Are "God Given" Rights the Pervue of the Government?

[East_TN_Patriot]

Agreed.  Thus, we have answered the OP's first question as to the definition of the concept of rights..

 

The next question, implied by the first sentence in post number 7 (and also by the last sentence by East_TN_Patriot that I quoted above), is this:

 

Accepting for the sake of this discussion that the rights secured to the people in the Constitution are not absolute and in fact are subject to regulation due to the social contract, what degree of government regulation of individual rights is legitimate regulation?

 

This question (how much regulation of rights is legitimate) is difficult to answer because we must first decide what the standard is by which to measure legitimacy.  If the standard is fluid and changes with the times or the desires of the people, and if the people themselves favor collective rights, then the standard would be quite lax.  Consequently, a thorough degree of government regulation of individual rights might be legitimate.  

 

On the other hand, if the standard is a fixed one and relates to the philosophical views of the Founders, then because the Founders favored individual rights, the standard would be stricter.  As a result, considerably less government regulation of individual rights could be said to be legitimate.

 

So which is it?  Or do you define the standard in a totally different way?

 

Unfortunately, it's both.  The Founders favored individual rights, so that was the original standard.  Since that time, a major segment of our society - including most people who claim to favor a strict interpretation of the Constitution - have made that qualitative shift toward the idea of collective rights.  
 

Interesting youtube video which talks about this:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjlzIBSFl0E

 

We fall into a trap when we discuss restrictions on natural rights...  because it's an unfair trade.  My rights belong to me individually and I've not agreed to those rights being infringed...  How can men born 275+ years ago condemn me to a lifetime of servitude and slavery to the majority?  I've not signed any social contract giving away my rights...  have you?

No, it's not an unfair trade.  If you think it is, then you either, 1) don't really understand the concept of being in a "state of nature" as discussed in social contract theory, 2) you have not considered the ramifications if we lived in an anarchy, and/or 3) you haven't considered that there is no option to return to such a "state of nature" because there is no territory on the globe that is not subjected to the jurisdiction of government, which is the outcome of the hypothetical social contract.  On that final point, Locke discussed in some detail how the North American continent was one of the last frontiers on the planet where this state of nature existed.  Locke also discussed the ethical question of how much of our natural liberty can and should be given up.  Lastly, the social contract that Rousseau talked about is much older that 275 years.  The concept was talking about the formation of the first human societies at the dawn of mankind.  

 

What your point is advocating is that you believe in anarchy where all natural rights are unrestricted and absolute.  That means that your rights can only be secured by your own efforts.  If a band of roving men armed with superior weapons want to take your life, liberty, and property, then you have no security in your natural rights.  Without the protections and legal safeguards of a civil society, one that was presumably formed under the social contract, those rights are not really yours.  Using a contemporary topic that is near and dear to us on TGO, I'll illustrate this using firearms ownership.  Let's presume that tomorrow morning the US Supreme Court ruled that the entire political structure of the United States was illegitimate and an unjust interpretation of the theoretical social contract, therefore the entire governmental structure of the US, including state and local governments must cease to exist and all powers of these governments to enforce law and regulate interactions between people is stripped.  Now what?  Using the gun example, this would mean that the world would become one where people could own any type of weapon they want, regardless of their ethics or respect for individual rights, and they could use those weapons in any way they choose.  If Charles Manson could obtain control over the entire nuclear arsenal of the US and use it to destroy all mankind if he wanted to because in a state of nature, there are no rules; it's survival of the fittest.  If your neighbors decided to band together, use their collective power to enslave your family, use you as a sex slave, and cannibalize your other family members, they can do that because that's how they choose to exercise their absolute and unrestricted natural rights.  

You might be saying, "But their rights end where mine begin!"  Philosophically, you are correct, but without a civil society organized under an assumed social contract, there is no mechanism in place to make sure that standard is enforced.  You also might be saying, "But I would join up with my neighbors and we would protect our rights as a group."  Well, that may be true as well, but you have just engaged in a social contract and you'd all agree to a set of rules on how this new group will function.  EIther you go along with the program or you are cast out into the "state of nature" and fend for yourself.  

If you don't believe that the social contract concept is legitimate, then you are saying that the US Constitution is not a legitimate legal document because that document specifically limits individual liberty in certain ways.  The goal of the Founders was to find a way to have a flourishing and organized civil society while still maximizing the amount of liberty that individuals could maintain, at least for white land owners.  As we all know, slaves, women, Native Americans, and those who did not own land were not entrusted with the ability to maintain maximum liberty.  

[East_TN_Patriot]

I would disagree. I think that anarchy IS the answer, hence why I philosophically am an Anarcho-Capitalist (AnCap), though my realistic and pragmatic nature allows me to accept libertarianism even if I find it a bit too authoritative for my tastes.

Explain how a completely unregulated free-market will prevent all corruption.  The only way this could ever be an option in today's world is to seize all property, distribute it equally to assure that we all start on an even playing field, and then let individuals reorganize society using the "invisible hand" of the market to regulate all human interaction.  Further, your assumption is that there is no way that anyone would engage in any transaction than one that is entered into with a complete and total understanding of the terms and a completely ethical attitude and no intention to ever take advantage of or defraud another.  With no rules to protect property rights and no institutions to enforce those rules, we will degrade to a state of total disorder where the weak are exploited by the powerful.  Anarcho-capitalism can only result in a feudal society.

[JayC]

In all fairness I don't ascribe to the capitalism anarchy model that Chuck does ;)  While our political goals are similar in nature there are some significant differences.

