Standing naked on my property

[Samson Corwell]

1. You're trying make fraud=trespass, just as many libertarians try to make pollution=trespass instead of simply making a new category for it. Fraud is fraud. Trespass is trespass. Rothbard pulled the same exact shit with regard to breach of contract and bankruptcy, attempting to paint them as theft so he could say that he wasn't betraying his (empty) principles. He also flat out declared fractional reserve banking "fraud". And more to the point: who would say that their in favor of fraud? No one, that's who!

Now that that's been said, we can return to the subject and see that the man who is fined, jailed, or made to pay compensation for selling a brass coin as a gold coin is not being punished for his words but for failing to perform what he was paid to do: deliver the gold. Two coin dealers can make the same promise, but if one of them fails to deliver what is proffered, only he is punished. Thus, fraud laws do not penalize speech but breach of contract.

2. False. People sue for emotional damages all the time. No ownership assumed. Deal with it. Next!

Then feel free to sue anytime you're on the street and see a building, a billboard or a bloated belly that you find emotionally distressing. If you own none of those items that upset you, you'll have scant luck getting the law to help remove them from your sight.

3. Prison isn't slavery. Trying to paint me as inconsistent isn't going to work here. As to your questions, look up "cruel and unusual punishment". No civilized society would ever permit your barbaric notion of "justice" and would rightly punish you if you tried carrying it out.

Then the 50 states must be what you call "barbaric," for all of them "have laws providing that convicted defendants pay restitution to their victims." See here. In California, for example, "The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation automatically collects 50 percent of prison wages or other money deposited into your trust account to pay your restitution."

1. They still restrict speech in some way. Rights aren't singular principles that are carried to infinity. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to shouting "Fire!" In a crowded theater or painting your neighbor's house red. You don't have the right to shoot someone in the face for walking off with, say, a candy bar just because you own that candy bar.

2. <sarcasm>Yes, because that totally applies in all circumstances.</sarcasm> All I'm trying to say is that not all crimes have to do with property. Murder, rape, child neglect, and child pornography don't assume any kind of ownership and they don't need to. Your argument against blackmail with respect to control of opinion can easily be turned on you. To wit: your property rights assume ownership of me and presume to control my actions.

3. Francisco, please don't be an idiot.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Freedom of speech doesn't extend to shouting "Fire!" In a crowded theater

I wish people would stop repeating that uncritically. If someone had shouted "Fire!" in Aurora and cleared out the midnight showing of Dark Knight Rises, as a public mental health service to disrupt a particularly vile and violent movie, there would have been fewer people killed.

-------

NOTE TO PDS - I answered your question about innocent liberty at Post #100 on the previous page.

[Selene]

Freedom of speech doesn't extend to shouting "Fire!" In a crowded theater

I wish people would stop repeating that uncritically. If someone had shouted "Fire!" in Aurora and cleared out the midnight showing of Dark Knight Rises, as a public mental health service to disrupt a particularly vile and violent movie, there would have been fewer people killed.

-------

NOTE TO PDS - I answered your question about innocent liberty at Post #100 on the previous page.

That is from Schenck v. US [1919 ?] Oliver Wendell Holmes, I believe ...

and the precise quote is "...FALSELY yelling fire in a crowded theatre."

Clear and present danger doctrine?

A...

[Wolf DeVoon]

Freedom of speech doesn't extend to shouting "Fire!" In a crowded theater

I wish people would stop repeating that uncritically. If someone had shouted "Fire!" in Aurora and cleared out the midnight showing of Dark Knight Rises, as a public mental health service to disrupt a particularly vile and violent movie, there would have been fewer people killed.

-------

NOTE TO PDS - I answered your question about innocent liberty at Post #100 on the previous page.

That is from Schenck v. US [1919 ?] Oliver Wendell Holmes, I believe ...

and the precise quote is "...FALSELY yelling fire in a crowded theatre."

Clear and present danger doctrine?

A...

Terrible doctrine. From Wikipedia:

In the 1919 case Schenck v. United States the Supreme Court held that an anti-war activist did not have a First Amendment right to speak out against the draft. In his majority opinion, Justice Holmes introduced the clear and present danger test... "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent... When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."

Reversed (per curiam) Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is likely to incite imminent lawless action; held that "mere advocacy" of any doctrine, including one that assumed the necessity of violence or law violation, was per se protected speech.

Muddled by R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), the First Amendment prevents government from proscribing "hate speech" or expressive conduct; but that "fighting words", obscenity, and defamation are proscribable.

As in so many other topics (ObamaCare, gay marriage, EPA rules, 2nd Amendment) the Court has become simply incoherent.

[Francisco Ferrer]

1. They still restrict speech in some way. Rights aren't singular principles that are carried to infinity. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to shouting "Fire!" In a crowded theater or painting your neighbor's house red. You don't have the right to shoot someone in the face for walking off with, say, a candy bar just because you own that candy bar.

Free speech ultimately rests on property and contract. I don't have the right to cause panic and injury by starting a stampede in a crowded theatre because a) if I don't own the theatre I have no right to abuse the actual owner's property by disrupting the performance he is putting on, and b) if I do own the theatre I have violated the terms of the contract to provide the patrons with a performance, not a riot.

