Subject:
|
Re: ("life affirming" == "no initiation of force") == "all rigihts are property rights"?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 8 Jan 2000 07:29:38 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
MATTDM@MATTDM.ORGnospam
|
Viewed:
|
446 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote:
> Reminder, under the premise we agreed upon, if it requires force
> initiation, it's not a right. This will be used to eliminate some things
> tentatively labeled rights, below.
No no. I didn't agree to that at all. Your question was "What sorts of
rights are not property rights but do not require force initiation?"
Eliminating answers simply because they fail the force-initiation test is
begging the question.
I accept the force-initiation test as an argument for whether something is
good, not whether it is a potential right. I don't think we've gotten to the
point (in our discussion here; not necessarily in general *grin*) where we
can distiguish between the two yet.
> > I think before I can do that, I need you to explain what a property right
> > *is*. Where does this right come from?
> not sure I understand the question. A property right is the right to
> possess something, free from claims on it that were not freely entered
> into by the person who holds title. That something can be real property
How does one come to possess something? Why is one able to possess things
(tangible or not) at all? Once that's defined, is there _one_ base property
right from which all others are derived, or are there several foundational
property rights?
> > "The right to go to your place of residence while you're not home and
> > eat any food I find there so I don't starve."
> But if I have secured my residence against entry unless you possess a
> key, and you don't have one, and you enter, are you not using force?
I'm very good at picking locks -- it doesn't require any effort. How is that
"force"? But it needn't even come to that. Say you _haven't_ secured your
residence. (This asks a question about the nature of property -- once
something is someone's property, what makes it remain so?)
> > "The right to be doing something meaningful with my life."
> Not to ask what "is" means or anything but what does this mean, exactly.
> That is, how do you actualize this supposed right? If it's the right to
> pursue happiness, that's a property right. If it's the right to ACHIEVE
> happiness, that's free goods. See below.
It's neither. It's its own thing -- the right to be a meaningful part of the
universe.
> > "The right to use and duplicate software without permission."
>
> Aren't you using force when you do this? Hence fails the contradiction
> test.
No. I'm takin' some data I've got, and I'm copying it from one media to
another. Then I'm giving that copy to my friend. No force anywhere. In fact,
if you want, I'll even e-mail a copy to the author, so she has twice as much
software as she did before. Unless you're meaning the energy I've expended
in aligning the magnetic particles on the disk, and I fail to see how that
is anti-life-affirming. (Except in the sense that it increases the entropy
of the universe, and I'm not sure that that's a useful measure!)
In fact, if I have the software, and the author wants to tell me I can't use
it anymore ("Sorry, your license has expired"), isn't *that* where force is
required?
> > "The right to marry out of love."
> As I've defined it, this is a property right. (the right to dispose of
> my body as I see fit, in agreement with others who also have the right
> to dispose of their body as they see fit)
Why is my body property? Even if it is, what gives me the right to do
anything with property once I own that? (_Disposal_ of property is a
completely seperate issue from _ownership_ of property, which I haven't
accepted as a right yet anyway.) Doesn't marriage have as much to do with
minds as bodies? Can minds be property?
> > "The right to a fair trial."
> As I've defined it, this is a property right. I think. Put a pin in that
> one, I'm skipping it for tonite, but agree it needs more explication.
Pinned.
> > "The right to free speech."
> As I've defined it, this is a property right. No doubt about it, to me
> anyway. (recall what free speech means, it means that one can say what
> one wishes, subject to the desires of the owner of the property, or if
> in a public place, subject only to public safety concerns. Therefore it
> falls under the right to dispose of my body as I see fit, hence a
> property right.)
Oh no. Let's make this one wider than that. "The right to say whatever the
hell I want subject to nothing." (This works well, in fact, because we
haven't determined anything external to this right yet. These are
rights-in-a-void.)
> > "The right to free goods."
>
> As I've defined it, this requires force, because there are no free
> goods. Hence fails the contradiction test.
Define it. I fail to see how it requires force. It'll help if property and
the right to property get defined first. But even assuming property, my
right to free goods doesn't force anyone to do anything. If they have a
respect for rights, they might feel a bit guilty if they have a lot of stuff
and I don't. But no one is _making_ them do anything.
> interesting start. I hasten to point out that even if I case by case
Thanks. :)
> show that each of your examples is either a property right, or requires
> force, I haven't proven the negative, viz, that some rights aren't
> necessarily property rights. To do that we must examine the nature of
> rights, counterexamples never prove the negative.
Agreed. That was part of what I wanted by adding the word "necessary" up
there.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
   
- 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
|
|
|
|