 

I think the key issue is that I don't believe it's ever lawful or legitimate for the state/government/social contract to initiate violence (or the threat of violence) against members of that society.  So I think it's perfectly legal and legitimate for the 'government' to track down, capture and put before a jury people who murder, rape, steal, etc.  In those cases the government isn't initiating violence but answering violence.

 

I don't think there should be any exceptions or exigent circumstances to the limited powers described in the Constitution where the government is allowed to violate natural rights in meeting force with force.  A perfect example is that no place or container should be allowed to be searched without a written warrant signed by an independent judge, period, no exceptions.  Which is exactly what our founding fathers attempted to do in the constitution.

 

All other interactions with the 'government' where force is initiated are and should be illegal, and violations by the people employed by the government should be treated more harshly than those committed by criminals, because their abuses are much more serious to the fabric of the society.  

 

The simple fact remains, I'm much more scared of my government than I am of my neighbors...  I'm much less likely to end up a sex slave to my neighbors as I am to be killed in democide by my own government, seeing as democide is the #1 non-natural killer for the last 100 years.

 

Now think of all the interactions we have with the government where it initiates force against it's citizens...  and if it no longer had the ability to initiate that force how any of us would be in anymore danger than we are today?  I'd argue we would be much safer.

 

Unfortunately, it's both.  The Founders favored individual rights, so that was the original standard.  Since that time, a major segment of our society - including most people who claim to favor a strict interpretation of the Constitution - have made that qualitative shift toward the idea of collective rights.  
 

No, it's not an unfair trade.  If you think it is, then you either, 1) don't really understand the concept of being in a "state of nature" as discussed in social contract theory, 2) you have not considered the ramifications if we lived in an anarchy, and/or 3) you haven't considered that there is no option to return to such a "state of nature" because there is no territory on the globe that is not subjected to the jurisdiction of government, which is the outcome of the hypothetical social contract.  On that final point, Locke discussed in some detail how the North American continent was one of the last frontiers on the planet where this state of nature existed.  Locke also discussed the ethical question of how much of our natural liberty can and should be given up.  Lastly, the social contract that Rousseau talked about is much older that 275 years.  The concept was talking about the formation of the first human societies at the dawn of mankind.  

 

What your point is advocating is that you believe in anarchy where all natural rights are unrestricted and absolute.  That means that your rights can only be secured by your own efforts.  If a band of roving men armed with superior weapons want to take your life, liberty, and property, then you have no security in your natural rights.  Without the protections and legal safeguards of a civil society, one that was presumably formed under the social contract, those rights are not really yours.  Using a contemporary topic that is near and dear to us on TGO, I'll illustrate this using firearms ownership.  Let's presume that tomorrow morning the US Supreme Court ruled that the entire political structure of the United States was illegitimate and an unjust interpretation of the theoretical social contract, therefore the entire governmental structure of the US, including state and local governments must cease to exist and all powers of these governments to enforce law and regulate interactions between people is stripped.  Now what?  Using the gun example, this would mean that the world would become one where people could own any type of weapon they want, regardless of their ethics or respect for individual rights, and they could use those weapons in any way they choose.  If Charles Manson could obtain control over the entire nuclear arsenal of the US and use it to destroy all mankind if he wanted to because in a state of nature, there are no rules; it's survival of the fittest.  If your neighbors decided to band together, use their collective power to enslave your family, use you as a sex slave, and cannibalize your other family members, they can do that because that's how they choose to exercise their absolute and unrestricted natural rights.  

You might be saying, "But their rights end where mine begin!"  Philosophically, you are correct, but without a civil society organized under an assumed social contract, there is no mechanism in place to make sure that standard is enforced.  You also might be saying, "But I would join up with my neighbors and we would protect our rights as a group."  Well, that may be true as well, but you have just engaged in a social contract and you'd all agree to a set of rules on how this new group will function.  EIther you go along with the program or you are cast out into the "state of nature" and fend for yourself.  

If you don't believe that the social contract concept is legitimate, then you are saying that the US Constitution is not a legitimate legal document because that document specifically limits individual liberty in certain ways.  The goal of the Founders was to find a way to have a flourishing and organized civil society while still maximizing the amount of liberty that individuals could maintain, at least for white land owners.  As we all know, slaves, women, Native Americans, and those who did not own land were not entrusted with the ability to maintain maximum liberty.  

 

[Chucktshoes]

I'm going to insert numbers into your post to help add clarity for myself as I address your points.

1 Explain how a completely unregulated free-market will prevent all corruption. 2The only way this could ever be an option in today's world is to seize all property, distribute it equally to assure that we all start on an even playing field, and then let individuals reorganize society using the "invisible hand" of the market to regulate all human interaction. 3 Further, your assumption is that there is no way that anyone would engage in any transaction than one that is entered into with a complete and total understanding of the terms and a completely ethical attitude and no intention to ever take advantage of or defraud another. 4 With no rules to protect property rights and no institutions to enforce those rules, we will degrade to a state of total disorder where the weak are exploited by the powerful. Anarcho-capitalism can only result in a feudal society.

1. It can't. No system can. At least An Cap doesn't reward that corruption with the mantle of legitimacy and the power to enforce its will on the unwilling because it is "government".

2. That's a crap strawman argument that I shouldn't even acknowledge, but I will. Our current system ensures those with power and wealth earn more of both while preventing most real competition from outside the oligarchy. Take away their regulatory authority and watch it crumble without the mark of legitimacy for their violence.

