Libertarianism

[Coito ergo sum]

Humans do not express rights in the absence of other people, if you get two people locked in a room or country government forms just by one dominating the other.

On a desert island you have a desire to breath you have no such right

By "right" it is basically meant "as much right as any other individual." So, if you have two people on an island, each has the right to breathe, to stay alive, and there is no "government" in that situation. It is only through positing that person A could have a prior right to the air that we could find that person B does not have just as much right to breathe it as person A.

On what basis would we say that person A has more right than person B to live? If we have no basis to suggest that A should have priority over B, then haven't we posited an equal right to life?

Note, also that the idea of natural rights does not necessitate that one be absolutist or that we have to consider that we are all A's and B's living on an island, since we are not. Locke, for example, was a social contract thinker, and wrote about the contract that members of a society make when governments are instituted among people.

[MrJonno]

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what natural rights are, and belies an individual who has not read the first thing about natural rights (e.g. Thomases Hobbes, Locke and Paine, and Immanuel Kant). Kant and Paine, of course, purported to derive natural rights through reason. Read, e.g. Paine's "Age of Reason" and "Rights of Man." And, see, Kant's "Groundwork on Metaphysics and Morals" and his "Critique of Pure Reason." The underpinnings for the Enlightenment thinkers in this area can be found in major ancient philosophers, like Lucretius (de rerum natura), the Epicurean philosophers, etc.

Sorry I've on going on the great philosopher Seth not that I'm big on philosophy its generally far too vague to have much use

Higher animals possess empathy which is a tool for deciding morality but in most cases of trial and error combined with natural selection (at a society level) is what determines it. Morality evolves which is why I have a serious problem with natural rights it assumes people who to me are just savages even if enlightened for their time get to decide what is right or wrong. Never mind 300 years old even 50 years ago people had views that would make them appear to be monsters today and hope in 50 years time people will look back and same about us, ie progessive politics and morality.

While I don't think rights are natural government certainly is, it comes from the word to manage and any two organisms will try to control or influence one another even if unconsciously. Wolves certainly don't have rights but they have clear and recognizable government.

I have problems with libertarianism because it dismisses the fact that for 7 billion people to survive on this planet they have to do things that they may not want to do, that while freedom can an enabler for people to be happy its the being happy bit that is important not the freedom.

Libertarianism dismisses the fact that every human being is intrinsically and involuntary linked. That every action a person does including breathing causes harm to others so therefore you can't say a person can do anything they want as long as it doesn't harm others as that is meaningless. We are harming each other every day the only question to be decided of is how much can you harm another person for your personal benefit and happiness. Should you be allowed to go near other people with a cold despite the fact that your cold can quite easily kill someone who already in bad health. As a society we have decided that as colds are so common a few dead old people is a price worth paying for the majority of us to get on with our lives. Try replacing a cold with the ebola virus and most countries will if you are lucky lock you up in a hospital whether you want to go or not

[MrJonno]

On what basis would we say that person A has more right than person B to live?

Easy if person A is me!, rights are only a possibility when it isn't a choice between person A or B surviving. Rights are a luxury a society has when the basics have already been sorted out.

I would have zero moral problems in robbing someone house if that was the only way I could get enough food to eat (no I'm not going to ask as if I'm told no it making robbing the house a lot harder), luckily we have a safety net so that possibility should never happen. Without such a safety net I don't think there is a moral case for locking that person up

[Coito ergo sum]

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what natural rights are, and belies an individual who has not read the first thing about natural rights (e.g. Thomases Hobbes, Locke and Paine, and Immanuel Kant). Kant and Paine, of course, purported to derive natural rights through reason. Read, e.g. Paine's "Age of Reason" and "Rights of Man." And, see, Kant's "Groundwork on Metaphysics and Morals" and his "Critique of Pure Reason." The underpinnings for the Enlightenment thinkers in this area can be found in major ancient philosophers, like Lucretius (de rerum natura), the Epicurean philosophers, etc.

Sorry I've on going on the great philosopher Seth not that I'm big on philosophy its generally far too vague to have much use

That also belies an individual who who has not read the first thing about it.

Higher animals possess empathy which is a tool for deciding morality but in most cases of trial and error combined with natural selection (at a society level) is what determines it.

