Critique this article on Natural Rights

Reply

mikachusetts replied on Thu, May 5 2011 1:15 PM

rated by 0 users

NidStyles,

Regarding social contract, I think you misunderstood me.  I was explaining what social contract was to show how it was different from what I initially stated, not trying to justify it. 

Regarding collectives as mere ideas, I think its best to just say I don't agree.  I can see the point you're making, but its getting into the realm of metaphysics and I don't think I can say anything more once we cross that line.

And regarding the government as rulers, you have once again flip flopped your position.  If the the federal government doesn't rule over anyone (as you just said), how can it also be that "the Government will imprison you, or outright murder you, if you do not comply" (which you said earlier).  Forcing people to do what you want is what ruling is.

Autolykos,

Can it be proven that no one but you thinks for you?

I have no idea.  Maybe an implant can be place in my brain or maybe aliens send waves into my brain and they are the ones controlling my fingers right now.  It's just tedious in my opinion to try and prove that since I am me, I own me, I own what I make, etc., instead of just asking anyone who claims that THEY own me (or more likely my things) to prove it.  If someone takes a watch off my wrist it the burden of proof is on them to show that it is theirs (they have a receipt, other people verify the claim, their name is on it, etc).  Tracing it back to "self-ownership" the burden of proof is on the person claiming to own me to prove it.  Whether their proof is suficient will be based on customs and law regarding slavery.  Even if you had a notorized title of ownership over me, no one in the modern western world would honor such a thing.  Hence, you don't own me. 

Reply

NidStyles replied on Tue, May 10 2011 7:00 PM

rated by 0 users

NidStyles,

Regarding social contract, I think you misunderstood me.  I was explaining what social contract was to show how it was different from what I initially stated, not trying to justify it.

I understand the concept completely. I also find it ridiculous as I already stated. The entire idea is a method of creating a state based society through acknowledgment of of this concept. It's a method of the state insuring it's continued existence.

Regarding collectives as mere ideas, I think its best to just say I don't agree.  I can see the point you're making, but its getting into the realm of metaphysics and I don't think I can say anything more once we cross that line.

All of these arguments are Metaphysical. There is no magical barrier you cross once you get to a certain point in this discussion, as it's based purely on a metaphysical idea in the first place. This is why your counter on that basis is irrelevant.

Any collective is merely a gathering of Individual's. Whether they chose to deny their Individual right's by acquiescing to the rules established by the leading body or not, does not negate the Individual right's or will's of those involved. The concept of a collective is a fallacy once that is taken into perspective of how it function's. There is no "collective will" however, as the collective as a whole will never have a singular thought or desire. This is due to it being nothing more than Individuals that might just happen to be standing next to each other.

And regarding the government as rulers, you have once again flip flopped your position.  If the the federal government doesn't rule over anyone (as you just said), how can it also be that "the Government will imprison you, or outright murder you, if you do not comply" (which you said earlier).  Forcing people to do what you want is what ruling is.

My position hasn't changed since the beginning of this endless tirade you seem to have against my Individual right's. The Government works through Coercion. They don't rule over anything. It merely using it's Monopoly on force to ENFORCE it's theft of right's. Ruling is another false concept. It's based on the using the stolen right's of the people to bend the Individual will of the people it attempt's to preside over. The key point is that it attempt's to. If the Individual does not comply, he is not being ruled. If he is imprisoned, he is still not being ruled over. Only through Individual compliance of the authority the Government has stolen will it ever be able to "rule" over anyone. That is not the case anywhere in the world, because if this concept were valid, there would be no prison populace anywhere in the world.

The problem is not my position or argument, but rather your understanding of how Individual right's are viewed and employed by those in Government. Having been in the Government for the majority of what is called my adult life I can tell you that what you are saying simply is not an accurate argument. The only group that the Government has even a meager grasp of ruling over is the people within the Military. Even then that grasp is weak at best, and will only last as long as those Individual's are being compensated for this arrangement.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Tue, May 10 2011 7:38 PM

rated by 0 users

mikachusetts:

Autolykos,

Can it be proven that no one but you thinks for you?

I have no idea.  Maybe an implant can be place in my brain or maybe aliens send waves into my brain and they are the ones controlling my fingers right now.  It's just tedious in my opinion to try and prove that since I am me, I own me, I own what I make, etc., instead of just asking anyone who claims that THEY own me (or more likely my things) to prove it.  If someone takes a watch off my wrist it the burden of proof is on them to show that it is theirs (they have a receipt, other people verify the claim, their name is on it, etc).  Tracing it back to "self-ownership" the burden of proof is on the person claiming to own me to prove it.  Whether their proof is suficient will be based on customs and law regarding slavery.  Even if you had a notorized title of ownership over me, no one in the modern western world would honor such a thing.  Hence, you don't own me.

