Because I actually trust Blogger more than I trust HaloScan

I feel the need to place this discussion into what I consider to be a more permanent form. This is from an Old Whig post:

Argh, how the heck did I get the wrong link in there! That is my very old blog that is now taken over by some spammer. Good grief.

Oh, by the way, I wouldn't really call myself an anarcho-capitalist, although I do like the elegance of the theory. If you're interested in what Rational Anarchy is (it's a personal political ideology, rather than a group ideology), check out
Eric | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 1:00 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric, and Al, thanks. Once I read the quote about six times, translated all the labels, rewrote it on a scrap of paper, meditated on it for 20 minutes in the khazi, what I came down to is this -

"The ACLU is wrong, not because it is not right but because it is left. They are fighting for the rights of the individual in pursuit of the benefit of the whole of society, not just me. Other people's rights are their priviledges. My rights are RIGHTS".

I like to use driving on the road as an example.

I have the right to drive on the road.

I have the right to travel safely on the road.

Now that also creates a responsibility -

I have to drive in a manner that will not injure other people - that will work to ensure their safety.

Now I know for a fact, indisputable fact, that my idea of "safe" driving will differ considerably from others. As f'rinstances; the guy who believes he can drive safely at 140kph - provided he can use both sides of the road, the guy who can help his mates down a 40oz of rum then drive home, the guy with one eye who can see me but not judge how far away I am, all of those would NOT fall within my idea of safe driving.

I like to put it in this form -

I drive in accordance with the rules (the law) in place.

I comply with those rules because I believe they contribute to the safety of others as well as to my own.

I take responsibility for my own actions if I fail to observe those rules.

I have a reasonable expectation that other users of the road will be driving in accordance with the same set of rules.

And at that point we suddenly have a problem. That problem is a stricture on the rights of others. They believe, for example, that it is their RIGHT to drive as fast as they wish (the "My rights are RIGHTS" argument). That ignores completely any consideration for my "right" to safely travel on the road.

Who wins?

Remember, I give this as an example of how there is conflict between the rights of individuals, even neighbours. It is a matter of perception and belief.

I think we have been through this before, and the response I got then was "But we are not doing away with ALL laws, just..." (usually the ones that relate to the paying of taxes).

OK, so how much would YOU contribute to your government to pay for the war in Iraq? If I were a US taxpayer and able to make that choice....

Oh! You are saying there would be some things where there would be NO choice?

This is not about RIGHTS...

This is about nothing more than self-interest and greed. There is no real concern for MY rights, only the rights that YOU see as being RIGHT.
probligo | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 1:12 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Horse dung Probligo. You and I both have the same rights, to life, liberty and property. I will stand up for those rights for you all day long. I will not stand up for moving target privileges and try to enshrine them as rights. Bottom line, if you protect inherent rights then privileges that you and the ACLU call rights will be protected. If you don't protect those inherent rights then the stuff you and the ACLU go on about are subject to the whim of the majority, or the legislature, or the court. I cannot understand why this is so hard to grasp.

As usual, you attack someone who believes in inherent rights as being all about self-interest and greed, yet you offer no reason for why that is so. And you offer no reason why it's a bad thing. it just is, in your world. This is getting pointless.
Eric | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 3:28 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uhhhh, and what's with all this jumping to taxes and wars stuff? As usual, you are off on a tangent. I said not a word about getting rid of laws or taxes. What I did say is that there is a difference between privileges and rights.
Eric | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 3:31 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Probligo,

So you think that one's rights are whatever he 'feels' they are, that just anything that anyone claims is is right has to be, or else the very idea of rights is flawed.

Rights are those conditions that are necessary to life *as a human being* - and that means life as a rational being. Irrational whims are never rights, but whims are exactly the invented rights that the ACLU so often supports. Many of the 'rights' the ACLU fights for are no more rational than the man who insists he has the right to use both sides of the road.

One rule of thumb about rights is that valid rights *can't* conflict. If what I am claiming as a right conflicts with a right you are claiming, then one or both of the claims are not actually rights. Figuring out which is not realy that difficult to people willing to look at it honestly.

The ACLU is like a stopped clock. A stopped clock is right twice a day, but you have no way of knowing *when* it is right without looking at another clock. The ACLU has no rational standard for their positions, so even though they are cocasionally right, there is no way to tell when they are right without reference to some other standard.
Kyle Bennett | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 11:07 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, Eric, could you please translate all of the long and obscure words and assorted verbiage from your initial piece into English that ordinary mortals such as myself can understand.

It would help even more if you were to do this in the context of the original comment.

Without some clarity of purpose and meaning, all that your original quote does (in light of the comments coming through now) is to create the impression of a manic computer nerd crouched over a keyboard, Roget in one hand and the latest right-wing political tract in the other.
probligo | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 4:34 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FWIW, I do not believe that the rights of the individual can exist neither in isolation from, nor in ascendancy over, the "rights" of society as a whole.

I confess that, in the absence of getting back to the context of my comment I confused the debate with the "tax debate" in Libertopia. My error, I apologise.

For that reason, and from this distance, I see ACLU as well meaning and sincere, but unable to make the distinction between "right and wrong" causes. To that extent, they do give a somewhat quixotic appearance.

So, Eric, I missed your comment in its original context.

The last sentence of my last comment is ABOTT perhaps, but it is pertinant.

Please, I am a simple man. I try to use plain English. You might try the same...
probligo | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 4:50 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rewrite first sentence...

