Rights

[E_R_Olovetto]

@Lilburne

@E. R. Olovetto

I don’t quite get what Lilburne is getting at either. Maybe that if something seems very wrong it probably is.

I’m saying that whether something is wrong or not can only be an individual subjective judgment. And such judgment comes from feelings of conscience. Ethical systems that try to deduce universal objective laws of what is right and wrong are nothing but vain word-games.

I don’t think I suggest objective, universal laws. A legal system rests on intersubjective agreement within society. Our free will is going to get interfered with one way or another by being part of society. Overall, libertarians just suggest a different legal system. My take on children is much more in line with already established norms, except maybe the punishment part.

Here’s a snippet from How We Come to Own Ourselves, which I think people should check out.

@Kinsella

If “first use” is not the ultimate test for the “objective link” in the case of body ownership, what is? It is the unique relationship between a person and “his” body — his direct and immediate control over the body, and the fact that, at least in some sense, a body is a given person and vice versa. This is what constitutes the objective link sufficient to give that person better title to his body than any third party claimant, even his parents (an exception would be the victim of a crime committed by the body-owner, who might thereby acquire a “superior” link to or claim on the criminal’s body).

Moreover, any outsider who claims another’s body cannot deny this objective link and its special status, since the outsider also necessarily presupposes this in his own case. This is so because in seeking dominion over the other, in asserting ownership over the other’s body, he has to presuppose his own ownership of his body, which demonstrates he does place a certain significance on this link, at the same time that he disregards the significance of the other’s link to his own body. (Notice that if a victim seeks dominion over the body of his aggressor for purposes of proportional punishment, his claim of ownership over the aggressor’s body is not incompatible with a claim of self-ownership, since the cases are different. It is not inconsistent to claim that the special link between an innocent person and his body gives him the best claim over that body, and to also claim that this no longer holds for an aggressor because he has committed aggression. This distinction is neither arbitary nor particularizable; it is grounded in the nature of things.)

The basic point about the primacy of the “direct” link over an “indirect” link (ceteris paribus — see the point above about punishment of criminals) was first suggested to me by Hoppe. As might be apparent to those familiar with Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, the Hoppean theory implies the logical priority of direct versus indirect control over one’s body. In fact, the argument made above (that any outsider who claims another’s body cannot deny the objective link between person and body) is merely an application of Hoppe’s argumentation ethics approach. In fact, Hoppe made a similar argument in a German publication in 1985:

@Hoppe

The answer to the question what makes my body “mine” lies in the obvious fact that this is not merely an assertion but that, for everyone to see, this is indeed the case. Why do we say “this is my body”? For this a twofold requirement exists. On the one hand it must be the case that the body called “mine” must indeed (in an intersubjectively ascertainable way) express or “objectify” my will. Proof of this, as far as my body is concerned, is easy enough to demonstrate: When I announce that I will now lift my arm, turn my head, relax in my chair (or whatever else) and these announcements then become true (are fulfilled), then this shows that the body which does this has been indeed appropriated by my will. If, to the contrary, my announcements showed no systematic relation to my body’s actual behavior, then the proposition “this is my body” would have to be considered as an empty, objectively unfounded assertion; and likewise this proposition would be rejected as incorrect if following my announcement not my arm would rise but always that of Müller, Meier, or Schulze (in which case one would more likely be inclined to consider Müller’s, Meier’s, or Schulze’s body “mine”). On the other hand, apart from demonstrating that my will has been “objectified” in the body called “mine,” it must be demonstrated that my appropriation has priority as compared to the possible appropriation of the same body by another person.

As far as bodies are concerned, it is also easy to prove this. We demonstrate it by showing that it is under my direct control, while every other person can objectify (express) itself in my body only indirectly, i.e., by means of their own bodies, and direct control must obviously have logical-temporal priority (precedence) as compared to any indirect control. The latter simply follows from the fact that any indirect control of a good by a person presupposes the direct control of this person regarding his own body; thus, in order for a scarce good to become justifiably appropriated, the appropriation of one’s directly controlled “own” body must already be presupposed as justified. It thus follows: If the justice of an appropriation by means of direct control must be presupposed by any further-reaching indirect appropriation, and if only I have direct control of my body, then no one except me can ever justifiably own my body (or, put differently, then property in/of my body cannot be transferred onto another person), and every attempt of an indirect control of my body by another person must, unless I have explicitly agreed to it, be regarded as unjust(ified).

