Stefan says "rights don't exist" but defends "property rights"

[Caio Costa]

Can anyone clarify? Or, can anyone point out where he has clarified this apparent contradiction (I actually prefer to hear from him)?

[shirgall]

Stefan doesn't respond to the forums, he would prefer that people work on their questions and send a note to [email protected] to get on the show and discuss them.

That being said, you cannot point to something and say "that's a 'right'". All concepts don't exist except as ideas that can be communicated and evaluated.

Rights, in general, are inherent and unalienable... you cannot separate them from people. They are actions people can take that others should not interfere with. Free speech means being able to say whatever you want without interference. Property rights means being able to own yourself and your output without it being taken from you, or destroyed.

Rights only exist to the extent that others respect them. Because they are different from culture to culture, and state to state, they are therefore difficult to claim as universal. To the extent that they are universal, if not first principles, they rightly enter philosophical discussions.

[RamynKing]

negative rights good

positive rights bad

 

[ofd]

Hoppe makes a point that you can't make an argument and not presuppose the validity of the NAP. And since property is an extension of your body, it falls under it as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_ethics

[Caio Costa]

10 hours ago, shirgall said:

Stefan doesn't respond to the forums, he would prefer that people work on their questions and send a note to [email protected] to get on the show and discuss them.

That being said, you cannot point to something and say "that's a 'right'". All concepts don't exist except as ideas that can be communicated and evaluated.

Rights, in general, are inherent and unalienable... you cannot separate them from people. They are actions people can take that others should not interfere with. Free speech means being able to say whatever you want without interference. Property rights means being able to own yourself and your output without it being taken from you, or destroyed.

Rights only exist to the extend that others respect them. Because they are different from culture to culture, and state to state, they are therefore difficult to claim as universal. To the extent that they are universal, if not first principles, they rightly enter philosophical discussions.

Hmm... But this is your opinion, right? You haven't read or heard Molyneux making this point, am I correct?

But what is a "right", then? Well, I saw Molyneux questioning one person about this one time and the person didn't have the answer. I read on Ethics of Liberty the following definition:

"When we say that one has the right to do certain things we mean this and only this, that it would be immoral for another, alone or in combination, to stop him from doing this by the use of physical force or the threat thereof. We do not mean that any use a man makes of his property within the limits set forth is necessarily a moral use"- James A. Sadowsky, S.J., Private Property and Collective Ownership, em Tibor Machan, ed., The Libertarian Alternative (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1974), págs. 120–21.

I guess we could sum it up as "that which you can do without being considered immoral".

By this definition, I think a right as a universalizable concept and do not really differ from culture. I mean, people could have different and paradoxal opinions about it, but its validity doesn't rely on that. It is true because it is in congruence to reality [it is in congruence to reality that you can control your body without being considered immoral] and objective morality.

7 hours ago, RamynKing said:

negative rights good

positive rights bad

 

Agree, but this wasn't what I asked about...

 

6 hours ago, ofd said:

Hoppe makes a point that you can't make an argument and not presuppose the validity of the NAP. And since property is an extension of your body, it falls under it as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_ethics

I know about his and Murray Rothbard arguments, but they are different from Molyneux's arguments, which are the ones I'm interested in.

[Wuzzums]

56 minutes ago, Caio Costa said:

Hmm... But this is your opinion, right? You haven't read or heard Molyneux making this point, am I correct?

Nope. Stefan says that all the time. He goes into it in depth in his Introduction to Philosophy series.

[Gavitor]

Rights dont exist as tangible things in the world.

They are something we made up to facilitate human interaction.

you can defend the idea of property rights even if they dont actually exist.

[shirgall]

2 hours ago, Caio Costa said:

Hmm... But this is your opinion, right? You haven't read or heard Molyneux making this point, am I correct?

But what is a "right", then? Well, I saw Molyneux questioning one person about this one time and the person didn't have the answer. I read on Ethics of Liberty the following definition:

"When we say that one has the right to do certain things we mean this and only this, that it would be immoral for another, alone or in combination, to stop him from doing this by the use of physical force or the threat thereof. We do not mean that any use a man makes of his property within the limits set forth is necessarily a moral use"- James A. Sadowsky, S.J., Private Property and Collective Ownership, em Tibor Machan, ed., The Libertarian Alternative (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1974), págs. 120–21.

I guess we could sum it up as "that which you can do without being considered immoral".

By this definition, I think a right as a universalizable concept and do not really differ from culture. I mean, people could have different and paradoxal opinions about it, but its validity doesn't rely on that. It is true because it is in congruence to reality [it is in congruence to reality that you can control your body without being considered immoral] and objective morality.

I'm summarizing what I felt was the essence of several discussions.

When Stefan questions a caller, it's not because he doesn't have some idea of what the answer is, he's exploring how the caller thinks about the issue. One reason to do this is to gain common understanding of a topic. Another is to obtain clarity on what is being discussed. Sometimes the definition part of a discussion can lead to conclusions without actually having to argue.

