Subject:
|
Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 Jan 2000 02:35:18 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera.!nospam!com
|
Viewed:
|
1673 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> But I personally would tend to place strict libertarianism as quite
> close to anarchy on that scale (strict libertarianism, after all, is
> just anarchy with "something" (not the government, but apparently a
> higher power) defining certain rights, but with no way to enforce
> compliance...).
Will you stop? Where do you get that idea? What "higher power"? That's
not it at all. My goodness what a stew of misconceptions. Do you listen
to anything I say or are you just so sure you know what it is that it
all blows past you?
One more time, quickly. Some details may be left out. Go read something
definitive before you spout off, though... please.
All rights are property rights.(1) That is, all rights are derivable
from our right to do with our property as we wish, in so long as we do
not usurp the rights of others to do the same. Our bodies are our
property, so as long as our actions performed on our bodies do not
infringe on others we can do as we wish. That covers use of drugs (1),
tatooing, suicide, selling one's organs and a host of other things that
revolve around what one can do to one self.
Our labor is our property. That is, we have the right to choose to work,
or not to work, as we wish. And we can work on whatever we wish to.
(subject only to the same limit. Can't usurp others) No one else may
find our work of value. But if someone does, we can enter into a
contract (a binding mutual agreement) about our labor in which we
exchange our labor for whatever else we choose to.
Our unique ideas are our property. If we invent something new and clever
that has economic value, it is ours, to dispose of as we see fit. The
patent system is a legal mechanism to assist us in protecting the
property rights we have for ideas, just as laws against burglary or
fraud are legal mechanisms, also in place to protect our rights. Our
idea may not be unique, and it may not be NEW, it may be an improvement
on prior art. In that case, it may not be wholly our property, but it
may be in part, property of those who went before. This may be
admittedly thorny to determine.
The right to do as we wish with our property gives us the right of free
association, that is, the right to choose to be with, or not be with,
who we choose. It further gives us the right, subject to the wishes of
the property owner, or considerations of safety when speaking of public
places, to assemble with whom we wish. If we choose to be with someone
(or several someones) in a life partnership, it is not the place of the
state to say what sorts of associations are appropriate and what sort
are not. Thus no form of marriage should be favored or given a special
status by an agency with a monopoly on the granting of sanction, for to
do so is to pass a moral judgement. Nor should any be discriminated
against by a public agency.
A legitimate government must acknowledge these rights. It must also
govern with the consent of *all* who it governs, not merely the
majority. That places strictures on it which limit scope to the proper
function of government, external defense, internal defense, and dispute
resolution. It also places strictures on it that it must allow people to
withdraw from governance if at that time they are not in violation of
any of the rights of those governed and if so withdrawing will not
violate the rights of anyone. It also places strictures in that justice
must be blind. It must not favor or disfavor any group. Access to
govermental functions must be free of any hindrance, or favor, to any
particular group. That is, we must have equal rights under the law.
But we almost certainly need a government, with a monopoly on the
initiation of the use of force, in order to secure these rights.
On the question of free speech specifically:
If we wish to say something, we must consider the medium. Free speech is
merely the right to express ourselves (that is, publicise our ideas and
assertions) in a medium of our choosing. If we are in a private place
(such as here) our speech, that is, our expression of ideas, that is,
our action, is constrained by whatever agreements we have explicitly or
implicitly voluntarily entered into with the owner of the property we
propose to use. If we are in a public place, we are constrained only by
this, that in speaking, we must not usurp the rights of others present
in that place. (the canonical "can't yell fire in a crowded plaza") Free
speech isn't free of cost, for if it were, it would be a free good.
There are no free goods, someone must always bear the cost. It is the
right of that someone to determine whether his venue is to be used as
you propose.
Note that the right of free association includes the right to disallow
presentation of opinion, that is, you can't come to my door, onto my
property, to hand me a campaign flyer, even one you printed on your
nickel, unless I let you. Conversely, you can't stop me from putting up
a sign on my property as long as it's not a hazard to aircraft and the
deeded covenants in my deed don't prevent it.
To the charge that I don't "care about free speech".
I very passionately care about, and believe that a government must
foster, all the rights delineated in the bill of rights of the US
constitution, including free speech. I also very passionately believe
that delineation of those rights is not intended to be exhaustive. All
rights not explicitly granted to government are reserved to the people.
A society with limited government is much more likely to have a hundred
ideas flower than one run out of a little red book.
Finally, if you are faced with a particular question, try applying the
principles. Attempt to determine who has standing, that is, who has
rights that might be affected. Determine what rights, if any, might be
violated. If there exist outcomes in which no rights are violated,
choose among the alternatives by consulting the stakeholders to
determine preferences. If no "rights OK" answer is possible, and staying
with the status quo is also detrimental to rights, and one is certain
that this is so, the course of action that violates the least rights
must be chosen. But this is rare, once things are straightened around
where everyone knows what their rights are.
Who does the choosing? The stakeholders, freely and voluntarily, if they
can. If they cannot come to agreement, the courts must adjudicate.
I would repeat the last paragraph but one to you... For a few of these
posers you've posed, why don't you try applying the principles and
working through to the answer yourself? Post your derivation. If you
come out with a contradiction, I'll be happy to help. Heck, you may well
discover a new class of rights, or an error in some platform plank
somewhere. But taking potshots at the system without carrying out the
analysis isn't conductive to positive discourse.
If you're not willing to make that effort, then realise that you have
less standing with me, as you're being intellectually lazy, repeating
things that aren't true, mischaracterizing things and generally being a
nuisance, but not adding any new information. Certainly you can say what
you wish, the property owner here has said that anything goes in this
group, so long as certain behavioural constraints are adhered to, but
you seem to care what I and others think, and if you can't be bothered,
I'll call you on it.
I won't claim that everything I have said has been backed by an explicit
rigorous analysis, but then I've been thinking this way for so long that
I can do it implicitly for most cases. And again, I invite you to call
me on any question. State the question, state the stakeholders, state
the rights involved, show your derivation leading to a different
outcome, and challenge me. But don't merely assert that the moon is made
of green cheese because it makes you feel better about yourself. That
won't wash.
Note that Ed "Boxer" Jones could not perform this test. When challenged
to show from a property rights basis how there was a right to free
medical care, he folded up and went back to asserting that everyone knew
that people had rights not to suffer. Sorry, but that's not true.
> And we're nowhere _near_ ready for it.
Well if Libertopia required everyone to be perfect 100% of the time, I'd
agree. But it doesn't. Isn't that just the point we are debating?
1 - take that as a given. Everything else in this derivation, and it is
indeed a derivation, follows from it. Everything is supposed to be
logically consistent. Where it isn't, the LP will change platform planks
to remain consistent. It has before. OR, take it as an prinicple proven
elsewhere. I have sketched out a proof, sufficient to satisfy myself,
elsewhere, based on "life affirming", which you could review.
2 - but NOT the use of heavy machinery or engaging in any other activity
that can endanger others while not in possession of one's facluties.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
Message has 23 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
