Rights: Coming at them the Right way...

[anthony]

No problem, so long as I can return the favour sometime...seems these threads have a life of their own.

[Samson Corwell]

I just don't bother using the language of rights. Problem solved.

[Jules Troy]

In doing wildlife photography I draw from my years of experience as a hunter as well as all the time I spent working up in northern Alberta and B.C. In grizzly country. Once you learn their behaviours it is indeed easier to keep yourself safe.

[Mikee]

Now... here's the kicker that I deviate with Rand and other "inherent rights" claimers...

All of this stuff about property and capitalism... it only makes sense due to the efficiency gains in goal attainment resulting from specialization and trade.

If goal attainment for a person is not increased by specialization and trade with some other particular person (or life form Mike E, here's your integration across all life forms)... then this whole "inherent rights"/NIOF/negative rights etc breaks down and no longer applies. Recognize that each person has unique goals, and can change their own goals, even despite Rand and other "inherent rights" claimer's attempt to apply generalizations of human goals to all individuals.

So for example if a person has a primary goal to live in the wilderness... but he is too poor to be able to afford purchasing land from others so that he can do such... (and he predicts that he doesn't have the competitive ability nor ambition to gain enough market value to ever purchase the land...) if this is such a high priority to him over say any other goal, then potentially he might decide that he'd like to find ways to sabotage or kill others (in some way break NIOF) in order to attain his goal.

Hence I propose that instead we adopt the idea that there are many factions... factions that group together by common goals and means. Some factions are friends with other factions. Some are slaves to others... such as cows are to humans. Walla, integration across all life forms.

Could you elaborate on the circumstances where he might do this? Would he be squatting on otherwise unused (but owned) property, then defending himself against a forceful eviction? Or is he simply a feral sociopath human?

[deanwins]

Mike,

He might work for the EPA, or call for limits on CO2 production, vote for taxes on the most productive, become a tort lawyer, etc. This kind of character would feel envy rather than camaraderie towards people more successful than himself.

[Brant Gaede]

Positive right is a right to something while a negative right is a right from something--the initiation of force.

The right to life and property is the positive expression of the underlying, negative right. The right to a chicken in your pot is your right to produce and trade to get that chicken and eat it, not steal it.

There are really no positive rights for the bad guys--those who don't use their own rights for good and moral productive actions.

--Brant

rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are two positive and one negative respectively

the right to liberty is not the right for someone or something to be forced to give you liberty--no, go out and fight for it, go get it; that's your real right--that's where France went off the rails, chopping off people's heads, and that's where the U.S. did too, coughing up the most perfect rights' protecting governemnt that would unite the country the founders could think of. They should have gone with a lousy government that everyone could keep fighting against before there was enough tax money and central banking money and bond money to bribe most everybody into acquiescence

[Darrell Hougen]

Here are three concepts/principles that handle most cases:

1. All human interactions should be voluntary.

2. First come first served.

3. Property.

The first principle is just putting a positive spin on NIOF. The second principle explains what happens when something has not previously been owned --- the first person to make use of it is right to claim it. Property is those things that one is free to use and dispose of by his own voluntary choice. More technically, property is those rights that a person owns.

Darrell

[Peter]

Brant wrote:

Positive right is a right to something while a negative right is a right from something--the initiation of force.

end quote

I agree with Darrell’s positive approach. And as such I think the concept “negative right” is one of those stolen concepts. First one must posit positive rights and then declare this ain’t one of them, and that is cumbersome and not worth the effort. Like the pejorative term, “minarchism,” that seems to juxtapose monarchism and constitutional government that protects individual rights - into one sticky wicket - I refuse to fall for it.

Long ago, Brant wrote:

Let's consider Objectivism as if it were a baseball constructed of layers of material around a hard core. That core is its axiomatic principles--shared with science--which I consider non-controversial . . .

end quote

Pretty damn good.

And he wrote:

From: BrantUSASF@aol.com

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

CC: BBfromM@aol.com

Subject: Re: ATL: "Evil" ideas

Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 22:10:54 EDT

In a message dated 5/8/00 3:30:48 PM US Mountain Standard Time,

BBfromM@aol.com writes:

<< Unless I've missed some post, I don't think anyone has responded to my point that the concepts of "good" and "evil" can apply only to a human being with a volitional consciousness. Since ideas do not have a volitional consciousness, such concepts cannot apply to them.

Barbara >>

Then I think you missed a post a made a while back, Barbara. I stated that no ideas existed independent of human consciousness, not even unread in a book until it be read (assuming the author was dead). That from this context ideas can be good or evil only if expressed and/or acted upon, but not within the mind itself. Therefore, ideas can be evil but they need help to be so. Ideas per se? No, they cannot be good or evil, but there is no such thing as an idea per se. There always has to be a human mind attached to it, to reiterate. It is not, by the way, good form to maintain your position for adopting it means forever explaining why ideas are not good and evil (or good and bad, etc.) as your distinction in my opinion is contrived and artificial, maybe arbitrary. Anyway, we need to be able to categorize ideas as this or that and should not exclude moral categories.

--Brant

Don’t deny it Dude! You wrote that stuff. And it was great. That was back in 2000. Wow. USASF. United States Army Special Forces?

[Brant Gaede]

Brant wrote:

Positive right is a right to something while a negative right is a right from something--the initiation of force.

end quote

I agree with Darrell’s positive approach. And as such I think the concept “negative right” is one of those stolen concepts. First one must posit positive rights and then declare this ain’t one of them, and that is cumbersome and not worth the effort. Like the pejorative term, “minarchism,” that seems to juxtapose monarchism and constitutional government that protects individual rights - into one sticky wicket - I refuse to fall for it.

