NationStates Jolt Archive

This quote is from Papuan politician and philosopher Bernard Narokobi.


Balanced human development requires a commitment to human rights, not as positivistic legal norms conferred by a sovereign upon its subjects, enabling each to do as he or she pleases, but with even greater emphasis on social obligations or responsibilities. If I have a right to education, I also have a duty to educate others, if not directly, then indirectly. If I have a right to life, I also have a duty to make sure others do not starve or suffer out of want which is beyond their ability to alleviate and which I am able to avert. … In sum, there is a need to balance individual rights with group rights on the one hand, and personal obligations with group obligations on the other.

(link (http://www.lexisnexis.com.my/free/articles/JenniferCorrin-Care.htm))

Your thoughts?

Sure, it is a basic notion that I somewhat like. It is pretty like a painting.

It really doesn't say much of anything, though, because the real question is what rights do people actually have and how do we show this. When we find these qualities that infer rights, we have no need to talk in such egalitarian generalities.

In democratic nations, we ostensibly already do have significant responsibilities attached to the rights we enjoy, such as making sure one is fully informed about the political realm of one's nation and voting accordingly. When you hear others who just vote for names, parties, or because their parents voted a particular way, then that individual is undermining the strength and effectiveness of that nation.

It is certainly a backdoor way to insist people be less selfish and ignorant, but one could suppose that in theory, many of the privileges we have ought to be conditional upon one fulfilling their responsibilities in a democratic society. Is driving a car an inherent right? Umm, no.

I like what this politician says.

No right is inherent: All rights come with a corresponding responsibility. Far too many people like to insist on "rights" while ignoring the responsibilities that come with that right. Case in point: I have the right to own a firearm. If I chose to exercise that right, then I assume the responsibility to own and use it safely.

No right is inherent: All rights come with a corresponding responsibility. Far too many people like to insist on "rights" while ignoring the responsibilities that come with that right. Case in point: I have the right to own a firearm. If I chose to exercise that right, then I assume the responsibility to own and use it safely.

So what responsibilities do you have to ignore to lose the right of a fair trial, or not being tortured or other essential human rights like that?

In democratic nations, we ostensibly already do have significant responsibilities attached to the rights we enjoy, such as making sure one is fully informed about the political realm of one's nation and voting accordingly. When you hear others who just vote for names, parties, or because their parents voted a particular way, then that individual is undermining the strength and effectiveness of that nation.


Yet people do so, and there are no direct repercussions for them in ignoring their obligation.

Yet people do so, and there are no direct repercussions for them in ignoring their obligation.

Oh I am aware, trust me. Just stating the fact that we already do have a number of responsibilities that we fail to meet, speaking with broad sweeping gestures at any rate. The real debate and divide lies in determining why that is the case. A couple common positions hold that we are educating each successive generation less and less about citizenship (and vice-versa more and more about consumption) or that in a society with a quickly growing gap between rich and poor that more people and families are forced into treating money as the primary/sole concern.

Of course, with the various answers to why come an accordingly appropriate manner of how we should go about solving this issue. Hows are often thrown at each other in vitriolic deathmatches, as is often seen in political debates, when the real issue at hand is in fact why. That was a bit of an aside...

I am lucky enough to be studying this issue in my post post-secondary education and have been doing a preliminary literature review recently. If anybody is interested they can PM me and I can send them some links to various journals and articles, or even keep them updated on how the whole thesis and research is coming along.

So what responsibilities do you have to ignore to lose the right of a fair trial, or not being tortured or other essential human rights like that?

1. There is no such thing as an essential human right. Nor is there such a thing as an inherent human right. There are only those rights that you (or a proxy) have fought or will fight for.

2. I will take it that you are referring to the US actions against "terrorists" They ignored the responsibility not to attack the US.

2. I will take it that you are referring to the US actions against "terrorists" They ignored the responsibility not to attack the US.

So that gives the US the right to do whatever they please, regardless of law or even - perish the thought - the rights we sought to give to the people of Afghanistan by removing the Taliban? What sort of example has America set for the fledgling government of Afghanistan? That its alright to indefinitely detain people without trial for committing crimes?

2. I will take it that you are referring to the US actions against "terrorists" They ignored the responsibility not to attack the US.

All crime is an attack on the state. Criminals still get trials.

So that gives the US the right to do whatever they please, regardless of law or even - perish the thought - the rights we sought to give to the people of Afghanistan by removing the Taliban? What sort of example has America set for the fledgling government of Afghanistan? That its alright to indefinitely detain people without trial for committing crimes?

No, what give the US the right is the fact that the US has the might to do it. See the frist part of my post that you quoted. Your post indicates that you assume that the detainees have an inherent right to a fair trial, even though, you say this is a right we gave them. (see the bold). If we gave them that right, then we can take it away. If anything, America is an example of the "might is right" philosophy.

What are you arguing here? That might is how rights are created, or that rights created through the sole justification of might are justified?

What are you arguing here? That might is how rights are created, or that might is how rights should be created?

I am arguing that there are no inherent rights, only those rights you (or a proxy) have fought, or will fight, for. Just like the part of my original post that you saw fit to ingnore. (Heres a hint: the part you quoted was a flip remark). Indeed it takes might to create (or preserve) a right. If you do not have the might to create or preserve a right, then you depend on others to give you a right, and as what is given can be taken away, that make you a slave, dependent on the master that gave you a "right".

Balanced human development requires a commitment to human rights, not as positivistic legal norms conferred by a sovereign upon its subjects, enabling each to do as he or she pleases, but with even greater emphasis on social obligations or responsibilities. If I have a right to education, I also have a duty to educate others, if not directly, then indirectly. If I have a right to life, I also have a duty to make sure others do not starve or suffer out of want which is beyond their ability to alleviate and which I am able to avert. … In sum, there is a need to balance individual rights with group rights on the one hand, and personal obligations with group obligations on the other.

I don’t agree with this. I think that the obligations of the individual are not equal to the rights of the individual. The most important rights must be taken away only if it is need to protect equally important rights of the others, and not just because individual doesn’t fulfill some of his most important obligations. So I think that the most basic rights must be given to the individual as a gift, and not purchased by him from a society for his obligations.

I also think that the rights of groups must be protected only when it is needed for the protection of the individual rights and, to some extent, the rights of the future members of society. So I agree that the group rights must be balanced with the group obligations, but I’m not agree that all of the individual rights must be balanced with the individual obligations.

I’m sorry if this all doesn’t make any sense, my English is not good.

I don’t agree with this. I think that the obligations of the individual are not equal to the rights of the individual. The most important rights must be taken away only if it is need to protect equally important rights of the others, and not just because individual doesn’t fulfill some of his most important obligations. So I think that the most basic rights must be given to the individual as a gift, and not purchased by him from a society for his obligations.

I also think that the rights of groups must be protected only when it is needed for the protection of the individual rights and, to some extent, the rights of the future members of society. So I agree that the group rights must be balanced with the group obligations, but I’m not agree that all of the individual rights must be balanced with the individual obligations.

I’m sorry if this all doesn’t make any sense, my English is not good.

Believe me when I say that you haven't even scratched the surface of the linguistic holocaust I've seen from native speakers. On the contrary, your English is rather good.

Believe me when I say that you haven't even scratched the surface of the linguistic holocaust I've seen from native speakers. On the contrary, your English is rather good.
Spell checking programs are very cool!!! :p

I only believe in negative rights.

That is all.

Oh I am aware, trust me. Just stating the fact that we already do have a number of responsibilities that we fail to meet, speaking with broad sweeping gestures at any rate. The real debate and divide lies in determining why that is the case. A couple common positions hold that we are educating each successive generation less and less about citizenship (and vice-versa more and more about consumption) or that in a society with a quickly growing gap between rich and poor that more people and families are forced into treating money as the primary/sole concern.

Or both!

I also think that the rights of groups must be protected only when it is needed for the protection of the individual rights and, to some extent, the rights of the future members of society.

So, are you arguing that groups are nothing more than a collection of individuals, and can have no identity in and of themselves?

So, are you arguing that groups are nothing more than a collection of individuals, and can have no identity in and of themselves?
Yes. Of course, people can give “independent identity” to some group, but this will be only their belief and not the objective fact. Such beliefs must be taken in account to some extent, but only because they are important for the individuals and not because group have some real independent identity.

This quote is from Papuan politician and philosopher Bernard Narokobi.

Balanced human development requires a commitment to human rights, not as positivistic legal norms conferred by a sovereign upon its subjects, enabling each to do as he or she pleases, but with even greater emphasis on social obligations or responsibilities. If I have a right to education, I also have a duty to educate others, if not directly, then indirectly. If I have a right to life, I also have a duty to make sure others do not starve or suffer out of want which is beyond their ability to alleviate and which I am able to avert. … In sum, there is a need to balance individual rights with group rights on the one hand, and personal obligations with group obligations on the other.

