Anarcho-Capitalism: A Branden ‘Blast from the Past’

[Brant Gaede]

When people have asked Ron Paul about free health care he's said, "You have a right to your life and your liberty, you don't have a right to someone else's services."

"Right is the child of law." (Jeremy Bentham).

A law could therefore well include the right to "someone else's services", like e. g. free health care by the state (if the state can afford it).

Bentham was antagonistic to natural rights, "nonsense on stilts."

A law establishing a "right" doesn't make it right or a right actually. Bentham got it backwards.

--Brant

[Xray]

I'm starting to read The Ethics of Liberty, by Rothbard and I'm excited. I just started the introduction, but already an interesting point has been made:

The right to own property is the right to defend property; meaning the right to retaliate against violators. In fact, ALL rights revolve around the right of self-defense.

Can't help it, but this always creates an image in my mind where everyone is sitting in their backyard with a loaded gun, ready to chase away trespassers ...

[Xray]

Bentham was antagonistic to natural rights, "nonsense on stilts."

A law establishing a "right" doesn't make it right or a right actually. Bentham got it backwards.

I don't think Bentham implied that just because a right exists by law, it is necessarily 'just', and 'right'.

It is historically understandable that the 'natural rights' idea was created in order to attack the ideology of the 'divine right of kings'

But I think Bentham was merely realistic about the natural rights premise being weak as well.

For neither a god nor 'nature' can establish any right.

[anthony]

I'm starting to read The Ethics of Liberty, by Rothbard and I'm excited. I just started the introduction, but already an interesting point has been made:

The right to own property is the right to defend property; meaning the right to retaliate against violators. In fact, ALL rights revolve around the right of self-defense.

If you are not allowed to defend your property, it isn't yours. You're borrowing it--from the government, in all of our cases. They let us use what we have, and say that nobody else can use/dispose of it... except of course themselves, if they ever wanted to. No rights can be enforced by government; it all has to be an extension of the individual's right to self-defense, and that can only be bridged to a third party by contractual consent!

Sounds over-complex and circular. What did Rothbard not like about Rand's:

"The right to life is the source of all rights - and the right to property

is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are

possible." Elegant, rational and moral.

From there, of course, we derive the right to defend our property, personally,

and by government.

"Bear in mind, that the right to property is a right to ACTION, like all the others:

it is not the right TO AN OBJECT, but to the action and the consequences of producing

or earning that object."[AR}

The right to life presupposes rights to property, which presuppose the right to self-defence.

M. Rothbard seems so keen to keep government out of defending property rights, that he puts the

cart before the horse. If I get this correctly.

[BaalChatzaf]

For neither a god nor 'nature' can establish any right.

The doctrine of natural rights is a completely human artifact. As you point out, such a thing cannot be deduced from the laws of physics.

Homo Sapien has been around for 250,000 years (give or take). In 95 percent of that interval the human race lived and survived without the doctrine of natural rights. So just how necessary it it?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

For neither a god nor 'nature' can establish any right.

The doctrine of natural rights is a completely human artifact. As you point out, such a thing cannot be deduced from the laws of physics.

Homo Sapien has been around for 250,000 years (give or take). In 95 percent of that interval the human race lived and survived without the doctrine of natural rights. So just how necessary it it?

Ba'al Chatzaf

You have no idea about "doctrine" back then and specifically what for whom. The only thing we can be sure of is humans lived in tribal groups and such groups have their conformities.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Bentham was antagonistic to natural rights, "nonsense on stilts."

A law establishing a "right" doesn't make it right or a right actually. Bentham got it backwards.

I don't think Bentham implied that just because a right exists by law, it is necessarily 'just', and 'right'.

It is historically understandable that the 'natural rights' idea was created in order to attack the ideology of the 'divine right of kings'

But I think Bentham was merely realistic about the natural rights premise being weak as well.

For neither a god nor 'nature' can establish any right.

Rights are a human invention, natural by referencing human nature and needs and therefore objectifiable.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Bentham was antagonistic to natural rights, "nonsense on stilts."

