Rights, what the heck are they?!
This is not meant to be a formal critique, only a casual discussion on the meaning of rights. This thread is NOT about child slavery, nihilism, or things related. Though I will touch on those subjects briefly, if a discussion spawns relating to those topics I ask that you keep it OT specifically regarding the concept of rights.
In the past year a number of very controversial topics have risen revolving around the concept of rights. However no one ever stopped to question; what specifically are rights? Has anyone here provided a clear and distinct definition from a libertarian point of view? In some cases people felt that rights were nothing more divine permissions ascended from above. In other cases, people on this forum, argue that rights are granted by legal authorities, that laws create rights, and not the other way around.
As a result many of the arguments presented have been previously built on erroneous definitions of rights. Many of which whose definitions are not at all consistent with libertarianism.
I offer an alternative definition. I contend that rights occur naturally, praxeologically, and are a necessary consequence for living in a scarce world. My argument to everyone here is as follows. Today there is no clear definition of rights and because of this people have built a myriad of nonsensical arguments that only logically follow from their own pet definitions. The Wikipedia page on rights also concludes as follows.
It has been used by different groups and thinkers for different purposes, with different and sometimes opposing definitions, and the precise definition of the concept, beyond having something to do with normative rules of some sort or another, is controversial.
It’s amazing that so much discussion about rights goes on, while no one has ever stopped to wonder if the people they are arguing carry the same definition. The alternative definition I present below would generally be accepted in almost all ideological frameworks but most importantly is entirely consistent with libertarianism and stems directly from Praxeology. The definition however would be in direct conflict with ethical nihilism and could potentially have significant conflict to the philosophy of owning other individuals, slavery. I will touch on those briefly but I don’t want those topics to be the root of the discussion.
These idea’s I am about to present may have already been defined elsewhere by an Austrian that I have not yet read. I am guessing, but I have materialized much of this information second hand via discussions amongst local friends who are heavily read in HHH. So Hoppe may have already described something similar to this and I know that these ideas will show to have a link to argumentation ethics. If someone has already presented something like this I would appreciate it if anyone could provide me the material where it is explained.
The Definition
I have felt for a long time that people assign far too much weight to the word rights, when in actuality its concept could be astoundingly simple. Rights have nothing to do with divine powers or legal authority. Because of the over emphases on the word people cringe, evade, and in general assign a greater amount of value to the word “rights” than it deserves. I feel that a great amount of conflation has been involved which has made rights seem complicated where it need not be. I am going to present a simple definition below that will explode numerous fallacies, a neutral definition that, at least at the surface, does not necessarily need to be revoked.
Consider the following.
Rights: A claim to action. A right is a claim to action.
Now stop and consider for a second the simple, yet powerful link the definition has to praxeology. Human’s act, we know this axiom to be true, but in what manner do they act and to what extent can they act with the material world?
How are rights identified? How do we know someone has a claim to action? How do we know someone has more of a claim to action than his neighbor? Is this claim granted by some mystical authority? Is there some level of reasoning necessary? Perhaps. Consider the case where a man simply wiggles his big toe by his own free will. At this primitive level a claim to action has been made and it is assumed, it becomes self-evident. It is self-evident that this man evidently had the capacity to claim the ability of moving his big toe. He has in this sense the right to move his big toe, as the toe is in his physiologically possession and capacity. The toe can only be moved by his will and brain power alone. At the base the definition shows how human action works in its most primitive forms, and shows where the most primitive claims to action are derived.
Human action in and of itself confirms the individual’s claim to action over one’s own person. It confirms the concept of self-ownership. If the man moved his toe by his own free will it becomes assumed that he owns himself, and had the feasible ability to do with it as he pleased. It confirms his claim to action over other people’s claims to controlling his big toe. If I, instead, asked the man to move his finger only he can choose to comply, he has the very first claim to that action. He decides the manner of action his finger will take, not me. Likewise only I myself have first claim to the actions involved in my body. These very primitive forms of actions show a level of assumed rights that is, the primitive claim to action. It is assumed you possess the ability to choose whether to take action, or inaction. You make these decisions because only you individually own your body. This becomes an example of an assumed right, an assumed claim to action.
Speech, and Argument
For those who are familiar with Hoppe’s argumentation ethics I believe this definition is entirely consistent. I formulated it somewhat from that line of reasoning. If you are arguing with someone it is assumed you had a right to, or ability, to voice such an opinion. It is assumed that your opinion carries some weight, at least in your opinion. It is self-evident then that you claimed the ability to express your opinion on the matter. In the process you’re making it obvious that you claim a right to express such opinions and that you believe your opinions should be taken into consideration with some degree. In the very act of arguing you assume that you have the capacity to do so, that you somehow have a claim over the dispute at hand as opposed to someone else. Otherwise there would be no need to argue in the first place. By arguing with someone you admit that you are an individual with something to gain or lose. You are claiming the ability to action, a right.
