Coase v. Rand

Michael, you wrote, "Without society, all you have is the source, not the right, i.e. the law of identity (and, as I implied, epistemology and ethics). The shorthand version would be to say, without society, all you have is ethics. There is no need for a right. That need only arises when society comes into being.

"I believe that this is what Peikoff was saying."

Okay. But the statement you quoted said the following: ~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.~"

There doesn't have to be a social agency to interpret, apply or enforce the concept of rights. Any individual can do that. If I'm on an island and interact with others only randomly, I will still defend my rights if this so-called random interaction involves an attempt by others to prey on me. So long as men interact, even if it's only at random, there is, contrary to Peikoff, a context for the concept of rights.

- Bill

Post 221

Monday, October 10, 2005 - 11:26pm

Bill,

On that small a scale, no rights could be violated unless they were agreed upon first, at least by the ones in charge of the others.

A threat to the survival of a person and a direct attack on him and his items for personal use is not always the same thing as the infringement of his rights. In organized society it is always the same. Between complete strangers on a desert island, it is not. It is more basic than rights. It is simple good and evil in a battle of conquest.

I will go one further. When Europeans settled the New World, they did not infringe any rights of the natives, even during attacks (and even the right to life). War is not same thing as the infringement of rights. They did infringe rights the moment they made peaceful agreements and treaties and did not perform their part. Not because they granted any rights to the Natives. But because both sides started using the same standard of ethics for determining what rights (especially property rights) were.

Michael

Edit - If rights are agreed upon on Peikoff's island and then violated by one party, I fully agree with you that an individual can enforce them by himself. Unfortunately he would have to be strong enough or clever enough. otherwise, no enforcement will occur.

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/10, 11:29pm)

Post 222

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 1:01am

Michael,

============
You talk in circles and change contexts at will ...
============

If true, then I beg you -- hold me to the context (ie. don't just nag, and nag again -- hoping that repeated nagging will somehow supercede proper argument for your case).

============
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).
============

Fine. We're still stuck with the "territorial" individual unorganized violence (which I can explain, but you can't).

Ed

Post 223

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 10:09am

Michael, you wrote,

"On that small a scale, no rights could be violated unless they were agreed upon first, at least by the ones in charge of the others.

"A threat to the survival of a person and a direct attack on him and his items for personal use is not always the same thing as the infringement of his rights. In organized society it is always the same. Between complete strangers on a desert island, it is not. It is more basic than rights. It is simple good and evil in a battle of conquest.

"I will go one further. When Europeans settled the New World, they did not infringe any rights of the natives, even during attacks (and even the right to life). War is not same thing as the infringement of rights. They did infringe rights the moment they made peaceful agreements and treaties and did not perform their part. Not because they granted any rights to the Natives. But because both sides started using the same standard of ethics for determining what rights (especially property rights) were."

Boy, I couldn't disagree with you more on this one, Michael! :-) War does indeed violate people's rights. If one country's army wrongly aggresses against the citizens of another country, it violates their rights. The fact that a thug or dictator has a different standard of ethics than I do does not mean that he does not violate my rights when he attacks or enslaves me.

- Bill

Post 224

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 11:19am

Well said, Bill.

Ed

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 11:27am

Bill, you wrote

War does indeed violate people's rights. If one country's army wrongly aggresses against the citizens of another country, it violates their rights. The fact that a thug or dictator has a different standard of ethics than I do does not mean that he does not violate my rights when he attacks or enslaves me.

The only reason you can even think this way is because of your ethics and the rest of your philosophy. Without ethics, there are no rights. (btw - I am not talking about any specific war, or even war in general. I was talking about the concept of war as it pertains to rights. So I will give a few thoughts below on the nature of war.)

My contention is that the concept of war completely suspends the concept of rights. Or let's say that while a war is going on (not afterwards), it annuls the concept of ALL rights on ALL sides - not just violates Right A or Right B. Rights simply do not mean anything in that context. I find that man's attempt to set up wartime rules of engagement (including war tribunals) an extremely noble enterprise, though, as it is an attempt to bring moral considerations to where morality has been thrown out the window.

I am not saying that entering a war is immoral. I am saying that rights is a concept for peaceful society and once an organized attacked is underway, a nation or group of people is completely justified (yes, even morally) in throwing down the rights/ethics book and kicking the living shit out of the attacker. They can clean up the rights and ethics mess later. No rights need be respected and all concern for what belongs to a man or what cannot be infringed means nothing at all. War is traffic in death, not life. The concept of rights is based on life.

The USA entered two different wars against Germany last century. Any talk about whether Germany violated the rights (according to the USA model, not the German model at the time) of other countries is completely beside the point. Retaliation occurred not because Germany (and its allies) infringed the rights of other countries. Retaliation occurred because the very existence of Germany threatened the survival of those countries - not merely the right to survive. Nobody was concerned with defining such rights back then. They were concerned with defending themselves, then with the wholesale destruction of a war-making military capacity, including the government and men who produced it and used it, irrespective of who got in the way or what rights such persons or entities held in peacetime. Rights started becoming a concept again after such destruction took place.

Let me ask you a question. Let's go back in history. Tribe A of American Indians fight Tribe B in a war. They actually have no concept of property rights in the sense that European immigrants and their descendents brought with them.

What property rights are involved in a war of that nature? Some rights that neither tribe knew about nor cared about? Were no rights at all involved? Then what the hell were they fighting over?

Even stating that they were violating individual rights in such a war is taking a hindsight view of history and simply not understanding things as they transpired, including proper motives.

We can say that the concept of rights to an American Indian at that time included this and that. We can even say that such concept differs from the later Objectivist/Libertarian concept of rights in this or that aspect.

We cannot say that Tribe A violated the inalienable rights of Tribe B and make any sense to what actually went on with them. They had no idea of the ethics behind such rights and the concept of inalienable rights did not exist.

Saying that such rights have existed during all of mankind's recorded history, but mankind simply did not know it is the blindness that I am fighting against.

Saying that man's nature - and that the law of identity - as metaphysical facts have existed during all of mankind's recorded history is absolutely correct, even if they have not been correctly identified.

Saying that the concept of individual rights has always existed is not only wrong, it completely belittles the gigantic accomplishment of those who came up with it.

Saying that the individual rights have actually existed throughout history, but the concept of individual rights did not, is to fall outside reason and make rights a Platonic metaphysical entity and not a principle.

Michael

Post 226

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 12:56pm

Ed and Bill, I agree completely. I hereby dub MSK's position the "relativist and poof theory of rights." The acronym also being the name of a vicious beast in Jurassic Park, it fits. :-)

Post 227

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 3:29pm

Michael,

"Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival." - A. Rand. When those conditions are not respected, one's rights are violated. The initiation of force does not respect those conditions. Therefore, the initiation of force violates one's rights.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 10/11, 3:45pm)

Post 228

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 3:58pm

Saying that such rights have existed during all of mankind's recorded history, but mankind simply did not know it is the blindness that I am fighting against.

Saying that man's nature - and that the law of identity - as metaphysical facts have existed during all of mankind's recorded history is absolutely correct, even if they have not been correctly identified.

Michael, we sure agree on the second part. Our disagreement in the first part deals with rights existing during all of mankind's recorded history. Individual unorganized violence (in protection of life, liberty, property, etc) has existed during all of mankind's recorded history.

Saying that the concept of individual rights has always existed is not only wrong, it completely belittles the gigantic accomplishment of those who came up with it.

Saying that the individual rights have actually existed throughout history, but the concept of individual rights did not, is to fall outside reason and make rights a Platonic metaphysical entity and not a principle.

Michael, we argree on the first part. Our disagreement in the second part denies where concepts come from -- from looking at reality.

Ed

Post 229

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 6:53pm

And another thing, if a savage Indian attempted to scalp me, then I would say that the bugger is violating my rights (even though he doesn't even have a mature and refined concept of rights in his head). If this happened in the woods (ie. outside of society), then I would use individual unorganized violence against the bugger (to protect my life, liberty, property, etc).

And also, bringing up war as an example that rights can, in certain times & places, go out of existence -- is no different than bringing up lifeboat scenarios when talking about ethics. The ethics help men know what to do daily (how, in general, to live), lifeboat scenarios don't. The concept of individual rights helps men know how to interact with others daily (how, in general, to associate), wars don't.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/11, 6:53pm)

Post 230

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 6:55pm

So it all boils down to this question: If an indian scalped Ed in the woods and no one was around to see it, would he have any rights?

Good post Ed. My question was a joke, but also a serious question.

Post 231

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 7:47pm

Thanks Jody, nice joke/question too.

I'm a living being with a mind (ie. I'm in charge of an unprecedented potentiality; as all others are) -- yer' darn' tutin' I've got a right to exist! And my inherent potentiality (inherent capacity for spiritual growth, over-and-above a static existence), seems to make me feel entitled to this right. My fear of harm does this, too -- but that is on a different level (?). This distinction, potentiality of mind (sapience) vs. raw emotive mechanism (sentience), may be an important lead to follow up on here ...

Ed

Post 232

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 8:14pm

Ed,

Let me ask you one question.

In your conception, are rights principles or are they something else?

If they are something else, could you define that something else, please?

And please do not provide a list of rights as a definition of what rights - as a concept - are.

Michael

Post 233

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 8:28pm

Bill,

If you put the phrase, "In the Objectivist concept of rights..." before quotes like that by Rand, this will clarify her context. It also will make statements like the following more intelligible, as it seemingly conflicts with the quote you mentioned by being much broader.

A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context.
(Man's Rights)

However, in this particular statement, Rand is talking about ALL concepts of rights for ALL societies, even repressive societies. In the one you mentioned, she is talking about the Objectivist concept of rights.

Michael

Post 234

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 8:51pm

And please do not provide a list of rights as a definition of what rights - as a concept - are.

Why not? Hell, the meaning of a concept -- is it's referents. And I disagree with your seemingly relativistic approach. Your "identification" (or: epistemic validation) of the "existence" of wrong "rights" (I'm thinking: Nazi rights, and the like) -- just blows me away. These wrong rights aren't rights, Michael! Calling them rights is EXACTLY why Rand wrote about the inflation of rights (animal, womens', consumers', ethnic group, workers group, etc).

And my answer to what rights are is nothing other than Bill's Rand-quote above. Apply this quote to the wrong "rights" in the world -- and the "problem" dissolves.

Ed

Post 235

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 9:55pm

Ed,

What about my Rand quote above? Do you now cherry pick Rand at your whim?

Once again I asked you a question and no answer. I will ask it again.

In your conception, are rights principles or are they something else?

I resent the "relativist" label because it is so inaccurate (despite being downright insulting). Just because there were rights under the Nazi regime, that does not mean that I agree that those rights are valid or good under Objectivism or the USA body of law (which I consider to be based on the truth - metaphysical axioms arrived at by reason, whereas Nazi rights were not). In particular, it does not mean that I think that truth is relative.

As you do not admit the existence of a philosophical sub-category, "rights," like the philosophical categories "metaphysics," "epistemology," "ethics," etc., then we will just have to agree to disagree. The sub-category does exist and it has in every human society.

I will show later, however, where the mistake you make is granting a HUGE sanction to evil that you (and others who hold your view) are completely blind to. You think you are denying evil, but you are one of its strongest allies by doing that. I am not talking about arm-chair theory, either. I am talking about out-in-the-world governments and what they are doing.

btw - The meaning of a concept is not its referents. Your affirmation is dead wrong. It is the integration of the similarities of those referents with measurements omitted.

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/11, 9:58pm)

Post 236

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 11:06pm

Michael, you have (and have had) a pretty harsh tone with me -- all the while projecting motives onto me, and harsh criticisms too. I'll try to make this post one that makes it clear to you -- because of it's careful analysis, and wide scope in answering your philosophical criticism.

1) Individual Rights (defined):

In the objective concept of rights (ie. the one applying to everybody, because it's not "subjective"), Individual Rights are moral principles; principles which the conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival -- always and everywhere entail.

2) The reason why wrong "rights" aren't real rights (and why wishful whim -- can't "make them" real):

No right can exist, if the right to life doesn't. "The right to life is the source of all rights ... " (Man's Rights). Any other right logically depends on the right to life (because the other rights are only rights during life -- life is the arena of rights).

Now that it's clear that all rights logically depend on the right to life -- it becomes clear that there can't be rights contradicting the right to life (as contradictions can't actually exist in reality). Inflators of rights (those attempting to drive out the good rights, with bad ones) are, always and everywhere, wrong (and anti-life and anti-human).

3) Regarding this quote:

===============
As you do not admit the existence of a philosophical sub-category, "rights," like the philosophical categories "metaphysics," "epistemology," "ethics," etc., ...
===============

I do admit this sub-category business (see that correct definition of rights above).

4) Regarding this quote:

===============
The meaning of a concept is not its referents. Your affirmation is dead wrong. It is the integration of the similarities of those referents with measurements omitted.
===============

IOE (p 165)

Prof. D: An integration occurs which cannot yet be said to be a concept. And a sound, a sensuous concrete, is introduced to hold down, so to speak, this integration. And at that point the sound, as being used to hold down this integration, becomes a word whose meaning is the integration.

AR: Oh no. The meaning is not the integration. The integration is the process. The meaning is the objects which are being isolated and integrated. The meaning of a word is always metaphysical, in the sense of its referents, not psychological. The meaning of a word is out there in existence, in reality.

Ed

Post 237

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 11:25pm

Michael,

Okay. "Rights are a moral principle defiining and sanctioning man's freedom of action in a social context." But a moral principle is one that people OUGHT to accept and practice, even if they don't recognize that they ought to. It doesn't follow that in order for people to be morally obligated to act in a certain way, they must recognize it, any more than it follows that in order for existence to exist, people must recognize it. It is a fact that we ought to respect the freedom of others, but facts don't depend on our recognition of them. They exist independently of our recognition. It would be a fact that the earth is round even if nobody recognized it - even if everyone thought the earth was flat. Similarly, it would be a fact that everyone has a right to freedom of action, even if nobody recognized it - even if everyone thought that there was no such thing as a right to freedom of action. Facts do not depend on our knowledge of them; our knowledge of them depends on their existence as facts. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as the DISCOVERY that human beings possess individual rights. You can't discover what isn't already there ahead of the discovery. Rights are IDENTIFIED by man; they are not created by him.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 10/11, 11:30pm)

Post 238

Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 11:36pm

Again, Bill, well said.

Ed

Post 239

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 12:08am