I don’t even know what the Hell a ‘right’ is supposed to be. I understand it in contract law, but then it’s a formal term. Whatever these mysterious ‘rights’ are, I have never heard anyone give a coherent definition.
Anthony de Jasay on “Rights”
http://www.dejasay.org/bib_journals_detail.asp?id=55
Not that some people would be convinced anyways as some people are hardened to their own beliefs. Some research makes ‘rights’ a very simple theory. Yet, I thought I’d post this here as it was one of the most extensive posts on what rights mean that I’ve seen in this forum.
I am going to venture an answer to the original question in the topic title.
Yes, all rights are property rights. Any ethical/political question ultimately comes down to one question (you can fill in the blanks): Who has the authority to do what, with what?
This is the question which lies at the heart of all of the absurd examples we create for dealing with ethical problems. Property and ownership consist of boundary, claim of ownership, and control and decision making power. There is no situation in which these three concepts are not the central issue.
‘True, but today not all property is private. If the theatre owner won’t let you speak in his theatre, you can still theoretically speak on the street outside instead.’
Not necessarily. Remember the kid who tried to ask a question to a politician and got tazed for trying to ‘incite a riot.’
‘Well, exactly. Those who own nothing will effectively have no rights.’
They have rights over themselves but they have no rights over the property of others.
The key line from the mises.org article about the Irish Potato Famine is “These price shocks made a population decline inevitable.”
But of course, there was nothing inevitable about the “price shocks.” Markets and prices can be manipulated. If “market prices” make “population decline inevitable,” then central planning to manipulate them is highly justifiable. Allowing market prices which"make population decline inevitable" is unjustifiable.
And yes, banning food exports from a nation that produces a food surplus is guaranteed to lower prices domestically in the near term.
@Benjamin, I dunno what makes you think that people ever had freedom of speech on private property. As I understand it, the 1st amendment is protection from the government. If an airline doesn’t want you on its planes or a mall doesn’t want you on its premises, it has the right to expel you, it doesn’t have to honor your rights of free speech.
Does the right to freedom of speech mean that I cannot boot someone from my house if that someone calls me something mean while in my house?
Ha, definitely not.
I’ve never been fully satisfied with the answer that “you can do it, you just have to pay compensation later.” For one thing, it seems to prove too much. Isn’t the danger of being invaded or victimized a constant emergency, so isn’t the state justified in doing lots of things now, so long as it intends when the perpetual emergency is over to pay compensation? At the same time, it also strikes me as ad hoc, and as not really addressing the question. The questioner does not think that morality should prohibit you from, for instance, grabbing onto someone else’s flagpole when you’re falling and will otherwise die. To say “well, it does, but you should do it anyway” seems to not answer the question. First, there is a clear intuition as to why it shouldn’t be prohibited, and no argument is presented as to why it is. Second, what is morality supposed to do if not tell you what you should do?
It’s been pointed out here that property rights are instrumental. That’s fine, but it leads me to ask - when an instrumental right comes into conflict with the very goal it is instrumental towards, shouldn’t the instrumental right give way?
It was wrong. That’s why the compensation. I don’t know what else you’re implying.
@Katz, the way I think of it is that all morality can tell anyone is what they should or should not do. Morality does not tell anyone what they’re allowed to do and not allowed to do and what the consequences will be if they do something they’re not allowed to do. That’s what the law is for. Therefore, even if it is morally wrong to steal something when one is hungry, it doesn’t mean someone won’t do it or even that they won’t be allowed to. Personally, I don’t expect anyone to do anything other than steal if they’re really hungry and the opportunity presents itself for them to get some food. However, if the law says that they’re not allowed to steal no matter what then they’re not allowed to steal. Case closed.
If the people want to change the law so that starving people can steal then they can pass that law through the legislature. But I don’t think that will happen.
Wilderness, what I’m implying is that when a person asks this kind of question, they’re asking why it was wrong, and saying “he has to pay compensation” doesn’t answer it, it just repeats the question.
Bloom, let’s look at the moral question, then. Morality is supposed to tell us what we should do. Should a person steal in order to live, or die? That’s entirely a moral question. I’d suggest that the answer might be that he should live.
@Katz, I don’t know. I just know I’d do anything I had to do to survive, right or wrong.
Well, I agree, but I question why it seems so obvious to so many that stealing in order to live is wrong. Stealing for pleasure, I agree 100% to be wrong. But it seems to me that, as has been argued here, private property rights are instrumental. We have such rights in order to allow us to live together. So, on the very rare occasion where there is a conflict, it seems to me that property rights should give way.
They don’t necessarily have to give way completely though. Hence the compensation thing. Like I said I would steal or kill or whatever to survive but I wouldn’t expect people to just be ok with it. I’d probably be asked to make some kind of amends.
JAlanKatz,
What kind of “why” are they looking for? What kind of reason do they want? I mean this all boils down to scarcity. That’s a good one word answer. But then usually these discussions turn into long drawn out debates usually due to one person doesn’t like the idea of this having to do with scarcity. Then on top of that, I don’t know what exactly they are asking because I can easily assume that with the idea of scarcity it’s easy to find out what that means more by referring to lot’s of literature that covers this. I also assume in accord with praxeologic that people are rational and therefore will use that ability. It’s a broad question to begin with is what I’m saying. It actually makes me think of ‘why is wrong - wrong?’.
Right, I mean, that’s the definition of justice. It renewals harmony to society. Harmony based on what the society finds to be of value in order to maintain itself as a society.