[SolarCross]

Sue - really? See I think most people with even a grain of sense would think the NAP is not just moral but sensible. There are pacifists that think you should not defend yourself from aggression and there are aggressive people who think smashing and grabbing is a fine and dandy way to get what you want but most people are neither of those.

[mikema63]

It's amazing how long these things get.

[SueDeNîmes]

Sue - really? See I think most people with even a grain of sense would think the NAP is not just moral but sensible.

Really? Most people think any exploitation of man by man is fine so long as no one raises a hand? That obligation to feed children violates parents' right not to? That anti-pollution regulation is violence against polluters? That health and safety laws are violence against employers, and whatever other wingnuttery follows?

See, I don't believe you think that about most people, whatever your own beliefs.

There are pacifists that think you should not defend yourself from aggression and there are aggressive people who think smashing and grabbing is a fine and dandy way to get what you want but most people are neither of those.

Which has almost nothing to do with the crazy that is the Libertarian NAP.

[Nunt]

Really? Most people think any exploitation of man by man is fine so long as no one raises a hand? That obligation to feed children violates parents' right not to? That anti-pollution regulation is violence against polluters? That health and safety laws are violence against employers, and whatever other wingnuttery follows?

See, I don't believe you think that about most people, whatever your own beliefs.

What you describe are all government measures. So most people do have no problem with governments violating NAP, but they are not so quick to allow individuals to violate NAP.

You wouldn't allow your neighbour to come in to your house and take money to feed his children? You wouldn't allow your neighbour to say to you: "you are not allowed to take any jobs that pay you less than $xxx. Nor would you allow him to determine what you can and cannot eat, etc.

[SueDeNîmes]

What you describe are all government measures.

Yeah, I've noticed that. The "NAP" does seem to be more about government than what most folks consider aggression.

So most people do have no problem with governments violating NAP, but they are not so quick to allow individuals to violate NAP.

You wouldn't allow your neighbour to come in to your house and take money to feed his children? You wouldn't allow your neighbour to say to you: "you are not allowed to take any jobs that pay you less than $xxx. Nor would you allow him to determine what you can and cannot eat, etc.

Not really sure how these relate to my comment. Obligation to feed one's own children apparently violates the NAP (ie NAP holds that parents should be allowed to let them starve). I wouldn't let any individual neighbour dictate a minimum wage, but I accept the democratic will of neighbours and compatriots. I don't think anyone's telling anyone what to eat.

If you mean people accept democratic rules where they don't accept rule by an individual neighbour - sure. Is there supposed to be some contradiction there?

[Joe Liberty]

If you mean people accept democratic rules where they don't accept rule by an individual neighbour - sure. Is there supposed to be some contradiction there?

Indeed there is, since in a constitutional republic, the only powers the government has are by the consent of the governed. Logically, you cannot give a power to someone else that you don't possess yourself. Therefore, if your neighbor can't personally demand that you pay for his perceived needs, then he can't give that power to government either.

So applying different standards to individuals and government means that the People aren't really the power after all, not even the majority of them, and the government has assumed powers that it cannot rightly possess.

[Phred]

Phred,
I am very interested in your notion of natural rights. The rights you claim to derive logically from objective facts of human existence are basically the same as the rights that I derive from what I consider to be subjective values. If you could persuade me of your position, I'd be a happier person. This is a rare occasion in which I am highly receptive to a different view from my own.

I'll start with your "tight" definition:
"Rights" are those actions performed by humans in the presence of other humans which other reasonable humans - when observing them - recognize as representing no threat to their own ability to exercise their own set of similar actions.

That is a fine definition, but it really isn't enough to identify what such rights might be.

And?

For example, I could present a consistent world-view within which people have no rights whatsoever, or in which people's rights are restricted to speech, but in which they have no property rights (including no rights over their own bodies). Such a world-view would still be consistent with your definition.

So?

Look, the first part of any debate is to define one's terms. I did so.

This sounds a lot like saying that an act is a violation of someone's rights if it is a violation of the NAP, formulated in terms of property.

Probably. Does this surprise you?

2. That makes this description, like the conventional NAP, dependent on the concept and definition of "property". How do you define property, and how do you justify that definition?

