Coase v. Rand

Ed,

You're getting it (and puhleeze, I am not being arrogant...).

Here is the enemy whose existence you deny: rights based on evil ethics, i.e. evil rights - irrational rights.

This can only be understood properly once rights looses its romantic nature of having a metaphysical quality - it is nothing but a principle of social living based on ethics. Not an intrinsic part of man's nature. Rational individual rights are based on ethics that are based man's nature. Irrational individual rights are usually based on ethics that are based on the nature of God or society (as proposed in the respective philosophy/religion).

Are Objectivist rights absolute? Damn right they are - so long as reason is the standard. Do other rights based on Altruism exist? They sure do. Society and history are full of them. They are irrational and often evil (not always).

About Strauss's Locke, leave it to say that Locke considered Nature to be the creation and property of God (including man's nature). That is the exact meaning of "natural law." This was drawn up to wrest God's sanction from kings - the divine right of kings - and give it to men. The way out without being hung (by the neck type hung) was not to say that God changed His mind, it was to put Nature as God's creation in the middle. Thus God granted His sanction on individual rights as proper to man. Kings and Clergy were hard put to answer that.

This position is so close to the truth that a war was fought and won in the name of the correct part and the USA was eventually born. It is in the false part (not just God creating Nature, but especially the Platonic ideal part) that government intervention grows. I am getting ahead of myself and will stop this line of thought here, since I will go into this in much more depth in the article.

That particular Platonic (or metaphysical) ideal of rights is pure poison, though.

About the quotes, it is easy to analyze them. Extract the moral value-based) principle from each and see if it is proper grounds for a rational ethics-based right. In order: Does labor create property rights? Marx thought so. Does the common good create property rights? Socialists think so. Does hard work create property rights? Hitler thought so. Does studying nature create property rights? Uhm... yup. Does the desire for plenty create property rights? Ask any dictator. Does public happiness create property rights? Ask a Democrat.

I will not make a blow-by-blow critique of Locke - merely highlight a few points he said (and what some others of that same amazing time said). What stands out in what I wrote above is the need to be absolutely precise on the ethics used. Otherwise they can fall into the wrong camp by pure logic. Also, it is a mistake to allow a right to become more than it is (and less than it is).

To repeat. A right is a principle that links ethics to politics. Nothing more. The ethics used will determine what rights the politics will be based on.

Michael

Post 201

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 10:33pm

Michael,

Well said. You have backed me into a corner. As is the case with all who are backed into corners then -- I hereby go for your jugular vein ...

===============
"Man, by being master of himself and proprietor of his own person and the actions or labour of it, [has] in himself the great foundation of property." Not society, but the individual--the individual prompted by his self-interest alone--is the originator of property.
===============

That which gives Individual Rights (e.g. property rights) its justifiable foundation, is in individual man (ie. his nature/identity), and -- specifically -- not in society. I hereby stake claim (until further notice) that I've now debunked -- beyond reasonable doubt -- thine own line of reasoning on this issue. Rights are IN man (not society).

Ed

Post 202

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 10:55pm

Ed,

(sigh)

What is self-interest if not ethics?

Locke said "originator." He did not say "sole consideration."

Politics sits on ethics in the philosophical hierarchy. As ethics are more important than politics, then ALL rights originate in ethics, not politics. (Even EVIL rights.) But they end in politics.

A right is a principle - a bridge between ethics and politics (society). A right does not exist as a concept without both.

Michael

Post 203

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 11:19pm

You don't need a society to have rights. You have them by the act of existing.

Post 204

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 11:24pm

Michael,

===========
Ed,
(sigh)
===========

Yeah, that's right. Keep on sigh-ing brutha' -- 'cause this hound-dog ain't takin' a nap until he's rationally compelled to do so!

About the foundation thing: sure, Ima' foundational kinda' guy (politics stand on ethics, which stand on epistemology, which stand on metaphysics). No differences there. But if there's one right foundation -- and I believe that there is -- then rights are, at least indirectly, metaphysical (by inference from that immutable hierarchy)!

Ed
[rights are those things which correct philosophy necessitates -- about man, on earth]

Post 205

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 11:32pm

Steven,

To having rights without society: so what? You have fun explaining to the bear about to eat you the immorality of his initiation of force.

Or phrased differently, if no one's around to respect your rights, do you still have them? As rights, per Objectivism, are meant to protect you from initiation of force, isn't having rational people around a prerequisite?

Sarah

Post 206

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 11:34pm

Ed,

Did you read the Peikoff quote above about the necessity of organized society before the concept of rights has a proper context to exist? Would you care to comment on it?

Especially considering that everyone - but everyone, starting with Peikoff himself - agrees that he only presents Rand's views in that work (OPAR), not his own? And that he presents them correctly?

Do you thus believe that Rand was wrong about the nature of rights?

Michael

Post 207

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 11:42pm

Michael, and another thing (I seem to have a lot of things to say about this subject),

I don't recognize collective rights (rights of groups, etc), regardless of where they have originated (time, place, culture, etc). Yet you seem to think that if SOMEBODY recognizes a right (even group rights), then it really exists (because some folks thought it so). You may argue -- from looking at actual reality -- that those folks are behaving in a manner that validates the right to do so (equating what is, with what must be true). If folks do it, it's real -- if folks don't, it's not real. Just acting like it's true, validates it.

Just because folks have acted in a manner that presumes that groups have rights -- does not, in-and-of-itself make groups' rights real. Philosophy -- not circumstance -- shows folks which rights are real, and which ones are merely errors of judgment.

This appears to be our main difference: I say that the correct view on rights is possible to all peoples (because it's a natural thing), you say that while there is a "most correct" view on rights, that other views on rights have some sort of reality, or deserve some sort of recognition or acknowledgment. As if what exists has to have some validity. Like when mixed-economists say that mixed-economies exist -- therefore, they have validity. Merely because they are here, now.

That which currently is, has absolutely no bearing on that which ought to be. Precedent sucks -- as a guide to living one's life.

Ed

Post 208

Sunday, October 9, 2005 - 11:55pm

Ed,

I asked you a question. You completely ignored the question and responded with the following:

As if what exists has to have some validity.

ahem... I did remember using the words "irrational" and "evil."

Wanna know why? Because I admit the enemy exists. You don't. I call it evil. You say it does not exist.

The "validity" I am arguing is the category - the concept, like the category (concept) metaphysics, epistemology, etc. You can have rational or irrational metaphysics. Likewise with rights, which are neither good nor bad. BUT you can have good rights and bad rights.

btw - Man's nature and needs are absolute in existential terms. Rights are only absolute in moral terms. And even still, they need both the individual and society to exist. (Please see Rand and Peikoff on this.)

Any concept of rights that excludes society (not merely makes the individual more important than society... excludes it) and raises the concept to the level of a metaphysical existent has made an intrinsicist proposition, thus an irrational one. Pure Platonic ideal.

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/09, 11:57pm)

Post 209

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 12:06am

(think volition, thin-voli, thi-vol, thvo, om-mane-padri-om.....) fuck it. Waited long enough. AH'M BAHCK!

Mike,
We can argue about Locke all week long, and get nowhere re clarifying the implications of Your/Rand's/"O'ism"'s views and the distinctions/justifications (epistemological or ethical/moral) thereof re "rights," especially it's basic 'starting-point.'

You say:

A right is a principle that links ethics to politics. Nothing more. The ethics used will determine what rights the politics will be based on.

       I have NO problem with the 1st and 3rd sentence.

       However, your whole statement-set makes me think of the Sidney Harris cartoon
           http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/gallery.htm
       "I think you should be more explicit here in step two..."

       I.e: why "Nothing More"? It's a 'link', yes, but..where does the 'link' come from?
Limbo? A place that's neither 'ethics' NOR 'politics'? Like, Neo's subway-
station problem in Matrix: Revolutions? It's neither 'here' nor 'there', but, some kind of indeterminable (supernatural? Nahh..) 'elsewhere'? C'mon!

       Keep in mind that you're using Rand's contextually-connecting 'definition' (aka 'bridge').
She didn't say that it's a link (merely) between them, but it's from A to B.

        We're talking a 1-way street here, and the concept of 'rights' relationship to politics starts at A (ie: 'ethics'/'morals'.) To emphasize: before it implies anything about politics/govt.

        Herein, one can still debate about 'social-milieu/context', but, govt is yet to be
relevent, whilst one can still meaningfully talk about 'rights.' Non?

        Given that (I presume), thence the prob seems to be, can Robinson Crusoe and Friday talk about 'rights' in terms of their individually separate selves, or, do they need, to give the term 'rights' any (necessarily 'agreed'?) meaning, to talk ONLY in terms of 'social-compact' BETWEEN themselves as being 'rights'? If the latter, then your idea of 'rights' is 'social-contract', correct? (In which case, you can go back to talking about Locke et al.)

LLAP...and expect more
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 10/10, 12:19am)

Post 210

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 12:30am

John,

Rights are a social contract, or better, the bases of a social contract.

Correct. My arguments are against two things:

1 - The confused usage (even by Rand) granting exclusivity of the word "rights" to mean a list of certain rights in one instance, and then discussing rights in a broader category that includes many other things in another.

2 - The merging of rights with man's nature and and eliminating volition. I hate to repeat Rand, but rights are moral principles that subordinate social organization to moral law. Rational rights are based on man's nature, but they are principles, not essences. Essentially, they are a combination of moral principles plus social principles. Qua principles, they are based on ethics and they are specifically designed to govern politics. That does not make them a type of limbo, as you imply.

I further argue that those who deny that bad (evil, irrational) principles of such nature can exist play right into the hands of statists.

Michael

Post 211

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 12:50am

Michael,

===========
I asked you a question. You completely ignored the question ...
===========

First of all, I think our posts crossed (the time record shows mere minutes between them). Second of all, I ain't evadin' nuthin'. Daang, gimme' a break, would ya'? For the record -- so you don't appear to be such a tired, worn-out, broken record here -- I will address anything and everything that you have ever said on rights, is that clear to you? To my mind, there is nothing more important, is that clear to you? So, before you bring out the rack to torture me on -- give me some fricken' credit, alright (I feel I've earned it)?

===================
Did you read the Peikoff quote above about the necessity of organized society before the concept of rights has a proper context to exist? Would you care to comment on it?
===================

Darn tutin' -- I would care to comment!

Deconstructing Peikoff:
===================
If a man lived on a desert island, there would be no question of defining his proper relationship to others. Even if men interacted on some island but did so at random, without establishing a social system, the issue of rights would be premature. There would not yet be any context for the concept or, therefore, any means of implementing it; there would be no agency to interpret, apply, enforce it.
===================

Let's do this, Tiger-style ...
===================
If a man lived on a desert island, there would be no question of defining his proper relationship to others.
===================

As there are no others, there are no relationships to others -- ie. a non-starter; totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

===================
Even if men interacted on some island but did so at random, without establishing a social system, the issue of rights would be premature.
===================

Premature, yes, but -- to be sure -- it'd exist. What I said early on, is that folks would know about rights from the get-go. As part of an Evolutionary Stable Strategy, they would "feel" violated if someone took property from them -- BECAUSE it's natural not to do this. BECAUSE doing this is impossible for continued existence on this planet. Rights are a metaphysical (not man-made) need for man on earth.

===================
There would not yet be any context for the concept or, therefore, any means of implementing it; there would be no agency to interpret, apply, enforce it.
===================

Except for individual unorganized force -- as I stated dozens of posts ago. Individuals know when their property rights have been violated (hmm, isn't that curious?). Individuals know when they've worked to procure an existence for themselves, and then someone else comes along and takes -- from them -- the unearned (hmm, isn't that curious?). How do folks "know" when they've been treated so unjustly? Answer: Because folks know what is, metaphysically, right and just.

Let's revisit my post 109 in this thread:
===================
Conduct which violates Individual Rights is conduct such that, if a man were to use individual unorganized violence to prevent such conduct, or, in the absence of orderly society, use individual unorganized violence to punish such conduct, then such violence would not indicate that the person using such violence, (violence in accord with Individual Rights) is a danger to a reasonable man.
===================

What does this post really say? A specific "violence" that is not a danger to a reasonable man? Hmm. It must be a violence in accord with something that is both true and knowable. How can something be so straightforward, if it is only due to convention (ie. society), and not to metaphysics? How come folks unanimously defend their right to life? Hmm. It seems like a regularity there. It seems like an absolute. Why, Michael, with this compelling evidence, do you hold that it is not?

Ed

Post 212

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 6:56am

So Ed,

Did I understand you correctly? Is your basic argument to be that violating a right just "feels" wrong and that folks somehow "just know" what is metaphysically right and just?

Feelings and intuition, Ed?

Come on.

Objectivism is a philosophy of reason.

Maybe that is why you say in one breath that the concept of rights does not include the component of society, but all your subsequent examples include other people.

btw - A good number of non-human animals protect their territory and demarcate it. They get pretty nasty when it is encroached, too. Are they protecting their property rights?

Also, you did not deconstruct Peikoff. You offered a couple of opinions, nothing more. Where is he metaphysically wrong, for instance? You believe that rights are a metaphysical essence (like man's nature is). He states that rights are principles based on ethics applied to society and gives full exposition as to why. He (as do I) holds that rights are principles based on metaphysical essences, not an essence in itself. Where is he wrong?

You still did not answer my question, so I will ask it again.

Do you thus believe that Rand was wrong about the nature of rights?

Michael

Post 213

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 9:59am

Michael,

=============
Did I understand you correctly? Is your basic argument to be that violating a right just "feels" wrong and that folks somehow "just know" what is metaphysically right and just?
=============

Of course not, Michael. And, again, I must note that you are still being quite uncharitable in this exchange with me. To explain myself, the feelings and knowings were brought up to illuminate the universality of rights (they were not meant as a substitute for a more rational justification).

=============
Maybe that is why you say in one breath that the concept of rights does not include the component of society, but all your subsequent examples include other people.
=============

To be clear, distinct, and succinct: Crusoe & Friday are not a society. Rights precede society.

=============
btw - A good number of non-human animals protect their territory and demarcate it. They get pretty nasty when it is encroached, too. Are they protecting their property rights?
=============

First of all, territorial behavior adds to the universality of life needing territory (it's a metaphysical thing). There could've been no other way about it. If animals didn't protect territory, they'd perish. In answer to your question: No. Animals don't have the cognitive apparatus that allows for them to think in terms of rights. For them, everything everywhere is to take or have taken from you. In the jungle, might makes right. In the jungle, justice is merely the interest of the stronger. The concept of property rights is meaningless in the jungle.

=============
Also, you did not deconstruct Peikoff. You offered a couple of opinions, nothing more. Where is he metaphysically wrong, for instance? You believe that rights are a metaphysical essence (like man's nature is). He states that rights are principles based on ethics applied to society and gives full exposition as to why.
=============

First of all, I don't believe that rights are an essence, but thanks for putting these words into my mouth, Michael -- as it'll clarify further discussion. I am not an Ontological Realist (where ineffable essences are "in" things) -- I don't confuse thought with things (like Plato and the Scholastics did). Instead, I'm an Intentional Conceptualist (where essential characteristics existentially require man's focus on them). Secondly, Peikoff wasn't "wrong" but merely leading down a dead-end path.

Deconstruction of a Deconstruction of Peikoff

Peikoff says
===================
Even if men interacted on some island but did so at random, without establishing a social system, the issue of rights would be premature.
===================

So I say
Premature, yes, but -- to be sure -- it'd exist. What I said early on, is that folks would know about rights from the get-go. As part of an Evolutionary Stable Strategy, they would "feel" violated if someone took property from them -- BECAUSE it's natural not to do this. BECAUSE doing this is impossible for continued existence on this planet. Rights are a metaphysical (not man-made) need for man on earth.

And what this means
Random interaction "without establishing a social system" means action "without society." So Peikoff is saying that there wouldn't be a mature issue of rights without society. No mature issue of rights. Big deal, I say. Rational individual unorganized violence is still there to serve man's life if his natural needs are trampled on by random others.

Peikoff says
===================
There would not yet be any context for the concept or, therefore, any means of implementing it; there would be no agency to interpret, apply, enforce it.
===================

So I say
Except for individual unorganized force -- as I stated dozens of posts ago. Individuals know when their property rights have been violated (hmm, isn't that curious?). Individuals know when they've worked to procure an existence for themselves, and then someone else comes along and takes -- from them -- the unearned (hmm, isn't that curious?). How do folks "know" when they've been treated so unjustly? Answer: Because folks know what is, metaphysically, right and just.

And what this means
Not having a context for the concept to arise in, sure. Though individuals would naturally act in ways that preserve their rights. It's -- here -- too early for a mature concept of rights, I agree. But there is nothing to conceptually add to rights (in a man-made way) -- beyond those natural needs of men on earth -- in order to provide raw material for the concept to be built up.

