Coase v. Rand

Andy,

I articulated how rights precede society.

Well, you did state an opinion. As far as stating a metaphysical fact goes, you gave nothing other than your personal opinion.

Michael

Post 121

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - 4:15pm

Michael, what do you say to the apparently contradictory nature of these 2 lines of your reasoning:

To me, you had said:
=============
For those who believe in an afterlife, however, life is not an absolute value, merely a stage of development.
=============

and to Andy, you had said:
=============
You[r] definition of rights is a bit vague. By that definition, an animal like a lion can have rights - even the right to the deer he kills and eats, which he did by his own actions and ability.
=============

Of course, you are merely retorting back to Andy's definition of rights (with your animal argument) -- but didn't you "argue from" the opposite side of this fence with me? In other words, when I was non-vague about the value of life, you argued with the following line of reasoning (reworded for effect):

=============
but you can't be so precise on life's value because some agents adopt positions of faith, and aren't fully practicing rationality; for THEM it isn't of absolute value
=============

The Ye' Ole' "different acting agents means different morals" party line.

But you went 180 degrees with this in replying to Andy, applying his definition to an altogether different type of agent (even more different than faithful vs rational humans!) in order to argue against it. The Ye' Ole' "if it doesn't work everywhere, it's false" party line.

Michael, can you explain?

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 10/05, 4:16pm)

Post 122

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - 5:16pm

I am not convinced. The question is: Why *can�t* unalienable rights be transferred? Because they cannot be extracted for transfer, because they inhere, are in the nature of the being. That�s what the Declaration means.

Post 123

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - 5:20pm

Oh I quite agree - and that was the substance of what I posted - was wrong only in claiming the concept [or definition] did not refer to non-transferability...

Post 124

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - 6:08pm

Mike:
1st: this is gonna be kinda long. I'm sorry; I couldn't help it. Your posts made me do it.

2nd: Zebra-stripe time. (Which, I understand, some here really REALLY dislike, but, I find them extremely useful. Must be something like those who hate answering machines...:D)

Saying that Robinson Crusoe has rights is the same as saying that he has a government.

Uh, maybe by your, as yet un-defined use of the term 'rights,' but, certainly not within the context, or relevent to the definition that *I* argued. We're clearly on different pages (if not books) on what we're each referring to by 'rights.' I gather that "rights" inherently means "government" to you?

I mentioned the following once before. What rights does he have against a hurricane or the ocean or the sun or a snake?

     True, you did. I dislike handling rhetorical questions as presumed arguments, but, I'll give it a try here...keeping in mind that I'm explaining from *my* framework-context (which may be irrelevent to yours) re viewing the fundamental base-meaning of 'rights,'

     First off, I'm not clear why your use of the term (re whatever concept one has of...) 'rights' seems primarily based by you in the framework of 'against.' Such a perspective is, secondarily, useful re other humans/sentients, granted; but, primarily, re other humans (never mind nature: hurricanes, neutron stars, ebola  et al) it allows a place to discover, hence recognize, one's-own-limits in treating an other if one is ready to show any respect to them...as worth the effort needed to respect their 'rights. Such is respect for their 'rights' even before, and without having to yet, meet any accepted (tricky problem THERE, man) 'legal' decision-maker. --- Needless to say, not perceiving a reciprocality of even the idea of "Rights"/respect by the other, since they see no govt around, will definitely cause a conflict.

     Respect for one's self as being 'right' (ergo, having it) applies then to any next person met...and doesn't inherently need a 3rd arbiter. Only the idea of potential conflict of ID'ing who-has-[inherently?]-which-'right' calls for accepting a 3rd arbiter (or, one accepts the other...Ha! But now we're talking 'ruler' and Might-makes-Right decision-making; so much for "rights" then.)

     Further: Legal-rights are irrational and nothing more than arbitrary permissions, if individual-rights are meaningless without rules to enforce, or i-r themselves supposedly require legality itself to define them ('How? 'Somehow.')

