Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

Here, in another excerpt from Themes, is a brief explanation of the significance of inalienable rights in the Declaration. I discuss this issue in far greater detail later in the chapter, but this summary should do for now:

Let us now consider Jefferson's mention of "unalienable rights." Unalienable (or "inalienable" ) rights stood in contrast to alienable rights, so we might wonder why Jefferson found it necessary to refer to this rather technical distinction, especially in a political document that was intended for popular consumption. Why didn't Jefferson simply speak of "rights" in general, instead of focusing on inalienable rights?

Inalienable rights were regarded as fundamental corollaries of man's essential nature, especially his reason and volition, so these rights could never be surrendered or transferred to another person (including a government), even with the agent's consent. A man can no more transfer his inalienable rights than he can transfer his moral agency, his ability to reason, and so forth. This means that inalienable rights could never have been transferred to government in a social contract, so no government can properly claim jurisdiction over them. Consequently, any government that systematically violates inalienable rights is necessarily tyrannical and vulnerable to revolution. As Francis Hutcheson put it, "Unalienable Rights are essential Limitations to all Governments."

According to this theory, legitimate disagreements may occur between subjects and rulers when alienable rights are involved, but no such disputes are possible between people of good will when inalienable rights are involved. No government can claim jurisdiction over inalienable rights, because they are incapable of alienation and so could never have been delegated or surrendered to a government in the first place. This means there can be no excuse for the systematic violation of inalienable rights. This is the bright-line test that enables us to distinguish the incidental or well-intentioned violation of rights, which even just governments may occasionally commit, from the deliberate and inexcusable violations of a tyrannical government.

This is why Jefferson focused on inalienable rights in his effort to fasten the charge of tyranny on the British government. The violation of inalienable rights was a defining characteristic of a tyrannical government, and only against such a government is revolution clearly justified.

Ghs

George's concept of unalienability artificially and wrongly elevates some rights above others, and invites those others to be put on the chopping block. Which is precisely what happened.

There is no ranking of rights, they are coequal.

Shayne

You seem to be making the same mistake as George, if it be one. You are accepting a rights' division by accepting this hierarchy. A right to property is basic and that means the right to create, buy, sell and possess it. It's an integrated whole. This implicit idea of giving up some kind of rights seems to me to open the door to government generally chewing up rights over time making itself gradually into the State of Lincoln's age to today's fulmination. The very idea of alienable rights is grossly destructive of the idea of human rights itself. I can understand throwing "property" out of The Declaration because of slavery, however.

--Brant

Edited February 10, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[sjw]

It strikes me that if the basic unit of government is the family and something to do with sovereignty and land ownership--isn't that ownership, real property, defined first by law?--that this is basically codification of agricultural patriarchy.

Not saying I've got Shayne right here, but this conversation needs to be refocused a little.

--Brant

I don't by the way argue that the family is the basic unit of government, but the formulation doesn't offend me either. I would say that a family is a statistically large and basic unit of government, but not the only kind of basic unit. What I say is that property ownership dictates use, and a legal jurisdiction of man-made laws is a kind of use, so the only way a given legal jurisdiction rightly gets onto your land is that you consented to it. A Natural Law jurisdiction applies everywhere the the consenting constituents desire for it to apply. (One might argue that the reason the US gets itself into trouble abroad is not because it occupies, but because it applies man-made law rather than solely or even substantially defending Natural Law).

A key issue here is precisely defining how property in land comes about, what it is, and under what conditions it is maintained. Wrong ideas of property will lead you into one kind of tyranny or another (e.g., if I can just "point and own", then nothing stops me from owning everything and turning everyone else into slaves). I suspect that George's criticism of me about advocating some kind of tyranny is going to be rooted in his confusion about property rights concerning land.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

It strikes me that if the basic unit of government is the family and something to do with sovereignty and land ownership--isn't that ownership, real property, defined first by law?--that this is basically codification of agricultural patriarchy.

Not saying I've got Shayne right here, but this conversation needs to be refocused a little.

--Brant

Who knows if you got Shayne right or not. His headline post is so unfocused as to defy clarification.

I pointed out some of the problems previously. For example, you take Shayne to mean that the family is the smallest "unit of government," but he doesn't say "family." Rather, he says that the home is the "smallest unit of government."

