Coase v. Rand

Merlin,

Rand shifted context all over the place on this issue (please see the contradiction I mentioned), but to answer your question, yup. She swallowed the Locke version of rights whole when her context suited her (not always, though). btw - Rothbard did too.

Anyway, from your post, did you actually read mine? All of your Rand quotes presume a rational ethics.

Michael

Post 141

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 6:17am

Michael,

Anyway, from your post, did you actually read mine?

If you are asking about post 138, I had not read it when I posted 139. That's because it did not appear on my computer until after I posted.

Post 142

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 6:25am

Merlin,

Gotcha. I was talking about 138 and I thought you were including it in your post. Sorry. (I can't seem to remember where I left my crystal ball...)

Michael

Post 143

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 8:23am

Michael K,

You keep pounding on a couple of points.

The first is that a man outside of society is indistinguishable from an animal. You insist that his freedom is the same as that of any beast. This is nonsense. A man is not an animal. He has volition; animals don't. Only a being who has volition can be said to have freedom. Because a man can choose what action he will or will not take, he has freedom - unlike an animal that acts only to sate its appetites or escape its fears.

Volition is the metaphysical foundation for a human being's liberty. Without liberty, his volition is meaningless. Without volition, he is not a human being. Recognizing and respecting his liberty is an ethical response to the metaphysical fact that he is a human being. You call this bit of philosophy "superficial". You got it upside-down. It is foundational.

Second, you fear that any reference to our rights being God-given is a package deal importing mysticism into the concept of rights. That strips the reference to God of its historical and cultural context. What it clearly means is that no man can alienate your rights from you. That is, of course, true. It's a manner of hyperbolic expression that an atheist can live with. So I don't understand your concern about this.

Andy

Post 144

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 8:42am

Andy,

So I don't understand your concern about this.

I didn't think you would, Andy.

(You also fell right off into discussing the most superficial aspect - which is openly declared by Locke - that I already mentioned above.)

btw - Man is an animal. You say he isn't, but he is. A mammal. Volition goes on top of that, not invalidates the reality of all other animals and sets rules of existence that contradicts their nature in order to be special. The conditions of volition grows out of the nature of being an animal and adds to it.

(I can't believe that I really am discussing whether man is an animal or not... I have better things to do...)

Michael

Post 145

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 9:24am

OK, Michael, you know full well that when I wrote that a man is not animal I was not denying the taxonomy of homo sapiens sapiens. Seeing that you have chosen to be obtuse, we can end this discussion.

Andy

Post 146

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 11:53am

Michael, god I hope that you are enjoying this!

I can't imagine how I'd feel if someone -- a friendly acquaintance, no doubt! -- was pestering me as much as I'm pestering you about this. I could name some names of folks that just about drove me crazy, but I'd rather let memory of them die. Anyone, it comes down to 2 things:

1) loving the ideas
2) acknowledging that ideas matter

[though, perhaps in the reverse order]

You said at least 2 things which struck a chord (in the red flag sense) with me:

==============
during history there certainly has been the right to enslave when the ethics it was based on permitted it.
==============

and

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

I'd argue that these statements are not only ethically relative and socially metaphysicistical -- but that they would also lower the level of existence on this planet down to that of the most savage brute. Because, as you seem to be arguing, the savage brute societies are perfectly in "the right" in being savage and brutish, and when they run out of victims who live nearby ...

Now I appear to be arguing solely from the consequences, and utilizing C.S. Pierce's quote: "The meaning of a concept is its consequences." But I am not a vulgar consequentialist (ie. a utilitarian), because I know -- I don't just believe, I know -- that means matter. And the reason I know means matter, is because I know that Existence is Identity (ie. identity is inescapable). You appear to be arguing that folks could escape their identity (humans acting like animals). You're right that they could adopt the behavior of animals, you're wrong that they could do this -- and remain in "the right" in doing so.

The one moral obligation placed -- by their inescapable identity -- on all humans everywhere, is to procure for themselves a whole life, well lived (ie. to live happily). The victim, if they fail to discharge this identity-demanding obligation, will definitely be themselves (they will be unhappy), and there will probably be some collateral damage as well (parents, children, spouse, etc).

If humans can live happily, they ought to -- in 8 words, THAT is what morality is about.

Ed
[Please forgive the seemingly tangential nature of this response; I feel that it is a very relevant, useful tangent though (to bring up the fact that humans are beings who can be happy, or not be happy -- depending on their choices in life)]

Post 147

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 12:05pm

Andy, your post 143 was beautiful. I can't believe how short and to the point it was. I'm fully compelled by its logic. I also can't believe Michael's response to it.

