Well, TwistedByDesign99, I like your fervor. I have a similar but less divisive strategy.
What I usually ask my non-anarchist friends is this: “Would you trust me if I was a police officer? a tax-collector? a politician? a judge?” They usually answer: “Hell! NO!” Then I just remind them that I am their friend and they must be incredibly stupid to trust faceless statesmen who have a lot more power than me.
I like this idea and have contemplated it before. I’ll have to try it – though with someone whom I have not spoken to about liberty; I think it’s “too late” to try this tactic on friends 1 and 2).
I’ve done something similar to this with friend 2. My scenario was a group of 10 people camping. 6 people vote to kill person 10. I told my friend, “So by your logic (the logic of the state), this is okay with you?” And he goes, “Depends. What was their reason?” I reply, “They wanted to.” He replies, “That’s not a good enough reason.” And I laughed. I told him, perhaps it’s a poor reason to YOU, but that doesn’t matter, because it’s what the majority wants, regardless of why.
Surprisingly we went around in circles on this; it’s like he didn’t feel that “I want to” is a good enough reason. Even if I had given him a “more substantial” reason, say, “We want to see if we can get away with it.” I think he would have said no, it’s not okay. In fact, I think we did get to this point somewhere along the line. When we arrived there I said something to the effect of, “So it’s not okay for our group to vote to kill someone, but it’s okay for the state to vote to kill someone?” I don’t recall his response. Weird…
I think with this friend I have found the consistency argument to be the most effective. Indeed, I was thrilled when I found that consistency was a goal of (at least) Rothbard’s. It makes the world feel a little more sane, knowing there are over-arching principles that can be put into place (should we so choose).
I’m off-topic now. The only person who is in mild agreeance with any of this stuff is my mom. Thanks to everyone who replied. I appreciate your effort and time!
^ That’s a very good starting point. Essentially, you made your friend admit that democracy needs some kind of constitutional limits to protect the rights of man. Next time you speak with your friend, bring the subject up again if you come around to discussing politics. Then press him/her about why it isn’t a good enough reason.
I like to employ a somewhat Hazlittian-utilitarian basis for rights. I’ve read Foundations of Morality, and Hazlitt didn’t really touch on it in there (though perhaps he did in some other works), but my thinking seems along the same lines Hazlitt followed in FoM:
A right (noun) refers to a claim that is at all times morally right (adjective) for an individual to make in regards to himself and the action of others toward himself. What is right or wrong refers to nothing other than what is the right or wrong means to employ in order to achieve a desired end. The end that all humans seek (knowingly or unknowingly, stupid or smart, sane or insane, masochistic or selfish, etc.) is the maximization of personal satisfaction and well-being. Every human’s goal is to always substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory one, and thus, as follows, to achieve the most satisfactory state of affairs that they possibly can. So a right can be thought of as a claim, or a principle, or a general rule of action, that an individual can make at all times, that will, logically, lead to the maximization of his own personal satisfaction and well-being. A natural right is nothing other than such a right that is inherent in every man’s nature, not just what is right for one particular individual, based on one’s preferences or circumstances.
So in judging what should be considered a natural right, one must merely find out, rationally, what is the right means (the right rules of action) for every man to employ to achieve the end that every man seeks (maximization of personal happiness).
You can get to the root of it here by establishing the rule of self-ownership. Ownership means the exclusive right to keep, use, be responsible for, and dispose of a certain thing. So who has the exclusive right to keep, use, and dispose of a certain thing? (Here is where Rothbard’s “Ethics of Liberty” comes in handy) There are only four options: You own yourself, some people own other people, everyone owns everyone, or no one owns anyone.
Some people owning other people can never, logically, succeed. This is because each individual has a massively complex, intricate, and nuanced system of values, of what they value, of what gives them more satisfaction or less, of what their individual wants and needs are. Therefore, on the whole, other people can never make better decisions for other people than each individual can make for himself. It’s purely common sense logic. So, some people owning other people is not the the right means to employ to achieve the universal end we seek (maximization of personal happiness).
Everyone owning everyone, by its very nature, is destined to collapse, since we can’t keep continual tabs on everyone else at the same time. Inevitably, the division of labor will find one group of people that are “good” at “managing” others and will specialize in it, while the rest of the people who aren’t as skilled or enthusiastic at that task leave it to the special managers. In other words, everyone owns everyone is destined to collapse into some people own some people. Therefore, it cannot be the right means to employ to achieve the universal end.
No one owns anyone (what those who say that there is no objective morality, and that morals are just a ‘social construct,’ would imply) does not give others the right to keep, use, be responsible for, or dispose of others, but it does not give you the right to keep, use, be responsible for, or dispose of yourself either. In this case, society is destined to become a free for all. Might makes right. Whoever can grab the most, wins. The practical flaw in this claim is so glaringly obvious that no one really accepts it, even if they say they do. Needless to say, no one owns anyone cannot be the right means to employ to achieve the universal end.
Only “you own yourself,” or “self ownership,” can be a universal right. In other words, each individual claiming the exclusive authority to keep, use, be responsible for, and dispose of their selves, is the most efficient way for each individual to achieve the end that they all seek (maximizing personal happiness, or achieving the most satisfactory state of affairs they possibly can), and so, since self-ownership is the right means to employ to achieve the end that all humans seek, therefore self-ownership is, according to our definition, a natural right. It is a claim that it is right for every individual to make, and it is a claim that can be derived from inherent human nature.
This post is already getting lengthy, but it’s much easier to establish the rest of the moral principles once you establish the right of self-ownership.