/liberty/ - Liberty

I believe no one is born with any rights. Now, most people would try to shout GOTCHA and say that that means I cant complain about being made a slave, but just as I dont have the right to freedom, neither do you have the right to restrain me.

>>82557

There is a clear utilitarian argument to be made for liberty, but I have yet to see anyone "prove" that natural, inalienable human rights exist. I see rights as only existing within the framework of a civic community; otherwise, there is no guarantee of these rights.

no

>>82559

Read any of the foundation for western philosophy. Negative rights exist. Rights don't exist to restrain others, because muh spooks, but they exist towards the purpose of educating a man seeking morality as to what actions he may take in accordance with the nature of "goodness".

>>82557

That's a shorsighted argument. In the context of having no rights, it doesn't matter if the other person has a right to restrain you or not. You can't simultaneously deny something exists, but then immediately use it as a justification for why people can not do certain action. It would be as if they were interacting with an inanimate object; the situation deserves no moral consideration whatsoever.

>>82711

>you cant just be right, kiddo

That's where you're wrong, kiddo

Yes. All of your rights logically derive from the principle of self ownership, which is self evident.

>>82787

Unless these rights are fundamentally embedded in the universe anyone applying the NAP to their lives will eventually be out competed by those that don't.

I can alienate any right from you just watch

Can anyone "prove" any philosophical concept with any rigour?

Natural rights do show evidence for their value insofar as societies that adopt the concept of natural rights do better than those that reject them. This alone is reason enough to "believe in them" by acting like they exist, regardless of whether or not you can "prove" them via a rigorous scientific process.

If someone wants to reject such a valuable time-tested concept I would say it is on them to explain and defend their position rather than the opposite, especially with the horrific shit-show of communist and other dictatorial governments throughout history.

It's all fun and games to "prove" that might makes right by acting it out on a small scale, but try this on a larger scale over time and you are going to suffer the ugly consequences.

>>87925

>Can anyone "prove" any philosophical concept with any rigour?

A philosophical concept? No. A statement on the nature of the world? Yes. This is the reason the scientific method exists. It's a philosophy(kind of), devoted to observing and describing, instead of naming and calling.

>This alone is reason enough to "believe in them" by acting like they exist

No, its not. It is only a good reason for someone who is interested in creating and maintaining a functional society. Many do not.

>I would say it is on them to explain and defend their position rather than the opposite

If you say something, its for you to prove it, no matter how many followers you've got, shill.

>It's all fun and games to "prove" that might makes right by acting it out on a small scale, but try this on a larger scale over time and you are going to suffer the ugly consequences

If you cannot prove that might makes right on a bigger scale you are just not applying it enough, as people who oppose you have more of it. They still only prove it.

>>82791

The NAP by itself may be toothless, but my gun isn't.

I believe the "inalienable" description is more derived from a belief on the consequences of giving away or violating said rights than some intrinsic property of them. Of course any right can be denied by an aggressor with enough power to force the victim to submit, but there are broader scale and longer term ramifications for these violations. Essentially it is that society will be more peaceful and people live better when respecting these rights since failing to recognize the basic negative liberties such as life, liberty, and property lead to more problems than the stability imposed by their authority provides. Of course having a "right" to private property won't stop thieves from stealing or vandals from destroying, but recognizing the need to stop and punish these actions engenders a better human existence than not deriving a coherent policy about thwarting them.

>>82711

>You can't simultaneously deny something exists, but then immediately use it as a justification for why people can not do certain action.

But I can.

>>88013

RADICAL FREEDOM

>>82547

They're self evident. God gives all living creatures this immanent presence, but he also taketh away. You inalienable rights are exactly what you are always doing right now.

>>88824

>God

0/10

>>88013

As with any social action, you can do it, but the act of it will always produce unfavorable results no matter when and where. You CAN choose to be wrong.

The nice thing about the idea of inalienable rights is that they work both logically (self-ownership and all that comes with it) and practically (societies that adopt the concept do better than those that don't.

Can anyone really "know" or "prove" anything definitively? Probably not, but when you come across something that both makes sense and produces great results for individuals and society at large, the odds are pretty high indeed that you should adopt it unless or until something provably better comes along.

>>90726

>societies that adopt the concept do better than those that don't.

is this why moslems win with europe and its humanitarian and human rights babble?

>>90780

I think Europe proves the other guy right. They abandoned the idea of property rights by allowing sandniggers free access to their incomes, property, and women, and now they're learning the hard way why that's a bad idea.

>>90781

europeans had taxes and eminent domain before flood of sandniggers

>>90782

>hurrr they violated some property rights so they didn't care about them at all! XD

I think it's safe to say that the Europe of 10 years ago was friendlier to the idea of self-determination than the Europe of today even if they had to pay taxes.

I believe humans have the inalienable rights which imply natural law as the only societal system that doesn't neccesarily include the violation of said rights.

>>90781

>They abandoned the idea of property rights

they uphold idea of property rights but this idea is different- it is about right TO property

>>90780

Europe doesn't uphold natural rights. They subscribe to UN style positive rights (a.k.a. socialist privileges for some people), which violate natural rights. You cannot consistently uphold both natural rights and positive rights.