FWIW, I do believe that the rights of the individual can not exist in isolation from the rights of society as a whole. The rights of an individual can not be greater than the rights of society as a whole.

Time to work...
probligo | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 4:53 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is merely another way of saying the individual has no rights.
Ken Hall | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 9:29 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The reality is that if you fully defend every individual's rights to life, liberty and property then things like free speech, religion, privacy are taken care of, because those are privileges constructed from those inherent rights.

OK, some real life examples -

I have the right to build a two story house on my section, which I do to maximise the view that I have over the bay. I can now see into my neighbours back yard. He objects because he and his wife enjoy sunbathing on their patio. So they erect a fence that blocks my view of their back yard, and the bay. Who is right?

I buy an apartment with sea views. It costs me $100,000. Two years later the property next door starts building a block of apartments which results in my 7th floor apartment looking at a blank concrete wall. The new block is completely legal. Who is right?

I am sorry, the example of the "bomb-making neighbour" has already been taken, but my question there has not been answered (but acknowledged as "good") either.

The point is that very often one person's "right" can be quite legal, but can also have the effect of causing harm to another person with "rights" that are equally as valid.

The VERY difficult path through this, and the objection that I raise to your otherwise very worthy objectives, requires that common ground between equally valid rights has to be IMPOSED. .
probligo | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 10:44 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The right to use your own property as you see fit, as best you can, exists to promote social peace. The "harm" to people whose view is blocked by their neighbors is insufficient to override my right to build as I see fit.

The difference between those two cases and the bomber next door is that he is endangering my life and health in a very real way.

From the back of my Libertarian Party card: "Ststement of Principles: We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."

I don't think you'll catch a lot of grass-roots Republicans buying into that completely.


And here's John Galt's Oath: "I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask him to live for mine."
Old Whig | Homepage | 08.25.05 - 11:17 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, in your system, if I spend $500k on a piece of land, build a $1mil house on it and you come and park a skyscraper next door blocking my view...

I have every right to get the TNT out and lay a few charges under the corners of the skyscraper?

I very much doubt that you would have as "reasonable" attitude were it you and yours whose view had been blocked.

What about a heliport being built next door? You happy with that? I sure would not. Then, I am also happy and objective enough to admit it.
probligo | Homepage | 08.26.05 - 1:17 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Probligo,

You say: "
The point is that very often one person's "right" can be quite legal, but can also have the effect of causing harm to another person with "rights" that are equally as valid."

The rights are not equally valid. Your claimed right to see the bay is not and could not ever be a legitimate right. Your right to see the bay providing that nothing else outside your property happens to be blocking the light from reaching your property is a valid right. There is no conflict between that right and the right of your neighbors to erect a fence. Until you own all the property between your house and the bay, you have no right to a view of the bay.

If you live on a hill a mile from the bay, would you also deny everyone between it and you the right to build anything that might mar your view? Is your house visible from the houses behind you? Should you have to tear it down if they complain? What if they like views of pistine hillsides, or open meadows, instead of your preference for water views? Aren't their preferences equally valid? Or does being there first give you "dibs" on all the proeperty visible from your house?

My advice would have been to negotiate with those neighbors prior to building your two story add-on, in order to secure some actual rights to a path for the light from the bay to reach your windows. They probably would have readily agreed in exchange for some cash and provisions to block the view into their yard.

Your problem is that you value that view, but you want it for free. Why is it that collectivists always think that the more valuable something is, the less they should have to give up to get it, and the more other people should have to give up so they can have it?

And individual rights do not take ascendancy over the rights of "society as a whole" because there are no such rights. In fact, there is no such thing as "society as a whole", let along some kind of thing that could have rights. All rights are individual rights, individuals are the only entities capable of having rights.
Kyle Bennett | Homepage | 08.26.05 - 1:22 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kyle, it happens that the example of the apartment and the next door block actually happened in Auckland last year. There was much raruraru about it, and I do not think that it is over yet.

The example of the blocked view came up this year when the neighbour applied for a permit to erect a 3.5m high fence and it was not approved by the Council. So he brought in an earthmover and put up a "hill" inside the boundary, calling it "landscaping".

In both instances the rule that you outline has been the eventual outcome (thus far).

It is not a case of "wanting the view for free". In both instances it was a selling / buying point in the properties concerned. The incoming buyers really should have checked out "what is likely to happen next door.

BUT...

Is it fair?

As for the "rights of society", would you argue that you do NOT have the right to use the highway with the expectation of reasonable safety?. I am driving 300km tomorrow morning and I expect to so do safely. What protection should I expect from the law from the eejit coming round the corner with his RV on the wrong side of the road at 160kph (100mph)?

If there is no law then he has that right. What right do I have? As I posted in response to the "bomb-maker next door" example...

Who, and in which Court, will I be permitted to sue if he survives and I am dead? If he has the right to accidentally kill me, what right do I have to life? He can argue that "it was an unfortunate accident, the probligo was in the wrong place wrong time" or that it was "an act of God, because the probligo was a confessed atheist".

If we are both killed, who and in which Court can I sue if he is Christian and I am atheist?

If there is law which determines rights and responsibilities on the road, then it encroaches on "everyone's" right to drive where and how they wish... if you are a Libertarian Christian.

If there is law determining behaviour and safe practice on the road then (in my book) that represents the "rights" of society at large. They may be seen by individuals as rights and as responsibilities and as restrictions... BUT THEY APPLY TO ALL.

Therefore, the ONLY RIGHTS that an individual can have are those that his society is prepared to allow to all of its individual members. In deciding WHAT RIGHTS to allow, society brings to bear the potential for harm to others that those rights might bring.

Now I do not have the wit nor ability to fully argue that line through all possible circumstances; it is the best that I can do. So rather than criticise the specific example (this to all, not just Kyle) how about some thought on the principle?

In the meantime, I will be in Opononi enjoying the magnificent view from my dacha on the side of the hill overlooking the bay, a glass or three in the local (smokeless) bar (also with a great view of the bay) and a good meal in the restaurant (also smokeless and w
probligo | Homepage | 08.26.05 - 5:40 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cont'd

In the meantime, I will be in Opononi enjoying the magnificent view from my dacha on the side of the hill overlooking the bay, a glass or three in the local (smokeless) bar (also with a great view of the bay) and a good meal and wine in the restaurant (also smokeless and with a great view) on Saturday night followed by watching on tv NZ beating South Africa in the rugby match.

Luck to all...
probligo | Homepage | 08.26.05 - 5:41 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Therefore, the ONLY RIGHTS that an individual can have are those that his society is prepared to allow to all of its individual members. In deciding WHAT RIGHTS to allow, society brings to bear the potential for harm to others that those rights might bring."

I begin to understand you now, the probligo, but allow me to respond with a question: Does the individual petition society for a given set of rights? More to the point, what is society? Society is made up of individuals, at least in Western cultures.

"If there is law which determines rights and responsibilities on the road, then it encroaches on "everyone's" right to drive where and how they wish... if you are a Libertarian Christian.

"If there is law determining behaviour and safe practice on the road then (in my book) that represents the "rights" of society at large. They may be seen by individuals as rights and as responsibilities and as restrictions... BUT THEY APPLY TO ALL."

You may, of course, use the semantic construction you choose, so long as you recognize and acknowledge the implications of your words. For example: another way to look at it is that "law determining behavior and safe practice on the road" is intended to protect the rights of individuals to safely use the road without infringement by other individuals.

Of course they apply to all: they'd durn well better.

Is the individual subordinate to society, or is the individual sovereign and possessed of inalienable natural rights (i.e., rights conferred by "Nature and Nature's God," as we say in the States)? If the latter, the individual consents to delegate certain powers, mostly regarding the initiation of force, to an agent in the form of the State, in return for enjoying the benefits of society. A single individual in the state of nature need concede nothing to anyone; this is why natural rights are so extensive as to be unenumerable.

However, we recognize that individual humans do not exist in the state of nature. What we call "society" is merely the spectrum of human interaction.

(Part II follows)
Ken | Homepage | 08.26.05 - 10:56 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II

"They believe, for example, that it is their RIGHT to drive as fast as they wish (the "My rights are RIGHTS" argument). That ignores completely any consideration for my "right" to safely travel on the road."

"They" are simply wrong. They do not have--no one has--the right to act in a manner likely to endanger the natural rights (among them life, liberty, and property) of others...unless the war of all against all is the society you're proposing. The probligo is clearly not doing that, so we're back to the conjoined questions of "who is this 'society'?" and "by what criteria do we determine what rights the individual within society enjoys?"

Which, I believe, has been rendered a settled question by a proper expression (there are many who are better at it than I) and understanding of natural rights. Rights existed before society; rights exist independent of society. I believe that where we differ, if we do, is upon the how many natural rights the individual should expect to surrender to society.
Ken | Homepage | 08.26.05 - 10:57 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I got about 2 cent for the ACLU and 98% of it is not complimentary unless you consider dung complimentary.
ron | Homepage | 08.27.05 - 3:16 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken, actually, you are fooling yourself. Probligo believes the exact opposite of what you and I believe. He believes that society grants the individuals within it "rights", although how he can have the temerity to call such things rights is beyond me.

Probligo, I'm sorry if you don't like complex thoughts and sentence structure, or words of more than two syllables, but I have no intention of changing how I write, the words I use, or the things I say just because they aren't simple enough.

For those reading this who are interested in a better understanding of this, see the debate over societal morals on my blog, which Probligo participated in. Note that he actually said that something is moral if the majority vote for it.
Eric | Homepage | 08.27.05 - 7:41 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah, Probligo, you still refuse to answer my questions, why is that?

- Why do you always automatically resort to charging those who wish to reduce government and increase personal freedom with being greedy and selfish and self-centered?

- Why are those bad things?

- Why do you always change the issue at hand and then act as if we attacked you about that issue, when we actually did not? For example, your car on the road example is pretty silly, as is your "libertarian christian" bit ...... since, and I can't speak for the others, I am actually neither of those things. Your car example has no bearing on the discussion, but you act as if you were personally attacked. Your home and property and views example is somewhat better, but only barely, because you are still demanding that one individual can dictate what another will do with his property, or that society can. I'll tell you what you do. My father-in-law's house has a beautiful view over an agricultural valley (he lives on top of a hill). It was possible to block his view by building a house on the next plot of land down the hill. So, he bought it. Now, no one can build there, his view can't be blocked, he's happy. You have to decide if it is worth it to you, or not. If it isn't, then whining to society to fix it for you for free is just that, whining.
Eric | Homepage | 08.27.05 - 7:46 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric, I was trying to be charitable, in the Augustinian sense of the term.
Ken Hall | Homepage | 08.27.05 - 11:25 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't understand how Probligo got the idea that I said it's okay to blow up my neighbor's building, when I clearly said it's not okay for my neighbor to endanger my life, health or property by building a bomb in his own basement.

