Natural rights and libertarianism

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The general libertarian argument against the government goes somewhat like this:

1. Property is a natural right.
2. Taxes compulsory take property.
3. Therefore, taxes are against natural rights.

For practical purposes, of course, most libertarians accept taxation as a necessary evil to allow the government to protect other natural rights because there doesn't seem to be any alternative. The government can take money from the public to provide everyone with free police to protect their property and their lives. However, it is immoral take property to provide you with things that do not protect natural rights. Since things like healthcare and education are not natural rights, it is immoral of the government to take from others to provide people with these things.

But what are natural rights? Where do they come from? It isn't mentioned in any religious texts. I suppose someone will come on here and say that they can be derived from logic, but how? Why is it wrong for me to steal and kill you? And why can't I logically derive a right to healthcare and education?

So, why do we hold property as having any value at all? It is not because of some lofty rights granted by on high. It's because in our evolutionary past the concept of property provided our ancestors with some evolutionary advantage, and so it naturally became built into our conscious to defend our property and to help others defend theirs. I know people don't like it when I put it in that terms.

For some reason, it just seems more intuitively satisfying to think that our morality is some universal law rather than a compilation of evolutionary algorithms. However, I think such nihilistic thinking is in error. Why would our morality be any more valid if it were decreed on high? I can't think of any logical reason. Maybe immutable rights are a good concept that increase human happiness, but it doesn't seem to be natural.

So, what if sometimes defending property at all costs were not what is best for society or the species? Should we just sit here and defend it at all costs and ignore all other parts of our morality because we've dug ourselves into a logical hole? Why is your reflex to defend your property any more valid than simple human compassion for those that are dying without medical care and need it?

 

[/MSG/]

So, what if sometimes defending property at all costs were not what is best for society or the species? Should we just sit here and defend it at all costs and ignore all other parts of our morality because we've dug ourselves into a logical hole? Why is your reflex to defend your property any more valid than simple human compassion for those that are dying without medical care and need it?

Well that assumes that the defense of property is not in the best interest of society. In you particular case you're talking about healthcare and education (and I'm sure you could throw out a couple other things). By and large Libertarian morality is not strictly opposed to these ideas, it's simply opposed to the idea at federal levels. It's always been a Libertarian belief that things should be handled at the smallest level of government possible.

So back to your assumption that defense of property is not always in the best interest of the species. I maintain that in the long run it is. While I won't go the lengths to indulge in the aspects of Social Darwinism, what is good for the individual is typically god for society as well.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Natural rights, real or not (and they are real, but I understand liberals hate them), are enshrined within the Declaration of Independence, and have appearances in the 4th and 14th Amendments. Our country is built on them, almost entirely. That's where they come from, for the sake of argument, Waterdork.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Natural rights, real or not (and they are real, but I understand liberals hate them),

Then where are they?

are enshrined within the Declaration of Independence, and have appearances in the 4th and 14th Amendments. Our country is built on them, almost entirely. That's where they come from, for the sake of argument, Waterdork.

You cannot make something true simply by wishing it so. The declaration of independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident...", which is not a logical argument. You could literally just make any right out of thin air and declare that the government is morally valid in pursuing it.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Then where are they?



You cannot make something true simply by wishing it so. The declaration of independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident...", which is not a logical argument. You could literally just make any right out of thin air and declare that the government is morally valid in pursuing it.

You could, but ours only selected from Natural Rights. You could go fuck up another country, built upon its own source of law, but you selected this one. There must be a reason why.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You could, but ours only selected from Natural Rights.

 

[Minister of Truth]

So, Watermark, what should be the basis for American law? Power, brute force, social darwinism... am I warm?

America is an experiment in Natural Law. Since the Age of Jackson, the experiment has been steadily unraveling, but here we are, still debating whether liberty is a positive and existant force in the universe, or not.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

So, Watermark, what should be the basis for American law? Power, brute force, social darwinism... am I warm?

America is an experiment in Natural Law. Since the Age of Jackson, the experiment has been steadily unraveling, but here we are, still debating whether liberty is a positive and existant force in the universe, or not.

We aren't talking about the positive effects of believing that natural law exists. We are talking about whether or not it exists. All you have done is to state that it exists because it exists.

 

[/MSG/]

We aren't talking about the positive effects of believing that natural law exists. We are talking about whether or not it exists. All you have done is to state that it exists because it exists.

