Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Where do rights come from

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 4:55:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Freedom is not free. Liberty itself is a paradox, for the freedom of one can destroy the freedom of another. The freedom to kill may destroy the freedom to live. Therefore, freedom alone is insufficient as the ethical basis of an ideology. Freedom must accompany a provision that discerns which action is more moral between the parallels of every case. Some people find this distinction in rights.

How or from where do they define what is and is not a right? Do I have the right to breathe clean air, or do you have the right to smoke? Do I have the right to opportunity or do you have the right to harm it as much as you wish? Do I have the right to speak, or do you have the right to quiet vicinity?

Rights need an objective basis, or else they are ambiguous assertions that have no value beyond the confines of your mind. I need someone to prove why, for example, the right of a corporation to act as it pleases is superior to the right of the people to a fair economic opportunity. You may argue that obviously one of those things is not a right to begin with, and I would agree with you…except that I think the former is not a right, whereas the free marketer would say the latter is not a right.

Who is correct and why?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 5:01:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"I see no reason, as far as moral obligation is concerned, why one [man] should not sub-ordinate or destroy the other. But if each of these men can be made to see that the other's free life is helpful to him, then they will agree not to invade each other; in other words, they will equalize their existences, or rights to existence by contract. ... Before contract is the right of might. Contract is the voluntary suspension of the right to might. The power secured by such suspension we may call the right of contract. These two rights -the right of might and the right of contract -are the only rights that ever have been or ever can be. So-called moral rights have no existence." - Benjamin Tucker
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 5:07:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2012 5:01:12 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"I see no reason, as far as moral obligation is concerned, why one [man] should not sub-ordinate or destroy the other. But if each of these men can be made to see that the other's free life is helpful to him, then they will agree not to invade each other; in other words, they will equalize their existences, or rights to existence by contract. ... Before contract is the right of might. Contract is the voluntary suspension of the right to might. The power secured by such suspension we may call the right of contract. These two rights -the right of might and the right of contract -are the only rights that ever have been or ever can be. So-called moral rights have no existence." - Benjamin Tucker

I really should articulate these points yourself instead of citing the words of someone else. I feel as though I'm arguing with a quote and not a person.

Well, you're using a contractual justification for rights. However, I've used a contractual justification for the government before, and Libertarians and Anarchists like yourself tend to assert that they signed nothing! So, cross-apply that reasoning here. I never signed any such contract to respect your rights. Therefore, why should I?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 5:11:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2012 5:07:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:01:12 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"I see no reason, as far as moral obligation is concerned, why one [man] should not sub-ordinate or destroy the other. But if each of these men can be made to see that the other's free life is helpful to him, then they will agree not to invade each other; in other words, they will equalize their existences, or rights to existence by contract. ... Before contract is the right of might. Contract is the voluntary suspension of the right to might. The power secured by such suspension we may call the right of contract. These two rights -the right of might and the right of contract -are the only rights that ever have been or ever can be. So-called moral rights have no existence." - Benjamin Tucker

I really should articulate these points yourself instead of citing the words of someone else. I feel as though I'm arguing with a quote and not a person.

Well, you're using a contractual justification for rights. However, I've used a contractual justification for the government before, and Libertarians and Anarchists like yourself tend to assert that they signed nothing! So, cross-apply that reasoning here. I never signed any such contract to respect your rights. Therefore, why should I?

Because the entire basis of me respecting your rights revolves around you respecting mine. I respect your rights, because if I dont treat you with respect, you won't treat me with respect (that is, for example if I hit you, you'll most likely hit me back).
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 5:15:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2012 5:07:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
I really should articulate these points yourself instead of citing the words of someone else. I feel as though I'm arguing with a quote and not a person.

‎"I quote others only in order the better to express myself." - Michel de Montaigne

Well, you're using a contractual justification for rights. However, I've used a contractual justification for the government before, and Libertarians and Anarchists like yourself tend to assert that they signed nothing! So, cross-apply that reasoning here. I never signed any such contract to respect your rights. Therefore, why should I?

Why should you, indeed? Presumably if you went about wanton murder, rape, and pillage, you would not find the consequences desirable. So that's why. Consequences.

B. R. T.: - "I deny God; therefore I deny all obligation which I have not contracted; and then all that binds me is fear or dislike of the consequences which might follow a refusal to abide by my contract."
B: - "Your God, then, is consequences."
B. R. T.: - "Yes, I might agree to that proposition."
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 5:17:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I cannot answer because I'm putting my own beliefs up to self-question surrounding liberty, but the thing is though: this post is full of rhetorical and loaded questions. You presuppose a lot.