First of all, I presented both definitions with the goal of defining the concept "rights". Both definitions are meant to do nothing more than to identify the concept under discussion - "rights". Clearly, in order to work out a just moral system, it is also necessary to define "property". But you have done so on so many past occasions I didn't feel the need to reinvent the wheel. I have no problems with your definition of "property". When you use it, I know you are referring to the same concept I myself term "property".

3. No theory of rights is complete without giving some motivation for why it is wrong to violate other people's rights.

True. But I wasn't proposing a theory of rights, I was merely clarifying what is being discussed when the word "rights" pops up. I supplied a definition, not a theory.

In my mind, the notion of rights is an inherently normative one. Neither your short nor your longer reference explains why it is wrong to violate other people's rights.

That's because both of my definitions are just that - definitions. That's all they are. If we aren't all talking about the same thing when we try to develop a theory of rights, there is no point expending the effort. Step one is to make sure when any of us use the term "rights", the others know what is being discussed.

While it is undoubtedly true that humans, as a matter of objective reality, require certain natural resources (food, water, etc.) to survive, it is far from a matter of objective reality that they require control over the sources of those resources, nor that they require more than a certain minimum level of those resources to survive.

Your point being?

It is hard then to see what is normatively wrong with a society in which people's minimal survival needs are provided by society, but in which they are otherwise stripped of any rights.

On the contrary. It is dead simple to see what's wrong with such a society: for one thing it is impossible to define "minimal". For another, the needs of these humans are not being provided by "society", but by other humans. The master-slave paradigm.

In other words, why is it wrong to enslave (while feeding and otherwise caring for) other humans?

Because rights are universal. What is a right for a specific human is a right for any human. In a situation in which there are slaves and masters, the rights are not universal. Some humans have more rights than others.


Phred

[SueDeNîmes]

If you mean people accept democratic rules where they don't accept rule by an individual neighbour - sure. Is there supposed to be some contradiction there?

Indeed there is, since in a constitutional republic,

Then I'll stop you right there since neither case assumes one. Nor do I live in one.

the only powers the government has are by the consent of the governed. Logically, you cannot give a power to someone else that you don't possess yourself. Therefore, if your neighbor can't personally demand that you pay for his perceived needs, then he can't give that power to government either.

So applying different standards to individuals and government means that the People aren't really the power after all, not even the majority of them, and the government has assumed powers that it cannot rightly possess.

Which wouldn't be a contradiction between the cases I mentioned, but between one of them and a constitutional republic in which people can pick and choose which democratic mandates to observe. Whatever your interpretation of any particular constitution (which I'm not really interested in), I doubt such a thing exists in practice since it wouldn't last 5 minutes.

Neither did I cite any case of a neighbour "demand(ing) that you pay for his perceived needs ." The feeding children case related to NAP allowing parents to starve their own children (who tend to live under the same roof).

[Joe Liberty]

Then I'll stop you right there since neither case assumes one. Nor do I live in one.

I was responding to your statement about people accepting "democratic rules" that are different than what they would accept from a neighbor. My explanation was that under "democratic rules", the people can't cede to government powers that they don't possess in the first place.

So applying different standards to individuals and government means that the People aren't really the power after all, not even the majority of them, and the government has assumed powers that it cannot rightly possess.

Neither did I cite any case of a neighbour "demand(ing) that you pay for his perceived needs ." The feeding children case related to NAP allowing parents to starve their own children (who tend to live under the same roof).

Again: I responded to this statement: "If you mean people accept democratic rules where they don't accept rule by an individual neighbour - sure. Is there supposed to be some contradiction there?" I think I successfully pointed out the contradiction.

In the specific case of starving children, I think withholding the means of survival from people constitutes aggression, don't you?

[SueDeNîmes]

I was responding to your statement about people accepting "democratic rules" that are different than what they would accept from a neighbor. My explanation was that under "democratic rules", the people can't cede to government powers that they don't possess in the first place.

Again: I responded to this statement: "If you mean people accept democratic rules where they don't accept rule by an individual neighbour - sure. Is there supposed to be some contradiction there?" I think I successfully pointed out the contradiction.

Then I can neither agree nor disagree. Democracy does beget powers people, including neighbours, don't possess individually without anyone 'ceding' anything.

