Current Events

Re: A Question for Speciesists

thetabularasa — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 04:08:43 GMT

hashem:

thetabularasa:
Yes, I have a right to life, and it's from God.

It's still a concept, and it only has utility to the extent that others accept and value it.

See my post to Clayton, I think it's a sound observation.

Re: A Question for Speciesists

thetabularasa — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 04:07:02 GMT

thetabularasa:

Clayton:

What is a right? A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity. Thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas, to Thomas Jefferson, to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to Pope John Paul II have all argued that our rights are a natural part of our humanity. We own our bodies, thus we own the gifts that emanate from our bodies. So, our right to life, our right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, our right to worship or not worship, our right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our own property as we see fit, our right to due process — fairness — from the government, and our right to be left alone, are all rights that stem from our humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with. The government doesn't give them to us and the government doesn't pay for them and the government can't take them away, unless a jury finds that we have violated someone else's rights.

This is a poetic way to state our rights but I do not think it is a rigorous statement of rights. What rights do I have in my dealings with a Muslim? After all, he does not even acknowledge the existence of the Christian God. What rights do I have in my dealings with an atheist who does not recognize the existence of any God? Rights as a matter of human affairs can be explained in wholly human language (without resort to theology). In other words, stating that rights come from God implies that cross-religious or atheistic dealings are "might makes right", which is clearly false. Human law does not logically depend on theology in any way.

Clayton -

I don't see where the Judge brought religion into it.

I suppose being born is really what facilitates the rights. So atheists can still believe in natural rights, basically by way of birth, whereas theists are probably more geared toward the cosmological origin. I see one being a matter of cosmology and metaphysics, the other ethics.

Re: A Question for Speciesists

Autolykos — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 02:10:39 GMT

Here, let me help:

What is a right? A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity.

Re: A Question for Speciesists

thetabularasa — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 02:09:34 GMT

Clayton:

What is a right? A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity. Thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas, to Thomas Jefferson, to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to Pope John Paul II have all argued that our rights are a natural part of our humanity. We own our bodies, thus we own the gifts that emanate from our bodies. So, our right to life, our right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, our right to worship or not worship, our right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our own property as we see fit, our right to due process — fairness — from the government, and our right to be left alone, are all rights that stem from our humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with. The government doesn't give them to us and the government doesn't pay for them and the government can't take them away, unless a jury finds that we have violated someone else's rights.

This is a poetic way to state our rights but I do not think it is a rigorous statement of rights. What rights do I have in my dealings with a Muslim? After all, he does not even acknowledge the existence of the Christian God. What rights do I have in my dealings with an atheist who does not recognize the existence of any God? Rights as a matter of human affairs can be explained in wholly human language (without resort to theology). In other words, stating that rights come from God implies that cross-religious or atheistic dealings are "might makes right", which is clearly false. Human law does not logically depend on theology in any way.

Clayton -

I don't see where the Judge brought religion into it.

Re: A Question for Speciesists

dude6935 — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 01:51:23 GMT

Clayton, your question begs another. What rights do you have in your dealing with a socialist, a nihilist, or with any person who rejects your notion of rights?

The obvious answer is that your rights are not dependent on who you are dealing with. I don't see any implication of might makes right in the religious origin of rights. A religion can easily reject all violence, even in self defense.

I disagree with part of the above quote. Life is not a right. Nature cannot violate a right (by definition). So a natural death disproves the right to life. Only rational beings can violate a right.

Re: A Question for Speciesists

Autolykos — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:33:29 GMT

thetabularasa:
Autolukos, I kindly [sic] informed you in a personal message that I did not mean to hurt your ego/self perception/feelings (whatever term I used) [sic] in my prior posts and asked you to not insist on making contact with me on here.

Please point out just where you asked me in a private message to not make contact with you in the forum. Nevertheless, you didn't actually hurt my feelings, as I've already made abundantly clear.

thetabularasa:
I understand your viewpoints may be different from mine, but I must publicly ask again as kindly as possible, please refrain from making contact with me because interacting with you is interfering with my enjoyment on Mises.org.

