Can rights just exist, because human beings exist? Can one put a legal obligation onto others to observe/respect/enforce those rights:
Human rights do not exist.Human rights are rights that belong to human beings simply by virtue ofbeing human. A right to X indicates that an individual has, or ought tohave, a legitimate claim to X that obligates other individuals not todeny the individual X and obligates the government to protect theindividual's possession of X. Given this understanding of rights, toqualify as a right, a proposed right must meet at least two minimalconditions. The first is that there actually are other individuals tobe so obligated. The second is that there is an effective governmentmechanism for protecting the object of the proposed right. Human beingsmay inhabit circumstances or contexts in which either or bothconditions are not met without losing their humanity. In suchcircumstances or contexts, it would be inconsistent to claim that suchhuman beings would continue to possess rights. Since there arecircumstances or contexts in which it does not make sense to claim thata human being has a right to anything, human rights cannot exist. Humanbeings cannot have rights simply by virtue of being human. Rights haveto be founded on an alternative basis. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/2/8/4/p82840_index.html
Human rights do not exist.Human rights are rights that belong to human beings simply by virtue ofbeing human. A right to X indicates that an individual has, or ought tohave, a legitimate claim to X that obligates other individuals not todeny the individual X and obligates the government to protect theindividual's possession of X. Given this understanding of rights, toqualify as a right, a proposed right must meet at least two minimalconditions. The first is that there actually are other individuals tobe so obligated. The second is that there is an effective governmentmechanism for protecting the object of the proposed right. Human beingsmay inhabit circumstances or contexts in which either or bothconditions are not met without losing their humanity. In suchcircumstances or contexts, it would be inconsistent to claim that suchhuman beings would continue to possess rights. Since there arecircumstances or contexts in which it does not make sense to claim thata human being has a right to anything, human rights cannot exist. Humanbeings cannot have rights simply by virtue of being human. Rights haveto be founded on an alternative basis.
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/2/8/4/p82840_index.html
Any comments or further thoughts
earthmoving
I'm pretty sure this passage just threw me in the opposite direction and convinced me of natural rights. Saying that rights don't exist because men can be deprived of them is like saying that life doesn't exist because men can be killed.
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
All the statists and Keynesians will look up and shout "Save Us!" and I'll wisper "No."
Justin Spahr-Summers: Saying that rights don't exist because men can be deprived of them is like saying that life doesn't exist because men can be killed.
Saying that rights don't exist because men can be deprived of them is like saying that life doesn't exist because men can be killed.
That's not what the text says. The text says that for (the assumed) rights to have any meaningful function other agents/institutions have to be in place.
The Late Andrew Ryan:There are a million different reasons for human rights that obey NAP, your quote proves nothing.
If there are so many reasons, why not name a few. You are basically claiming what you got to prove.
The Late Andrew Ryan:You also can't have a government if you believe in a humans right to property because in order to exist the government must forcibly take the money of law abiding citizens forcibly, this is theft and should be treated as such
Property rights only make sense under the following conditions:
Torsten: You are basically claiming what you got to prove.
You are basically claiming what you got to prove.
Yeap, it's also known as a circular proof. A is A.
"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
Torsten:Any comments or further thoughts
Human Rights as Property Rights - Murray Rothbard
Oh ontology. How we enjoy you.
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
wilderness:Yeap, it's also known as a circular proof. A is A.
Yes, a particular species of question-begging, otherwise known to be a fallacy.
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
I think it's perfectly okay to say rights don't exist.
It just so happens that no one has the right to initiate aggression, form states, etc.
Angurse: wilderness:Yeap, it's also known as a circular proof. A is A. Yes, a particular species of question-begging, otherwise known to be a fallacy.
No. I am referring to the demonstration, not the dialectical 'asking'.
As in Prior Anayltics by Aristotle commented upon by Robin Smith:
"In modern use, the expressions 'arguing in a circle' and 'begging the question' are roughly interchangeable, which may contribute to our own inability to see that these are, for Aristotle, completely different things. A circular deduction for him is an extended structure of deductions in which each presmise also appears as a conclusion... He tells us, there, that circular proof is just proving that 'when A is, then A is'..."
You misinterpreted what I said.
Torsten:Human rights do not exist.
Trying to prove a negative. Good luck.
Torsten:1. Human rights are rights that belong to human beings simply by virtue ofbeing human.
Human rights belong to human beings by definition.
Torsten:2. A right to X indicates that an individual has, or ought tohave, a legitimate claim to X that obligates other individuals not todeny the individual X and obligates the government to protect theindividual's possession of X.
Here you are speaking only to claim rights rather than liberty rights. Claim rights imply an obligation, while liberty rights do not. The "ought to have" statements is superfluous. I also think the obligations of government are debatable, just as the existence of government.
Torsten:3. Given this understanding of rights, toqualify as a right, a proposed right must meet at least two minimalconditions.
These conditions are your presupposition, and have yet to be proven.
Torsten: 3a. The first is that there actually are other individuals tobe so obligated.
The lack of others obligated to recognize a property right does not disqualify the existence of the right.
Torsten:3b. The second is that there is an effective governmentmechanism for protecting the object of the proposed right.
This point is incorrect. The is no requirement for government to even exist in order to have property rights.
Torsten:4. Human beingsmay inhabit circumstances or contexts in which either or bothconditions are not met without losing their humanity.
The conditions are flawed. The fact you state is irrelevant. Without your conditions, the rights are simply uncontested.
Torsten:5. In suchcircumstances or contexts, it would be inconsistent to claim that suchhuman beings would continue to possess rights.
First, uncontested rights don't equate to nonexistence of rights. Second, even if this flawed reasoning were true, you're not able to apply it to the real world because you'd be violating your own preconditions your entire conclusion is based on.
Torsten:6. Since there arecircumstances or contexts in which it does not make sense to claim thata human being has a right to anything, human rights cannot exist.
Wrong. The sky is blue (based on an optical effect). There are certain conditions which make that statement false - such as night or under overcast conditions. You can't then simply claim therefore a blue sky cannot exist.
Torsten:7. Humanbeings cannot have rights simply by virtue of being human.
You have not proven this.
Torsten:8. Rights haveto be founded on an alternative basis.
wilderness: Angurse: wilderness:Yeap, it's also known as a circular proof. A is A. Yes, a particular species of question-begging, otherwise known to be a fallacy. No. I am referring to the demonstration, not the dialectical 'asking'. As in Prior Anayltics by Aristotle commented upon by Robin Smith: "In modern use, the expressions 'arguing in a circle' and 'begging the question' are roughly interchangeable, which may contribute to our own inability to see that these are, for Aristotle, completely different things. A circular deduction for him is an extended structure of deductions in which each presmise also appears as a conclusion... He tells us, there, that circular proof is just proving that 'when A is, then A is'..." You misinterpreted what I said.
I think he's thinking of circular reasoning, which has been linked to fallacy, whether correctly or not. To most, 'A is A' is referred to as the identity axiom.
K.C. Farmer: I think he's thinking of circular reasoning, which has been linked to fallacy,
I think he's thinking of circular reasoning, which has been linked to fallacy,
I know what he is talking about. He distinctly brought up something different than what I was referring to.
K.C. Farmer: whether correctly or not.
whether correctly or not.
Angurse is correct in that "begging the question" is a fallacy. I wasn't talking about begging the question though. It was a simple misunderstanding, no big deal.
K.C. Farmer: To most, 'A is A' is referred to as the identity axiom.
To most, 'A is A' is referred to as the identity axiom.
yes, that is the identity axiom, but I was specifically discussing the deduction of premises through identity being known also as circular proof "when A is, then A is".
Conza88:Human Rights as Property Rights - Murray Rothbard
Thanks - Human Rights need to be distungished by other forms of rights. Here is the declaration of Human Rights:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
That human rights don't exist, doesn't mean that the existence of other types of rights isn't possible. To me all forms of rights have to be cultural by there very nature. They are basically a convention people agree (or disagree) on. Property rights are I think I can agree on, although I won't consider them as absolute as some do here.
Torsten: Here is the declaration of Human Rights: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Here is the declaration of Human Rights:
Not the best source for the basis of human rights. In fact, some of the articles are a direct attack against liberty.
wilderness: No. I am referring to the demonstration, not the dialectical 'asking'. As in Prior Anayltics by Aristotle commented upon by Robin Smith: "In modern use, the expressions 'arguing in a circle' and 'begging the question' are roughly interchangeable, which may contribute to our own inability to see that these are, for Aristotle, completely different things. A circular deduction for him is an extended structure of deductions in which each presmise also appears as a conclusion... He tells us, there, that circular proof is just proving that 'when A is, then A is'..." You misinterpreted what I said.
Unless you meant a different circular proof, I certainly did misinterpret you. But In Posterior Anaylitics, Aristotle tried to solve the the regress problem by denying the assumptions on which it depends. And re-read what I said (different species are not the same thing). Human rights cannot be proven to exist via A is A, as it completely avoids the question "does A even exist?"
Torsten: Justin Spahr-Summers: Saying that rights don't exist because men can be deprived of them is like saying that life doesn't exist because men can be killed. That's not what the text says. The text says that for (the assumed) rights to have any meaningful function other agents/institutions have to be in place. The Late Andrew Ryan:There are a million different reasons for human rights that obey NAP, your quote proves nothing. If there are so many reasons, why not name a few. You are basically claiming what you got to prove. The Late Andrew Ryan:You also can't have a government if you believe in a humans right to property because in order to exist the government must forcibly take the money of law abiding citizens forcibly, this is theft and should be treated as such Property rights only make sense under the following conditions: You are not the only human on the planet/island. There is a potential that someone else can come into dispute with over the object the property right is claimed for. There are means or an agency to defend a claim on property.
Well the classical argument for human rights is that it is self evident that people have rights. I find that a little shaky but in the end all answers or explinations always half to come out of self evident assumptions or "because". You could also take stefan molyneux's argument for the universal prefferability of human rights as opposed to a lack thereof. I personally find humans important becuase in a world of chaos and random events there are beings who produce logical actions.
Yes there is a need for an agency to defend rights but this can't exist if it directly contradicts human rights as states do.
Angurse: wilderness: You misinterpreted what I said. Unless you meant a different circular proof, I certainly did misinterpret you.
wilderness: You misinterpreted what I said.
Unless you meant a different circular proof, I certainly did misinterpret you.
as I said and quoted - yes "different" (circular proof).
good day sir
edit: I clarified above and erased "circular proof" from my original statement cause I was talking about something different than begging the question, which I haven't ever come across begging the question also having the name circular proof. I erased the original posting here for clarity's sake and left in parenthesis what was originally present before this edit.
Torsten: Property rights only make sense under the following conditions: You are not the only human on the planet/island. There is a potential that someone else can come into dispute with over the object the property right is claimed for. There are means or an agency to defend a claim on property.
1. You, I, Nor anyone else will ever experience isolation from humans. We are born of our mothers. This statement is redundant.
2. The means is your body and mind.
Property rights make sense then. Your conditions are met. Next question. Is your body your property? If it is, do property rights apply to it? If they do can we say those are the first property rights a human enjoys?
Too many questions to be asked. Bad proof try again
"...The post-totalitarian system contrives to force life into its most probable states...This system serves people only to the extent necessary to ensure that people will serve it
Vaclav Havel
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
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