A law establishing a "right" doesn't make it right or a right actually. Bentham got it backwards.

I don't think Bentham implied that just because a right exists by law, it is necessarily 'just', and 'right'.

It is historically understandable that the 'natural rights' idea was created in order to attack the ideology of the 'divine right of kings'

But I think Bentham was merely realistic about the natural rights premise being weak as well.

For neither a god nor 'nature' can establish any right.

Bentham drew no distinction between the legal and the just. As a leading figure in legal positivism, he insisted that what is legal is necessarily just.

As for "right," Bentham's standard of law was utility, i.e., the greatest happiness for the greatest number. A law is morally right to the extent that it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But it is nonsense, according to Bentham, to speak of a given law as being unjust. This is why Bentham resolutely opposed the rights of resistance and revolution. To speak of resistance to a given law as being "just" is a contradiction in terms.

Those who quote Bentham that rights are "nonsense" and inalienable rights "nonsense upon stilts" rarely take the time to read these comments in their context. They appear in an article titled "Anarchical Fallacies." Bentham opposed both the American and French Revolutions, and he understood that such revolutions were justified by appealing to rights. Such appeals to rights are "nonsense" because no government can possibly subsist if the rights to resistance and revolution are valid. Like Edmund Burke and other critics of natural rights, Bentham argued that no government can be justified on the basis of natural rights, which are essentially anarchistic in nature. And since we obviously need a government, natural rights must be nonsense.

Lastly, natural rights were not created in order to attack the divine right of kings. The former preceded the latter by centuries.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Bentham was antagonistic to natural rights, "nonsense on stilts."

A law establishing a "right" doesn't make it right or a right actually. Bentham got it backwards.

I don't think Bentham implied that just because a right exists by law, it is necessarily 'just', and 'right'.

It is historically understandable that the 'natural rights' idea was created in order to attack the ideology of the 'divine right of kings'

But I think Bentham was merely realistic about the natural rights premise being weak as well.

For neither a god nor 'nature' can establish any right.

chauvinism

Bentham drew no distinction between the legal and the just. As a leading figure in legal positivism, he insisted that what is legal is necessarily just.

As for "right," Bentham's standard of law was utility, i.e., the greatest happiness for the greatest number. A law is morally right to the extent that it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But it is nonsense, according to Bentham, to speak of a given law as being unjust. This is why Bentham resolutely opposed the rights of resistance and revolution. To speak of resistance to a given law as being "just" is a contradiction in terms.

Those who quote Bentham that rights are "nonsense" and inalienable rights "nonsense upon stilts" rarely take the time to read these comments in their context. They appear in an article titled "Anarchical Fallacies." Bentham opposed both the American and French Revolutions, and he understood that such revolutions were justified by appealing to rights. Such appeals to rights are "nonsense" because no government can possibly subsist if the rights to resistance and revolution are valid. Like Edmund Burke and other critics of natural rights, Bentham argued that no government can be justified on the basis of natural rights, which are essentially anarchistic in nature. And since we obviously need a government, natural rights must be nonsense.

Lastly, natural rights were not created in order to attack the divine right of kings. The former preceded the latter by centuries.

Ghs

Both revolutions were antagonistic to British hegemony and while they were quite different in substance and result it was pre-revolutionary France that took down Britain respecting the American revolution and it was post revolutionary France that almost did Britain in with the Napoleonic wars. Could chauvinism have informed Bentham? Or was the British intellectual class merely scared to death?

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

The following excerpt from "Anarchical Fallacies" (a critique of the French Declaration of Rights, passed by the French Assembly in 1791) clearly shows the connection that Bentham drew between natural rights, especially the right of resistance, and anarchy. He goes so far as to call natural rights "terrorist language."

This passage, which is where the "nonsense upon stilts" remark occurs, is long on rhetoric and short on reasoning. Bentham contends that the only standard of lawmaking should be that which is "advantageous to the society in question." And who gets to decide what is advantageous and what is not? The government, of course.