2. <sarcasm>Yes, because that totally applies in all circumstances.</sarcasm> All I'm trying to say is that not all crimes have to do with property. Murder, rape, child neglect, and child pornography don't assume any kind of ownership and they don't need to. Your argument against blackmail with respect to control of opinion can easily be turned on you. To wit: your property rights assume ownership of me and presume to control my actions.

Murder and rape are most assuredly violations of property rights, specifically the ownership of one's own body. Self-ownership is also why conscription, compulsory education, and anti-drug laws are immoral.

Procreation and adoption create certain parental obligations to a child. A young person cannot perform certain actions until he reaches the age of consent.

I have not made an argument against blackmail--on this thread or elsewhere. Blackmail is simply the offer not to disclose particular information in exchange for money. That offer and the performance of that offer do not initiate force or violate anyone's property rights.

Example: if X sees Y enter a motel room with a prostitute, X has every right to publish that information in a newspaper. Y does not own what X saw at the motel. Y does not own the newspaper. On the other hand, X has not trespassed on Y's property by offering to remain silent in exchange for money.

3. Francisco, please don't be an idiot.

I will certainly endeavor to follow your advice, but that comment is not a proper response to my position that imprisonment constitutes a limited, carefully stipulated ownership of another human being who has forfeited part of his autonomy by violating the rights of another.

Example: if A vandalizes B's house, a court may rightfully require A to compensate B in full, or in the case of penury serve a prison sentence in which the damages are worked off.

[PDS]

The question I am struggling with is: how is "innocent" liberty materially different than regular liberty?

Liberty is an abstraction, a glittering generality. There are two connotations I recognize, the most important of which is defacto liberty. Vast aspects of daily life are unregulated and anarchistic, governed only by our desire to stay alive and avoid disaster, or to raise as much hell as possible, and often both from time to time. I've argued for The Right To Do Wrong, but more importantly Defacto Anarchy.

We live in practical liberty to do right or wrong, with very few moral guidelines to follow.

The job of living is infinitely complex. No myth, no received wisdom can exempt you from the direct, immediate task of sizing up your situation and making the best decision you can, often in stressful circumstances. Slogans and symbols do not tell you how to conduct your life in detail, nor would you want to obey unquestioningly someone else's creed. [COGIGG, p.23]

Of necessity, we make mistakes. Liberty is spent with promises that can't be kept, idiotic ventures, and secret vices. The innocence of childhood is short-lived. Adolescence is marked by deliberate misbehavior. Teens are notoriously susceptible to adventure. Perhaps there are exceptions among Mormons and Orthodox Jews. Baptists are said to be like cats: they raise hell, but you can't catch them at it. The rest of us are inclined to illicit, risky experiments with drugs, alcohol, sex and deceit -- the last two being naturally synergistic.

The second sort of liberty I recognize is perfectly legal, but often immoral or at best amoral. This comprises all competitive enterprise, salesmanship, advertising, faking it until you make it, brown-nosing the boss, sabotaging coworkers, and using the law as a weapon. Nothing innocent about it. Spouses, children, and voters are frequently told lies and fed despicable trash on television.

Innocent liberty is honest, circumspect, and provable in a court of law. Under the current legal regime, this includes having a valid driver license, tags, and insurance during a traffic stop, being sober enough to drive, volunteering information in the event of an accident and remaining at the scene. But one's innocence (notwithstanding due process presumption of innocence) is not infrequently disbelieved by envious competitors in life, by regulators, and of course LEOs. This occasions a public test of guilt or innocence, and if found not guilty, one's innocent liberty is adjudicated and adversaries are forbidden to punish, harm, or harass those duly discharged.

It is in this exact sense that due process of law defines and defends innocent liberty by force of arms.

When someone is found guilty of crime, or ordered to pay damages or to do or refrain from doing something as equitable relief, all those whose innocent liberty was not adjudicated are likewise defended by the operation of legal due process and vigorous law enforcement.

Thanks, Wolf. I will attempt to digest over the weekend. I appreciate the response.

[Brant Gaede]

I think, FF, you go a little too far in property rights reductionism. Hence you argue down to self ownership of one's body. I think this is a secondary verification, the primary one being arguing up from right to life. Also, most of your cited examples, here if not elsewhere, are variations off of extant case law and criticisms of such tend to be a jejune approach to rights as such and may have the ironic result of strengthening case law where that should be modified as readers try--if they actually try to try--to figure out a bunch of legalisms wondering what principles are being implicitly addressed, if they wonder at all.

Oh, yes, property rights. Here's another problem with property rights: the right to property--the right to obtain, keep and use it. The laundry list goes on and on without surcease except from boredom and exhaustion. It's all secondary. This is why the right to your body qua property is secondary because it's layered over the right to life instead of growing out of it begging the question of why you can't sell yourself into slavery and creating a discussion about selling your body parts. Even before right to life, however, the proper reductionism is to liberty and freedom then right up to right to life then right to property--at least as I see it.

