Do inalienable rights exist?

[Smartass]

@clairobscur

Fair? According to what moral principles do you judge fairness?

This is the principle: No person or group’s definition of “moral” or “fair” is any more “right” than any other person’s or group’s definition. Therefore, it is “bad” to impose one person’s definition on another person. So our goal is to minimize how much of this “imposition” happens.
You argue as if you agree with this in some cases and don’t in others.

When I say “best we have found”, I am saying that they provide the best framework for implementing the principle of not imposing our notions of “fair” and “right” on each other. A better framework is imaginable, but we have not found one.

If you want to argue the principle, okay. However, if you want to argue that these are not the best implementation of that principle, the only way I can think of for you to do so would be to present something that is better.

So, what are these absolute moral principles allowing you to state that an absolute right to property is more fair?

See above. I did not say they are absolute.

And obviously, this moral principle isn’t blatantly obvious, since most people would state that taking some rice from your 50 bags to feed the starving children sitting by your side is “fair”.

And I would never advocate a rule that prevented them from taking rice from their own bags in order to satisfy their definition of fair–even if I disagreed. I would only advocate a rule that prevented them from imposing this definition of “fair” on me by forcibly taking rice out of MY bag.

You should read the thread about moral relativism, which conveniently now appears again on the first page.

I could say the same to you. It is not a question of whether differing moral values exist. It is a question of how you account for them. You insist that we must pick between them and everyone must get on board with the decision. I say that each person should be allowed to pick for himself as much as possible.

I’m precisely the one stating that there isn’t any such set of “inherent rights”, remember?

I have acknowledged several times that they are not provable or objective, and I have explained the principle behind them. If you don’t think it is a good principle, I would like to know what a good one would be (to you). If you don’t think that the principle is implemented well by defining “inherent rights” for individuals, I would like to know what you think would be a better way.

Declaring how government SHOULD work is a statement of morals. I am clearly stating that mine is based on individual liberty. I find it fair because it allows us to BOTH live according to our morals. You seem to find it unfair because it doesn’t require me to live according to yours.

…from my point of view, it can be done only on a case by case basis. And in each case, we’ll have to come to an agreement about the goals we intend to achieve. (emphasis added)

This is it. You insist that we come to agreement about our goals. In other words, you insist that someone be forced to do another’s wishes. I do not insist that we all have the same goals or that you pursue mine instead of your own.

And the goals we favor will be dependant on a subjective judgement call. About which we’re likely to often disagree, apparently.

And what’s wrong with that?

It’s the same in any system you can think of. In your system, if I’m born in a poor family and get a serious medical condition, then though luck for me.

There is no system that can make life fair in the sense that you describe. We are people trying to agree on how to treat each other fairly. We cannot control the rest of the universe.

I cannot control the “whims of fate” that might impact you, but I can agree not to pile on when they impact you badly.

It’s just that you happen to think that if the harm isn’t caused by an active human being, then it’s acceptable.

The world does not work based on what is “acceptable”. I am not responsible for you being born sick if I have not caused it. I may agree to try to help you because of your misfortune, but I don’t see how it follows that you are therefore entitled to extract help from me by force just because I am not equally misfortunate.

A large number of agrarian societies didn’t recognize it, the cultivated land being a collective asset, with plots being attributed on a temporary basis. These societies didn’t collapse.

I said that you could not do away with it without passing owndership of it to the state, which is what you are describing. Remember that, in practice, the “state” is actually a person or group of persons who are making decisions for others. As their belief about what is “right” is no more valid than those being led, what is the logic of giving them power over the “citizens”?

But then any set of rights I believe in is equally valid.

Depends on what you mean by valid. I don’t know of any set of rights that is more “valid” in the sense that they create a framework in support of the principle of fairness I described.

And my belief that there’s no such set is also valid.

You say this, yet you adhere to a principle that we all must “agree” on each moral decision and that we must settle each issue collectively. For instance, you think that we must decide as a group whether and how much to contribute to the poor and then the group should be forced to follow this decision. Clearly there is some sort of underlying principle, you just aren’t saying what it is. All for one and one for all?

because you think that “right to life”, for instance is more clearly defined than “right to happiness”? It seems to me it’s not so well defined, or else you wouldn’t have to explain why it applies in situation A (human) and not in situation B (bear) or C (germ).

The theory of relativity is well-defined, but that does not mean that you can grasp it without explanation. Your understanding is not evidence one way or another of how-well defined a concept is. It IS evidence of how well I am explaining it.

And “right to use my legs to walk around” is quite clear. Nobody can prevent me from going wherever I want.

Only if that were the only right that you had. It is not that one right is placed above another–the distinction lies in how you exercise your right. Specifically, the ONLY restriction on the exercise of your rights that you cannot exercise them in a way that violates mine (without my permission). If you add property to your “right to walk around”, that does not make them unresovable. So, you cannot walk on my property without violating my right to own it (unless I give you permission, which, based on your attitude, I’m not all that inclined to do). At the same time, I cannot bury you in a pile of dirt that I own with violating your right to walk around.

Like I said, there may be confusion on your part as to what is meant by them, but that does not make them “undefined”. Put another way, if you have a right to life but are sick, that does not imply that I am responsible to make you well because I have not personally violated your right to life (unless I somehow made you sick…).
If the state owns all property, then I cannot do anything without violating the state’s right to the property. In other words, I cannot do anything without the state’s permission. If the state were some sort of absolute moral authority, this might be more easily defensible, but the state is actually controlled by people (George W. Bush comes to mind) who I don’t see any good argument–moral or otherwise–for giving power over me.

Ludicrous example? Hardly. Such a right has existed in french law, regarding seashores, since the 16th century at least . You can’t own a private beach and build a wall around it that would prevent me to pass,

In which case, your “right to walk around” is being made superior to my right to own property–and you are receiving favored status.

If you can’t give a valid basis for it, then you’ll have a hard time arguing against my right to use my legs to walk around, in most cases.

This is getting too long: The point one person is not responsible for guaranteeing another person’s ability to exercise a right. And you are talking about exclusions. You can, theoretically, walk around without violating my property. Walking around requires access to land, but not necessarily MY land. However, I cannot even theoretically “own” my property with you walking around on it (unless I have give you permission). I am not required to let you walk on my land and you are not required to buy land for me.