Complex Rights
With that foundation it becomes easy to understand complex rights, or complex claims to action. An example of a complex right may be private property. If we assume that all rights are nothing more than simple claims to actions than this fundamental mechanic will help us decide who has a claim over scarce objects for which duration of time. This is how we decide who has a claim of action over scarce objects. From there we build the framework of interpersonal trade and ultimately capitalism.
With that said our definition is expanded on. It started as simple claim to action, but can result in a claim to property, occupation, employment, contract, or anything under the sun for that matter as these are all variants of human action. If we consider the facts of reality that we live in a scarce world it becomes apparent that there must be some mechanism from which we can ascertain who has a valid claim to occupy scarce resources over scarce time. In other words, who has a claim to a specific action or set of actions. This is why rights, or claims to actions, are necessary. The reasoning for such structure is due to the fact that:
- We live in a scarce world
- We have a limited amount of time
- We must occupy scarce objects over time to satisfy desire
This is why rights, or claims to actions, are necessary consequences to the natural defects of the world we live in.
Other Ideologies, and where they differ
Now I believe that mots ideologies would at first glance agree with the definition I created, but going beyond its primitive form they would take different routes. Let me explain.
Let’s assume I own a house, how would we know what the norm would be for the conduct of action in my house. From the original definition, a claim to action, we can employ whatever method of logic, or reasoning, we desire to decide who else to allow into my home. A socialist may decide to share the house, a fascist may employ slaves, a capitalist may rent out his space. The reasoning’s and methods behind the action do not change the fact that RIGHTS are nothing more than a specific claim to action. That claim will obviously change from ideology to ideology.
Keeping it consistent with libertarianism however we can take the definition even further. Not only is the definition entirely consistent with libertarianism and praxeology but we can build codes of conduct for claims to actions that are non-contradictory, something other schools of thought have a hard time of accomplishing. The libertarian definition of private property rights naturally flows directly from this concept, a claim to action.
Consequences## Nihilism
If my definition is accepted then the very act of posting on this forum defeats the underlying point of ethical nihilism. You assume the ability, and capacity of posting on this forum. You are in essence assuming the right to post here. When you argue on this forum you’re making a self-evident claim to that right. A plethora of assumptions are made when you post on the forum, some of which are ones just mentioned. When you post here all you have done is practiced your capacity to make a comment on these forums. You have practiced your rights, that is all.
Human Ownership, Slavery
The concept of human ownership is self-defeating in and of itself. The reasoning becomes clear when we understand the difference between property, and economic actors. Property cannot make claims to action. A rocking chair cannot arbitrarily stand up and claim a right to be rocked at a specific time each day. For if the chair did this it would have demonstrated that he had a prior claim to his actions. He would have shown to have been a self-owner all along. Owning that chair up to that point would have been in error, as property simply cannot wake up and cease to be property.
Property cannot make claims to action. Not in the past, not in the present, nor in the future. If in any one of those cases property is capable of making a claim, even if in the distant future, than it is not property at all, but an economic actor.
It is entirely impossible to truly own another human, even if they submit themselves unto voluntary slavery. They are only doing so by their own free will and not directly under the control of master. A rocking chair by contrast does not grant permission to its master to rock. The chair simply just rocks, at the will of the master, as if it were an extension of the master’s body. A person has a first claim to action of their body, only they can choose to comply with their master or suffer the consequences. The act of complying though does not prove that the man is property; it further proves that he is a man of free will and for whatever reasoning has decided to comply. Whether it be out of fear or some other form of reasoning…
So we must never forget a very clear distinction between what is property, and not property. Property cannot make claims to action, ever. This is why property has no rights.
Legal Positivism
The very idea that rights are granted by some legal authority is circular to the core. I don’t think I need to expand on this unless someone actually wants to try and defend it. The only way a single point of authority or collective authority could ascertain who has a greater claim to action across all human actors is to assume exists an omniscient being. Or if you concede that no omniscient being exists then legal positivism is as always arbitrary.
Conclusion
Rights are nothing more than a claim to action. When we stop assigning erroneous value’s to the word we may find our own arguments becoming more consistent with themselves. People need to go back and review the foundational roots of their arguments and really consider whether or not they understand what they are advocating. Rights need not be a complex controversial word, not even amongst contested ideologies. The word at its core is simple and neutral. Rights are nothing more than a claim to action. Whether the claim is determined as an assumption, or is proven via logic and reasoning is irrelevant. The type of logic used is irrelevant as well; nothing refutes the fact that rights are nothing beyond a simple claim to action.