In the specific case of starving children, I think withholding the means of survival from people constitutes aggression, don't you?

Certainly. But that means we both dispute the Libertarian NAP, according to which obligation to feed one's own children constitutes aggession.

[Joe Liberty]

Then I can neither agree nor disagree. Democracy does beget powers people, including neighbours, don't possess individually without anyone 'ceding' anything.

Then I'm wondering what "consent of the governed" means. Does it mean nothing more than approving of one's master? That's hardly a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people", is it?

Certainly. But that means we both dispute the Libertarian NAP, according to which obligation to feed one's own children constitutes aggession.

Since when? I'll admit I don't have a degree in philosophy or political theory but I've been a libertarian for half my life and never heard anyone make that claim. Besides, the NAP does not define the aggression, that's up to the people who apply it, and you'll find disagreement among libertarians on many aspects of its application. That in no way "disputes" the principle enshrined in the NAP.

[SueDeNîmes]

Then I'm wondering what "consent of the governed" means. Does it mean nothing more than approving of one's master? That's hardly a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people", is it?

It means accepting that we can't all just make up our own rules if we want to live among people.

Certainly. But that means we both dispute the Libertarian NAP, according to which obligation to feed one's own children constitutes aggession.

Since when? I'll admit I don't have a degree in philosophy or political theory but I've been a libertarian for half my life and never heard anyone make that claim. Besides, the NAP does not define the aggression, that's up to the people who apply it, and you'll find disagreement among libertarians on many aspects of its application. That in no way "disputes" the principle enshrined in the NAP.

Let's see, eh? :

Legal and political theory have committed much mischief by failing to pinpoint physical invasion as the only human action that should be illegal and that justifies the use of physical violence to combat it.

[...]

No man can therefore have a “right” to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced. Thus, we may say that a man has a right to his property (i.e., a right not to have his property invaded), but we cannot say that anyone has a “right” to a “living wage,” for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of the people being coerced. As a corollary this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former’s rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man’s rights.

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.

[Phred]

And here we see exactly what I was pointing out just yesterday in a currently-active thread in this same forum. An opponent of Libertarianism (Sue) is attributing to Libertarian principles the words not of a Libertarian, but of an Anarcho-Capitalist. Murray Rothbard was not a Libertarian as Libertarian is defined in the forum description, he was an Anarcho-Capitalist. Rothbard was perhaps one of the most intelligent of the An-Caps, but he was wrong on more than a few issues. His conception of the obligations of parents to their children is one of those issues.

The actual Libertarians who post in the Libertarian forum are more than a little tired of being shat upon for positions they don't hold but An-Caps do. Anarcho-Capitalism is not a variant of Libertarianism. It is a variant of Anarchism.


Phred

[mum]

Despite all that, it just so happens that people like children.
People also don't like other people who fail to feed their children.
So whether or not it is illegal to not feed your child and cause it to die (you still may or may not be found guilty if it is illegal), the social implications for the exceedingly few people who would actually do (not do) this would be a substantial deterrent.

[Red Barn]

Anarcho-Capitalism is not a variant of Libertarianism. It is a variant of Anarchism.

Yuck. No. We don't want them. Nobody wants them.



Honestly, I think they ought to be dropped off on some wee desert island somewhere, all by themselves (preferably without either children or cell phones, and surrounded by sharks).

[ingliz]

most people with even a grain of sense would think the NAP ....

I would not... It doesn't hold up.

One may only use force in defence of your person and legitimately acquired property.

But, as all land was obtained through initiation of force at some point in its history, all property has been acquired illegitimately (even your own body).

Therefore, one may not use force under any circumstance.


It is just silly.

[mikema63]

(even your own body).

How so.

[ingliz]

How so?

If all land was obtained through initiation of force at some point in its history, then all private property derives from violence, and is illegitimately acquired, because natural resources are required to produce all goods (even your body).

ps. I am assuming you have to eat.

[mikema63]

If I do not own myself who does, in a very fundemental way I cannot imagine not owning myself, it's quite beyond my comprehension.

[mum]

so because we are all the result of past evils, we may as well just give up now...
I'm glad I don't live in your depressing world ingliz, its a good thing not many people think like this