So, if the set of rights you’re convinced are the only inherent ones happen to support the social organization you’re favoring, it’s out of pure chance?

It is the other way around. I favor the social “organization” that I do because I agree with the principles that the rights are based on. And this “only” thing is yours, not mine.

Once again, what is the absolute moral rule that allows you to assess fairness?

I have been trying to ask you the same thing. What I offer is a compromise that allows us to each assess fairness for ourselves as much as possible. By agreeing that we each have a set of “inherent” rights, there is no need to battle over what is fair in each situation that comes up. Rather, in each situation, you can decide what is fair for you and I can decide what is fair for me. Um, fair enough?

And if it so, why do you have the right to have your property protected by another person?

We are agreeing that we each have a right to property by virtue of being people. If you do not infringe on my right, it does not need protecting. We are giving the state power enforce the agreement.

Despite this, you don’t have an inherent and absolute right to property. Your property can be taken to build a road, or to pay your taxes.

According to the constitution that was created, I do indeed have that right. Unfortunately, the majority has ruled that it is okay to use state power to violate my right to my property for no other reason than someone else’s definition of the Common Good. There are people who are in prison right at this moment who have done nothing more than eat something that considered against the Common Good (DRUGS!) or for having sex in an unsanctioned way (PROSTITUTION). These people have not violated anyone’s rights, but the state is violating theirs. Interestingly, once the majority has okayed a violation of a person’s rights, it rarely restores them. It usually looks for more violations to approve.

Except if you intend to argue that a society can only be libertarian or a dictatorship.

I am saying that I know of no way to move away from libertarianism without moving toward some sort of authoritarian rule. In a dictatorship, power is taken away from the individual and given to one person. In a “social democracy”, power is taken away from the individual and given to a group of people (the majority), even though there is no “objective” reason to believe that the majority’s definition of “right” is any better than that of any individual. Like I have said, in a democracy, there is no “principle” that prevents the majority from voting to allow slavery. Libertarian principles do not allow the majority to do this.

Once again, this thread is about the existence of inherent rights.

And I have already said that they exist only insofar as we agree that they do. If there is some objective evidence of them, I have no idea what it could be. But I don’t accept your proposition that, barring objective evidence of them, we must choose anarchy (or some other system that you don’t have any objective evidence of, either).

It’s not up to me to come with a better set of inherent rights when I’m stating there’s no such inherent rights.

Only if you agree with the principles underlying them. If you do not, then I would say that is up to you to define a set of principles that are in some way more “fair” than what I have suggested. Unless you favor anarchy, you must favor replacing them with something–so far, you have suggested majority rule, and I have explained why I think it is a worse choice, and you have ignored my answer.

More generally, I don’t think one could find a simple set of a small number of rights, even arbitrarily chosen, that would allow to decide what is “right” or “wrong” in every instance.

Neither do I. I think that, as much as possible, these determinations should be made by each individual.

This “inherent right to life” statement is misleading.

Only if you are not clear on the difference between a “right” and an “entitlement”.

But it doesn’t mean that my own interpretation of “right to life” (including bears) isn’t the true “inherent right to life”. Or else, you’re implying that there’s only one way to define a right that people generally approve of (the right to life, for instance), and that your way is the true way.

You can redefine the word “rock” to mean the same thing as what we usually call “bicycle”. Neither is true in any objective sense, but one is going to make it hard to communicate. A “right” is something that no one is allowed to take away from you–it is not something that you are entitled to be provided with. That is not my personal definition–it has been around for a while. I understand that people are continually trying to redefine this word. All I can do is tell you what I mean by it–I cannot show that one definition is more “true” than another.

But by no providing support to someone in need, you’re also limiting his freedom.

This seems to be a key point of confusion. In this case I am not limiting his freedom. His freedom is limited by something besides me.

There’s a lot of unemployment. I’m starving. You happen to own a factory and to have some spare food. You propose to me the following agreement. You provide me food for the next two weeks, and in exchange, I’ll have to work in your factory for free for the next 75 years to come 20 hours a day. It’s perfectly compatible with your concept of a society. From this moment on, if I agree, I’m for all intents and purpose your slave. Since I won’t have time for another job, I’ll starve if you don’t choose to feed me during these 75 years, so you even have a right of life or death on me.

There are a number of strange things about your scenario (who am I selling my factory output to?), but I’ll try to stick to a more purely philosophical level. If you agree to this outrageous “contract”, you have voluntarily agreed not to exercise your right to liberty for 20 hours a day for the next 75 years. Most people would probably rather starve now than suffer for 75 years. In other words, you are describing a situation where a person does not have good choices. In general, that is the way life is. When my grandmother was dying, she spent most of a week in a state that appeared to be excruciating. The choice that I had was to a) kill her (and face the legal consequences), b) watch her suffer, or c) turn away and pretend it wasn’t happening. No one stepped in to give me better choices. No one could–even though other people’s grandmothers might have died in their sleep.

Since we are not all-powerful, we cannot guarantee equally good choices for everyone. What we can do is have enough respect for them to not make their choices for them.

I also want to point out that the factory owner in your example is clearly a despicable man. At least, in the system I describe, the ways that he can “enslave” people are severely limited. However, in the “majority rule” system you describe, enough despicable people can exercise the unlimited power of government to truly enslave a great many people. They can, for instance, decide that homosecuality is immoral and make laws that treat homosexuals differently. You operate under the assumption that the majority will never act like this evil dude. Maybe it’s because I’m from the land of cotton, but I do not make that assumption.

Your society doesn’t guarante any actual freedom, not even a reasonnable expectation of freedom, except in name, if I happen to be born on the bad side of the social gap, except if someone agree to grant me this freedom by providing to me, for instance, food and an education.

Mine guarantees you the freedom to make your own choices–even if none of them are pleasant. Yours does not guarantee me even that.

In other words, in your system, my freedom is totally dependant on the goodwill of other people

Your freedom is not. Your choices may be. In yours, my freedom AND my choices are dependent on the goodwill of other people. How is this an improvement?

In the same way the basic rights enumerated in your constitution guarantee that these right won’t be curtailed by the tyranny of the majority.

