I do not believe in natural rights!

Economics Political Theory
1

“I do not believe in natural rights!”

Is basically what a few of my friends have said to me when I talk with them about the ideas of libertarianism. They do not believe that “people” can be trusted with real freedom. That “people” must be controlled through violence.

To one friend I briefly stopped speaking (on the order of 5 minutes or so – we were in a car together heading to dinner). To another I hung my head and, with sincerity, said, “I am actually very surprised that you feel that way.”

On both occassions I wondered if I did a poor job of explaining things. Actually, to the first friend (the one in the car) I know I did. I get heated whenever he and I talk about things of this nature. My second friend and I are roommates though and I’m a lot more level-headed when speaking with him.

Anyway… my question is… I dunno actually. I have a lot of questions, i suppose. Should I try again? Should I disband with them? Should I leave things alone?

Has anyone else had experiences with people who are addicted to the state? Have you had any successes with any of them?

2

Why bother? How are the views of your roomate and your friend whatever they are relevant anyways? Will it change anything?

3

I thought one of our major goals was to educate people on liberty?

To OP, if you can at least convert them to minarchism, consider it a small victory.

4

Um, if their views are irrelevant, then so must be mine and yours. And if that’s the case, why bother with any of this?

Interestingly, your attitude is similar to theirs. “Well, this is the system we’ve got and it works fine for me!”

So… why are YOU here?

5

Ditto on the first point.

Agreed on the second. I recently received a bunch of phamplets that contain the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. When I first opened the envelope I thought, “Man, I’m gonna be THAT guy handing out unwanted material to random people.” The thought faded, but it lingers.

My hope is the leap from minarchism to liberty is more digestible than the leap from our current position to liberty.

Here’s to hope!

6

When talking to such people I usually fall back on these kinds of arguments; what happens when the people you wish to control take the reigns? For instance when Republicans argue for extended powers, they fail to realise that the next Democrat president will inheret those very powers. If that doesn’t work there are the arguments for humility. And if that doesn’t work, I tend to cut my loses but remain friends. After all we can’t win every battle.

7

what are there specific argument.s natural rights in the fact that that they don’t believe people are endowed with certain rights. They believe that there rights are a privilege the goverment grants them. So should the goverment decide to make a law saying that the sun creates to high a risk of skin cancer everyone shall now wear long sleeves. because the right to wear short sleeves is a privilege granted by the government. Because it is issues as absurd as this that becomes of not believing in natural rights.

8

My second friend, the one whom he and I have spoken at length with regards to libertarian ideas, he closes his case along these lines (after I have suggested he call a spade a spade, and acknowledge that what he has are permissions and not freedoms): “Then yes, I am okay with the permissions I have been given. I decided to wear this shirt to work, to date my girlfriend and to have two dogs instead of one. I am okay not being free because things are still pretty good.”

I have said, more than once, that I hope he doesn’t find himself on the short end of the stick one day. I use his logic and say something like, “Okay, so one day the government decides that Chinese people can no longer date or wed Korean people. But that’s okay because by your logic, you agree that what is good for the group is good for you, right?” And he’ll say, “Right.”

And that’s about when I hang my head and say something to the effect of, “That, then, is your opinion, which is fine.”

I try to acknowledge the difficulty a person might have being told they’re effectively a slave by saying something like, “It sounds weird doesn’t it? Trust me, when I woke up this morning, I didn’t feel like a slave (minor lie on my part here, but I’m trying to relate). I chose when to wake up, what cereal to eat, what kind of porn to watch, etc. When I look outside, I don’t see tanks and police and helicopters. I see my annoying neighbor and his hot wife. … But if you peel back that layer, you’ll find you are greatly restricted. Just try starting a business and you’ll quickly see how heavily regulated your actitivies are.”

For reasons I have yet to articulate, they are unmoved.

9

My first friend, the one with whom these talks never go well, would say soemthing like, “Then that’s the way it goes because that’s the system we live in.”

When he or anyone uses that card I feel like I’m no longer talking to a friend I admire and respect but some random, uneducated moron off the street. My mind contorts and my stomach churns. I can feel my fists tightening and I want to give it to him. Instead I usually reply with, “Okay. Is that the best we can do?” And that often stops them from saying anything else. My hope is that they feel ashamed, possibly thinking, “Damn, IS that the best we can do?”.

10

“society is the only entity rights can be drawn from society has all rights that could conceivably exist”

This was the response I got when I claimed that society isn’t an entity that has rights and it has no nature to draw rights from. I really don’t know where they come up with this stuff.

11

As sicsempertyrannis said, you should first try arguing for minarchism.

I usually start with an economic point of view, for example I show them what the state tries to do but fails, say roads, and then ask them “why won’t they let us do it?”. If they say the state has to have roads in its ownership, then I agree and say “okay, let the state have roads, but we should be able to build and run our own roads in addition, this can’t hurt”. Then I point out how state intervention hurts those it meant to protect, for example explain how minimum wages regulation drives unemployment.