I think we have stepped beyond clarification and into some other discussion. Where are we going?

[Caio Costa]

10 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

Nope. Stefan says that all the time. He goes into it in depth in his Introduction to Philosophy series.

I watched this whole series and even more videos about UPB, didn't understand why he says rights don't exist but says we can not oppose "property rights". 

edit: I think I better understand after reading the other guys comments.

 

9 hours ago, Gavitor said:

Rights dont exist as tangible things in the world.

They are something we made up to facilitate human interaction.

you can defend the idea of property rights even if they dont actually exist.

 

9 hours ago, shirgall said:

I'm summarizing what I felt was the essence of several discussions.

When Stefan questions a caller, it's not because he doesn't have some idea of what the answer is, he's exploring how the caller thinks about the issue. One reason to do this is to gain common understanding of a topic. Another is to obtain clarity on what is being discussed. Sometimes the definition part of a discussion can lead to conclusions without actually having to argue.

I think we have stepped beyond clarification and into some other discussion. Where are we going?

.I guess I'm starting to understand both of you arguments, it's just a bit confusing. So, rights don't exist in the real world, they are a concept that we made, but they need to be at least logic to be valid. Do you agree with this statement? Therefore, the difference that makes negative rights good and positive rights bad is not that the first are actually "real", it's just that the first are logic and the second are self-contradictory. 

I say that if you have a property right, you not only have the capacity to control matter, but you also can not be considered immoral for doing so. I think it matches the definition you previously put forward. 

 

[ofd]

Quote

I know about his and Murray Rothbard arguments, but they are different from Molyneux's arguments, which are the ones I'm interested in.

UPB is largely based on Argumentation ethics and performative contradictions.

[lorry]

When it is said that rights don't exist, the full statement is that rights do not exist as a metaphysically given fact. Rights, as such, are (conceptual) rules by which men might co-exist with one another, but, the validity of a right (of anything conceptual) must be by reference to a metaphysically given fact. With respect to property rights, the metaphysically given fact is that man, in order to exist, must produce. This is a fact of nature, outside of our volition, and so the respect of property rights is the identification of this fact by men in polity and their agreement to adhere to it.

 

The full(er) statements:

If a skyscraper is to fulfill its intended purpose, it must conform to the metaphysically given facts of reality (the laws of physics).

If a society is to fulfill its intended purpose, it must conform to the metaphysically given facts of reality (that man's existence is conditional upon production).

 

[Jsbrads]

Man only has to produce if he wants to consume.

and while I never expect a "return to Eden", the Left seems to desire a future where men no longer work and consumption is untied from the requirement to produce. 

[shirgall]

6 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Man only has to produce if he wants to consume.

and while I never expect a "return to Eden", the Left seems to desire a future where men no longer work and consumption is untied from the requirement to produce. 

Indeed, it's called "post-scarcity".

[lorry]

15 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Man only has to produce if he wants to consume.

 

And he only has to consume if he wants to continue to exist.

[Jsbrads]

Post scarcity is a myth, kinda like socialism.

Hunting rabbits, chewing grasses and sleeping rough is an option. An option very few take, but still a possible option. A few men do that in the UK, and a few Vietnam vets in the Northwest.

[shirgall]

6 hours ago, Jsbrads said:

Post scarcity is a myth, kinda like socialism.

Agreed. I never claimed it was valid, only that the concept exists.

[Jsbrads]

[meetjoeblack]

On 10/30/2017 at 9:43 AM, Caio Costa said:

Can anyone clarify? Or, can anyone point out where he has clarified this apparent contradiction (I actually prefer to hear from him)?

He would give you shit if you called in without a time stamp. I intend to do the same for when he calls dating younger as being "creepy." I suspect it has to do with him having a daughter but that is not an argument. If I were to have guessed (and I would need the time stamp to know the context), I would have to give a guess here. I think it has more to do with what people deem as being a right as being subjective versus in actuality objective. Like, having the right to breathe is a right. I also think with the left going full retard with pc culture, gender politics, and virtue signaling, he has lost patience with stupidity.

 

 

[shirgall]

(With regards to the "dating younger is creepy" comment... I was always taught the universal rule is that no one of whatever of the myriad of genders should date someone younger than half their age plus seven.)

[barn]

Hi Caio Costa,

The mere fact that you direct a question to an individual establishes that you believe in the existence of property rights.

0. You did not provide a source, a complete quote and I'm guessing Stefan M. did mention a few, if not a dozen clarifiers and/or caveats as he usually does when making a point. (I'm not saying you are doing the 'stick-man dance' but wouldn't it be simpler to answer your question if you came with proper sourcing?)

1. You distinguish, choose, enact a way of communication = not random noise, consciousness as pre-requisite, you can but don't know why would you argue with a rock.

