Standing naked on my property

[Francisco Ferrer]

I have liberty. I may do anything I want.

Straw argument. Liberty pertains to freedom from government. It doesn't mean you can leap to Mars without mechanical appliance, nor live forever, nor trespass upon and cause damage to the property possessed and defended by others without consequences. No one likes my definition of justice ("armed defense of innocent liberty") but the essential business of law is to distinguish fact from falsehood, right and wrong, guilt or innocence.

The mock debate was not meant to reflect your position but to demonstrate the possible effect of demanding liberty without tying it to property.

If liberty does not mean one doing anything one wants, then we need definitions and parameters of what is proper and permissible. Those parameters are in effect property lines, property titles.

Individual rights certainly do pertain to freedom from government. However, while government may be the single greatest violator of rights, it is not the exclusive violator.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Rights are defined by right and wrong (social) actions respecting force. If you want to displace Rand, indicate your differences. I think that would be better than simply putting up your building next door. I criticize Wolf similarly.

--Brant

Force is right or wrong only in terms of whose object force it is being applied to. I may slap my face to wake up in the morning. I may not slap my neighbor's face. Thus force requires the context of property to determine its morality.

I do not have to list all my differences with Rand in this thread. I made it clear what I thought her error was in my initial post.

[Wolf DeVoon]

I give up.

[Brant Gaede]

I give up.

It's not winning the argument, it's you making better arguments for the trying. I'm finally getting my head around you and liberty and the constitution. If you're a football team you're trying to win the game not convince the other team how much better you are respecting how you do what you do, are what you are, etc. That you fail to get your ideas into Frisco's brain is on him, not you and, frankly, does not matter.

--Brant

[Samson Corwell]

...liberty has to be defined in terms of rights...

Neither the Romans nor the Greeks nor the Chinese had the concept of rights. All three societies had property.

...rights have to be defined in terms of what one owns.

No they don't. In fact, you've largely got that backwards. Property (today) is defined in terms of rights.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On the authority authorship thing, I just came across an interesting fact from a wonderful lecture series I am listening to: Heroes and Legends: The Most Influential Characters of Literature by Professor Thomas A. Shippey.

This dude is an expert in ancient literature. He said the people who got to make religious laws in the Medieval times were those who could read and write, generally celibate monks. Thus religious busybody authorship is the root of the modern meaning(s) of authority.

Shippey was discussing this in the context of the Wife of Bath from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. This strong-charactered woman was much concerned about her own sovereignty and her demeanor showed contempt for authority (the authorship kind), probably due to the fact that she had gone through five husbands by the time of the pilgrimage of Chaucer's book and the "authorities" of the time considered multiple marriages a sin.

Shippey speculates that the wife of Bath thought celibate monks were not qualified to deal with issues of sexuality.

Whether she thought that or not, I believe that attitude has legs. Most modern government authorities are not qualified to deal with the issues they govern.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

On you on the right thread with this, Michael?

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

...liberty has to be defined in terms of rights...

Neither the Romans nor the Greeks nor the Chinese had the concept of rights. All three societies had property.

...rights have to be defined in terms of what one owns.

No they don't. In fact, you've largely got that backwards. Property (today) is defined in terms of rights.

The Greeks most certainly did have rights under the Athenian democracy which developed around the fifth century BC. Although rights were limited to male, non-slave citizens, such rights included voting, property ownership, participation in religious worship, acceptance or rejection of paternity, and the ability to perform certain legal ceremonies. See Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980.

Property and rights are interdependent concepts. If a person has no property (including ownership of his body), then he has no rights, for there is nothing he can exercise a right over.

[Samson Corwell]

The Greeks most certainly did have rights under the Athenian democracy which developed around the fifth century BC. Although rights were limited to male, non-slave citizens, such rights included voting, property ownership, participation in religious worship, acceptance or rejection of paternity, and the ability to perform certain legal ceremonies. See Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980.