In practice, they don’t. That’s my point. The will of the majority overrides my rights, and thus I am paying for corporate welfare whether I want to or not.

I disagree with the idea that there’s an objective, indisputable set of “inherent rights”.

Me, too.

I disagree with the idea that, if there were one or if you choose one arbitrarily, we could deduce from them every element of the the social organization.

I disagree that there is a need to define every element of the social organization. I would prefer that, as much as possible, individual people define it for themselves.

By deciding on issues on a case by case basis. Using moral principles that are, by their very nature, arbitrary, but that are also, in a given society, generally shared by a wide majority of people. And finally by consensus.

In which case, you are stating a principle that “right” is defined by what the majority of people think is right. You are saying that we cannot all pursue individual goals, we must pursue societal goals–even though many of us may not agree with those goals.

You are not so much denying the existence of rights as you are conferring them on a favored group of people (the majority). If the majority can decide what is right, then they have favored status over the minority.

…you’ll have to convince people that your (arbitrary) principles or proposals are better (will result in some greater good they long for, are more in accordance with their moral views, etc…) than other principles and proposals.

What do you think I am trying to do?

Here is the example that I want you to think about, in terms of fairness. In “my” society, there is nothing to prevent anyone from sharing with the poor. Society is not declaring this act right or wrong. That means that everyone can live according to their beliefs, and if you believe in sharing with the poor, there is nothing to stop you. Whereas, in “your” society, society decides whether giving to the poor is moral, and everyone is forced to go along. How is this more fair? How is it better to let one group dictate to another what is moral or immoral when there is an opportunity to let both groups make the decision for themselves?

-VM

[clairobscur]

I’m only going to answer to this part, since once again I think all the arguments have been stated and restated :

@Smartass

Here is the example that I want you to think about, in terms of fairness. In “my” society, there is nothing to prevent anyone from sharing with the poor. Society is not declaring this act right or wrong. That means that everyone can live according to their beliefs, and if you believe in sharing with the poor, there is nothing to stop you. Whereas, in “your” society, society decides whether giving to the poor is moral, and everyone is forced to go along. How is this more fair? How is it better to let one group dictate to another what is moral or immoral when there is an opportunity to let both groups make the decision for themselves?

The problem here is that you’re taking as a given an inherent right to property that would trump any other human desire. For instance, if you own all the rice fields, you don’t have any duty to give away rice to anyone. Besides thinking that there’s no inherent right, I also don’t think that picking a “right to property” as amongst the most fundamental one is justified.
“Property” is an abstract concept and a social construct. We don’t have any inherent ability to own anything. The concept of property is only based on an agreement and on the social contract. You’re the “owner” or this or that if conditions Y and Z are fulfilled. And these conditions have been defined by a consensus. IOW, you’re taking as inherent and as a basis something which is actually granted to you and a result (of the social consensus).
For instance, if you insist on me not walking around in your field, you’re limiting my natural ability to walk around and my freedom to use this ability by refering to an abstract : “this is MY field” that I can certainly disagree with. This is your field only because you decided so, and then I can just ignore your statement or even say “No. actually, it’s MY field”, or because society has agreed upon a number of arbitrary conditions to be fulfilled for it to be your field and is willing to enforce them, in which case I can most certainly disagree with the conditions to be fulfilled.
As soon as you recognize property as what it actually is, a social construct, you
must aknowledge my right to decide what are the conditions you must fulfill, and as a result also the limitations put on this right. For instance, the default state is “the field is nobody’s”. For some reason, we think it would be better if each of us could have some specific rights regarding the use of a plot of land. I insist on the we. If it’s just you who decide that you can prevent me from walking around in a particular place, I can safely and legitimately ignore your plight.
Then, when we form this social agreement, we can pick any set of conditions and any limitations that we see fit. For instance, you’re bestowed the exclusive right to hunt game and collect mushrooms in your wood, but you can’t prevent me from crossing it. Or…you’re bestowed the exclusive right to hunt game and collect mushrooms but you must give back 1/4th of this food to the tribe (that would be taxes and redistribution) . This is perfectly legitimate because by granting you this exclusive right to hunt, and even more so by protecting it, we’re limitating everybody else access to this source of food.
So, when you’re asking to be allowed to decide for yourself what to do with your body (walk around), it’s difficult to dispute it. But when you’re asking to be allowed to decide for yourself what to do with your property (eating your game), you must first obtain our agreement on both the definition of what is yours (the oil under your field doesn’t have any inherent property making it “yours”) and the meaning of “it’s yours” (whether there are or not limitation to what you can do with your oil, and what kind of limitations) and even our agreement that such a thing as “private property” exists. We can just laugh at your face and say “The concept that you’re the owner of a natural ressource is plain ludicrous. Stop being silly”. Which is what would happen in a number of societies.

To sum up : since property is a social construct, defined by society, said society can put any conditions or limitations on ownership it sees fit. For instance that you’re obligated, in exchange for the recognition of your priviledge to use what we defined as your property, to give back a part of the income derived from this property to be used in whatever way we think is valuable. IOW, pay taxes to fund healthcare.
There are very few cases when your ownership of something, isn’t, directly or indirectly, the result or the cause of you using a ressource that could have been used by someone else who had exaclty as much right as you to it. Beeing able to work, been paid and buy something implies an extremely encompassing network provided to you by the society.
The only case I can think of would be when you just grab a ressource which is of no real value for anybody, and, without relying in any way, shape or form on the society’s support, transform it, by your work alone, in something valuable. For instance grabing a stone lying on the ground and making a stone axe out of it. And even then, people could argue “there isn’t that much silex around, you should have asked us first, surely you owe us something” or “how would you have known how to make a stone axe if it wasn’t for the elders teaching you how to do it, and their own elders teaching them so, and so on since the midst ot times? surely you owe us something” or “our grand grand grandfathers had to fought to keep this piece of land where we can find silex, surely you owe us something”.