Right. Reason and experience.

Morality evolves which is why I have a serious problem with natural rights it assumes people who to me are just savages even if enlightened for their time get to decide what is right or wrong.

Well, that isn't what it means. I already pointed out to you that the natural rights posited in the desert island example are not the way people live under a social contract idea. Locke pointed that out too. Life in a state of nature is not the same as life in a society wherein people create governments among them. However, the idea of natural rights gives an underpinning as to the purpose of government. Since government is a concept and an organization created by humans, it exists for the purposes humans have for it. Government does not exist as a priori for no purpose or function, or as an overarching controller of all things. Government is a creation of humans.

Never mind 300 years old even 50 years ago people had views that would make them appear to be monsters today and hope in 50 years time people will look back and same about us, ie progessive politics and morality.

Natural rights don't presuppose that society never changes. This is another major misunderstanding you have.

While I don't think rights are natural government certainly is, it comes from the word to manage and any two organisms will try to control or influence one another even if unconsciously. Wolves certainly don't have rights but they have clear and recognizable government.

Wolves don't have a government. Organization and organisms living in organized groups is not a government. Well, that isn't what libertarians mean by it (or, anyone else I've ever heard talk about it).

Governments are systems created by groups of people to conduct policy, actions and affairs. It certainly seems natural for groups of humans to form governments, though.

I have problems with libertarianism because it dismisses the fact that for 7 billion people to survive on this planet they have to do things that they may not want to do, that while freedom can an enabler for people to be happy its the being happy bit that is important not the freedom.

Lack of freedom makes people unhappy.

Libertarianism does not presuppose a lack of all government or organization.

Libertarianism dismisses the fact that every human being is intrinsically and involuntary linked. That every action a person does including breathing causes harm to others so therefore you can't say a person can do anything they want as long as it doesn't harm others as that is meaningless.

Breathing causes harm to others? You'll need to back that up.

We are harming each other every day the only question to be decided of is how much can you harm another person for your personal benefit and happiness. Should you be allowed to go near other people with a cold despite the fact that your cold can quite easily kill someone who already in bad health. As a society we have decided that as colds are so common a few dead old people is a price worth paying for the majority of us to get on with our lives. Try replacing a cold with the ebola virus and most countries will if you are lucky lock you up in a hospital whether you want to go or not

Society "decided" that? When? How?

It's really more of a function of impracticality of enforcement that we don't have greater restrictions on folks walking about in public with colds and illnesses. I doubt libertarians would object to a rule that said that sick people have to stay home until they get well, depending on the illness, of course. Non-contagious diseases ought not be included, I suspect. That's like how libertarians would not object to noise ordinances and ordinances regarding smoke and noxious fumes being emitted from one person's property to another, or companies dumping garbage in a river that leaves that company's property, etc.

I think you don't understand libertarianism, and you haven't been bothered much to find out about it.

[Coito ergo sum]

On what basis would we say that person A has more right than person B to live?

Easy if person A is me!, rights are only a possibility when it isn't a choice between person A or B surviving. Rights are a luxury a society has when the basics have already been sorted out.

I'm getting here that there is a fundamental difference of definition here. You're using the word "right" differently than any of the philosophers I cited, and differently than libertarians generally use it.

If neither person A, nor B is you, then on what basis do we say that one of them has a greater right to live? Can we say that one has the greater right?

I would have zero moral problems in robbing someone house if that was the only way I could get enough food to eat (no I'm not going to ask as if I'm told no it making robbing the house a lot harder), luckily we have a safety net so that possibility should never happen. Without such a safety net I don't think there is a moral case for locking that person up

Well, whether the State punishes a person for stealing in order to get food to survive is a different matter. You may be forced by circumstance to violate the rights of others. But, because you are starving doesn't give you a right to steal from others anymore than they have a right to steal from you.

If a man attacked my daughter, I would have zero "moral" problem with tracking him down and shooting him in the face with a shotgun. I might have other folks suggesting that I didn't have that right and I should have let the law take its course, etc. But, I would have zero moral problem with it.

[MrJonno]

Society has decided its not a crime to go around with a cold killing people by not making it illegal , every time you breath you are pumping out germs hence you are causing harm

The representation of libertarianism on this forum are not dead philosophers , if you want to be an alternative representation go ahead.