But if you can't prove that you own yourself, how can you prove that no one else owns you? Or are you saying that you treat self-ownership as the default position unless someone else can prove otherwise?

My point was that it's impossible for anyone to prove that they have a claim to owning you that's prior to yours, as their nervous system didn't grow in your body during development - but yours did. Even if an implant is placed in your brain or aliens are sending waves into your brain etc., you still retain the fundamental claim of ownership over your own body.

Also note that majoritarian considerations of sufficiency are irrelevant here.

Reply

mikachusetts replied on Wed, May 11 2011 3:23 PM

rated by 0 users

Autolykos:

But if you can't prove that you own yourself, how can you prove that no one else owns you? Or are you saying that you treat self-ownership as the default position unless someone else can prove otherwise?

"Self-ownership" is the default position just like we pressume innocence before guilt and freedom before restriction.  I don't need to prove that I may chew gum; the burden of proof is on whoever wants to restrict that freedom to demonstrate why I may not do so (it may be against the rules of the property owner, for example). 

My point was that it's impossible for anyone to prove that they have a claim to owning you that's prior to yours, as their nervous system didn't grow in your body during development - but yours did.

When is that ever a requirement for ownership though?  My roommate owns a cat, yet her nervous system didn't grow in the cats body during development, so what? Doesn't she still own the cat? Should we call stray cats self-owners? 

Also note that majoritarian considerations of sufficiency are irrelevant here.

I think it is.  In the past, it was widely held that one man could own another man as property.  So, slavery existed as a full blown institution.  Now, it is not widely held that one man could own another man as property, and slavery exists at the fringe of society and is a matter of disgust.  If you want to say that people cannot be owned you either have to tie it down to a place and time which accounts for changing opinions, or you make it a universal that contradicts historical facts regarding men owning other men.  Or, you mean that man ought not own another man, in which case we are in perfect agreement unless you want to prove that statement which we both know is impossible.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Wed, May 11 2011 6:57 PM

rated by 0 users

mikachusetts:

"Self-ownership" is the default position just like we pressume innocence before guilt and freedom before restriction.  I don't need to prove that I may chew gum; the burden of proof is on whoever wants to restrict that freedom to demonstrate why I may not do so (it may be against the rules of the property owner, for example).

I was under the impression that innocence was presumed before guilt because the opposite would be logically untenable - one must consider everyone to be guilty of everything, in that case. But now that I think about it, the same thing might apply to presuming self-ownership. If no one owns himself, who owns him? Furthermore, if no one owns himself, how can ownership of non-human things be logically possible?

mikachusetts:

When is that ever a requirement for ownership though?  My roommate owns a cat, yet her nervous system didn't grow in the cats body during development, so what? Doesn't she still own the cat? Should we call stray cats self-owners?

For one thing, I consider self-ownership to only apply to humans. For another, I think owning living things is different from owning non-living things. Technically, animals are still in control of their own bodies, even if they're considered to be owned by people.

mikachusetts:

I think it is.  In the past, it was widely held that one man could own another man as property.  So, slavery existed as a full blown institution.  Now, it is not widely held that one man could own another man as property, and slavery exists at the fringe of society and is a matter of disgust.  If you want to say that people cannot be owned you either have to tie it down to a place and time which accounts for changing opinions, or you make it a universal that contradicts historical facts regarding men owning other men.  Or, you mean that man ought not own another man, in which case we are in perfect agreement unless you want to prove that statement which we both know is impossible.

Of course I don't want to prove that man ought not own another man. :P But I'd say that societies in earlier times equivocated over the word "own" (or the equivalents in their languages). Also, to me "ownership" is necessarily a moral concept - in a value-free sense, one can only talk about possession, control, and disposal of things.

Reply

Lincoln replied on Thu, May 12 2011 4:14 AM

rated by 0 users

Jeremiah Dyke:

Also, it's worth noting that your right to speech presupposes a property from which to speak. Owning your vocal chords gives you control of them. But this doesn’t give you the right to use them.

So what gives me the right to use my vocal cords then? besides my owning them and controlling them? 

