Total Posts:141|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Where do "rights" come from?

LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 3:04:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Self-ownership and homesteading (see below).

"Private property is not arbitrary—it follows from self-ownership. One cannot separate what one does from who one is. Someone can't say, "Oh, no, I didn't murder that guy, my actions did." One's actions, or labors, are merely extensions of one's self; one cannot assault one without assaulting the other. Locking an innocent person in a prison cell is aggression because it prevents me from moving freely, even if it doesn't physically harm my body. And legitimately acquired private property is merely an extension of one's labor. If I build a farm, then the private property ethic doesn't mean that I literally own the physical land there. It means ownership in the same sense that I own myself—that I have the right to exclusive control over it. So, by laboring to grow crops, I have acquired the right to continue my labor, rather owning that fraction of the Earth. If someone were to interfere with this right, by, say, taking my farm itself, or merely taking a fraction of my labor through taxes, then they have not merely assaulted my things, but my labor itself, and by extension, myself."

And other things that are traditionally thought of as "rights" come from property rights. Free speech, for example, is simply the right to use your body and your property (paper and ink, website, etc) however you please, as long as you aren't hurting anyone.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 3:20:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Copy pasta from one of my debates

ARGUMENTATION ETHICS

Initially formulated by H.H. Hoppe as a praxeological ground for property rights, I will run a much more narrow version of what has been (misleadingly) labeled Argumentation ethics.

When someone participates in argumentation they presuppose many things. Specifically, the telos of argumentation is the consent of the audience. As such, one cannot coherently argue against the consent of the audience. For example, if I convince you to become a slave, you will be a "voluntary slave", which is a contradiction in terms. As such, I can never coherently argue for slavery. If I try, I will only succeed in convincing people to perform consensual labor.

The same logic applies against aggression. By definition, something aggressive cannot be consensual. Therefore, any argument for a government will fail on its face as a performative contradiction.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 3:39:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 3:35:45 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
Neither one of those explains where "rights" come from, merely that they arbitrarily exist.

No human has inherent rights. They are man-made concepts thought to have meaning and been implemented for decades in hopes of "bettering" society or societal relations. Nothing more, nothing less.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 3:46:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The rights come from the same place our consciousness comes from.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 3:49:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 3:48:40 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/24/2010 3:40:55 PM, Sieben wrote:
Name something that isn't "arbitrary".

The existence of trees.

No that's arbitrary because there's no reason for it :I
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 3:49:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 3:04:35 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
Self-ownership and homesteading (see below).

"Private property is not arbitrary—it follows from self-ownership. One cannot separate what one does from who one is. Someone can't say, "Oh, no, I didn't murder that guy, my actions did." One's actions, or labors, are merely extensions of one's self; one cannot assault one without assaulting the other. Locking an innocent person in a prison cell is aggression because it prevents me from moving freely, even if it doesn't physically harm my body. And legitimately acquired private property is merely an extension of one's labor. If I build a farm, then the private property ethic doesn't mean that I literally own the physical land there. It means ownership in the same sense that I own myself—that I have the right to exclusive control over it. So, by laboring to grow crops, I have acquired the right to continue my labor, rather owning that fraction of the Earth. If someone were to interfere with this right, by, say, taking my farm itself, or merely taking a fraction of my labor through taxes, then they have not merely assaulted my things, but my labor itself, and by extension, myself."

And other things that are traditionally thought of as "rights" come from property rights. Free speech, for example, is simply the right to use your body and your property (paper and ink, website, etc) however you please, as long as you aren't hurting anyone.

1. You presuppose that rights exist to justify the existence of property rights.

2. You have to presuppose the existence and legitimacy of "property rights" in order to assert that you possess in yourself a special kind of property; yet, at the same time, it is the very concept of self-ownership which you use as proof that property rights exist.

There are some other arguments to be made--such as dualistic arguments--that I'm not sure you want to get into. Your call.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 3:51:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 3:20:27 PM, Sieben wrote:
Copy pasta from one of my debates

ARGUMENTATION ETHICS

Initially formulated by H.H. Hoppe as a praxeological ground for property rights, I will run a much more narrow version of what has been (misleadingly) labeled Argumentation ethics.