(link (http://www.lexisnexis.com.my/free/articles/JenniferCorrin-Care.htm))

Your thoughts?
I agree with Mr. Narokobi. He expresses it in more philosophical language, but it is similar to my view that one has to pay for what one gets. I benefit from public education -- in fact, I would argue that I benefit from it, even if I don't participate directly in it -- and so it would seem the height of selfishness if I were to refuse to let my taxes go towards supporting it. The same for various social welfare programs. I do not need them myself, but I might some day, so it is in my interest to make sure they are there, as a kind of insurance. In addition, I benefit from the reduction of negative affects of not having them for other people, so by helping others, I help myself. I have an interest in maintaining a certain kind of social environment around me. That environment is built and maintained by helping others to have the same benefits and opportunities that I have. It seems obvious to me that my social responsibilities are not only payment for benefits received, they are the means of keeping those benefits flowing, thus ensuring continued benefit for myself as well as others. This is my idea of "enlightened self-interest."

I don’t agree with this. I think that the obligations of the individual are not equal to the rights of the individual. The most important rights must be taken away only if it is need to protect equally important rights of the others, and not just because individual doesn’t fulfill some of his most important obligations. So I think that the most basic rights must be given to the individual as a gift, and not purchased by him from a society for his obligations.
First, your English is fine. :)

Second, I think of it as working the other way around. The rights come first, and the obligations come after. This is because I believe rights are inherent in people, so I do not "purchase" my rights from society. Why purchase what is already mine? To me, the obligation that I take on with regard to my rights is in three parts:

A) The direct debt I owe for the systems that allow me to exercise and benefit from my rights. Example, my taxes going to pay for public education. I have a right to access education; a public system provides the tools to exercise that right; it is only fair that I should pay into the system just like the rest of the public.

B) A personal obligation to maintain my own lifestyle and affairs, not to expect others to maintain it for me. My lifestyle is founded on the functioning of the social group. I cannot have what I want if I am surrounded by ignorance, crime, poverty, disease, and other things that could interfere with me. If society can give me what I want, and if I intend to use society to get those things (through commerce, a legal system, public utilities, food supplies, etc, etc), then again it is only fair that I should either pay or work to help keep those social systems going.

C) An obligation based on the presumption that everyone in society is equal, and that I am not better than my fellow beings, nor are they worse than me. That idea creates an obligation in me to assume that everyone has the same rights that I claim for myself, and the further obligation not to interfere with other people's rights and to assist the group by supporting other people's rights.

I also think that the rights of groups must be protected only when it is needed for the protection of the individual rights and, to some extent, the rights of the future members of society. So I agree that the group rights must be balanced with the group obligations, but I’m not agree that all of the individual rights must be balanced with the individual obligations.

I’m sorry if this all doesn’t make any sense, my English is not good.
I believe there are certain rights that should not and do not have obligations attached to them. I do not have to pay anyone for my right to feed or clothe myself, or work for a living, or speak or worship freely, etc. In my thinking, there is a difference between civil rights and human rights, and this is part of that difference. On the other hand, in the interest of the smooth operation of the society that supports me, and in the interest of respecting other people's rights equal to my own, I feel an obligation to exercise my rights in a way that will not interfere with other idividuals or with the proper functions of society.

Yes. Of course, people can give “independent identity” to some group, but this will be only their belief and not the objective fact. Such beliefs must be taken in account to some extent, but only because they are important for the individuals and not because group have some real independent identity.
I agree completely on this point.

No right is inherent: All rights come with a corresponding responsibility. Far too many people like to insist on "rights" while ignoring the responsibilities that come with that right. Case in point: I have the right to own a firearm. If I chose to exercise that right, then I assume the responsibility to own and use it safely.

No. Rights are inherent. Responsibilities are contingent upon your membership in a society. You are not responsible to honor you parents wishes if you are content to be disowned. You are not responsible to pay your taxes if you renounce your citizenship and leave the country. You are not responsible to pay child support if you don't have sex with a woman and get her pregnant.

A person can not be held responsibe for anything if he has no relationship with other people.

Spell checking programs are very cool!!! :p

Yes. I wood half too say that spell cheque is wroth moor then jules when it comes to bean well regarded on the internet.

No, I do not think that one's having rights implies that one owes a debt to others. Because of man's nature as a rational being, i.e. one that can engage in normative discussion, he assumes certain axiomatic norms by the very act of engaging in such an activity. The moral powers, i.e. rights, that are assumed help him to reach his ultimate end of making the most of his existence as a rational being; his rights are for his own betterment.

However, reciprocal obligation is an important part of upholding one's rights. This is the basis of customary law, law made not by the fiat of some legislature but as voluntary norms of behavior established by repetition of action; it is law established from the bottom instead of the top. Such instances of obligation are these; if someone does you injury, I will help you get restitution because you would do the same. If someone cheats you, you and I will refuse to deal with him ever again because you would do the same vice versa (ostracism.) These obligations arise not because of needless self-sacrifice, but out of self-interest created by a Nash equilibrium, and are the method by which the rights of a particular interest under an antecedent law are upheld.*

So it is not that rights entail obligation, where rights are a credit and obligations are a debit. Rather, reciprocal obligations are the means by which rights are defended out of self-interest.





*As an aside, under such a system there would be no need for a territorial monopolist of jurisdiction, i.e. a state. There would be a need for social authority through one who would adjudicate, as there would be a necessity for someone whose word would be trusted by both parties, and whose recourse would be needed for fear of ostracism due to non-compliance. But there would be no need for any social authority to prevent legal entry into this field, as is needed under a real monopoly, since people would be able to choose their arbiter based upon his particular merits and switch to another if the original arbiter is in some way wanting. (Businesses already do this by their selection of arbiter.) There would be no legislation, either, as laws would not be created by fiat and imposed on a minority, but would rather be compiled from accepted precedents that expound upon the accepted principles of the antecedent law and are thus voluntarily accepted.

*snip*
I completely agree with you.
No. Rights are inherent. Responsibilities are contingent upon your membership in a society. You are not responsible to honor you parents wishes if you are content to be disowned. You are not responsible to pay your taxes if you renounce your citizenship and leave the country. You are not responsible to pay child support if you don't have sex with a woman and get her pregnant.

A person can not be held responsibe for anything if he has no relationship with other people.
I think that in the situations when it is necessary for protection of the rights of other individuals the society can held you responsible for some of this things, it just mustn’t set the protection of your most basic rights (like the right to live) in dependence from your readiness to fulfill such obligations.
Yes. I wood half too say that spell cheque is wroth moor then jules when it comes to bean well regarded on the internet.
LOL
*snip*
Sadly, I not agree that humans are rational beings. I hope that someday humans will really become rational, but there is a long road ahead. And now, I think, limited monopolization of jurisdiction is necessary to minimize uncivilized methods in settlement of conflicts.

This quote is from Papuan politician and philosopher Bernard Narokobi.



(link (http://www.lexisnexis.com.my/free/articles/JenniferCorrin-Care.htm))

Your thoughts?


Yeah I think it stands to reason. If you as an individual want to enjoy certain freedoms, then is it not both selfish and hypocritical to deny the same to each and every other person?

Sadly, I not agree that humans are rational beings. I hope that someday humans will really become rational, but there is a long road ahead. And now, I think, limited monopolization of jurisdiction is necessary to minimize uncivilized methods in settlement of conflicts.

Seeing as how rational means that one can engage in discussion of norms, and you are doing that right now, and you are a human being (I assume), then you have made a performative contradiction.

Seeing as how rational means that one can engage in discussion of norms, and you are doing that right now, and you are a human being (I assume), then you have made a performative contradiction.
The fact that I can participate in the discussion right now doesn’t mean that in the conflict situation I will not lose such ability. Of course I have rational part inside of myself, but its power is very limited.

No right is inherent: All rights come with a corresponding responsibility.

I disagree. If rights come with corresponding responsibilities, then ignoring those responsibilities takes away your rights. But if a right can be taken away, it's not a right, it's a privlidge.

The whole concept of rights is that they are not privlidges, they are rights, and can not be invalidated.

So...

I have the right to be insane, and therefore a duty to drive others insane.

I like it. :)

The fact that I can participate in the discussion right now doesn’t mean that in the conflict situation I will not lose such ability. Of course I have rational part inside of myself, but its power is very limited.

When you dream, you are not capable of engaging in discussion. But because you have the potentiality of engaging in discussion, and would thus affirm certain axioms concering the moral powers of rational beings, I do not have the right to kill you in your sleep. Such potentiality does not permit any kind of coercion, especially that of a monopoly on jurisdiction.

I disagree. If rights come with corresponding responsibilities, then ignoring those responsibilities takes away your rights. But if a right can be taken away, it's not a right, it's a privlidge.