     Re concerns about nature: if Rand's existential argument about 'rights' doesn't show a concern about the need to be 'right' in acquiring/using one's knowledge about nature (such as, think about how to catch fish, think about how to find/cultivate vegs and/or pen local fauna, etc --- nm searching for more knowledge of the 'nature' of one's local environment), and, about this need being relevent to the ethical idea of one's purposefully staying concerned with being 'right', and only thence and thereby being the base for the social-context relevence of "rights," well, as I said originally: I-don't-know-what-does! --- Indeed, it starts out with a meaning in terms of 'for' (to continue/improve one's life), and secondarily 'against' (protection, as in building shelter against elements and possible predators), and thence, not only as a justification for how to interpret actions of others (re their recognition or lack thereof), towards one's ('self'-defined) rights, but whether other humans may also be...equivalent to snakes, ie, predators.

If he finds another person someday, then he can have rights (based on good or evil premises).

In other words, your concept of rights requires a social context (aunts being uncles nwst; I always preferred pigs with wings, but...)

Until he finds that person, there are no rights - by definition.

Uh, not by the definition that *I* clarified my justification for using, and...that you did not comment on. However, I gather that you define 'by [your] definition', that a social context (2, or 3 individuals, minimum?) is required for any bona-fide meaning to the concept "rights," and, further, that that is also when a govt becomes relevent.

Ok; can't wait for your article to see what the flaws are in Rand's reasonings.

The term "right" has had a horrible context-shifting mix of definitions in Objectivist literature.

The term has had a context-shift of its base-of-meaning from social to individual, true. But, I'm unclear why this is "horrible" though, even if you disagree with the shift (as I gather that you do). Could you clarify? --- And I stress: *I*'m not talking about 'feelings', as I made clear in my Rand-quoting post.

You ask Andy...

...Andy...Please define what you mean by right.

Uh, Michael: so far all of us have to guess/induce your def as distinguished from "Objectivist literature." You're on a different page, and don't yet say which one.

Your replies to Ed...

Now notice that in terms of environment only (no other people), the term "values" has great meaning but the term "rights" does not.

I only 'notice' that that's your idea of "rights" meaning...but not yet (my favorite word coming up) why is it so?

I shan't get into 'transferrability', 'delegation', or 'derivation-of-implied' "rights" here, much less play with the multiple-worm term/concept 'absolute' (sorry I ever mentioned that originally). I'm good for only 1 subject at a time...and my post would stretch the allowed limits.

Where I strongly contest the Objectivist/Libertarian viewpoint is that they have tried to take exclusive possession of the word in order to alter the meaning to become the mystical one (being endowed thus by a Creator - or for atheists, being "created" that way.)

     Uh-h-h, say wha'?

     Other than how the Libertarian 'viewpoint' (if it has any single one beyond the political NIOF) borrows heavily from the...Randite...viewpoint, I'm not aware of anything they each share, viewpoint-wise.

     So, the O'ist viewpoint "tried to take exclusive possession of the word" (like they did with the term 'selfishness', I guess), really? And that's, well, not-'right' I guess? --- They didn't want to...share...it, (like all others have been willing to do)? This is kinda strong, don't you think? I mean, wouldn't it suffice to just say that Rand was wrong on points A, B, and C?

    You elaborate: the O'ist viewpoint's purpose in such is "in order to alter the meaning to become the mystical one..." etc. --- Uh, Mike: unless you mean the same as Rand et al re their use of the term "mystical," you need to, again, define your terms. If you mean the same, then I hope you cover this in your article. I mean, Rand didn't realize how 'mystical' she was in her definitions and arguments? And all her acolytes (especially the ones that left) had never seen this...or at least considered worth pointing such out? I think your article's got a long row to hoe, man. Still, I await it with an open...er...active mind.

...back to criticism of Andy...

You[r] definition of rights is a bit vague.

More precision and elaboration is needed if rights is to be the basis of government and society.

Uh...I totally agree, Mike (hint, hint.)

I gather that *my* post does not fit your criteria? Or...it's merely 'confused'? If the latter, could you show where, without getting into the accusation of 'mystical' or, that I'm 'merely stating an opinion'?