[Maxliberty]

@Spideynw

I think most people are smart enough to understand animals do not have reasoning abilities. Obviously, you are too stupid to understand this.

I think most people are smart enough to know that animals clearly demonstrate the ability to reason. Apes and chimpanzees can learn languages and communicate relatively complex ideas, animals can use tools, they can learn from their mistakes and experiences. Dogs in particular have demostrated the ability to rescue people, without human intervention they can seek help. This just demonstrates why your “reasoning” basis for rights is so absurd.

Do animals demonstrate the ability to reason on a level of humans, no, but I am not the one saying that the abilty to “reason” whatever that really means should be the criteria for determining rights.

Your problem is you can’t articulate any coherent response to the obvious gaping logical holes in your arguement.

[twistedbydsign99]

@JackCuyler

I’ve always considered something immoral if it hurts someone else. Since homosexuality does not, it’s not immoral. It’s a much simpler test. Occam’s razor and all.

By your definition of morality, becoming a celibate monk, spending all my time alone in prayer in a monestary would be immoral. Weird.

I wish harm was suffcient it would make things simpler, but its not. Harm is inherent in the market process due to imperfect information. I don’t hold any reverence for a monk. Living off alms is sorta parasitic. But I’m not going to strawman you, you could mean just a self sufficient person, but that once again isn’t detrimental as long as we get together sometimes to make children. Just sorta badly inefficient. Oh and a few more things about the monk, celibate alone is fine he would be celibate in public no problem, likewise prayer.

[Maxliberty]

@JackCuyler

@Maxliberty

No you can’t. You can’t invite someone on your boat, go out to the middle of the ocean and then ask them to leave. Having invited someone into your care you are obligated to not harm them and to return them to their original state or into the care of another who will be providing the equal care you are providing now.

Can you ask a stow-away to leave?

Yes, but we are not talking about trespassers, we are discussing invited guests. The baby is clearly invited by the mother.

[wilderness]

E. R. Olovetto,

I agree with Kinsella and Hoppe as well. As Spooner said (I provided the quote earlier in the thread):

“…such principles as we describe by the words mine and thine…”

[JackCuyler]

@Maxliberty

@JackCuyler

@Maxliberty

No you can’t. You can’t invite someone on your boat, go out to the middle of the ocean and then ask them to leave. Having invited someone into your care you are obligated to not harm them and to return them to their original state or into the care of another who will be providing the equal care you are providing now.

Can you ask a stow-away to leave?

Yes, but we are not talking about trespassers, we are discussing invited guests. The baby is clearly invited by the mother.

Not in the case of rape… but I understand that’s off topic.

However, what if I engaged in behaviour that clearly would increase the liklihood of taking on a stow-away? Say I dock and leave the boat unattended for several hours or even a few days, with the hatch wide open, in a section of town known for its crime rates? I agree this is stupid, but nonetheless, I have not invited a stow-away. I’ve simply made it easy for one to come aboard. Do I still have the right to ask the stow-away to leave?

[wilderness]

@twistedbydsign99

I wish harm was suffcient it would make things simpler, but its not. Harm is inherent in the market process due to imperfect information.

so you don’t believe in the NAP or the free market?

[E_R_Olovetto]

@Maxliberty

@JackCuyler

@Maxliberty

No you can’t. You can’t invite someone on your boat, go out to the middle of the ocean and then ask them to leave. Having invited someone into your care you are obligated to not harm them and to return them to their original state or into the care of another who will be providing the equal care you are providing now.

Can you ask a stow-away to leave?

Yes, but we are not talking about trespassers, we are discussing invited guests. The baby is clearly invited by the mother.

This is clearly not always the case. Think of rape or mere accidental, unwanted pregnancies.

For the fourth time I will ask this of the un-libertarian anti-evictionists: (not a single response yet)

If a woman aborts (evicts) a baby, who can seek to punish her and why?