I consider my principles to be facets of an organic whole. I even gave you the bases of my political and moral beliefs, the rest of which can be deduced in hierarchical order (in order according to their universal or specific applicability).

Unlike socialists, libertarians don't believe in starting absolutely from scratch. Not even arch-anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard. Nor the founder of Objectivism, Ayn Rand.

Humans have discovered tons of information about the way people respond to stimuli, and I believe that Rothbard's and Rand's theories describe the proper course best.

I'm not the one to deal with on the issue of their differences. I don't have time to become a true philosopher, but I have to admit that I'm inclined to go with the orthodox Randians when I see a conflict. Though I think their outright rejection of anarcho-capitalism is premature.

Neither theory requires you to passively accept a real threat from your neighbor, nor do they allow you to INITIATE such a threat against him.

Eric, your father-in-law's example is the one I insist everyone follow.
Old Whig | Homepage | 08.27.05 - 11:50 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is long, and I make no apologies...

"Why do you always automatically resort to charging those who wish to reduce government and increase personal freedom with being greedy and selfish and self-centered? "

Because I have become accustomed to hearing those promoting "less government and greater freedom" using the "less taxes and greater charity" as justification.

What "greater freedoms and rights" are you asking for this week? In Roberts case it was so he could pay less taxes. As my comment in the original post came from that debate I (perhaps mistakenly) thought that it was pertinent to the issue at hand.

Does that answer the question for you?

"Does the individual petition society for a given set of rights? More to the point, what is society? Society is made up of individuals, at least in Western cultures."

Yes, that is one route.

The most effective route is by voting for the people who are going to bring those greater "rights" and "freedoms".

Yes, we agree on one thing - society is made up of individuals. But if you want the rights and freedoms of one individual to be changed, then that change must apply to all.

NO?

Of course they apply to all: they'd durn well better.

So, the imposition of a speed limit and rules of the road is not an infringement of your rights? It is not "too much government"?

Rights existed before society; rights exist independent of society. I believe that where we differ, if we do, is upon the how many natural rights the individual should expect to surrender to society.

In the early days of our civilisation it was one of the rights of the local laird to go out and de-flower the girls of his fiefdom. Remember that part early in Braveheart? Quite factual. It happened like that. If that is a "natural right", is it right? It existed before our society, so it must be.

So we get to the heart of the problem, for example the "right to property".

I used the traffic "law of the road" to illustrate that there is a need for laws and rights to be imposed by society with the intent that no one person should have "greater rights" than another.

On that basis I dispute that an individual can claim to have rights which impact upon the property of others and the enjoyment of that property.

Another example if I may.

I buy a 10 acre property with a view of the Rockies. My next door neighbour builds his house directly between my house and the view. As my house is a "little further up the hill than his" I divert my sewerage outfall so that it drains directly opposite his back door.

In NZ, that would be illegal. Do you see it as a result of the "greater rights and freedoms" of property that you seek? I ask the question, because like all of my examples they are two way streets.

The continual thread behind my whole argument is that where ever you go, whatever you do, there will
probligo | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 2:51 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cont'd

The continual thread behind my whole argument is that where ever you go, whatever you do, there will always be some impact upon others around you unless of course you can find an uninhabited tropical island somewhere...

THEREFORE -

Society as a whole has the right to govern the rights and the freedoms that you seek. And there I use the magic word - "govern" implying of course "government".

So, here we go again -

What greater freedoms and rights do you seek - that can be applied to the whole of society?

Freedom from having your city take land for a private development?

That is not freedom and rights. THAT IS BAD LAW. Get the law changed.

What greater freedoms and rights do you seek - that can be applied to the whole of society?
probligo | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 2:53 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May I invite all you guys to come to Singapore and have a go at our wonderful legal system? Our judges will tell you who is right. We don't rely on no juries and trust me - our judges are good! So no need to argue. Come here and hire our best lawyers (known as senior counsels) and let them fight your cases.
Teflon Man | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 3:09 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yes, so long as you leave graffiti only on Al's comments pages and not on our walls, we'll not whip you on your @$$#$.
Teflon Man | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 3:10 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the probligo: What "greater freedoms and rights" are you asking for this week? In Roberts case it was so he could pay less taxes.

Judging by those two sentences alone, it seems that you still—after much back and forth—fail to get the point. Firstly, inherent rights are a constant, which means that they do not change from week to week or from one majority to the next. Every individual (American, New Zealander, et al) is possessed of the right to life, liberty and property. Therefore, it is flatly immoral for a state, community or even a local mob to impinge upon those rights…regardless of whether or not ‘duly elected’ officials pass laws to that end. Furthermore, your ‘state solution’ for land use is misguided. Can you not appreciate the distinction between actual harm and perceived harm? Simply having your view obstructed is hardly an actionable offense.

With respect to taxation, my view is not overly complex. Since I don’t advocate for the immediate abolition of the state (although I do advocate for an irreducibly minimal state), I realize that some limited tax is necessary to fund the ‘essentials’ of government. Needless to say, the level of taxation that you seek is not at all essential. In other words, inordinately high taxation, progressive tax schemes and the like are invariably designed to achieve some degree of ‘social justice’ (extortion for redistribution), which is far from just in my view.
Robert | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 2:16 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"possessed of the right to life, liberty and property. "

That, Robert, is not at dispute.