So is home a synonym for family, in Shayne's usage? Apparently not, for he goes on to identify the home as a "unit of owned land" and says, "The owners of the home have the right to define the 'laws of the land' for their land, and to tell guests to take them or leave." (My italics.)

Taken literally -- and I concede that it is always risky to take Shayne literally -- this means that the owners of the land on which a family lives have the right to establish rules for that family. And if the parents do not own the land but rent instead, this means that the landlord has the ultimate authority to tell parents how to raise their children.

This isn't conventional patriarchalism; rather, it is pure feudalism, a system in which landowners control virtually every aspect of the lives of their tenants.

Even more disturbing is the fact that Shayne regards the home as a "unit of government." This can mean one of two things. It can mean that the home is an administrative unit of government, i.e., a branch of government that administers its laws and decrees. This is an extremely creepy idea, but I doubt if this is what Shayne meant. It is more likely that Shayne meant to say that the "home" exhibits governmental relationships on the smallest scale.

So what does this mean? Well, it means that a landlord functions as a government over his tenants. Or, alternatively, if we interpret "home" to mean "family," it means that parents exercise legitimate governmental power over their children.

The conflation of governmental power with the rights exercised by a landlord over his tenants (or parents over their children) is an extraordinary thesis for a supposed libertarian to defend. It is chock full of unsavory anti-libertarian implications, but Shayne does not flinch. Instead he writes:

Obviously there are limits to what laws of the land you can justly make (execution for the crime of not taking out the garbage would clearly be out). But a wide range of local laws and regulations are clearly defensible. For example: no loud noises after 10pm, no making a mess of the kitchen without cleaning up, taking out the garbage, etc. are all fair game, even though they have no basis in Natural Law but the fact that there is the proposition "take my rules or leave the house" -- the natural right of consent -- standing behind them.

The first thing to note about this passage is Shayne's example of "execution for the crime of not taking out the garbage." This punishment, he says, is excessive (though he does not explain why), so such a law "would clearly be out." But Shayne has merely rejected the excessive punishment, not the law itself. There is no reason, given his reasoning, why a government could not pass laws about when people must take out their garbage, along with a host of other paternalistic regulations. He freely admits this when he concedes that "no loud noises after 10pm, no making a mess of the kitchen without cleaning up, taking out the garbage, etc., are all fair game."

In short, any regulations that landlords may wish to impose on their tenants now become legitimate candidates for laws in Shayne's government. If the landlords are all fundamentalist Christians, then a theocratic Christian government would be perfectly fine, according to Shayne's reasoning. If the landlords are all Muslims, then a government that enforces Sharia Law would also be fine.

These are among the potential totalitarian consequences that stem from Shayne's failure to consider the difference between the rights of landowners and the legitimate powers of government. Government, for Shayne, becomes the enforcement mechanism through which landlords impose their wills on nonlandowners. This is a pure class government, nothing more. It is a government designed to protect the "rights" of the class of landowners, not to protect the rights of every individual.

Given that Shayne regards the "home" as a "unit of government," is it any wonder that he elsewhere throws the term "government" around with such reckless abandon?

Ghs

[sjw]

You seem to be making the same mistake as George, if it be one. You are accepting a rights' division by accepting this hierarchy. A right to property is basic and that means the right to create, buy, sell and possess it. It's an integrated whole. This implicit idea of giving up some kind of rights seems to me to open the door to government generally chewing up rights over time making itself gradually into the State of Lincoln's age to today's fulmination. The very idea of alienable rights is grossly destructive of the idea of human rights itself. I can understand throwing "property" out of The Declaration because of slavery, however.

--Brant

No. On my view of rights, rights metaphysically exist and consist of non-interfering human action. All of these are your rights. The abstractions like "liberty", "property", "freedom of expression" are abstractions that identify certain broadly-defined kinds of human action. E.g., property rights define the acquisition and exclusive use of material objects -- a type of action (consisting of a potentially unlimited number of concrete actions) concerning a given material object.

