an intellectual being “determines” and a human being is intellectual and biologically has an intellect to exercise such deductions
Our natural rights spring from self-ownership, a self-evident proposition. Only I have direct, immediate control over my own body – any others who exert control over me must do so indirectly, i.e. via manipulation of their own bodies. Thus I own it.
A general rule must be applied equally, so it follows that everyone else owns their own body. Mises also notes that acting as if this were true leads to more successful modes of acting than acting otherwise. This leads to the non-aggression principle (NAP).
Since I own my body, I can create property by mixing my labor with unowned natural resources. Violations of my control over my body and property are NAP violations. Self-ownership is the source of rights of free speech, of assembly, of worship, etc.
These discussions never gain any clarity until we disambiguate what is meant by “rights”. Roderick Long provides the following very useful and salient distinctions:
Normative rights are a question of ethics, and here there are two rough divisions: objective ethics and subjective ethics. Search past threads for more on this.
Legal rights are what Clayton is eloquently expounding here and in his other recent posts:
See also the last section of Toward a Theory of Empirical Natural Rights, by John Hasnas
De facto rights are what J. Bloom is talking about.
No.
There is no such thing as a “right to liberty.”
I don’t think you own yourself, only partially.
A statist is a privileged person. You cannot convince someone to give up their privileges. You have to take them back by force.
“There is no such thing as a “right to liberty.””
Definitions of liberty on the Web::
the right to: autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence…
the right to: freedom of choice;
the right to: think or feel or do just as one pleases"; "
the right to: personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression
the right to: 2 a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant :
the right to: : the quality or state of being free:
the right to: : the power to do as one pleases
the right to: be free from physical restraint
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/liberty
what do you mean by liberty??
Shorthand way of encompassing various free acts, otherwise known as liberties. Basically, liberties are actions one may take that do not transgress any particular system of rules.
Several of the definitions in the link provided do not start with “the right to” perhaps you should read them again as they don’t necessitate a “right” in any meaningful way.
i know the 'the right to" wasnt in teh defintions i put it there,
the original post was where do our right come from? do you have a right to “do as one (yourself pleases”) if so…why? and where did that right come from?
do you have a right to’ freedom of choice?’ if so, why?? if to do as on epleases and freedom of choice are liberty…then is there a right to liberty? if so where does that right come from?
when you start to throw in the particular set of rules frame…well, there are laws that some have insituted to keep you from having sex with farm animals…do they believe that isnt a right you should have or just a liberty that doesnt mee there set of prescribed rules??
“Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty…”
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
here some people many years ago are apparently calling Life and Liberty rights in themselves.
rather than a right to life or a right to liberty.
The answere is no.
You don’t have the right to “do as you please,” nor the right to “freedom of choice,” so there isn’t a right to liberty.
Everything is within some set of rules, a rule against bestiality would mean that (they believe) you don’t (shouldn’t) have the liberty to engage in such acts, therefore it isn’t considered a free act.
Who else owns you, and what makes their claim legitimate? Who else do you partially own?
autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence…
: a : the power to do as one pleases
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/liberty
so i guess you would say these are incorrect definitions of liberty??
Good post AJ. I think that helps to clear up what we are discussing.
The government, or maybe other people through the state. Their ability to exercise sovereignty over you.
Is this entire thread and argument predicated on no one defining what a “right” is?
Well a government can’t ‘own’ you since it is not itself an acting entity. Why do these other people own you?
The state.
There guns.
Self-ownership is not really evident at all. Owning an animal and owning another human is not very different when you look at it. Animals take actions of there own as well. The only thing that is different is the complexity of the actions which is irrelevant and the degree of self-awareness in the object being owned. That is also completely irrelevant from my subjective perspective. History supports this as well, humans have been traded as cattle for millennia.
The argument I have given here is of course only valid from a no ethics viewpoint. What it shows however is that your premise is only valid under the assumption that we should have ethics. Thus ethics comes before self-ownership, not after.
Argumentation ethics-bot, GO!
“ERROR, ERROR, DOES NOT COMPUTE, DOES NOT COMPUTE. IT IS AGAINST RULES I MADE UP TO SAY THAT! YOU CANNOT CLAIM SOMETHING I THINK IS LOGICAL DOESN’T EXIST, UNLESS YOU YOURSELF DO NOT EXIST! VICTORY IS MINE, VICTORY IS MINE!”
WHOOSH!!! (that’s the sound of argumentation ethics-bot blasting away with a rocketpack powered by his sense of self-righteousness)
Not all, 2a and b definitely, as well as 1d.