"Natural Rights"

[BobKKKindle$]

It seems that libertarians often argue against government intervention and economic systems that are not based on private property on the grounds that not allowing individuals to hire others and accumulate wealth would signify a violation of natural law, which endows each individual with certain rights that should be upheld and protected by the government - in fact, this is, for many libertarians, the maximum extent of the state's role, as any policies designed to correct social ills such as increasing the level of demand in the economy or implementing redistributive taxation would be interpreted by a libertarian as the state using coercion and disregarding private property. An interesting thing about this perspective is that it is entirely non-utilitarian in its approach to what the government should be able to do - it is based entirely on the notion that there are inviolable rights which must be respected even when ignoring one ore more of these rights in a given instance would result in more happiness for a larger number of people. The problem, however, is that we have no idea of where these rights come from. All rights are fundamentally constructs of human society, and as such they have no independent existence, and cannot be grounded in "nature". This does not mean that rights are not valuable, as enforcing certain rights ensures that individuals are able to exercise more control over their lives, and realize their potential when they might not otherwise be able to do so if we rejected the basic idea that people have a right to do or receive certain things, but it does mean that libertarians cannot justify their positions solely in terms of rights - there does need to be some kind of utilitarian analysis to show that market liberalization would actually be beneficial in terms of its material effects on the poorest members of society.

It is also strange that libertarians tend to characterize themselves as supporting a system based on total freedom for the individual. As Cohen points out, this is obviously not true - if the government recognizes that someone should be able to own something and control who is allowed to use that something, i.e. if the government acknowledges the legitimacy of and agrees to enforce property rights, then that automatically means that others who do not own property have been deprived of certain freedoms. If you own a house, then that means I do not have the right to set up a tent or build my own house in your garden unless you have first given me permission to do so, and so in this respect private property does signify a restriction of freedom. This does not in itself mean that private property is bad, but it does mean that capitalism cannot be characterized as a system of total freedom, and instead there need to be other reasons as to why private property is legitimate.

[коровьев]

All rights are fundamentally constructs of human society,Not really. Society just attempts to construct "laws" which go along with our human nature.


but it does mean that libertarians cannot justify their positions solely in terms of rights .Sure they can. We are all human and no one has yet demonstrated why some humans have the right to impose their will on others.



then that automatically means that others who do not own property have been deprived of certain freedoms.No it does not. You have no freedom to own things which legitimately belong to someone else.


capitalism cannot be characterized as a system of total freedom,Freedom of one person ends, where the freedom of other begins.

[MikeSC]

Not really. Society just attempts to construct "laws" which go along with our human nature.

Sure they can. We are all human and no one has yet demonstrated why some humans have the right to impose their will on others.


No it does not. You have no freedom to own things which legitimately belong to someone else.

Freedom of one person ends, where the freedom of other begins.

Those are the same answers a communist would give a libertarian. The difference being a communist tolerates no seizure of land or wealth, while a libertarian tolerates it in order to introduce it into the market. I also dislike the way libertarians have stolen the word libertarian... Selective Statists I use.

If you hold that no one has the right to impose their will- how do you justify the original distribution of wealth capitalism is based in? Locke is just revisionism- things that are natural came to be possessions when the State in various guises seized it from collective humanity to distribute among it's cronies, who entered it into the markets. Property is a state institution- introduced by the state, enforced by the state- "at the point of a gun".

[BobKKKindle$]

Not really. Society just attempts to construct "laws" which go along with our human nature. So, natural law derives from human nature? In that case, how can you assume that the right to own property and not have your property taken away from you by the state is a component of natural law, given that property (especially in the form of ownership of the means of production, i.e. private property) has not been a consistent feature of all human societies, especially primitive communities, and requires the protection of the state in order to exist? Why do you assume that there is such a thing as a fixed human nature at all, given that our behavior can also change depending on the environment in which we live, and the way in which we are socialized? If it could be shown that the desire to act aggressively towards others was also an a component of human nature, would it be wrong for the state to prevent people from harming each other without the consent of the person who is being harmed, given that this would apparently constitute a violation of natural law?


Sure they can. We are all human and no one has yet demonstrated why some humans have the right to impose their will on others. You have yet to explain where rights come from, so the onus is on you to do this, before it can be proven that imposing your will on someone else is wrong on the grounds that it constitutes a violation of rights. There is also an element of ambiguity here, in that imposition of will can be applied to a range of different situations and circumstances, and even if we accept that people should not be allowed to impose their will on others as a basic moral principle, this does not prove that property is legitimate - after all, the worker is forced to sell his labour power by the fact that he lacks ownership of the means of production and therefore has no other way in which to survive, and in this respect the existence of private property under capitalism, and its concentration in the hands of the few, deprives most of the working population of any meaningful control over their lives, and allows capitalists to impose their wills on the proletariat.