3.Please don't make assumptions about what my assumptions are, odds are you are working from an incorrect position. I make no such assumption as you think I do here, I only posit that it is incumbent upon parties who voluntarily enter into contracts to be sure of the terms of those contracts. Without the government, voluntary property protection organizations would arise to take the place of courts. Imagine if the Better Business Bureau had the ability to enforce resolutions through arbitration or it would decline access to the market of its partners? That is but one of many possible avenues of seeking compensation for fraud.

4.The flip answer would be, how is that substantially any different than what we currently have?

----
Would a truly voluntary system solve all the problems of human nature and result in instant utopia? Nope. Not even close. If we could solve those problems then we wouldn't need government, yet it is because of those very problems that we shouldn't have one. At least my position doesn't confer legitimacy on those who would desire to impose their will on others by force.

Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others. - Edward Abbey


A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years. - Lysander Spooner

The essence of government is force, and most often that force is used to accomplish evil ends. - Walter Williams

[RichardR]

Welp unfortunately there seems to be a substantial percentage the American People who no have absolutely no desire to dwell in the chaos that is liberty & freedom, prefering instead the much calmer serenity of authoritarianism.

Because of this they cannot be reasoned with or begged for compromise, they have no desire to be "free" themselves & thus will not allow individual-minded people like you or your children to be "free" to cause any chaos within their calm, comfortable collective.

[DaveTN]

We live in a society with rules and people with the authority to enforce them. Our founding Fathers didn’t like the rules of the Crown so they started their own government and made their own rules.

We don’t have a perfect system, but it is one of the best in the world. If you don’t like the rules, you are free to work towards changing them, start your own government, or find a country that better suits you.

If there were only two people left on earth; one of them will have authority over the other.

I believe in God and I believe I have a God given right to carry a gun to protect myself. The courts disagree and that’s what I have to live by.

Our founding Fathers weren’t a bunch of nice old men trying build a utopia; they were militants that built the government they wanted and then put the branches of government in place to rule.

[RichardR]

We live in a society with rules and people with the authority to enforce them. Our founding Fathers didn’t like the rules of the Crown so they started their own government and made their own rules.

We don’t have a perfect system, but it is one of the best in the world. If you don’t like the rules, you are free to work towards changing them, start your own government, or find a country that better suits you.

If there were only two people left on earth; one of them will have authority over the other.

I believe in God and I believe I have a God given right to carry a gun to protect myself. The courts disagree and that’s what I have to live by.

Our founding Fathers weren’t a bunch of nice old men trying build a utopia; they were militants that built the government they wanted and then put the branches of government in place to rule.

Thanks Dave, you are a great example of the "authoritarian-mindset" that I mentioned in my previous post, this is exactly the sort of mentality which is currently corrupting our nation's most basic founding principles & destroying the last little bits of individual liberty & freedom that the American People have remaining.

Your "if there was only two people left on earth" comment, where you automatically assumed that one of them would have to have authority over the other one, instead of the two of them being equals is what our founding fathers attempted to protect us from when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

If you've ever played a game of "Jenga" imagine replacing the tower of stacked wooden planks with our individual liberties & freedoms, if people who believes as you do keeps pulling pieces of them out one at a time even each plank is removed very slowly/carefully, the tower will still eventually collapse & have to be rebuilt.

[East_TN_Patriot]

I'm going to insert numbers into your post to help add clarity for myself as I address your points.


1. It can't. No system can. At least An Cap doesn't reward that corruption with the mantle of legitimacy and the power to enforce its will on the unwilling because it is "government".

2. That's a crap strawman argument that I shouldn't even acknowledge, but I will. Our current system ensures those with power and wealth earn more of both while preventing most real competition from outside the oligarchy. Take away their regulatory authority and watch it crumble without the mark of legitimacy for their violence.

3.Please don't make assumptions about what my assumptions are, odds are you are working from an incorrect position. I make no such assumption as you think I do here, I only posit that it is incumbent upon parties who voluntarily enter into contracts to be sure of the terms of those contracts. Without the government, voluntary property protection organizations would arise to take the place of courts. Imagine if the Better Business Bureau had the ability to enforce resolutions through arbitration or it would decline access to the market of its partners? That is but one of many possible avenues of seeking compensation for fraud.

4.The flip answer would be, how is that substantially any different than what we currently have?

----
Would a truly voluntary system solve all the problems of human nature and result in instant utopia? Nope. Not even close. If we could solve those problems then we wouldn't need government, yet it is because of those very problems that we shouldn't have one. At least my position doesn't confer legitimacy on those who would desire to impose their will on others by force.

Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others. - Edward Abbey


A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years. - Lysander Spooner

The essence of government is force, and most often that force is used to accomplish evil ends. - Walter Williams

I will respond to your points in the same way:

 

1) Our government as originally conceived didn't give the mantle of legitimacy to the corrupt or yield power to the government to use against the unwilling.  I'll argue here as I have with Marxists, that the critique you make is based on American government as it exists today, not what it was intended to be.  Also, just as I argue with Marxists, I will say that the answer does not lie in destroying the political system and replace it with some alternative form, but to try and return it to what it was intended to be in the beginning.  Frankly, we are arguing "ideal types" and none of these systems work as intended.  Your concept of an anarcho-capitalist society would be no more likely to work as intended than any other system man could conceive, which is why Marxist philosophy ended up a bastardized authoritarian system of government instead of the peaceful Utopia based on the ideas of democracy and freedom that Marx envisioned (and yes, Marx did believe his solution would result in a free and democratic society).  The goal is to find the system that would best provide mechanisms to prevent the corruption and/or manage people's willingness to violate the rights of others.  I am not aware of any system of anarchy that has been successful in doing that.  That is not to say that I could be wrong, but history tells us that an absence of civil society based on rule of law does not end well for individuals.

