Animal Rights

 Again, the whole problem with this conversation is the idea that something can only have rights if it is self-aware.  This would mean that retards, people in comas, and babies would not have rights.

In an anarchist society, the only ones who would have rights are those that could pay for the protection.  Since neither children nor animals could possibly pay for protection of their "rights", they would not have any.  The inherent rights argument is worthless.  Therefore, the self-awareness argument is as well.

And in a governed society, rights are determined by legislators, not by whether or not something is self-aware.  And I think animals should have a right to not be tortured.

Whence does it follow that one only has a right if they can enforce it? A right is an enforceable claim, but it does not follow that it must be enforced to be a right. Children are self-owners, but until they're old enough to be in full possession of their rational capacity, they're under the custody of their parents. Inherent rights arguments are perfectly appropriate.

-Jon

Spideynw:

 Again, the whole problem with this conversation is the idea that something can only have rights if it is self-aware.  This would mean that retards, people in comas, and babies would not have rights.

In an anarchist society, the only ones who would have rights are those that could pay for the protection.  Since neither children nor animals could possibly pay for protection of their "rights", they would not have any.  The inherent rights argument is worthless.  Therefore, the self-awareness argument is as well.

And in a governed society, rights are determined by legislators, not by whether or not something is self-aware.  And I think animals should have a right to not be tortured.

Spidey, I apreciate your political correctness, and your reference to "retards", I can only asume you are a towering intelectual

(obviously underapreciated by your peers).  But your definition of the origin of rights is quite dangerous.  By your definition "rights are determined by legislators, not by whether or not something is self-aware".  This is the very definition of a statist.  All rights become subject to the interpretation of the state.  I'm sure you would agree that governments (such as some in the middle east) which have laws that punish the sharing of a faith other than the muslim faith by death.  Now I am not saying that any faith is the correct faith, or whether there is even a God.  My point is that surely you don't think that this law does not infringe on anyones "rights".  In the sanctity of your own home, should you not be allowed to express your point of view no matter how preposterous or offensive without facing death because the government (legislators) claim that speaking against the nation faith is breaking the law and punishable by death?  The pupose of law is to provide a framework, or "rules of the game" that are consistent for everyone.  I won't comment further because most threads on this message board seem to be posted by and repled to by people who haven't read any of the basic literature pertaining to the ideology of the host (mises.org).  I don't have any problem with people who are willing to learn, but it seems most people just want to post their opinions and not learn anything new.

Jon Irenicus:

Whence does it follow that one only has a right if they can enforce it? A right is an enforceable claim, but it does not follow that it must be enforced to be a right. Children are self-owners, but until they're old enough to be in full possession of their rational capacity, they're under the custody of their parents. Inherent rights arguments are perfectly appropriate.

-Jon

The government determines until what age they are under the custody of their parents.  The government also determines if they even are under the custody of their parents.

robdailey:

Spidey, I apreciate your political correctness, and your reference to "retards", I can only asume you are a towering intelectual

(obviously underapreciated by your peers).

I have to assume you are being sarcastic.  Instead of hiding your real meaning behind words, why not actually say what you think?

robdailey:

But your definition of the origin of rights is quite dangerous.  By your definition "rights are determined by legislators, not by whether or not something is self-aware".  This is the very definition of a statist.

I beg to differ.  From wikipedia.org

Statism (or Etatism) is a very loose and often derogatory term that is used to describe:

1. Specific instances of state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.
2. A form of government or economic system that involves significant state intervention in personal, social or economic matters.

robdailey:

All rights become subject to the interpretation of the state. 

And they are.  If you study the history of oil, if someone discovered oil, they had to extract it quickly, because someone else could just drill a few yards away and take it too.  It was the government that determined that this was the case instead of it being that whoever discovered oil had full rights to all of the oil underground, regardless of whether or not it was under someone else's property.

When air waves were discovered, there were all kinds of problems, since anyone could use them.  It was not until the government stepped in and started leasing the rights to the airwaves that "rights" were established.

Without the government, there are no "rights" to property.  It is a free for all.  It is chaos.

robdailey:

In the sanctity of your own home, should you not be allowed to express your point of view no matter how preposterous or offensive without facing death because the government (legislators) claim that speaking against the nation faith is breaking the law and punishable by death? 

Of course I think one should have the right to say whatever they want to say in their own home.  But that is because, when it comes down to it, the moral justification for all victimless crimes is that they "ultimately make society better off".  But there is no evidence that this is ever the case.  As such, there really is no moral foundation for these crimes.

The government determines until what age they are under the custody of their parents.  The government also determines if they even are under the custody of their parents.

By what right?

Your view is statist, in that you think that laws are made rather than discovered, rather than being independently justified; this is open licence for a government to exist, and the very basis many political philosophers have used to call for a State. But this requires further proof. It's not some axiomatic revelation.

-Jon

Spideynw:

The government determines until what age they are under the custody of their parents.  The government also determines if they even are under the custody of their parents.

In a libertarian anarchic society, custom and customary law will do so. And these are better than legislation.

Spideynw:

 Again, the whole problem with this conversation is the idea that something can only have rights if it is self-aware.  This would mean that retards, people in comas, and babies would not have rights.

Did you miss my arguments (maybe not in this thread but at least in another thread dealing with animal rights or children)? Children, including babies, do have rights. Retards have rights. People in comas have rights. Why? Because they have the capacity for rational thought, even if this capacity is temporarily diminished for some reason or they are temporarily unable to exercise it for some reason.

Spideynw:

In an anarchist society, the only ones who would have rights are those that could pay for the protection.  Since neither children nor animals could possibly pay for protection of their "rights", they would not have any.  The inherent rights argument is worthless.  Therefore, the self-awareness argument is as well.

So? With regards to children, that's what parents are for. As for retards, depends on how retarded they are but they aren't all incapable of taking care of themselves from day to day, and again this is what parents are for. Comas? Family, friends and charities.

Oh, and to echo what Jon said, you have rights whether you can pay for protection or not, whether you can exercise them or not, whether you are exercising them or not, whether they are being violated or not.

Spideynw:

And in a governed society, rights are determined by legislators, not by whether or not something is self-aware.  And I think animals should have a right to not be tortured.

Yeah, that's pretty screwed up. If "rights" are determined by legislators, then they aren't rights, they're privileges.

Other animals don't have the capacity for rational thought. Although if you can prove any of them do, then I'd be happy to recognize that they have rights. But just because they don't have rights, this doesn't mean that people don't have an un-enforceable moral obligation not to torture them.

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

Did you miss my arguments (maybe not in this thread but at least in another thread dealing with animal rights or children)? Children, including babies, do have rights. Retards have rights. People in comas have rights. Why? Because they have the capacity for rational thought, even if this capacity is temporarily diminished for some reason or they are temporarily unable to exercise it for some reason.

On the contrary, a person in a coma, or a retard, may have a permanently diminished capacity for rational thought. They may never develop it. Indeed, many retards won't. So, what of them? If a retard has no more capacity than a dog to develop rational thought, do they have the same level of rights?

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

Oh, and to echo what Jon said, you have rights whether you can pay for protection or not, whether you can exercise them or not, whether you are exercising them or not, whether they are being violated or not.

Given the argument above, based on what? If a retard has a permanent lack of the ability to think rationally, does he still have rights, and if so, whence derived?

JCFolsom:

On the contrary, a person in a coma, or a retard, may have a permanently diminished capacity for rational thought. They may never develop it. Indeed, many retards won't. So, what of them? If a retard has no more capacity than a dog to develop rational thought, do they have the same level of rights?

With regard to the coma, if we know it is permanent then the person is essentially dead. If there is a reasonable chance he'll wake up, then his rights are intact and a family member, close friend, or whoever he specifies in his will will act as his guardian or trustee, exercising his rights for him. As for the retarded person, what percentage of retarded people have such diminished capacities as to be on the level of a dog's mental functioning? (Since dogs lack even a diminished rational capacity, not having any rational capacity at all, it is hard to make sense of this analogy.) In any case, just as with children, retarded people who are incapable of living independently (largely on their own) still have rights; it's just that their capacity to exercise them is limited and their parents or someone else can serve as their guardian or trustee. None of this is new or all that controversial. We've been over it before in this forum.

JCFolsom:

Given the argument above, based on what? If a retard has a permanent lack of the ability to think rationally, does he still have rights, and if so, whence derived?

It seems to me you might be conflating rational capacity with how well one exercises what capacity one has. The word 'ability' is ambiguous in that sense. I'm not aware of any retarded people completely and permanently lacking any rational capacity whatsoever. Mental retardation is a continuum of diminished capacity. Do any of them really lack even a diminished rational capacity? I don't now. This is largely an empirical question. Certainly it is no strong objection to rights being based on rational capacity. Basing rights on rational capacity dates back to the beginning of classical liberalism and even to Aristotle (although he wasn't a classical liberal or libertarian). I have seen nothing else that could serve as the basis for rights.

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

Children, including babies, do have rights. Retards have rights. People in comas have rights. Why? Because they have the capacity for rational thought, even if this capacity is temporarily diminished for some reason or they are temporarily unable to exercise it for some reason.

If no one protects those rights, then those rights do not exist.

Jon Irenicus:

The government determines until what age they are under the custody of their parents.  The government also determines if they even are under the custody of their parents.

By what right?

Leading question.  The assumption is that they need to have a "right" to do so.

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

With regard to the coma, if we know it is permanent then the person is essentially dead. If there is a reasonable chance he'll wake up, then his rights are intact and a family member, close friend, or whoever he specifies in his will will act as his guardian or trustee, exercising his rights for him.

It sounds to me like you are offering a circular definition: A person has rights because he has the capacity for rational thought -- which in turn is determined or identified by the rational thought of other people.  It sort of sounds statist to me.

What if you do not know the coma is permanent? Who really knows that anyway? 

What if you do not know the "person" is actually human, either? 

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

Basing rights on rational capacity dates back to the beginning of classical liberalism and even to Aristotle (although he wasn't a classical liberal or libertarian). I have seen nothing else that could serve as the basis for rights.

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

As for the retarded person, what percentage of retarded people have such diminished capacities as to be on the level of a dog's mental functioning? (Since dogs lack even a diminished rational capacity, not having any rational capacity at all, it is hard to make sense of this analogy.) In any case, just as with children, retarded people who are incapable of living independently (largely on their own) still have rights; it's just that their capacity to exercise them is limited and their parents or someone else can serve as their guardian or trustee. None of this is new or all that controversial. We've been over it before in this forum.

Ah, but dogs do have some rational capacity. Dogs in the wild can strategize, to some degree, while hunting. Dogs can problem solve to some degree as well. These are rational behaviors. So dogs to not utterly lack rational capacity; indeed, you would need to look fairly hard among mammals to find an one that does. At least some birds and even invertebrates also have some ability to make rational choices. Give me an example of one behavior by which you would decide a creature was rational, and I will either give you an example of a non-human behavoir that does it or an example of a human incapable of it. The attempt to place some sort of line of rational versus irrational between humans and non-humans demonstrably fails.

Leading question.  The assumption is that they need to have a "right" to do so.

They need a justification. Unless one is forthcoming, my question remains, "why?"

Why, I asked, does a right need to be enforced to exist? I still want the answer to this.

-Jon

Jon Irenicus:

Leading question.  The assumption is that they need to have a "right" to do so.

They need a justification. Unless one is forthcoming, my question remains, "why?"

Why, I asked, does a right need to be enforced to exist? I still want the answer to this