The point which you and others are either too stubborn or too blind to debate rationally is this -

In the realms of "personal eminent domain" do you honestly think that there should be no bounds to those rights.

I keep throwing examples, I know. I am trying to spur some logical and meaningful debate into the boundaries of your envisaged property rights and no one has yet taken up the challenge.

Another -

Your next door neighbour sets up a toxic waste dump on his property. He is storing, processing and burning heavy metals including lead, cadmium and mercury, and is burning off production waste from a herbicide plant. Do you have any rights?

Another -

Your next door neighbour starts up a panel beating shop. He is an industrious person and works a six day week, fourteen hours a day. Do you have any rights?

Why the examples? Because I am not worried about your right to do whatever you want on your property.

My concern is just where do you see my rights in relation to "doing harm" to me or to my property
probligo | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 5:11 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Probligo, Robert gave you an answer. The answer is that my rights stop a centimeter from your nose. I may behave as I choose until such time as I harm someone else's life, liberty or property. We have said this to you numerous times, but you don't, apparently, like this answer. You keep pushing at it, trying, I think, to get us to say that we would somehow agree with you. That we would be willing to foreswear our principles for our convenience.

Now, as to your two examples given this time. In the first example, it is quite similar to the "storing explosives" example that has been bandied about. In fact, it's actually worse. Unless my neighbor has invested heavily in appropriate systems to contain the toxic waste, the likelihood of damage to my property or injury to my person is about 100%. His ability to do as he wishes with his property has to be curtailed when it infringes on my rights. I, of course, have rights, the right to my life, liberty and property. And I have an expectation, in a limited constitutional republic, that my government will act to protect those rights. In the process curtailing my neighbor's rights because of the exceptionally high potential of harm to others.

In your second example there just isn't enough information to decide. Has he damaged my property values? Is this area one with businesses in it, or is it all residential? Of course I have my rights, as always, to life, liberty and property.

Do I, in either of these cases, have a "right" to force my neighbor to stop doing whatever they are doing? No. I have an expectation that they will not infringe on my rights and if they do, that I can use the collective force of government to prevent them from infringing on my rights.
Eric | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 7:06 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Probligo said:

Because I have become accustomed to hearing those promoting "less government and greater freedom" using the "less taxes and greater charity" as justification.

Ask, and ye shall, etc....

GLENVIEW, Il. -- Estimated charitable giving reached $248.52 billion for 2004, a new record for philanthropic giving in the United States, the Giving USA Foundation announced today. The new Giving USA report released today is the 50th anniversary edition of the yearbook of philanthropy. Giving USA is published by the Giving USA Foundation and researched and written at the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

Contributions made in 2004 for relief after the December 26 tsunami that devastated the regions surrounding the Indian Ocean are a very small portion of the estimated total, less than one-half of 1 percent. Much of the tsunami relief giving will appear in 2005, and, at between $1.5 billion and $2.5 billion, tsunami relief contributions likely will be a low percentage of the total estimated charitable contributions for that year.

Source: http://www.pgdc.com/usa/print_it.../? itemID=282680

Nations all over the world provided over USD 3 billion in aid for damaged regions, with the Australian Government pledging USD 819.9 million (including a USD 760.6 million aid package for Indonesia[62]), the German Government offering USD 660 million, the Japanese Government offering USD 500 million, the Canadian Government offering CAD 425 million, the U.S. Government offering USD 350 million, and the World Bank offering USD 250 million. Officials estimate that billions of dollars will be needed. In mid-March, the Asian Development Bank reported that over USD 4 billion in aid promised by government was behind schedule. Sri Lanka reported that it had received no foreign government aid, while foreign individuals had been generous

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 200...cean_earthquake

That $250 billion, by the way, is rather more than the $76 billion and change that would be raised by having the UN (ha) collect its 0.7% of GDP global tax, although I grant you it probably lacks the entertainment value that "sticking it to the Americans" would give some people.

More...
Ken Hall | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 8:25 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having got the fox to break cover, let's go back to the "society" question.

Therefore, the ONLY RIGHTS that an individual can have are those that his society is prepared to allow to all of its individual members. In deciding WHAT RIGHTS to allow, society brings to bear the potential for harm to others that those rights might bring.

Now I do not have the wit nor ability to fully argue that line through all possible circumstances; it is the best that I can do. So rather than criticise the specific example (this to all, not just Kyle) how about some thought on the principle?

Again I ask, who is this "society?" You appear to treat it as something separate from--perhaps imposed upon, perhaps set in authority over--the individual. The way the probligo uses the term leads one to believe that he has in mind a privileged frame of reference, some group better qualified to judge what rights individuals ought to possess than the individuals in question themselves.

That being the case, the question remains: who are these people, and by what right do they get to judge which of our natural rights with which we can be trusted? Is it something other than a presumptive monopoly on the initiation of force?

If there is something else that privileges "society" and its frame of reference, then probligo is obliged to tell us what it is. If it is merely the monopoly on the initiation of force, will the probligo then propose that society take away the self-defense rights of the individual, so that society can work its will and its project unimpededed? Is there a name for that other than tyranny?
Ken Hall | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 8:56 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...until such time as I harm someone else's life, liberty or property."

So, is sticking a building to block my view damage to my property? According to previous answers, no it is not.

But if it has the effect of halving or more the value of my property, does that constitute damage? According to your answer, that might be...

"I can use the collective force of government to prevent them from infringing on my rights.

Ah, but isn't "less government" and "no government restriction of MY rights" the goals that you seek?

