Standing naked on my property

[Samson Corwell]

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.

It's absolutely standard phrasing straight from Locke. You might be interested in the distinction between claim rights and liberty rights.

[Samson Corwell]

"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?

Whoooosh.

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.

You don't realize how debased and repulsive that sounds (the capital good part), do you? For the record, I don't think doing any of the other things require ownership.

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?

No one.

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.

Homesteading doesn't follow from self-ownership at all. What it was was totally ad hoc bullshit that John Locke pulled out of his rear end to excuse the taking of land from Native Americans. That land the Indians had lived on and hunted on for centuries? Conveniently turns out that they didn't really own it. Any Lockean who tries to homestead any land I own that I haven't "mixed my labor with" will find themselves up booted out.

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.

Says who? Rothbard? I think if you move near the mill, then they certainly be compelled to stop polluting, even if they were there first.

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.

I was unaware noise pollution damaged things.

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.

The "I'll know it when I see it" part is what I was referring to.

[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.

It's absolutely standard phrasing straight from Locke. You might be interested in the distinction between claim rights and liberty rights.

Yes, I'm aware of the distinction. It doesn't answer my concern that "life" should require a "right".

Right to life is a contradiction in terms (for me). Living, being in existence, is the irreducible foundation of all rights -- how can it be a "right" in itself?

[Samson Corwell]

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.

It's absolutely standard phrasing straight from Locke. You might be interested in the distinction between claim rights and liberty rights.

Yes, I'm aware of the distinction. It doesn't answer my concern that "life" should require a "right".

Right to life is a contradiction in terms (for me). Living, being in existence, is the irreducible foundation of all rights -- how can it be a "right" in itself?

All I can say is that it's ridiculous that you're having trouble with this. It's the right not to be killed.

[Brant Gaede]

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.

It's absolutely standard phrasing straight from Locke. You might be interested in the distinction between claim rights and liberty rights.

Yes, I'm aware of the distinction. It doesn't answer my concern that "life" should require a "right".

Right to life is a contradiction in terms (for me). Living, being in existence, is the irreducible foundation of all rights -- how can it be a "right" in itself?

All I can say is that it's ridiculous that you're having trouble with this. It's the right not to be killed.

The right not to be killed is just another formulation of a negative right. Thus the right not to be killed is the right to protect your life as with self defense or calling in a third party as with the police. Etc.

Rights are based on the immorality of initiating physical force. If we reduce rights to the right to property that's at least one degree of separation from this morality thingy. More reduction is needed.

What physical force does is traduce the conclusions of a reasoning, individual mind and the actions dictated for the self by same. Hence the immorality. Hence the essential individualism of a human being. That's the foundation, but morality actually cuts deeper and/or more broadly than this, but that's all libertarians can do for they eschew a vertically integrated philosophy for the economics and politics of it all and even tend to lose sight of the morality wrapped by in rights per se. I'm now referring to human social existence outside its relationship to the state or the politics. Here also is/are the ethics of human existence. Ethics are completely voluntary and a sub-category of morality. There should be no laws against breaches of ethics and also not for all breaches of morality--just some: the initiation of physical force ones.

All ethics concern morality, but not the other way around except to distinguish the difference. It is correct to say it is immoral to be unethical, not therefore there outta be a law. More than that is needed--that initiation of physical force thingy.

--Brant

not a comment on or explicit critique of "The Objectivist Ethics"

[Francisco Ferrer]

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.

You don't realize how debased and repulsive that sounds (the capital good part), do you? For the record, I don't think doing any of the other things require ownership.

Does it sound debased and repulsive for a blood bank to own blood or a sperm bank to own semen? Then it should be no different for an individual. If ownership and exchange of such items is too repulsive for you, why not advocate banning the sale of such items?

The power of use and disposal implies ownership and vice versa. If I say, "You may now have my car as your own," and then refuse to allow you to drive it or even sit in it, I have not given ownership to you at all.

You may declare that you don't own your body, but if you insist that you are the only one who will determine what happens to your body, you are effectively declaring ownership.

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?

No one.

See above. Authority to use and dispose of an item is defacto ownership.

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.

Homesteading doesn't follow from self-ownership at all. What it was was totally ad hoc bullshit that John Locke pulled out of his rear end to excuse the taking of land from Native Americans. That land the Indians had lived on and hunted on for centuries? Conveniently turns out that they didn't really own it. Any Lockean who tries to homestead any land I own that I haven't "mixed my labor with" will find themselves up booted out.