The whole concept of rights is that they are not privlidges, they are rights, and can not be invalidated.
Even though I think that some rights mustn’t be linked with responsibilities, I think that all rights can be invalidated in some situations. If the only way to save many people is to kill one person, his right to live can be invalidated. Without the ability to invalidate rights humanity will extinct quickly.
When you dream, you are not capable of engaging in discussion. But because you have the potentiality of engaging in discussion, and would thus affirm certain axioms concering the moral powers of rational beings, I do not have the right to kill you in your sleep. Such potentiality does not permit any kind of coercion, especially that of a monopoly on jurisdiction.
With such approach many people will die horribly, because even though they are capable to participate in the discussion at some moments, in other moments they will just kill each other. Monopoly on jurisdiction is not the panacea and has its own bad side effects, so it must be implemented carefully, but complete rejecting of this method will make situation much worse.

With such approach many people will die horribly, because even though they are capable to participate in the discussion at some moments, in other moments they will just kill each other. Monopoly on jurisdiction is not the panacea and has its own bad side effects, so it must be implemented carefully, but complete rejecting of this method will make situation much worse.

And how exactly does a legal barrier to entry in the field of jurisdiction alleviate this? (By the way, by necessity the number of people who would just up and kill each other is necessarily a minority; past a certain mass their collective parasitism would have already wiped out mankind.) We can see in the various customary law systems that have existed throughout history that there was no need for such a monopoly, and people were able to survive quite well, in fact relatively better given their environment. Not allowing people to voluntarily select their own social authorities based upon their merits and abandon them as they wish, but rather forcing them to obey a territorial monopolist on jurisdiction, ensures that at certain points scoundrels will be in place against whom there will be no safeguard. As well, the advantages of such a secure position would attract the worst of humankind, and make such parasitism extremely likely. It would exacerbate the problem which you fear.

There is no more need to prevent people from the industry of upholding the law by threat of violence than there is to prevent people from the industry of shoe-making by threat of violence.

*snip*
Modern technology is much stronger. One person with bomb can kill hundreds, one wrong decision in industry can ruin life of millions. Detailed laws, created with the help of the specialists in different fields, implemented by the specialists in laws, and enforced by centralized structures is the only way to regulate modern society. I hope that someday people will be ready to seek rational solutions in all conflicts and will stop ignoring problems of others, but now without some enforcement people will break the rights of each other in a first day.

I’m not advocate completely unaccountable to people monopolist. It must be controlled through the electoral procedures and restricted through the divide of government on different independent branches. Actually, I suggest something like modern western democratic system.

When you dream, you are not capable of engaging in discussion. But because you have the potentiality of engaging in discussion, and would thus affirm certain axioms concering the moral powers of rational beings, I do not have the right to kill you in your sleep. Such potentiality does not permit any kind of coercion, especially that of a monopoly on jurisdiction.

Why would necessarily rational beings recognize the rights of others. An egoist would only recognize rights of others if they were to his advantage, so if he could kill Daddy to get his inheritance, with a 100% likelihood of not being negatively affected by said action, he should do it.

So...

I have the right to be insane, and therefore a duty to drive others insane.

I like it. :)

LG, that's why we love you. :)

I had always thought that rights implied responsibilities. If you have the right to a behavior or an action, then you have the responsibility for the results of that behavior or action. As an example, you have the right to own a gun (or several), this means you are responsible for how this gun is used - if a small child gets hold of it and shoots someone, you are responsible because, clearly, if you had not left the gun where a child could access it, it never would have happened. If the gun is stolen and you fail to report it, you could, conceivably, be considered indirectly responsible for any use to which the gun was put after it was stolen

Why would necessarily rational beings recognize the rights of others. An egoist would only recognize rights of others if they were to his advantage, so if he could kill Daddy to get his inheritance, with a 100% likelihood of not being negatively affected by said action, he should do it.

So then you agree that if somebody wanted to kill you for their own personal gain, then it is allowed?

I disagree with the quote.

Rights are not guarentees to any physical item or service provided by another. Instead Rights are guarentees to action:
The right to life-the right to liberty-the right to the fruits of your labor
(pursuit of hapiness). <---Notice that's a guarentee to the pursuit of hapiness, not a right to hapiness itsself. No one can give you hapiness, you have to make your own.

No one has the right to any physical thing, no one owes you any commodity. THAT INCLUDES THE GOVERNMENT .Instead you have the right to pursue that which you seek in a manner that doesn't violate others rights.

If one is forced to render a service or product against one's will, then that person is esentially a slave.

Therefore you don't have the right to a job, an education, food, clothes, housing, a car, a bike, or healthcare. If you did, it would force others to make or render these things to you-and you simply don't have the right to demand anything of anyone anywhere except that they respect your rights to action.

This is why we have governments: 1) to provide for the common national defence; 2) and to protect individual's rights (from criminals-those legally designated as violators of rights).

A final word: Only individual human beings have rights. Society doesn't have rights, 'the people' don't have rights, foetuses don't have rights, animals don't have rights etc etc
http://isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-index.html

Modern technology is much stronger. One person with bomb can kill hundreds, one wrong decision in industry can ruin life of millions. Detailed laws, created with the help of the specialists in different fields, implemented by the specialists in laws, and enforced by centralized structures is the only way to regulate modern society. I hope that someday people will be ready to seek rational solutions in all conflicts and will stop ignoring problems of others, but now without some enforcement people will break the rights of each other in a first day.

I’m not advocate completely unaccountable to people monopolist. It must be controlled through the electoral procedures and restricted through the divide of government on different independent branches. Actually, I suggest something like modern western democratic system.

Electoral procedures, elections, voting, etc. are such a load of crap nowadays that they are not even worth indulging in. There is such a divide between the knowledge of voters (rational ignorance) and all of the things that a monopolist of jurisdiction may do (rent-seeking, iron triangles) that elections are ceremonial at best. And one need only gain the consent of the majority to do what one wants, regardless of the protests of the minority; this has led to the evolution of political parties which, through the constant blaring of hysteria and the base desire for conformity, has eroded man's reason and enflamed his emotions and thus guaranteed near-invincible tyranny. I would sooner entrust my life to cannibals than elected officials; at least the cannibals are honest enough to let me know they plan to eat me alive.

And as for the problem of modern technology, customary law can handle this as well, in fact better than legislative law. Customary law has proven itself actually quite flexible, and so would be able to deal with change; see merchant law in Europe and in America, and the evolution of the law of the Kapauku Papuans. While legislators are bent on servicing their special interests in order to get as rich as possible before their term expires, the social authorities of a customary law order would be interested in maintaining their community so as to strengthen the goodwill they enjoy.

While a legislator would allow for 'permits to pollute' that give an unfair amount of leeway to polluters, being necessarily unaccountable to those harmed due his position as a monopolist, a social authority would demand economic restitution for ANY harm done to those under his care, for to do otherwise would erode any confidence in his ability to protect those whom he cares for. And these social authorities could also create restrictive covenants on land sold, such as 'no building bombs here', as is done in apartment complexes, or he could use the strength of social sanction to have others comply voluntarily to new rules.* So instead of pandering to special interests, the leader of a customary law society would be guided more by a general interest of rendering each person his due than simply whoring himself out to every particular interest.

*The strength of social sanction, of course, depending upon the fairness of the social authority. If he demands an unfair amount of change with no compensation, his power would dissipate.

Why would necessarily rational beings recognize the rights of others. An egoist would only recognize rights of others if they were to his advantage, so if he could kill Daddy to get his inheritance, with a 100% likelihood of not being negatively affected by said action, he should do it.

Necessarily rational beings recognize the rights of others because in normative conversation, one necessarily assumes certain axiomatic truths such as the right to one's life. To act out of accordance with this is irrational. And as for your example, the egoist would not kill daddy because A.) It sets a precedent for his own son to kill him, and B.) His father, in a tightly-knit society based upon custom and individual relations, provides him social support and a place both on an individual level and in the community at large. Reciprocity is a necessary part of rationalism; it is the only method by which human beings may gain trust and socially cooperate and thus achieve a greater happiness than they could on their own.

I think that in the situations when it is necessary for protection of the rights of other individuals the society can held you responsible for some of this things, it just mustn’t set the protection of your most basic rights (like the right to live) in dependence from your readiness to fulfill such obligations.

I agree completely, but my point was that for those responsibilities to apply to you, you have to be a part of that society. Perhaps not a full fledged member of the community, but at least have a relationship with it.

Look at it this way. You decide to become a rugged mountain man out in the wilderness. Assuming you don't freeze to death like that kid in Alaska, and no one else makes claims on the land you inhabit, you have no responsibilities.

But then you decide that it's easier to get your clothes from the villagers that live a days trek away from you. Well, now you're entering into a relationship with those people. You can offer them things in exchange for clothes like the meat they don't have time to hunt, or the leather they don't have time to cure. At this point, your responsibilities are minimal, but they exist. You probably have to wear clothes when you travel to the village. You can't shoot whatever moves. You can't scream at the top of your lungs just because the mood strikes you. If you want to do those things, you have to go back to your mountain where your rights are unlimited and your responsibilities non-existent.