No it does not. You have no freedom to own things which legitimately belong to someone else.You may think that private property constitutes a legitimate restriction of freedom, but the fact remains that exclusive ownership and control of a resource involves other people being deprived of the right to do certain things. I already provided an example showing how this is the case - if you own a patch of land, I do not have the freedom to set up a tent on that land because it is your property, and if I try, the state will punish me. Therefore, my freedom is restricted by private property. This means that libertarians cannot claim to advocate unlimited freedom - instead, they advocate certain kinds and forms of freedom, especially the right to accumulate unlimited wealth. Freedom lies at the center of Marxist ethics, but we conceive of freedom in different ways - we care more about things like the freedom of individuals to control the direction and purpose of their lives, and freedom not to be forced to live on the streets because you don't have enough money to pay for a house, and we think that these forms of freedom, which constitute a more meaningful and genuine understanding of what freedom means, cannot be realized in the context of a capitalist society.


Freedom of one person ends, where the freedom of other begins.Actually, the principle you're trying to express - generally known as the harm principle - is better expressed as follows: the right of each individual to act freely only extends to the point where they violate the autonomy of other members of society. From this perspective, the fact that the state punishes those who commit murder is a legitimate restriction of freedom (namely the freedom to murder) because it exists in order to protect the rights of those who might otherwise be murdered if such punishments were not in place - society would not be able to function if absolute freedom were permitted, because this would entail allowing people to rape and murder without fear of punishment.

[коровьев]

,So, natural law derives from human nature? In that case, how can you assume that the right to own property and not have your property taken away from you by the state is a component of natural law, given that property (especially in the form of ownership of the means of production, i.e. private property) has not been a consistent feature of all human societies, especially primitive communities, and requires the protection of the state in order to exist? Why do you assume that there is such a thing as a fixed human nature at all, given that our behavior can also change depending on the environment in which we live, and the way in which we are socialized? If it could be shown that the desire to act aggressively towards others was also an a component of human nature, would it be wrong for the state to prevent people from harming each other without the consent of the person who is being harmed, given that this would apparently constitute a violation of natural law?1.Natural Law derives from the principle of self-ownership. The principle of self-ownership can be easily deducted and it coincides with human nature
2. Property does not require state in order to exist. Property predated state. States and laws were invented to protect property.
3. Having the concept of property is natural to all humans, regardless of the environment. People are used to from the very beginning that some things belong to them and some do not.
4. Harming others can not be a natural law. It violated the principle of self-ownership.Anyone would be right in stopping one person who is unjustly harming another. Owning property can be a natural law, because by owning something legitimately you are not violating anyone's else rights of self-ownership.



You have yet to explain where rights come from, so the onus is on you to do this, before it can be proven that imposing your will on someone else is wrong on the grounds that it constitutes a violation of rights. There is also an element of ambiguity here, in that imposition of will can be applied to a range of different situations and circumstances, and even if we accept that people should not be allowed to impose their will on others as a basic moral principle, this does not prove that property is legitimate - after all, the worker is forced to sell his labour power by the fact that he lacks ownership of the means of production and therefore has no other way in which to survive, and in this respect the existence of private property under capitalism, and its concentration in the hands of the few, deprives most of the working population of any meaningful control over their lives, and allows capitalists to impose their wills on the proletariat.1. Before you impose your will on me, you must demonstrate that you have a right to do that. You are the one who is doing something, not me.
2. Having property does not violate anyone else principle of self-ownership. The worker can be forced to sell his labor for a multitude of reasons. It still does not make it right to force others give him things.
3. Under capitalism people generally have a pretty good chance to find a decent job and have meaningful control over their lives.



You may think that private property constitutes a legitimate restriction of freedom, but the fact remains that exclusive ownership and control of a resource involves other people being deprived of the right to do certain things. I already provided an example showing how this is the case - if you own a patch of land, I do not have the freedom to set up a tent on that land because it is your property, and if I try, the state will punish me. Therefore, my freedom is restricted by private property. This means that libertarians cannot claim to advocate unlimited freedom - instead, they advocate certain kinds and forms of freedom, especially the right to accumulate unlimited wealth. Freedom lies at the center of Marxist ethics, but we conceive of freedom in different ways - we care more about things like the freedom of individuals to control the direction and purpose of their lives, and freedom not to be forced to live on the streets because you don't have enough money to pay for a house, and we think that these forms of freedom, which constitute a more meaningful and genuine understanding of what freedom means, cannot be realized in the context of a capitalist society.
1. Where do people get a right to own things which legitimately belong to someone else?
2. I already gave you the libertarian definition of freedom. No one ever said it was absolute.



