Rights, my libertarian perspective

[Osborn F Enready]

The proof of inherant rights is how man would exist without the use of force as an option.

All rights can be invoked without the use of force, unless some "claim on those rights" is made by someone who uses force to forbid them.

You can't violate the rights of another without one of two things....

Force

or

Willful compliance or agreement.

[mark3748]

Rights are not granted, privileges are granted. Rights are by their very nature inherent.

If you believe rights are only granted, then you really don't believe in rights at all.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Autolykos I have an issue with saying that the only rights one has are those granted to him by "the society in which he lives". First off, there is no method of delineating societies that is inherently superior to any other. While the nation-state is typically the demarcator for "separate societies" today, there is no reason that some other method would be any less legitimate (or moreso).

You're hung up on superiority and that's irrelevant and subjective. There isn't anything that makes one society objectively better than another, they simply exist and when you live within one, you agree implicitly to follow it's dictates. If you steal something in America, you'll get treated a certain way. If you steal something in Iran, you'll probably get your hand chopped off (if they still do that there). Different places, different cultures, different rules.

Second, I think that private, or contractual, rights are certainly possible and have existed throughout history. Of course, such rights are highly context-specific. Wherever people live without government, however, contractual rights would by and large be the "rule" of the day. The rest would be taken up by morality.

I don't think it's really possible to live in a group and not have a government of sorts, that seems to be a natural way for most higher animals to live. You'll always get a leader or a set of rules or a bunch of people who make decisions or whatnot, that's why I laugh when I hear the anarchists talk, as if abolishing all the governments will make a difference. People will just change groups and reform the governments and pretty soon, you're back to the way it was.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Cephus Then you have nothing to support it, just like they do. :) Again, you're just making a claim, you're not able to support it with anything. All you can do is assert something, but assertions without objective evidence is nothing more than your opinion.

Fine. If that's the way you feel, that's up to you. I don't believe that "rights" are something metaphysical that can be supported to the utmost level. Everything is based on axioms that are held as true without proof. Without such axioms beliefs quickly devolve into existentialism and nihilism which are worthless as philisophical tools to guide one's life.

One axiom I hold is that I exist. I can't prove I exist, even Descartes "I think therefore I am" doesn't work as an absolute. But, the alternative belief, to hold that I don't exist, is worthless and adds no value.

Another axiom is that the world around me exists. Again, I can't prove that beyond my own sensory experiences. But, the alternative is as worthless as a belief that I don't exist.

A third axiom is that those that I interact with exist. Same point as above applies here.

From those axioms there is a lot of useful philosophy that can be derived. Once one accepts existence, the basics of Objectivism become, to me anyway, the most internally consistent philosophy available. I have yet to hear an argument against such that I accept that doesn't rely on denying existence.

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: leviathon435 I am not saying this as a neccasarily negative thing but ultimately you are an anarchist Keith, you want to live under no state. This poses many problems none of which are really on-topic so I won't go into them. However your attempt at making a definite meta-physical truth is comendable. However if everyone has a right to life even if someone tries to take yours away they still have that right. If you try to argue that they give up their right then you are again at the problem that there is no meta-physical truth. Your truth would be "Everyone has the right to life except in some cases where they give it away." This seems no more true than "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others" is communist.

See my previous post about axioms for part of the answer to this question. However, the intial point you make I'll be happy to address here.

I have often said that "politically I'm a minarchist, philosophically I'm an anarchist". This, to me, is completely consistent position. I belive that we should work to have the least amount of government possible. Philosophically, I believe the least amount possible is no government at all. However, in today's political world, we are far, far away from that philosophical possibility. As we get closer and closer to that, I may be proven wrong, however, there has been minimal effort since the founding of this country to reduce government. The last great effort for reduction of government was our own revolution and, after that, for quite a while things went quite well. But, government has continually and consistently grown since then as well.

Politically, let's start cutting back. When we get rid of 75% of the government we have today, we can discuss further the remainder.

Keith