Let's suppose we don't acquire land through making improvements on it. Ownership does not come from homesteading, we'll say. Now that we've eliminated that as a possibility, you will perhaps share with us what entitles anyone to occupy the place he currently resides in.

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.

Says who? Rothbard? I think if you move near the mill, then they certainly be compelled to stop polluting, even if they were there first.

Fine. Try moving from a farm to an apartment right off Times Square and then sue the City of New York to make them stop all the traffic noise at night.

Or try the same thing with an airport or railroad terminus or shipyard.

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.

I was unaware noise pollution damaged things.

If a property owner next to a recently opened all-night body shop cannot get a good night's sleep, then his health may be damaged. There is abundant recent, objective data on the ill effects of sleep deprivation.

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.

The "I'll know it when I see it" part is what I was referring to.

Unless you have a method of presenting evidence through telepathy, you'll have to do better than hunches and feelings in a court of law.

[Samson Corwell]

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.

You don't realize how debased and repulsive that sounds (the capital good part), do you? For the record, I don't think doing any of the other things require ownership.

Does it sound debased and repulsive for a blood bank to own blood or a sperm bank to own semen? Then it should be no different for an individual. If ownership and exchange of such items is too repulsive for you, why not advocate banning the sale of such items?

No and no. The two are very different. Straw man; that's not what I'm talking about.

The power of use and disposal implies ownership and vice versa. If I say, "You may now have my car as your own," and then refuse to allow you to drive it or even sit in it, I have not given ownership to you at all.

Not necessarily so.

You may declare that you don't own your body, but if you insist that you are the only one who will determine what happens to your body, you are effectively declaring ownership.

I'm allowed to kill a maniac who is attacking me in self-defense, therefore I must own him!

A few counter-examples that negate your statement:

• Child custody.
• Power of attorney.
• Trusts.
• Probate.

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?

No one.

See above. Authority to use and dispose of an item is effectively ownership.

See above. Not necessarily.

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.

Homesteading doesn't follow from self-ownership at all. What it was was totally ad hoc bullshit that John Locke pulled out of his rear end to excuse the taking of land from Native Americans. That land the Indians had lived on and hunted on for centuries? Conveniently turns out that they didn't really own it. Any Lockean who tries to homestead any land I own that I haven't "mixed my labor with" will find themselves up booted out.

Let's suppose we don't acquire land through making improvements on it. Ownership does not come from homesteading, we'll say. Now that we've eliminated that as a possibility, you will perhaps share with us what entitles anyone to occupy the place he currently resides in.

Length of time used, particular circumstances, and the fact that changing all these property titles would introduce chaos into the world.

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.

Says who? Rothbard? I think if you move near the mill, then they certainly be compelled to stop polluting, even if they were there first.

Fine. Try moving from a farm to an apartment right off Times Square and then sue the City of New York to make them stop all the traffic noise at night.

Or try the same thing with an airport or railroad terminus or shipyard.

It's been done.

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.

I was unaware noise pollution damaged things.

If a property owner next to a recently opened all-night body shop cannot get a good night's sleep, then his health may be damaged. There is abundant recent, objective data on the ill effects of sleep deprivation.

That's a very funky definition of "damage" and certainly not like any of the ones I've heard from most NAPsters. This is shorhorning.

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.

The "I'll know it when I see it" part is what I was referring to.

Unless you have a method of presenting evidence through telepathy, you'll have to do better than hunches and feelings in a court of law.

"I'll know when I see it" means I can't specify in advance. Anyone who tries to approach politics without a little bit of this is headed for disaster. (See: Jacobins, Marxist-Leninists, Walter Block.)

[Francisco Ferrer]

Does it sound debased and repulsive for a blood bank to own blood or a sperm bank to own semen? Then it should be no different for an individual. If ownership and exchange of such items is too repulsive for you, why not advocate banning the sale of such items?

No and no. The two are very different. Straw man; that's not what I'm talking about.

And because you are full proprietor of your own body, it is your right not to explain the difference, not to show how this is a straw man, and not to illuminate what you are talking about.

The power of use and disposal implies ownership and vice versa. If I say, "You may now have my car as your own," and then refuse to allow you to drive it or even sit in it, I have not given ownership to you at all.

Not necessarily so.

