GilesStratton:For the rights skeptic this is true, just as certain types of music may be annoying according to their subjective evaluation so might your coercion. In fact, from the perspective of the rights skeptic that's the only valid reason there is disliking certain things.
GilesStratton:Since rights skepticism should be the initial position
thanks for the mention LM. I've argued like this here too. I used the inverse of the footnoted Kinsella, and you and I (and others) have used the "might makes right" outcome in various forms when NR is rejected which is piss-poor cause NR is discoverable, logical, and is cognizant of what is beautiful and good.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
good article
The problem with Kinsella's argument, as I see it, is that it trades on a conflation of multiple meanings of "rights" and ignores a multitude of possible (albeit ultimately wrong) positions between libertarian rights (universal and absolute prohibition of aggression) and "no libertarian rights = no such thing as an unjust use of force." The claims he makes do not automatically follow from the denial of libertarian rights. It'll take more to show those other positions are wrong than the "neat-and-tidy" arguments Kinsella presents here.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct InstructorBuena Vista University
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"(Who watches the watchmen?)-Juvenal, Satires VI.347
Geoffrey Allan Plauche:and ignores a multitude of possible (albeit ultimately wrong) positions between libertarian rights (universal and absolute prohibition of aggression) and "no libertarian rights = no such thing as an unjust use of force."
its possibly not helpful to chide someone for not taking time and effort to counter possible counterarguments, whilst admitting that the counterarguments to be countered are ultimately wrong....
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
I think he was providing an argument between the two positions, but it undoubtedly didn't construct libertarian rights (rights being principles). It was an argument, but not an analysis. Is that what you tried to say here? Because a person can easily make the point it wasn't an article to develop an analysis of all sides. Merely a straight forward argument/case.
Kinsella starts with the notion of legitimacy (presumably, "objective" rightness or wrongness), then instead of sticking with that word he for some reason switches to justifiable and just/unjust. Now we can only assume he still means objective rightness/wrongness when he says just/unjust. But this clarification does not jive well with his challenge:
Kinsella:But if there is no unjust use of force, what is it, exactly, that a rights-skeptic is concerned about?
Plugging in from above, the reader can scarcely be faulted for interpreting this as, "But if there is no objectively wrong use of force, what is it, exactly, that a rights-skeptic is concerned about?" This is no challenge for anyone who does not accept the notion of objective ethics. Kinsella implicitly assumes objective rightness and wrongness are coherent concepts, when that is precisely the underlying issue.
He again assumes objective rightness and wrongness with his usage of the word object (verb):
Kinsella:If there are no rights, as he maintains, then he cannot object to being shot.
Since when did objecting require the implicit assumption of objective (a priori) right and wrong? For Kinsella's purposes, "object" has to mean something other than merely demanding not to be shot and/or providing reasons why pulling the trigger would have consequences the shooter would probably not desire. For Kinsella's purposes only objections appealing to objective moral truths count as objections, but anyone who rejects the notion of objective moral truth would reject this narrow definition.
In short, Kinsella's critique presupposes the existence of objective or a priori moral truth, which is itself the hardest-to-swallow aspect of natural rights theories. If he wishes to defend natural rights, he would do better to try to defend - or even just clearly define - the underlying concept of objective or a priori ethics he takes as given here.
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
nirgrahamUK:its possibly not helpful to chide someone for not taking time and effort to counter possible counterarguments, whilst admitting that the counterarguments to be countered are ultimately wrong....
Yeah, but GAP has a point. Kinsella's argumentation works, as long as some basic premises are already in place. This style of argumentation doesn't prove objective rights, it only proves rights, when both parties agree that some sort of rights exist.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student:Yeah, but GAP has a point. Kinsella's argumentation works, as long as some basic premises are already in place. This style of argumentation doesn't prove objective rights, it only proves rights, when both parties agree that some sort of rights exist.
imo, the root agreement is even more primitive than that both parties agree that some sort of rights exist.
it is that both parties agree that there is an issue to be decided and that this can be done through rational argumentation.
Even if not, unless the parties are consistent in their uncaring about initiating force, i.e. they do not care if others aggress against them, there will be special pleading.