No, they didn't have rights rights. Sure, we may call them rights now, but the concepts of rights came into ~1400.

From Wikipedia:

According to Jack Donnelly, in the ancient world, "traditional societies typically have had elaborate systems of duties... conceptions of justice, political legitimacy, and human flourishing that sought to realize human dignity, flourishing, or well-being entirely independent of human rights. These institutions and practices are alternative to, rather than different formulations of, human rights".

Property and rights are interdependent concepts. If a person has no property (including ownership of his body), then he has no rights, for there is nothing he can exercise a right over.

No, they're really not (see above). Even if they are, the connection is one way. Not all rights are property rights and property rights themselves are reducible to liberty rights and claim rights. I think you've been drinking too much of the Rothbardian Kool-Aid (no offense). "Property" and "property rights" already have set meanings in the rest of the English-speaking community and the propertarian formulation relies on equivocation.

[Francisco Ferrer]

No, they didn't have rights rights. Sure, we may call them rights now, but the concepts of rights came into ~1400.

From Wikipedia:

According to Jack Donnelly, in the ancient world, "traditional societies typically have had elaborate systems of duties... conceptions of justice, political legitimacy, and human flourishing that sought to realize human dignity, flourishing, or well-being entirely independent of human rights. These institutions and practices are alternative to, rather than different formulations of, human rights".

No, they're really not (see above). Even if they are, the connection is one way. Not all rights are property rights and property rights themselves are reducible to liberty rights and claim rights. I think you've been drinking too much of the Rothbardian Kool-Aid (no offense). "Property" and "property rights" already have set meanings in the rest of the English-speaking community and the propertarian formulation relies on equivocation.

A right is a "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way." Rights were enjoyed by the citizens and Athens and Rome. They were not universal rights because they did not apply to slaves or women or non-citizens. (See the aforementioned reference.) But much the same was true of the U.S. until modern times. Would we say the landowners of Virginia in 1800 did not have rights?

To state that rights did not come into existence until 1400 is to ignore centuries of Roman law, English common law, and the Magna Carta (1215).

As for rights not being dependent on property, name one right under our Constitution and I'll show you how it requires property either in oneself or in material goods in order to enjoy it.

[Brant Gaede]

Rights require human beings and they are as innumerable as can be encompassed by right human action. Or, human beings require rights for right action amongst themselves, morally if not legally sanctioned. It's all right to say "property in oneself" but that's just another way to say "right to life." I suggest, however, mixing them up for more oomph and less confusion because a right to property per se demands an actor and he doesn't seem to be up front enough. The argument here could be essentially semantical. It's as if you're so much in love with property you can't see the people behind the curtain, which I find galling, as unfair as that might be."Property" implies something completely static while "life" implies get up and get going. It also implies the be all and end all while "rights" imply an expanding or expandable dynamic. The statists see "property" as a pie to cut up and pass out as if it were a fixed amount while laissez-faire capitalists see something to be created and traded. Your approach seems to displace moral agency from a person to a thing and it backwashes to the person now seen as a thing for he's been covered with thing. This leaves the statists with a seemingly moral hand to cut up the person just as they would cut up his property. He likely stole it from others' labor. It's so unfair he has more than most other people. And he's a bad boy to boot, so shoot him or starve him to death. Get him out of the (morally) socialist way. Make way for the new day!

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On you on the right thread with this, Michael?

--Brant

Brant,

Go to the following post (click the little curved arrow all the way to the right on the top of the quote) and you will see a discussion of authority and authorship that even includes definitions from the dictionary.

here is a quick definition: the recognition of an individual's authority...

...the fact that algebra is most commonly taught by an employee of the state does not make algebra intrinsically statist.

I shouldn't intrude, but authority caught my eye. Authorship? -- and isn't authority what teachers and school boards claim?

I probably should have quoted one of the posts as you are right. My little intrusion comes of nicely quirky all by itself.