2) It's not a "crap straw-man argument" at all.  In fact, I strongly suggest this is the Achiles heel of your position, and your portrayal of it as such suggests that you haven't really given the topic of power and wealth distribution much thought or you don't have an answer so you choose to insult the point.  If I am misinterpreting your language, I apologize and would really like to hear your position.  I am not trying to pick a fight, but enjoying a spirited debate about an interesting topic.  All that said....

 

Do you believe that the very same powerful interests we are both citing as a major problem in our political/economic/and legal systems would simply crumble in a social revolution that resulted in an anarcho-capitalist state as you advocate?  Based on my understandings of anarcho-capitalism and discussion I have had with followers of that philosophy, they tend to possess what I consider an overly naive and optimistic expectation of the power of the individual consumer to make change.  Individuals and entities that currently have access to extraordinary wealth and power would still possess power, wealth, and resources after the revolution.  They will use those resources to leverage additional resources and maintain their positions of power.  They control access to essential resources such as food, medicine, oil, coal, and transportation, which are resources those of us who lack power and wealth would need to survive.  How would us little guys gain access to those resources?  How do you take a corporation that controls oil reserves with the resources to defend those reserves by force and wrench that away from them?  I think the flaw in the anarcho-capitalist philosophy is that we could engage in mutual economic exchanges and reward the entities we deem to be worthy at the expense of those entities we deem to be corrupt.  Perhaps that is true to an extent, but I don't believe that in the world of corporate domination that individual economic decisions would have any impact.  Add in that these powerful entities would control access to knowledge, as they already do, and that would further corrupt the ability of individuals to engage in mutually beneficial transactions.  This is why I argued that such an anarcho-capitalist revolution would not be successful unless that revolution included a mechanism to redistribute what many would consider to be a corrupt distribution of wealth and resources to entities that have been "legitimized and rewarded" for their corrupt activities.  Please educate me on how this would work without a level playing field that everyone could have equal access to property, wealth, and resources so that everyone could then embark on this new path of a society organized and guided only be individual and mutually beneficial economic decisions that reward innovation or prudence and punish unwise or corrupt activity.  I say that existing social and economic inequality will just be reproduced under the new system thus corrupting the new system from the beginning.

3) Again, I think you are misinterpreting my words, but my assumptions were based on what you said and my understandings of anarcho-capitalism.  I was not trying to put words in your mouth.  I completely agree that such as system would require people to engage in transactions that are based on informed and voluntary decisions grounded in mutually beneficial exchange.  Returning to my point in #2 above, I maintain the position that this is simply not possible because not everyone has equal levels of the knowledge, education, or access to information that is required for this sort of ideal economic exchange to take place.  It is human nature for the strong to take advantage of the weak, and the powerful to exploit the powerless.  I understand the promise of private organizations to help manage these exchanges, but as we know now, the BBB is corrupted by business interests who basically pay for an "A" rating.  A better example would be the UL and their product safety testing.  I would like to think that these sorts of organizations would be good mediators, but I don't think they would be sufficient to protect basic individual rights.  This is where some sort of legal structure and statement of rights is important.

 

4) We have order now, it's just a system of order that is corrupted by crony capitalism.  I am arguing we return to what we had, not replace it with something new.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Welp unfortunately there seems to be a substantial percentage the American People who no have absolutely no desire to dwell in the chaos that is liberty & freedom, prefering instead the much calmer serenity of authoritarianism.

Because of this they cannot be reasoned with or begged for compromise, they have no desire to be "free" themselves & thus will not allow individual-minded people like you or your children to be "free" to cause any chaos within their calm, comfortable collective.

 

I am curious if this is directed toward me. If it's not, ignore the comments below and accept my apologies for misinterpreting your statements.

 

If it was, I would encourage you to re-read what I am saying, and pay attention to my signature.  I do not support authoritarianism in any way, but I also do not consider myself naive enough to believe that we can have this "calm comfortable collective" you dream of.  That I believe in the need for some minimal form of legal framework to prevent individuals from doing direct harm to one another is certainly not remotely close to authoritarianism, and if your statement was intended to be understood at face value, it's pretty obvious that you have no willingness and/or ability to engage in any sort of worthwhile political discourse.  In fact, your eagerness to categorically and immediately discount another point of view on how this "calm comfortable collective" would look is actually proof of an authoritarian mindset and unwillingness to 

Marx's dream of a "calm comfortable collective" resulted in dictatorships and genocide.  The Native American's "calm comfortable collective" resulted in their virtual extermination at the hands of a more powerful society that believed that the legal safeguards afforded to specific members of white society did not apply to these "redskins" and "savages."  This is why I again state that it is essential that a definite codified legal structure outlining the fundamental ideals of individual rights and liberty coupled with a basic framework for organizing a government that is charged with the duty and responsibility to assure individual rights are protected must be in place.  What that government and legal structure looks like is open for discussion.

[RichardR]

I am curious if this is directed toward me. If it's not, ignore the comments below and accept my apologies for misinterpreting your statements.