[JackCuyler]

@twistedbydsign99

I wish harm was suffcient it would make things simpler, but its not. Harm is inherent in the market process due to imperfect information. I don’t hold any reverence for a monk. Living off alms is sorta parasitic. But I’m not going to strawman you, you could mean just a self sufficient person, but that once again isn’t detrimental as long as we get together sometimes to make children. Just sorta badly inefficient. Oh and a few more things about the monk, celibate alone is fine he would be celibate in public no problem, likewise prayer.

Harm is not inherent in the market place. That’s incredibly silly. And you’re changing my monk. He’s perfectly self-sufficient, prays alone (as Jesus tells him to do), lives alone, sleeps alone and is celebate, which means he doesn’t make children. Is he immoral?

[twistedbydsign99]

@JackCuyler

Harm is not inherent in the market place. That’s incredibly silly. And you’re changing my monk. He’s perfectly self-sufficient, prays alone (as Jesus tells him to do), lives alone, sleeps alone and is celebate, which means he doesn’t make children. Is he immoral?

So wilderness I’m gonna answer you here as well, I believe in NAP and free markets. I also believe that harm is inherent meaning inevidable. If my small business was put out of business by walmart, I was harmed and it was completely just for me to be harmed. So I must suffer the loss of my beloved business because I can’t compete with walmart and rightfully so, we are all better off even me by my current harming.

An individual is not immoral but he can act immorally. Is your monk acting immorally? So lets look at your listed actions: self sufficient? not immoral, prays? not immoral, lives alone? not immoral, sleeps alone? not immoral, celebate? not immoral. So none of his actions are immoral under my theory. He may prefer his solitude, but there is no reason he would hide any of the things he does.

[wilderness]

@twistedbydsign99

@JackCuyler

Harm is not inherent in the market place. That’s incredibly silly. And you’re changing my monk. He’s perfectly self-sufficient, prays alone (as Jesus tells him to do), lives alone, sleeps alone and is celebate, which means he doesn’t make children. Is he immoral?

So wilderness I’m gonna answer you here as well, I believe in NAP and free markets. I also believe that harm is inherent meaning inevidable. If my small business was put out of business by walmart, I was harmed and it was completely just for me to be harmed. So I must suffer the loss of my beloved business because I can’t compete with walmart and rightfully so, we are all better off even me by my current harming.

obviously Jack meant harm in the NAP sense. This reminds me of BP going on infinitum about “oppression” having to do with a ‘bad hair day’ (he didn’t say this but that’s the kind of arguments)

[twistedbydsign99]

@wilderness

Harm is not inherent in the market place. That’s incredibly silly.

Where is harm clearly equated with initiating physical aggression?

[JackCuyler]

@twistedbydsign99

So wilderness I’m gonna answer you here as well, I believe in NAP and free markets. I also believe that harm is inherent meaning inevidable. If my small business was put out of business by walmart, I was harmed and it was completely just for me to be harmed.

You were not harmed. It is not harm when people stop buying things from you. Each free transaction makes the parties involved better off. Not engaging in a transaction does not make either party worse off, but rather leaves them exactly the same.. If I got fired tomorrow, I would not be harmed, so long as my employer paid me for all of the time I have already put in. I will stop working for him and he will stop paying me. The same for your shop - you will stop supplying goods to customers and they will stop paying you for them. No harm done at all.

@twistedbydsign99

Is your monk acting immorally? So lets look at your listed actions: self sufficient? not immoral, prays? not immoral, lives alone? not immoral, sleeps alone? not immoral, celebate? not immoral. So none of his actions are immoral under my theory. He may prefer his solitude, but there is no reason he would hide any of the things he does.

He passes both of your tests - He does what he does away from the public and if everyone else did it, “it would lead to disaster”.

So because he prays while he lives alone behind closed doors and doesn’t procreate, that’s ok, but if he licks another man’s purple-headed love warrior behind closed doors and doesn’t procreate, he’s immoral? Your definition of morality is rather inconsistent. Perhaps you’re predefining immoral behavior and then looking for a set of tests that will always support your definitions?

[wilderness]

@twistedbydsign99

@wilderness

Harm is not inherent in the market place. That’s incredibly silly.