I have no problems with freedom in general being a good thing (libertarian!) but so are cream cakes. Having too many cream cakes is no better for you or society than having too much freedom

[MrJonno]

I'm getting here that there is a fundamental difference of definition here. You're using the word "right" differently than any of the philosophers I cited, and differently than libertarians generally use it

I'm going for permitted behavior that no law or rule can be used to restrict

[Coito ergo sum]

Society has decided its not a crime to go around with a cold killing people by not making it illegal , every time you breath you are pumping out germs hence you are causing harm

I don't think you're right about that. You aren't killing someone merely by going about with a cold, and the mere act of breathing does not harm anyone.

The representation of libertarianism on this forum are not dead philosophers , if you want to be an alternative representation go ahead.

We are each a representation of ourselves. I'm just trying to explain what libertarianism is. I'm not one, but I have a pretty good handle on what it is. What folks tend to do is straw man the ideas they wish to oppose, which is why conversation on political issues is so difficult. Often, terms are defined differently, which makes it very difficult to communicate.

I have no problems with freedom in general being a good thing (libertarian!) but so are cream cakes. Having too many cream cakes is no better for you or society than having too much freedom

Well, I'm a classical liberal, which means, basically, that I see certain areas where the individual's rights must be given priority over the needs of the State, within broad limits. This is why we have a right to free speech wherein there is a right to offend, and no right to "not be offended." The fact that a bunch of Christians might be offended by blasphemous language ought not limit the right of the individual to blaspheme, even if 80% of the society are Christian and they all say their feelings are hurt by the blasphemy. That's one example.

Human liberty, to me, is one of the ends of and purposes for government. Government isn't here to be served by us. It is here to serve us. And, that doesn't mean that some segment of society is voted to fund and support some other segment of society. Government is here to provide equal dignity under the law, to resolve disputes, and to protect person A from being injured by persons B through infinity, among other things.

[MrJonno]

Do you think the police should be allowed to stop an atheist going up to an angry crowd of christian fundies and burning a bible when in the policemans opinion he thinks it might lead to violence, I do. The fundies don't have the 'right' to attack the atheist but that doesn't mean the policeman can't use his judgement to try and prevent such violence if it temporary restricts the atheists freedom of speech. The prevention of violence is more important in this case than the exercise of free speech. Pretty sure even in the US the police separate demonstrators and use the same crowd control techniques as any other first world country

The purpose of government is not to protect human liberty which even a more vague concept than human happiness but I would still go for happiness over liberty. You can't prevent person A from being injured by person B you can only decide how much hurt is permitted.

One of the roles of government is to prevent different segments of society from killing each other, it replaces physical violent conflict with that in the political arena. One of the reasons I support the welfare state isn't just for moral reasons I'm paying those at the bottom money basically not to rob my house and kill me. Its protection money but better via taxation than at gun point

[Coito ergo sum]

Do you think the police should be allowed to stop an atheist going up to an angry crowd of christian fundies and burning a bible when in the policemans opinion he thinks it might lead to violence, I do.

No. Just like the police were found to not be allowed to say that a flag burning demonstration "might lead to violence" and therefore could arrest someone for it.

Your kind of rule is what leads to the police finding that any agitated protest "could lead to violence" and that is the end of free speech.

The fundies don't have the 'right' to attack the atheist but that doesn't mean the policeman can't use his judgement to try and prevent such violence if it temporary restricts the atheists freedom of speech. The prevention of violence is more important in this case than the exercise of free speech. Pretty sure even in the US the police separate demonstrators and use the same crowd control techniques as any other first world country

Of course they can separate crowds. That's the job of the police. But, that's not a restriction of free speech. They still get to speak, the just can't hurt each other. It's like when the Nazi's marched in Skokie Illinois, and pissed off the very Jewish population there. The job of the government is to protect the speakers, not silence them.

See American Civil Liberties Union and the American Nazi Party v. City of Skokie, IL on the googles and it will explain it to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_S ... _of_Skokie

Any police officer would be stupid not to think that the Nazis demonstrating in a town full of Jews wouldn't possible "lead to violence." That's a silly standard of speech, though, because it puts the power to silence a speaker in the hands of those who oppose what he's saying. All they have to do is become unruly, and then the speaker has to shut up.