If it was, I would encourage you to re-read what I am saying, and pay attention to my signature. I do not support authoritarianism in any way, but I also do not consider myself naive enough to believe that we can have this "calm comfortable collective" you dream of. That I believe in the need for some minimal form of legal framework to prevent individuals from doing direct harm to one another is certainly not remotely close to authoritarianism, and if your statement was intended to be understood at face value, it's pretty obvious that you have no willingness and/or ability to engage in any sort of worthwhile political discourse. In fact, your eagerness to categorically and immediately discount another point of view on how this "calm comfortable collective" would look is actually proof of an authoritarian mindset and unwillingness to

Marx's dream of a "calm comfortable collective" resulted in dictatorships and genocide. The Native American's "calm comfortable collective" resulted in their virtual extermination at the hands of a more powerful society that believed that the legal safeguards afforded to specific members of white society did not apply to these "redskins" and "savages." This is why I again state that it is essential that a definite codified legal structure outlining the fundamental ideals of individual rights and liberty coupled with a basic framework for organizing a government that is charged with the duty and responsibility to assure individual rights are protected must be in place. What that government and legal structure looks like is open for discussion.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

[RobertNashville]

....This is why I again state that it is essential that a definite codified legal structure outlining the fundamental ideals of individual rights and liberty coupled with a basic framework for organizing a government that is charged with the duty and responsibility to assure individual rights are protected must be in place.  What that government and legal structure looks like is open for discussion.

Absolutely correct.

[RobertNashville]

You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

Is that response your idea of constructive, worthwhile dialogue?

[RichardR]

Is that response your idea of constructive, worthwhile dialogue?

Yet another great example of the "authoritative mindset", if my comment's do not meet with "your approval" that's just to bad Robert.

I do not always color within the lines .... but I do always paint the picture that I want folks to see.

[Wheelgunner]

Wow. I'm impressed with how much ground we've covered here. Good discussion.

I'd like to revisit an issue raised earlier. I know I agreed to assume, arguendo, that rights are subject to some degree of regulation by the government. However, JayC provided us with a short video (highlighted by Chucktshoes in post 15) arguing that a right, by definition, can only exist where the holder of the right refuses to compromise on the matter to which his right relates. According to the video, if the holder of the right allows government (or an individual) to limit, regulate, or otherwise curtail full enjoyment of the right, then it ceases to be a right at all and becomes a mere privilege (in the modern sense of the word).

So what I'm wondering is this: if a government has the power to limit, regulate, or otherwise somehow curtail a "right" held by a citizen, then how does that citizen's "right" differ from a mere privilege? Regardless of the source from which you believe a right derives, and regardless of what rights you would like to enjoy, can we even still refer to such a thing as a right at all?

Could the answer be that it is not possible for an individual to possess a right in the context of the social contract?

(Edited to complete my thought) Edited November 21, 2013 by Wheelgunner

[RobertNashville]

Yet another great example of the "authoritative mindset", if my comment's do not meet with "your approval" that's just to bad Robert.

I do not always color within the lines .... but I do always paint the picture that I want folks to see.

and insulting people, such as by by claiming they have an "authoritative mindset", is the usual and preferred response to others by those who can't make a cogent argument in support of their position or who simply want to argue.

[RobertNashville]

Wow. I'm impressed with how much ground we've covered here. Good discussion.

I'd like to revisit an issue raised earlier. I know I agreed to assume, arguendo, that rights are subject to some degree of regulation by the government. However, JayC provided us with a short video (highlighted by Chucktshoes in post 15) arguing that a right, by definition, can only exist where the holder of the right refuses to compromise on the matter to which his right relates. According to the video, if the holder of the right allows government (or an individual) to limit, regulate, or otherwise curtail full enjoyment of the right, then it ceases to be a right at all and becomes a mere privilege (in the modern sense of the word).

So what I'm wondering is this: if a government has the power to limit, regulate, or otherwise somehow curtail a "right" held by a citizen, then how does that citizen's "right" differ from a mere privilege? Regardless of the source from which you believe a right derives, and regardless of what rights you would like to enjoy, can we even still refer to such a thing as a right at all?

Could the answer be that it is not possible for an individual to possess a right in the context of the social contract?

(Edited to complete my thought)

No one's rights exists in a vacuum...no one has unlimited rights to do anything they want anytime they want. That can ONLY work if the individual lives on a planet with a population of "1".

 

Otherwise, society requires that there be rules and regulations about how people treat one another and provides ways to redress grievances. Society requires it because throughout recorded history, man has proven that there has to be rules (and consequences for breaking them) because people tend to not act responsibly and/or with no regard to the rights of anyone else.

 

That's why the founders of this country created a government with rules and regulations...That's why, for example, that you have a right to the peaceful enjoyment of your property but you DON'T have a right to do things on/with your property that infringe on MY right to the peaceful enjoyment of MY property. However, the existence of rules and regulations and governments doesn't mean that our rights are simply privileges.

 

I'm not saying that rules/regulations/governments can't become tyrannical; however, there are some among us who seem to feel that ANY rule they don't like = tyranny...which is ridiculous.

[JayC]

The issue is the government does not have legitimate power to limit rights further than what is defined in the Constitution.  There is an absolute right to privacy, the 5th amendment allows the Government a very small window to legitimately infringe on that right.

 

How do we fight it?  There are a couple of method you can use to fight these illegitimate infringements by the government...  you must pick the one you're most comfortable.

 

1. Passive resistance - if selected for a jury trial, take the time to go on the jury, if you believe the government violated a natural right in the process of getting evidence - say using an exigent circumstance to discover drugs...  vote not guilty and stick to your guns no matter what.  The cost of a hung juries will help dissuade the government.