Where is harm clearly equated with initiating physical aggression?

wrong quote[:D]

[twistedbydsign99]

@JackCuyler

You were not harmed. It is not harm when people stop buying things from you. Each free transaction makes the parties involved better off. Not engaging in a transaction does not make either party worse off, but rather leaves them exactly the same.. If I got fired tomorrow, I would not be harmed, so long as my employer paid me for all of the time I have already put in. I will stop working for him and he will stop paying me. The same for your shop - you will stop supplying goods to customers and they will stop paying you for them. No harm done at all.

So wilderness? Hes not talking about NAP type harm. No one is harmed by transactions, hence why they were performed, but it doesn’t follow that I’am not harmed by being out competed at a later date. I now have to switch gears and get a regular job, this transition and the loss of my business harms me. Its not like I lose my business and then immediately have a wage slave job or a new business, no I must suffer for a time. Justly suffer.

@JackCuyler

He passes both of your tests - He does what he does away from the public and if everyone else did it, “it would lead to disaster”.

So because he prays while he lives alone behind closed doors and doesn’t procreate, that’s ok, but if he licks another man’s purple-headed love warrior behind closed doors and doesn’t procreate, he’s immoral? Your definition of morality is rather inconsistent. Perhaps you’re predefining immoral behavior and then looking for a set of tests that will always support your definitions?

He fails the privacy test, he prefers the privacy, not requires. If the world was so crowded we lived at arms length from eachother would that negate his monkhood? If it would I would definitely question his actions. If we lived in sodom, would your homosexual monk feel compelled to hide his actions? The compulsion to hide comes from being around people who would consider you a fraud if they found out about certain things you do. Also when did I say this was a complete moral theory? I believe all I said was it was a good classifier of moral action, which I stand by.

[JackCuyler]

@twistedbydsign99

So wilderness? Hes not talking about NAP type harm. No one is harmed by transactions, hence why they were performed, but it doesn’t follow that I’am not harmed by being out competed at a later date. I now have to switch gears and get a regular job, this transition and the loss of my business harms me. Its not like I lose my business and then immediately have a wage slave job or a new business, no I must suffer for a time. Justly suffer.

Transactions are performed because the make both parties better off, not because neither will be harmed. While you owned your business, every transaction you made bettered your life. When those transactions stopped, your life stopped getting better, but it didn’t get worse. The world and everyone in it don’t owe you a living. When someone does not trade with you, you are exactly the same.

@twistedbydsign99

He fails the privacy test, he prefers the privacy, not requires. If the world was so crowded we lived at arms length from eachother would that negate his monkhood? If it would I would definitely question his actions. If we lived in sodom, would your homosexual monk feel compelled to hide his actions? The compulsion to hide comes from being around people who would consider you a fraud if they found out about certain things you do. Also when did I say this was a complete moral theory? I believe all I said was it was a good classifier of moral action, which I stand by.

Why don’t most married men have sex with their wives on their front lawns, in full view of the public? I mean, everyone expects that married couples will do the nasty at least once in a while, so it’s not like they would disapprove of the act itself. And yet, usually, that type of thing is done behind closed doors. As for the monk, his religion specifically commands him to pray alone.

[Spideynw]

@Lilburne

Are you going to argue that conscience has nothing to do with feeling, but that is a semi-unconscious form of reasoning, and that the unphilosophical man who regards child-torture as illegitimate does so because he intuitively makes the very same deductions a philosopher consciously makes? I hope not, because that would be absurd.

And how did the philosopher consciously deduce this?

[Spideynw]

@twistedbydsign99

Give your defintion of a right in detail please.

A legal claim.

[Spideynw]

@bschraders

You’ve never made that specific argument, because you didn’t think anyone would bring it up as a possible consequence of your flawed theory on what’s right and wrong in human interactions.

This is from your post: “However, children do not have rights, because as has already been established, they do not have the mental ability to grant consent.”. So yes, following your line of thinking a 7 year old child can be raped by his/her father and the father cannot be punished for it. Transferring the rights to the parents still make this scenario possible. So your logic makes it OK if both parents abuse a child. It also makes it OK if it’s one of the parents, as long as the other doesn’t find out.

True, I never addressed the fact that both parents own the child. They do. As such, if one does something to the child without the others consent, then it is a violation of the other parent’s rights. So no, it is not OK, legally.

[Spideynw]

@twistedbydsign99

If a moral theory holds that murder is good, something is wrong with the moral theory.

Really? So you think “murdering” animals is wrong?