Eric, now we are getting to the point I have been trying to make. I know that it has taken a while, and perhaps some ill feeling.

I don't think that in reality there is all that much difference between what we are saying.

In NZ we have what is known as the RMA - Resource Management Act. "Resource" in this context has the widest possible interpretation that you could possibly put on it. As a control on development and the effective use of resources it is full of good intentions and way OTT on process and control.

So, for example we have at the moment people lodging or seeking the right to lodge objections against a "wind turbine farm" which will be one of the largest in the southern hemisphere. Because it is on a prominent ridgeline the turbines will be visible for some distance.

At the same time, there is an urgent need to build a new high tension power link from the centre of the North Island to Auckland. The proposal is 600kv lines on 45m pylons. The current supply is 400kv on 20m pylons. Those whose properties lie on the proposed path of this new supply do have the right of objection, and compensation. There might be 1200 properties directly affected, say perhaps 5,000 people. Potentially they can delay the project to the point where power supply to 1.5 million people is placed in jeopardy.

In both cases, the law is an ass. In the latter case, I have some sympathy with the people affected.

How do I change it? Not by endless howling in the wind about "natural rights" or anything of that nature.

I change it by finding out what policy the various contenders for government have for changing the RMA. I take that into consideration when casting my vote. So, the Greens are way out of the picture on this issue because they want to make the RMA worse than it already is... (and on a lot of other matters as well).

So, when we come back to it, in some small way (I hope) the eventual shape of the Administration of NZ will reflect either my feelings on what should be done by government. Faint chance I know, but that is the theory...
probligo | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 9:03 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again I ask, who is this "society?"

Ken, in very simple terms so that you can understand...

The society I speak of is the total of all of the individuals that live in the same neighbourhood, the same city or county, the same nation. The only thing changing in that is scale. In every case we are just simply taking individuals as a group instead of individually.

Is that simple enough?

a privileged frame of reference, some group better qualified to judge what rights individuals ought to possess than the individuals in question themselves.

Umm, put that to G.W. Bush and he would probably agree with the definition of a politician.

That being the case, the question remains: who are these people, and by what right do they get to judge which of our natural rights with which we can be trusted? Is it something other than a presumptive monopoly on [sic] the initiation of force? I take it that should be "or"..

And here was me under the mistaken impression that you might know something about democratically elected governments and democratic process. Silly me.

Oh, and Ken, I do not for a moment dispute the generosity of the American people in the instances that you provide. I never have so done.

The question I ask is "How much of the tax relief you seek is going to be given to charity?"

The next question is "How much would you pay to support the unemployed, or the family of the gambling addict, or the daughter of the drug addict prostitute?

Another question that comes to mind - "How would you make sure that the money you donate goes to the causes you want to support?"

Those are questions directed to the readers personally. Because I want to find out how far their generosity really extends...
probligo | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 9:22 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, we're far off from each other Probligo, although you may not agree. The previous conversations on my own blog and this conversation indicate just how far off. Building a new whatever, on your own property, that blocks my view of the sea is not damage to my right to property. If I wanted to make sure that view was not obstructed, I had tools to prevent it. Putting a bomb factory in your house is damaging my right to property. Government's are constituted among men (at least in the Anglo Enlightenment philosophy) to protect the individual's rights. Since you believe that "society" has rights, that "society" may determine what my rights are, and that the vote of the majority determines morality, we are far apart, both in theory and in practice.
Eric | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 9:23 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The phrase stands as written: monopoly on the initiation of force, as in "only the state is permitted to initiate force."

Simple terms that I can understand? Pot, Kettle is in reception and copies five by five.

The question I ask is "How much of the tax relief you seek is going to be given to charity?"

You're laboring under the assumption that I owe you an explanation. Perhaps you're society or something.

The next question is "How much would you pay to support the unemployed, or the family of the gambling addict, or the daughter of the drug addict prostitute?

You're laboring under the assumption that I owe you an explanation. Perhaps you're society or something.

Another question that comes to mind - "How would you make sure that the money you donate goes to the causes you want to support?"

Perhaps by giving directly to the charity addressing the issue in question, as opposed to, say, Kofi Annan.

If the Green view wins the day on RMA, what will you do then? To how much rule by others do you consent? Those of us who "howl in the wind about natural rights" have a saying: soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box.
Ken | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 9:59 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm. HaloScan blew me out when I accurately described my relationship with the worst SOB I ever knew. (In another context, and it wasn't pretty.)

I grant that Democracy is an important principle for human flourishing. Democracy, of course assumes that Those Opposed are willing to accept the verdict of Those In Favor.

We who live by The Cowboy Way are rather disinclined to include voters who don't have a "dog in the hunt." I'm sure you've found yourself frozen out of conversations when you voiced your opinion to a group and everybody looked at you as if you were some kind of bug, then went on as if you had been swatted.

Probligo, you continue to argue as if you were trying to shame the purist anarchists into coming over to your side. If you're interested in merely winning your points, with yourself as the line judge as well as a competitor, I guess your method works for you. But if you're interested in converting us to your philosophy, you need to understand us and not take the most bizarre interpretation of our viewpoint as representing what we're looking for.

You appear to be looking for a divide-and-conquer victory here, rather than a rational victory--a win for the most honest understanding of the evidence.
Old Whig | Homepage | 08.28.05 - 11:41 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Al, I intended not adding anything further to this but you got me.

I have already confessed that I have not wit nor ability to argue fine lines on matters such as these.