You're presupposing that a corporation doing what it wants and fair economic opportunity are mutually exclusive, and that far economic opportunity is not a part of the capitalistic or free market ideology. There are many a capitalist who would say that capitalism IS in fact ensuring fair economic opportunity. However, what is "fair" is also a subjective idea, too.

It's kind of like how at my school (which is overwhelmingly liberal), people I know have the preconceived notion that conservatism/capitalism cares not for the "little people," and only for the big business. However, the case can be made that conservatism/capitalism IS trying to help the "little people." This is just like the fact that the case could be made that liberalism, contrary to the conservative presupposition, actually DOES want people to have freedom.

I know I just kind of ranted/tangented there, but I did just want to make the point that, at the end of the day, the majority of people, Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc, all want a good society where people can raise a family and grow old in economic security, all while being relatively free. It's just that we've become too jaded by labels, stereotypes, hypocrisy, and self-righteousness that we can't ave healthy disagreements--disagreements that could actually contribute to a better understanding of the issues and society at large.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 5:19:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2012 5:11:03 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:07:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:01:12 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"I see no reason, as far as moral obligation is concerned, why one [man] should not sub-ordinate or destroy the other. But if each of these men can be made to see that the other's free life is helpful to him, then they will agree not to invade each other; in other words, they will equalize their existences, or rights to existence by contract. ... Before contract is the right of might. Contract is the voluntary suspension of the right to might. The power secured by such suspension we may call the right of contract. These two rights -the right of might and the right of contract -are the only rights that ever have been or ever can be. So-called moral rights have no existence." - Benjamin Tucker

I really should articulate these points yourself instead of citing the words of someone else. I feel as though I'm arguing with a quote and not a person.

Well, you're using a contractual justification for rights. However, I've used a contractual justification for the government before, and Libertarians and Anarchists like yourself tend to assert that they signed nothing! So, cross-apply that reasoning here. I never signed any such contract to respect your rights. Therefore, why should I?


Because the entire basis of me respecting your rights revolves around you respecting mine. I respect your rights, because if I dont treat you with respect, you won't treat me with respect (that is, for example if I hit you, you'll most likely hit me back).

I would assert that most people do not respect the right of corporations to do as they please at the consumers expense. Why then can't they infringe on that corporations alleged right through government intervention?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 5:21:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Anyway. That was me half-pouring my soul out on our politics in the US, and our discussions about them here.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 5:22:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2012 5:19:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
I would assert that most people do not respect the right of corporations to do as they please at the consumers expense. Why then can't they infringe on that corporations alleged right through government intervention?

They can and do!
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 5:25:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2012 5:22:18 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:19:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
I would assert that most people do not respect the right of corporations to do as they please at the consumers expense. Why then can't they infringe on that corporations alleged right through government intervention?

They can and do!

I know, I'm aware. But your ideology argues that they ought not to. If your reasoning for the origin of rights is correct, then what on Earth should compel a people that want fair opportunity from using the government to enforce that?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 5:26:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2012 5:19:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:11:03 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:07:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:01:12 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"I see no reason, as far as moral obligation is concerned, why one [man] should not sub-ordinate or destroy the other. But if each of these men can be made to see that the other's free life is helpful to him, then they will agree not to invade each other; in other words, they will equalize their existences, or rights to existence by contract. ... Before contract is the right of might. Contract is the voluntary suspension of the right to might. The power secured by such suspension we may call the right of contract. These two rights -the right of might and the right of contract -are the only rights that ever have been or ever can be. So-called moral rights have no existence." - Benjamin Tucker

I really should articulate these points yourself instead of citing the words of someone else. I feel as though I'm arguing with a quote and not a person.

Well, you're using a contractual justification for rights. However, I've used a contractual justification for the government before, and Libertarians and Anarchists like yourself tend to assert that they signed nothing! So, cross-apply that reasoning here. I never signed any such contract to respect your rights. Therefore, why should I?


Because the entire basis of me respecting your rights revolves around you respecting mine. I respect your rights, because if I dont treat you with respect, you won't treat me with respect (that is, for example if I hit you, you'll most likely hit me back).

I would assert that most people do not respect the right of corporations to do as they please at the consumers expense. Why then can't they infringe on that corporations alleged right through government intervention?

Good question. First of all, I'm playing devils advocate mostly, because I haven't a strong opinion on these matters.