Reply

Lincoln replied on Thu, May 12 2011 4:22 AM

rated by 0 users

Autolykos:

For one thing, I consider self-ownership to only apply to humans. For another, I think owning living things is different from owning non-living things. Technically, animals are still in control of their own bodies, even if they're considered to be owned by people.

Why? What makes homo-sapiens so special? You do realise we share 99% of our genetic code with our Primate species?

Cats and dogs obviously own themselves as much as we do. You try cutting a dogs foot off and see how he reacts. He acts as if he has a right to his own foot. Animals have as much "rights" as we do ... We happen to be higher -up in the food chain because of larger brains. That is all. In other words, we have power over all other species.

We happen to own and control other animals because of nothing other than power. The concept of "rights" is such a load of babble invented for homosapiens to deal with scarcity and the allocation of goods in the world around us.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Thu, May 12 2011 8:17 AM

rated by 0 users

Liam Anthony:

Why? What makes homo-sapiens so special? You do realise we share 99% of our genetic code with our Primate species?

Keep in mind that Homo sapiens isn't special in any objective way, because "special" is necessarily subjective. That said, I consider Homo sapiens to be special because it's my species. You're not obligated to agree, of course.

Liam Anthony:

Cats and dogs obviously own themselves as much as we do. You try cutting a dogs foot off and see how he reacts. He acts as if he has a right to his own foot. Animals have as much "rights" as we do ... We happen to be higher -up in the food chain because of larger brains. That is all. In other words, we have power over all other species.

Then you're defining "own" differently from how I define it. My definition of "own" is "legitimate possession/control" - that is, my definition of "own" is implicitly moral in nature. And morality is subjective.

Rights are subjective too, for the same reason - because they depend on morality, either implicitly or explicitly.

Liam Anthony:

We happen to own and control other animals because of nothing other than power. The concept of "rights" is such a load of babble invented for homosapiens to deal with scarcity and the allocation of goods in the world around us.

All concepts are such a load of babble invented for Homo sapiens to deal with whatever. Your point?

Reply

mikachusetts replied on Thu, May 12 2011 8:40 AM

rated by 0 users

Autolykos:

I was under the impression that innocence was presumed before guilt because the opposite would be logically untenable - one must consider everyone to be guilty of everything, in that case.  But now that I think about it, the same thing might apply to presuming self-ownership.

Right, there is essentially no need to prove self-ownership because in case of conflict, the burden of proof is on someone else to say they own me and not on me to prove that they don't.

If no one owns himself, who owns him?

He is unowned.  And the reason why you can't homestead people is because its goddamn hard.  If trees moved and fought back and reasoned with you it would be hard to homestead a forest as well.  And if you managed to have enough force to homestead a village of people in some jungle, no one would honor your claims (ok maybe they would in the jungle, but not here) because slavery is impermissible. 

Furthermore, if no one owns himself, how can ownership of non-human things be logically possible?

Your point I think is that by nature of my existence, I must own myself.  If I go trade "my labor" for a paycheck I must own myself in order to own my labor.  Well, I don't think its necessary to conflate my ability to control my body and its output with ownership.  Its MY labor because I can exercise it at will, not because my consciousness owns my body (or my body owns my body if you don't like dualism). 

For one thing, I consider self-ownership to only apply to humans. For another, I think owning living things is different from owning non-living things. Technically, animals are still in control of their own bodies, even if they're considered to be owned by people.

This doesn't bother you?  Ownership is different for different things, sometimes things control themselves but you still own them; it starts to get fuzzy.  I say my roommate's cat is her cat not based on an aspect of control, but because no one else is permitted to claim it as their own. 

But I'd say that societies in earlier times equivocated over the word "own" (or the equivalents in their languages).

Well I don't know if this is true or not, but I really doubt it.  Maybe philosophers who tried to justify slavery committed equivocation at times, but I don't think the existance of slavery as an institution was a result of people changing the meaning of ownership throughout discourse.

Also, to me "ownership" is necessarily a moral concept - in a value-free sense, one can only talk about possession, control, and disposal of things.

The problem with ownership as a moral concept is that you are apt to reject claims that don't fit into your moral conception, as well as the fact that ownership is not considered a moral concept by most people outside of moral philosophers.

Reply

mikachusetts replied on Thu, May 12 2011 8:59 AM

rated by 0 users

Liam Anthony:

Why? What makes homo-sapiens so special?

You sound like Hanibal Lecter.  Maybe its because your avatar is Anthony Hopkins.