*snip*
Under the system you are advocate, informal leaders and groups will just play the role of modern politicians and parties; they will spread hysteria and will play on conformity of majority to oppress different minorities and create informal oligarchic dictatorship. Informal groups will use lies and violence just like modern governments do this now.

Modern democracy did not completely prevent such things, but it reduce the role of violence and allow specialists influence laws much more than it is possible in the society with only customary law.
*snip*
Actually, I think that in situation when it is impossible to protect the basic rights of people without assistance of this hermit, society can force him to give such assistance. Of course, when it is possible, society must give adequate compensation for this, and it is always wrong to do this without real necessity.

Under the system you are advocate, informal leaders and groups will just play the role of modern politicians and parties; they will spread hysteria and will play on conformity of majority to oppress different minorities and create informal oligarchic dictatorship. Informal groups will use lies and violence just like modern governments do this now.

Well, actually, that's a false analogy. The reason why modern governments can get away with this is that there is a lack of personal interaction between people and those who represent them. In a democracy, political parties form because there is no criteria by which to judge the individual merits of a person and so he is no longer relied upon for being a good person but rather just being another vote for a particular interest, thus discouraging character and encouraging deception. The politician then has a group of people sing his praises for him, since the people cannot know him personally, and thus rational ignorance and rent-seeking sky-rocket, leading eventually to an especially effective political machine and dominant particular interests that form a one-party state.

Whereas, in a system of customary law, one chooses one's arbiter based upon their personal merits from personal inspection, just as one wouldn't just choose any car off the lot. Additionally, there is no monopoly on jurisdiction that would allow for perversions of justice that are all too common in democracy.

Modern democracy did not completely prevent such things, but it reduce the role of violence and allow specialists influence laws much more than it is possible in the society with only customary law.

Actually, societies with customary law tend to be much more peaceful than societies with legislative law, as all costs are borne privately and so non-violent tools of resolution such as ostracism and social sanction are used in lieu of SWAT team and DEA style violence. Also, there is no reason why a social authority wouldn't enlist the aid of specialists in his decisions like any court, and he himself is a specialist in the law; that is why people trust him, and to use credible sources would only enhance his authority. In a legislative system, however, specialists have their own particular interests that they wish to aid, and so will twist the political process to their own ends; again, see iron-triangles and bureaucratic waste.

This quote is from Papuan politician and philosopher Bernard Narokobi.



(link (http://www.lexisnexis.com.my/free/articles/JenniferCorrin-Care.htm))

Your thoughts?

It's very true. Today we place an emphasis on fighting for one's rights and completely ignore responsibilities. Democracy, being a government of the people, cannot survive if individuals do not except their responsibility and give back to society in some way.

Necessarily rational beings recognize the rights of others because in normative conversation, one necessarily assumes certain axiomatic truths such as the right to one's life. To act out of accordance with this is irrational.

Offer proof to your assertions. Histoically many societies have not gifted outsiders and even some insiders with equal rights. Also, why do rational beings act irrational much of the time?

And as for your example, the egoist would not kill daddy because A.) It sets a precedent for his own son to kill him, and B.) His father, in a tightly-knit society based upon custom and individual relations, provides him social support and a place both on an individual level and in the community at large.

You make a number of uneeded assumptions. First, that the community is tight-knit. The society in question is as tightly knit as modern societies, ie not very. Second, that the egoist's crime is known by his son. The crime was done in secret in a way that couldn't be traced to the egoist

Reciprocity is a necessary part of rationalism; it is the only method by which human beings may gain trust and socially cooperate and thus achieve a greater happiness than they could on their own.

The egoist reciprocates in kind only when its in his best interests. When one can either free-ride or defect for greater benefit he would. So goes Prisoner's Dilemma.

So then you agree that if somebody wanted to kill you for their own personal gain, then it is allowed?

No, the agreement to recognize other's rights is only followed if its in ones self interest. If he makes an agreement with another egoist he should take action to make sure its never in the interest of that egoist to kill him.

Offer proof to your assertions. Histoically many societies have not gifted outsiders and even some insiders with equal rights. Also, why do rational beings act irrational much of the time?

I don't see how I have to prove this empirically, seeing as how it is axiomatic; one necessarily assumes that the other has a right to their life, else they would simply make them agree by force. To engage in discussion is to assume that one has the right to live their life as they will, and that one may only suggest (though one may still engage in performative contradiction.)

Also, you will have to clarify what you mean by 'act irrationally', as this may be taken many ways, including doing something you don't like personally and nothing more. Rational beings choose means to attain their ends, including the use of normative discussion. The irrationality you are most likely referring to results from imperfect information, but information is costly and people try to use their means to try to attain the best mix possible. So there is nothing contradictory about people who choose means to ends accidentally choosing the wrong means; it is part of the nature of scarcity. And unfortunately that scarcity sometimes results in injustice, but people must contend with this too through their choices.

You make a number of uneeded assumptions. First, that the community is tight-knit. The society in question is as tightly knit as modern societies, ie not very. Second, that the egoist's crime is known by his son. The crime was done in secret in a way that couldn't be traced to the egoist

1.) A truly egoist society would be tightly-knit in order to capitalize upon the various supporting institutions of a subsidiary society. But if we were talking about a defective, state-dominated society like ours, the egoist would understand the dangers of weakening family institutions and not kill his father. You seem to be much too attached to the idea of homo economicus, who responds impersonally to mathematical 'utils' and points and the like, whereas man is really homo agens, choosing means to ends. There is nothing irrational about loving and being obedient to one's father under the latter.

2.) I said set a precedent, not that the son would know. If the grandfather is still alive, it would be damaging to the son if he were to murder his father while his father supported the grandfather in his old age; it would cast his action in sharp relief and be all the more damning. Whereas if the grandfather were gone, for any reason, it would give less moral weight against the son if he were to murder his own father. And the egoist would have enough sense to know that commiting such a heinous act would make it marginally easier to commit further atrocities and thus give more opportunities for him to be punished by the law. Also, as a deist I would not do such a thing because, among other reasons, it would interfere with my spiritual development that is the only thing that can give true happiness.

The egoist reciprocates in kind only when its in his best interests. When one can either free-ride or defect for greater benefit he would. So goes Prisoner's Dilemma.

And so we have to create an all-powerful apparatus to bludgeon people into submission because they won't play ball our way?

This is the important difference between skeptical rationalists and naive rationalists; that the naive rationalists think that they can bend human beings as much as they want without consequence to scientifically engineer a perfect society, whereas skeptical rationalists believe in the ingenuity of the human person to choose means to ends, and among these tools is reciprocity. Naive rationalists will construct distant and unaccountable 'separations of power' that ultimately serve only as a study into strategic behavior as particular interests abuse their power. Skeptics will allow local communities to choose their means amongst each other and employ such tools as social sanction, social reward and ostracism to bring people to beneficial solutions without the use of an ever-expanding and pernicious system of privileges.

If people can deal with scarcity in shoe-making, they can deal with scarcity in moral dilemmas.

I don't see how I have to prove this empirically, seeing as how it is axiomatic; one necessarily assumes that the other has a right to their life, else they would simply make them agree by force. To engage in discussion is to assume that one has the right to live their life as they will, and that one may only suggest (though one may still engage in performative contradiction.)

Saying its axiomatic does not make it so. I could say its axiomatic that others do not have a right to life as a basic axiom. Why am I wrong. Its axiomatic.


Also, you will have to clarify what you mean by 'act irrationally', as this may be taken many ways, including doing something you don't like personally and nothing more. Rational beings choose means to attain their ends, including the use of normative discussion. The irrationality you are most likely referring to results from imperfect information, but information is costly and people try to use their means to try to attain the best mix possible. So there is nothing contradictory about people who choose means to ends accidentally choosing the wrong means; it is part of the nature of scarcity. And unfortunately that scarcity sometimes results in injustice, but people must contend with this too through their choices.

Irrational as in use violence, enslave others, beat people. History is full of war, enslavement, genocide, rape and such. Yet this is irrational according to you.


1.) A truly egoist society would be tightly-knit in order to capitalize upon the various supporting institutions of a subsidiary society. But if we were talking about a defective, state-dominated society like ours, the egoist would understand the dangers of weakening family institutions and not kill his father. You seem to be much too attached to the idea of homo economicus, who responds impersonally to mathematical 'utils' and points and the like, whereas man is really homo agens, choosing means to ends. There is nothing irrational about loving and being obedient to one's father under the latter.

You seem to be too attached to the idea of man as a rational agent instead of man as a product of evolution.