Your enjoyment on Mises.org is entirely up to you. But as I said before, I will make contact with you as I see fit. That includes making contact with you both publicly and privately. Do you understand?

thetabularasa:
If you insist on emailing me and attempting to antagonize me [sic] and continue this pointless [sic], tedious [sic] and annoying [sic] ego-filled [sic] banter [sic], I will let the admins know that you are trolling me [sic], which frankly is juvenile [sic] and I do not appreciate, and at this point, I do not see any other alternative other than to report you.

What effect do you expect this to have on me, exactly?

thetabularasa:
From here onward, due to your belligerent [sic] discourse, I will not respond to you.

I don't believe you in the slightest. I think you will respond to me - at least eventually.

thetabularasa:
I believe that at this point, operant conditioning is the best method by which to condition your response, so in ignoring you, I simply, peacefully [sic] hope you will refrain from contacting me period.

I'll be the first to tell you that such "operant conditioning" won't work.

thetabularasa:
Unfortunately, I realize comments like this seem to be fuel to your fire [sic], so while you may persist for a little while [sic], I want to publicly let you know one last time [sic] to please stop contacting me since a private email apparently does not work.

Now you're really just repeating yourself.

thetabularasa:
It is a simple request that I have politely [sic] asked; please respect it.

Make me.

Now why don't you actually respond to my earlier post. I actually wasn't being belligerent there.

Re: A Question for Speciesists

Clayton — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:28:42 GMT

What is a right? A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity. Thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas, to Thomas Jefferson, to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to Pope John Paul II have all argued that our rights are a natural part of our humanity. We own our bodies, thus we own the gifts that emanate from our bodies. So, our right to life, our right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, our right to worship or not worship, our right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our own property as we see fit, our right to due process — fairness — from the government, and our right to be left alone, are all rights that stem from our humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with. The government doesn't give them to us and the government doesn't pay for them and the government can't take them away, unless a jury finds that we have violated someone else's rights.

This is a poetic way to state our rights but I do not think it is a rigorous statement of rights. What rights do I have in my dealings with a Muslim? After all, he does not even acknowledge the existence of the Christian God. What rights do I have in my dealings with an atheist who does not recognize the existence of any God? Rights as a matter of human affairs can be explained in wholly human language (without resort to theology). In other words, stating that rights come from God implies that cross-religious or atheistic dealings are "might makes right", which is clearly false. Human law does not logically depend on theology in any way.

Clayton -

Re: A Question for Speciesists

thetabularasa — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:20:00 GMT

Clayton:

@dude: You are conflating rights and power. While you have an inalienable "right" to do anything with your body which you can will it to do, this isn't what people have in mind when they ask "what are my rights"? Your rights are precisely those things you are right to do, that is, those things which you can justify. The word "rights" has a common origin with the word "right-of-way" and bears a conceptual similarity - the person who was in the right in the case of a collision (conflict) is the person who had the right-of-way (the person who was right).

This is why rights (law, more generally) and morality are inextricable.

Clayton -

Judge Napolitano, in a way very similar to Ron Paul and Thomas Jefferson, sums up rights very nicely here. What is a right, according to Judge Napolitano?

What is a right? A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity. Thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas, to Thomas Jefferson, to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to Pope John Paul II have all argued that our rights are a natural part of our humanity. We own our bodies, thus we own the gifts that emanate from our bodies. So, our right to life, our right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, our right to worship or not worship, our right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our own property as we see fit, our right to due process — fairness — from the government, and our right to be left alone, are all rights that stem from our humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with. The government doesn't give them to us and the government doesn't pay for them and the government can't take them away, unless a jury finds that we have violated someone else's rights.

I looked on the online etymology dictionary, and I found the verb and adjective form but that's all. If someone could find the actual etymology of the term right as a noun, I'd be much appreciative.

Re: A Question for Speciesists

Clayton — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:52:47 GMT

@dude: You are conflating rights and power. While you have an inalienable "right" to do anything with your body which you can will it to do, this isn't what people have in mind when they ask "what are my rights"? Your rights are precisely those things you are right to do, that is, those things which you can justify. The word "rights" has a common origin with the word "right-of-way" and bears a conceptual similarity - the person who was in the right in the case of a collision (conflict) is the person who had the right-of-way (the person who was right).