But the answer would lie in private property. I have a right to do what I want with my private property. All rights stem from private property, because even in a world where all resources are unlimited, my personal autonomy on my body (property) would still prevent you from doing things to me like raping me, or murdering me. To deny self autonomy throws away the justification behind all rights, because that is where they initially come from.

So a corporation, regardless of public opinion, has the right to use its property as it pleases. To deny them that in respect of consumer rights is a hypocricy.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 5:31:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2012 5:17:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I cannot answer because I'm putting my own beliefs up to self-question surrounding liberty, but the thing is though: this post is full of rhetorical and loaded questions. You presuppose a lot.

You're presupposing that a corporation doing what it wants and fair economic opportunity are mutually exclusive,

But they are...If a corporation may muddy our waters, pollute our air, form trusts, pools and monopolies and merge, who on earth would ever be able to start their own business? If corporations may pay outrageously menial wages for hard work, who can raise a family and rise up the social ladder. Corporations are entities with heavily concentrated and unappreciated power. How can the average citizen survive and get by when these establishments can knock them down at their discretion?

and that far economic opportunity is not a part of the capitalistic or free market ideology. There are many a capitalist who would say that capitalism IS in fact ensuring fair economic opportunity. However, what is "fair" is also a subjective idea, too.

Is it really? I'm coming to find that fairness has a biological and evolutionary basis. There are actions that can be conceived as unilaterally unfair.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 5:35:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2012 5:31:59 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:17:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I cannot answer because I'm putting my own beliefs up to self-question surrounding liberty, but the thing is though: this post is full of rhetorical and loaded questions. You presuppose a lot.

You're presupposing that a corporation doing what it wants and fair economic opportunity are mutually exclusive,

But they are...If a corporation may muddy our waters,

Who's water?

pollute our air, form trusts, pools and monopolies and merge,


When in a completely laisse faire economy has this happened?

who on earth would ever be able to start their own business? If corporations may pay outrageously menial wages for hard work,

The worker can just quit and get a new job. Laborers= resource, the market will deal out fair wages.

who can raise a family and rise up the social ladder. Corporations are entities with heavily concentrated and unappreciated power. How can the average citizen survive and get by when these establishments can knock them down at their discretion?

Why would these establishments knock them down? You don't honestly believe that the whole world is out to get you, right?

and that far economic opportunity is not a part of the capitalistic or free market ideology. There are many a capitalist who would say that capitalism IS in fact ensuring fair economic opportunity. However, what is "fair" is also a subjective idea, too.

Is it really? I'm coming to find that fairness has a biological and evolutionary basis. There are actions that can be conceived as unilaterally unfair.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 5:37:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2012 5:25:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
I know, I'm aware. But your ideology argues that they ought not to.

My ideology argues no such thing. Ought a man not murder, not rape? Why not? He may face consequences, surely, but then it is just a matter of the evaluations of costs and benefits. I may call a man devilish, but that is simply a description of odium toward such acts.

If your reasoning for the origin of rights is correct, then what on Earth should compel a people that want fair opportunity from using the government to enforce that?

There are so many things wrong with the premises of this sentence I do not know where to begin. Perhaps firstly with the concept that "a people," as opposed to a class, have control over the governments that rule over and exploit them for the benefit of the ruling elite.

"I am not through with you gentlemen. You think you have got me, I suppose, because I called a certain act 'tyranny,' and do not believe in natural right, but hold that 'justice,' as a conception, exists, like truth, independent of contract. But justice as a binding fact exists only as we agree to adopt it. In other words, it is 'only a social deal.' "
C: - You say with us, do you not, that there is nothing binding in this conception of justice? We are under no obligation to to give heed to the sentiment unless we have adopted it by contract or agreement?"
B. R. T.: - "Yes."
C: - "If I am under no obligation to deal justly, wherefore do you denounce me?"
B.R.T.: - "Nor do I. I only described your act. I said it was 'outrageous tyranny.' That is the sort of act I hold it to be."
C: - "But why outrageous?"
B. R. T.: - "It outrages and denies the law of equal freedom."
C: - "But there is no such law - no such right - unless it has been agreed on. 'I may understand what justice is, but I am not bound to do it.' I quote your own words. If I am not bound to do a thing, there is nothing 'outrageous' in my not doing it. To keep to the case in hand. There was no law of freedom for A and B to carry on the lottery business: no natural right. They have no right breathe even unless I or others contract to let them. N, B. R. T.; you must cease using terms that imply obligation, - that attach odium any one for whatever act. 'Nothing binds me to do aught or to refrain from doing, except the penalty of violation of contract or the disadvantage of an abandonment of contract.' Again I have quoted your own words."
B. R. T.: - "I have said nothing about moral obligation. A rattlesnake is not morally bound not to bite. There is odium attached to it, however; if I don't say its action is outrageous, I may say it is devilish, and I may go for that snake to exterminate it.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 5:42:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2012 5:26:59 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:19:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:11:03 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:07:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:01:12 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"I see no reason, as far as moral obligation is concerned, why one [man] should not sub-ordinate or destroy the other. But if each of these men can be made to see that the other's free life is helpful to him, then they will agree not to invade each other; in other words, they will equalize their existences, or rights to existence by contract. ... Before contract is the right of might. Contract is the voluntary suspension of the right to might. The power secured by such suspension we may call the right of contract. These two rights -the right of might and the right of contract -are the only rights that ever have been or ever can be. So-called moral rights have no existence." - Benjamin Tucker