I think this is indicative of why libertarian thought is so hard to travel. It's mostly up there with the politics and economics of it all. In no way does it latch onto the primitive, alligator-felt brain built into the human organism. The bastard result is it really fails politics consequently. Objectivism makes the same mistake, but not with politics--with morality and ethics. That failure is morality/ethics as it should be without sweeping up morality biologically already in the organism. It resonates, as does libertarianism, with brainy young people without much life experience or living obligations who carry some if not most of it into their maturity. Ayn Rand added an esthetic twist usually not in accord with those who seize her obvious libertarian ideas and become libertarians off the bat getting trapped there while Objectivists get trapped by visions of John Galt instead of self visions as autonomous, unique beings of common humanity.

Your understanding and exposition of practical libertarian thought is way superior to anything I can come up with, but I think libertarianism needs to be rooted in a way it is not. It seems to me to have been mostly downhill since Rothbard and Hospers several decades ago (1970s). Objectivism has failed even worse as it has always eschewed critical thinking except as supposed results served up on a platter by the competent, anointed ones. Hence, if you--generic "you"--want individualism and think you have to choose between the two--false alternatives--you'll find much more of it in libertarianism. Forget that. You'll find it in yourself and you do that with critical thinking plus continuing education and loyalty to values (integrity). The way to that--the way to the right and good--is with courage. Life is all about courage. Brain power is secondary. Even a genius cannot be a genius without courage, maybe a lot of courage. The world is awash with brains, not genius.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Life is all about courage. Brain power is secondary. Even a genius cannot be a genius without courage, maybe a lot of courage. The world is awash with brains, not genius.

Brant,

Forgive me for pulling the money quote. I read every word of your above post admiringly, because it plumbs the full context.

With respect to courage, I have very little, and my melancholy lifelong wish was for a bigger, better brain.

I am not a particularly learned man, nor particularly clever. My ideas about government were formed through hard experience and frequent battles with society. Frankly, I believe that better minds and abler writers should be doing this kind of work, but my study of political science and criminal law has revealed an appalling dearth of material in defense of individual liberty. [Laissez Faire Law, p.1]

The human condition as I understand it is

...a lonely, forever dim isolation, poking at life with a matchstick, stymied in every direction by a minefield of rubbery claptrap. No one is ready for this job, no one is skillful or able. You are but one, and the shackles are many. Open the first, and two more will tighten. It is the human condition – to swim in the detritus of ancient and countless deceptions, masquerading as language. [Mars Shall Thunder, p.310]

[Brant Gaede]

Wolf, your strength is writing narrative, either fiction or non-fiction. It's better suited for fiction as it tends to leave in its wake little room except for awe. I mean, you dish up the food and it's meant essentially to be eaten as such but that tends to difficulty when you are dealing with ideas as apart from a human story--a story that can be written on many different levels. Frankly, your problem isn't brain power, it's selling yourself short. Take Einstein. Apart from physics there wasn't much genius. Does an Einstein moan and groan about that or continue to go with his strength? Take me. When I got to algebra I hit a brick wall. Why? I don't know if it was interest or brains. But something in me was saying "No!" Consequently I am a mathematical moron. So, give yourself a break. You deserve it.

--Brant

pretty good with 8 x 8 (= 56 82 48), though

[Wolf DeVoon]

Take me. When I got to algebra I hit a brick wall. Why? I don't know if it was interest or brains. But something in me was saying "No!" Consequently I am a mathematical moron.

You and me, both ... my wife and daughter look at me like I'm a space alien. "It's only simple trig," they frown.

[Samson Corwell]

I think, FF, you go a little too far in property rights reductionism. Hence you argue down to self ownership of one's body. I think this is a secondary verification, the primary one being arguing up from right to life. Also, most of your cited examples, here if not elsewhere, are variations off of extant case law and criticisms of such tend to be a jejune approach to rights as such and may have the ironic result of strengthening case law where that should be modified as readers try--if they actually try to try--to figure out a bunch of legalisms wondering what principles are being implicitly addressed, if they wonder at all.

Oh, yes, property rights. Here's another problem with property rights: the right to property--the right to obtain, keep and use it. The laundry list goes on and on without surcease except from boredom and exhaustion. It's all secondary. This is why the right to your body qua property is secondary because it's layered over the right to life instead of growing out of it begging the question of why you can't sell yourself into slavery and creating a discussion about selling your body parts. Even before right to life, however, the proper reductionism is to liberty and freedom then right up to right to life then right to property--at least as I see it.

I think this is indicative of why libertarian thought is so hard to travel. It's mostly up there with the politics and economics of it all. In no way does it latch onto the primitive, alligator-felt brain built into the human organism. The bastard result is it really fails politics consequently. Objectivism makes the same mistake, but not with politics--with morality and ethics. That failure is morality/ethics as it should be without sweeping up morality biologically already in the organism. It resonates, as does libertarianism, with brainy young people without much life experience or living obligations who carry some if not most of it into their maturity. Ayn Rand added an esthetic twist usually not in accord with those who seize her obvious libertarian ideas and become libertarians off the bat getting trapped there while Objectivists get trapped by visions of John Galt instead of self visions as autonomous, unique beings of common humanity.