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 10/05, 6:09pm)

(Edited by John Dailey on 10/05, 6:40pm)

Post 125

Wednesday, October 5, 2005 - 9:54pm

Ed,

In your case, I was leading in the direction to set the foundation for rights (ethics), by showing how different metaphysics will lead to different ethics, thus to different rights.

In Andy's case, he seems to dismiss ethics, epistemology and metaphysics altogether and just proclaims that he owns stuff. A more simplistic argument requires a more simplistic response. I have not been very successful in getting Andy to pay proper attention to what I have actually written in the past. He proclaims. So I simply state that his proclamation is an opinion, regardless of how good it may sound.

John,

Your post needs a fuller answer which will be given in the article. Let me just outline the following: there is a cumulative hierarchy in philosophy axiom-wise, thus importance-wise. This means that a lower area always builds on the previous one (or ones after epistemology) - never the contrary.

Base level - metaphysics. Ayn Rand's famous "existence exists." This includes identity.

Next level - epistemology. This builds on metaphysics, since an awareness must exist in order to be aware (holding the existence of life implicit). Reason is defined as axiomatic and man is defined as having volition.

Next level - ethics, which builds on the other two. Here is where life comes in full focus, since the requirements for survival and realizing the potential (birth, growth, climax, decadence and death) of an individual life are not negotiable, they merely are. But here is the question of values - since man has volition and uses reason. He needs to choose stuff - choose which values are needed to survive and bloom. He also has a great deal of leeway in choosing the form these values will take. Individualism is defined as an essential standard based on existence, life, reason and volition.

Next level - politics, which builds on the other three. Here is where other members of the same human species comes in. This is how people are supposed to live together. Notice that before other people are considered, there are some very fundamental issues dealt with on an individual level.

Then there is esthetics, which deals specifically with communication through creations of consciousness and depends on all four of the above.

Where rights fit in is as a bridge between ethics and politics. Rand is pretty clear on this (see her essay on rights). Rights are principles - as in moral principles (guides to action) based on ethics. Even NIOF. They do not replace morals. They delimit what human beings may and may not do in relation to each other. (That ultimately includes dividing up real estate, but much further down the logical chain road.)

Just as a human being chooses his ethics (having the faculty of volition), so must he choose his rights. If he uses reason as his axiomatic standard, the definitions of such things always end up being the same, thus they are "absolute" in that respect. If he uses faith as his axiomatic epistemological standard, then all hell breaks loose - and human history is my evidence.

If his metaphysics (like in Ed's case - where I mentioned those who believe in an afterlife) are different, his epistemology, ethics and politics will reflect that premise and the rights he practices and considers as valid will be different.

What I am arguing against is the metaphysical status presently being accorded to rights in the name of reason - as Linz jokingly said once, like being born with another thumb.

Rights are not more fundamental than existence, nor a man using his conceptual faculty and reason to understand existence, nor personal values like biological and conceptual values that must be chosen, but must fulfill existential requirements. But rights are more important (in the philosophical hierarchy sense) than politics, and they set the specific rules of how politics will become manifest. (Yes, that makes them more important than government, since government exists to protect and/or enforce rights - even irrational ones like the divine right of kings.)

Enough for now. I hope that is clear. Not complete (like not discussing inalienability and many other aspects yet), but a start.

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/05, 9:57pm)

Post 126

Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 2:16am

     Hmmmm...Mike.

     Thought-provoking, to be sure. Thanx for the fill-ins re my questions.

     I await your article.

LLAP
J:D

Post 127

Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 9:23am

Michael K,

I said:

I articulated how rights precede society.

You responded:

Well, you did state an opinion. As far as stating a metaphysical fact goes, you gave nothing other than your personal opinion.

I'm not so sure about that. I said a human being has his life. That is a metaphysical statement. If he didn't, he wouldn't be a human being. He'd be dead. I then said he has the freedom to sustain, through his own efforts, his life. That's indisputably true again, unless he is forcibly denied that freedom by another human being. (The constraints nature imposes upon him are not constraints upon his freedom. If that were true, then we'd have to say - to use an extreme example - no human being is free because he cannot see through walls like Superman.)

Finally I said that what a human being produces with his freedom is his. That is an ethical statement, but it is a hard one to argue against. Who else would have a claim upon what he produces? I then pointed out that all of these things are true whether a human being is on his own or in the company of others. And I also boiled them down as the rights of life, liberty, and property that arise from a human being's nature alone and so precede society.

While I suppose you can call all of this my "personal opinion" because they are part of my philosophy, I don't see how anything I have said is contradicted by fact. So, let's get to the nub, Michael: Do you believe a human being has a right to his life, liberty, and property for no other reason than he is a human being?

Andy

Post 128

Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 9:42am

You're getting there, Andy.

You stated earlier:

These rights belong to me simply because I exist. They precede any society I may be a part of. It is for that reason I dispute that a person's right to life, liberty, and property only exist in the context of two or more people.

Then you stated:

I then said he has the freedom to sustain, through his own efforts, his life. That's indisputably true again, unless he is forcibly denied that freedom by another human being.

(my emphasis)

So other people are involved in rights in your conception.

You confuse rights with existential condition. Like I said, a lion has the freedom you talk about. So does the hapless deer who turned into a meal.

Just by being born and being an individual, we do not have a right to or against anything. We do have a condition that includes our life, the nature of it (especially conceptual and volitional capacities) and our environment. The alternative to not fulfilling the requirement of that condition is illness and death.

Only when we come into contact with other people does the concept rights have any meaning at all (how about the beloved NIOF without other people?). Rights are not metaphysical in the sense reason or existence or identity - or even life - is. They are ethical and political - more precisely, a merge of both.

So yes, by ignoring all that and merely proclaiming, you are stating an opinion.

Michael

Post 129

Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 10:41am

Mike:
    Just clarifying, this time concisely, my difference from yours re the idea of "rights.'

    I say that, lions notwithstanding, we have 'needs.'
    One of them is a 'need' to be 'right' when identifying them.
    This makes our needs "rights", and not 'wrong/incorrect'...'needs;' the latter would be any whimsical 'wants,' arbitrarily called "rights." --- We can be the only one who ignores these "rights" before anyone else shows up.
     We should not ignore these selfish needs/"rights" of ours.

     THEN, the social context:
     Such allows recognition/identification of the same needs/"rights" re others.
     Such is thence what respect for others "rights" is.

     The 'political' context re a 3rd arbiter is relevent where there is a disagreement...and where the arbiter goes by some rules the arbitrated have already...recognized...as being...'right.'(Else, no arbiter; just a 'ruler.')

LLAP
J:D

Post 130

Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 3:17pm

Michael K,

Me:

That's indisputably true again, unless he is forcibly denied that freedom by another human being. [Your emphasis.]

You:

So other people are involved in rights in your conception.

Of course. They can interfere with them, as I noted above. Why can they interfere with my rights? Because they already exist. My liberty to do as I please did not pop into being the moment another person shows up. I always had my liberty. The fact that no was around to threaten it in my solitude doesn't mean it didn't exist. I had it just as surely as my life and the property I created.

So let me ask you another question, Michael: Does or does not the existence of my life, liberty, and property depend upon the existence of another person?

The question is rhetorical, of course. The point is that a human being in the state of nature is not an animal. He is a rational being who as a consequence possesses attributes inalienable to his existence qua man - namely, his life, his liberty, and his property. That is the "source" of his rights, not his society with other human beings.

Yet, you suggest that a human being outside of society is in the same state as an animal:

You confuse rights with existential condition. Like I said, a lion has the freedom you talk about. So does the hapless deer who turned into a meal.

No. That is not the freedom I talk about, because an animal cannot have freedom. As I said to you before in response to this: "... whatever the lion does it can never live its life as a human being. It lacks the rationality to do anything more than respond to its appetites. It makes no genuine choices in its life, thus it has no freedom. Unless freedom is possible for a being, such as a man, the concept of rights is meaningless."

Therefore, the rights of a human being are rooted in metaphysics, because they arise from the necessary requirements for a human being to exist as a human being. Ethically, a human being recognizes and respects the rights of other human beings. However, that recognition, as you seem to argue, does not create those rights. To argue that is to argue the primacy of consciousness. I believe that is where your mistake lies, Michael.

Andy

Post 131

Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 3:24pm

Nicely said, Andy...

Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 3:26pm

Thanks, Robert.

Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 5:29pm

Andy and Michael-
I think you two have a lot of pent up frustration from your unfulfilled desire to kiss. You are both quite competent enough to lead to some excellent insights in your exchanges, but there seems to sometimes be enough tension between you to prevent it.(God-damnit I'm sounding like Phil)

I agree with both of you, and that is not a contradiction as I think the gist of what you are trying to say seperately is basically the same thing. This is how I see it, and I think you will both agree with me, demonstrating that, ergo, your positions coincide. I could be wrong, in which case one or both of you can feel free to vehemently denounce me as being a manifestation of the set of the entire set of the characteristics of people that Linz has denounced.(Including Phil obviously).(Marty-As the math-minded one among us, feel free to also denounce me for my probably hideous pharasing relating to 'sets'.) So here goes:

Without the individual there could be no such thing as "rights". Andy has clearly pointed out this basis. 'Rights' stem from what is necessary for man to live his life qua man, it/they are independent of the existence of anyone but the individual. Anything beyond this meaning is based upon nothing but floating abstractions and/or anti-concepts. Once we recognize this, we can begin 'naming of parts' as some ridiculous poet once put it. I think this to be Andy's main thesis; the basis of all rights. Andy has properly grounded them metaphysically and epistemologically. Michael's correct contention(I believe) is not one of the primacy of consience, but the grounding of concepts to reality and context, i.e, his contention is not with Andy's proper basis of all rights, but with the scenarios in which they arise. The right to property is a necessity, always existing with any individual life, based upon the foundation of all rights. However, the word property implies the existence of other(s) otherwise it is superfluous. If I alone exist, then there is no need for the word: no need to distinguish between "what is mine and what is..." oh yeah, I forgot there is no 'you' in this world. This 'right' which has always been subsumed by the requirement to live your life lies dormant until a situation arises where it becomes necessary to identify it, recognize it, and to invoke it. Likewise with 'liberty'. In the 'world of one', this is a meaningless term(except to certain among us who wish to claim liberty and freedom from reality). The liberty to do what? No one else is around to stop you! Do anything you wish.

As I am afraid this might need further clarity I will stop here and see if I have been understood so far, and if I have understood your respective positions.

Post 134

Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 5:40pm

Or...for the physics-minded among us, I bet I can quickly boil down what I am trying to say(with a little help from an analogy of Richard Feynman's). Where does the photon come from when an electron jumps from one energy level to another? Did it exist prior to this? No, it was reality that necessitated it given the change of state.

Post 135

Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 7:23pm

And if you understood why the necessity of the change of state, you would understand why the necessity of the photon...

Post 136

Thursday, October 6, 2005 - 8:33pm

Jody,

I have no wish to kiss and make up with Andy. (Sorry to disappoint you.) I find his arguments superficial. Like just now - "I am human and I have liberty. There. Metaphysics. I have grounded my argument."

More proclamation without thought. The word "metaphysics" was used. The concept was not.

The problem with rights, as I hope to show is that a mystical element has been driven into it. It is on the basis of that mystical element that religions continue with such influence in government and governments continue to increase their encroaching power over individual rights. I will elaborate on that later.

It is not as obvious as it seems,. On the surface there is a simple argument (based on Locke) - since God created nature and rights are based on nature, then God is the valid source of rights and should be involved in government, at least as an advisor (that's the way it works in the world) - but underneath, there is a deadly poison which has fractured the position of defenders of liberty to the benefit of statists. As I said, more on that in the article.

Whenever I mention defining rights, there is a gut reaction to many people that something sacred is being threatened. That they will lose something by such definition. After all, they have heard since grade school that they had inalienable rights, right? They react accordingly. Dammit. Nobody is going to take their rights away from them!

(But as I hinted earlier, nobody needs to take them when they give them away.)

Most such people, like Robert M earlier, do not even know what the Founding Fathers were saying with the word "inalienable" nor the definition of it. The take it to mean something like "sacred."

There is going to be a lot of noise later, because when you attack the faith of someone (even and especially one who professes reason), things get pretty ugly. I've got my raincoat ready.

But my interest in more along the lines of John, who discusses and does not try to teach what he does not know. On the basis of my interaction with him, I might even learn something about what I have already studied.

John,

According to Ayn Rand's definition of rights, they are principles, not things. No one would ever say that a man is born with moral principles - that they are an indivisible part of him. (Man chooses principles to guide him.)

Yet rights are moral-political principles and people say that man is born with rights. That can only happen - being born with principles - in a society that is based on principles. Nature is not based on moral principles.

Moral principles are the outcome of using cognition and volition - and using life as the basic standard (after existence and identity, of course). They exist to guide actions to get and/or keep values of an individual.

A need is not a right. Neither is the fulfillment of that need.

Look at the right to life. A man has a right to life in society, where no other man may take it from him and claim legitimacy. In nature he does not have that right. Anything can kill him and existence will continue. Man has a need to survive - and actually has a good possibility of surviving if he acts according to the requirements of nature. Both situations deal with his life - the right to life and the existential requirement for life. But they are very different.

Michael

Post 137

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 2:46am

Eureka! I have found the crux of the issue, it is in this short phrase penned by sir Michael:

=========
A need is not a right.
=========

What about a natural (ie. metaphysical) need? In more plain terms, what about the oxygen in the air? Do you have the right to breathe (to consume some of the oxygen in the air), merely because you have the metaphysical need of some of the oxygen in the air? I (and Andy, and John, and Rand) say yes, you do have this right! You apparently say no.

Michael, can you explain whether I have an absolute, inalienable right -- to some of the oxygen in the air, or not?

Ed

Post 138

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 5:41am

Ed,

Once again we go back to the animals. They have the same "right" to that air. This only makes the concept of rights completely useless - it makes it a synonym for survival need. Rights are principles and are derived from volitional consciousness.

In raw nature, surviving is not a right. It is something we all have to maintain by acting. Breathing is not even a right. Rights only exist as social principles. Other people. Society.

You are an Objectivist, but for the mystical reason I will highlight in my article (which has blinded so many), you read these words of Ayn Rand (I presume that you did read them), yet they do not register:

"Rights" are a moral concept - the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual's actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others - the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context - the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. (Ayn Rand, Man's Rights)

By the definition of Ayn Rand, rights entail society. (How's that for argument from authority?)

But more needs to be said.

Later in the same article she talks about former societies and governments standing outside morality, being amoral. This is true from a premise based on reason, but not from a mystical one, where a supreme force like God determines that some men will rule over others. Seen from that angle, totalitarian societies and governments merely reflect the moralities they are built on, and the rights their citizens hold reflect those moralities, also.

The subtext of all of the rest of Rand's article - the premise - is that she is talking from a pro-reason, individual-based view. In that sense, her division of rights into printing press rights and authentic rights has meaning and the following words from the same article make enough sense to be true (but only in that context):

Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

Then stating a little later:

There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave."

Well, during history there certainly has been the right to enslave when the ethics it was based on permitted it. That right was upheld in courts in many societies during centuries. If the ethics used as the grounds for rights are based on reason, however, her statement is correct. Logically, there can be no such right.

But Rand's statement is incorrect when the ethics used are not rational, based on her own definition of rights in the broad sense (given above).

This process of Rand's, that of trying to usurp an entire word like "morality" or "rights" to mean dealing only with rational values, is great rhetoric for getting a point across, but it is not precise in that other definitions and contexts do exist. For instance, you cannot say that Altruism is an evil morality and then say that it is not morality at the same time. You just contradicted yourself.

Yet she constantly does this. The only way I have been able to sort this out in my own mind is to conclude that she shifted contexts at times, depending on what she was talking about. One moment she would be discussing the broad concept of ethics (where she states that Altruism is a type of morality), then another, she would be talking only about the rational version of ethics (where she states that Altruism is not moral).

This is one of the things (in addition to the mystical origin currently adopted in general) that has caused great confusion on the issue of rights. And governments are the ones who gain - always.

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/07, 5:48am)

Post 139

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 5:56am