I do not see why an egoist would bind himself to others outside of the potential gain to him. Loving a father is irrational since it will interfere when hurting his self interest is in the egoist's self interests


2.) I said set a precedent, not that the son would know. If the grandfather is still alive, it would be damaging to the son if he were to murder his father while his father supported the grandfather in his old age; it would cast his action in sharp relief and be all the more damning. Whereas if the grandfather were gone, for any reason, it would give less moral weight against the son if he were to murder his own father. And the egoist would have enough sense to know that commiting such a heinous act would make it marginally easier to commit further atrocities and thus give more opportunities for him to be punished by the law. Also, as a deist I would not do such a thing because, among other reasons, it would interfere with my spiritual development that is the only thing that can give true happiness.

The egoist would have no son. Kids are costly in direct costs and more so in opportunity costs. A truly rational egoist would be no more likely to committ more crimes in the future.

And so we have to create an all-powerful apparatus to bludgeon people into submission because they won't play ball our way?

This is the important difference between skeptical rationalists and naive rationalists; that the naive rationalists think that they can bend human beings as much as they want without consequence to scientifically engineer a perfect society, whereas skeptical rationalists believe in the ingenuity of the human person to choose means to ends, and among these tools is reciprocity. Naive rationalists will construct distant and unaccountable 'separations of power' that ultimately serve only as a study into strategic behavior as particular interests abuse their power. Skeptics will allow local communities to choose their means amongst each other and employ such tools as social sanction, social reward and ostracism to bring people to beneficial solutions without the use of an ever-expanding and pernicious system of privileges.

If people can deal with scarcity in shoe-making, they can deal with scarcity in moral dilemmas.

From a cultural evolutionists perspective states have beaten non-states. Naive rationalists will have to explain why those forms of society without are useful when they are inferior on an evolitionary scale, rather than moral one.

Saying its axiomatic does not make it so. I could say its axiomatic that others do not have a right to life as a basic axiom. Why am I wrong. Its axiomatic.

I said it's axiomatic because if one says otherwise one is caught in a performative contradiction. You telling me that I have no right to my life ignores the fact that, through your use of normative discussion, you show through action that you think that I should be able to use my life as I please, and at best you can only suggest to me what I may do for it for my own good.

Irrational as in use violence, enslave others, beat people. History is full of war, enslavement, genocide, rape and such. Yet this is irrational according to you.

It is irrational because it is not the best means to the ultimate end of happiness; it necessarily destroys trust and respect for rights, which in turn diminishes others' respect for your life. History is full of those who have lived their life by the sword and died by the sword; the better method to happiness is through peace. But not everyone truly realizes this, or else they would do it.

You seem to be too attached to the idea of man as a rational agent instead of man as a product of evolution.

Man is a rational agent as a product of evolution.

I do not see why an egoist would bind himself to others outside of the potential gain to him. Loving a father is irrational since it will interfere when hurting his self interest is in the egoist's self interests

Once more, you are defining self-interest by way of the crude homo economicus. The egoist would love his father because he realizes the importance of reciprocity so that his children will take care of him, and that the community will support him, as well as for the psychological comforts of affection from one's father.

The egoist would have no son. Kids are costly in direct costs and more so in opportunity costs. A truly rational egoist would be no more likely to committ more crimes in the future.

The egoist would have a son because family is a social insurance institution at heart, where the young tend to the old. This is another problem of naive rationalists; since they do not see an institution's outright creation by fiat through an enlightened group of some sort, they think it is inherently irrational. The family developed as a means of reciprocal aid. And to think just a moment ago you were lecturing me on how I did not understand man as a product of evolution.

From a cultural evolutionists perspective states have beaten non-states. Naive rationalists will have to explain why those forms of society without are useful when they are inferior on an evolitionary scale, rather than moral one.

While a naive rationalists would think the fact that the state's existence, created as it was through the use of statist intellectuals in their effort to shape society where they thought (wrongly) that there was chaos (see Hobbes), proves its worth and thus vindicates their meddling in the process, the skeptical rationalist understands that the state's continued existence is not an indicator of its social good because of its deliberate creation but its skill at parasitism.

Let us say that there is a parasite that infects cows. This parasite has a peculiar ability in that it can influence the actions of a cow so as to make it carry the parasite to other cows so that it may infect them as well. Eventually, this parasite infects every single cow on the face of the planet. Now, does the fact that there are only cows with this parasite, and none that lack it, prove the parasite's benefits to the bovine race? Or does it simply show that the parasite is an extremely fit organism?

So it is the same with the human race and our parasite, the state. The state, throughout history, has used whatever crisis appeared- its preference is war- as an excuse to grab men's lives, liberty and property for its own use. While man is a rational being, choosing means to ends, if he is misinformed he cannot hope to choose the right means to his end of happiness. And so the state, which tells him that its punitive taxes and bloody, meaningless wars are for 'his own good', gains a legitimacy in his mind that allows him to give up, begrudgingly or enthusiastically, all that is his. And with that power the state has destroyed both customary law within by its regulation and customary law abroad (see the Normans, and, following in their work, Oliver Cromwell.)

This is no service to mankind; it is simply the evidence of the state's honed ability to deceive, and this has allowed it to survive just the same as any other parasite. Naive rationalists will defend the state because both they and the state wish to plan society to their own wishes, and both see great potential for their ends in one another. However, what the naive rationalists fail to see is that the state is just another particular interest like any other, to give it privilege is to give it opportunity for that privilege to be abused regardless of whatever pieces of paper are made to control it, and that the state will use the naive rationalists for its own ends regardless of what the naive rationalists believe. The skeptic understands that the best way is not to give privilege to particular interests but to allow these particular interests to work under the same basic law of reason, and that they will find their way without the use of special powers.

I said it's axiomatic because if one says otherwise one is caught in a performative contradiction. You telling me that I have no right to my life ignores the fact that, through your use of normative discussion, you show through action that you think that I should be able to use my life as I please, and at best you can only suggest to me what I may do for it for my own good.

I never told you, in this hypothetical situation, that you had no right to live. I'm just acting like you dont. Normative discussion proves nothing.


It is irrational because it is not the best means to the ultimate end of happiness; it necessarily destroys trust and respect for rights, which in turn diminishes others' respect for your life. History is full of those who have lived their life by the sword and died by the sword; the better method to happiness is through peace. But not everyone truly realizes this, or else they would do it.

Why did so many rational agents act irrationally? Just because they never realized it?

Man is a rational agent as a product of evolution.

Man has reason, but through evolution man is a emotional being who reason not a rational being with emotions.

Once more, you are defining self-interest by way of the crude homo economicus. The egoist would love his father because he realizes the importance of reciprocity so that his children will take care of him, and that the community will support him, as well as for the psychological comforts of affection from one's father.

Once more you don't seem to realize that love is not based on reason.


The egoist would have a son because family is a social insurance institution at heart, where the young tend to the old. This is another problem of naive rationalists; since they do not see an institution's outright creation by fiat through an enlightened group of some sort, they think it is inherently irrational. The family developed as a means of reciprocal aid. And to think just a moment ago you were lecturing me on how I did not understand man as a product of evolution.

The family developed as a unit of kinship selection through random chance and not reasoned argument. In any case, kids are not needed to tend the old today. One can just save enough to take care of one's self in old age. So instead of the costs of kids one would have the blissful retirement.

While a naive rationalists would think the fact that the state's existence, created as it was through the use of statist intellectuals in their effort to shape society where they thought (wrongly) that there was chaos (see Hobbes), proves its worth and thus vindicates their meddling in the process, the skeptical rationalist understands that the state's continued existence is not an indicator of its social good because of its deliberate creation but its skill at parasitism.

Let us say that there is a parasite that infects cows. This parasite has a peculiar ability in that it can influence the actions of a cow so as to make it carry the parasite to other cows so that it may infect them as well. Eventually, this parasite infects every single cow on the face of the planet. Now, does the fact that there are only cows with this parasite, and none that lack it, prove the parasite's benefits to the bovine race? Or does it simply show that the parasite is an extremely fit organism?

So it is the same with the human race and our parasite, the state. The state, throughout history, has used whatever crisis appeared- its preference is war- as an excuse to grab men's lives, liberty and property for its own use. While man is a rational being, choosing means to ends, if he is misinformed he cannot hope to choose the right means to his end of happiness. And so the state, which tells him that its punitive taxes and bloody, meaningless wars are for 'his own good', gains a legitimacy in his mind that allows him to give up, begrudgingly or enthusiastically, all that is his. And with that power the state has destroyed both customary law within by its regulation and customary law abroad (see the Normans, and, following in their work, Oliver Cromwell.)

This is no service to mankind; it is simply the evidence of the state's honed ability to deceive, and this has allowed it to survive just the same as any other parasite. Naive rationalists will defend the state because both they and the state wish to plan society to their own wishes, and both see great potential for their ends in one another. However, what the naive rationalists fail to see is that the state is just another particular interest like any other, to give it privilege is to give it opportunity for that privilege to be abused regardless of whatever pieces of paper are made to control it, and that the state will use the naive rationalists for its own ends regardless of what the naive rationalists believe. The skeptic understands that the best way is not to give privilege to particular interests but to allow these particular interests to work under the same basic law of reason, and that they will find their way without the use of special powers.