I really should articulate these points yourself instead of citing the words of someone else. I feel as though I'm arguing with a quote and not a person.

Well, you're using a contractual justification for rights. However, I've used a contractual justification for the government before, and Libertarians and Anarchists like yourself tend to assert that they signed nothing! So, cross-apply that reasoning here. I never signed any such contract to respect your rights. Therefore, why should I?


Because the entire basis of me respecting your rights revolves around you respecting mine. I respect your rights, because if I dont treat you with respect, you won't treat me with respect (that is, for example if I hit you, you'll most likely hit me back).

I would assert that most people do not respect the right of corporations to do as they please at the consumers expense. Why then can't they infringe on that corporations alleged right through government intervention?

Good question. First of all, I'm playing devils advocate mostly, because I haven't a strong opinion on these matters.

But the answer would lie in private property. I have a right to do what I want with my private property. All rights stem from private property, because even in a world where all resources are unlimited, my personal autonomy on my body (property) would still prevent you from doing things to me like raping me, or murdering me. To deny self autonomy throws away the justification behind all rights, because that is where they initially come from.

So a corporation, regardless of public opinion, has the right to use its property as it pleases. To deny them that in respect of consumer rights is a hypocricy.

I think you once accused me of circular logic...

You are defending the existence of rights by using...rights?

Property right =/= right to do whatever you want. Property rights apply to ones ability to OWN property. What they do with that property is not protected under property rights.

A corporation that uses its property to ruin other peoples' lives is about as justified as a criminal citing his right to own a gun after shooting someone.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 5:43:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Rights and Lefts, alike, came to infect the world through Ol' Greyface, so as to help bring about the Immanentization of the Eschaton.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 5:45:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2012 5:42:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:26:59 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:19:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:11:03 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:07:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:01:12 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"I see no reason, as far as moral obligation is concerned, why one [man] should not sub-ordinate or destroy the other. But if each of these men can be made to see that the other's free life is helpful to him, then they will agree not to invade each other; in other words, they will equalize their existences, or rights to existence by contract. ... Before contract is the right of might. Contract is the voluntary suspension of the right to might. The power secured by such suspension we may call the right of contract. These two rights -the right of might and the right of contract -are the only rights that ever have been or ever can be. So-called moral rights have no existence." - Benjamin Tucker

I really should articulate these points yourself instead of citing the words of someone else. I feel as though I'm arguing with a quote and not a person.

Well, you're using a contractual justification for rights. However, I've used a contractual justification for the government before, and Libertarians and Anarchists like yourself tend to assert that they signed nothing! So, cross-apply that reasoning here. I never signed any such contract to respect your rights. Therefore, why should I?


Because the entire basis of me respecting your rights revolves around you respecting mine. I respect your rights, because if I dont treat you with respect, you won't treat me with respect (that is, for example if I hit you, you'll most likely hit me back).

I would assert that most people do not respect the right of corporations to do as they please at the consumers expense. Why then can't they infringe on that corporations alleged right through government intervention?

Good question. First of all, I'm playing devils advocate mostly, because I haven't a strong opinion on these matters.

But the answer would lie in private property. I have a right to do what I want with my private property. All rights stem from private property, because even in a world where all resources are unlimited, my personal autonomy on my body (property) would still prevent you from doing things to me like raping me, or murdering me. To deny self autonomy throws away the justification behind all rights, because that is where they initially come from.

So a corporation, regardless of public opinion, has the right to use its property as it pleases. To deny them that in respect of consumer rights is a hypocricy.

I think you once accused me of circular logic...

You are defending the existence of rights by using...rights?

Property right =/= right to do whatever you want. Property rights apply to ones ability to OWN property. What they do with that property is not protected under property rights.