===================
He�(as do I) holds that rights are principles based on metaphysical essences, not an essence in itself
===================

Whoa, whoa, whoa -- this seems like bait & switch. What's going on here? This IS MY POSITION on the matter (exchange "essence" with "essential characteristic"), restated and sent back at me as an argument. I've said that rights flow from natural needs. Natural needs entail rights. I have not said any less than this (and not much more than it).

===================
Do you thus believe that Rand was wrong about the nature of rights?
===================

See above.

Ed

Post 214

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 12:26pm

While I do understand the reasoning behind having rights being considered as from ethical systems, do consider it wrong to claim some as being 'right' and others as being 'evil' - far better to say, that just as there is a proper ethical system, with proper rights, so too are pseudo systems with false rights... otherwise there will always be problem defining what is a true right...
(Edited by robert malcom on 10/10, 12:29pm)

Post 215

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 1:07pm

Ed,

Of course not, Michael. And, again, I must note that you are still being quite uncharitable in this exchange with me.

If it's any consolation, I have enjoyed your lucid tenacity in trying to nail down Michael's gelatinous arguments.

Andy

Post 216

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 7:38pm

Michael quoted Peikoff in OPAR:

"If a man lived on a desert island, there would be no question of defining his proper relationship to others. Even if men interacted on some island but did so at random, without establishing a social system, the issue of rights would be premature. There would not yet be any context for the concept or, therefore, any means of implementing it; there would be no agency to interpret, apply, enforce it."

Taken literally, this statement is false, unless Peikoff is talking about legal rights (rights established by some agency within an already existing legal system). But if he is talking about the rights of man - about human rights as such - which are the foundation for any rights that might be passed into law, then the fact that there is no (legal) agency to interpret, apply, and enforce them does not mean that a person cannot recognize that it is important not to initiate force or violence against another innocent human being. Yes, there are issues concerning what constitutes someone's property and how it is acquired, and it is certainly desirable that some social organization be formed to rule on these and to establish objectively recognizable criteria for property acquisition. But absent that, there are still cases in which it is obvious what a person's rights are and what would constitute a violation of them. Even if people interact at random, they still have a right not to be preyed upon by their fellow men - a right that can and should be recognized and enforced to whatever extent possible.

Peikoff needs to be reminded of Galt's statement in Atlas Shrugged: "The source of man's rights is not divine law OR CONGRESSIONAL LAW, but the law of identity. A is A, and man is man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind; it is right to act on his own free judgment. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being. Nature forbids him the irrational." (My emphasis, and quoted from memory, so I may have missed a word or two. Yes, I've memorized AS, chapter and verse, just as some people have memorized the Bible! If that doesn't get me admitted into that clandestine organization "The International Order of the Sons of Rand," I don't know what will!

Brother Bill

Post 217

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 7:48pm

Ed,

You talk in circles and change contexts at will, also.

But one glaring misunderstanding is on your interpretation of what Peikoff was saying about the issue of rights being premature, as opposed to mature. He was not saying premature like in a green immature sense - like an undeveloped plant that needs time to grow and mature.

He was saying that the conditions were not yet present for the concept to exist (or at least be used, meaning that it could be imagined). Premature in that sense. Not time for the issue to arise.

Context, Ed.

William,

The rigths of man are based on the ethics of rational self-interest. They are not based on Islam, for instance. (In that case, other rights exist, and some not very savory ones at that.) Rights cannot be divorced from such ethics. I fully agree with Peikoff in his statement and do not consider it to be false at all.

Rights have purpose and fuction. They are not merely floating abstractions nor metaphysical entities. Nor are they attributes of man. They are principles based on ethics that are based on the nature of man and their function is to establish rules for social coexistence. That is a bit more than legalities.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/10, 7:57pm)

Post 218

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 8:11pm

Michael, I agree with you. Why do you disagree with me? My criticism of Peikoff was against his claim that only an organized social system can establish rights, which is why I quoted Rand's statement that the source of man's rights is not divine law OR CONGRESSIONAL LAW, but the law of identity. I can't imagine that you would disagree with that! Something evidently got lost in translation.

- Bill

Post 219

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 9:04pm