Lib, I ain’t allowin you nothin. I understand perfectly that your philosophy is universal, meaning that you apply it to every aspect of your life and thus in any situation, you will find it applicable. What I was saying was that you you could talk without fear of flame from me. You can ALWAYS talk, and you’ve done so with remarkable dignity so far.
I’m going to mull over everything, yours especially, and see what I can think up.
I sold my soul to Satan for a dollar. I got it in the mail.
God bless you, sir or madam. God bless you.
Crick&Watson wrote:
Hey, I never said I didn’t believe that property rights are important. I simply don’t agree with Lib, who thinks that property rights are the be-all and end-all of any discussion of rights.
Unlike Lib, I believe we ought to have freedom of speech whether we own property or not.
I also do not believe that property rights (or any other rights) are “natural” or “divine”. All rights are creations of human beings. We have Thomas Jefferson and the thinkers of the Enlightenment to thank for most of the protections we now think of as “rights”.
Apparently, some folks in this thread disagree, but I am still waiting for someone to point me to something in nature or in religion which forms the basis of the rights we enjoy.
Seems to me that no right can exist unless it’s guaranteed by a government (check out primitive tribes like the Yanomamo and the Maring, still living basically outside government control…in those societies you have no rights except to kiss up to the boss and take his largesse.)
Any competent constitutional govt (cf. the USA) makes it pretty clear in law what your basic rights and responsibilities are, and how those rights can be curtailed by the law. If you have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, only your violation of a law (which generally means that you have infringed on someone else’s right to life, liberty, and happiness) can cause these rights to be curtailed. Say I rob you, infringing thereby on your happiness. Well, then they can put me in the slam infringing upon my right to liberty because of what I did to you.
As for driving, I’d say it’s a right, since everybody is eligible to pass the necessary tests and get his licence, and the state can’t stop you from doing it…UNLESS you’ve been convicted of drunk driving or something like that in which the state takes away your right to drive, because you’ve infringed upon the safety of the rest of the population and you lose your right.
I suppose, in summation, I’d say that we all have rights guaranteed to us by the law that we can lose depending on our conduct.
I dunno, maybe I’m a little dense here spoke-, but I think Libertarian made himself quite clear – If one considers one’s physical life to constitute a property (as he does, and made clear), then it would be quite impossible to separate the rights from the property, wouldn’t it? I also think his statement concerning free speech was pretty much in line with the actual practice – you may speak freely on your own property, but folks like judges and message board moderators have the right to shut you up, should they so choose, when you do it on theirs.
I don’t really see your point of divergence, I guess.
Of course, since I don’t believe humans have rights of any kind simply by virtue of being born, it’s a bit easier for me to stand outside the argument. I can’t remember the last time a flood, tornado, or hurricane stopped cold in its tracks and paused to consider the rights of the millions of people standing in its path.
Whether you believe that your rights stem from God or from nature, it is certainly naive to think that human beings can or will grant things that invisible deities or natural forces will not – namely, rights.
The only ‘rights’ that exist are the ones people have died to secure, and continue to die to maintain.
Dr. Watson
“The world in its various aspects is increasingly looked upon as discrete rather than continuous.” – Italo Calvino
I will point you to Frederic Bastiat’s The Law which should give you something to ponder upon. Here is a snapshot of what he had to say. [Permission to reprint granted without special request.]
You can stand tall without standing on someone. You can be a victor without having victims. -Harriet Woods-
Ye gads. Would the last person out of this thread please remember to leave the lights on?
Dr. Watson
“Born in throes, 'tis fit that man should live in pains and die in pangs.” – Herman Melville
Spoke
So, you believe I have the right to come into your home and say anything I please, no matter how obscene you find it to be, and now matter how much it offends you and your family?
Crick
Glad to see you got the point, thanks.
But with respect to this:
We, as libertarians, see rights as a matter of human ethics. Nature is amoral. God is absolute. Man is left to his self-interest.
Libertarian wrote:
OK, let me address this hypothetical (not to say false dilemma):
First of all, you have no right to come onto my property unless I invite you (expressly or implicitly). Whether you are on my property or not, I have no right to control what you say. You don’t check your freedom of speech at my door. On the other hand, If I don’t like what you say, I have the right to insist that you leave my property.
There. I answered your hypothetical, now you answer mine. Do you serously contend that I have no right to speak my mind except in my own home/apartment? What if I own no property? Am I then denied all rights of free speech?
(Before you answer, you do realize that this nation was founded, in large measure by debtors, don’t you? Many of our ancestors arrived fresh out of debtors’ prison.)
Spoke
Why, Spoke! That’s positively perfect! 
You didn’t call it a “right” to speak; you called it a “freedom” to speak. And you seem to understand plainly that your rights are defined by what you own. As you say, you may evict a speaker whom you don’t like.
Dammit, man, you backslid. 
Did you set aside for yourself a special set of rights? If not, as your own excellent answer to me makes clear, if you own no property, and everybody evicts you clean off the face of the earth, where will you talk, in orbit?
What is a right?
That’s easy… the opposite of a left.
Sheesh, some people are so stooopid!
The Sleeper has AWAKEN!
Hmm, let’s see.
All right, I view rights as a purely human construct, items to control the conducts of humans with regards to other humans. The right to life is the protection of life from another person. Etc etc.
Now, rights arising from property. I don’t really think so. I think rights are created by people for the convenient and beneficial interaction of people in a society.
Nought but constructs. Nought.
I sold my soul to Satan for a dollar. I got it in the mail.
Surg, would you basicall say that you see rights as defining conduct, whereas I see rights as defining ownership?
If so, why would a thief not have rights to the car he has just stolen, since he is now the person driving it?
Lib, just because I don’t see that rights arise from property doesn’t mean I think rights don’t apply to property. Basically, what’s mine is mine. No matter who has temporary posession of the vehicle, there is a certain person who owns it(or several people, same dif). Period.
I sold my soul to Satan for a dollar. I got it in the mail.
Libertarian wrote:
My, you are just a font of false dilemmas aren’t you? You know Lib, I’m sure you wish it weren’t so, but in this country we have public property where even poor folks with no property of their own can speak their minds.
And that’s to say nothing of that marvelous creation, the Internet, where even someone with a philosophy as unworkable as Libertarianism can spout off all they want to, just by walking into the local public library and logging on!
I love America! Don’t you?
Libertarian,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think there is a little misconception going on about the property/rights thing.
I also agree with that quote. I also agree with about 99% of what I THINK you are saying.
It has always been my understanding of this issue that property is the implementation of rights, not the origin. Is this the same thing you are saying?
Let me jump in, all rights fall into three catagories. Negative rights, these are right which for you to exercise requires others to do nothing and for other people to exercise requires you to do nothing. Free speech such a right. Next is positive rights for others to exercise them requires that you do something, as in wellfare rights. I am required to pay you for doing nothing. Finally there are meta rights this is the right to give up rights. If the right to property is absolute then you could never sell it. Will all these rights there is a flip side duty there is no right without duty. With negative rights your duty is to nothing, with positive rights your duty is to do something with meta rights your duty is to give up a right. Hope this helps.
ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM EST
Freedom
The origin of rights is God or nature, depending on which you believe gave your life to you.
Property is merely the context for rights. It is what you have rights to.