And briefly, as I said before, your instance on recognizing an absolute right of property has very adverse consequences for some other people, in particular serious limitations to their right to live (if you’re the owner of the food sources) and their freedom (when, as a result, they have to agree on working for you 16 hours a day in exchange for a bowl of rice), eventually resulting in them having only theorical rights, and no actual ones. For this reason, it would be unwise to can grant lightly and without any conditions an absolute and unlimited right to property to individuals. If we agree to let you “own” something, we must make sure that we aren’t entering in a very bad deal for everybody else. We must weight the advantage of you being able, for instance, to grow more rice against the disadvantage of you being able to limit the access to rice.

[Smartass]

@clairobscur

The problem here is that you’re taking as a given an inherent right to property that would trump any other human desire.

Again, it not a question of one right trumping another right; it is a question of insisting that they are equivalent.

“Property” is an abstract concept and a social construct. We don’t have any inherent ability to own anything. The concept of property is only based on an agreement and on the social contract.

I think this may be where we are leading each other in circles. “Property” is abstract, but it is not a social construct in the way that “democracy” or “community” is. If a resource exists, someone(s) has the right to decide how it is used. Your assertion that this right does not exist is nonsensical, and I will try to explain why.

Let’s say that there is a field and there are 100 people. If all 100 people agree that the field should be used to grow wheat, there is social consensus (another word you like to abuse). However, if 10 people would rather grow potatoes, there is no social consensus and–for anything to be grown–there has to be a determination of who has the “right” to decide. You tend to assume that the right falls to the majority, in which case–whether you admit it or not–you are assuming a right to property and you are bestowing it on a group, the majority. Once the majority has decided to grow wheat, it makes no difference whether the remaining 10 people are allergic to wheat or just detest the taste of bread; they have no say-so in the matter and thus have no right whatsoever to the field. Nonetheless, you say that it is their tough luck because the “community” has decided. In fact, the community has NOT decided and there is no “social consensus”. The majority has decided and 10 people who don’t want to grow wheat are screwed. You keep insisting that this is fair to all, and I keep insisting that it is not.

What if 49 people would rather grow potatoes? Does that affect your opinion? What if only 1 person is deathly allergic to wheat and he will die if he eats it? Is it fair that he be subjected to the will of the majority? Suppose they don’t like him? Or suppose that they believe that God wants people to eat wheat and those that don’t eat wheat are immoral? What if 1 guy wants to grow pot? Under what circumstances does the will of the majority determine what is right? Is it just a question of who has the most numbers? Or is it a question of certainty? Does it matter if one says “I am absolutely certain that it is immoral not to eat wheat and I can prove it to you”?

Suppose they decide that the right to decide what to grow belongs no more to one individual than another, so they decide to divide the field up and each person gets to decide to what to grow on 1/100th of it. Whether you believe it or not, this means that the “right to property” has been bestowed on the individual. Is this not more fair?

If one guy comes along and tramples the other guy’s potatoes, is that fair? If one guy steals another guy’s potatoes, is that fair? What if a band of 60 get together, kill the other 40, and take their land? What if they just beat them up? Threaten them with rakes?

Suppose one person does not like to farm. Can he trade his 1/100th to another person for, say, a pile of seashells? Can he decide to use his 1/100th as a place to take a shit? Suppose he does this for one year and the rest of “society” thinks he is disgusting for doing it and vote to stop him. If he has a right to the property, should they be able to do that? Let’s say he does do that, and the next year he grows a whole bunch of wheat (the shit has improved the soil) and everyone else has a bad year. Should he be allowed to share with them? Should they be allowed to come and take his wheat?

How 'bout this. Let’s say that one person’s 1/100th has a great big rock and therefore could not grow any food. Are the others allowed to share? Are they required to? Who decides what they are required to do? What if 60 of them band together and decide that it is their duty to share with the rock dude. They stop by another guy’s plot (he grows potatoes) and tell him what they’ve decided to do. He says, “Wow, that’s really nice of you guys.”

They say, “We think you should give him a few potatoes.”

He says, “Well, I really need my potatoes, but I’ll try to set a few aside.”

They say, “Look at all the potatoes you have. What the hell’s wrong with you? We have reached a social consensus and determined that you WILL give him 10 of your potatoes.” Three of them hold him down and the rest take 10 potatoes from him (actually 12–one guy slips a few in his pocket). On the way across the field, the 3 guys who held the potato dude down decide that they should each have a potato for their work. Another guy eats one on the way because he is hungry. When they arrive, they throw 6 potatoes onto the rock and say, “There you go. Aren’t you glad we are looking out for you?”

The rock guy says, “What do you mean. I can’t live off of 6 potatoes. I need at least 12. Look at that guy over there: He has 20. This isn’t fair. What kind of society is this?”

The guy with 20 potatoes grabs them up and runs away…

My position is that the only time a gang of people should be attacking someone is if he hurts one of the other 99 or if he steals the guy’s 1/100th of land.

You keep saying that things are decided by consensus when in fact you are saying that the majority will rule. If you think this is more fair, then at least be honest about what you are saying. You insist that the use of the field must be decided by the group as a whole–but you don’t account for the situations where the group as a whole doesn’t agree.

And this leads me back to what I have claimed is a good set of principles that we should try to reach a “consensus” on. Namely, each person should be allowed to live, allowed to make decisions, and allowed to decide how his property is used. I am saying that this is the minimal requirement in order for the field to not just become a pitched battle. You claim that I have “invented” a right to property while, in practice, you are bestowing that same right on a particular group of people. I have not invented the right. If I have invented anything, it is the idea that no one person or group is more has more of that right than any other. I am saying that each one of the 100, by virtue of being human, is no more or less entitled to decide what happens with the field than any other, even–and this is important–even if he is the only one who happens to hate wheat. Even if he is the only one who does not believe he has a moral obligation to give potatoes to the guy with the rock.

Now, what I would suggest is that, rather than disingenuously insist that there is no such thing as a right to property, you should explain why you think that some people (the majority) should have that right and others should not.

There are very few cases when your ownership of something, isn’t, directly or indirectly, the result or the cause of you using a ressource that could have been used by someone else who had exaclty as much right as you to it.

No shit, Sherlock. And when there is no “social consensus” as to what should be done, you basically say, “Well, there are 60 of us and 40 of you, so tough luck to you.” Or, more often, you say something like, “You should be thankful that the 60 of us let you make any decisions at all”, or “if it weren’t for the 60 of us teaching you, wouldn’t even know how to grow potatoes, so really, we’re entitled to them anyway. Maybe if you’re nice, and if you grow enough potatoes on our land, we’ll let you keep a few.”