Perhaps there are cases where this does not apply. And as proprietor of your body and your time, you are within your rights to keep such cases completely hidden from the discussion.

You may declare that you don't own your body, but if you insist that you are the only one who will determine what happens to your body, you are effectively declaring ownership.

I'm allowed to kill a maniac who is attacking me in self-defense, therefore I must own him!

A few counter-examples that negate your statement:

• Child custody.
• Power of attorney.
• Trusts.
• Probate.

Killing in self-defense does not contradict self-ownership because those who would attempt to do serious harm to another forfeit their self-ownership, i.e. freedom, autonomy over their bodies.

Children are not full actors in society because they have not reached the age of consent.

Self-ownership includes the right to transfer ownership in part or whole to others. Thus, power of attorney, trusts, and probate are consistent with self-ownership.

Let's suppose we don't acquire land through making improvements on it. Ownership does not come from homesteading, we'll say. Now that we've eliminated that as a possibility, you will perhaps share with us what entitles anyone to occupy the place he currently resides in.

Length of time used, particular circumstances, and the fact that changing all these property titles would introduce chaos into the world.

Suppose A and B both claim to own a plot of land. A says he is the rightful owner due to length of time used. B says he is the rightful owner due to particular circumstances. Now, who is the rightful owner?

Suppose C buys a house and punctually makes all of his mortgage payments for 5 years. However, the bank loses or falsifies the records, claims C has made no payments, and repossesses the house. Twenty years pass. C has discovered new evidence that he is the rightful owner. Why should a court let the bank keep the house based on the length of time principle?

Fine. Try moving from a farm to an apartment right off Times Square and then sue the City of New York to make them stop all the traffic noise at night.

Or try the same thing with an airport or railroad terminus or shipyard.

It's been done.

Provide one case of a major city, major airport, or major shipyard closing down in response to a nuisance lawsuit. Or making a substantial damage payment to someone who recently came to the nuisance.

If a property owner next to a recently opened all-night body shop cannot get a good night's sleep, then his health may be damaged. There is abundant recent, objective data on the ill effects of sleep deprivation.

That's a very funky definition of "damage" and certainly not like any of the ones I've heard from most NAPsters. This is shorhorning.

Noise is a feature of the physical world and can be both painful and permanently damaging. Direct contact (person touching person) is far from the only way to initiate physical force. One would have to be extremely short-sighted not to recognize that high volume can be a form of trespass on the same order as dumping noxious waste into a neighbor's yard. Numerous court rulings--with or without the consent of Napster (now part of Rhapsody), with or without guidance on how to avoid funkiness--have recognized this. See http://airportnoiselaw.org/cases/causby-1.html

"I'll know when I see it" means I can't specify in advance. Anyone who tries to approach politics without a little bit of this is headed for disaster. (See: Jacobins, Marxist-Leninists, Walter Block.)

If the law should be founded on the whims of judges--how "repulsive," how "funky," how "debased" they find certain behaviors--and not on a firm, objective standard, there can be no long term economic planning and thus no modern capitalist society.

[Jules Troy]

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.

[Jules Troy]

Does a Straw man have kidneys?

?

?

[Brant Gaede]

If you're talking about real property--real estate--you need to fold in adverse possession in your considerations of permanent, involuntary transfer of title.

--Brant

[Darrell Hougen]

"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?

Evidently, the meaning of "self-ownership" is not that clear. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

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.

I don't call it "the right to life paid for by oneself" and such a silly phrase isn't necessary. Your argument is basically that we should dumb down our phraseology so that mentally lazy people will understand it. Sometimes there is a need for sloganeering, but I hope you're not one of those people that only understands slogans.

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?

Engaging in over-simplification doesn't necessarily imply the right answers to all questions. That is why we're having this discussion. Your over-reliance on property rights occasionally leads you to conclusions that seem unreasonable.

Earlier, I stated that the right to life includes the right to take all of those actions required to thrive. I might better have used the word "flourish" or "prosper". At any rate, to thrive or flourish or prosper means to place a great distance between oneself and the needs of immediate survival and is associated with the psychological state of happiness. I also stated earlier in this thread that in a free society all human interactions should be voluntary, insofar as is possible or practicable. If achieving happiness requires that you donate a kidney, you would therefore have a right to do so. Donating a kidney doesn't interfere with the lives of other people.