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

Rights require human beings and they are as innumerable as right human action. Or, human beings require rights for right action amongst themselves, morally if not legally sanctioned. It's all right to say "property in oneself" but that's just another way to say "right to life." I suggest, however, mixing them up for more oomph and less confusion because a right to property per se demands an actor and he doesn't seem to be up front enough. The argument here could be essentially semantical. It's as if you're so much in love with property you can't see the people behind the curtain, which I find galling, as unfair as that might be."Property" implies something completely static while "life" implies get up and get going. It also implies the be all and end all while "rights" imply an expanding or expandable dynamic. The statists see "property" as a pie to cut up and pass out as if it were a fixed amount while laissez-faire capitalists see something to be created and traded. Your approach seems to displace moral agency from a person to a thing and it backwashes to the person now seen as a thing for he's been covered with thing. This leaves the statists with a seemingly moral hand to cut up the person just as they would cut up his property. He likely stole it from their labor. It's so unfair he has more than most other people. And he's a bad boy to boot, so shoot him or starve him to death. Get him out of the (morally) socialist way. Make way for the new day! Tra la!

--Brant

There is no dichotomy between people and property, as you seem to suggest. Under libertarian law a person is protected by giving him full control over his body and whatever land or other material goods he has legitimately acquired.

(One thing that we cannot give him control over is what other people think. Therefore, there can be no property right in reputation and thus no rightful claim to damages for defamation.)

Unlike the Krells in Forbidden Planet, we operate through the instrumentality of a breathing, blood-pumping organism, which in turn interacts with the physical world around it. Thus rights and law must be grounded in the recognition of man the physical being, not man as a floating, disembodied spirit.

How recognizing man's dominion over his own physical being would "displace moral agency" is a complete mystery. How recognizing man's dominion over his own physical being entitles the state to "to cut up the person" is a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

How saying that man does not have self-ownership would better protect us from government-salaried man-cutters is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

[Brant Gaede]

Libel and rights are a secondary conversation.

"Recognizing man's dominion over his own physical being" is not what socialists do. Keeping your readers from knowing what they are doing is what you do, albeit it seems a matter mostly of semantics. The socialists never made any good sense and now they no longer try. Now they just proceed with presumed clear moral agency or simply stand aside as the state continues to expand feeding on its suppositions, usually taking a little from many and giving a lot to a few repeated so many times it becomes a lot from the many who stupidly can't figure out the rope around their necks.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

A right is a "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."

On that basis it could be anything, like knowledge or Food Stamps or crossing an intersection diagonally in Perth. What's the point of conflating moral and legal rights? -- acquisition of sensory data, involuntary actions (sneezing and coughing), moral action (refusing a second piece of pie, falling in love)?

[Brant Gaede]

A right is a "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."

On that basis it could be anything, like knowledge or Food Stamps or crossing an intersection diagonally in Perth. What's the point of conflating moral and legal rights? -- acquisition of sensory data, involuntary actions (sneezing and coughing), moral action (refusing a second piece of pie, falling in love)?

Moral first then legal or the legal is unlikely, to say the least, to be moral. Frisco's mistake is saying "moral or legal" when it should be "legal from moral" or at least "moral and legal." Then we need to objectify morality to objectify law which would result in right law and the discarding of wrong law. Once law is objectified it deserves and needs monopoly status as long as it reflects these truths without contradiction. The competition then is in the ideas with the legalities but consequences. A better idea means new legislation which adjusts that government into greater righteousness. Right, yes and wrong, no. Doing right things is the core of human rights, not property which is merely a consequence of human action. "Property in oneself" is a semantical diversion.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Under libertarian law...

Golly. Where is it? -- in a set of law books at Hillsdale, or Auburn, or where?

[Francisco Ferrer]

A right is a "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way."

On that basis it could be anything, like knowledge or Food Stamps or crossing an intersection diagonally in Perth. What's the point of conflating moral and legal rights? -- acquisition of sensory data, involuntary actions (sneezing and coughing), moral action (refusing a second piece of pie, falling in love)?