Yes, you clearly have a highly evolved notion of what is fair.

Surely you owe us something

Why? Because there are more of you than there are of me? Do you owe me nothing? Not even the freedom to decide whether I grow potatoes?

And briefly, as I said before, your instance on recognizing an absolute right of property has very adverse consequences for some other people, in particular serious limitations to their right to live

Another grand observation? Any time a scarce resource is “used” or “consumed” it has an adverse consequence on everyone. If I eat a potato, that potato is no longer availabe for anyone else to eat. The question is, who should decide the fate of the potato? The person who grew it, or the 60 people who happen to be strong enough to take it away from him?

We must weight the advantage of you being able, for instance, to grow more rice against the disadvantage of you being able to limit the access to rice.

Who is “We”? You and your 59 friends? Is it not necessary for me to agree in order for their to be “consensus”?

-VM

[Smartass]

Everyone that debates libertarianism with me seems to start with the notion that I am selfish. That is not the case, but I have since birth been a nonconformist, which means that I have a unique amount of sympathy for the 1 guy out of 100 who doesn’t see things the same way as everyone else.

I know that both Democrats and Republicans get a great deal of personal satisfaction from the “ideologies” and put a great deal of emotion into the periodic lottery to see who gets to make decisions for everyone else. But I wonder if any of you give much thought to what it’s like to be the nonconformist, the unenlightened libertarian who doesn’t want to tell any of you what to do.

Well, I’ll tell you. It feels like being one little guy cowering over a potato that I just spent 3 months trying to grow. On one side, 45 people are waving rakes and saying, “Burn that potato before we all wind up going to Hell!” On the other side, 45 more people are waving rakes and saying, “Look at that guy over there. He doesn’t have a potato. Give us that potato so we can decide a fair amount for you to have. If you call him “Lazy Potatoless Man” one more time, we’re going to lock you in a cage. And stop spreading shit on your garden before you make us all sick.”

The world is not fair, never has been. Does that make it okay for any size gang of people to take my potato away in order to “fix” it so that it matches their definition of fair?

If my notion of “fair” is not the same as yours, which one of us needs enlightening?

-VM

[Homebrew]

Where are the other 8?

[Smartass]

@Homebrew

Where are the other 8?

The other 8 what? Did I make a mistake with my potato-math? If so, please accept my apologies.

-VM

[clairobscur]

@Smartass

Again, it not a question of one right trumping another right; it is a question of insisting that they are equivalent.

Surely, you’re not going to tell me that my right to eat strawberry flavored ice-cream is equivalent to my right to life.

You only consider as equivalent the rights that are, according to you the most important ones. You put “right to property” in this “top list” . I disagree with this choice.

I think this may be where we are leading each other in circles. “Property” is abstract, but it is not a social construct in the way that “democracy” or “community” is. If a resource exists, someone(s) has the right to decide how it is used. Your assertion that this right does not exist is nonsensical, and I will try to explain why.

Precisely, I don’t think so. I just think that someone(s) is going to decide how to use it. But no someone(s) in particular has any “right” to decide. If a ripe fruit is available on an unused land, someone is likely to pick it up and eat it. But this person doesn’t have a specific right to eat it. He only has the ability and the desire to do so. It becomes a right only when there’s a general agreement that he only (or a specified group) can eat it, when he can oppose someone else’s desire to eat the same fruit on the basis of this agreement. For instance when there’s an general agreement like “the first person who find the fruit can eat it”.

Let’s say that there is a field and there are 100 people. If all 100 people agree that the field should be used to grow wheat, there is social consensus (another word you like to abuse). However, if 10 people would rather grow potatoes, there is no social consensus and–for anything to be grown–there has to be a determination of who has the “right” to decide.

Nitpick if you want about the use of “consensus”. You understood what I meant. And consensus isn’t the same thing as “unanimity”, anyway.

Yes. There must be a determination about the “right” to use land. And as long as no such determination is made, there’s no existing right.

This determination can be made in various ways. By a democratic decision (everybody shall have an equal share), by the overlord (everything is mine and I’ll share the rice with the people faithful to me), by custom (since the dawn of time, the land has been the collective property of the time), by war (let’s kill the people who want to grow potatoes). Or no determination at all can be made (" Do you own air or running water? The idea that someone could own land is just silly").

Hence, the right doesn’t predate the determination. Now, as you said, who has the right to determine who has the right to own or use land (there’s no reason that someone must own it. A right to use it will suffice) must be determined too.

To whom do you propose to grant this right? As often said, democracy is the worst system, excluding all the others.

You tend to assume that the right falls to the majority, in which case–whether you admit it or not–you are assuming a right to property and you are bestowing it on a group, the majority.

Just to clear up tthings, I’m not assuming at all a right to private property, as I stated above. The land might not be owned by anyone, it might be a collective property, people might only have a right to use it (which is common in small agrarian communities), for instance. The right to property also might not be absolute (actually, it’s quite never absolute).

What I’m assuming indeed is that a community finding a new ressource, will tend to use it, and will decide one way or another about the way to use it. It’s not a right, it’s a statement of fact.

A right only appear when there’s, once again an agreement. like for instance “whatever fertile land we can find, we can decide to use in any way we see fit” or “everybody knows that anybody can walk on any land, and pick or kill whatever he wants on it. Nobody care if you’re growing potatoes or not. If you think we’re devasting your harvest, then stop spending time growing potatoes, and wasting our time by insitisting that something which grows somehow belongs to you”.

Lacking such an agreement, there’s no right, because there’s no recognition of the legitimacy of your actions, nor any way to oppose a different view except by blunt force. You’re lacking a frame of reference to define any form of “right”.

Once the majority has decided to grow wheat, it makes no difference whether the remaining 10 people are allergic to wheat or just detest the taste of bread; they have no say-so in the matter and thus have no right whatsoever to the field.