Suicide is sort of a marginal issue, but it is also complex so I'm going to set it aside for now.

Dangerous sports might be necessary for some people to flourish and be happy and they don't require the involuntary involvement of anyone else. However, restrictions on children playing dangerous sports would be appropriate.

Similar comments could be made about 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.

But, what about the person yelling "tsunami" on an unowned beach?

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.

That's not my conclusion.

Do you think a person should be allowed to sell himself into slavery? If a person owns himself, it would seem to follow that a person could sell himself and then no longer own himself.

I think that's a perverse conclusion.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

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.

A right doesn't connote permission. If a person has a right to do something, he doesn't have to seek permission. If that right is a natural right, a right that a person has as a consequence of his nature, then he never has to seek permission to exercise it.

A man's rights --- the unalienable rights with which he is born --- his rights in a general sense or natural sense --- his rights to life, liberty, and property (in general) --- are not something for which permission is required before he can exercise them.

Now, one might ask for permission to do something like use a piece of land that belongs to someone else. In that sense, a person might ask for permission to use something. If I were a hunter, I might ask a land owner for permission to hunt pheasants on his land. If he gave me permission, then I would have his approval to do so, at least for a limited time or until he changed his mind and asked me to leave. Permission can be revoked at any time. A right cannot.

That's true even of particular rights. If I buy a car, then the original owner can't claim a right to it any longer. He can't revoke his decision to sell the car. Once it has been sold, it belongs to the new owner and not to the previous owner.

Ayn Rand said:

A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission.

If you exist only because society permits you to exist—you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time.

If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right.

Do not make the mistake, at this point, of thinking that a worker is a slave and that he holds his job by his employer’s permission. He does not hold it by permission—but by contract, that is, by a voluntary mutual agreement. A worker can quit his job. A slave cannot.

Darrell

[Francisco Ferrer]

Evidently, the meaning of "self-ownership" is not that clear. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I suppose it is in the realm of possibility that some genius might conclude that "self-ownership" actually means ownership of any person but oneself. For his benefit we might have to draw a picture.

I don't call it "the right to life paid for by oneself" and such a silly phrase isn't necessary. Your argument is basically that we should dumb down our phraseology so that mentally lazy people will understand it. Sometimes there is a need for sloganeering, but I hope you're not one of those people that only understands slogans.

If the law guarantees everyone a right to life, then an opponent of government subsidies of humanitarian missions to save lives would have to look elsewhere in the law to find that such subsidies are prohibited. If the law says nothing about "paid for by oneself" (your phrase), then the welfarists can look forward to running the show.

Francisco Ferrer, on 23 Aug 2014 - 1:12 PM, said:

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?

Engaging in over-simplification doesn't necessarily imply the right answers to all questions. That is why we're having this discussion. Your over-reliance on property rights occasionally leads you to conclusions that seem unreasonable.

Earlier, I stated that the right to life includes the right to take all of those actions required to thrive. I might better have used the word "flourish" or "prosper". At any rate, to thrive or flourish or prosper means to place a great distance between oneself and the needs of immediate survival and is associated with the psychological state of happiness. I also stated earlier in this thread that in a free society all human interactions should be voluntary, insofar as is possible or practicable. If achieving happiness requires that you donate a kidney, you would therefore have a right to do so. Donating a kidney doesn't interfere with the lives of other people.

Suicide is sort of a marginal issue, but it is also complex so I'm going to set it aside for now.

Dangerous sports might be necessary for some people to flourish and be happy and they don't require the involuntary involvement of anyone else. However, restrictions on children playing dangerous sports would be appropriate.

Similar comments could be made about drugs.

If the vital principle is to make all human interactions voluntary, then why not say so? The insistence on having the government grant everyone a "right to life" and then refusing to include any "silly phrase" about who and with what funds is going to ensure this right is asking for trouble from those fond of the idea of positive rights.

But, what about the person yelling "tsunami" on an unowned beach?

What rights violations do you see in such a case?

That's not my conclusion.

Do you think a person should be allowed to sell himself into slavery? If a person owns himself, it would seem to follow that a person could sell himself and then no longer own himself.

I think that's a perverse conclusion.

Darrell

You may use the pronoun "himself" to refer to thoughts and personality of a man who no longer holds legal title to the body that he inhabits.

[Brant Gaede]

A law guaranteeing someone a "right to life" is not a right in the Lockean tradition. Also, laws don't guarantee rights; they protect rights or not.