The concept of Natural Rights has existed as long as man has. And like man they've evolved as we've evolved. In fact Natural Rights stem from Property Rights historically, namely laws against stealing and laws against murder.

 

[apple0154]

Well that assumes that the defense of property is not in the best interest of society. In you particular case you're talking about healthcare and education (and I'm sure you could throw out a couple other things). By and large Libertarian morality is not strictly opposed to these ideas, it's simply opposed to the idea at federal levels. It's always been a Libertarian belief that things should be handled at the smallest level of government possible.

So back to your assumption that defense of property is not always in the best interest of the species. I maintain that in the long run it is. While I won't go the lengths to indulge in the aspects of Social Darwinism, what is good for the individual is typically god for society as well.

I think it's important to consider that natural rights, be it ownership of property to being free to do as one pleases (within reason) only works if the great majority are also able to enjoy those rights. In other words the right to own property, for example, only works if the majority of people are able to own property.

A mother or father faced with their children starving to death have the "natural right" to obtain food even if it means killing someone else in order to get it. Surely there is nothing more "natural" than protecting and providing for ones offspring.

So, as a society, if we believe in natural rights we have to ensure the natural rights of others, such as basic survival, are satisfied/fulfilled. Ones natural right to own a house does not supersede another's natural right to provide for their offspring. Stated another way one has a right to steal, especially if the person they are stealing from has excess, in order to feed their family.

As for the belief that things should be handled at the smallest level of government that's where/when prejudice and discrimination easily creep in. That's the problem with local charities verses government welfare. Equal treatment for everyone has a much greater chance of occurring when a program is federally run.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I think it's important to consider that natural rights, be it ownership of property to being free to do as one pleases (within reason) only works if the great majority are also able to enjoy those rights. In other words the right to own property, for example, only works if the majority of people are able to own property.

A mother or father faced with their children starving to death have the "natural right" to obtain food even if it means killing someone else in order to get it. Surely there is nothing more "natural" than protecting and providing for ones offspring.

So, as a society, if we believe in natural rights we have to ensure the natural rights of others, such as basic survival, are satisfied/fulfilled. Ones natural right to own a house does not supersede another's natural right to provide for their offspring. Stated another way one has a right to steal, especially if the person they are stealing from has excess, in order to feed their family.

As for the belief that things should be handled at the smallest level of government that's where/when prejudice and discrimination easily creep in. That's the problem with local charities verses government welfare. Equal treatment for everyone has a much greater chance of occurring when a program is federally run.

What you're proposing is anarchy and hopefully you won't be able to convince to many to go along with your idea; because your "solution" will get people killed and it probably won't be the ones that you're suggesting that it's OK to kill.

No one has the RIGHT to take anything that belongs to another and I guarantee you that your thinking is going to get people shot for theft.

 

[Minister of Truth]

We aren't talking about the positive effects of believing that natural law exists. We are talking about whether or not it exists. All you have done is to state that it exists because it exists.

Natural Rights exist because America exists. Afterwards, perhaps not. Perhaps never again. This is why it is so important to erradicate the liberal parasite from the face of the Earth! FREEEEEEEDOOOOOOOM!!!!!

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

The general libertarian argument against the government goes somewhat like this:

1. Property is a natural right.
2. Taxes compulsory take property.
3. Therefore, taxes are against natural rights.

For practical purposes, of course, most libertarians accept taxation as a necessary evil to allow the government to protect other natural rights because there doesn't seem to be any alternative. The government can take money from the public to provide everyone with free police to protect their property and their lives. However, it is immoral take property to provide you with things that do not protect natural rights. Since things like healthcare and education are not natural rights, it is immoral of the government to take from others to provide people with these things.

But what are natural rights? Where do they come from? It isn't mentioned in any religious texts. I suppose someone will come on here and say that they can be derived from logic, but how? Why is it wrong for me to steal and kill you? And why can't I logically derive a right to healthcare and education?

So, why do we hold property as having any value at all? It is not because of some lofty rights granted by on high. It's because in our evolutionary past the concept of property provided our ancestors with some evolutionary advantage, and so it naturally became built into our conscious to defend our property and to help others defend theirs. I know people don't like it when I put it in that terms.