I do not wish to convert anyone to "my philosophy". That is mine and you and others will develop your own. It does not make me like what I hear being touted.

Yes, perhaps taking "bizarre interpretations" might seem to be counter-productive but - apart from yourself Al - the reasonable gets ignored or dismissed out of hand. IF the contention on "property rights" is correct, then surely MY rights should be equal with those of my neighbour.

If something that you do on your property affects me then I should have some course for redress. Similarly if something I do affects your property then you should have that same right.

NOWHERE in this debate or in others have I seen that acknowledged.

The way that property rights are discussed here and elsewhere that mirror of rights will not exist.

"I have my natural rights of property. I can do whatever you danged well like. If you don't like it - stiff."

Perhaps Ken is getting there slowly with cryptic comments like this one -

"If I wanted to make sure that view was not obstructed, I had tools to prevent it."

An example please Ken?

And so that Ken does not accuse me again of not answering questions -

"If the Green view wins the day on RMA, what will you do then? To how much rule by others do you consent?"

Very simple Ken, they will not. They have only 5% of the vote at present.

There are proposals to amend (extensively) the RMA. Some of the proposals being touted at the other end of the scale are equally as extreme. When the Government amendments (or complete rewrite) are released I shall read and consider, then I may make submissions to the Select Committee considering the changes as part of a group or as an individual. I can write to my Representative, the other Members of Parliament (for what good that might do). If the outcome is bad enough then I might shift to Vanuatu or even (hackbarfcough) to Australia.

But essentially, that is how law is made in this country. Everyone with the right to vote has the right to be heard on any legislation before the House with only very few exceptions - taxation and declaring war being two.

The Labour Party should (if there is any justice in the democratic system) learn from these elections that they had stopped listening to the people who matter. That should, if there is any justice, be their deathknell.
probligo | Homepage | 08.29.05 - 2:18 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think wires are crossing, Probligo. I didn't make the "tools" statement, and it wasn't me who accused you of not answering questions (for clarity's sake). Forgive my being a stickler.

Back to the RMA: the Greens have only 5% of the vote at present. What about the future? Perhaps their share of the vote is unlikely to grow, but does that assure you that some future (perhaps even near-future) government who really needs that 5% to stay in power won't horse-trade a Green RMA to get them?

The point of this tirade? Tyranny of the majority is no less tyranny than any other form. The solution is a government of carefully limited and enumerated powers. It will never be perfect, because we are a fallen race and perfection is impossible, but all the other forms are worse. History is littered with the evidence, in the form of mountains upon mountains of skulls.

There are proposals to amend (extensively) the RMA. Some of the proposals being touted at the other end of the scale are equally as extreme. When the Government amendments (or complete rewrite) are released I shall read and consider, then I may make submissions to the Select Committee considering the changes as part of a group or as an individual. I can write to my Representative, the other Members of Parliament (for what good that might do). If the outcome is bad enough then I might shift to Vanuatu or even (hackbarfcough) to Australia.

But essentially, that is how law is made in this country. Everyone with the right to vote has the right to be heard on any legislation before the House with only very few exceptions - taxation and declaring war being two.

The Labour Party should (if there is any justice in the democratic system) learn from these elections that they had stopped listening to the people who matter. That should, if there is any justice, be their deathknell.

In all seriousness, if it comes to that you ought to come to the United States instead.

Putting that aside, your problem with the Labour Party suggests that possibly, at bottom, your politicians are used to dealing with subjects, not citizens. You might enjoy teaching them the difference. It certainly should be their death knell, but making it so is up to you.

Here in the States, we can't realistically consider folding tents and going elsewhere in response to liberties lost. Where would we go--Switzerland?

Continued...
Ken | Homepage | 08.29.05 - 8:49 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now to your examples: You're talking about offloaded negative externalities. The bomb factory and the toxic waste dump certainly offer harm to your property, by limiting the economic uses to which your property may be put.

Blocking the view? A bit harder to sustain, even if your economic use involves an inn, part of the selling point of which is the view. You have readily available alternative economic uses. In any case, someone blocking one's view is one thing. If something else spoils the view--say, something that makes less attractive whatever one is viewing--would one have recourse? Not likely.

We can't cover all the cases, not least because you cannot possibly legislate every possible instance of mischief to which human nature may sink. That has always been true, and governments without limits on their powers have been no more useful at preventing it than limited governments--and the other consequences of unlimited government are far worse.

This has been quite an exercise. Thank you for staying in the game, Probligo, the more so because you are nearly alone in arguing your position here. That takes sand, and I respect it. I would, however, take the opportunity to point out that the best place to be a minority is among libertarians--because we recognize that each of us is inevitably a minority of one, sooner or later.
Ken | Homepage | 08.29.05 - 8:55 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm from Singapore. Rights is a concept that is foreign to many Singaporeans. We don't have overt freedoms - you have yours provided for by your Constitution. But despite these, it does not make me ignorant of this discussion.

I think what everyone else is trying to tell someone is that with rights come responsibilities.

You have the right to do whatever you want, but you are also responsible for any fall out arising from your actions.

Your founding fathers had shown this - George Washington had the right to pick up an ax to chop down an apple (or was it cherry) tree. But he had the moral responsiblity to own up to his act when asked.

Aren't many of you asking for some kind of accountablity from President George Bush for his Ops Iraq Freedom now?
Teflon Man | Homepage | 08.29.05 - 9:12 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Teflon Man, those rights belong to you and your countrymen as well. It's just that your government has a vested interest in preserving the fiction that government is the source of rights.