This is why rights (law, more generally) and morality are inextricable.

Clayton -

Re: A Question for Speciesists

dude6935 — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:24:53 GMT

Rights are those things that are guaranteed to a rational being by nature in the absence of all possible violations of other rational beings. This is a category of things that exists objectively. This category of things has existed since time began. While my mind perceives this category, it is not required for its existence. Nor is my mind required to create the things which populate the category. My mind simply discovers the rights that already exist. Their only utility is to confer knowledge of what things I am guaranteed in the absence of a violation of my rights by other men. I can now refrain from violating the rights of others and attempt to prevent the violation of my rights.

Obviously my definition of the word "rights" might vary from yours. But nature is the only system that can make any true guarantees. Discussing the "rights" conferred by man seems like a futile exercise to me. Such rights could never be depended on for consistency or for observation.

Really what I am doing is ruling out things that are not guaranteed by nature, and then I say that whatever is left shall be defined as a right. This rules out all possible harm between men. That might be another definition of the word "rights": the system of rules that (if observed) prevents all harm between rational beings.

It believe my method of discovering these rights fulfills that definition of rights. It is possible that other systems of rules exist that can (if observed) prevent all harm between rational beings, but I find that unlikely.

Rights aren't defined by utility. A right without practical utility is still a right. The tendency of other people to recognize a right is also irrelevant. If a "right" is given by society, it is not a right at all. It is a privilege since it is revocable. If rights are given by God, yet a secularist society ignores those rights, that does not invalidate those rights. It simply violates them.

The OP is about whether or not animals are rational beings. If they are, they have rights. If not, they don't. I can't say for sure if a dog can reason. Surely a dog might one-day evolve to the point of rationality. Will it be easy to say exactly when this occurs, or even in which dog it happens first? I doubt it.

Re: A Question for Speciesists

thetabularasa — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:17:19 GMT

Autolykos:

thetabularasa:
Yes, I have a right to life, and it's from God.

I personally reject the premise that any supernatural being exists, let alone the god of the Bible.

thetabularasa:
Its nature is implicit and indirect;

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

thetabularasa:
hence, the fact that people should not take my life because I'm alive can be otherwise [termed] a right to life.

I'll go ahead and infer that you define "right to (something)" as "a fact that people should not take the (something in question)". However, I consider this definition to be nonsensical based on my own definitions of "fact" ("an observation of something outside of the mind") and "should" ("is expected"). So my question to you is how you think expectations can exist outside of the mind.

Autolukos, I kindly informed you in a personal message that I did not mean to hurt your ego/self perception/feelings (whatever term I used) in my prior posts and asked you to not insist on making contact with me on here. I understand your viewpoints may be different from mine, but I must publicly ask again as kindly as possible, please refrain from making contact with me because interacting with you is interfering with my enjoyment on Mises.org. If you insist on emailing me and attempting to antagonize me and continue this pointless, tedious and annoying ego-filled banter, I will let the admins know that you are trolling me, which frankly is juvenile and I do not appreciate, and at this point, I do not see any other alternative other than to report you.

From here onward, due to your belligerent discourse, I will not respond to you. I believe that at this point, operant conditioning is the best method by which to condition your response, so in ignoring you, I simply, peacefully hope you will refrain from contacting me period. Unfortunately, I realize comments like this seem to be fuel to your fire, so while you may persist for a little while, I want to publicly let you know one last time to please stop contacting me since a private email apparently does not work. It is a simple request that I have politely asked; please respect it.

Re: A Question for Speciesists

Autolykos — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:47:29 GMT

thetabularasa:
Yes, I have a right to life, and it's from God.

I personally reject the premise that any supernatural being exists, let alone the god of the Bible.

thetabularasa:
Its nature is implicit and indirect;

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

thetabularasa:
hence, the fact that people should not take my life because I'm alive can be otherwise [termed] a right to life.

I'll go ahead and infer that you define "right to (something)" as "a fact that people should not take the (something in question)". However, I consider this definition to be nonsensical based on my own definitions of "fact" ("an observation of something outside of the mind") and "should" ("is expected"). So my question to you is how you think expectations can exist outside of the mind.