For some reason, it just seems more intuitively satisfying to think that our morality is some universal law rather than a compilation of evolutionary algorithms. However, I think such nihilistic thinking is in error. Why would our morality be any more valid if it were decreed on high? I can't think of any logical reason. Maybe immutable rights are a good concept that increase human happiness, but it doesn't seem to be natural.

So, what if sometimes defending property at all costs were not what is best for society or the species? Should we just sit here and defend it at all costs and ignore all other parts of our morality because we've dug ourselves into a logical hole? Why is your reflex to defend your property any more valid than simple human compassion for those that are dying without medical care and need it?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Well that assumes that the defense of property is not in the best interest of society. In you particular case you're talking about healthcare and education (and I'm sure you could throw out a couple other things). By and large Libertarian morality is not strictly opposed to these ideas, it's simply opposed to the idea at federal levels. It's always been a Libertarian belief that things should be handled at the smallest level of government possible.

Well if we manage it at the smallest level possible the poorest, which are probably most in need of such services, will be least able to afford them. We provide education to poor areas because we hope that one day they will become rich areas. Allocating the money solely at a geographic level may not be what is best for society. Healthcare is not generally allocated for development purposes, but it has this problem as well. Also, a centrally managed curriculum can get all the best minds in the nation together to compile it, while a locally managed one will have to deal with a lot of incompetent people just because it's unlikely that a brilliant one is in your area.

So back to your assumption that defense of property is not always in the best interest of the species. I maintain that in the long run it is. While I won't go the lengths to indulge in the aspects of Social Darwinism, what is good for the individual is typically god for society as well.

We are not really an individualistic or a collectivist species. I don't want to commit the naturalistic fallacy here, but this mix has generally worked for us and brought about what might be the greatest expansion of a species in human history. I don't advocate the extremist position of abolishing property, because I think that would have a massively detrimental effect on human progress. Property is just a tool that evolution has given us. It should not be worshiped to an irrational extent. And when people are making amounts of money massively above what will generally provide them with maximal happiness, I disagree that it is immoral to tax them at high rates to promote progress and to alleviate suffering.

Of course, we do have to worry about practical concerns like tax competition from other nations. I wouldn't advocate high levels of taxation on the rich as a moral issue in itself if it didn't actually lead to more societal progress and the alleviation of suffering. Also, we have not advanced to an extent that we can provide all of this without taxing those who are not making enough to reach "maximal happiness". So we should definitely be cautious in expanding the government, because there's a tipping point at which we're causing more suffering than we're alleviating (I know you think we've already reached this point - whatever).

 

[apple0154]

What you're proposing is anarchy and hopefully you won't be able to convince to many to go along with your idea; because your "solution" will get people killed and it probably won't be the ones that you're suggesting that it's OK to kill.

No one has the RIGHT to take anything that belongs to another and I guarantee you that your thinking is going to get people shot for theft.

I'm not proposing anything. Simply stating a fact. People do take things belonging to others especially in countries that have no social policies. That is why there is anarchy or wars or crushing governments in impoverished countries.

Everyone has a natural right to survive and if one sees another has plenty and they have nothing there are going to be problems.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I'm not proposing anything. Simply stating a fact. People do take things belonging to others especially in countries that have no social policies. That is why there is anarchy or wars or crushing governments in impoverished countries.

Everyone has a natural right to survive and if one sees another has plenty and they have nothing there are going to be problems.

UH - Didn't you say it was OK to do so??

 

[apple0154]

UH - Didn't you say it was OK to do so??

It is natural (nature's way) to take from others if it's a question of survival. It is also natural and OK , as well, to take from others in order to survive if the taking does not interfere in the other's survival.

What can possibly be considered OK about watching someone's demise when one is able to help with little discomfort/effort?

 

[Minister of Truth]

It is natural (nature's way) to take from others if it's a question of survival. It is also natural and OK , as well, to take from others in order to survive if the taking does not interfere in the other's survival.

What can possibly be considered OK about watching someone's demise when one is able to help with little discomfort/effort?

There is a difference between helping someone, and letting someone help themselves to your belongings.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It is natural (nature's way) to take from others if it's a question of survival. It is also natural and OK , as well, to take from others in order to survive if the taking does not interfere in the other's survival.

What can possibly be considered OK about watching someone's demise when one is able to help with little discomfort/effort?

Isn't it also NATURAL to defend what is yours; because in that case, you agree with the killing of those who try to take from others?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

this thread is not natural