The advent of Benthamite utilitarianism played a major role in destroying classical liberalism in England. Although Bentham took a libertarian stand on many specific issues, by removing the safeguard of rights as a limit on government power, he effectively bestowed upon government unlimited authority to pass any laws and take any measures it deems necessary for social utility.

How stands the truth of things? That there are no such things as natural rights—no such things as rights anterior to the establishment of government—no such things as natural rights opposed to, in contradistinction to, legal: that the expression is merely figurative; that when used, in the moment you attempt to give it a literal meaning it leads to error, and to that sort of error that leads to mischief—to the extremity of mischief.

We know what it is for men to live without government—and living without government, to live without rights: we know what it is for men to live without government, for we see instances of such a way of life—we see it in many savage nations, or rather races of mankind; for instance, among the savages of New South Wales, whose way of living is so well known to us: no habit of obedience, and thence no government—no government, and thence no laws—no laws, and thence no such things as rights—no security—no property:—liberty, as against regular controul, the controul of laws and government—perfect; but as against all irregular controul, the mandates of stronger individuals, none. In this state, at a time earlier than the commencement of history—in this same state, judging from analogy, we, the inhabitants of the part of the globe we call Europe, were;—no government, consequently no rights: no rights, consequently no property—no legal security—no legal liberty: security not more than belongs to beasts—forecast and sense of insecurity keener—consequently in point of happiness below the level of the brutal race.

In proportion to the want of happiness resulting from the want of rights, a reason exists for wishing that there were such things as rights. But reasons for wishing there were such things as rights, are not rights;—a reason for wishing that a certain right were established, is not that right—want is not supply—hunger is not bread.

That which has no existence cannot be destroyed—that which cannot be destroyed cannot require anything to preserve it from destruction. Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense,—nonsense upon stilts. But this rhetorical nonsense ends in the old strain of mischievous nonsense: for immediately a list of these pretended natural rights is given, and those are so expressed as to present to view legal rights. And of these rights, whatever they are, there is not, it seems, any one of which any government can, upon any occasion whatever, abrogate the smallest particle.

So much for terrorist language. What is the language of reason and plain sense upon this same subject? That in proportion as it is right or proper, i. e. advantageous to the society in question, that this or that right—a right to this or that effect—should be established and maintained, in that same proportion it is wrong that it should be abrogated: but that as there is no right, which ought not to be maintained so long as it is upon the whole advantageous to the society that it should be maintained, so there is no right which, when the abolition of it is advantageous to society, should not be abolished. To know whether it would be more for the advantage of society that this or that right should be maintained or abolished, the time at which the question about maintaining or abolishing is proposed, must be given, and the circumstances under which it is proposed to maintain or abolish it; the right itself must be specifically described, not jumbled with an undistinguishable heap of others, under any such vague general terms as property, liberty, and the like.

One thing, in the midst of all this confusion, is but too plain. They know not of what they are talking under the name of natural rights, and yet they would have them imprescriptible—proof against all the power of the laws—pregnant with occasions summoning the members of the community to rise up in resistance against the laws. What, then, was their object in declaring the existence of imprescriptible rights, and without specifying a single one by any such mark as it could be known by? This and no other—to excite and keep up a spirit of resistance to all laws—a spirit of insurrection against all governments—against the governments of all other nations instantly,—against the government of their own nation—against the government they themselves were pretending to establish—even that, as soon as their own reign should be at an end. In us is the perfection of virtue and wisdom: in all mankind besides, the extremity of wickedness and folly. Our will shall consequently reign without controul, and for ever: reign now we are living—reign after we are dead.