Your understanding and exposition of practical libertarian thought is way superior to anything I can come up with, but I think libertarianism needs to be rooted in a way it is not. It seems to me to have been mostly downhill since Rothbard and Hospers several decades ago (1970s). Objectivism has failed even worse as it has always eschewed critical thinking except as supposed results served up on a platter by the competent, anointed ones. Hence, if you--generic "you"--want individualism and think you have to choose between the two--false alternatives--you'll find much more of it in libertarianism. Forget that. You'll find it in yourself and you do that with critical thinking plus continuing education and loyalty to values (integrity). The way to that--the way to the right and good--is with courage. Life is all about courage. Brain power is secondary. Even a genius cannot be a genius without courage, maybe a lot of courage. The world is awash with brains, not genius.

--Brant

I think libertarianism's main problem is that it employs reductionist principles that are very counterintuitive. The vast majority believe that these principles are wholly determinate, but the case of abortion makes it fairly clear that they are not. Surely, not all rights are property rights and thinking of myself as property just seems vulgar. I just don't see how the law, which contains subjects like aviation, banking, parental rights, right to publicity, and so forth, can be reduced to one or two principles.

[Wolf DeVoon]

I just don't see how the law, which contains subjects like aviation, banking, parental rights, right to publicity, and so forth, can be reduced to one or two principles.

It depends on how you conceive the rule of law. If it's law-making by a tyrant or legislature, there is little for a court to do, except to read the law and try to make sense of what it provides or excludes (sometimes by "positive silence"). A constitution complicates matters only very slightly. Judges are reluctant to risk their sinecures by contradicting the tyrant or legislature. In America, we customarily call the tyrant and his minions "the Executive Branch," whose edicts have the force of law by virtue of razor-thin electoral pluralities, like those that justify the elephantine mousetrap of legislation. The judiciary is reduced to a phalanx of costumed bit players who pretend to perform ancient rituals like due process, sworn testimony, best evidence, and reasonable doubt.

On the other hand, some of us conceive the rule of law as prior to and independent of the state.

The rule of law has nothing to do with a sovereign state, except in the narrow sense that such states exist and when they comply with the rule of law they are viewed as 'legal persons' (litigants) possessed of competent legal standing to sue or be sued with the presumption of innocence, no greater or lesser in legal character than a single infant child. States are checked by asserting your personal right to freedom and justice – i.e., constitutional legal rights that no state may lawfully abridge. [The Constitution of Government in Galt's Gulch, p.54]

-- but that assumes a constitution that provides a substantive personal right to justice, which the U.S. Constitution does not. It's a charter of government power, only vaguely limited by adversarial common law kabuki and obsolete protections like the Third and Fourth Amendments that have been interpreted out of existence, as Justice Sotomayor cheerfully explained to CBS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHvgiEWH6A4

[Francisco Ferrer]

I think, FF, you go a little too far in property rights reductionism. Hence you argue down to self ownership of one's body. I think this is a secondary verification, the primary one being arguing up from right to life. Also, most of your cited examples, here if not elsewhere, are variations off of extant case law and criticisms of such tend to be a jejune approach to rights as such and may have the ironic result of strengthening case law where that should be modified as readers try--if they actually try to try--to figure out a bunch of legalisms wondering what principles are being implicitly addressed, if they wonder at all.

I do not argue from a "right to life" principle, for the same reason I do not argue from a right to food, shelter and clothing principle. "Right to life" raises a question that cannot easily be answered: paid for by whom? Example: Jones lives in the Republic of Pauperstan, has a fatal kidney disease, and must have a $10,000 dialysis machine. How will the law of his country enforce his "right to life"? I start with self-ownership, which is not contradicted by reality or any other feasible theory of property and deduce further rights from that.

Oh, yes, property rights. Here's another problem with property rights: the right to property--the right to obtain, keep and use it. The laundry list goes on and on without surcease except from boredom and exhaustion. It's all secondary. This is why the right to your body qua property is secondary because it's layered over the right to life instead of growing out of it begging the question of why you can't sell yourself into slavery and creating a discussion about selling your body parts. Even before right to life, however, the proper reductionism is to liberty and freedom then right up to right to life then right to property--at least as I see it.

What problem? One starts with the property of one's own body and through labor, creation, and exchange with others increases one's ownership of things outside one's body and prospers. It is not clear how the nebulous "right to life" solves the problem of acquisition--unless we decide the law must give a man whatever he needs to stay alive.

As for selling one's body or parts thereof, I see nothing about it that is reprehensible or inconsistent with individualism.

I do not know how well the theory will connect with the public at present. But when I sit down to consider man's nature, the principles of ethics, and the philosophy of law, my thoughts are not guided by what sells best.

[Samson Corwell]

I think, FF, you go a little too far in property rights reductionism. Hence you argue down to self ownership of one's body. I think this is a secondary verification, the primary one being arguing up from right to life. Also, most of your cited examples, here if not elsewhere, are variations off of extant case law and criticisms of such tend to be a jejune approach to rights as such and may have the ironic result of strengthening case law where that should be modified as readers try--if they actually try to try--to figure out a bunch of legalisms wondering what principles are being implicitly addressed, if they wonder at all.

I do not argue from a "right to life" principle, for the same reason I do not argue from a right to food, shelter and clothing principle. "Right to life" raises a question that cannot easily be answered: paid for by whom? Example: Jones lives in the Republic of Pauperstan, has a fatal kidney disease, and must have a $10,000 dialysis machine. How will the law of his country enforce his "right to life"? I start with self-ownership, which is not contradicted by reality or any other feasible theory of property and deduce further rights from that.