Actually, the principle you're trying to express - generally known as the harm principle - is better expressed as follows: the right of each individual to act freely only extends to the point where they violate the autonomy of other members of society. From this perspective, the fact that the state punishes those who commit murder is a legitimate restriction of freedom (namely the freedom to murder) because it exists in order to protect the rights of those who might otherwise be murdered if such punishments were not in place - society would not be able to function if absolute freedom were permitted, because this would entail allowing people to rape and murder without fear of punishment.1. the way the state get's resources to protect people's rights makes it illegitimate.

[#FF0000]

You talk about human nature a lot. Can you define it, and then give any sort of proof that it exists as you describe it, aside from anecdotal evidence? Thanks.

[коровьев]

and then give any sort of proof that it exists as you describe it, aside from anecdotal evidence?

Should I also prove that it is human for us to talk? The fact that the concept of property is present everywhere in our lives, and whenever it gets taken away by force bad things happen, is a demonstration enough that it is natural for us to have property.

[#FF0000]

Should I also prove that it is human for us to talk? The fact that the concept of property is present everywhere in our lives, and whenever it gets taken away by force bad things happen, is a demonstration enough that it is natural for us to have property.

There are and have been societies that didn't have private property as we know it.

[коровьев]

Yeah, i am not denying that. However, most people just chose to live with private property. Just makes things easier for us to live with one another knowing that somethings belong to us and some things don't.

[#FF0000]

Yeah, i am not denying that. However, most people just chose to live with private property. Just makes things easier for us to live with one another knowing that somethings belong to us and some things don't.

So what happened to human nature, then?

[коровьев]

It was suppressed by local customs?

[#FF0000]

It was suppressed by local customs?

So what makes what you think of as "human nature" different from local customs?

[коровьев]

The fact that it is prevalent everywhere where people are left alone to themselves.

[IcarusAngel]

Property rights are not "natural rights." People took things away from others all the time pre-civilization. In fact, some anthropologists say that the reason the cro-magnons were able to get an advantage over other classifications like neanderthals is because of brute force. Early humans also shared freely, and there was absolutely no concept of if you stayed at a piece of land, it was yours, and others would protect you.

So the fact is early humans using force to take property is just as natural as these "property rights." In fact, property rights were established to justify the taking of property from other people by force, so they could actually hold onto it, as all property requires some degree of force (using the property to the exclusion of all others under certain conditions). This is why early states declared that nearly all of property was theirs, and the peasants could get whatever scraps they could in markets. Capitalism is only a tad bit better than this, since the state supposedly allows the rich capitalist class to hold a vast amount of property as well, that they "earn" in highly rigged markets by their friends the government. Actually, really sounds worse.

The truly "natural" thing to do would be for workers to see that this elite ownership of property is destorying them, and thus to seize the property by force, just as their ancesters would have done pre-civilization.

What can actually be learned from pre-civilization is that some actions done by man can harm others, and thus should be restricted or prevented (rape, killing, wiping out other tribes and murdering for little to no reason, and so on). Thus, socialists rely upon man as a "rational animal" who should enter into a contract with others that should be decided cooperately and freely - not just by the "government." Certainly, the massive ownership of wealth by too few hands is something that should be restricted.

As Kropotkin said, Competition is the way of the jungle, cooperation is the way for society.

[#FF0000]

The fact that it is prevalent everywhere where people are left alone to themselves.

What? Like where? Most Native American societies, as far as I know, didn't have "private property" as we know it. Back that up, boyo, because from looking at history, it looks like what you call "human nature" is only prevalent everywhere Europeans set foot.

[коровьев]

What? Like where? Most Native American societies, as far as I know, didn't have "private property" as we know it..
So?


Back that up, boyo, because from looking at history, it looks like what you call "human nature" is only prevalent everywhere Europeans set foot

nope; private property dominates everywhere. People prefer to live in a civilized society and not as savages.

[#FF0000]

So?

So that's an instance of people being left alone and then not coming up with private property. The concept of "private property" as we know it didn't come about until Europeans got there.

So then, it looks like the whole "private property" thing is just another "local culture". Just happens to belong to a people who conquered a lot of the world and brought (forced) their culture on others.



nope; private property dominates everywhere. People prefer to live in a civilized society and not as savages.Oh. So the fact that Europeans dominated the world has nothing to do with it?

