Juan: AJ: Juan: And how rights could be 'usefully defined'. Like I said, I don't know how, or even that they can be. So can they be defined or not ? Who cares if YOU don't know ?
AJ: Juan: And how rights could be 'usefully defined'. Like I said, I don't know how, or even that they can be.
Juan: And how rights could be 'usefully defined'.
You asked, and that's my answer. I am essentially agnostic on the issue of rights at the moment, but remain fully open to arguments for rights. If you don't care about my position on rights, stop asking about my position on rights.
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
wilderness: AJ: Yes, I phrased it that way only because now it is not yet true that "each person is not inhibited from achieving their just happiness." By "inhibited" I meant challenged. Do I need to expound what has been repeated ad nauseum about what kind of rights violations happen now?
AJ: Yes, I phrased it that way only because now it is not yet true that "each person is not inhibited from achieving their just happiness."
Yes, I phrased it that way only because now it is not yet true that "each person is not inhibited from achieving their just happiness."
By "inhibited" I meant challenged. Do I need to expound what has been repeated ad nauseum about what kind of rights violations happen now?
My comment above was not adversarial, just pointing out why I used the future-oriented word "would" - simply because that libertarian ideal hasn't been achieved yet. I don't see a disagreement here.
AJ: I said I don't know whether they are useful, not that they are not useful. If someone can show how exactly they are useful (or provide a link), I am all ears. I am not necessarily arguing against natural rights, I am just saying I have my doubts that they can be usefully defined, and I am just saying that because people keep asking.
I said I don't know whether they are useful, not that they are not useful. If someone can show how exactly they are useful (or provide a link), I am all ears. I am not necessarily arguing against natural rights, I am just saying I have my doubts that they can be usefully defined, and I am just saying that because people keep asking.
What is an unbiased and thus just way to (1) intellectually define a criminal act (which incidentally sustains a transparent system of justice) (2) thus a way that human(s) are able to reasonably participate with other people.
AJ: Rest assured that if natural rights are actually a really great and useful concept, I will eventually figure that out and become as staunch a defender and advocator of natural rights as anyone. Anyway, I tend to think we all would more or less agree if not for the inherent semantic confusion in human language.
Rest assured that if natural rights are actually a really great and useful concept, I will eventually figure that out and become as staunch a defender and advocator of natural rights as anyone. Anyway, I tend to think we all would more or less agree if not for the inherent semantic confusion in human language.
sometimes semantic confusion is sometimes confused with lack of knowledge - simply making a general statement not about any person in particular - I'm intellectually, thus, abstractly speaking.
"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
AJ: wilderness: AJ: Yes, I phrased it that way only because now it is not yet true that "each person is not inhibited from achieving their just happiness." By "inhibited" I meant challenged. Do I need to expound what has been repeated ad nauseum about what kind of rights violations happen now? My comment above was not adversarial, just pointing out why I used the future-oriented word "would" - simply because that libertarian ideal hasn't been achieved yet. I don't see a disagreement here.
I didn't think you were being "adversarial".
Oh, you meant it's "not yet true" that "each person is not inhibited"... My misunderstanding.
I am essentially agnostic on the issue of rights at the moment, but remain fully open to arguments for rights. If you don't care about my position on rights, stop asking about my position on rights.
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."
wilderness:What is an unbiased and thus just way to (1) intellectually define a criminal act (which incidentally sustains a transparent system of justice) (2) thus a way that human(s) are able to reasonably participate with other people.
These are good questions. This is the start of an argument for rights, and the purposes are clear, so I like it. My concern before was that people were phrasing rights issues without the purposes clearly stated, leading to inevitable confusion. From here I have no further comment, as having people phrase things as you just did was my goal. I think this is a much more convincing way to phrase, or at least it's meaningfully debatable.
wilderness:sometimes semantic confusion is sometimes confused with lack of knowledge - simply making a general statement not about any person in particular - I'm intellectually, thus, abstractly speaking.
Yeah, that can happen, too. I invite all readers to entertain for a while the idea that most arguments - especially of this kind - come down to semantic confusion, and see whether that idea can prove its worth to you.
Juan:Saying "I can't understand 2+2=4 so I'm agnostic regarding maths" may sound somewhat like a valid point, but I don't see why is something people discussing maths would care about.
It'd be more like, "I don't know if it's useful to say i = the square root of -1, so I'm agnostic regarding imaginary numbers. If someone can show me why it would be useful to say that -1 can have a square root, I'm all ears. I am not saying I know nothing about imaginary numbers, for I do full well understand the definition. I am merely asking why they are useful." In fact, imaginary numbers are apparently useful in electronics.
So saying I don't know whether rights can be usefully defined is not the same as saying I know nothing about "them." If you don't believe that, I have no further comment.
