of not aggressing them must be extended to them in order torationally argue with them. its only in the forum of rationally arguing that the truth of propositional claims is tested.. as such you will find only libertarian ‘doctrines’ will not fall foul of the presuppositions necessary to be rationally arguing. as such the norms which are fundamental to the task of making rational argument possible can be positively stated in that forum, whilst their opposed doctrines can not be maintained, thus the norms can be put on a more generic footing, they universally apply.

example. if i say im going to ostensibly ‘argue’ with you about the truth of morality, or any such thing, yet i have a gun in my pocket. and i think theres nothing wrong in my killing you if i want to. and in fact, i have decided that if i dont like the way the time passes as we swap words that i am going to blow you away, this should demonstrate that whilst you were 'ape’ing argument with me, whilst restraining yourself (at least up to the point where you no longer restrained yourself), you were not rationally arguing. you could only have been rationally arguing if you had extended me some *fundamental (*moral) courtesy. it is a precondition to rational argument

I may be doing Hoppe a disservice in my laymans interpretation/statement of the theory. I acknowledge this. [:(]

[twistedbydsign99]

@nirgrahamUK

I may be doing Hoppe a disservice in my laymans interpretation/statement of the theory. I acknowledge this.

I’ve listened to and read it about 50 times, and I still can’t reiterate it in a satisfactory way.

[wilderness]

notice these three are the same but said in differing forms:

wilderness: And yet you have no knowledge of what a right is so your assertions are vacuous. (replace you for any person)

twistedbydsign99: Its not only a fact that someone has not been interfered with, but also that the arguer in the act or arguing recognizes the self ownership of the other arguers. (I said this in the negative)

nirgrahamUK: you could only have been rationally arguing if you had extended me some *fundamental (*moral) courtesy. it is a precondition to rational argument (and thus no intellectual knowledge gained)

[Brainpolice]

you must presuppose that you have no right to be violent to innocents as a preconditioning to rationally arguing.

This is false. I could concievably believe that I do have a right to be violent to innocents, proceed to peacefully argue with you without particularly having the will to be violent to you at the moment, and argue for that very premise in the process. There is nothing inherent about the act of argumentation itself that means that I presuppose the very norms that you have to argue for yourself. You have to provide a legitimate argument for why it is not right to be violent to innocents - it is not demonstrated to be true by the fact that people aren’t violent to eachother when they argue.

[wilderness]

and yet what you argue is irrational - that life negates life… that A is not-A…

you love to protect that child violence of yours, what are you holding in that bag?

[Juan]

You have to provide a legitimate argument for why it is not right to be violent to innocents

No. You have to provide a legitimate argument for why it is right to be violent to innocents.

[Brainpolice]

and yet what you argue is irrational - that life negates life… that A is not-A…

I have not argued that “life negates life” or that “a is not a”. That’s an invalid analogy.

you love to protect that child violence of yours, what are you holding in that bag?

I’m not “protecting” violence, I’m merely rejecting a particular argument.

[Brainpolice]

@Juan

You have to provide a legitimate argument for why it is not right to be violent to innocents

No. You have to provide a legitimate argument for why it is right to be violent to innocents.

Either premise requires a legitimate argument. Neither can be assumed to be true by virtue of the nature of argueing itself.

[Juan]

No. My premise doesn’t require an argument. If you think that crime is morally justified prove it.

[wilderness]

@Brainpolice

and yet what you argue is irrational - that life negates life… that A is not-A…

I have not argued that “life negates life” or that “a is not a”. That’s an invalid analogy.

yes you have. you argue that a person that is alive, thus is life, negates (kills) another person… you are arguing from the position called a murderer.

@Brainpolice

you love to protect that child violence of yours, what are you holding in that bag?

I’m not “protecting” violence, I’m merely rejecting a particular argument.

and replacing it with an argument that advocates violence

[Juan]

By the way, I don’t specifically subscribe to Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. If anything, I subscribe to non-argumentation ethics - that is, you can’t rationally prove that might-makes-right, so it must be false.