 

2. Speak out, call the government out when it oversteps...  try and educate people that the Government was only granted a very limited number of powers (both federal and state) and if the constitution in plain english doesn't explicitly authorize an action then the action in by it's very nature is unlawful.  There are a lot of things that disgust me that the Government isn't authorized to mess with...  I realize in a free society good people will die from time to time and while sad it's not a good enough reason to remove my freedoms.

 

3. Activate resistance - Question authority always...  When interacting with the government force them to follow the rules and the laws, refuse to give ground out of politeness...  going along to get along.  This obviously has more risk involved...

 

4. Finally, full resistance - if you believe the Government has so overstepped it's authority granted under the constitution then you are free to treat it was you would any other criminal enterprise...  stop paying taxes, refuse to allow the government access to your life and the lives of your family...  The reality is the government can't really enforce laws that even a very small part of the population refuses to take part in...  They can't charge 10 million people with tax evasion a year...  They can't arrest 15,000 people who surround a state capital and refuse to leave until the politicians repeal broken laws...  We're not to this step yet IMHO but it's one of the steps.

 

At the end of the day we need to educate people who have has such a poor education in the public school systems...  We need to question all propaganda we've been fed all of our lives, and question the very need for every government action that takes place...  The fact is we need a little bit of government, but we could take a chainsaw to the current government (federal, state and local) and still have too much left over.

 

The government is 12 times bigger today than it was 100 years ago, counting for inflation and economic growth....  That is crazy, we don't need 12 times the government our grandparents or great grand parents needed.

 

I hope these peaceful methods will result in the changes we need in our government, but I'm concerned we're running out of effective boxes (soap box, ballot box, ammo box) to solve these problems, and the only viable option may very well be the ammo box.

 

Wow. I'm impressed with how much ground we've covered here. Good discussion.

I'd like to revisit an issue raised earlier. I know I agreed to assume, arguendo, that rights are subject to some degree of regulation by the government. However, JayC provided us with a short video (highlighted by Chucktshoes in post 15) arguing that a right, by definition, can only exist where the holder of the right refuses to compromise on the matter to which his right relates. According to the video, if the holder of the right allows government (or an individual) to limit, regulate, or otherwise curtail full enjoyment of the right, then it ceases to be a right at all and becomes a mere privilege (in the modern sense of the word).

So what I'm wondering is this: if a government has the power to limit, regulate, or otherwise somehow curtail a "right" held by a citizen, then how does that citizen's "right" differ from a mere privilege? Regardless of the source from which you believe a right derives, and regardless of what rights you would like to enjoy, can we even still refer to such a thing as a right at all?

Could the answer be that it is not possible for an individual to possess a right in the context of the social contract?

(Edited to complete my thought)

 

[JayC]

Robert,

 

I know we disagree here...  but you're claiming the founding fathers supports regulation of private property just isn't true...  Zoning laws didn't appear in this country until the 1860's and only in large progressive east coast cities such as new york and boston.  States largely didn't pass zoning laws in the rest of the country until 1924 when the Department of Commerce wrote the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act.

 

Are founding fathers allowed for a single property right infringement in the Constitution, and right to take land for eminent domain to be used for public projects, roads, etc.  They NEVER endorsed what you're describing.

 

The zoning acts you're describing are an unconstitutional taking of property rights....  Nothing stops you under common law from filing suit on a neighbor who is causing your harm...  the issue is you need to show actual harm not some make believe theoretical harm that may happen sometime in the future.

 

Again, any instigation of force by a government is by it's very nature an illegitimate infringe on peoples rights.  Government should only meet force with force to protect citizens rights.  If you've been harmed by your neighbor you can file suit and solve it without the help of the government.

 

 

No one's rights exists in a vacuum...no one has unlimited rights to do anything they want anytime they want. That can ONLY work if the individual lives on a planet with a population of "1".

 

Otherwise, society requires that there be rules and regulations about how people treat one another and provides ways to redress grievances. Society requires it because throughout recorded history, man has proven that there has to be rules (and consequences for breaking them) because people tend to not act responsibly and/or with no regard to the rights of anyone else.

 

That's why the founders of this country created a government with rules and regulations...That's why, for example, that you have a right to the peaceful enjoyment of your property but you DON'T have a right to do things on/with your property that infringe on MY right to the peaceful enjoyment of MY property. However, the existence of rules and regulations and governments doesn't mean that our rights are simply privileges.

 

I'm not saying that rules/regulations/governments can't become tyrannical; however, there are some among us who seem to feel that ANY rule they don't like = tyranny...which is ridiculous.

 

[RobertNashville]

Robert,

 

I know we disagree here...  but you're claiming the founding fathers supports regulation of private property just isn't true...  Zoning laws didn't appear in this country until the 1860's and only in large progressive east coast cities such as new york and boston.  States largely didn't pass zoning laws in the rest of the country until 1924 when the Department of Commerce wrote the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act.

 

Are founding fathers allowed for a single property right infringement in the Constitution, and right to take land for eminent domain to be used for public projects, roads, etc.  They NEVER endorsed what you're describing.

 

The zoning acts you're describing are an unconstitutional taking of property rights....  Nothing stops you under common law from filing suit on a neighbor who is causing your harm...  the issue is you need to show actual harm not some make believe theoretical harm that may happen sometime in the future.

 

Again, any instigation of force by a government is by it's very nature an illegitimate infringe on peoples rights.  Government should only meet force with force to protect citizens rights.  If you've been harmed by your neighbor you can file suit and solve it without the help of the government.