When someone participates in argumentation they presuppose many things. Specifically, the telos of argumentation is the consent of the audience. As such, one cannot coherently argue against the consent of the audience. For example, if I convince you to become a slave, you will be a "voluntary slave", which is a contradiction in terms. As such, I can never coherently argue for slavery. If I try, I will only succeed in convincing people to perform consensual labor.

The same logic applies against aggression. By definition, something aggressive cannot be consensual. Therefore, any argument for a government will fail on its face as a performative contradiction.

1. That doesn't prove that rights exist.

2. A government doesn't necessarily have to initiate aggression against innocent people in order to survive.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 3:53:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 3:51:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/24/2010 3:20:27 PM, Sieben wrote:
Copy pasta from one of my debates

ARGUMENTATION ETHICS

Initially formulated by H.H. Hoppe as a praxeological ground for property rights, I will run a much more narrow version of what has been (misleadingly) labeled Argumentation ethics.

When someone participates in argumentation they presuppose many things. Specifically, the telos of argumentation is the consent of the audience. As such, one cannot coherently argue against the consent of the audience. For example, if I convince you to become a slave, you will be a "voluntary slave", which is a contradiction in terms. As such, I can never coherently argue for slavery. If I try, I will only succeed in convincing people to perform consensual labor.

The same logic applies against aggression. By definition, something aggressive cannot be consensual. Therefore, any argument for a government will fail on its face as a performative contradiction.

1. That doesn't prove that rights exist.
It shows where they come from though ;)

Even if you don't buy that, it restricts the kinds of things you can advocate.

2. A government doesn't necessarily have to initiate aggression against innocent people in order to survive.
*COUGH* I'll argue definitions with you later. For now, just ignore the government bit and focus on aggression/consent.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 3:53:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 3:49:33 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/24/2010 3:48:40 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/24/2010 3:40:55 PM, Sieben wrote:
Name something that isn't "arbitrary".

The existence of trees.

No that's arbitrary because there's no reason for it :I

I think he means arbitrary in the sense of "unreasonable; unsupported"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 3:53:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 3:51:37 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/24/2010 3:40:55 PM, Sieben wrote:
Name something that isn't "arbitrary".

Define "arbitrary".

I put "arbitrary" in scare quotes for a reason. He's just going to say that anything is arbitrary because he hasn't pinned himself down.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 3:56:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 3:53:02 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/24/2010 3:51:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/24/2010 3:20:27 PM, Sieben wrote:
Copy pasta from one of my debates

ARGUMENTATION ETHICS

Initially formulated by H.H. Hoppe as a praxeological ground for property rights, I will run a much more narrow version of what has been (misleadingly) labeled Argumentation ethics.

When someone participates in argumentation they presuppose many things. Specifically, the telos of argumentation is the consent of the audience. As such, one cannot coherently argue against the consent of the audience. For example, if I convince you to become a slave, you will be a "voluntary slave", which is a contradiction in terms. As such, I can never coherently argue for slavery. If I try, I will only succeed in convincing people to perform consensual labor.

The same logic applies against aggression. By definition, something aggressive cannot be consensual. Therefore, any argument for a government will fail on its face as a performative contradiction.

1. That doesn't prove that rights exist.
It shows where they come from though ;)

No it doesn't. Demonstrating that "consensual slavery" is paradoxical doesn't lead in to "you have a right to your own body". It demonstrates that you can consent to certain things, but that's it.

Even if you don't buy that, it restricts the kinds of things you can advocate.

That's nothing new. Advocating contradictions--literal "A and ~A" contradictions--is impossible.

2. A government doesn't necessarily have to initiate aggression against innocent people in order to survive.
*COUGH* I'll argue definitions with you later. For now, just ignore the government bit and focus on aggression/consent.

I'm pretty focused on it already. I only made the above statement because you brought up governments and performative contradictions.
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 3:56:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 3:48:40 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/24/2010 3:40:55 PM, Sieben wrote:
Name something that isn't "arbitrary".

The existence of trees.