When state and customary societies have clashed the state has won. Customary law has no utility if it can not protect those who live under it. Ask Mises, Hayek, And Schumpeter why they believed in states instead of anarchy of some kind.

No, the agreement to recognize other's rights is only followed if its in ones self interest. If he makes an agreement with another egoist he should take action to make sure its never in the interest of that egoist to kill him.

Ahhh so in reality we should each look out for ourselves, unless there is summit in it for us?

Say your not a Satanist are you?

Well, actually, that's a false analogy. The reason why modern governments can get away with this is that there is a lack of personal interaction between people and those who represent them. In a democracy, political parties form because there is no criteria by which to judge the individual merits of a person and so he is no longer relied upon for being a good person but rather just being another vote for a particular interest, thus discouraging character and encouraging deception. The politician then has a group of people sing his praises for him, since the people cannot know him personally, and thus rational ignorance and rent-seeking sky-rocket, leading eventually to an especially effective political machine and dominant particular interests that form a one-party state.
I think that personal interaction doesn’t give adequate protection against lies. Good liar can deceive majority without much trouble. And I don’t think that modern democracies are one-party states.
Whereas, in a system of customary law, one chooses one's arbiter based upon their personal merits from personal inspection, just as one wouldn't just choose any car off the lot. Additionally, there is no monopoly on jurisdiction that would allow for perversions of justice that are all too common in democracy.
If majority support informal leader strongly, he will not have problems with creation of informal monopoly for himself. Dividing government on different branches is much more adequate solution to this problem.
Actually, societies with customary law tend to be much more peaceful than societies with legislative law, as all costs are borne privately and so non-violent tools of resolution such as ostracism and social sanction are used in lieu of SWAT team and DEA style violence.
If customary law societies don’t have the way to merge their resources for supporting equivalent of police and military, they can’t merge them to support modern industry.
Also, there is no reason why a social authority wouldn't enlist the aid of specialists in his decisions like any court, and he himself is a specialist in the law; that is why people trust him, and to use credible sources would only enhance his authority. In a legislative system, however, specialists have their own particular interests that they wish to aid, and so will twist the political process to their own ends; again, see iron-triangles and bureaucratic waste.
Of course he can be specialist and use the help of other specialists, but he is not creating the laws, he just implement traditions and precedents in the best possible way. And even the best law specialist can’t make good decisions, if he bases them on archaic rules. Modern society changes very fast, and without regular renovation rules will be outdated very fast. Tradition just can’t change fast enough.

Under the system you are advocate, informal leaders and groups will just play the role of modern politicians and parties; they will spread hysteria and will play on conformity of majority to oppress different minorities and create informal oligarchic dictatorship. Informal groups will use lies and violence just like modern governments do this now.

Modern democracy did not completely prevent such things, but it reduce the role of violence and allow specialists influence laws much more than it is possible in the society with only customary law.
I agree with your view on this completely. After all, if we look at history, we can see clearly that modern governments are just the children of informal leaders and groups. The governments of today learned all their tricks from earlier informal group/leader systems -- including dictatorships, oligarchies, and cults, as examples of monopolies of power -- such as the early modern church and family dynasties such as the Medicis and Borgias. In fact, if we take a very close and detailed look at history, we sometimes find the exact same systems still in use, sometimes even by the exact same families. I refer, for example, to the government and social systems of Italy and to the history of the Bush family in US politics, which goes back longer than 100 years (even though they've only reached the presidency twice). So an assertion that there is some fundamental functional difference between modern systems and "traditional" informal systems can be shown to be incorrect.

The way power works is universal, no matter what the scale or scope of the group in question.

Actually, I think that in situation when it is impossible to protect the basic rights of people without assistance of this hermit, society can force him to give such assistance. Of course, when it is possible, society must give adequate compensation for this, and it is always wrong to do this without real necessity.
I'm not exactly sure if I agree with this, but maybe I am not understanding what you mean by "society can force him to give such assistance."

If you mean it as, if he participates in society enough, then he can be deemed a member of it and required, for instance, to pay taxes for the social systems that support all members of society, then I would agree. Then, of course, the "adequate compensation" would be the membership in society, which comes with the benefits of all those systems, so that now our hermit can rely on the community's police to protect his person and property, rely on the community utilities to provide safe drinking water and power, rely on the community's legal system to protect him from having his rights harmed by others, etc., just like all his fellow citizens.

I'm not exactly sure if I agree with this, but maybe I am not understanding what you mean by "society can force him to give such assistance."

If you mean it as, if he participates in society enough, then he can be deemed a member of it and required, for instance, to pay taxes for the social systems that support all members of society, then I would agree. Then, of course, the "adequate compensation" would be the membership in society, which comes with the benefits of all those systems, so that now our hermit can rely on the community's police to protect his person and property, rely on the community utilities to provide safe drinking water and power, rely on the community's legal system to protect him from having his rights harmed by others, etc., just like all his fellow citizens.
No, I mean that he can be forced even if he is never participated in the life of this society. He can’t be tortured or killed if he will not agree, but his freedom can be taken away. But it must be returned to him when the immediate need in his assistance will end, even if he is not provided it. And form of compensation must depend on the wishes of this person and the resources of society. Of course, society must look for alternative methods for protection of basic rights, but when there is no other choice, such approach is acceptable.

Absolutely. Any right guaranteed by society must be provided by society. The particulars of how that right are conferred can vary, but it is the responsibility of every member of society who benefits from those rights to ensure and encourage their universal application.

Ahhh so in reality we should each look out for ourselves, unless there is summit in it for us?

Such is the philosophy of egoism.

Say your not a Satanist are you?

No, merely pointing out at axioms are arbitrary. An egoist would have different moral axioms than one who believes in the innate moral worth of individuals like Venndee or I. Just because one believes one has the right to live does not mean one necessarily believes others do.

No, I mean that he can be forced even if he is never participated in the life of this society. He can’t be tortured or killed if he will not agree, but his freedom can be taken away. But it must be returned to him when the immediate need in his assistance will end, even if he is not provided it. And form of compensation must depend on the wishes of this person and the resources of society. Of course, society must look for alternative methods for protection of basic rights, but when there is no other choice, such approach is acceptable.
I can't imagine a scenario in which such an approach would be acceptable to me, according to my views of what rights are.

No right is inherent: All rights come with a corresponding responsibility. Far too many people like to insist on "rights" while ignoring the responsibilities that come with that right. Case in point: I have the right to own a firearm. If I chose to exercise that right, then I assume the responsibility to own and use it safely.

QFT

I think that personal interaction doesn’t give adequate protection against lies. Good liar can deceive majority without much trouble. And I don’t think that modern democracies are one-party states.

Not so. If I personally interact with the person instead of having to take his agent's word for his character, I have much more of a chance to detect any falsehood he may be advancing. If he is a delegate personally accountable to me, or if he is trusted with justly adjudicating my case, and he disobeys my orders in the former or even gives the hint of being unjust in the latter I will cut off any connection with him. Whereas if he's some guy off in D.C. who I just happened to vote for, I have little chance of wising up to such trickery.

If majority support informal leader strongly, he will not have problems with creation of informal monopoly for himself. Dividing government on different branches is much more adequate solution to this problem.

Dividing government into different branches arbitrarily is just silly, and makes the problem even worse. Hence the reason why the President has a near-infinite ability to declare war and Congress can get away with practically any spending bill, because each cooperates with the other to satisfy their own particular interest despite what some piece of paper says. The better way is to pit one social authority against the other, like a strong House of Lords versus the House of Commons versus the King. Each, representing a different social authority, will be beholden to that particular social authority to protect their rights against the other authorities. But this would simply be an extension of customary law and the subjective (particular) rights of individuals, which you do not seem to want.

Speaking of pitting social authorities against one another, this is exactly what would happen in a customary law society. If one were to become uncertain of the justice of the current social authority, one could simply transfer to another authority. The warning signs would be fairly easy to detect, such as if the original authority is partial to a side or demands that all cases be brought to him alone for him to adjudicate. The loss of clients would be a signal to all others that there is something wrong with this social authority, and thus cause those who have not seen the problem yet to reconsider their dealings with the rogue.

If customary law societies don’t have the way to merge their resources for supporting equivalent of police and military, they can’t merge them to support modern industry.

I never said that they cannot merge their resources to make security forces. I said that they would avoid violence to resolve disputes, unlike the warmongering and civil-liberty trashing United States government. Seeing as how security is necessary for prosperity, and that the wealthier his clients are the wealthier the social authority will be, social authorities will engage in relations with other social authorities and contract with private security in order to keep the peace. But the preferred method will be through ostracism and social sanction, which are relatively cheap compared to gun-slinging. So there would not need to be the pervasive police state that one encounters throughout the world.