Founders never endorsed?  Bull s****.  Do you really porport that there were no rules/regulations in existence in colonial times, both before and after the Constitution was ratified?  If you do believe that, perhaps you should read the "History of American city government: the colonial period, Volume 1 - I believe it's available on Amazon.

 

I wasn't talking about zoning laws, above, but yes, those are both constitutional and necessary - any belief that people can live in close proximity to each other without such laws is a belie without any rational basis.

[Chucktshoes]

On seond thought, I'll leave that one alone.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[Chucktshoes]

I will respond to your points in the same way:

 

1) Our government as originally conceived didn't give the mantle of legitimacy to the corrupt or yield power to the government to use against the unwilling.  I'll argue here as I have with Marxists, that the critique you make is based on American government as it exists today, not what it was intended to be.  Also, just as I argue with Marxists, I will say that the answer does not lie in destroying the political system and replace it with some alternative form, but to try and return it to what it was intended to be in the beginning.  Frankly, we are arguing "ideal types" and none of these systems work as intended.  Your concept of an anarcho-capitalist society would be no more likely to work as intended than any other system man could conceive, which is why Marxist philosophy ended up a bastardized authoritarian system of government instead of the peaceful Utopia based on the ideas of democracy and freedom that Marx envisioned (and yes, Marx did believe his solution would result in a free and democratic society).  The goal is to find the system that would best provide mechanisms to prevent the corruption and/or manage people's willingness to violate the rights of others.  I am not aware of any system of anarchy that has been successful in doing that.  That is not to say that I could be wrong, but history tells us that an absence of civil society based on rule of law does not end well for individuals.

2) It's not a "crap straw-man argument" at all.  In fact, I strongly suggest this is the Achiles heel of your position, and your portrayal of it as such suggests that you haven't really given the topic of power and wealth distribution much thought or you don't have an answer so you choose to insult the point.  If I am misinterpreting your language, I apologize and would really like to hear your position.  I am not trying to pick a fight, but enjoying a spirited debate about an interesting topic.  All that said....

 

Do you believe that the very same powerful interests we are both citing as a major problem in our political/economic/and legal systems would simply crumble in a social revolution that resulted in an anarcho-capitalist state as you advocate?  Based on my understandings of anarcho-capitalism and discussion I have had with followers of that philosophy, they tend to possess what I consider an overly naive and optimistic expectation of the power of the individual consumer to make change.  Individuals and entities that currently have access to extraordinary wealth and power would still possess power, wealth, and resources after the revolution.  They will use those resources to leverage additional resources and maintain their positions of power.  They control access to essential resources such as food, medicine, oil, coal, and transportation, which are resources those of us who lack power and wealth would need to survive.  How would us little guys gain access to those resources?  How do you take a corporation that controls oil reserves with the resources to defend those reserves by force and wrench that away from them?  I think the flaw in the anarcho-capitalist philosophy is that we could engage in mutual economic exchanges and reward the entities we deem to be worthy at the expense of those entities we deem to be corrupt.  Perhaps that is true to an extent, but I don't believe that in the world of corporate domination that individual economic decisions would have any impact.  Add in that these powerful entities would control access to knowledge, as they already do, and that would further corrupt the ability of individuals to engage in mutually beneficial transactions.  This is why I argued that such an anarcho-capitalist revolution would not be successful unless that revolution included a mechanism to redistribute what many would consider to be a corrupt distribution of wealth and resources to entities that have been "legitimized and rewarded" for their corrupt activities.  Please educate me on how this would work without a level playing field that everyone could have equal access to property, wealth, and resources so that everyone could then embark on this new path of a society organized and guided only be individual and mutually beneficial economic decisions that reward innovation or prudence and punish unwise or corrupt activity.  I say that existing social and economic inequality will just be reproduced under the new system thus corrupting the new system from the beginning.

3) Again, I think you are misinterpreting my words, but my assumptions were based on what you said and my understandings of anarcho-capitalism.  I was not trying to put words in your mouth.  I completely agree that such as system would require people to engage in transactions that are based on informed and voluntary decisions grounded in mutually beneficial exchange.  Returning to my point in #2 above, I maintain the position that this is simply not possible because not everyone has equal levels of the knowledge, education, or access to information that is required for this sort of ideal economic exchange to take place.  It is human nature for the strong to take advantage of the weak, and the powerful to exploit the powerless.  I understand the promise of private organizations to help manage these exchanges, but as we know now, the BBB is corrupted by business interests who basically pay for an "A" rating.  A better example would be the UL and their product safety testing.  I would like to think that these sorts of organizations would be good mediators, but I don't think they would be sufficient to protect basic individual rights.  This is where some sort of legal structure and statement of rights is important.

 

4) We have order now, it's just a system of order that is corrupted by crony capitalism.  I am arguing we return to what we had, not replace it with something new.

I have thought about these issues, and there are no easy answers. In my core I am a utopian but not a naive one. Much of the currently powerful will remain so, that can't be helped. The reason I called BS on your point about the redistrubution of amassed wealth is that it was the exact same sort of reasoning used in calls for reparations for slavery. What has happened in the past, though wrong as it may have been, cannot be addressed now through any sort of forced larceny on the inheritors of those enriched by that wrongdoing. To legitimize that sort of plunder under the auspices of "creating a level playing field" would simply be Marxism. I'm an ancap, not an ansoc. ;)
 

As I mentioned before, I have a large pragmatic streak and I understand most folks are scared of the idea of really being free, so in theory I could accept a return of our government to its initial state. The problem is that we know it doesn't work. Lysander Spooner summed up the problem quite nicely in his pamphlet "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority".