You haven't convinced me. You say private property dominates because it's human nature. Meanwhile a bunch of relatively advanced societies just don't or didn't have it. Ah, but they're savages so they don't count. Right. Only European culture reflects humanity's innate nature, yeah? That's absurd. Fix that argument, boyo.

[Plagueround]

nope; private property dominates everywhere. People prefer to live in a civilized society and not as savages.

I will say this very clearly.

If you ever refer to native americans as savages again and do not apologize immediately, I will ensure your worthless fucking ass is banned from this site.

[synthesis]

What? Like where? Most Native American societies, as far as I know, didn't have "private property" as we know it. Back that up, boyo, because from looking at history, it looks like what you call "human nature" is only prevalent everywhere Europeans set foot.

You were expecting anything more than circular logic and argumentum ad populum? You're wasting your time.

[ZeroNowhere]

So that's an instance of people being left alone and then not coming up with private property. The concept of "private property" as we know it didn't come about until Europeans got there.
Perhaps, but those Europeans left them alone pretty darn good. I swear, they kept stealing nonexistent private property from each other. What the hell. Also, those annoying Spanish anarchist Martians were trying to steal our planet. Assholes.
Though it would appear that our neighborhood authoritarian is confusing 'private property' with 'possessions'.

[BobKKKindle$]

1.Natural Law derives from the principle of self-ownership. The principle of self-ownership can be easily deducted and it coincides with human natureIf we accept the notion of self-ownership, why does that mean we have an automatic right to own things, and prevent other people from using our property, even when this results in other members of society not having access to the things they need to live with dignity and realize their potential? You also assert that self-ownership can be easily deduced; but this is not the case, as the concept itself presupposes that ownership is a valuable and meaningful principle that can be applied to our own bodies as well as material goods such as factories and fields, whereas it could be quite easily argued that we simply are ourselves, and this is what generates moral concepts like bodily autonomy, not any property-based relation.


2. Property does not require state in order to exist. Property predated state. States and laws were invented to protect property.If there was no institution with sufficient force and legitimacy to stop people from using the property of others when the owners have not given their permission, then there would be no way to ensure that property rights are protected, as anyone could simply live on land owned by someone else, and the only way that person could be removed is if the owner used force or intimidation to remove them, in which case we would have to discard all questions of morals and legitimacy, because we would be concerned only with who has superior physical force at their disposal. For this reason, property is bound up with the state, and Locke was completely wrong.


3. Having the concept of property is natural to all humans, regardless of the environment. People are used to from the very beginning that some things belong to them and some do not.A distinction firstly needs to be made between private property and personal property, as the former refers to the exclusive ownership of the tools and machinery we use to produce the things we need to survive, otherwise known as the means of production in Marxist terminology, whereas the latter refers to personal objects and items of consumption which are not being used to exploit others or produce commodities. Marxists are not oppossed to the notion that personal property is legitimate, and we would certainly not advocate that people should be allowed to use someone's toothbrush, or that all toothbrushes should be communal property, for instance. On the subject of nature, though, it is totally untrue that private property is a natural institution that can be observed in all human societies - as noted in my previous post, Engels described early communities as "primitive communism" on the grounds that these communities exhibited an egalitarian distribution of goods, and private property was not recognized. Even if this were not the case, you cannot argue that something is legitimate solely on the grounds that it has historically been a feature of different societies - this is also true of things that we would like to get rid of, such as rape, and so we have to look towards other criteria and concepts if we want to establish whether something is morally acceptable or not.


Harming others can not be a natural law. It violated the principle of self-ownership.Anyone would be right in stopping one person who is unjustly harming another. Owning property can be a natural law, because by owning something legitimately you are not violating anyone's else rights of self-ownership.As noted above, you have to first explain where self-ownership comes from, and why it is a valid concept, and then show how self-ownership entails the right to own private property and accumulate unlimited wealth even when a different system of ownership would generate greater happiness and human wellbeing. As of yet, you have not addressed the issue at hand - the origin of natural rights.


1. Before you impose your will on me, you must demonstrate that you have a right to do that. You are the one who is doing something, not me.Expropriating private property and establishing a socialist economy (or what you would see as an unjust act whereby the workers impose their wills on the bourgeoisie and violate private property) is legitimate on the grounds that capitalism and any other society divided into hostile classes prevents the vast majority of mankind from accessing and controlling the goods that they produce through human labour, and deprives people of the ability to control their lives. You have to show that respecting property rights - wherever they may come from - should occupy a higher place on our last of moral priorities than these imperatives.