Oh, yes, property rights. Here's another problem with property rights: the right to property--the right to obtain, keep and use it. The laundry list goes on and on without surcease except from boredom and exhaustion. It's all secondary. This is why the right to your body qua property is secondary because it's layered over the right to life instead of growing out of it begging the question of why you can't sell yourself into slavery and creating a discussion about selling your body parts. Even before right to life, however, the proper reductionism is to liberty and freedom then right up to right to life then right to property--at least as I see it.

What problem? One starts with the property of one's own body and through labor, creation, and exchange with others increases one's ownership of things outside one's body and prospers. It is not clear how the nebulous "right to life" solves the problem of acquisition--unless we decide the law must give a man whatever he needs to stay alive.

As for selling one's body or parts thereof, I see nothing about it that is reprehensible or inconsistent with individualism.

I do not know how well the theory will connect with the public at present. But when I sit down to consider man's nature, the principles of ethics, and the philosophy of law, my thoughts are not guided by what sells best.

Really? "Right to life" is exactly the way Locke phrased it. You're attacking a straw man.

[Brant Gaede]

All "the right to life" is is a negative right, as are all real human rights, couched in positive language. As I said elsewhere, the right to life is the right to do actions to protect and enhance your life or even to end it. This negative right is not the same thing as the right to a livelihood, food or someone else supporting you in any non-voluntary way.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

when I sit down to consider man's nature, the principles of ethics, and the philosophy of law, my thoughts are not guided by what sells best.

Cool. I'm eager to hear your philosophy of law. How are courts created, judges appointed, and what do they do?

[Darrell Hougen]

I do not argue from a "right to life" principle, for the same reason I do not argue from a right to food, shelter and clothing principle. "Right to life" raises a question that cannot easily be answered: paid for by whom? Example: Jones lives in the Republic of Pauperstan, has a fatal kidney disease, and must have a $10,000 dialysis machine. How will the law of his country enforce his "right to life"? I start with self-ownership, which is not contradicted by reality or any other feasible theory of property and deduce further rights from that.

I must say I'm shocked by this response. I had thought you were pretty well read and just chose the libertarian position for whatever reason. But, this smacks of a total lack of understanding of a basic principle, the right to life.

"Right to life" raises a question that cannot easily be answered: paid for by whom?

Paid for by oneself.

See how easy that was?

The right to life means the right to live at your own expense. It means the right not to be killed. It doesn't imply any sort of claim on the life of someone else. I thought you understood that.

The right to life means the right to the freedom to take those actions necessary and proper for survival and/or thriving. It means the right to not be impeded in taking those actions. It means the right to be left alone. It doesn't guarantee success in living the good life or in living at all. It just means that no one should stand in your way if you are engaging in productive activities.

The right to life implies the right to property, not the other way around. A person must be able to control the product of his effort in order to survive and therefore has a property right in those things with which he mingles his effort. But, not all rights are property rights. The right to free speech is not a property right.

Earlier, the case of a man falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater was discussed. That case has nothing to do with property rights. The rights of man yelling are constrained by the immediate effect that the false information might have on the actions of the people around him, not by the property rights of the owner of the theater.

It would be just as wrong to falsely yell "tsunami" on a crowded beach, even if no one claimed ownership of the beach. If people stampeded and innocent people were trampled to death, then the person that yelled "tsunami" would be at least partially responsible for their deaths.

Libertarians, by attempting to reduce everything to property rights sometimes end up arguing for bizarre conclusions. I've argued with people that say planes should not be allowed to fly over their houses because their property rights extend to all of the air above their little piece of land, just to give an example. You need to have a proper basis for your political philosophy or it will stop making sense.

Darrell

[Wolf DeVoon]

Over 30 years ago, I penned a short essay on the right to life. Let's see if it makes any sense?

-----

At this writing, I am 34 years old, bankrupt, stranded in a foreign country, and without influence or friends who could help me... I smoke cigarettes, worry too much, and periodically go into some kind of veso-vegal shock syndrome that drains the blood from my extremities and knocks me flat for hours. I have no life insurance, health insurance, savings, stocks or tangible assets...

The point of reciting these facts is to open the discussion on the right to life, by examining a case in point. What claim, for example, might the author have to continued existence? At this juncture, traditional "human rights" advocates jump to say that every man has the right to live -- you don't need to make a special claim, or measure one man's rights against another's.

Well, alright, let's put the facts aside and draw an even harsher case: let's say I shot myself in the head. Now what right to life should I enjoy? And, undaunted to the last, they would say with only minor equivocations, that I should be rushed to the nearest hospital, revived if possible, hooked to an artificial life-support machine if not, and placed in a facility for the care of the insane, until my physical life could no longer be sustained by fair means or foul...

When we say that people have a right to their own lives, it must mean just that. A free citizen should be free of the opinions of others, if he extends to his neighbor an equal freedom to agree or dissent, to trade or refuse the bargain, to stay or go, to live according to the dictates of reason or to squander his life. No legislature or gang of thugs has the right to take someone's life. No law, morality, or religious ideal is superior to the right of individual men and women to live in freedom...