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

 

If people could mind their own business and go about living their lives instead of other people's lives then it would work. That just doesn't happen though as the world is filled with insufferable busybodies and wannabe petty tyrants who wish to control what other people do in thier lives, on their property and in their homes. Government gives them a framework to enforce their will on others and the mantle of legitimacy because they took a vote on the issue and called it "democracy in action". If the choice is between something that is known to not work and something untried, I will go for the untried every time. Our governmental framework, while more successful than any other so far, doesn't work. Lysander had it right, the Constitution either explicity authorizes what we have, or was powerless to stop it. It just didn't work.

[RichardR]

and insulting people, such as by by claiming they have an "authoritative mindset", is the usual and preferred response to others by those who can't make a cogent argument in support of their position or who simply want to argue.

It's not an insult, it's just an observation.

And Robert if you had paid any attention to my previous post, you would had noticed the portion where I had stated that there was a substantial percentage of the population who have this particular way of thinking & that it was pointless to argue, debate or try to compromise with folks who have the "authoritative mindset" because the more law & order there is, the more comfortable they feel.

This sort of deeply entrenched "authoritative mindset" is rampant on both sides of the political aisle (because it is rampant in our population at large) and always seems to manifest itself in the politics & ideology of both the Repub & Dem political party's, resulting ultimately in pieces of legislation after pieces of legislation, generation after generation being passed which constantly/ceaselessly infringes on the social chaos that is created by freedom & liberty.

Law & order is diameterically opposed with freedom & liberty, the more of one, the less of the other, you cannot have both complete law & order as well as complete freedom & liberty.

And a balance cannot be struck somewhere in the middle because of the vast number of folks (who have an authoritiative mindset) who are uncomfortable with any sort of social chaos that is created when other folks are free & at liberty to do whatever the heck they want, whenever the heck they want to do it.

This is the source of tyranny, this is the dragon that must be slain.

[Garufa]

You just hit it out of the park RichardR.  :up:

[JayC]

I really believe limiting what people can do with property they own is a gross infringement of a natural right unless you can show real harm.

 

I believe we can work things out without the needing the government to use force to enforce agreements between neighbors.

 

If I do something on my property that harms you, take me to court and recover damages.  The problem is most of the restrictions in place via zoning laws, and frankly between other local ordinances would be completely unenforceable if that was the standard because in the vast majority of enforcement actions there is NO HARM.

 

Be honest, you like it the government uses force to make your neighbors use their property how you see fit, and you use the possibility of some harm that could theoretically happen as the justification for infringing on their right.

 

You also have to keep in mind that our founders never imagined a world where every possible square inch of land was incorporated and there would be no escape from these petty tyrants.

 

Founders never endorsed?  Bull s****.  Do you really porport that there were no rules/regulations in existence in colonial times, both before and after the Constitution was ratified?  If you do believe that, perhaps you should read the "History of American city government: the colonial period, Volume 1 - I believe it's available on Amazon.

 

I wasn't talking about zoning laws, above, but yes, those are both constitutional and necessary - any belief that people can live in close proximity to each other without such laws is a belie without any rational basis.

Edited November 22, 2013 by JayC

[RobertNashville]

I really believe limiting what people can do with property they own is a gross infringement of a natural right unless you can show real harm.

 

I believe we can work things out without the needing the government to use force to enforce agreements between neighbors.

 

If I do something on my property that harms you, take me to court and recover damages.  The problem is most of the restrictions in place via zoning laws, and frankly between other local ordinances would be completely unenforceable if that was the standard because in the vast majority of enforcement actions there is NO HARM.

 

Be honest, you like it the government uses force to make your neighbors use their property how you see fit, and you use the possibility of some harm that could theoretically happen as the justification for infringing on their right.

 

You also have to keep in mind that our founders never imagined a world where every possible square inch of land was incorporated and there would be no escape from these petty tyrants.

Why should I be forced to go to court every time some asshole does something irresponsible on his property that harms me when, if the person had two brain cells to rub together or cared even one tiny bit about the harm his actions might do he wouldn't do them in the first place. You can't "work things out" with people like that because if you could, they wouldn't do them in the first place.

 

And pray tell, what good dose it do to sue someone who probably has zero resources to pay or won't pay even if the plaintiff wins the suit?

 

The overwhelming majority of the laws we have regarding what someone can/can't do on his property, that ultimately harms others when he does it, exist because of assholes that do those things they shouldn't have been doing in the first place...if everyone always did the right thing and treated their neighbors with the same amount of respect and consideration they would want from them, most laws of any kind wouldn't need to exist.

 

If someone wants to go buy a mountain and live 100 miles from another human being then I don't give a shit what he does on his property...if he is going to live 50 feet from my property line then I do care and so should every other neighbor...that's why we and other neighbors chose to live in incorporated areas where we can pass and enforce zoning laws that says my next door neighbor can't turn his 1/3 acre lot into a pig farm or a junk yard or a trash dump...such is not theoretical, it's reality...it's not imagined harm...it's real harm...if my neighbor doesn't want to live with those kinds of restrictions then he should go buy that mountain and not force everyone else to put up with stupid, irresponsible things he wants to do just because it's his property (or property he rents and doesn't even own).

Frankly, what a lot of people here claim is "freedom and liberty" sounds a lot like the freedom and liberty to shit on everyone else...that MY rights to do what I want is the only right that matters and screw everyone else.