All mysticality aside Michael, if Andy hadn't written in that last, 'God-forsaken' paragraph (which, in my view, would've made his post "perfect") -- would you have had the same bitter reaction to it?

Ed

Post 148

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 12:39pm

It would seem a need to reread Galt's speech in its entirely - as I recall, he made mention at the end something to the effect that is was a matter of a person coming to discover what ethics or morals are, not to continue to accept something which in fact was not really ethical - that is, the only real ethics is rational ethics, the others being false ethics or pseudo-ethics...

Post 149

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 2:03pm

Ed, you wrote:

I'd argue that these statements are not only ethically relative and socially metaphysicistical -- but that they would also lower the level of existence on this planet down to that of the most savage brute.

That is precisely what has happened over history. The rights and ethics that have been practiced have resulted in a string of savage brutes. That is why a rational conception of rights, based on a rational philosophy, is so superior.

Where the rational becomes irrational is when it denies the existence of all this by saying, "Oh, those gazillions of people called those things rights, but they are not. Only we have rights."

Well we do have the best concept of rights. The one based on a rational understanding of reality. We do not have the only concept of rights. History is replete with alternate concepts.

One more example. You are born with the right to life - in a metaphysical sense, not merely political one, according to you. Correct? You state that this is an indivisible part of you.

Where is this corroborated in existence? Take out the politics and where do you see this particular right happening? You have a right to survive? The way I see it, if you do not act, you will not survive, right or no right. So what right are you talking about?

(How about a Platonic ideal? Now that does work with your argument.)

You are born with a biological capacity to choose. That is called volition. That is not a right to choose. It is merely a capacity. As a matter of fact, if you do not exercise that capacity, or exercise it poorly, you die. Where is the right in that?

You are not born with your moral principles. You must choose them. You can choose horrible moral principles that lead to horrible living (and dying). Look at history. The same goes for rights. They are chosen. The nature of them, when they are based on reason, does not change. That is where all this confusion comes from.

I can almost see you now trying to attribute a meaning in all this that is not there, which is that I endorse piss-poor rights. I do not. However, I do not deny the existence of them. (Please see my previous post on Ayn Rand as to why she did deny their existence in one instance and admitted their existence in another.)

An evil concept of rights exists. It must be fought precisely. It is because it has not been fought precisely that it is still around - and these evil rights are growing under our very noses - especially in the USA government.

Frankly, I am relieved that Andy left this discussion. He uses his words in an extremely sloppy manner and gets pissed when called on precision. That is very tiring, as it always has been. (He is also equally sloppy in not understanding what he reads.)

I am glad you appreciate his sloppiness, however. He has a nice flair with it when he sallies forth with his simplistic proclamations. I personally prefer and require more precision in my thinking and usage of words. I find most of Andy's arguments non-conceptual and bordering on the arbitrary. They just slant towards Objectivism with bombast, nothing more.

Michael

Post 150

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 2:36pm

Michael, I'll think some more on this.

Regarding your stated view of Andy, I hold the opposite opinion (and I'm actually quite surprised by your harshness).

Ed

Post 151

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 3:23pm

Ed,

One more comment to show how broad this issue is. That is on volition.

Contrary to what is supposed around here, non-conceptual living beings do have the faculty of volition. They do not have the faculty of conceptual volition, but animals like lions and deers do have perceptual volition. They choose many things within the limits of their awareness. They are not mechanical robots. They even exercise value judgments on a perceptual level. Higher animals demonstrate emotions, for example, which are subconscious value judgments according to Objectivist epistemology.

This is one of the things I was referring to when I stated that volition sits on top of an animal nature, not invalidates it.

I thank you (and a few others) for your feedback, since it is giving me a good idea of what is in store from the more intelligent people in getting this thing out on the table. As far as proclamations, like those from Andy, that my arguments are "nonsense," "primacy of consciousness" (as a shot in the dark) and so forth, with attempts to explain my "mistakes" without any serious thinking behind it or attempt to understand, I can wait. There certainly will be enough of that stuff later.

Michael

Post 152

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 5:54pm

I wrote, "Let's say that the paper mill doesn't up-sticks and vanish - that it is willing to stay in business and pay what you ask."

Daniel replied, "But Bill, I reckon that scenario's even *less* likely than the first one! What I think is *most likely* to happen is...the stupid law will bankrupt/disrupt enough businesses and waste enough courts time in nuisance suits as absurdly large claims are filed for minor violations of property - if you allow open ended claims you are now introducing major economic incentives to do so."

Why would absurdly large claims be filed for minor violations of property? And what do you mean by "open-ended claims." The issue, once again, is that the paper mill's operation causes some level of pollution, which the mill would prefer to rectify by compensating the victim rather than by closing down. Another possibility, of course, is the mill's installation of some anti-pollution technology, although that wasn't part of the original example. In any case, if you are causing some measurable level of harmful pollution against another person's property, no matter how minor it might happen to be, are you not responsible for stopping the pollution or for securing from the victim an agreement allowing you to continue it in exchange for some form of compensation? Suppose an industrial plant were dumping soot on your property. Wouldn't you want the plant owner to cease polluting it or at the very least to pay you what you thought it was worth? After all, it's your property!

The issue of "first-come-first-served" is relevant here. If you were there first and the plant moved in afterwards, then you could demand that it not pollute your property or else compensate you for it. If the plant were there first, then you would have no claim against the owner. You could, however, offer him slightly more money than it would cost him to install a scrubber, since in that case, he would have more to gain by installing the scrubber than by continuing to dump soot on your property.

You write, "There will be a wave of protest, and the law will be changed, with some minimum harm standard introduced, arrived at through a mixture of negotiation and precedent, trail and error."

Perhaps - if people don't understand the importance of property rights and of economic efficiency. All Coase is saying is that private negotiation based on the Coase theorem is an alternative to a legally enforced minimum-harm standard, and that such negotiation would result in an economically efficient outcome. Remember, economic efficiency presupposes a respect for property rights. If you disagree, you need to explain why you don't regard such private negotiation as economically efficient. It's not enough to argue that people won't accept it. What I'm saying is that they ~ought~ to accept it, especially if everyone's property rights are to be upheld.

- Bill

Post 153

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 8:08pm

Michael, again I find what you say -- to be troubling me:

==============
Contrary to what is supposed around here, non-conceptual living beings do have the faculty of volition.
==============

Michael, I hold 'volition' and 'free will' to be synonyms. Do you? Would you also say that these animals have free will? Could you 'prove' it better than you have? Your reference to animal emotion seems lacking in drawing the relevant inference. In my view, animal cognition -- not animal emotion -- needs to be 'proved' in order to say what you are saying.

==============
I thank you (and a few others) for your feedback, since it is giving me a good idea of what is in store from the more intelligent people in getting this thing out on the table.
==============

Michael, there is grammatical ambiguity here. In a spirit of benevolence, I will take you to mean that I am one of the intelligent folks (not someone whose arguments merely foreshadow what it is that the GENUINELY intelligent folks might have to say about this, when they choose to speak up about it).

Though you may disagree with Rand on rights, here's a great Rand quote that -- operationally (once integrated) -- makes her view of rights unmistakable:

==============
Just as an individual's right of free action does not include the "right" to commit crimes (that is, to violate the rights of others), so the right of a nation to determine its own form of government does not include the right to establish a slave society (that is, to legalize the enslavement of some men by others). There is no such thing as the "right to enslave." A nation can do it, just as a man can become a criminal--but neither can do it by right.

It does not matter, in this context, whether a nation was enslaved by force, like Soviet Russia, or by vote, like Nazi Germany. Individual rights are not subject to a public vote ... just as a mob of gangsters cannot demand a recognition of its "rights" and legal equality with an industrial concern or a university, on the ground that the gangsters CHOSE by unanimous vote to engage in that particular kind of group activity.
==============

As I said above, you may have an honest disagreement with her on rights, but let's be quite clear that she's been quite clear about their natural existence. A noncontradictory integration of what she wrote above -- leaves her view on rights to be unmistakable. Only a contradiction (a selective omission of what is said above) would allow one to question the definiteness of what it is that is her view on rights.

Ed

Post 154

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 8:19pm

Further confirmation that Rand was an advocate of natural rights (and not any other kind of rights):

==============
The rights of the accused are not a primary--they are a consequence derived from a man's inalienable, individual rights. A consequence cannot survive the destruction of its cause. What good will it do you to be protected in the rare emergency of a false arrest, if you are treated as the rightless subject of an unlimited government in your daily life?
==============

Ed

Post 155

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 8:37pm

And a third one -- for charmers:

===========
A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them.
===========

Okay, so Rand's view is unquestionably one of natural rights. Where could we go from here? Well, we'd have to build a case for a different view of rights, other than a Randian view of them -- which, I 'spect, is what your article will be aimed at (until then ... ).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 10/07, 8:39pm)

Post 156

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 8:58pm

(sigh)

Ed,

It is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with Rand. It is a matter of understanding ALL of what she wrote about this subject, not just isolated passages.

If you will take the time to read correctly what I have written so far, you will see that I implied (stated actually) that Rand's work is full of passages like what you quoted - but that is when she is talking within the context of rationally-derived rights.

She is talking about Objectivist rights. Within that context, she is correct and coherent. I even agree with her.

However, she is trying to take the word "rights" to mean only Objectivist rights. Even in that quote, look at the phrase, "the right of a nation to determine its own form of government." A nation has rights? According to her, it does. In another place, she stated that only individuals have rights. (Then she stated that rights, especially the right to use force, are delegated to a government. How's that for a zinger of a right for the metaphysical NIOF people? The right to use force...) I might even do a preparatory thing of showing her conflicting views on this through her own quotes. (My Objectivism Reference CD just arrived, thank goodness, so this will not be as time consuming as before.)

If I were to speculate on why she wanted the whole word, and not a more precise term like "rational rights" or whatever, I would state that her hatred of Communism and dictatorships was so great that she wanted to deny them any claim to legitimacy, even linguistic. That is speculation, granted, but it sounds "right" to me.

Yes, you are one of the intelligent ones. You fished and you caught one. Michael Stuart Kelly thinks that Ed Thompson is genuinely intelligent and hold the highest respect for him. That is why his input right now is so valuable.

How's that for a fish?

I am glad I am disturbing you, though. I mean to. This issue is important and the source of the problem is very subtle and very deep - but the results are all around us government-wise. People can't even get a viable political party based on a precise definition of rights (Libertarians are trying to get the religious vote, too, so they get very little of anything. I am a party member, btw. I registered a couple of months ago.)

And yes, a non-human animal has free will. Its "will" is limited to the perceptual level. Notice how cats and dogs play. Remember the Muttnik principle? The dog pretends to be angry? He chooses to do that based on his perceptual value judgments (master, master, I love master, wanna have fun with master, gonna get him good, but I won't bite hard, I love master, grrrr, grrrr, grrrrrrrrr).

Ever see an animal yawn because it is bored, then go looking for something to do? Choice.

I once had a cat kin Brazil who slept with a bunch of other cats and dogs (they were all raised together). She would wake up during a collective sleep fest, look around, choose a victim, pad slowly over and gently bite the animal (even the German Shepard), but not take her teeth out and watch intensely. After a few seconds, she would increase the pressure of the bite gradually until it hurt and all hell suddenly broke out. Then she would run off to a safe corner and lick her chest contentedly. LOLOLOLOL... A real sweetheart. She was ornery as all get out and chose her sleeping victim on purpose, just to watch it get pissed off. But she chose.

Thus an animal has perceptual free will. Only man has conceptual free will so far, but some animals are starting to form very basic concepts (chimp and parrot for now, if I am not mistaken). With a precise "non-mystical" definition of rights, how these evolving creatures, once they have evolved to a much higher level, will become assimilated in human society or exist parallel to human society will become much easier. That is one thing I hope I live long enough to see, as it should get very interesting.

Michael

Post 157

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 9:21pm

And he has recently been made Psychology Leader!

Post 158

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 9:37pm

Michael, I guess I'll just have to wait for the article. Our discussions here leave me -- progressively! -- more confused.

==================
Only man has conceptual free will so far, but some animals are starting to form very basic concepts (chimp and parrot for now, if I am not mistaken). With a precise "non-mystical" definition of rights, how these evolving creatures, once they have evolved�to a much higher level,�will become assimilated in human society or exist parallel to human society will become much easier.
==================

My "troubles":

1. As a definition of free will ought to make clear: "conceptual free will" ought to be the only kind of it that is possible (your new concept of "perceptual free will" is unprecedented -- and, like any other unprecedented thing, it begs for strong evidential reasoning; something which is sorely lacking in your admittedly cute analogies). Appropriate inference is possible, inappropriate inference is even more possible -- and that is the rub of epistemology.

2. Chimp & parrot (Alex the parrot) research has led some folks to draw inferences that these species are forming "basic concepts" -- as you say. Awhile ago, I had gotten 'into it' with Nathan Hawking about what it is that is the appropriate inferences to draw from what it is that these researchers have "found." Did you catch my real quotes of real research in that thread?

3. I still feel that you equate mysticism with metaphysics -- I don't think you've adequately shown inalienable rights to be mystical (ie. supported by faith -- instead of by reason)

4. I see a disturbing animal-love in your words ("assimilated in human society or exist parallel to human society") -- it was a very similar ideological beastiality that blinded Nathan Hawking to both facts and reason (examples available upon request). I'm unsure as to whether this similarity is irrelevant, or not

Ed

Post 159

Friday, October 7, 2005 - 10:16pm