Of course he can be specialist and use the help of other specialists, but he is not creating the laws, he just implement traditions and precedents in the best possible way. And even the best law specialist can’t make good decisions, if he bases them on archaic rules. Modern society changes very fast, and without regular renovation rules will be outdated very fast. Tradition just can’t change fast enough.

Actually, customary law can change very quickly without the need for a legislature; see William Blackstone's treatise on English Common Law, specifically the reform of English feudal land law through precedent and not legislature, or the adaptation of the Kapauku Papuans' marriage and adultery laws within the space of a few rulings by some tonowi. All that is needed is the accepted authority of those who make rulings and the consent of those affected by said rulings.

I never told you, in this hypothetical situation, that you had no right to live. I'm just acting like you dont. Normative discussion proves nothing.

But the fact is that when I justify my defense against your disregard to my right to my life that discussion will necessarily assume that I have a right to my life, in that I am using my life to tell others about it and in that others are recognizing my right to life by listening to me, regardless of what further actions they or I take.

Why did so many rational agents act irrationally? Just because they never realized it?

Again, this irrationality is because they choose the wrong means to an end, not that they are not a creature that does not choose any means at all. Even their choices concerning what information they will attain proves their rationality, of choosing means to ends.

Man has reason, but through evolution man is a emotional being who reason not a rational being with emotions.

There is no contradiction between emotion and reason. Man can choose the means to satisfy the end of his emotions, and his ultimate goal is his happiness.

Once more you don't seem to realize that love is not based on reason.

Love is not contradictory to reason. If man has a need for love, he can choose means to reach that love or to maintain it. His reason is his mean to achieve happiness, and he can use this mean to achieve the various objects that give him this happiness, including love. To say that his need for love is irrational makes as much sense as saying that his need for food is irrational; both are needed to survive in one sense or another, and man chooses how he will achieve this object.

The family developed as a unit of kinship selection through random chance and not reasoned argument. In any case, kids are not needed to tend the old today. One can just save enough to take care of one's self in old age. So instead of the costs of kids one would have the blissful retirement.

I never said that they sat down and decided how the family would work; there was a blissful lack of legislators earlier in history. I said that the family evolved as a way for man to achieve his ends because of reciprocity. And the wealth of the elderly, rather than being a disincentive for having children, is actually a method of maintaining filial piety; if the offspring tends to the parents' needs in their old age, which are exacerbated by their physical frailty, and vindicate the parents' parenting through their proper behavior, among other social needs such as interaction (being lonely is hardly blissful, as many in retirement homes would attest), they will be rewarded with the monetary sum of the inheritance.

When state and customary societies have clashed the state has won. Customary law has no utility if it can not protect those who live under it. Ask Mises, Hayek, And Schumpeter why they believed in states instead of anarchy of some kind.

Mises strongly supported the right to secession, even theoretically down to the individual. Hayek believed in institutional evolution over legislation. Though like anything else customary law cannot exclude external forces, it provides for greater peace through its recognition of property rights and avoidance of violent resolution of problems. The state, on the other hand, has proven its rapacity and avariciousness through its continual parasitic expansion at the expense of its subjects. If customary law has zero utility because it has often fallen against the depredations of well-established invading states, then the state has negative utility because it is behind its depredations at home and abroad. If one claims they love liberty but support its warmongering, conscripting, taxing enemy, the state, then they are either misinformed or deceitful.

No, merely pointing out at axioms are arbitrary. An egoist would have different moral axioms than one who believes in the innate moral worth of individuals like Venndee or I. Just because one believes one has the right to live does not mean one necessarily believes others do.

Then you place yourself on a higher platform than the rest of mankind. Do you deserve to be there? Can you show any reasons why?

Then you place yourself on a higher platform than the rest of mankind. Do you deserve to be there? Can you show any reasons why?
Or more accurately, any convincing reasons.

Let's be honest, every human being, just like every being capable of any level of awareness, is at the most basic level, an egoist to some lesser or greater degree. We all prefer our own company over that of others, and have a hard time believing that others may not find us as delightful as we find ourselves. We also instinctively assume our thoughts are the most enlightened and our desires are the most pressing needs in the world. The only question is, will we be satisfied with viewing the world in our own mirror, or will we sometimes think about something else?

This, in my (strictly personal) opinion, is the basic difference between a realist and an egoist. The realist bothers to look at others, sees them as similar to himself (i.e., just as self-centered), realizes (perhaps with horror) that they do not care about him as much as he cares about himself, and figures he might want to arrange his life (in whatever way) so as to minimize the interference he may experience from other people. The egoist, on the other hand, cannot for the life of him imagine that other people's opinions can have any personal impact upon him at all. Egoists are always the ones who look most surprised when the guillotine blade comes down on them.

;)

But the fact is that when I justify my defense against your disregard to my right to my life that discussion will necessarily assume that I have a right to my life, in that I am using my life to tell others about it and in that others are recognizing my right to life by listening to me, regardless of what further actions they or I take.

But my discussion that you dont have a right to life necessarily assumes you dont have a right. Listening does not equal recognition

Again, this irrationality is because they choose the wrong means to an end, not that they are not a creature that does not choose any means at all. Even their choices concerning what information they will attain proves their rationality, of choosing means to ends.

People do not look at information objectively. We are highly biased. Therefore our reasoning is flawed and thus we are irrational.

There is no contradiction between emotion and reason. Man can choose the means to satisfy the end of his emotions, and his ultimate goal is his happiness.

There is if the emotions are irrational which they often are.

Love is not contradictory to reason. If man has a need for love, he can choose means to reach that love or to maintain it. His reason is his mean to achieve happiness, and he can use this mean to achieve the various objects that give him this happiness, including love. To say that his need for love is irrational makes as much sense as saying that his need for food is irrational; both are needed to survive in one sense or another, and man chooses how he will achieve this object.

Men do not need love to survive, and while love is not necessarily irrational often is.


I never said that they sat down and decided how the family would work; there was a blissful lack of legislators earlier in history. I said that the family evolved as a way for man to achieve his ends because of reciprocity. And the wealth of the elderly, rather than being a disincentive for having children, is actually a method of maintaining filial piety; if the offspring tends to the parents' needs in their old age, which are exacerbated by their physical frailty, and vindicate the parents' parenting through their proper behavior, among other social needs such as interaction (being lonely is hardly blissful, as many in retirement homes would attest), they will be rewarded with the monetary sum of the inheritance.

The cost of children and the lack of need of offspring for social insurance purposes are disincentives to have children.

Mises strongly supported the right to secession, even theoretically down to the individual. Hayek believed in institutional evolution over legislation. Though like anything else customary law cannot exclude external forces, it provides for greater peace through its recognition of property rights and avoidance of violent resolution of problems. The state, on the other hand, has proven its rapacity and avariciousness through its continual parasitic expansion at the expense of its subjects. If customary law has zero utility because it has often fallen against the depredations of well-established invading states, then the state has negative utility because it is behind its depredations at home and abroad. If one claims they love liberty but support its warmongering, conscripting, taxing enemy, the state, then they are either misinformed or deceitful.

The right to secede to form a new state is not anti-statist, and Hayek's look at institutional evolution was through the view of state enforced common law.

But my discussion that you dont have a right to life necessarily assumes you dont have a right. Listening does not equal recognition

Again, if you engage in discussion and then decide I do not have a right to my life, then you are engaged in performative contradiction. What you basically do, through your actions, is say "I recognize your right to your life in that I will not interfere in your use of said life to explain yourself." But when you act otherwise, you are caught in hypocrisy. To aggress against me after this is to be inconsistent with oneself.

People do not look at information objectively. We are highly biased. Therefore our reasoning is flawed and thus we are irrational.

You fail to realize that bias is a mechanism to rely upon when gathering information is too costly; I would be biased if I refused to get near a tiger because I think all tigers would eat me. It is actually rational in that it chooses the best possible mix in a given scenario.

There is if the emotions are irrational which they often are.

Emotions are needs, ends upon which we act as a result of our nature. They cannot be dismissed as irrational because they are necessary for our survival.

Men do not need love to survive, and while love is not necessarily irrational often is.

People need affection to survive, as this prevents mental disorders and increases the intelligence (babies who are not loved tend to be less apt than babies that are.) Also, love is necessary for reproduction, which is part of our nature as biological beings.

The cost of children and the lack of need of offspring for social insurance purposes are disincentives to have children.

When the state takes over the role of the family, yes, there is no need for offspring for social insurance purposes. But when there is no state one must have some sort of social insurance, and the family is the best.

The right to secede to form a new state is not anti-statist, and Hayek's look at institutional evolution was through the view of state enforced common law.

Secession IS anti-statist, as it puts a check on monopolies of jurisdiction. And Mises theoretically said it would be best if this right of disassociation was extended down the individual. And Hayek's view, taken to its logical conclusion, would be that customary law, which is institutional evolution without the central planning of the state (statist law IS central planning, after all, because it is how it affects society), is preferable to legislative law.