Long ago, Brant wrote:

Let's consider Objectivism as if it were a baseball constructed of layers of material around a hard core. That core is its axiomatic principles--shared with science--which I consider non-controversial . . .

end quote

Pretty damn good.

And he wrote:

From: BrantUSASF@aol.com

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

CC: BBfromM@aol.com

Subject: Re: ATL: "Evil" ideas

Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 22:10:54 EDT

In a message dated 5/8/00 3:30:48 PM US Mountain Standard Time,

BBfromM@aol.com writes:

<< Unless I've missed some post, I don't think anyone has responded to my point that the concepts of "good" and "evil" can apply only to a human being with a volitional consciousness. Since ideas do not have a volitional consciousness, such concepts cannot apply to them.

Barbara >>

Then I think you missed a post a made a while back, Barbara. I stated that no ideas existed independent of human consciousness, not even unread in a book until it be read (assuming the author was dead). That from this context ideas can be good or evil only if expressed and/or acted upon, but not within the mind itself. Therefore, ideas can be evil but they need help to be so. Ideas per se? No, they cannot be good or evil, but there is no such thing as an idea per se. There always has to be a human mind attached to it, to reiterate. It is not, by the way, good form to maintain your position for adopting it means forever explaining why ideas are not good and evil (or good and bad, etc.) as your distinction in my opinion is contrived and artificial, maybe arbitrary. Anyway, we need to be able to categorize ideas as this or that and should not exclude moral categories.

--Brant

Don’t deny it Dude! You wrote that stuff. And it was great. That was back in 2000. Wow. USASF. United States Army Special Forces?

Since I hate flattery I'm joining Dean in putting you on my "ignore" list (quantity 1).

If anybody else wants on my ignore list, now you know what to do. I'll be looking for it. Vicious ad hominem attacks won't work. I was born and bred (I mean bred and born and raised) in a briar patch.

Yes, that's what USASF stands for, commonly mistaken for US Air Force. But you can find that out in my profile. My mission was to kill on the one hand and cure on the other, and advise others how to do the same, which made me a combatant medic, not a combat medic, although I was awarded the rare combat medic badge. I wanted a combat infantryman badge as it was prettier. So, one Bronze Star for Heroism in Ground Combat and one Bronze Star for Meritorious Service. Just glad I didn't get my ass shot off. My 95 yo uncle, whom I fear is dying, was in the AF. Silver Star, 2 purple hearts, 2 or 3 Distinguished Flying Croses, maybe up to 7 Air Medals. B-17 navigator, Pearl Harbor, Midway and Guadalcanal--Korea (B-29s). A Zero shot up his 17 in 1943 and he still has medal in him from an exploding 20mm cannon shell. He couldn't move so he passed ammo up to the nose gunner, who later died and got the Distinguished Service Cross. Another B-17 ("Old 666"), also in 1943, on a recon mission was attacked by 17 Zeroes and 2 other fighters, but by superb flying and fighting survived. That crew got 2 Congressional Medals of Honor, 7 Distinguihed Service Croses, 6 Purple Hearts and was the most heavily decorated flight crew in history. One CMH died. That old 17 was heavily armed with extra 50 cal. guns all over the place after removing all the 30s. They even rigged a special gun up for the pilot to fire.

--Brant

now I have to go edit that old stuff

[Peter]

Sorry to tick you off Brant. When I was looking for some old BB quotes I found yours from around the same time and thought you might enjoy seeing them. USASF gave me a double take because I remembered you were in the army too. Sorry to be on your do not call list. I will go and delete all your old posts from Atlantis. If I inadvertently answer one of your new posts, just ignore it - though if I am on your do not read list I suppose you won't read this.

Peter

edit

Well that was easy. I went to my profile and put Brant on my don't receive msg list so if don't remember I will remember once he does not promptly answer.

[Brant Gaede]

You mean you thought I was ticked off?

--Brant

I like that old stuff and you seem to be the only source of it

for real old stuff from me--and it's not very good--Google Brant Gaede Fort Freedom

Before the Internet was common, Petr Beckmann started Ft. Freedom with a dedicated land line so my "Internet" postings go back to 1988--I used my Kaypro 4 computer which I still have, as good as it was new in 1984, even the printer which I suspect doesn't work any longer (I have all my old computers)--I paid about $3000 cash for the Kaypro and printer, a typical price back then

[Peter]

Oh, I thought Brant was saying he had kicked me off and I was the only one he had ever done that to. Back to Profile. That will just leave Dean, who gave me a black mark, who is on my do not call list. I put him on as the same time as Brant so I would not further irk him. Who needs that?

[Brant Gaede]

Shoulda used one of them smilely facees

--Brant

[Peter]

Brant, I see the perils in putting someone on the do not call list. If I had not had a lag time between when I wrote apologizing to you and then putting you on my "shit list" I would not have seen your explanatory letter. Crap. All your Atlantis correspondence is gone. No it's not! That would have taken an hour.

Everyone should go look at how you can check off different boxes to simply minimizing to NEVER hearing from or read a response from anyone again. Reminds me of the orthodox ARI types shunning the blasphemous. And so the footprints in the sand were forever washed away . . .

[Brant Gaede]

Jesus. Maybe I should have a smilely face on my signature line! Internet humor can be an ironic two-edged sword. Peter isn't reading me? Oh, Lord, then why am I writing this stuff?!

--Brant

:smile: :smile: