It’s also commonly referred to as the universalization test.
True. It would only matter if he denied the right to others whilst claiming it for himself.
Sure, but libertarians focus on what would be the rational system to strive for in order to achieve a prosperous and fair society.
I’ve always felt freedom of speech is a overused “right” that people seem to get wrong. We really don’t have natural rights to speech, but natural rights to property. On my own property, I can say or think whatever I want. Even if it is threatening someone else, plotting against someone else, or planning on creating a state. When I’m on someone else’s property, if they don’t like what I’m saying, they have the right to make me leave their property. But until words become aggressive actions which threaten my property rights, there is nothing I can or should do about what somebody else is saying. By making “rights” around speech without the context of private property, one could easily start making the same arguments about thoughts and not having the right to think bad thoughts about somebody, which is of course absurd.
Define freedom of speech. If you are referring to the fact that speaking is never a crime, then I agree, with one caveat: that exclusion from property is not a punishment, but an exercise of property rights. The sidewalk is actually not a right-of-way, because the government continues to assert its control over the sidewalk. It permits people to walk on the sidewalk explicitly, but maintains legal possession. A right of way would only be created by use of the sidewalk with no permission and no assertion of ownership.
Well put johndolce.
The only role for government as it relates to the the right of way via foot travel on a sidewalk and freedom of speech is to insure that no individual infringes on the right of way use of any other individual.
So you can not stand stationary and three abreast on a sidewalk while protesting so you must keeping moving.
Your natural right to labor-based property is an exclusive individual right.
Your natural right to speech is an individual equal right to be excercised via common right of ways on sidewalks via foot travel and roads (w/permit), as well as, collectively owned buildings for the specific purpose of petitioning your elected representatives.
You also have a natural right (an individual equal right - a common right) to assemble and gather signatures for petitions of redress of grievances within common right of ways on the sidewalk. The sidewalk itself ios a collectively owned property but the common right of way pre-exists governance and so collectively controlled sidewalks are subordinated to the natural right.
sounds like commie talk to me
Why?
Why?
Yes, commOnism.
Were there only one man on earth, he would have a right to the use of the whole earth or any part of the earth.
When there is more than one man on earth, the right to the use of land that any one of them would have, were he alone, is not abrogated: it is only limited. The right of each to the use of land is still a direct, original right, which he holds of himself, and not by the gift or consent of the others; but it has become limited by the similar rights of the others, and is therefore an equal right.
His right to use the earth still continues; but it has become, by reason of this limitation, not an absolute right to use any part of the earth, but (1) an absolute right to use any part of the earth as to which his use does not conflict with the equal rights of others (i.e., which no one else wants to use at the same time), and (2) a coequal right to the use of any part of the earth which he and others may want to use at the same time.
How can a right be “equal”? It can be equally possessed by all humans, but “equal”?
You have a right to foot travel on a sidewalk and I have the same right. We both have an equal right to use so long as in our exercise of that right we do not infringe on anyone else’s right to the same.
Just by being on the sidewalk, I am infringing on someone else’s right to the same because I am physically taking up space; that’s space they can’t use, even if they wanted to.
Somewhere, someone said that three people couldn’t stand shoulder to shoulder to block a public thoroughfare and would have to keep moving. But note, this would only apply to the two outer blockers, the individual in the middle would not have to move if the outer blockers moved and therefore wouldn’t be preventing others from utilizing the rights inherent in a public thoroughfare. Thus, there seems to me to be an inherent right to loiter on a public sidewalk indefinitely.
I think it would be better if theory distinguished more fully these specific classes of rights. I think the theoreticians would be better to further deliniate the difference in property rights between owning an ounce of palladium, owning a “copyright” to an “intellectual property” (which I maintain does not actually exist — it is actually a time-bound freehold lease of commonly owned property(i.e.language), enforced by government fiat) and owning a right to use a public thoroughfare. Just calling them “property” rights is convenient, and I’m sure correct based on theory going back to Locke, but by now, one would have thought that concepts like intellectual copyright to things like writings, novels, invention would have been much more clearly defined as to how they differ in contrast to property rights to an ounce of palladium one purchased legally on the free market.
Also, someone said that if their neighbor or someone said, “I’m going to kill you a year from now”, you don’t have the right to kill them because the threat is not immediate. But how does time come into it and how can you determine how much time is reasonable under law, before I can kill you in response to a “direct threat”. Seems to me, under Libertarian doctrine, I’d have a perfect right to kill you as soon as I hear you speak that threat in order to defend my right to life, especially if you’re dumb enough to give me a year to prepare for the attack. So how to determine the time?
Had a case here in the valley recently where a former SF Bay Area policeman, retired on a disability pension, was stopped while driving, found to have no license on him, which he claimed he did not have to carry under the Constitution, was fined, refused to pay the fine, went to jail and went on hungerstrike for I dont know about 60 days. They finally let him go.
But I think the retired policeman is wrong. This whole controversy could be resolved thus: you have a Consitututional Right to walk, ride a bike, and probably a horse on a public thoroughfare without any kind of license, and if the gvt. owns or maintains the roads, then it must provide a parallel access for the walking/biking public (say, at the side of the freeway). However, the moving of a multi-thousand pound hunk of steel at 80mph while interacting in life and death situations with thousands of other hunks justifies the state testing the competence of the driver, his eyes, his medical history on blackouts, passing out, etc, and issuing a certification license so that the polis in the course of maintaining public safety can easily certify that this person is competent. This is not unlike requiring firecodes be complied with in tenement apt. buildings to prevent massive loss of life.
Likewise, one has a right to attempt to appropriate resources. I can’t see why this right cannot be absolute. They are not to be guaranteed an amount of resources; they merely may strive to appropriate them, if any exist and are unowned.
Paul, have you read any of Kinsella’s work on IP? And Rothbard/Hoppe on property more generally?
Here is the rub. They are not “unowned” - they are owned in common as an individual equal access opportunity right.
The extent of the infringement is measured by the extent that economic rent attaches to the appropriation.
That is why you have to keep on moving.
That was me. Sorry, what I meant to say is three people can’t be walking (not standing) abreast because individuals couldn’t pass going in the opposite direction. If you are just standing but excercising your other rights of freedom of speech, assembly, petitioning then you have to keep moving. Anyone can just stand in the common right of way so long as they are not infringing on any other individual’s equal right to use the public right of way.
Don’t know much about public vagrancy laws and how it applies.
Exactly my position too. Language (words and letters) are part of the social commons and not to b enclosed which forces costs upon those excluded.
I think you only own the palldium to the extent that your exclusive use does not economically disadvantage anyone else. The test being “did you leave enough and as good in common for others?”
The farther you get away from foot travel (skateboard, bike, horse, etc) the more that the government has an interest in exerting it’s control over collectively owned property (roads and sidewalks) rather than it’s more narrow constitutional role of insuring that no infringement is taking place after the fact within common right of ways that are contained within the collectively owned property.
Here is the rub. They are not “unowned” - they are owned in common as an individual equal access opportunity right.
Are you making up rights as you go on? Why should such a right even exist? How can it be anything but unowned in the absence of a claim to it? No one gifted the resources to anyone. They are, until someone mixes their labour with them, entirely unowned. You keep on echoing Locke’s proviso, but said proviso had religious roots. Ever since Tibor Machan and Anthony de Jasay have demolished it.
I assume WmBGreene is “BillG (not Gates)” from this thread, etc.? Saying all the same things for the 1000th time…just google “equal access opportunity right” site:mises.org.
WilliamB —Here’s the rub — Rights are owned, but not “in common as an individual equal access opportunity right” —a most unfortunate phrase. In point of fact, they are owned as Creator-endowed individual Rights, under the U.S. Decl/Constitution. The Rights of Man have nothing to do with 'individual equal access opportunity", but with possession much like the possession of the ounce of palladium. The extent of the infringement has nothing to do with measurements of economic rents; it is an absolute violation of a Civil Right, though courts usually settle infringements using money measurements as a compensatory tool, instead of the gallows (at least now).
There are two types of individual rights.
individual exclusive rights
individual equal rights
Confusing the two gets us in trouble. Speech, assembly, petitioning, travel are all individual equal rights.