In private buying and selling, each man chooses to participate according to his needs and pleasures; in government, the law compels men to obey whether they wish to or not. Whether laws are formulated by a majority, a minority, or a single fuhrer, unless the voluntary consent of each citizen is obtained to ratify that law, it is implicit that someone will be forcing someone else to obey...

There is ample precedent for this kind of Americanism; the tightly-ordered austerity of the Pilgrims, or the maximum sacrifice required to fight and win World War II -- but don't talk to me about anyone's right to life in such circumstances, don't celebrate the 4th of July or make any speeches about independence, because... the true meaning of our Declaration of Independence [is] that all men are created free and equal, entitled by right to live their lives in liberty and to pursue their own happiness, despite the edicts of kings and parliaments.

[Laissez Faire Law, excerpts, pp.11-16]

[Samson Corwell]

I do not argue from a "right to life" principle, for the same reason I do not argue from a right to food, shelter and clothing principle. "Right to life" raises a question that cannot easily be answered: paid for by whom? Example: Jones lives in the Republic of Pauperstan, has a fatal kidney disease, and must have a $10,000 dialysis machine. How will the law of his country enforce his "right to life"? I start with self-ownership, which is not contradicted by reality or any other feasible theory of property and deduce further rights from that.

I must say I'm shocked by this response. I had thought you were pretty well read and just chose the libertarian position for whatever reason. But, this smacks of a total lack of understanding of a basic principle, the right to life.

"Right to life" raises a question that cannot easily be answered: paid for by whom?

Paid for by oneself.

See how easy that was?

The right to life means the right to live at your own expense. It means the right not to be killed. It doesn't imply any sort of claim on the life of someone else. I thought you understood that.

The right to life means the right to the freedom to take those actions necessary and proper for survival and/or thriving. It means the right to not be impeded in taking those actions. It means the right to be left alone. It doesn't guarantee success in living the good life or in living at all. It just means that no one should stand in your way if you are engaging in productive activities.

The right to life implies the right to property, not the other way around. A person must be able to control the product of his effort in order to survive and therefore has a property right in those things with which he mingles his effort. But, not all rights are property rights. The right to free speech is not a property right.

Earlier, the case of a man falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater was discussed. That case has nothing to do with property rights. The rights of man yelling are constrained by the immediate effect that the false information might have on the actions of the people around him, not by the property rights of the owner of the theater.

It would be just as wrong to falsely yell "tsunami" on a crowded beach, even if no one claimed ownership of the beach. If people stampeded and innocent people were trampled to death, then the person that yelled "tsunami" would be at least partially responsible for their deaths.

Libertarians, by attempting to reduce everything to property rights sometimes end up arguing for bizarre conclusions. I've argued with people that say planes should not be allowed to fly over their houses because their property rights extend to all of the air above their little piece of land, just to give an example. You need to have a proper basis for your political philosophy or it will stop making sense.

Darrell

I know. It is more than a little disconcerting. I think Rothbard made the declaration because he wanted a nice response to the saying "human rights trump property rights". Almost everyone understands what the people saying it mean, but his primary strategy was to attack whatever he thought could be portrayed as some kind of inconsistency. Ralph Waldo Emerson's utterance on "foolish consistency" comes to mind.

This article makes the faults of Rothbard's position clear, I think (part III.C, to be precise). But I think the best rebuttal to the proposition "all rights are property rights" is to bring up the right to own property to begin with. I think it's based on a false equivocation in that the difference between a property right and, say, the right to freedom of speech is that the former is particular whereas the latter is general. The ploy involves painting one's exclusive use of X (the particular) as being identical to freedom of speech as a rule of thumb (the general). It's truly ingenious rhetoric, but it's one that can trick even the sharpest of minds. The problem is that once you start using a theoretical distinction as a guide to everything you wind up embracing incredibly stupid conclusions (i.e., encirclement, what you said about planes, blackmail *glares at FF*, etc.).

The property rights reductionism can lead to some hilarious situations, though. Like pro-IP libertarians calling anti-IP libertarians "intellectual communists".

[Francisco Ferrer]

I think, FF, you go a little too far in property rights reductionism. Hence you argue down to self ownership of one's body. I think this is a secondary verification, the primary one being arguing up from right to life. Also, most of your cited examples, here if not elsewhere, are variations off of extant case law and criticisms of such tend to be a jejune approach to rights as such and may have the ironic result of strengthening case law where that should be modified as readers try--if they actually try to try--to figure out a bunch of legalisms wondering what principles are being implicitly addressed, if they wonder at all.

I do not argue from a "right to life" principle, for the same reason I do not argue from a right to food, shelter and clothing principle. "Right to life" raises a question that cannot easily be answered: paid for by whom? Example: Jones lives in the Republic of Pauperstan, has a fatal kidney disease, and must have a $10,000 dialysis machine. How will the law of his country enforce his "right to life"? I start with self-ownership, which is not contradicted by reality or any other feasible theory of property and deduce further rights from that.

Really? "Right to life" is exactly the way Locke phrased it. You're attacking a straw man.

My post did not attack anyone, straw or otherwise.