Re: A Question for Speciesists

Jon Irenicus — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 22:36:47 GMT

The biggest problem with non-libertarian ethics is that they are rife with contradictions and errors. They cannot even get off the ground without property rights, and are forced to assume them but shroud them under different adjectives, like things belonging to "the people" or "man" in the abstract etc. They also try to justify behaviours that if taken to the interpersonal level would be sociopathic, but it is not surprising, as many of them are envy-driven sociopaths.

I therefore prefer approaches that attempt to demonstrate contradictions inhering in their propositions and putting them on the defensive. Hoppe and de Jasay take this route. Natural rights are all well and good and if you want to put the effort into it, they can plausibly be defended via a revised version of Aristotelian ethics, but I fail to see why the libertarian should be the one to do all the work. We are simply asking to be left alone.

Re: A Question for Speciesists

thetabularasa — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 20:54:57 GMT

How dare I believe in God? I choose to. Deal with it and move on. I'll be happy to discuss it in a different thread. You atheists adhere to unproven beliefs of your own by way of an argument from ignorance. You claim that since nobody has proved God exists, it's determined that God must not exist. Get it? I agree with Thomas Jefferson and Ron Paul that our liberties come from our Creator, not government. If you don't like the use of the term "God" or "Creator" then consider our rights coming by way of birth. I believe what I believe. Be a little more tolerant if you believe differently.

I've searched the forum and I'm having trouble finding a thread that bashes Ron Paul for believing the same exact thing. Anybody want to completely discredit him and his message of liberty for believing our liberties come from our Creator? By all means, please go ahead; otherwise, being the creator of this thread, I recommend that we get back to the discussion of rights and liberty regarding non-human animal life and not the metaphysics of divinity, as many of you on here are incessantly distracted by. How dare I think differently than the community! Again, deal with it and move on.

Re: A Question for Speciesists

Clayton — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 20:12:27 GMT

Religion has historically been a limit on tyranny. This is why the State and the church have frequently been at odds with one another. But the most powerful religions today are those that "sold out" and joined forces with the State (see the other thread on this). They promote moral ideas that are diametrically opposite of those originally taught by the religions from which they are derived.

When people said "we have these rights from God", it was in answer to the King's men who said, "we have these rights from the King." In other words, the people are saying to the agents of the King, "You assert that the King can overrule the law with his own law. Fair enough. But by the very same token, we assert that the King of Kings overrules the King's laws with his law, which is: thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, and so on."

But once you kick out the props from the popular religion, that is, once you promulgate secular ideals into the culture, you no longer have this argument. I cannot answer the IRS agents at my door: "Oh, so the US government can override customary law with its statutes? Well, I know someone On High who can override the statutes of the US government with His statutes; His name is Jesus and He says, 'Thou shalt not steal' and He makes no exception for the US government." Doesn't work because nobody to speak of actually believes this, that is, this dogma holds no sway in the popular mind.

Because we have given up our original religious communities and have yielded to the secularist monoculture, we have no choice but to refute secular rights-claims on their own terms, that is, without invoking religion. But this is as easy as pie since no one - by virtue of their name or DNA code - has a privileged place in a secular world. We're all equally meaningless, including the US government and its agents. Hence, no one should be afraid to tell the US government and its agents to go to hell. There is no hell, after all.

Instead, we have people cowering to an unspoken, mystically binding moral code in the absence of anything that makes it binding. If there is no God, then moral codes are not binding on you, they flow from your own judgment of the consequences of your behavior. Hence, there is no reason not to stand up and take your place among men as a peer and to tell anyone - however fancy their uniform, or however long and complicated their paperwork forms - who attempts to violate the rights we know we have to go to hell.

But don't try to get me to act like there is a God while the governments of the world rampage around like there isn't one. If they are not afraid of God's judgment in the next life, neither am I... so let come what may, I'm not going to sit down and shut up out of fear that God might dislike something I'm saying, including defending my rights as a human being with dignity and pride. The manipulators want it both ways... they want to live in a world where nobody can point out their godless barbarism but where they can spook everybody with the boogeyman "Oooh, God's gonna be mad you dint pay your taxes!"

Clayton -