Absolutely. They had no right whatsoever to the field at the first place. “I want to grow wheat”, “I want to grow potatoes” or “I want to be able to pick up and eat whatever happens to grow on the soil” are all perfectly legitimate. There’s a conflict of opinion and it must be solved, preferably peacefully, but then, maybe not. Having the majority decide is better than having the overlord decide, or banning the dissenters.
“I want to get my own plot of land and do whatever I want with it” isn’t particularily more legitimate than any other decision. By doing so, you’re preventing me from hunting deer in your field, for instance. Or to collect strawberries that previously grew there. Or to grow wheat. Or to just cross it. You’re infringing on the ability of everybody else to do what they want on this particular plot of land. So you need the agreement (willfull or imposed by the majority, or forced by the overlord) of everybody else, who is loosing something as a result of your decision. Otherwise, you’re trying to impose your individual will on everybody else, which is certainly worse than having the majority decide on the issue.

Nonetheless, you say that it is their tough luck because the “community” has decided. In fact, the community has NOT decided and there is no “social consensus”. The majority has decided and 10 people who don’t want to grow wheat are screwed. You keep insisting that this is fair to all, and I keep insisting that it is not.

It’s certainly fairer than you alone deciding “there’s something called a right to private property. It includes doing whatever I want with my “property”, and I must get a piece of land to be my property”, against the will of the majority.

It’s perfectly legitimate for me to tell you “What? I’m a hunter! No way I’m going to agree not to hunt anywhere. If we begin having this “property” thing everywhere, hunting will become much more difficult”. Or “doing whatever you want? You must be joking. I’ve ten children, and if we agree with that you might cultivate nothing at all, and we could lack food next winter”. Actually it’s perfectly legitimate for me to tell you “Silly idea. I’ve no particular reason, but I don’t agree”.

Your concept that the land must be shared and that anybody can choose to do whatever he wants with its share has no inherent legitimacy what would be higher than the legitimacy of the statements mentionned above. You might argue it’s fairer until your face is blue, but if everybody else would rather want to hunt everywhere or make sure that enough food is grown, why should your “private property with an absolute right to use it in any way I want” concept prevail?

Indeed, you might be screwed if you don’t like bread, but a minority who wants to hunt, or wants to make sure there will be enough food for everybody would be screwed too if your system is implemented. So, why should your system be implemented against the will of others? What system do you propose do settle the issue, fairer than a decision by the majority, knowing that in any case, someone will be screwed?

What if 49 people would rather grow potatoes? Does that affect your opinion? What if only 1 person is deathly allergic to wheat and he will die if he eats it? Is it fair that he be subjected to the will of the majority?

I think I answered above. In all situations, people might be screwed. Imposing a social organization based on private property won’t prevent this. Even more so if you add an unlimited, inconditionnal right to use your property in any way you want. So, what if 49 people out of 100 would rather not have such a social organization? What if 99 people out of 100 don’t want it and you’re the only one advocating for it (for instance, they’re all hunters and all of them would be inconvenienced by your inviolable potatoe field, or there simply disagree with the idea for no reason at all)? What makes you think it should be implemented anyway?
Concerning the case of someone who could die as a result of a collective decision, I could come up with many example of someone dying as a result of your individual decision to use your property as you see fit. For instance, you refuse to fence it, and our usual bear come into the village and kills someone (since you’re under no obligation to protect me from bears). Or, following a drought, all springs dry up except the one situated on your plot of land, you refuse access to this spring, and everybody except you die.

The only way to solve this kind of issue is being reasonnable and compromise. For instance growing some potatoes despite the majority not liking potatoes. Or laying on you an obligation to fence your plot of land. Or granting to everybody the right to cross a property to take water from a spring, hence putting limitatins on your right of property.
If people are stubbornly decided not to compromise in any way, shape or form, then, yes, someone is going to die. But this can happen with both social organizations. You’re “absolute right to private property” isn’t immune from it.
So, how do you propose we choose between one system or another, without relying on the will of the majority, again?
I think this response covers also the point you made in the rest of your post. If it’s not the case, tell me so.

[clairobscur]

I’m not sure there’s a point going on with this argument. You’re apparently convinced that :

• A society can be organized on the basis of a set of principles or rights

• A social organization based on private property, and more precisely on the concept that there can’t be any conditions or limitations attached to private property is “more fair”.

• A social organization based on it is more efficient (whatever efficient could actually mean) in all situations.

• As a consequence, this unchecked right to private property must be one of the fundamental principles on which society is based

• Possibly that private property is the “default” situation.
  I disagree with all these points, and it seems to me we exposed our arguments. I’d rather leave it to rest…until next time.

[Homebrew]

@Smartass

The other 8 what? Did I make a mistake with my potato-math? If so, please accept my apologies.

-VM

45 “burn the potato” chanters
+
45 “feed the hungry guy” chanters
+
1 Lazy Potatoless Man
+
1 you

---

92

8 folks unaccounted for. Are they anarchists?

P.S. I was being lighthearted for a change.

[clairobscur]

@Smartass

. But I wonder if any of you give much thought to what it’s like to be the nonconformist, the unenlightened libertarian who doesn’t want to tell any of you what to do.

If you believe that all people on this board are conformists, you’re sorely mistaken.
Not agreeing with your particula

The world is not fair, never has been. Does that make it okay for any size gang of people to take my potato away in order to “fix” it so that it matches their definition of fair?

“Why is this thing which is growing “your” potatoe, anyway?” would be my response, basically.

[clairobscur]

@Smartass

Everyone that debates libertarianism with me seems to start with the notion that I am selfish. That is not the case, but I have since birth been a nonconformist, which means that I have a unique amount of sympathy for the 1 guy out of 100 who doesn’t see things the same way as everyone else.

If you believe that evereybody on this board is conformist, you’re sorely mistaken.

Not agreeing with your particular brand of nonconformism isn’t the same as conformism.

The world is not fair, never has been. Does that make it okay for any size gang of people to take my potato away in order to “fix” it so that it matches their definition of fair?

“Why is this thing which is growing “your” potato, anyway?” would be my response, basically. Did you make the seed? Did you make the soil where it’s growing? Did you make the rain? Did you make the sun?

You’re welcome to apply my metaphor to a complex industrialized society.

[Bricker]

@clairobscur

“Why is this thing which is growing “your” potato, anyway?” would be my response, basically. Did you make the seed? Did you make the soil where it’s growing? Did you make the rain? Did you make the sun?