AJ: wilderness:What is an unbiased and thus just way to (1) intellectually define a criminal act (which incidentally sustains a transparent system of justice) (2) thus a way that human(s) are able to reasonably participate with other people. These are good questions. This is the start of an argument for rights, and the purposes are clear, so I like it. My concern before was that people were phrasing rights issues without the purposes clearly stated, leading to inevitable confusion. From here I have no further comment, as having people phrase things as you just did was my goal. I think this is a much more convincing way to phrase, or at least it's meaningfully debatable.
I want to add why it is "transparent" in tune with the way I understand my usage of this concept here. Natural rights being "of" and universal can thereby be logically deduced by each person. Laws that are not of natural rights are arbitrary and only known to any number of particular people that are less than the total population thereby placing the acts of these ill-laws outside of logical understanding. These ill-laws are not common sense, but privy to only certain people that are in the know, so to speak.
Juan:What I truly believe is that you think the concept is not valid, but instead of providing valid refutations just make vague comments about 'semantics'.
Hey, what about innocent until proven guilty? I don't see why you would wish to waste your time arguing with someone if you believe they're being disingenuous anyway. I do lean toward the idea that natural rights aren't useful concepts, but I am far from convinced. If you think I actually am convinced and am just trolling, nothing I can say will change that, so I have no further comment.
wilderness:I want to add why it is "transparent" in tune with the way I understand my usage of this concept here. Natural rights being "of" and universal can thereby be logically deduced by each person. Laws that are not of natural rights are arbitrary and only known to any number of particular people that are less than the total population thereby placing the acts of these ill-laws outside of logical understanding. These ill-laws are not common sense, but privy to only certain people that are in the know, so to speak.
I see. It's as if there are certain self-evident rights that most every rational person can agree ought to be enforced for a whole array of important purposes or reasons. That notion seems at least potentially useful to me, particularly as a legal concept. Is this expounded in the Ethics of Liberty? Or elsewhere? I'd like to read THE treatise on natural rights, so I can give the concept thorough consideration.
AJ:I do lean toward the idea that natural rights aren't useful concepts, but I am far from convinced.
Whose branch of legal positivism do you think I adhere to, and why?
AJ: wilderness:I want to add why it is "transparent" in tune with the way I understand my usage of this concept here. Natural rights being "of" and universal can thereby be logically deduced by each person. Laws that are not of natural rights are arbitrary and only known to any number of particular people that are less than the total population thereby placing the acts of these ill-laws outside of logical understanding. These ill-laws are not common sense, but privy to only certain people that are in the know, so to speak. I see. It's as if there are certain self-evident rights that most every rational person can agree ought to be enforced for a whole array of important purposes or reasons. That notion seems at least potentially useful to me, particularly as a legal concept. Is this expounded in the Ethics of Liberty? Or elsewhere? I'd like to read THE treatise on natural rights, so I can give the concept thorough consideration.
Not only can rational people agree, but that they are rational thus each person can logically think for themselves about what they are and expound upon them in a logical way that isn't arbitrary.
"Ethics of Liberty" does and so does this. Also reading Plauche's dissertation provided excellent insight into pursuit of happiness aka eudaimonia.
I went the route of understanding liberty, logically on my own after somebody taught me what property means. I contemplated liberty: not having physical aggression initiated against a person, and knowing natural rights are life, liberty, and property I further contemplated what they are principally. These resources become supportive and have provided reasoned enlightenment. Now I'm taking a historical book walk reading foundational sources on this subject from the past to the present to further insight and stimulate my own thinking.
Edit: Also this Hutcheson book from 1726 gets into the pursuit of happiness and was a book read by Franklin and Jefferson and quite possibly others but I haven't read the book yet (though I've heard parts of it read to me over an internet radio program) and I'm not very aware of how many other people have read and been influenced by his book (Jefferson undoubtedly was influenced by him and Locke who also wrote about pursuit of happiness, Aquinas brings it up and Aristotle as well).
Juan:do you know what legal positivism is ?
Yes, and there are many branches of it. Which one do you think I adhere to?
My family and I cut the ears off of our doberman puppies.
are we weights on the shoulders of you sane libertarians?
Jackson:are we weights on the shoulders of you sane libertarians?
No.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Juan, I never said natural rights aren't useful. This is the last time I'll address this.
Now, the main tenet of legal positivism seems to be that juridical law is separate from natural law. In order to agree or disagree with that, I would have to be decided on what the role of natural law is, if indeed I decide it has any coherent meaning at all. Since I've made it clear I am undecided on that, it should be apparent that I can't be decided on the issue of legal positivism either.
As for "might makes right," it certainly has a barbaric ring to it, but it's also not very specific in terms of the meanings of "makes" and "right." "Might" I understand
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