A corporation that uses its property to ruin other peoples' lives is about as justified as a criminal citing his right to own a gun after shooting someone.

You're silly. A corporation does not have the right (nor the power) to "ruin peoples lives". If you could comprehend what I said, you would realize that I said rights branched off of self autonomy. Your criminal analogy is flawed because when I shoot someone, I am harming their property (body).

You have the right to do whatever you wish with your private property so long as it isn't restricting on another's use of their property.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 5:50:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Firstly, in the US our constitution gives us our rights we have today, the declaration of independence also decrees all "men are created equal". Also natural rights come from basic human nature. Other rights are from social contracts or philosophy or personal morals. Etc.

That's my answer
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 6:05:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2012 5:45:35 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:42:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:26:59 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:19:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:11:03 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:07:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:01:12 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"I see no reason, as far as moral obligation is concerned, why one [man] should not sub-ordinate or destroy the other. But if each of these men can be made to see that the other's free life is helpful to him, then they will agree not to invade each other; in other words, they will equalize their existences, or rights to existence by contract. ... Before contract is the right of might. Contract is the voluntary suspension of the right to might. The power secured by such suspension we may call the right of contract. These two rights -the right of might and the right of contract -are the only rights that ever have been or ever can be. So-called moral rights have no existence." - Benjamin Tucker

I really should articulate these points yourself instead of citing the words of someone else. I feel as though I'm arguing with a quote and not a person.

Well, you're using a contractual justification for rights. However, I've used a contractual justification for the government before, and Libertarians and Anarchists like yourself tend to assert that they signed nothing! So, cross-apply that reasoning here. I never signed any such contract to respect your rights. Therefore, why should I?


Because the entire basis of me respecting your rights revolves around you respecting mine. I respect your rights, because if I dont treat you with respect, you won't treat me with respect (that is, for example if I hit you, you'll most likely hit me back).

I would assert that most people do not respect the right of corporations to do as they please at the consumers expense. Why then can't they infringe on that corporations alleged right through government intervention?

Good question. First of all, I'm playing devils advocate mostly, because I haven't a strong opinion on these matters.

But the answer would lie in private property. I have a right to do what I want with my private property. All rights stem from private property, because even in a world where all resources are unlimited, my personal autonomy on my body (property) would still prevent you from doing things to me like raping me, or murdering me. To deny self autonomy throws away the justification behind all rights, because that is where they initially come from.

So a corporation, regardless of public opinion, has the right to use its property as it pleases. To deny them that in respect of consumer rights is a hypocricy.

I think you once accused me of circular logic...

You are defending the existence of rights by using...rights?

Property right =/= right to do whatever you want. Property rights apply to ones ability to OWN property. What they do with that property is not protected under property rights.

A corporation that uses its property to ruin other peoples' lives is about as justified as a criminal citing his right to own a gun after shooting someone.

You're silly. A corporation does not have the right (nor the power) to "ruin peoples lives". If you could comprehend what I said, you would realize that I said rights branched off of self autonomy. Your criminal analogy is flawed because when I shoot someone, I am harming their property (body).

You have the right to do whatever you wish with your private property so long as it isn't restricting on another's use of their property.

The entire basis of your logic is derived from rational self-interest. You say that we form a contract to mutually respect rights because that would be in both our interests. However, you refuse to let this doctrine reach beyond that point. What corporations do in the monopolies and trusts and exploitative practices are against the interest of the general public. Where do property rights draw its limits, in what situations can the public say it does not agree to this version of property rights and cease respecting it on both sides? Your reasoning is somewhat disjointed, yet you're remarkably condescending about it.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 6:14:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2012 6:05:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:45:35 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:42:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:26:59 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:19:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:11:03 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:07:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/9/2012 5:01:12 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"I see no reason, as far as moral obligation is concerned, why one [man] should not sub-ordinate or destroy the other. But if each of these men can be made to see that the other's free life is helpful to him, then they will agree not to invade each other; in other words, they will equalize their existences, or rights to existence by contract. ... Before contract is the right of might. Contract is the voluntary suspension of the right to might. The power secured by such suspension we may call the right of contract. These two rights -the right of might and the right of contract -are the only rights that ever have been or ever can be. So-called moral rights have no existence." - Benjamin Tucker

I really should articulate these points yourself instead of citing the words of someone else. I feel as though I'm arguing with a quote and not a person.