At the conclusion of this piece, Bentham satirizes the supposed consquences of accepting natural rights. Again, he focuses on the right of resistance:

Whenever you are about to be oppressed, you have a right to resist oppression: whenever you conceive yourself to be oppressed, conceive yourself to have a right to make resistance, and act accordingly. In proportion as a law of any kind—any act of power, supreme or subordinate, legislative, administrative, or judicial, is unpleasant to a man, especially if, in consideration of such its unpleasantness, his opinion is, that such act of power ought not to have been exercised, he of course looks upon it as oppression: as often as anything of this sort happens to a man—as often as anything happens to a man to inflame his passions,—this article, for fear his passions should not be sufficiently inflamed of themselves, sets itself to work to blow the flame, and urges him to resistance. Submit not to any decree or other act of power, of the justice of which you are not yourself perfectly convinced. If a constable call upon you to serve in the militia, shoot the constable and not the enemy;—if the commander of a press-gang trouble you, push him into the sea—if a bailiff, throw him out of the window. If a judge sentence you to be imprisoned or put to death, have a dagger ready, and take a stroke first at the judge.

Again, Bentham's point is that no government can function within a framework of natural rights. They are anarchistic fallacies.

For the complete essay, see:

http://oll.libertyfu...=html&Itemid=27

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

No government hence no rights? From my point of view it's no government hence little protection of rights. Too much government is the government violating rights. Or, government does not create human rights qua natural rights, nature does that in league with our great philosophers knowing the human animal and why that animal needs (political and other) philosophy. That rights are a human invention doesn't make them unnatural--the unnaturalness depends on mis-representing this being's nature. It's impossible not to have government; even tribes have government (governance). It is possible not to have the state and the way not to have the state is to continually assault it making the statists constantly aware of their tenuous status, aka, shitting in their pants. We may seem a long way from that today, but we have suddenly found ourselves inside the acceleration of history, which only happens at least several generations apart. Prior to this I thought "Atlas Shrugged" was a compression of several generations of history in the future, now I know that history moves at varrying speeds and what was compressed in 1957 is now all around us and the acceleration is still accelerating. The statists can't keep funding their constituancies; they are running out of other people's money and things are going to hell and we don't know what will come out the other side of that.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

He defended forcing men to be seamen? I think his abstractions ran away from him, leaving real people in their dust.

--Brant

[anthony]

I think natural and individual rights are no more than being left

alone to handle reality.

The outcomes are all your own, then, without blame or excuses,

obligation or debt.

That's *real justice*, which you leave everybody else alone to seek, too.

[Dglgmut]

I'm starting to read The Ethics of Liberty, by Rothbard and I'm excited. I just started the introduction, but already an interesting point has been made:

The right to own property is the right to defend property; meaning the right to retaliate against violators. In fact, ALL rights revolve around the right of self-defense.

If you are not allowed to defend your property, it isn't yours. You're borrowing it--from the government, in all of our cases. They let us use what we have, and say that nobody else can use/dispose of it... except of course themselves, if they ever wanted to. No rights can be enforced by government; it all has to be an extension of the individual's right to self-defense, and that can only be bridged to a third party by contractual consent!

Sounds over-complex and circular. What did Rothbard not like about Rand's:

"The right to life is the source of all rights - and the right to property

is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are

possible." Elegant, rational and moral.

From there, of course, we derive the right to defend our property, personally,

and by government.

"Bear in mind, that the right to property is a right to ACTION, like all the others:

it is not the right TO AN OBJECT, but to the action and the consequences of producing

or earning that object."[AR}

The right to life presupposes rights to property, which presuppose the right to self-defence.

M. Rothbard seems so keen to keep government out of defending property rights, that he puts the

cart before the horse. If I get this correctly.

But what is the right to life? The right to YOUR life. Self-ownership. You have the right to OWN your life. You can say we have the right to live, and living in slavery would be compatible with proposition.

The point is personal jurisdiction. Are you in charge of your life? If so, why can you not sit on your property with a loaded gun? You worked for that property, and you're not hurting anyone.

For one person to come up to the other and say, "You can't sit outside with that gun, what if there's an accident? Or what if you get caught up in the heat of the moment and shoot someone?" An injustice meant to prevent injustice is paradoxical. What is meant to prevent people from sitting on their porch with a loaded gun is not the law, but social consequences. Plus, if someone was watching over their property and got riled up and killed a trespasser, they'd be severely punished and it would be well known what happens if one acts carelessly with a gun.