Let me correct myself. Cutting down a tree to turn it into paper, is not arbitrary. My going to work so that I can pay for the electricity that powers the computer I'm typing on is not arbitrary. Cleaning my car windows so that dirt and grim doesn't build up and prevent me from seeing through the window which will cause an accident, is not arbitrary.
Noblesse Oblige
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 3:59:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 2:55:16 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
Open question. Many on here have stated that people have "rights". Where do these "rights" come from?

my cares...

other's cares..
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 4:02:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 3:56:02 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

No it doesn't. Demonstrating that "consensual slavery" is paradoxical doesn't lead in to "you have a right to your own body". It demonstrates that you can consent to certain things, but that's it.
It means that if you engage anyone in an argument, you presuppose their consent. So we are both unwittingly validating self ownership.

I don't know what you think a "right" is... I don't think rights float out there, the same way that 2+2=4 isn't metaphysical. It all just flows tautologically from the things we do. The fact that we argue, or the way we define mathematical symbols.

That's nothing new. Advocating contradictions--literal "A and ~A" contradictions--is impossible.
Since when was philosophy ever new :)
2. A government doesn't necessarily have to initiate aggression against innocent people in order to survive.
*COUGH* I'll argue definitions with you later. For now, just ignore the government bit and focus on aggression/consent.

I'm pretty focused on it already. I only made the above statement because you brought up governments and performative contradictions.
Well, if you think government necessarily entails aggression, it should be pretty obvious. But you don't, because you have a different definition.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 4:02:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 3:59:56 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/24/2010 2:55:16 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
Open question. Many on here have stated that people have "rights". Where do these "rights" come from?

my cares...

other's cares..

1. Stop using the word "cares". It's annoying, misleading, and you have to explain it in almost every thread because your writing style is convoluted and difficult to read.

2. You didn't even explain the link between "cares" and "rights". Try again.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 4:03:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 3:56:49 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/24/2010 3:48:40 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/24/2010 3:40:55 PM, Sieben wrote:
Name something that isn't "arbitrary".

The existence of trees.

Let me correct myself. Cutting down a tree to turn it into paper, is not arbitrary. My going to work so that I can pay for the electricity that powers the computer I'm typing on is not arbitrary. Cleaning my car windows so that dirt and grim doesn't build up and prevent me from seeing through the window which will cause an accident, is not arbitrary.

HAAAAAAAAAAAH So if something has a purpose, it isn't arbitrary? Well rights do have a purpose, so no rights are arbitrary...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 4:08:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 4:02:07 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/24/2010 3:56:02 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

No it doesn't. Demonstrating that "consensual slavery" is paradoxical doesn't lead in to "you have a right to your own body". It demonstrates that you can consent to certain things, but that's it.
It means that if you engage anyone in an argument, you presuppose their consent. So we are both unwittingly validating self ownership.

1. The fact that you don't beat the sh*t out of everyone who disagrees doesn't mean you refrain because you believe that person is his own owner (which is itself interesting, since ownership is the label of a distinct subject-object relation). I think you're affirming the consequent with this argument.

2. This argument doesn't prove that self-ownership exists. It might prove that the notion of self-ownership is a social norm, but not that it's a right which actually exists. Hell, you have to assume that ownership rights exist to argue for self-ownership.

I don't know what you think a "right" is... I don't think rights float out there, the same way that 2+2=4 isn't metaphysical. It all just flows tautologically from the things we do. The fact that we argue, or the way we define mathematical symbols.

1. I wasn't assuming that rights were actual existents.

2. Again, that doesn't prove that rights exist. It only proves that we've developed a set of norms and traditions which embrace the idea of self-ownership as a fundamental principle. Like I said at the outset, believing that such a right exists is socially, ethically, and politically expedient. It's no wonder many cultures adopted it.

That's nothing new. Advocating contradictions--literal "A and ~A" contradictions--is impossible.
Since when was philosophy ever new :)

Philosophers do come up with new ideas sometimes. :P

2. A government doesn't necessarily have to initiate aggression against innocent people in order to survive.
*COUGH* I'll argue definitions with you later. For now, just ignore the government bit and focus on aggression/consent.

I'm pretty focused on it already. I only made the above statement because you brought up governments and performative contradictions.
Well, if you think government necessarily entails aggression, it should be pretty obvious. But you don't, because you have a different definition.

So I would assume.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 4:12:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 4:08:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/24/2010 4:02:07 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/24/2010 3:56:02 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

No it doesn't. Demonstrating that "consensual slavery" is paradoxical doesn't lead in to "you have a right to your own body". It demonstrates that you can consent to certain things, but that's it.
It means that if you engage anyone in an argument, you presuppose their consent. So we are both unwittingly validating self ownership.