3. Under capitalism people generally have a pretty good chance to find a decent job and have meaningful control over their lives.This is wrong, and the complete reverse is true - capitalism is characterized by a complete lack of control, at least for the working class. Under capitalism, the opportunities and resources that people have access to are generally determined by the kind of family into which they are born, especially in terms of how much income a given family has, which has nothing to do with how much people deserve, and leads to individuals being able to live in luxury without having to do any work solely because they were lucky enough to inherit property. In addition, workers (i.e. the people who actually to work in order to survive, and are responsible for producing wealth) have no control over the way in which their workplaces are organized, and face pressure to eliminate their personalities and creative desires in order to accommodate themselves to the demands of a tightly-controlled working day which generally consists of workers being forced to repeat a small range of boring tasks with no opportunities for the development of a worker's desires and talents, or meaningful interaction with other workers. This is entirely consistent with capitalism as a system based on private property, because the sole aim of production under capitalism is to accumulate surplus value in order to support the living standards of the rich and allow rival capitals to compete with each other, above all other concerns. The fact that the products of human labour remain under the control of the capitalist and are then sold as commodities so as to realize the surplus value generated through production means that workers are given a mere wage in exchange for their activity instead of being entitled to creative power, and consequently labour manifests itself as objects that exist outside of us and exercise hostile and alien power over us. This constitutes a violation of our species being, as what makes human labour distinct from that of animals is the fact that we are capable of conceptualizing our activity before we impose it on the material world, and also that humans can develop their consciousness and potential through the laboring process, thereby developing new ways of producing the things we need. The activity of animals, by contrast, involves repetition and instinct.The material manifestation of this lack of control is the nature of distribution under capitalism – the exchange of commodities takes place through the market mechanism and this, combined with the drive to accumulate capital, means that the economy is beyond our conscious control, and prone to crises which harm both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. For these reasons, capitalism is not freedom, and does not offer autonomy - it represents the highest form of alienation, and what Marx describes as the "true realm of freedom" can only be attained under the conditions of a communist society.


Where do people get a right to own things which legitimately belong to someone else?They don't, but you need to explain what you mean by legitimate, explain why we ought to understand legitimacy in this way, and show that private property as manifested under capitalism is consistent with this conception of legitimacy.


. I already gave you the libertarian definition of freedom. No one ever said it was absolute.Perhaps you could state it again, because I can't see where you provided a definition of freedom, and a supporting explanation.


1. the way the state get's resources to protect people's rights makes it illegitimatAgain, you can't just assert that something is legitimate, or illegitimate, and expect people to accept your argument. Given that the most vulnerable and exploited members of society would not be able to enjoy things like healthcare if it were not for the fact that the government does take away some of the wealth controlled by the bourgeoisie and spend it on welfare provision, where does the imperative to protect private property at all costs, and therefore reject distributive measures, lie?

[F9]

Sorry for not actually trash that idiots post immediately, i forgot to do so.I have also trashed a couple of offtopic posts too, lets keep this on topic, please!

Fuserg9:star:

[Cumannach]

The concept of a 'natural right' as used in this context is nothing but anti-democracy. The 'freedom' of a minority to exploit the majority is not a 'right' likely to be put into a constitution written by the majority. Some of these guys admit as much when they whip out their stupid little phrase, "America is not a democracy, it's a Republic!" This is right, in the sense that actually matters. It's a society organized according to principles drawn up by a minority, which protects them from the majority. The reason the right to private property is enshrined is not because a King might steal it, but because the people would naturally expropriate it, since it does in truth, belong to them according to the only meaningful right, the right of the people, democracy.

Also I may disagree with some comrades as regards this talk about human nature. In my opinion human nature does exist, and must obviously exist.

Just because to say "Capitalism is human nature" is wrong, doesn't mean that the idea of human nature is wrong, just that capitalism as human nature is wrong. "Capitalism is human nature" is an argument used to justify the existence of capitalism. It exists, therefore it's natural and therefore it should exist. Not a very sophisticated argument and clearly erroneous, since child pornography also exists.

If you really want one, there's a much better justification for a 'natural' social organization. The social organization that led to humanity diverging from the rest of the animal kingdom so widely in evolution is a pretty good template, and this was essentially co-operative, communal, and egalitarian (communist).

This talk of 'natural' is a but useless I think. Really, we should organise society simply in the way that most benefits the greatest part of it, as that's the only structuring of society that fits in with the natural morality of the majority of humanity.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I wonder which will come first; communism or a thread in OI which isn't aimed specifically at libertarians.

[GPDP]

I wonder which will come first; communism or a thread in OI which isn't aimed specifically at libertarians.

Not our fault libertarians, ancaps, and Randroids are so overrepresented on the internet. Plus, they flock to this website like flies to a well-placed cow turd.

Wait...