You’re welcome to apply my metaphor to a complex industrialized society.

Do property rights exist?

[clairobscur]

@Bricker

Do property rights exist?

I believed I had given my response to this question.
Yes, they exist as long as a a human society states they do and is willing to enforce them. And they aren’t necessarily absolute (there generally are limitations and conditions attached. And legitimately so).
They just aren’t “inherent”. And whether or not these rights, and more precisely particular definitions of them, are a good thing or not is open to debate.

[Smartass]

@clairobscur

I’m not sure there’s a point going on with this argument.

I DO think that there is no further point in quibbling over semantics. I have not claimed that a “right” is something that can be proven, like the law of gravity. I have been making a point of describing what I meant by the concept in order to make sure that you understand what I am saying. If you prefer to think of the “right to property” as the “authority to decide how scarce resources are used”, the terminology is not an issue for me.

Now in terms of what we agree/disagree on:

• A society can be organized on the basis of a set of principles or rights

I think that we both agree that there is no “organized society” if there is no accepted set of principles as to how decisions are made. I am sticking my neck out here and explaining as clearly as I can the principles that I think are most “fair”. For the most part, you are debating the way I define words or whether the correct set of principles can be objectively determined. I will admit that they cannot be objectively determined, but I will also assert that you are dissembling when you imply that there are no principles in one place and then assume a set of principles in another. From what I can tell, the principles you assume are that 1)the majority should rule and 2) all important decisions must be made as a group.

• A social organization based on private property, and more precisely on the concept that there can’t be any conditions or limitations attached to private property is “more fair”.

Specifically, more fair than anything you have proposed and more fair than nothing.

• A social organization based on it is more efficient (whatever efficient could actually mean) in all situations.

“Efficient” means that scarce resources are allocated in a way that achieves maximum “benefit” for the most people.

As a consequence, this unchecked right to private property must be one of the fundamental principles on which society is based.

Some sort of principle must determine how “decisions on using resources” are made. You suggest a vague notion of “compromise”, but what you describe is always, in effect, the majority rules. It is a principle, and it results in a decision, but if the minority’s wishes are completely ignored, I don’t think “compromise” is a very accurate description of the process.

Possibly that private property is the “default” situation.

I don’t know what you mean by “default”. Either decisions are made individually or they are made collectively. If the decision is collective, then this would be making “public property” the default. If they are made individually, then “private property” would be the default.

I disagree with all these points, and it seems to me we exposed our arguments. I’d rather leave it to rest…until next time.

That is up to you. But rather than continue to argue word meanings with me, I would rather that you answer the “meat” of my question. Let’s say that there are two “systems”, one of “collective” decisions and one of “individual” decisions. The biggest problem I have with your views is the fallback to everything being decided “collectively”. For now, let’s use “democracy” as the collective decision-making system.

Now, some scenarios:

60% of the people want to share food with the poor. 40% do not.
With “democracy”, 100% of people will share with the poor, 40% of whom are being forced to act against their personal “moral values”.
With “individual rights”, 60% will share and 40% will not, and everyone will be able to act according to their “moral values”.

60% do not want to share food with the poor. 40% do.
With “democracy”, 100% of the people will not share (the poor will starve), 40% of whom are being forced to act against their personal “moral values”.
With “individual rights”, 60% will share and 40% will not, and everyone will be able to act according to their “moral values”.

60% of the people do not believe in God, 40% do believe
With “democracy”, 100% of the people will not worship, 40% of whom think this is sinful and that they are going to Hell after they die.
With “individual rights”, all will worship or not woship as dictated by their “moral values”.

Summary: In all these scenarios, in my system the more people agree with something, the more “society” moves in that direction, but at no point are people dragged in the “right” direction kicking and screaming.

Questions: On what basis do you conclude that the “individual rights” system is NOT more fair? On what basis do you conclude that “democracy” is more fair?

Seems to me you have to presuppose some Purpose for the existence of humans and try to drive every human towards achieving it. You assume that there is some goal that we must all pull for, while I assume that no one person is more likely to know that goal (if it exists) than any other. What if there is a God and His purpose for humanity is only known to one person, who happens to be in the minority?

The “compromises” that I propose require you to agree with my beliefs as little as possible. The “compromises” you propose require me to agree with yours. Since you seem to “run with the majority” and I tend to be a nonconformist, let’s look at it another way. I disagree with you and I propose a compromise that, as much as possible, let’s us both have our way. Since you are in the majority, it’s not surprising that your “compromise” means you get your way and I get whatever you choose to allow me. Like I say, not surprising, but on what basis do you call it fair? And how is it really different from just fighting it out like barbarians? Are you more civilized because you just show me the rake without actually hitting me with it?

-VM

[Smartass]

@Homebrew

8 folks unaccounted for. Are they anarchists?

Ah, now I get it. They’re not unaccounted for. They’re libertarians–and they’ve decided not to help me at all.

-VM

[Smartass]

@clairobscur

If you believe that all people on this board are conformists, you’re sorely mistaken.

Then I understand you even less. One thing it has taught me is empathy for those who disagree with the majority.

-VM

[Pushkin]

@clairobscur

It means that you can’t be deprived from this right, and, generally, that you can’t choose to renounce to it, either.

You can be murdered and commit suicide, would that mean that the right to life isn’t inalienable?

[Smartass]

@Pushkin

You can be murdered and commit suicide, would that mean that the right to life isn’t inalienable?

Not in the sense that it is being discussed. The snide way of putting it is to say that if you are murdered, you still have a right to life; you just don’t have life. Maybe more helpful would be to say that murdering you would be a violation of your right to life. Committing suicide would be voluntarily choosing not to exercise your right to life.

By describing it as “inalienable”, we are saying that there is no situation in which you no longer have the right–not that there is no situation in which the right cannot be violated. In fact, the state is able to “lawfully” violate your right to liberty by putting you in jail. But the state cannot lawfully declare that you no longer have a right to liberty. In this context, no one other than the state can lawfully violate your right. For you to violate your own right would be nonsensical; you can either choose to exercise it or choose not to. If you were required to exercise your right, it would be a duty.