As I understand it, Singapore has already made progress in the last decade. Keep the feet of your putative masters to the fire!

The Constitution doesn't provide us with our rights, God Almighty (substitute Nature and Nature's God or whatever makes you more comfortable, if necessary) does; He did the same for you. It's up to you, though, to secure them. As the Russian proverb supposedly goes, "Pray to God...but row for shore."
Ken | Homepage | 08.29.05 - 1:53 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken, it's interesting how you see "rights". Actually, our rights are there, as you've rightly pointed out. But the space to exercise the rights is limited - this is inevitable in a nascent nation striving to have western modernity and overall prosperity WITHOUT compromising on our traditionalist asian/oriental confucianst roots.

By and large, any law-abiding, sensible person in Singapore will have no problems with this "limited creative space". You should come here and see for yourself. And yes, too, we are learning to loosen up. :D

As for who actually gave us those rights, I'm not going to comment because we each hold different views. Just to say that I'm largely, if not fully, in agreement with most of your statements. I only thought that the idea of responsibilities coming with rights was somewhat missing (or not overtly stated).
Teflon Man | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 6:24 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken, thanks for the invite which I will decline at this time. I have no intention of spoiling my current 30 plus years record as resident political cynic.

Mind you, I could still be tempted but it would take a few fundamental changes in outlook.

For a start, one does not win support for your cause by telling those who disagree with you that they are "wrong" or "collectivists".
probligo | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 4:36 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry Ken, the last sentence was not aimed specifically at you but at some of the well meaning and sincere people who support the libertarian cause.

They will know who they are...
probligo | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 5:09 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, guys, for holding up the blog while I tried to catch up with the lawn, the emails, some computer problems, homework...

And, of course family time, which is asserting itself right now.

Morality and responsibility--same thing in my book. Inefficacious behavior is often, at least, also immoral.

I guess I'll have to just let that awful sentence ride.

Hopefully, I can get a new post up later tonight.
Old Whig | Homepage | 08.30.05 - 9:17 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Teflon: "I only thought that the idea of responsibilities coming with rights was somewhat missing (or not overtly stated)."

I think it is primarily not overtly stated. For many of us, we live in a 300 year Anglo-American tradition where rights and responsibilities are assumed to go hand in hand. If you the right to liberty means you can do as you please so long as you don't infringe on another's rights, then the responsibility to not infringe on another's rights is implied, yes? Just as an example. Another one. If, as part of your right to life you have the right to own weapons to defend your life, then you have an implied responsibility to be accountable for your use of those weapons.

Probligo, when you express something that sounds collectivist, what do you expect me to do? Just go along and say "gee, that's nice, we'll just stretch the definition of individualism to cover that"? This is the sort of thing that has led us to where we are today. Not all of it, naturally, but a big portion. I can be politically correct, but we won't get anywhere.
Eric | Homepage | 09.06.05 - 5:07 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My training in rhetoric and marketing suggests that the old saw "you can't catch flies with vinegar" might be useful here. Eric speaks a language I'm well familiar with, so let me take a step toward Probligo.

Brother Probligo would like us to consider the view from his angle. Aristotle would consider that a very reasonable request; he ran through all the strongest arguments of his predecessors, and carefully refuted them, before presenting his own.

My rhetoric instructor insisted that it was important that we expect our opponent to be a person of good will. There errors must be errors of logic, not attempts at deception. It is up to us to point out the errors and correct them.

Of course, it is possible that some of our opponents are well aware of all the rhetorical tricks and want to confuse logical arguers long enough for the rabble to kill us...

So... God has left us on our own.

How does The Truth win?
Old Whig | Homepage | 09.07.05 - 11:30 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I mentioned on my other blog that I've been checking out books on getting rich.

Michael Masterson seems to have the most practical advice in his books Confessions of a Self-Made Millionaire, which is a compilation of articles from his Early To Rise Newsletter (only available through them, apparently, but you can read about it here), and Automatic Wealth: The 6 Steps to Financial Indpendence. There's an article using the latter as a take off point by Hal Cranmer at LewRockwell.com. Here's the first paragraph:

This is not a book review. Michael Masterson's new book, Automatic Wealth: The Six Steps to Financial Independence inspired me to write an article because it illustrates the tremendous potential and performance of the free market economy. With a title such as Automatic Wealth, one would expect the book to describe how to swell your bank account, and it does not disappoint. Mr. Masterson's techniques for becoming financially independent seem very sound to me (who is not, currently, financially independent) and I am already starting to follow his advice. Yet the highlight of the book for me was the non-monetary aspects of wealth. He shows how wealth can take many forms, and it is up to the individual to achieve his own brand of wealth.

I'm also still reading Napoleon Hill's Think and Grow Rich (sign up there for a free ebook copy--don't worry, they're not evil spammers) and Wallace Wattles' The Science of Growing Rich (same deal). Science was a more elastic term a hundred years ago, but beyond that both books provide good inspiration for creating a plan and sticking to it. But Masterson puts the most meat on the bones of the plan. And shows that you don't have to have your mind, soul and/or spirit perfectly aligned to achieve financial independence.

I've profited in my intellectual, spiritual* and otherwise personal development from reading all three writers. Hopefully soon we'll start seeing some additions to the bottom line.

*I couldn't stop thinking of Omni as I was reading Wattles. He dwells intensively on the spiritual side of wealth creation.