Cats and dogs obviously own themselves as much as we do

See, this is where I think the whole self-ownership thing ends up unless you arbitrarily draw the line at humans or reject the notion altogether.  And once we start talking about animals being self-owners, its only a matter of time before they start receiving all sorts of rights (already happening).  I have no problem with arbitrary divisions because I accept that ownership is a concept which will have changing boundaries based on the spontaneous order of human interaction.  But the hard-line moral approach has no room for arbitrary lines, so it has to go about showing why men and animal are different and why that even matters.

Reply

Lincoln replied on Thu, May 12 2011 8:29 PM

rated by 0 users

Autolykos:

Keep in mind that Homo sapiens isn't special in any objective way, because "special" is necessarily subjective. That said, I consider Homo sapiens to be special because it's my species. You're not obligated to agree, of course.

Then you're defining "own" differently from how I define it. My definition of "own" is "legitimate possession/control" - that is, my definition of "own" is implicitly moral in nature. And morality is subjective.

Rights are subjective too, for the same reason - because they depend on morality, either implicitly or explicitly.

All concepts are such a load of babble invented for Homo sapiens to deal with whatever. Your point?

I don't understand why you think animals don't have "self-ownership" (a very strange and mystical concept, I know!!) if humans seem to have it!?

And no, I think the issue of "rights" is a question of economics. 

Reply

Autolykos replied on Thu, May 12 2011 10:04 PM

rated by 0 users

mikachusetts:

Right, there is essentially no need to prove self-ownership because in case of conflict, the burden of proof is on someone else to say they own me and not on me to prove that they don't.

I can dig this. In fact, I think I can tie it in with the presumption of innocence - to me, both are forms of presuming legitimacy over illegitimacy.

mikachusetts:

He is unowned.  And the reason why you can't homestead people is because its goddamn hard.  If trees moved and fought back and reasoned with you it would be hard to homestead a forest as well.  And if you managed to have enough force to homestead a village of people in some jungle, no one would honor your claims (ok maybe they would in the jungle, but not here) because slavery is impermissible.

There's a difference between saying homesteading people is hard vs. saying it's impossible. My own position, as you probably know already, is that people can't be homesteaded by others because they've already homestead themselves. But again, that's a purely moral position.

mikachusetts:

Your point I think is that by nature of my existence, I must own myself.  If I go trade "my labor" for a paycheck I must own myself in order to own my labor.  Well, I don't think its necessary to conflate my ability to control my body and its output with ownership.  Its MY labor because I can exercise it at will, not because my consciousness owns my body (or my body owns my body if you don't like dualism).

It seems clear to me now that we're arguing from very different vantage points. As I've tried to explain already, to me the concept of "ownership" necessarily involves morality. So I've been arguing from a moral vantage point this whole time. You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing from a value-free vantage point. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but I do think it means we're talking past each other more than we're talking to each other.

mikachusetts:

This doesn't bother you?  Ownership is different for different things, sometimes things control themselves but you still own them; it starts to get fuzzy.  I say my roommate's cat is her cat not based on an aspect of control, but because no one else is permitted to claim it as their own.

I don't think I thought things through enough earlier, so I'd like to rescind my earlier point. Since "ownership" to me is "legitimate control", the kind or amount of control doesn't matter.

mikachusetts:

Well I don't know if this is true or not, but I really doubt it.  Maybe philosophers who tried to justify slavery committed equivocation at times, but I don't think the existance of slavery as an institution was a result of people changing the meaning of ownership throughout discourse.

Again, I'd like to rescind my earlier statement. I think a more accurate way of describing it is that many ancient people considered some actions done against other people to be forms of control, and at times thought that control was legitimate (i.e. slavery).

mikachusetts:

The problem with ownership as a moral concept is that you are apt to reject claims that don't fit into your moral conception, as well as the fact that ownership is not considered a moral concept by most people outside of moral philosophers.

What kind of claims are you talking about? And why should I care (intellectually speaking, at least) whether ownership is not considered a moral concept by most people? Be careful of the argumentum ad populum. ;)

Reply

Autolykos replied on Thu, May 12 2011 10:06 PM

rated by 0 users

Liam Anthony:

I don't understand why you think animals don't have "self-ownership" (a very strange and mystical concept, I know!!) if humans seem to have it!?

You're attacking a straw man. I never claimed that self-ownership is a fact about humans.

Liam Anthony:

And no, I think the issue of "rights" is a question of economics.

Well, does that mean you consider rights to be objective phenomena? That is, do you consider "valid rights" to be rights that necessarily exist (somewhere) in the external world?