Isn't that something taken simply? I think so. I don't even see the nit-picking otherwise. It's the whole point on why humans are rational in the first place. They have the potential to realize each other and understand. Where I used to work (justice field) it was extremely common for new staff members to think they could try to talk with a resident/criminal that became upset. They tried to be all nicey-nicey, talk to them, and believed that if we only were nice enough to them that they would listen and be good. New staff members always had to have more experienced staff members with them because they could easily get hurt. After working there for awhile everybody - all people without exception - realized you can't simply talk to somebody that is trying to throw punches at you and think talking in a nice calm voice will stop somebody that is illogical and beastly/animalistic. Talk yes. Talk calmly yes. Be nice yes. They all obviously help. But with somebody being illogical be very prepared to defend yourself cause people of that sort easily become usurped by their self-inflicted nolition passions and so being on guard that a fist coming to the face can happen real quick, out of blue.
i don't see anything you said that would disagree with this. I gave practical real-time experiences on what happens when that rational argumentation is avoided.
yeah cause somebody has to win the fist fight for whatever reason - even if it is a vacating of reason. the more beastly one may win to prove the more beastly are winners.
Giles:.I still don't see why the rights skeptic can't object simply because he doesn't like being shot.
nirgrahamuk:imo, the root agreement is even more primitive than that both parties agree that some sort of rights exist. it is that both parties agree that there is an issue to be decided and that this can be done through rational argumentation.
wilderness:i don't see anything you said that would disagree with this.
what is a good example of a point of contention that could form the topic of discussion, the point to be decided, in a rational argument between a rights believer and a rights-sceptic ?
nirgrahamUK: wilderness: I'm all ears. dont hold your breath ;-) but i think it shows that my statement about rational argument was not trivial....
wilderness: I'm all ears.
but i think it shows that my statement about rational argument was not trivial....
not trival at all. it was simple. i like simple. I think wisdom is simple. Like A=A. simple. my son is three now and he completely understands more and more how to resolve issues by talking with us about it or walking away to calm down. sure he has his outbursts still, but he's maturing and discovering it's better to come clean and quickly resolve these issues or else he won't be playing with his toys for a while. Can't take away the toys!
Excellent. You and Baawa.
liberty student: Yeah, but GAP has a point. Kinsella's argumentation works, as long as some basic premises are already in place. This style of argumentation doesn't prove objective rights, it only proves rights, when both parties agree that some sort of rights exist.
Which is enough. How could more be expeced of an argument? Should it appeal even to a criminal determined to harm you? Even the best argument conceivable is not self-executable.
Knight_of_BAAWA:So what? I could dislike your disliking. Now what do you do?
Whatever my subjective preferences dictate, what sort of a question is that?
Knight_of_BAAWA: GilesStratton:Since rights skepticism should be the initial positionJustify that
Are you actually denying that the burden of proof is one the one claiming rights exist.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: The problem with Kinsella's argument, as I see it, is that it trades on a conflation of multiple meanings of "rights" and ignores a multitude of possible (albeit ultimately wrong) positions between libertarian rights (universal and absolute prohibition of aggression) and "no libertarian rights = no such thing as an unjust use of force." The claims he makes do not automatically follow from the denial of libertarian rights. It'll take more to show those other positions are wrong than the "neat-and-tidy" arguments Kinsella presents here.
I know the philosophers don't like neat and tidy arguments, for it would put them out of business.
My argument was in a suvey article where I summarized various related approaches. In the first part, I summarized Hoppe's argumentation ethics, my own estoppel argument, and a closely related argument about how rights-skepticism is self-refuting. I think this was basically my own argument, but only presented in summary form (which is enough, since it is pretty simple, no offense philosophers). BTW Aristotelean-Randian-Austrian Larry Sechrest liked all 3, as he explained here.
nskinsella:Which is enough. How could more be expeced of an argument?
I agree. I'm actually on your side.
nskinsella:Should it appeal even to a criminal determined to harm you?
No, obviously it should not, although the NR advocates struggle with subjectivity. It's simply EVIL if it doesn't conform to libertarian canon. Which is fine if we're in a cult, but not very satisfying if we're trying to reconcile ethics and epistemology.
nskinsella:Even the best argument conceivable is not self-executable.
@all, pay attention ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.
liberty student: nskinsella:Which is enough. How could more be expeced of an argument? I agree. I'm actually on your side. nskinsella:Should it appeal even to a criminal determined to harm you? No, obviously it should not, although the NR advocates struggle with subjectivity. It's simply EVIL if it doesn't conform to libertarian canon. Which is fine if we're in a cult, but not very satisfying if we're trying to reconcile ethics and epistemology. nskinsella:Even the best argument conceivable is not self-executable. @all, pay attention ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.
LS. That's a no-brainier. No struggle from subjectivity from me. I've said many times here before. The object/subject paradigm is simply a trap for those that get caught up trying to fit themselves into such categories. Your acting as if you now figuring something out means everybody is now just figuring it out. No. You just figured it out - I think. But this isn't anything new.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap