Would you help me respond to this?
In a discussion I was having I explained that we base libertarianism on the fact that we humans have some Natural Rights: a right to live, and in order to live, to own property and to not be aggressed against.
The response I got was that if I am talking about Natural Rights as in Nature, then this is the exact opposite of what one finds in Nature: no animal, including humans throughout man's history and prehistory, has had the right to live; animals including humans have always stolen off each other since we came out of the jungle and onto the Savanna; and agression against eachother in nature is the norm as all animals eat other living beings.
I realise we regards man as a rational animal and he is lumping mankind together as part of the animal kingdom, but I would appreciate your comments.
The fact that people violate ethical premises in no way should necessarily be construed to imply that those ethical premises are false (applied in the 18th century, that would amount to the following argument: "slavery exists and has historical precedent, therefore slavery cannot be immoral"). Yes, a utopian world in which noone ever initiates force or threatens it is not "natural". This in no way invalidates the principle or proves that we shouldn't use the principle as an independant standard to hold currently existing conditions up to. Nor does it invalidate the premise that following the principle is beneficial. Nor is an appeal to the past necessarily proof that the future will always reflect the past in every single way.
If you deny people the right to defend their property, then why would anyone ever build anything? Why would I build a house, if you can just come and steal it? Why would I plant a crop, if you can just steal it?
The right to defend your property is a "natural right". Suppose I believe that I have the right to defend my property, and that you believe you have the right to steal my property. In that case, I will look for cleverer ways to defend myself, and you will look for cleverer ways to steal.
Defending property is easier than stealing property, if you take proper precautions. As long as I can raise your theft costs enough to make stealing unprofitable, then I can defend my property.
Suppose you have some people who believe they have the right to defend their property, and some people who believe they have the right to steal property. In that case, the people who believe they have the right to defend their property would join together in mutual self-defense. Their productivity would be greater than people who believe "stealing is acceptable", and they should win out eventually.
This is *NOT* how governments originated. Historically, governments were established by a conqueror cementing control of his slaves. Governments were *NOT* created via unanimuous consent of the people, but rather imposed by violence. Even in the USA, there were groups that resisted taxes imposed by the new Federal government, such as Shay's rebellion and the whiskey rebellion. These revolts were put down violently, rather than by consent or a sincere debate of the issues.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
Remnant: Would you help me respond to this? In a discussion I was having I explained that we base libertarianism on the fact that we humans have some Natural Rights: a right to live, and in order to live, to own property and to not be aggressed against. The response I got was that if I am talking about Natural Rights as in Nature, then this is the exact opposite of what one finds in Nature: no animal, including humans throughout man's history and prehistory, has had the right to live; animals including humans have always stolen off each other since we came out of the jungle and onto the Savanna; and agression against eachother in nature is the norm as all animals eat other living beings. I realise we regards man as a rational animal and he is lumping mankind together as part of the animal kingdom, but I would appreciate your comments.
First, it is not an axiom. It's a conclusion, a principle.
Your critic has made two mistakes here. First, he has confused rights, which are normative principles telling us what we ought and ought not to do, with guaranteed physical protection like armor. He seems to think that since people can be and have been aggressed against then rights don't exist, but the fact that people do aggress against others doesn't mean that they should or that rights don't exist. Second, he is using the empiricist notion of nature a la Hobbes, Hume, etc. The ideas of natural law and natural rights are Aristotelian in origin and therefore depend upon Aristotelian teleology and essentialism to be properly understood (meaning that everything has a nature and a natural end, although this doesn't necessarily entail a belief in some divine or natural purpose to the universe). What Aristotle considered to be natural was the mature/perfect (in a realistic, non-Patonic/Christian sense)/highest form of something. It is natural for human beings to live in society in discourse, cooperation and peace with one another but not to live as barbarians, hermits, thiefs, murders, gods, etc. since we are rational, political and social animals.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct InstructorBuena Vista University
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"(Who watches the watchmen?)-Juvenal, Satires VI.347
They're confusing rights with power. Yes, a mugger has the power to take your stuff regaurdless of your consent. This does not mean that their victim doesn't have rights. The fact that rights are violated doesn't mean that they don't exist. This confusion stems from a failure to understand what rights mean.
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."
Juan:I wouldn't invoke Aristotle on natural rights - except if you want your opponent to claim that you believe slavery is(or can be) 'natural'.
No problem. Just point out that you disagree with Aristotle on this and why. Natural law and natural rights emerged within and can only be properly understood within the Aristotelian/Thomist tradition.
Then tell us, oh scholar of Aristotle, which works you've read on the matter that disqualify Aristotle and Aristotelianism from being informative on the topic of rights? I'll guess right now and say next to none...
To the OP, whoever advanced that stupid argument is conflating natural with savage. He should get a book on NR out and stop being an ignorant buffoon.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
As other posters have noted, your friend is not thinking of the concept of natural rights as usually understood by proponents of natural rights (or at least not those influenced by Aristotle). You might also point out that it is quite curious for this fellow to view human nature as nothing more than the sum of our animalistic instincts and desires. Does he really believe that society is unnatural, or artificial? Does he not see that the kind of harmony that libertarians find in the marketplace is very similar to the harmony that exists within nature?
In any event, I believe that even if you were to accept your friend's conception of what is natural for human beings, libertarian rights can still be viewed as natural. Libertarian rights are natural insofar as they are a direct response to the natural conditions of the world. Certain characteristics exist within the natural world that engender conflict, such as scarcity of resources (including time), and therefore many libertarians (i.e. Hans Hoppe) view conflict avoidance and conflict resolution as two of the primary purposes of rights. The conditions of the natural world combined with our natural human faculties result in the concept of natural rights.
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