To say that rights exist in both the moral and legal realms is not to conflate then.

Obviously, certain legal rights (e,g. the right not to be blackmailed) are bogus with no moral basis in the principle of equal liberty.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Libel and rights are a secondary conversation.

"Recognizing man's dominion over his own physical being" is not what socialists do. Keeping your readers from knowing what they are doing is what you do, albeit it seems a matter mostly of semantics. The socialists never made any good sense and now they no longer try. Now they just proceed with presumed clear moral agency or simply stand aside as the state continues to expand feeding on its suppositions, usually taking a little from many and giving a lot to a few repeated so many times it becomes a lot from the many who stupidly can't figure out the rope around their necks.

--Brant

Socialists do not recognize self-ownership nor private ownership of the means of production, for that matter. By all means let us not keep our readers from knowing what they are doing, and be very clear: much of the discussion here about the primacy of the individual under law will find little favor among socialists.

I wonder how much Judge Narragansett considered socialist opinion when he sat down to revise the Constitution?

[Wolf DeVoon]

Moral first then legal, or the legal is unlikely to be moral.

Maybe I lack imagination. Moral decisions are personal and often involve ignoring, evading, or breaking the law. Moral values take no notice of others' bad faith, their whimsical amusements, ignorance, and political folly. The primary moral action of thinking, using your eyes and ears, is 100% private and "extralegal" (outside the practical reach of law enforcement).

Law can be a rope around your neck. Cops kicking in your door. A summons to appear, a traffic light, or a ballot recount. War.

[Brant Gaede]

Moral first then legal, or the legal is unlikely to be moral.

Maybe I lack imagination. Moral decisions are personal and often involve ignoring, evading, or breaking the law. Moral values take no notice of others' bad faith, their whimsical amusements, ignorance and political folly. The primary moral action of thinking, using your eyes and ears, is 100% private.

Law can be a rope around your neck. Cops kicking in your door. A summons to appear, a traffic light, or a ballot recount. War.

That's morality as subjective. From that you can kill someone for reasons sufficient to you only. Morality as objective means you can kill someone for a reason that is or should be universal--i.e., self defense.

"100% private" is a bridge too far for social actions for you are injecting those into others affected. Such is the difference between seduction--go for it!--and rape--you deserve to be shot!

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Moral decisions are personal

That's morality as subjective. From that you can kill someone for reasons sufficient to you.

Yep. Or fall in love, walk away from an obligation (asserted by family, by contract, custom or religion) and/or make stupid decisions.

If you've never made a stupid decision or broken an agreement, I think you're fibbing.

[Brant Gaede]

Moral decisions are personal

That's morality as subjective. From that you can kill someone for reasons sufficient to you.

Yep. Or fall in love, walk away from an obligation (asserted by family, by contract, custom or religion) and/or make stupid decisions.

We can dress this out a little further by noting you can do what you want and reap what you sow but know and respect right law for the negative consequences of such legal ignorance are all on you (and your victim). Absent legal conflict doesn't mean in itself moral and right action by you, only any negative consequences aren't from the law kicking down your door and hauling you off to jail even if there are still victims (you probably being one of them). A lot of victimhood belongs in or from that "100% private," which is usually shared in perverse generosity. Let's call such, "mistakes."

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Moral decisions are personal

We can dress this out a little further by noting you can do what you want and reap what you sow but know and respect right law for the negative consequences of such legal ignorance are all on you (and your victim). Absent legal conflict doesn't mean in itself moral and right action by you, only any negative consequences aren't from the law kicking down your door and hauling you off to jail even if there are still victims (you probably being one of them). A lot of victimhood belongs in or from that "100% private," which is usually shared in perverse generosity. Let's call such, "mistakes."

I guess. Adolescence made a big impression on me. The Right to Do Wrong

[Brant Gaede]

That's quite a link, but I think you've used Rand for confirmation bias.

--Brant