It is a fine, but key, distinction that separates talking about what CAN be done and what is ALLOWABLE.

-VM

[davenportavenger]

@Smartass

Then I understand you even less. One thing it has taught me is empathy for those who disagree with the majority.

Huh? Are you trying to say that libertarians are always the odd people out? Where I come from IRL, there are a lot more people who agree with your notions of “fairness” than my notions of “fairness.” (And yes, I know you were talking to clairobscur, but I’ll just answer for all “socialists”/conformists.)

It seems to me that libertarians in general have quite a superiority complex.

[clairobscur]

** Smartass ** ,
I think the isssue is that you would want me to define some principles I would use as a basis for a social organization. But not only I don’t think any set of principle is inherently true or provable, but also I don’t think it’s possible to organize a society on a basis of a simple set of principles, even arbitrary ones.
Society, and even human nature, is way too complex to do so. The list of principles to follow would include dozens, or hundreds or thousands of them. Some would very encompassing, some would be very specific. There would be exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions, and the exceptions to the exceptions would require some level of interpretation. There would even be contradictions. And incoherences.

Like, say, a code of laws. We all long for simple principles to guide us, but I think this quest is vain. If our legal systems are so complicated, it’s not because politicians like to spend their time complicating our life, it’s because there’s no other realist option.
So, on what are my socio-political opinions, my principles, my moral values based? I would say : essentially on what I “feel” is right, or wrong, concerning such or such specific issue. And on what are based these feelings? It doesn’t really matter. Some are probably hardwired in my brain, some are the result of my education, some the result of my experience, some are socially acceptable values I integrated, some are my own intellectual reasonnings I also integrated.
How, then, could I convince anybody that my values, my principles, my proposals are better than somedy else’s?

Of course, to some extent, I can use a sound reasonning to support my views. But each step of this reasonning will require new assumptions, and if you dig deep enough, eventually, you hit the bedrock. In the same way a small kid will ask his parents Why? Why? Why? Why? Until the parent has to admit “I don’t know” or “Because I say so”.

Even as adults, we (or at least some of us) go on doing this. And there’s still no ultimate answer. “Why is it wrong to torture a baby for fun?”. There’s no answer to this question that doesn’t require a new assumption. The real answer is “because the overwhelming majority of us feel it’s abhorent”. That’s why. Because we say so.
So, how could I convince other people that my views are correct? Sometimes because I can point at some flaw in their own reasonning, or at some factual error. But even then, it’s no guarantee that they will be convinced. Because values and principles rely more often on “gut feelings” than on intellect. I think the christian theology has more holes than a gruyere cheese. I can point at them in front of a crowd of christian people until I’m blue in the face, most will never seriously take my points into consideration.
More often, I must rely on the fact that most of my values and principles are shared by my contemporaries. So, I can argue on the basis of common assumptions. The less “value-loaded” the issue is, or the more generally agreed upon the basic assumptions are, the more likely I am to convince. I won’t have a hard time stating “it’s wrong to gut small kids”. Everybody, apart from some sociopaths is going to agre. If I add “we have a duty to prevent people from gutting little kids”, it’s not so simple anymore. First on the principle. Some ultra-libertarians will say that there’s no such obligation. But also on the application : does my duty stops at paying taxes to fund a police force, or do I have a duty to personnally prevent the crime if need be? People are going to disagree on this one, especially if preventing the crime implies a significant risk. And now, if I ask “do we have a duty to prevent bears from gutting little kids”, you tell me that we don’t have such a duty. And this statement of yours is arbitrary.

Which brings me to the core of the issue in this thread. You enunciated a number of “inherent rights”. Extremely vague ones. “Right to life”, for instance. What the hell does “right to life” mean, pratically? So you refined them, gave examples. You even admitted that this choice was arbitrary, unprovable. And you’re daring me to give better ones.
And I can’t . I freely admit that I can’t. But I also state, without the shadow of a doubt, that you can’t, either. Something you seem unwilling to admit. You appear to be convinced that your principles are objectively better, “more fair” than any others. Which results in exchanges like these :

-“How fair is it that only wheat is cultivated if I prefer potatoes? How fair is it that you trample my potatoes?”/ “how fair is it that you prevent me fom killing the game I was hunting and that entered your field? Shouldn’t I have a say in whether or not land should be owned/ cultivated at the first place?”

-“Isn’t it unfair that the majority could decide what should be cultivated against the will of the minority?”/ “Isn’t it unfair that you could dictate your private ownership system against the will of the majority?”

-“Why should I be obligated to protect you against bears. Bears aren’t humans and can’t be part of the agreement”/ “Why should you be allowed to own bears, or potatos plants? Potato plants aren’t human, either. Why should I be obligated to protect your privately owned potatoes that aren’t part of our agreement?”

-“You should pay taxes to protect me against the actions of other humans but not from disease”/ “Why not from disease? Or at the contrary why should I be obligated to protect you from other humans? Why don’t you take care of this yourself? Isn’t it slavery too?”

In all of these cases, you’re arbitrarily drawing lines (humans : yes, bears : no), taking as a given what is to be demonstrated (preventing you from owning property = tyranny of the majority but imposing a private property system isn’t tyranny, which implies that you have an already established right to property), making completely abstract judgment calls (it’s more fair to let you have an absolute control over a plot of land than to let me walk wherever I want, regardless of the circumstances or relative inconvenience),…
Nevertheless, you’re apparently firmly convinced that the principles you’re applying aren’t arbitrary, or at least that they’re “better” “fairer”. Your principles are better. Your values are absolute: individual freedom is to be protected at all cost (well…nearly all. I still have to pay taxes to protect your life), regardless of the consequences on you or on others, private property unchecked. Principles are more important than reality (Being free in theory is fundamental. Actually benefiting from some basic form of freedom is unimportant. For instance paying taxes is slavery but “work or starve” is freedom). You methods are infaillible (the magical “market” will solve any problem whatsoever to the best. In all circumstances).

I don’t call this reason. I call this blind faith. Blind because you don’t recognize it as what it is : a mere set of beliefs. Blind also because it’s tainting your perception of any issue. Slavery is lurking around our potatoes and hospital beds. But the Holy Free Market will protect us all.