[Francisco Ferrer]

I do not argue from a "right to life" principle, for the same reason I do not argue from a right to food, shelter and clothing principle. "Right to life" raises a question that cannot easily be answered: paid for by whom? Example: Jones lives in the Republic of Pauperstan, has a fatal kidney disease, and must have a $10,000 dialysis machine. How will the law of his country enforce his "right to life"? I start with self-ownership, which is not contradicted by reality or any other feasible theory of property and deduce further rights from that.

I must say I'm shocked by this response. I had thought you were pretty well read and just chose the libertarian position for whatever reason. But, this smacks of a total lack of understanding of a basic principle, the right to life.

"Right to life" raises a question that cannot easily be answered: paid for by whom?

Paid for by oneself.

See how easy that was?

If you want "easy," try self-ownership. We don't have to append "paid for by yourself" or anything else to self-ownership. Its implication are self-evident. And, by the way, "paid for by yourself" may not cover all possibilities. What about getting voluntary help for living expenses from others?

The right to life means the right to live at your own expense. It means the right not to be killed. It doesn't imply any sort of claim on the life of someone else. I thought you understood that.

What I understand is that the right to life, or "the right to life paid for by oneself" as you now call it, does not account for a complete range of individual autonomy.

Item: How would a constitution protecting "the right to life paid for by oneself," rule out laws against selling body parts? If I am forbidden to sell a kidney or a cornea, my "right to life paid for by oneself," is still intact.

Item: How would a constitution protecting "the right to life paid for by oneself," rule out laws against suicide?

Item: How would a constitution protecting "the right to life paid for by oneself," rule out laws against certain dangerous sports?

Item: How would a constitution protecting "the right to life paid for by oneself," rule out laws against certain dangerous drugs?

The right to life means the right to the freedom to take those actions necessary and proper for survival and/or thriving. It means the right to not be impeded in taking those actions. It means the right to be left alone. It doesn't guarantee success in living the good life or in living at all. It just means that no one should stand in your way if you are engaging in productive activities.

The right to life implies the right to property, not the other way around. A person must be able to control the product of his effort in order to survive and therefore has a property right in those things with which he mingles his effort. But, not all rights are property rights. The right to free speech is not a property right.

The right to free speech is most assuredly a property right. Once one understands that an individual has ownership of his own body, it logically follows that he is within his right to operate his lungs, tongue and lips as he sees fit--provided such actions do not interfere with the property rights of his neighbors. Example: unless he "comes to the nuisance," by buying a house next to an opera singer who has lived there for some time, the new home owner is entitled to a reasonable amount of quiet at night.

Earlier, the case of a man falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater was discussed. That case has nothing to do with property rights. The rights of man yelling are constrained by the immediate effect that the false information might have on the actions of the people around him, not by the property rights of the owner of the theater.

It would be just as wrong to falsely yell "tsunami" on a crowded beach, even if no one claimed ownership of the beach. If people stampeded and innocent people were trampled to death, then the person that yelled "tsunami" would be at least partially responsible for their deaths.

I have already explained how the principle of self-ownership would logically lead to penalties for the man who falsely yells "fire" in a theatre. There is no need to repeat it here.

Libertarians, by attempting to reduce everything to property rights sometimes end up arguing for bizarre conclusions. I've argued with people that say planes should not be allowed to fly over their houses because their property rights extend to all of the air above their little piece of land, just to give an example.

If you object to bizarre conclusions, perhaps you should write it into your ideal constitution that no interpretation of individual rights that is objectively and scientifically shown to be "bizarre" shall be permitted. Then we can look forward to a future justice declaring, "I know it when I see it."

You need to have a proper basis for your political philosophy or it will stop making sense.

Darrell

Swell. So perhaps if we cannot use "the right to life paid for by oneself" to permit drug use, we'll just have to put up with laws against drugs.

[Wolf DeVoon]

"Right to life" raises a question that cannot easily be answered: paid for by whom?

Paid for by oneself.

[Samson Corwell]

I do not argue from a "right to life" principle, for the same reason I do not argue from a right to food, shelter and clothing principle. "Right to life" raises a question that cannot easily be answered: paid for by whom? Example: Jones lives in the Republic of Pauperstan, has a fatal kidney disease, and must have a $10,000 dialysis machine. How will the law of his country enforce his "right to life"? I start with self-ownership, which is not contradicted by reality or any other feasible theory of property and deduce further rights from that.

I must say I'm shocked by this response. I had thought you were pretty well read and just chose the libertarian position for whatever reason. But, this smacks of a total lack of understanding of a basic principle, the right to life.

"Right to life" raises a question that cannot easily be answered: paid for by whom?

Paid for by oneself.

See how easy that was?

If you want "easy," try self-ownership. We don't have to append "paid for by yourself" or anything else to self-ownership. Its implication are self-evident. And, by the way, "paid for by yourself" may not cover all possibilities. What about getting voluntary help for living expenses from others?

"The appearance of man as the proprietor of his person would have fascinated Hobbes if he had lived to witness it. He might have classified it as a variety of madness similar to that of the man who believes himself God. The history of political thought does not offer an attack on the dignity of man comparable to this classification of the human person as a capital good." -- Eric Voegelin

The right to life means the right to the freedom to take those actions necessary and proper for survival and/or thriving. It means the right to not be impeded in taking those actions. It means the right to be left alone. It doesn't guarantee success in living the good life or in living at all. It just means that no one should stand in your way if you are engaging in productive activities.