--Brant

[anthony]

There's a primary (and positive) right, the freedom to act. Therefore it is the right to action. "Action" in all senses: e.g. life, choice, ownership, or even inaction too. "Action" subsumes everything.

To avoid all the complication and confusion, I suggest not "individual rights", rather "individual right" -singular.

KISS, remember.

Then dumb governments might better understand their job.

[Brant Gaede]

There's a primary (and positive) right, the freedom to act. Therefore it is the right to action. "Action" in all senses: e.g. life, choice, ownership, or even inaction too. "Action" subsumes everything.

To avoid all the complication and confusion, I suggest not "individual rights", rather "individual right" -singular.

KISS, remember.

Then dumb governments might better understand their job.

If you're going to re-invent the wheel, I suggest making it round, not square.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

[i've posted my review of Wolf DeVoon's The Constitution of Government in Galt's Gulch on Amazon.]

[Francisco Ferrer]

There's a primary (and positive) right, the freedom to act. Therefore it is the right to action. "Action" in all senses: e.g. life, choice, ownership, or even inaction too. "Action" subsumes everything.

To avoid all the complication and confusion, I suggest not "individual rights", rather "individual right" -singular.

KISS, remember.

Then dumb governments might better understand their job.

I have used the term "positive rights" in the sense that "positive rights require others to provide you with either a good or service. A negative right, on the other hand, only requires others to abstain from interfering with your actions." See here.

[Mikee]

There's a primary (and positive) right, the freedom to act. Therefore it is the right to action. "Action" in all senses: e.g. life, choice, ownership, or even inaction too. "Action" subsumes everything.

To avoid all the complication and confusion, I suggest not "individual rights", rather "individual right" -singular.

KISS, remember.

Then dumb governments might better understand their job.

Yes. This suggests the origin and meaning of the expression laissez faire: "The phrase laissez-faire is French and literally means "let [them] do,"

Or "leave me the fuck alone you thieving ignorant bastards". I think I may be part French...the good part.

[anthony]

There's a primary (and positive) right, the freedom to act. Therefore it is the right to action. "Action" in all senses: e.g. life, choice, ownership, or even inaction too. "Action" subsumes everything.

To avoid all the complication and confusion, I suggest not "individual rights", rather "individual right" -singular.

KISS, remember.

Then dumb governments might better understand their job.

I have used the term "positive rights" in the sense that "positive rights require others to provide you with either a good or service. A negative right, on the other hand, only requires others to abstain from interfering with your actions." See here.

Yes, understood, as all do here. But this is how the tangle and wrangle begins; try explaining it to other fellow citizens and folk at large. It's partly semantical, but "positive" should not ever be the preserve of 'claim rights' and 'entitlement rights'. (The right to human dignity -whatever that means- for one, more commonly heard, lately). Such 'rights' are of course claims on others, and mean wrongs to others.

Rand says it concisely: "The concept of a right pertains only to action--specifically to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a POSITIVE..."

(It's certain you know this well, FF).

So for all purposes (beginning at self-clarity) "negative rights" should fall away in usage, I argue.

[anthony]

There's a primary (and positive) right, the freedom to act. Therefore it is the right to action. "Action" in all senses: e.g. life, choice, ownership, or even inaction too. "Action" subsumes everything.

To avoid all the complication and confusion, I suggest not "individual rights", rather "individual right" -singular.

KISS, remember.

Then dumb governments might better understand their job.

Yes. This suggests the origin and meaning of the expression laissez faire: "The phrase laissez-faire is French and literally means "let [them] do,"

Or "leave me the fuck alone you thieving ignorant bastards". I think I may be part French...the good part.

heh, I love all things French except most of the people. Where the hell is that great country headed?!

[Selene]

Look what was in my daily quote e-mail...

"[E]very Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property."
-- John Locke

(1632-1704) English philosopher and political theorist. Considered the ideological progenitor of the American Revolution and who, by far, was the most often non-biblical writer quoted by the Founding Fathers of the USA.

[Darrell Hougen]

A law guaranteeing someone a "right to life" is not a right in the Lockean tradition. Also, laws don't guarantee rights; they protect rights or not.

--Brant

Thank you.

[PDS]

[i've posted my review of Wolf DeVoon's The Constitution of Government in Galt's Gulch on Amazon.]

Coudn't find it, Brant.