Well, you're using a contractual justification for rights. However, I've used a contractual justification for the government before, and Libertarians and Anarchists like yourself tend to assert that they signed nothing! So, cross-apply that reasoning here. I never signed any such contract to respect your rights. Therefore, why should I?


Because the entire basis of me respecting your rights revolves around you respecting mine. I respect your rights, because if I dont treat you with respect, you won't treat me with respect (that is, for example if I hit you, you'll most likely hit me back).

I would assert that most people do not respect the right of corporations to do as they please at the consumers expense. Why then can't they infringe on that corporations alleged right through government intervention?

Good question. First of all, I'm playing devils advocate mostly, because I haven't a strong opinion on these matters.

But the answer would lie in private property. I have a right to do what I want with my private property. All rights stem from private property, because even in a world where all resources are unlimited, my personal autonomy on my body (property) would still prevent you from doing things to me like raping me, or murdering me. To deny self autonomy throws away the justification behind all rights, because that is where they initially come from.

So a corporation, regardless of public opinion, has the right to use its property as it pleases. To deny them that in respect of consumer rights is a hypocricy.

I think you once accused me of circular logic...

You are defending the existence of rights by using...rights?

Property right =/= right to do whatever you want. Property rights apply to ones ability to OWN property. What they do with that property is not protected under property rights.

A corporation that uses its property to ruin other peoples' lives is about as justified as a criminal citing his right to own a gun after shooting someone.

You're silly. A corporation does not have the right (nor the power) to "ruin peoples lives". If you could comprehend what I said, you would realize that I said rights branched off of self autonomy. Your criminal analogy is flawed because when I shoot someone, I am harming their property (body).

You have the right to do whatever you wish with your private property so long as it isn't restricting on another's use of their property.

The entire basis of your logic is derived from rational self-interest. You say that we form a contract to mutually respect rights because that would be in both our interests. However, you refuse to let this doctrine reach beyond that point. What corporations do in the monopolies and trusts and exploitative practices are against the interest of the general public. Where do property rights draw its limits, in what situations can the public say it does not agree to this version of property rights and cease respecting it on both sides? Your reasoning is somewhat disjointed, yet you're remarkably condescending about it.

Lolwut? Where did I mention anything about self interest? The argument is that all rights are derived from an individuals use of their private property, so you cannot deny a fundamental right (autonomy over private property) to defend a "right" that is based off of private property.

The public can never justifiably "draw a limit" on what one can do with his property, if the usage does not violate the property rights of others.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 6:23:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2012 6:14:27 PM, thett3 wrote:

Lolwut? Where did I mention anything about self interest? The argument is that all rights are derived from an individuals use of their private property, so you cannot deny a fundamental right (autonomy over private property) to defend a "right" that is based off of private property.

Okay, I'm gonna talk like you from now on. :)

lmao If you understood what I wrote, I said that your logic was derived from rational self interest. I never said you mentioned it. Your theory about the origin of rights is ENTIRELY about people for individual well-being agreeing to mutual respect of rights. For if one does not respect the right of another, others are not compelled to respect his own. So, yes, this implies that the basis of all rights and transitively ethics is based on individual interests.


The public can never justifiably "draw a limit" on what one can do with his property, if the usage does not violate the property rights of others.

lol Says who? If I say that everyone has property rights, except the right to guns for example. ...What in the world makes that invalid? You're basically asserting that drawing a line anywhere invalidates the whole principle without actually explaining why that's so.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 6:31:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A group of people decide on what "rights" they want protected and then give up other rights that they have to protect others.
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 6:37:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2012 6:23:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/9/2012 6:14:27 PM, thett3 wrote:

Lolwut? Where did I mention anything about self interest? The argument is that all rights are derived from an individuals use of their private property, so you cannot deny a fundamental right (autonomy over private property) to defend a "right" that is based off of private property.

Okay, I'm gonna talk like you from now on. :)

I thought an eye for an eye made the whole world blind! D: </3

lmao If you understood what I wrote, I said that your logic was derived from rational self interest. I never said you mentioned it. Your theory about the origin of rights is ENTIRELY about people for individual well-being agreeing to mutual respect of rights. For if one does not respect the right of another, others are not compelled to respect his own. So, yes, this implies that the basis of all rights and transitively ethics is based on individual interests.

Ehh, that's not the connotation you were putting it in, and you know it. But ok, rational self interest. Fine.


The public can never justifiably "draw a limit" on what one can do with his property, if the usage does not violate the property rights of others.

lol Says who? If I say that everyone has property rights, except the right to guns for example. ...What in the world makes that invalid? You're basically asserting that drawing a line anywhere invalidates the whole principle without actually explaining why that's so.