Again, if you engage in discussion and then decide I do not have a right to my life, then you are engaged in performative contradiction. What you basically do, through your actions, is say "I recognize your right to your life in that I will not interfere in your use of said life to explain yourself." But when you act otherwise, you are caught in hypocrisy. To aggress against me after this is to be inconsistent with oneself.

If I was an egoist I would not engage you in normative discussion, and if I did listening would not mean I believe you had a right to life. It could be I find your views amusing or I am curious about what others or I enjuoy toying with you. Agressing afterwards brooks no contradiction.

You fail to realize that bias is a mechanism to rely upon when gathering information is too costly; I would be biased if I refused to get near a tiger because I think all tigers would eat me. It is actually rational in that it chooses the best possible mix in a given scenario.

The bias mechanism exists even when information isn't costly. Its biased even with the information one currently has.

Emotions are needs, ends upon which we act as a result of our nature. They cannot be dismissed as irrational because they are necessary for our survival.

Emotions are needs. They are

People need affection to survive, as this prevents mental disorders and increases the intelligence (babies who are not loved tend to be less apt than babies that are.) Also, love is necessary for reproduction, which is part of our nature as biological beings.

Sex is needed for reproduction, not love. Also one does not need love, just care. Children love their mothers even if physically and mentally abused. Their is nothing rational in that.

When the state takes over the role of the family, yes, there is no need for offspring for social insurance purposes. But when there is no state one must have some sort of social insurance, and the family is the best.

Even without the welfare state the costs of children when invested instead would yield a high enough return that one does not have to rely on children.

Secession IS anti-statist, as it puts a check on monopolies of jurisdiction. And Mises theoretically said it would be best if this right of disassociation was extended down the individual. And Hayek's view, taken to its logical conclusion, would be that customary law, which is institutional evolution without the central planning of the state (statist law IS central planning, after all, because it is how it affects society), is preferable to legislative law.

Secession is not anti-statist. It just creates a new monopoly. Anyway Mises though the state was essential

Liberalism is therefore far from disputing the necessity of a machinery of state, a system of law, and a government. It is a grave misunderstanding to associate it in any way with the idea of anarchism. For the liberal, the state is an absolute necessity, since the most important tasks are incumbent upon it: the protection not only of private property, but also of peace, for in the absence of the latter the full benefits of private property cannot be reaped.

Hayek's view was that customary law leads to common law which leads to constitutionalism which leads to modern legislation. He include the state within his evolutionary view of institutions. It is not outside of it.

I’m sorry, but some personal matters didn’t allow me to continue this discussion now.

TO VENNDEE: I not agree with you, but I must admit that my arguments are less detailed then yours. Maybe after I will think more about this problem, I will become better in defending my position.

This quote is from Papuan politician and philosopher Bernard Narokobi.



(link (http://www.lexisnexis.com.my/free/articles/JenniferCorrin-Care.htm))

Your thoughts?

Cute. But there are no such things as 'human rights'... so, somewhat irrelevent to reality.

Cute. But there are no such things as 'human rights'... so, somewhat irrelevent to reality.
Ah, that explains a lot.

You won't be surprised to learn I disagree with you. Now the only question is, if push comes to shove, which of us will have our head in the guillotine, and which of us will have our hand on the lever? History shows it is more often my side of the debate that drops the blade, and your side that ends up staring at the sky from a basket.

Which suggests, I think, that whether you believe there is such a thing as human rights or not, it would only be pragmatic to accept that others do believe in them very, very strongly. And that leads to the question of whether it is harmful or beneficial to everyone in society to arrange things as if there is such a thing as human rights, without bothering to prove it one way or another.

My point of view is that arranging society to support human rights (whether they are "real" or just abstract constructs) is the most beneficial way to go for the following reasons:

1) Accepting the concept of human rights does not create any hardships for those who do not believe in them.

2) Accepting the concept of human rights satisfies those who do believe in them, thus making them less likely to act against the state/society.

3) Accepting the concept of human rights creates a framework upon which to establish social systems that can create ancillary benefits for all members of society, no matter what their beliefs are.

So, even from the point of view of one who thinks human rights is just an abstract notion, it must be obvious that accepting it has practical benefits.

Which brings us back to the practical aspects of the statement quoted in the OP, which of course, you refused to address before. Well?

Yes. Of course, people can give “independent identity” to some group, but this will be only their belief and not the objective fact. Such beliefs must be taken in account to some extent, but only because they are important for the individuals and not because group have some real independent identity.

No more than the belief in independent identity is "just a belief". Identity is always a construct ... never an "objective fact". That doesn't meant it is not important to both the individual and the group.

Ah, that explains a lot.

You won't be surprised to learn I disagree with you. Now the only question is, if push comes to shove, which of us will have our head in the guillotine, and which of us will have our hand on the lever? History shows it is more often my side of the debate that drops the blade, and your side that ends up staring at the sky from a basket.

Which suggests, I think, that whether you believe there is such a thing as human rights or not, it would only be pragmatic to accept that others do believe in them very, very strongly. And that leads to the question of whether it is harmful or beneficial to everyone in society to arrange things as if there is such a thing as human rights, without bothering to prove it one way or another.

My point of view is that arranging society to support human rights (whether they are "real" or just abstract constructs) is the most beneficial way to go for the following reasons:

1) Accepting the concept of human rights does not create any hardships for those who do not believe in them.

2) Accepting the concept of human rights satisfies those who do believe in them, thus making them less likely to act against the state/society.

3) Accepting the concept of human rights creates a framework upon which to establish social systems that can create ancillary benefits for all members of society, no matter what their beliefs are.

So, even from the point of view of one who thinks human rights is just an abstract notion, it must be obvious that accepting it has practical benefits.

Which brings us back to the practical aspects of the statement quoted in the OP, which of course, you refused to address before. Well?

That's funny. Those who don't accept the unsupported claim of 'human rights' are somehow inviting being stripped of them by those who claim they do.

'Human rights' - the blindfaith religion of the new age.

I'm not quite sure where you are going, though... just because I don't accept that there is any provable, real, objective source or measure of human rights... doesn't automatically make me contrary to a framework (you claim) is built around them.

My philosophy is pragmatism - it doesn't invoke OR deny any supreme powers or unidentifiable sources - it doesn't require me to accept anything that can't be shown - but it doesn't automatically make my landscape sterile, either.

I don't think people should go around murdering one another - but while you might claim it is something to do with 'fundamental human right', I just go with a more pragmatic 'do unto others...' type model. Our two philosophies end up with the same structure - so I wonder why you are so sure your view is 'right' as the basis of our civilisation?

As for addressing the practical aspects of the OP... I said "cute". Sure, it's not a bad model to extend from the original concept. But - since the statement relies on an unverifiable first assumption, there doesn't seem much point discussing the ramifications in the real world.

That's funny. Those who don't accept the unsupported claim of 'human rights' are somehow inviting being stripped of them by those who claim they do.

'Human rights' - the blindfaith religion of the new age.
Don't blame me for the trends of history. The fact is, whether we agree with the specific claims of any given set of revolutionaries, they are always fighting FOR what they believe their rights are. There are no revolutions to abolish the very concept of rights.

For instance, I happen to accept the concept of rights expressed by the US revolutionaries, but I do not accept the concept as expressed by the Russian revolutionaries. Yet, if I had been in Russia in 1917, I would have had to deal with the Bolsheviks' claims of rights, whether I believed they were just making crap up or not.

My point was that because people believe so strongly in the existence of rights, it is, in my opinion, just a prudent compromise to allow society to be structured on a concept of rights and allow public discourse to be based on debating rights, rather than to just say "there's no such thing and therefore you don't have them." That kind of talk tends to just piss people off, with very little practical benefit for having pissed them off.

I'm not quite sure where you are going, though... just because I don't accept that there is any provable, real, objective source or measure of human rights... doesn't automatically make me contrary to a framework (you claim) is built around them.

My philosophy is pragmatism - it doesn't invoke OR deny any supreme powers or unidentifiable sources - it doesn't require me to accept anything that can't be shown - but it doesn't automatically make my landscape sterile, either.

I don't think people should go around murdering one another - but while you might claim it is something to do with 'fundamental human right', I just go with a more pragmatic 'do unto others...' type model. Our two philosophies end up with the same structure - so I wonder why you are so sure your view is 'right' as the basis of our civilisation?
My first paragraph here explains why, at least partially. Also, because unlike you, I DO believe that rights really exist. So obviously, from that pov, I think society should be based on them.

As for addressing the practical aspects of the OP... I said "cute". Sure, it's not a bad model to extend from the original concept. But - since the statement relies on an unverifiable first assumption, there doesn't seem much point discussing the ramifications in the real world.
"Cute" is a dismissal, not a response.