1. The fact that you don't beat the sh*t out of everyone who disagrees doesn't mean you refrain because you believe that person is his own owner (which is itself interesting, since ownership is the label of a distinct subject-object relation). I think you're affirming the consequent with this argument.
That's not it at all. You can beat the sh*t out of anyone you want, but you can't possibly be counted as "arguing" with them because you're violating their consent.
2. This argument doesn't prove that self-ownership exists. It might prove that the notion of self-ownership is a social norm, but not that it's a right which actually exists. Hell, you have to assume that ownership rights exist to argue for self-ownership.

It proves that self ownership is presupposed by philosophy, and anyone engaging in discourse. If you want to call "reasoning" a social norm, fine.

I don't know what you think a "right" is... I don't think rights float out there, the same way that 2+2=4 isn't metaphysical. It all just flows tautologically from the things we do. The fact that we argue, or the way we define mathematical symbols.

1. I wasn't assuming that rights were actual existents.
So what do you think a right is?
2. Again, that doesn't prove that rights exist. It only proves that we've developed a set of norms and traditions which embrace the idea of self-ownership as a fundamental principle. Like I said at the outset, believing that such a right exists is socially, ethically, and politically expedient. It's no wonder many cultures adopted it.
No most people compromise on self ownership. This is not an argumentum ad populum. There may or may not be anything expedient about self ownership. Many statists would find this right to be inexpedient, but its inconvenience wouldn't change its genesis in argumentation.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 4:13:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
That depends on how one defines "consent."

If we are "arguing" and I say "you become my slave or I kill you." Is choosing to be a slave really "consent"?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
OrionsGambit
Posts: 258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 4:18:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 4:03:31 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 11/24/2010 3:56:49 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/24/2010 3:48:40 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
At 11/24/2010 3:40:55 PM, Sieben wrote:
Name something that isn't "arbitrary".

The existence of trees.

Let me correct myself. Cutting down a tree to turn it into paper, is not arbitrary. My going to work so that I can pay for the electricity that powers the computer I'm typing on is not arbitrary. Cleaning my car windows so that dirt and grim doesn't build up and prevent me from seeing through the window which will cause an accident, is not arbitrary.

HAAAAAAAAAAAH So if something has a purpose, it isn't arbitrary? Well rights do have a purpose, so no rights are arbitrary...

Rights have a purpose but the purpose is not guaranteed. The act of working so that I may pay for electricity to power my computer has a purpose and as my computer is working and on, my purpose of working has been guaranteed. Rights have a purpose to protect or grant but the act of being protected or granted is not guaranteed. So rights are indeed arbitrary. Which doesn't matter as the question wasn't if rights are arbitrary or not. You changed the subject as you lacked an response to the statement that was posed.
Noblesse Oblige
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 4:18:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 4:15:15 PM, Sieben wrote:
^The second you threaten me, we aren't arguing anymore.

how is it not arguing? It is the most basic form of arguing. It isn't logical debating, but it is arguing.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2010 4:22:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/24/2010 4:18:04 PM, OrionsGambit wrote:
Rights have a purpose but the purpose is not guaranteed.
So if you don't have a 100% chance of success, its "arbitary"? So gamblers are "arbitrary"?

The act of working so that I may pay for electricity to power my computer has a purpose and as my computer is working and on, my purpose of working has been guaranteed.
There is a small chance that none of your actions will bring about the intended result. For example, you could be struck by lightning. I guess that means your life is arbitrary.

Rights have a purpose to protect or grant but the act of being protected or granted is not guaranteed.
That's not the purpose of rights at all. Rights just kind of "are", the same way that 2+2=4. Rights don't themselves desire to be enforced... Humans give rights and math purpose. But that purpose is in itself "arbitrary", because its whatever u feel like right?

So rights are indeed arbitrary. Which doesn't matter as the question wasn't if rights are arbitrary or not. You changed the subject as you lacked an response to the statement that was posed.
Actually you wrote:
Neither one of those explains where "rights" come from, merely that they arbitrarily exist.

So either your problem is with them being arbitrary, or you didn't read my post an argumentation ethics.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...