Do you rank jumping as a higher right than walking? Probably not. For the same reason, I don't rank any human action as higher than another. All non-interfering human action is your total prerogative, and anyone who interferes whether it be an individual or a government, is criminally assaulting you. This is what I mean by "inalienable" (or unalienable). I simply mean that it's criminal to interfere, nothing more, nothing less. (I understand that there are other views on what "inalienable" means, I just do not believe them to be philosophically coherent.) I don't see any necessity of saying more than: you shall not interfere with a man's non-interfering actions, if you do you are wrong and justly subject to the actions of justice.

Shayne

[sjw]

The first thing to note about this passage is Shayne's example of "execution for the crime of not taking out the garbage." This punishment, he says, is excessive (though he does not explain why), so such a law "would clearly be out." But Shayne has merely rejected the excessive punishment, not the law itself. There is no reason, given his reasoning, why a government could not pass laws about when people must take out their garbage, along with a host of other paternalistic regulations. He freely admits this when he concedes that "no loud noises after 10pm, no making a mess of the kitchen without cleaning up, taking out the garbage, etc., are all fair game."

It is interesting that you are puzzled by something so simple.

Natural Law overrides man-made laws. The right of consent/contract underlies the "law" to take out the garbage, and all other "my house my rules" propositions. While one might write a contract that says "if you don't take out the garbage I can execute you", such a law would be null and void under a proper comprehension of the natural right to contract and to justice: The natural right to justice entails, at most, compensating the victim of contract breech for whatever amount they were put out by, not by making slave out of the contract breaker.

In short, any regulations that landlords may wish to impose on their tenants now become legitimate candidates for laws in Shayne's government.

"My house my rules, if you don't like the rules then leave" seems a simple enough proposition once your little puzzle is solved.

I mean this is simple and straightforward property rights George. If I own something, then I get to say how it's used, and if you don't like it, then don't use it. No wonder you claim property rights are not inalienable, evidently you'd move into someone's home and be a horrid guest and not leave on the grounds that his property rights are alienable. This thuggish view of property rights fits in well with your thuggish behavior in this thread, as well as your lowbrow inability to think of any possible way out of the puzzle you found yourself in above. I don't advocate humility as a virtue, but in your case I can make an exception.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

A key issue here is precisely defining how property in land comes about, what it is, and under what conditions it is maintained. Wrong ideas of property will lead you into one kind of tyranny or another (e.g., if I can just "point and own", then nothing stops me from owning everything and turning everyone else into slaves). I suspect that George's criticism of me about advocating some kind of tyranny is going to be rooted in his confusion about property rights concerning land.

I am not confused about "property rights concerning land." But you are obviously are, if you think that a landowner exercises a type of governmental power over his tenants and others who occupy his land. Governmental power, for example includes the right to punish -- whether this punishment be coercive restitution or some other form -- and landowners have no such right qua landowners. If you violate the conditions specified in a lease, a landowner does not have the right to haul you before his own tribunal, find you guilty, and then exact a fine.

Of course, a landlord can evict you from his land if you violate your lease, but that is the most he can do (aside from suing you for damage to his property) -- and even here you would have the right to take your case to an impartial court of law for adjudication.

A major problem here is that you have not distinguished between enforceable and nonenforceable contracts, whether signed with a landlord or with anyone else. Slavery contracts, for example, cannot be enforced; they are null and void by the very nature of their terms. (A similar problem arises with specific performance contracts.) But this stuff, which involves notions like inalienable rights, is a bit too advanced for you at this stage, so perhaps you should stick to simpler ideas.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Shayne, human rights are not metaphysical, they are a human invention respecting basic human nature and need. That's what makes them natural--that's where you'll find the metaphysical.

--Brant

[sjw]

A major problem here is that you have not distinguished between enforceable and nonenforceable contracts, whether signed with a landlord or with anyone else. Slavery contracts, for example, cannot be enforced; they are null and void by the very nature of their terms. (A similar problem arises with specific performance contracts.) But this stuff, which involves notions like inalienable rights, is a bit too advanced for you at this stage, so perhaps you should stick to simpler ideas.

Ghs

Your basic problem George is that you have a scheme or architecture of these ideas in your head, but you don't seem to realize that I have my own scheme that must be understood in order to criticize it. Therefore, any sentence I utter gets framed in your terms and is therefore misunderstood. Ergo the mess that is this thread. You're coming at this like the old man that you apparently are, long frozen in his views, who lacks any mental flexibility in entertaining a new idea.