Rofl, remember earlier I said that my rights stem from autonomy? So a gunsmith has the right to use his body to make a gun, and I have the right to use my labor/resources to acquire it from him without violating his property rights. It's tricky to just say "oh, corporations/rich people are bad so we can violate their rights". You see, despite your arguments of "public good", it's even LESS good to let the government destroy rights instead of protect them. You haven't disputed that rights stem from autonomy, although you're welcome to, but until you do so it's foolish to put happy little things like fairness over what fundamentally creates all rights. I'm sure you could make a case that I ought to be fair, or I ought to be kind, or I ought to be less rude to you, but if you forced me to do so you would be violating my rights.

oh ike, you allow yourself to be baited too easily :/. Your anger is just so lulzy.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 7:00:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2012 6:37:32 PM, thett3 wrote:

Rofl, remember earlier I said that my rights stem from autonomy? So a gunsmith has the right to use his body to make a gun, and I have the right to use my labor/resources to acquire it from him without violating his property rights. It's tricky to just say "oh, corporations/rich people are bad so we can violate their rights". You see, despite your arguments of "public good", it's even LESS good to let the government destroy rights instead of protect them. You haven't disputed that rights stem from autonomy, although you're welcome to, but until you do so it's foolish to put happy little things like fairness over what fundamentally creates all rights. I'm sure you could make a case that I ought to be fair, or I ought to be kind, or I ought to be less rude to you, but if you forced me to do so you would be violating my rights.

lmao Oh wow, you're contradicting yourself. You said that rights originate from a mutual near contractual agreement for the benefit of both parties,...which is ultimately a display of rational self interest. So rational self interest is the father of rights. If there is a right that is against the interests of even one of the parties involved, it may relinquish respect for that right and stop respecting it in others.

Now, you say its derived from autonomy. Autonomy itself is contingent on interests lol.

So rights answer to interest. If the people, the public, does not agree with corporate actions, then it can very well cross that out of the contract. Since interests are the origin of all rights,...we have no obligation to be consistent - MEANING we may pick and choose what cases of property rights will be mutually respected as we so desire.

oh ike, you allow yourself to be baited too easily :/. Your anger is just so lulzy.

Oh really? remind me again, who's baiting me?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 7:06:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2012 7:00:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/9/2012 6:37:32 PM, thett3 wrote:

Rofl, remember earlier I said that my rights stem from autonomy? So a gunsmith has the right to use his body to make a gun, and I have the right to use my labor/resources to acquire it from him without violating his property rights. It's tricky to just say "oh, corporations/rich people are bad so we can violate their rights". You see, despite your arguments of "public good", it's even LESS good to let the government destroy rights instead of protect them. You haven't disputed that rights stem from autonomy, although you're welcome to, but until you do so it's foolish to put happy little things like fairness over what fundamentally creates all rights. I'm sure you could make a case that I ought to be fair, or I ought to be kind, or I ought to be less rude to you, but if you forced me to do so you would be violating my rights.

lmao Oh wow, you're contradicting yourself. You said that rights originate from a mutual near contractual agreement for the benefit of both parties,...which is ultimately a display of rational self interest. So rational self interest is the father of rights. If there is a right that is against the interests of even one of the parties involved, it may relinquish respect for that right and stop respecting it in others.

Now, you say its derived from autonomy. Autonomy itself is contingent on interests lol.

So rights answer to interest. If the people, the public, does not agree with corporate actions, then it can very well cross that out of the contract. Since interests are the origin of all rights,...we have no obligation to be consistent - MEANING we may pick and choose what cases of property rights will be mutually respected as we so desire.

Rofl. Seriously? Repeat after me: To respect property rights is an exercise in rational self interest.

Saying that rights come from "interests" is silly. The "people" in the South thought it to be in their "interests" to lynch the negroes, even though killing a black obviously violates his property rights. The reason to respect rights comes from self interest, but rights themselves cant come from that you sillyhead.

I seriously can't believe you're saying we can "pick and choose" when to respect private property rights. What if the majority of people want you to give me 100 dollars? Would you do it?

oh ike, you allow yourself to be baited too easily :/. Your anger is just so lulzy.

Oh really? remind me again, who's baiting me?

Me, who else? Your anger makes me lol :)
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 7:15:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2012 7:06:10 PM, thett3 wrote:

Saying that rights come from "interests" is silly. The "people" in the South thought it to be in their "interests" to lynch the negroes, even though killing a black obviously violates his property rights. The reason to respect rights comes from self interest, but rights themselves cant come from that you sillyhead.