Then you should attack democracy. Even in popular culture, there is distrust in politicians, it’s just that it’s easier to blame them rather than us. So you should talk about how democracy is populism. If they argue against populism, then they argue against the mob rule. If they argue against the mob rule, then it’s easier to talk about how democracy is really institutionalized violence and coercion. After that, it’s easy to introduce them to a minarchist state, arguing that it eliminates violence and coercion, not just hides it. You should also add economic arguments, saying how private companies usually do a better job than the state.

12

Curiousity.

We`d like people around us to share our views so we would have someone to share in the burden of seeing wrongs and knowing the solution for them, but not be able to apply it. But in most cases it is not happening and you are better off directing your energies toward reaching other people that are more predisposed to desire for truth. Far less frustration.

13

I personally have found the road privatization issue to be one that prevents a former statist from going full blown anarchist. They just won’t accept Blockian reasoning on it. (“but I dont wanna pay tolls”, etc)

Another way is to ask the simple question - why should members of the state class be able to lie, cheat, steal, and murder while the unwashed masses lack such impunity? I’ve used this on a few different people. Usually, they will come back with a “well, they shouldnt, but…”. Persist. Why the ‘but’? Why shouldn’t they be held to the same standard as the rest of us? Eventually, with a little work, they should come around to the correct answer.

14

Yeah, rights are privileges granted by the prevailing legal system.

15

Don’t start by asserting you believe in rights, or the market, or whatever. Rather, describe what it is you believe in (voluntary exchanges of homesteaded private property), and then slowly lead your audience into accepting what you believe. Then just say what you described is the market! Moral arguments require elaboration and economic arguments often deal with concepts that are not clear-cut in popular discourse. So rather than setting up opposition to your stance from the get go, try and first offer your definiens and then your definienda (i.e. your definitions and then the thing being defined.)

16

It all depends on the individual case. If a friend simply doesn’t want to discuss a certain subject he/she will easily brush off any argument by saying “well, I feel differently”. It is an obvious sign of someone not even caring where the dismissal of the argument leads: Tyranny; so what? or Peace; fine, so?

If you keep forcing the issue you will quickly turn into a bad parody of yourself.

Of course not, they are your friends.

Probably. If you suddenly find yourself in a discussion of anything related to politics, disclose your views and let them stand for themselves. If they are sensible they will persuade them, if not, you just need to prepare better next time. You must always remember you have the dissident’s views on the world. Every time you express your views you force people to consider at least two conflicting ideas, i.e. you bring about a state of cognitive dissonance. In this state people must either question their own beliefs, which takes a lot of effort, or simply just brush off your objections as “loony.”

Thus the moment all you can say is no more than “I am actually very surprised that you feel that way” is the very moment you have lost the argument. What you are doing, essentially, is making them look like the “dissident” when both of you are well aware that you are the “dissident”; You must always have an argument ready, facts that makes it impossible to just brush off your objections as the view of a dissident.

I have only had success with arguments of ethics a single time; my sister. The reason being she is a sociologist and she has the mental capacity to distinguish meta discussions from practical or policy discussions. Also, she can grasp how morality and conventions are distinct from laws in governing human behaviour. Lastly, we have all the time in the world to discuss such things and can take the time to read up on a specific issue.

More succes comes from consequentialist arguments, but they rarely work out in the long run. People can easily be in favour of government on one issue while generally disfavouring government on other issues or vice versa. Minarchists are a perfect case in point and, in opposition to some of the other replies you have received, I wouldn’t try to convince anyone to be a minarchist as a strategy towards convincing them about market anarchism. Leave that job to other minarchists and then, only later, piggyback on their efforts to turn them into anarchists. The other way you will have to pretend you yourself is a minarchists which is disingenuous, not to mention dishonest.

17

I’m repeating myself, but this is frustrating to me as well because I consider it the least problematic part of evolution to a stateless society. Already in the common law, there is a concept that if a road is abandoned by the State, it reverts to the adjoining owners. So the State disappears and bam!, your front yard has just been extended twelve feet. Now, since you obviously have a mutual interest in using that and your neighbors’ portion of the road, a permanent easement could be set up very easily, along with charges for upkeep. Simple stuff.

18

Because he wants to refine his own views rather than trying to convert people who won’t be converted and won’t matter in the long run anyway.

19

You might want to ask your friends if they own themselves (which gives the moral justification for natural property rights). Ask them if the entire USA voted 50.0001% to kill them off, would they think it’s okay. Ask them if they think humans are too stupid to deal with their own property why do they think that democracy is viable. Or if they don’t believe in democracy, ask them why a single dictator, president, senate, etc. can be so much more intelligent than anyone else that s/he can tell us what to do for our own benefit.

20

I would make two points. First our job is not to educate, you can only educate the willing. The only thing that will change the world is leading by example, not by words. In other words only agorism will change anything. Second let me give you a simple scenario to try. Say to them, so you are ok with the state existing and for taxation to therefore exist? So you are ok with the state taxing me? So you are ok with the state forcibly taking my money at gun point? Yes? Well I won’t be friends with someone who would like to see me robbed at least, or killed at most. Then never speak to them again. Your life is too short to waste on idiots and evil people.