I quite recognize that your ideas are not a total jumbled mess in your own head, that there is a certain order to them. (I disagree with that order, but that's a separate matter.) You on the other hand can only view things from your own frozen point of view. In your self-induced stupor, you fail to even attempt to discern any order in my ideas, and so every sentence gets misapprehended by you as some horrible thing, and then you react by spewing nonsense. You're well aware of this of course. You justify this ridiculously unprofessional and dishonest method of dealing with ideas by pretending that I've done something to deserve it. But this is pure second-handedness, you shouldn't be corrupting your character just because you think you see someone else who deserves the kind of treatment only a corrupt character can provide.

Shayne

[sjw]

Shayne, human rights are not metaphysical, they are a human invention respecting basic human nature and need. That's what makes them natural--that's where you'll find the metaphysical.

--Brant

Non-interfering human action exists. It's objective and real. This is a human discovery, not an invention.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

There is a hierarchy of rights and it's told by Rand if not et al. The right to life is the primary right. All other rights follow. I don't think Shayne can hope to get his construct about rights off the ground without seriously addressing this. If any right is truly inalienable, that's the one.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Shayne, human rights are not metaphysical, they are a human invention respecting basic human nature and need. That's what makes them natural--that's where you'll find the metaphysical.

--Brant

Non-interfering human action exists. It's objective and real. This is a human discovery, not an invention.

Shayne

Interferring human action exists . . .

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

The first thing to note about this passage is Shayne's example of "execution for the crime of not taking out the garbage." This punishment, he says, is excessive (though he does not explain why), so such a law "would clearly be out." But Shayne has merely rejected the excessive punishment, not the law itself. There is no reason, given his reasoning, why a government could not pass laws about when people must take out their garbage, along with a host of other paternalistic regulations. He freely admits this when he concedes that "no loud noises after 10pm, no making a mess of the kitchen without cleaning up, taking out the garbage, etc., are all fair game."

It is interesting that you are puzzled by something so simple.

Natural Law overrides man-made laws. The right of consent/contract underlies the "law" to take out the garbage, and all other "my house my rules" propositions. While one might write a contract that says "if you don't take out the garbage I can execute you", such a law would be null and void under a proper comprehension of the natural right to contract and to justice: The natural right to justice entails, at most, compensating the victim of contract breech for whatever amount they were put out by, not by making slave out of the contract breaker.

Your glittering generalities will not do the trick. In the situation under consideration here, the most a government can do is to enforce specific contracts between a landowner and his tenants. If a particular contract includes a provision to take out the garbage on a regular basis, then a government may enforce this contract by authorizing eviction of the nonconforming tenant. But this is a far cry from a government itself passing laws about garbage, noise, and everything else under the sun that a landlord might require.

A government, on whatever level, has no business passing such laws. This is a private matter between landlords and their tenants. For a government to enforce a contract is one thing, but for a government to enact into law the conditions specified in a private contract is another thing entirely. The latter is wholly impermissible for a limited government.

Ghs

[sjw]

Shayne, human rights are not metaphysical, they are a human invention respecting basic human nature and need. That's what makes them natural--that's where you'll find the metaphysical.

--Brant

Non-interfering human action exists. It's objective and real. This is a human discovery, not an invention.

Shayne

Interferring human action exists . . .

--Brant

And I designate that kind of action as crime. Every human action is either a right or it is a crime.

Shayne

[sjw]

There is a hierarchy of rights and it's told by Rand if not et al. The right to life is the primary right. All other rights follow. I don't think Shayne can hope to get his construct about rights off the ground without seriously addressing this. If any right is truly inalienable, that's the one.

--Brant

What is life? Self-sustaining and self-generated action. Follow that thought.

Shayne

[sjw]

Your glittering generalities will not do the trick. In the situation under consideration here, the most a government can do is to enforce specific contracts between a landowner and his tenants. If a particular contract includes a provision to take out the garbage on a regular basis, then a government may enforce this contract by authorizing eviction of the nonconforming tenant. But this is a far cry from a government itself passing laws about garbage, noise, and everything else under the sun that a landlord might require.