Objective law is not that simple. It can be very difficult to determine which rights are most fundamental in certain conflicts. A monopoly on force would work better if objective law was obvious to all people, and corrupt government activity could not be disguised--unfortunately that's not the way it is, and so everyone must take an active role in defending their rights or else they have forfeited their natural, personal jurisdiction to the government.

[Xray]

Bentham drew no distinction between the legal and the just. As a leading figure in legal positivism, he insisted that what is legal is necessarily just.

Since Bentham himself proposed many legal reforms, doesn't this show that he was aware that what is legal is not necessarily just?

[Brant Gaede]

Bentham drew no distinction between the legal and the just. As a leading figure in legal positivism, he insisted that what is legal is necessarily just.

Since Bentham himself proposed many legal reforms, doesn't this show that he was aware that what is legal is not necessarily just?

Replacing "just" with "just plus"?

--Brant

[Mikee]

Bentham drew no distinction between the legal and the just. As a leading figure in legal positivism, he insisted that what is legal is necessarily just.

Since Bentham himself proposed many legal reforms, doesn't this show that he was aware that what is legal is not necessarily just?

He's just practicing good animal husbandry (in this case his "cattle" are humans).

[Xray]

I'm starting to read The Ethics of Liberty, by Rothbard and I'm excited. I just started the introduction, but already an interesting point has been made:

<...> No rights can be enforced by government; it all has to be an extension of the individual's right to self-defense, and that can only be bridged to a third party by contractual consent!

Isn't this pure anarchistic wishful thinking? For of course rights can (and are) enforced by government.

[Mikee]

"For of course rights can (and are) enforced by government."

It's wonderful what a good revolution from time to time can do for you. There are evolutionary pressures on everything that lives, even governments.

[anthony]

I'm starting to read The Ethics of Liberty, by Rothbard and I'm excited. I just started the introduction, but already an interesting point has been made:

The right to own property is the right to defend property; meaning the right to retaliate against violators. In fact, ALL rights revolve around the right of self-defense.

If you are not allowed to defend your property, it isn't yours. You're borrowing it--from the government, in all of our cases. They let us use what we have, and say that nobody else can use/dispose of it... except of course themselves, if they ever wanted to. No rights can be enforced by government; it all has to be an extension of the individual's right to self-defense, and that can only be bridged to a third party by contractual consent!

Sounds over-complex and circular. What did Rothbard not like about Rand's:

"The right to life is the source of all rights - and the right to property

is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are

possible." Elegant, rational and moral.

From there, of course, we derive the right to defend our property, personally,

and by government.

"Bear in mind, that the right to property is a right to ACTION, like all the others:

it is not the right TO AN OBJECT, but to the action and the consequences of producing

or earning that object."[AR}

The right to life presupposes rights to property, which presuppose the right to self-defence.

M. Rothbard seems so keen to keep government out of defending property rights, that he puts the

cart before the horse. If I get this correctly.

But what is the right to life? The right to YOUR life. Self-ownership. You have the right to OWN your life. You can say we have the right to live, and living in slavery would be compatible with proposition.

The point is personal jurisdiction. Are you in charge of your life? If so, why can you not sit on your property with a loaded gun? You worked for that property, and you're not hurting anyone.

"The source of man's rights is not Divine law or congressional law, but the law

of identity. A is A, and Man is Man. RIGHTS are conditions of existence required by

man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is *right* for

him to use his mind, it is *right* to act on his own free judgment, it is *right* to

work for his values and to keep the product of his work." [Man's Rights, AS]

(By this metaphysical identification, a slave has no life.)

(Also note that the 'father' of all rights, right to property, is like all of them,

the right to action - not to 'things'. The action includes the actions of earning,

improving, discarding, defending, donating or destroying - property - it seems clear to me.)

"Thus the government's function was changed from the role of ruler to the role of

servant. The government was set to protect man from criminals - and the Constitution

was written to protect man from government."

(Nothing to prevent you from also protecting your property, too. But it's not the

'action of protection' that property rights derive from. That's cart before horse.)

In total, there are serious departures from Rand, to Rothbard's

'The Ethics of Liberties' I think.

[Mikee]

Thank you Tony. Excellent quotes.

"RIGHTS are conditions of existence required by

man's nature..."

Man's nature as neither slave OR master. A slave master or would be slave master has no life as Man either. And no rights.

[Xray]

Rights are a human invention,

from which it follows that they can be altered, modified, abolished, or that new rights can be created.

"...natural by referencing human nature and needs and therefore objectifiable."

Arguing on the basis of human nature does not solve the problem which elements of human nature you are going to select as justification for demanding or establsihing certain rights, and what other parts you are going to disregard.

Man's nature as neither slave OR master. A slave master or would be slave master has no life as Man either. And no rights.

History of mankind has also been for many centuries, a history of keeping slaves, with the masters probably enjoying their "life as Man" very much. Just think of life in Ancient Rome.

So there may well exist in man's nature the impulse to lord it over others, to make them act to serve one's own purpose.

Many of our ethical values are the product cultural evolution where humans prevail over their biological impulses, 'transcend' them, so to speak.

That's why building an ethics on a 'man's need for survival' premise can be such a slippery slope.

Take the NIOF principle for example. While it can be argued that NIOF does have some biological foundation: the desire of primates for harmony in a group, harmony being associated with security. Gestures of appeasement, of grooming, etc. qualify as a form of NIOF) - one is faced with another fact, the fact that the very opposite, IOF (initiation of force), had been been used for many millenia by our forefathers for the purpose of ensuring survival too.

It can be assumed that none of us would exist if our stone-age ancestors had not initiated force on others and their possessions ...

.

[Xray]

What did Rothbard not like about Rand's:

"The right to life is the source of all rights - and the right to property

is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are

possible." Elegant, rational and moral.

I think it was Rand's anti-anarchistic stance that put Rothbard in opposition to her. Rand's idea of a government for whose "proper functions" she regarded as essential institutions like police and armed forces was far removed from anarchist thought.

Rand also argued that "the need for objective laws ... necessitates the establishment of a government." (TVOS, p. 131)

The point is personal jurisdiction. Are you in charge of your life? If so, why can you not sit on your property with a loaded gun? You worked for that property, and you're not hurting anyone.

But what if I don't feel the slightest impulse to sit on my property with a loaded gun?

[Brant Gaede]

Rights are a human invention,

from which it follows that they can be altered, modified, abolished, or that new rights can be created.

"...natural by referencing human nature and needs and therefore objectifiable."

Arguing on the basis of human nature does not solve the problem which elements of human nature you are going to select as justification for demanding or establsihing certain rights, and what other parts you are going to disregard.

Why is this a problem? It's just another layer of the discussion.

If you have a need to initiate force I have a need to direct retaliatory force at you so I create a governing entity in turn governed by political philosophy to do that for me. Rights are not "created" by government, they are protected. When the government creates a right it's a positive right which means it's actually initiating force violating the negative rights of sundry people or even just one person. The United States was built on negative rights' philosophy. No (negative) means no interfernce to right action. Yes (positive) means interference with right action. Or, no is right and yes is wrong. NIOF.

--Brant

[Xray]

If you have a need to initiate force I have a need to direct retaliatory force at you so I create a governing entity in turn governed by political philosophy to do that for me. Rights are not "created" by government, they are protected. When the government creates a right it's a positive right which means it's actually initiating force violating the negative rights of sundry people or even just one person. The United States was built on negative rights' philosophy. No (negative) means no interfernce to right action. Yes (positive) means interference with right action. Or, no is right and yes is wrong. NIOF.

But in order for rights to be protected, they have to be bestowed upon before.