The right to life implies the right to property, not the other way around. A person must be able to control the product of his effort in order to survive and therefore has a property right in those things with which he mingles his effort. But, not all rights are property rights. The right to free speech is not a property right.

The right to free speech is most assuredly a property right. Once one understands that an individual has ownership of his own body, it logically follows that he is within his right to operate his lungs, tongue and lips as he sees fit--provided such actions do not interfere with the property rights of his neighbors. Example: unless he "comes to the nuisance," by buying a house next to an opera singer who has lived there for some time, the new home owner is entitled to a reasonable amount of quiet at night.

Earlier, the case of a man falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater was discussed. That case has nothing to do with property rights. The rights of man yelling are constrained by the immediate effect that the false information might have on the actions of the people around him, not by the property rights of the owner of the theater.

It would be just as wrong to falsely yell "tsunami" on a crowded beach, even if no one claimed ownership of the beach. If people stampeded and innocent people were trampled to death, then the person that yelled "tsunami" would be at least partially responsible for their deaths.

I have already explained how the principle of self-ownership would logically lead to penalties for the man who falsely yells "fire" in a theatre. There is no need to repeat it here.

Only if your notion of property is so broad so as to make "property rights" a redundancy. Quite frankly with respect to the opera thing it seems like you're trying to translate simple common sense prohibitions on annoyance into the language of property. I've seen this same thing done with immigration issues: both anti-immigration "libertarians" and those who call for open borders prop their arguments up with it. Suffice to say, both of those arguments (on immigration) are rather stupid.

Libertarians, by attempting to reduce everything to property rights sometimes end up arguing for bizarre conclusions. I've argued with people that say planes should not be allowed to fly over their houses because their property rights extend to all of the air above their little piece of land, just to give an example.

If you object to bizarre conclusions, perhaps you should write it into your ideal constitution that no interpretation of individual rights that is objectively and scientifically shown to be "bizarre" shall be permitted. Then we can look forward to a future justice declaring, "I know it when I see it."

I like it.

[Francisco Ferrer]

"The appearance of man as the proprietor of his person would have fascinated Hobbes if he had lived to witness it. He might have classified it as a variety of madness similar to that of the man who believes himself God. The history of political thought does not offer an attack on the dignity of man comparable to this classification of the human person as a capital good." -- Eric Voegelin

Why should we accept the opinion of Hobbes as an authority on government? His work Leviathan is full of non sequiturs. Example: if man, as Hobbes claims, is inherently aggressive and life in a state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish," how would his solution of a powerful sovereign to rule society help? Would not the sovereign be selected from the species of homo sapiens? Is that not the very species that Hobbes regards as inherently aggressive?

If the person is not a capital good, then we should find no objection to laws that forbid the sale of human hair, blood, organs and semen.

Only if your notion of property is so broad so as to make "property rights" a redundancy. Quite frankly with respect to the opera thing it seems like you're trying to translate simple common sense prohibitions on annoyance into the language of property. I've seen this same thing done with immigration issues: both anti-immigration "libertarians" and those who call for open borders prop their arguments up with it. Suffice to say, both of those arguments (on immigration) are rather stupid.

There is nothing overly broad or redundant about recognizing the logic of self-ownership. If A does not own his body, who does? God? Obama? The rest of the human race?

From the axiom of self-ownership we arrive, by way of Locke's mixing of labor with land, at the principle of homesteading, the right to exploit natural resources, and the voluntary exchange of goods with others.

Regarding annoyance: paper mills give off unpleasant odors. If a company builds a mill in the Alaskan wilderness, no one will object. On the other hand, if I build a cabin next to the mill, I will certainly notice the fumes. Yet I cannot order the mill to shut down for the simple reason that I have come to the nuisance. The mill has effectively homesteaded the right to emit smells.

If you are unfamiliar with the "coming to the nuisance" principle of law, see Richard Epstein, "Defenses and Subsequent Pleas in a system of Strict Liability."

As for translating "simple common sense prohibitions on annoyance into the language of property," property is at the core of annoyance prohibitions even under current law. X cannot successfully sue Y unless X can show that Y's actions have caused damage to X's person or property.

If you object to bizarre conclusions, perhaps you should write it into your ideal constitution that no interpretation of individual rights that is objectively and scientifically shown to be "bizarre" shall be permitted. Then we can look forward to a future justice declaring, "I know it when I see it."

I like it.

Good, then show me the science that objectively measures bizarreness.

[anthony]

A "right" always connotes 'permission', which is why I confess I consider "right to life" to be an anti-concept.

I'm uncertain whether or how this differs from Rand since she - once, anyway - endorsed "the right to life" (in 'What is Capitalism' - CtUI):

"I shall remind you also that the right to life is the source of all rights, including the right to property".

(Should it not be "...that LIFE is the source of all rights..."? What am I missing?)

But I see life and an individual life, as a metaphysically given absolute. After which (summarizing- but accurate to Rand, I believe) it is the *nature of man*, autonomous, and volitionally-rational and -active, which is what necessitates that he remains unimpeded in the pursuit and the possession of the fruits of his mind and physical energy, his property.