I seriously can't believe you're saying we can "pick and choose" when to respect private property rights. What if the majority of people want you to give me 100 dollars? Would you do it?

lmao! You're refuting yourself. Okay, let me simplify this in a way you may understand. Are you ready?

1. Deciding to mutually respect rights is an action done in self interest.
2. Hence, self interest is the PURPOSE of rights, and the SUPERIOR of rights.
still with me?
3. Therefore, if there is a "right" that is out of the interest of either party,...it may be discarded and disrespected.
I hope I didn't lose you there, I mean, ..yeah, that's some complicated business! :)

You obviously don't understand the implications of your position. If you say rights are derived and originate from a mere contractual agreement for both partys' benefit, then your logic implies a whole slew of ridiculous things. The more you resist this, the more you refute your own statements, which is funny to watch lol.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 8:04:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are two forms of Rights, Natural Rights, and Legal Rights.
Legal Rights come from the Government.
Natural Rights comes from nature; we have the rights because we are created with these rights.

Natural rights can be summed up as "Life, liberty, and to acquire property and to keep property."

The three are naturally occurring.
It's Natural to live; it's unnatural to kill.
It's Natural to be free; it's unnatural to be caged.
It's Natural to acquire property; it's unnatural to be preventing from acquiring property.
It's Natural to keep property; it's unnatural to have your property taken away.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 9:22:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2012 8:04:09 PM, DanT wrote:
There are two forms of Rights, Natural Rights, and Legal Rights.
Legal Rights come from the Government.
Natural Rights comes from nature; we have the rights because we are created with these rights.

Natural rights can be summed up as "Life, liberty, and to acquire property and to keep property."

The three are naturally occurring.
It's Natural to live; it's unnatural to kill.
It's Natural to be free; it's unnatural to be caged.
It's Natural to acquire property; it's unnatural to be preventing from acquiring property.
It's Natural to keep property; it's unnatural to have your property taken away.

Well, the first two (living and killing) aren't mutually exclusive. It may be necessary to kill to live.

And, are you speaking in terms of humans? Because, for natural predators (ie lion), it is natural to kill. And it's necessary to live.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 10:14:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/9/2012 7:15:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/9/2012 7:06:10 PM, thett3 wrote:

Saying that rights come from "interests" is silly. The "people" in the South thought it to be in their "interests" to lynch the negroes, even though killing a black obviously violates his property rights. The reason to respect rights comes from self interest, but rights themselves cant come from that you sillyhead.

I seriously can't believe you're saying we can "pick and choose" when to respect private property rights. What if the majority of people want you to give me 100 dollars? Would you do it?

lmao! You're refuting yourself. Okay, let me simplify this in a way you may understand. Are you ready?

1. Deciding to mutually respect rights is an action done in self interest.
2. Hence, self interest is the PURPOSE of rights, and the SUPERIOR of rights.
still with me?
3. Therefore, if there is a "right" that is out of the interest of either party,...it may be discarded and disrespected.
I hope I didn't lose you there, I mean, ..yeah, that's some complicated business! :)

You obviously don't understand the implications of your position. If you say rights are derived and originate from a mere contractual agreement for both partys' benefit, then your logic implies a whole slew of ridiculous things. The more you resist this, the more you refute your own statements, which is funny to watch lol.

Premise two fails silly. Respecting rights is an ACT of self interest. Without that self interest rights still exist. The only REASON to respect rights is self interest yes, but that by no means proves that self interest is superior to rights. So your Premise three doesnt logically follow, and even if it did it's not sound by itself-there are no rights that are not beneficial to one party.

What's really lulzy about this whole thing is that you never offered another place for rights to come from other than private property, so all your objections can't stand without and alternate system.

I never said that " rights are derived and originate from a mere contractual agreement" and if I did, it was a mistake. That's definately not the position.

And dude, you're wayyyyyy over acting my rudeness. Like, its ok to throw in a "roflcopter" or "lolz" here or there, but you're taking it a bit far......its actually pretty cute <3
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2012 10:24:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The freedom to kill may destroy the freedom to live.
An inevitable result of seeking "positive fredoms"-- freedoms as in ability to do things, which is not what freedom means and leads to contradictions.

The solution is negative freedom. Freedom means freedom from force and fraud. You have the right not to be killed, not the right to be kept alive by others. (This right comes from the fact that if people violate it, others have no reason to observe it toward them-- it is in their interest not to kill you. Unless of course you are violating it yourself).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.