>>90810

there is no such thing as natural rights

>>90820

There is such a thing as negative rights. Natural rights are negative rights with a specific justification for their origin. But in terms of consequences negative rights and natural rights are basically the same thing.

>>90832

"Rights", whichever type of they you choose are not something inherent to or part of an individual, it's a guarantee of protection(or gibs) by a third party, be it a state, organized group or another individual. By arguing for any "rights" you will always be stating your demand for others' actions, no matter if they are negative or positive, you want they to do or not to do certain things and advocate for forcing them to. Negative rights are commonly viewed as part of individualist theory, but only because they do not require individuals' involvement, yet they are just a moral statement, not a practical one and will be upheld(not because of them, but still) in a system with great autonomy of individual.

"Inalienable rights" are even more senseless thing, as it not only makes a moral claim out of a practical consequence, but go to the point of denying reality to support it. Any ability of an individual can be removed, even if only by the means of an individual no longer being one. Ability to act can be removed by imprisonment, ability to see by blindness, ability to think by physical modification(as it was and is being done by psychiatry): all those things are very real and will unlikely to become impossible in the future.

We've already had thread about rights and discussed exactly the same things, yet someone just has to create another one to continue this perpetual cycle. It's the second largest problem with the board, right after leftist shitposting - lack of prolonged effect of discussion - old quality threads. Anons, try to not create an echo chamber next time, please.

>>90841

>"Rights", whichever type of they you choose are not something inherent to or part of an individual

I agree.

>it's a guarantee of protection(or gibs) by a third party, be it a state, organized group or another individual. By arguing for any "rights" you will always be stating your demand for others' actions, no matter if they are negative or positive, you want they to do or not to do certain things and advocate for forcing them to.

I disagree. It's more than a guarantee by a third party (the correctness of certain rights is not dependent on someone's ability to enforce them). They are rules that define permissible actions for me as an individual in the context of interaction with other humans. Permissible in this context doesn't mean "allowed" by someone else, but rather it means actions that (on average) do not thwart fulfillment of my values. So if I want my values to be fulfilled, it is in my best interest to follow these rules, and it is also permissible for me to use force (or hire someone to do it for me) against anyone who doesn't follow them. Of course this only applies to negative rights, because positive rights are either inconsistent or arbitrary (so they are not rights at all). This is basically a consequentialist argument for Kantian morality (I don't think reason alone is a sufficient justification). It is also similar to other libertarian systems of morality, like Kinsella's estoppel principle or Molyneux' UPB (which are also Kantian in principle), again with the difference that I tend to use consequentialist approach. I haven't yet come across a non-consequentialist approach that actually works, without relying on God or some strange metaphysical properties.

>>90847

>They are rules that define permissible actions for me as an individual in the context of interaction with other humans.

I would argue that these things are not a necessity in ancap, as what matters is in practice is the protection of an individual which is enacted by either a PMC or a cooperative or something and without these things there are no obligations to act or not act and this is a question of power and not morality, but i get what you're saying and not strictly oppose it.

>I tend to use consequentialist approach

Me too, i actually have been here arguing for NAP as practice and not a moral principle along with other things on this board for a while. Keep it up, anon, this board needs more guys like you here.

>>90832

positive rights are equally real

>>90870

No. See >>90847. Negative rights have certain properties that positive rights don't.

>>90871

yes but it does not make them more real, tho it makes them more preferable for some people

The idea of "having a right to" something is an artifact of the ambiguity of language. Traditionally, if one were to assert something true, like "the Sun is the largest object in our solar system", one could be said to "have the right of it". That is to say, "having the right of it" refers to being correct about something. In this way, having the right of life, liberty, or property means that one is "correct" (that is to say, consistent) in choosing to live, act upon one's own discretion, or control rivalrous goods. However, "having the right of" something sounds grammatically like one possesses a discrete thing, called a "right". In this way, "having the right of" things comes to be misunderstood to mean that one possesses a set of discrete items called "rights", which leads to much of the confusion surrounding rights in common discourse.

The illusion of rights as discrete things opens up the question of whether these things exist. The questions; "do we have rights?" or "do rights exist?" only can be entertained because we misunderstand the issue. Framed properly, those questions would become "can people be correct?" and "do correct answers exist?" respectively. The answers then trivially become "yes" and "not as concrete things".

The misunderstanding also makes it possible to arbitrarily extend the concept of "rights" to envelop nearly anything to suit one's purposes. Typically, these expansions are used to manufacture an obligation in others toward the person claiming the "right". For instance, some people claim that the "right to life" implies that others are obligated to provide the means to support that life, rather than the more accurate position that one is correct in choosing to live and pursue those means for oneself.

>>90913

>For instance, (((some people))) claim that the "right to life" implies that others are obligated to provide the means to support that life, rather than the more accurate position that one is correct in choosing to live and pursue those means for oneself.

Good on you, namefag. I wish more people realized how misinterpretations could be foiled by simply being literate.