A government, on whatever level, has no business passing such laws. This is a private matter between landlords and their tenants. For a government to enforce a contract is one thing, but for a government to enact into law the conditions specified in a private contract is another thing entirely. The latter is wholly impermissible for a limited government.

Ghs

You need to shift your vantage point a few more feet and then you might finally see what I'm talking about.

See my remarks about the homeowners association earlier in this thread, the one in response to your numbered list.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

A major problem here is that you have not distinguished between enforceable and nonenforceable contracts, whether signed with a landlord or with anyone else. Slavery contracts, for example, cannot be enforced; they are null and void by the very nature of their terms. (A similar problem arises with specific performance contracts.) But this stuff, which involves notions like inalienable rights, is a bit too advanced for you at this stage, so perhaps you should stick to simpler ideas.

Ghs

Your basic problem George is that you have a scheme or architecture of these ideas in your head, but you don't seem to realize that I have my own scheme that must be understood in order to criticize it. Therefore, any sentence I utter gets framed in your terms and is therefore misunderstood. Ergo the mess that is this thread. You're coming at this like the old man that you apparently are, long frozen in his views, who lacks any mental flexibility in entertaining a new idea.

I quite recognize that your ideas are not a total jumbled mess in your own head, that there is a certain order to them. (I disagree with that order, but that's a separate matter.) You on the other hand can only view things from your own frozen point of view. In your self-induced stupor, you fail to even attempt to discern any order in my ideas, and so every sentence gets misapprehended by you as some horrible thing, and then you react by spewing nonsense. You're well aware of this of course. You justify this ridiculously unprofessional and dishonest method of dealing with ideas by pretending that I've done something to deserve it. But this is pure second-handedness, you shouldn't be corrupting your character just because you think you see someone else who deserves the kind of treatment only a corrupt character can provide.

Shayne

Jesus, Shayne. I'm 66. Is there any hope? (I'll be 67 March 28. In lieu of flowers and cards, send me money everybody.)

--Brant

it'll soon be worthless so it won't really cost you anything except postage

(master of speciousness)

Edited February 10, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

A major problem here is that you have not distinguished between enforceable and nonenforceable contracts, whether signed with a landlord or with anyone else. Slavery contracts, for example, cannot be enforced; they are null and void by the very nature of their terms. (A similar problem arises with specific performance contracts.) But this stuff, which involves notions like inalienable rights, is a bit too advanced for you at this stage, so perhaps you should stick to simpler ideas.

Ghs

Your basic problem George is that you have a scheme or architecture of these ideas in your head, but you don't seem to realize that I have my own scheme that must be understood in order to criticize it. Therefore, any sentence I utter gets framed in your terms and is therefore misunderstood. Ergo the mess that is this thread. You're coming at this like the old man that you apparently are, long frozen in his views, who lacks any mental flexibility in entertaining a new idea.

I quite recognize that your ideas are not a total jumbled mess in your own head, that there is a certain order to them. (I disagree with that order, but that's a separate matter.) You on the other hand can only view things from your own frozen point of view. In your self-induced stupor, you fail to even attempt to discern any order in my ideas, and so every sentence gets misapprehended by you as some horrible thing, and then you react by spewing nonsense. You're well aware of this of course. You justify this ridiculously unprofessional and dishonest method of dealing with ideas by pretending that I've done something to deserve it. But this is pure second-handedness, you shouldn't be corrupting your character just because you think you see someone else who deserves the kind of treatment only a corrupt character can provide.

Shayne

So explain your profoundly original ideas, and we will see how far you get. So far all you have done is to posit a few vague generalities, and then whine -- and whine and whine -- when you feel you have been misunderstood.

I asked you numerous times before embarking on my critique to explain your ideas in more detail. I even posed specific questions, which you ignored. You are all bluff and bluster, Shayne. You prance around the issues, letting us know that you have your "own scheme," but never do you explain this scheme in any detail. Instead, you complain and you whine, and that's all we ever get from you.

Ghs

[sjw]

Jesus, Shayne. I'm 66. Is there any hope? (I'll be 67 March 28. In lieu of flowers and cards, send me money everybody.)

--Brant

it'll soon be worthless so it won't really cost you anything except postage

master of speciousness

It's one thing to be of a certain age, it's another to act like the stereotypical grumpy old man who stubbornly clings to wrong ideas. I obviously don't mean to impugn anyone merely because of their age, just as in the title in this thread I meant to refer to the stereotype, not to claim that all teenagers fit it.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

There is a hierarchy of rights and it's told by Rand if not et al. The right to life is the primary right. All other rights follow. I don't think Shayne can hope to get his construct about rights off the ground without seriously addressing this. If any right is truly inalienable, that's the one.

--Brant

What is life? Self-sustaining and self-generated action. Follow that thought.

Shayne

Uh, I was talking about a right to life, not just life. You gotta do better than justifying Atilla the Hun.

--Brant

[sjw]

So explain your profoundly original ideas, and we will see how far you get. So far all you have done is to posit a few vague generalities, and then whine -- and whine and whine -- when you feel you have been misunderstood.

I asked you numerous times before embarking on my critique to explain your ideas in more detail. I even posed specific questions, which you ignored. You are all bluff and bluster, Shayne. You prance around the issues, letting us know that you have your "own scheme," but never do you explain this scheme in any detail. Instead, you complain and you whine, and that's all we ever get from you.

Ghs

Wow George, I sent you a free copy of my book. You don't bother to read it and then ask me to type it in here. I've explained quite a number of things in more detail, you seem not to have been paying any attention to that either.

Shayne

[sjw]

Uh, I was talking about a right to life, not just life. You gotta do better than justifying Atilla the Hun.

--Brant

You gotta do better than just saying I didn't do better.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Your glittering generalities will not do the trick. In the situation under consideration here, the most a government can do is to enforce specific contracts between a landowner and his tenants. If a particular contract includes a provision to take out the garbage on a regular basis, then a government may enforce this contract by authorizing eviction of the nonconforming tenant. But this is a far cry from a government itself passing laws about garbage, noise, and everything else under the sun that a landlord might require.

A government, on whatever level, has no business passing such laws. This is a private matter between landlords and their tenants. For a government to enforce a contract is one thing, but for a government to enact into law the conditions specified in a private contract is another thing entirely. The latter is wholly impermissible for a limited government.

Ghs

You need to shift your vantage point a few more feet and then you might finally see what I'm talking about.

See my remarks about the homeowners association earlier in this thread, the one in response to your numbered list.

If you have previously responded to my remarks, then repost the comments you think are relevant. In this case, the post you are referring to does not address my criticism, so you will need to come up with something relevant.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Shayne, human rights are not metaphysical, they are a human invention respecting basic human nature and need. That's what makes them natural--that's where you'll find the metaphysical.

--Brant

Non-interfering human action exists. It's objective and real. This is a human discovery, not an invention.

Shayne

Interferring human action exists . . .

--Brant

And I designate that kind of action as crime. Every human action is either a right or it is a crime.

Shayne

A "crime," like a "right," is a human invention. It is not metaphysical save respecting a violation of human nature. Again, human nature (metaphysical) is not a human right (epistemological). All philosophy is epistemological.

--Brant

Edited February 10, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

So explain your profoundly original ideas, and we will see how far you get. So far all you have done is to posit a few vague generalities, and then whine -- and whine and whine -- when you feel you have been misunderstood.

I asked you numerous times before embarking on my critique to explain your ideas in more detail. I even posed specific questions, which you ignored. You are all bluff and bluster, Shayne. You prance around the issues, letting us know that you have your "own scheme," but never do you explain this scheme in any detail. Instead, you complain and you whine, and that's all we ever get from you.

Ghs

Wow George, I sent you a free copy of my book. You don't bother to read it and then ask me to type it in here. I've explained quite a number of things in more detail, you seem not to have been paying any attention to that either.

Shayne

No, I didn't bother to read your book. Why should I?

If you have arguments to make, then make them on this thread. You can always post excerpts from your book, if you think they are relevant.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Uh, I was talking about a right to life, not just life. You gotta do better than justifying Atilla the Hun.

--Brant

You gotta do better than just saying I didn't do better.

Shayne

Okay, strike my second sentence.

--Brant