In the US, speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and it is "likely to incite or produce such action." This does not mean that someone can be stopped from burning a Bible or painting a funny picture of Muhammed, because that is not "directed at" inciting or producing imminent lawless action. If the person is not actually asking for or promoting imminent lawless action, the fact that someone's speech might piss someone else off to the point of throwing punches doesn't mean the speech can be prohibited.

That is why the Nazis could not be prohibited from marching and making nasty anti-Jewish statements, and even burning Torahs -- they weren't DIRECTED AT producing imminent lawless action -- they were only saying nasty and offensive things.

I absolutely would never want my speech or anyone else's dependent on whether some cop thinks it might possibly lead to violence. That's basically the end of free speech right there.

[Seth]

Humans do not express rights in the absence of other people, if you get two people locked in a room or country government forms just by one dominating the other.

That's stretching the definition of "government" to suit your argument.

On a desert island you have a desire to breath you have no such right

Wrong. Alone on a desert island you have all rights, which is to say the absolute freedom to do anything and everything that you desire to do, without constraint or regulation by another. Those rights, or as I put it, those freedoms of action, exist independent of anyone or anything else by virtue of your ability to perform the act, which is a function of biology. Only when two or more people come into conflict over the exercise of such rights is some form of adjudication needed, which can vary from "might makes right" law of the jungle to complex legal and social systems such as we see today. But government, which is to say the governing of the conduct of one by others, which is a balancing or adjudication of the competing rights being exercised by each, only occurs after the rights themselves have been expressed.

[Seth]

If someone wants to come up with form libertarianism that doesn't rely on a person being born with natural rights then there is a conversation to be had. Anyone who starts with that believe really has no basis in reality to form any sensible view of politics.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what natural rights are, and belies an individual who has not read the first thing about natural rights (e.g. Thomases Hobbes, Locke and Paine, and Immanuel Kant). Kant and Paine, of course, purported to derive natural rights through reason. Read, e.g. Paine's "Age of Reason" and "Rights of Man." And, see, Kant's "Groundwork on Metaphysics and Morals" and his "Critique of Pure Reason." The underpinnings for the Enlightenment thinkers in this area can be found in major ancient philosophers, like Lucretius (de rerum natura), the Epicurean philosophers, etc.

Much if this is commonly used, albeit normally unconsciously, by atheists who claim to be able to reason a morality, a right and wrong, from human nature. They say we need no gods to discern through reason what is "right" and what is "wrong," and similarly, the Paines, Lockes and Kants used different verbiage to say similar things -- that we can discern the rights of mankind through reason and experience.

Rights are created by people (with the word created being the important one) and are implemented via government, no government no rights

This is one view of it. However, governments are not things in themselves either and they have not independent existence. They are creatures created by human beings, and what a government assigns as a right is what people assign as rights. No people, no government, no rights. No government, no rights. Simplify the equation - no people, no rights. That, of course, is axiomatic. But, since the people create both the government and the rights, it doesn't make much sense to posit the government as an independent agency any more than rights are self-creating. They are both created by people.

This is where we disagree. Governments are indeed created by people, but rights are inherent and natural, a function of our status as living creatures in part, and a function of our status as thinking, sentient creatures in part. Your reductio argument is incorrect because government comes into being as a control mechanism for the expression of rights (freedoms of action) by one person that may impact the freedoms of action (rights) of another person. Government, it is true, has no independent existence, but you err in you analysis because government does no more than regulate and adjudicate the expression of rights (exercise of freedoms of action), it does not grant those rights.

As I said, the right to life, liberty and property derive from the natural functions of all living creatures. Every creature will strive to stay alive by exercising freedoms of action including self-defense, acquisition of resources necessary for survival, and liberty engage in both actions. These basic biologic functions are common to all living creatures and translate directly to the right to life, liberty and property in the case of humans.

Whether those rights, and others that are more complex, are respected by a society is what governance, and therefore government is all about. All living creatures recognize some form of governance, from the cooperative actions of coral polyps or monkeys to the individual (libertarian) penchants of male mountain lions to respect territorial boundaries. How such social ordering is created is largely irrelevant, but all are more or less primitive forms of "government" either through the Law of the Jungle or some more complex adjudicatory and regulatory behavior. But in all cases the government is an artifact of the nature of life and the expression of the fundamental Organic Rights of life, liberty and property.

To say that rights are a function of, and flow from government is to put the cart before the horse, for without pre-existing rights, there is nothing to be governed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm glad this thread was resurrected. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading it, and have bookmarked it for future reference.

:sniff:

[Coito ergo sum]

This is where we disagree. Governments are indeed created by people, but rights are inherent and natural, a function of our status as living creatures in part, and a function of our status as thinking, sentient creatures in part.

I agree that rights are "derived" from the natural and inherent properties of being a human being. However, "rights" are a concept that exist only as concepts in the human mind. Without thinking beings, there are no rights. Rocks have no rights, for example. Dead people don't have rights. Rights, like morality, are concepts -- abstract ideas. They are not inherent aspects of things. But, those concepts are derived, according to Paine and Kant, from a reasoned analysis of human reality.

Your reductio argument is incorrect because government comes into being as a control mechanism for the expression of rights (freedoms of action) by one person that may impact the freedoms of action (rights) of another person. Government, it is true, has no independent existence, but you err in you analysis because government does no more than regulate and adjudicate the expression of rights (exercise of freedoms of action), it does not grant those rights.

I never said it did grant rights. Well, it CAN grant rights, but it doesn't grant the fundamental rights of man that are derived from nature. It CAN grant "civil" rights, which are different from natural rights.

As I said, the right to life, liberty and property derive from the natural functions of all living creatures. Every creature will strive to stay alive by exercising freedoms of action including self-defense, acquisition of resources necessary for survival, and liberty engage in both actions. These basic biologic functions are common to all living creatures and translate directly to the right to life, liberty and property in the case of humans.

The right to life liberty and property are reasoned axioms derived from an attempt to think "objectively" about different individuals existing in the same world. If you're walking alone in the forest, you have the right to stay alive and you have the right to pick stuff up and make your property, and you have the right to run around with your pants down singin' hallelujah (absolute liberty). That's inherent in being alone -- it's axiomatic -- a man alone in the world owns everything, can do anything he wants within his physical capacity and has no limitations on his freedom other than physical ones. On to two people in a state of nature -- neither person can objectively claim an a priori right to anything -- they both can live, and they both can acquire property and they both can run around with their pants down singin' hallelujah. But, what are the limitations? Since both have a right to life, neither ought to be able to kill each other unless attacked. Since both have liberty, neither can block the other from running around with their pants down singin' hallelujah, except the property bit -- where one party has acquired real property, then he can limit the other from running around with his pants down singin' hallelujah ON THAT PROPERTY.

And, so on...it expands from there.

Once we have humans living in groups and in close proximity, the conflicts among humans relative to these fundamental rights become common....soooooooooo...... to protect these rights....and to "secure the blessings of liberty" governments are instituted among humans....and, so, that becomes the purpose of government -- to safeguard the group as a whole, and to resolve competing rights and interests where they overlap.

Whether those rights, and others that are more complex, are respected by a society is what governance, and therefore government is all about. All living creatures recognize some form of governance, from the cooperative actions of coral polyps or monkeys to the individual (libertarian) penchants of male mountain lions to respect territorial boundaries. How such social ordering is created is largely irrelevant, but all are more or less primitive forms of "government" either through the Law of the Jungle or some more complex adjudicatory and regulatory behavior. But in all cases the government is an artifact of the nature of life and the expression of the fundamental Organic Rights of life, liberty and property.

To say that rights are a function of, and flow from government is to put the cart before the horse, for without pre-existing rights, there is nothing to be governed.

Of course, I never said that rights were a function of or flow from government. So, all the rest of your critique is rendered inapplicable by the failure of that basic premise.

[MrJonno]

If you're walking alone in the forest, you have the right to stay alive and you have the right to pick stuff up and make your property, and you have the right to run around with your pants down singin' hallelujah (absolute liberty). That's inherent in being alone -- it's axiomatic

Again really depends on what you mean by rights, the desire to want to stay alive does not automatically translate into a right to do so. There is simply no logical link between wanting something and having a right to it. Now society expressed via a legal system may recognize this as a common desire and protect people interfering with it but there is nothing inherent about it