2. Respecting property rights is part of N. A. P. = is esthetics, but you can't be moral if you don't = because U. P. B. = even if you disregard U. P. B. that doesn't mean both or either vanishes or gets re-written to exclude property rights.

3. Have you heard of the 'two people being unable to steal from each other...' - many great derivable conclusions there, I'd go to the book on U.P.B. for a great step-by-step walk through.

 

If I missed something or made an error, feel happy to add your thoughts, I certainly think you have the right to have them.

Barnsley

 

[ShieldWife]

Positive "rights" and negative rights can both be explained more simply and consistently through the NAP. Negative rights, those which most of us would agree should be protected, are just the NAP in practice. People have a right to life, liberty, expression, religion, property, the pursuit of happiness, etc. Basically, all of those things mean that you shouldn't initiate force against somebody, as that is what violating any of those rights ultimately is.

On the other hand, all positive so called "rights" are violations of the NAP. They are things that you believe you are entitled to take from other people with violence if necessary.

[EGreg]

On 10/30/2017 at 12:54 PM, shirgall said:

Stefan doesn't respond to the forums, he would prefer that people work on their questions and send a note to [email protected] to get on the show and discuss them.

That being said, you cannot point to something and say "that's a 'right'". All concepts don't exist except as ideas that can be communicated and evaluated.

Rights, in general, are inherent and unalienable... you cannot separate them from people. They are actions people can take that others should not interfere with. Free speech means being able to say whatever you want without interference. Property rights means being able to own yourself and your output without it being taken from you, or destroyed.

Rights only exist to the extent that others respect them. Because they are different from culture to culture, and state to state, they are therefore difficult to claim as universal. To the extent that they are universal, if not first principles, they rightly enter philosophical discussions.

I tried that for years. I have emailed [email protected], tried to outline topics I would love to discuss on the show. I even linked to many of my blog posts over the years to show my viewpoints. Never heard back. I also tried adding on Skype and contacting - nothing.

So I joined this board to post here hoping Stefan will notice and invite me on the show. But as you say, he may not even read what's on these forums. I hope my comment gets approved but I actually hope that Michael (who runs hat operations email) responds and lets me debate Stefan on the show.

[shirgall]

On 11/7/2017 at 12:00 AM, EGreg said:

I tried that for years. I have emailed [email protected], tried to outline topics I would love to discuss on the show. I even linked to many of my blog posts over the years to show my viewpoints. Never heard back. I also tried adding on Skype and contacting - nothing.

So I joined this board to post here hoping Stefan will notice and invite me on the show. But as you say, he may not even read what's on these forums. I hope my comment gets approved but I actually hope that Michael (who runs hat operations email) responds and lets me debate Stefan on the show.

I'm sorry to hear that. I admit that I was tempted to throw my hat in the ring a couple of times but didn't go through with it because I thought the call wouldn't be good "radio", so to speak.

[HasMat]

On 10/30/2017 at 9:54 AM, shirgall said:

Stefan doesn't respond to the forums, he would prefer that people work on their questions and send a note to [email protected] to get on the show and discuss them.

That being said, you cannot point to something and say "that's a 'right'". All concepts don't exist except as ideas that can be communicated and evaluated.

Rights, in general, are inherent and unalienable... you cannot separate them from people. They are actions people can take that others should not interfere with. Free speech means being able to say whatever you want without interference. Property rights means being able to own yourself and your output without it being taken from you, or destroyed.

Rights only exist to the extent that others respect them. Because they are different from culture to culture, and state to state, they are therefore difficult to claim as universal. To the extent that they are universal, if not first principles, they rightly enter philosophical discussions.

I would say that is true for general negative rights.

 

But there is a more base or true category of right, called natural right. These are inviolable. If it can be violated, it is not a natural right. Natural rights cannot be stopped.

 

If we are captured by terrorists and tortured near death, and they demand we "admit" Islam is true, it is very close to a natural right to deny it. Technically, with enough electronics they could apply electrodes and make our mouths form the words.

 

But something like willingness is an entirely chosen internal state that is inaccessible to the external world, even if you mouth is moving by computer activation. Having willingness (or not) is a natural right.

 

We control our internal state, to omnipotence (at least until they start using brain control helmets). I don't mean this to pretend ppl cannot influence us. I mean this that as we approach perfection we ultimately decide it, regardless of influence. Our lack of complete autonomy is a function of our incompetence, not anything inherent about the right to be willing.

 

We can be willing, regardless of whether others respect this right.

[barn]

42 minutes ago, HasMat said:

But something like willingness is an entirely chosen internal state that is inaccessible to the external world, even if you mouth is moving by computer activation. Having willingness (or not) is a natural right.

Hi HasMat,

The part I quoted looks, walks and talks like a free-will to me in general, perhaps within the ability of one to think whatever. Am I mistaken?

 

If it's so, while it's nice and dandy, shouldn't it be little importance as actions that follow and interactions define what is being dealt with. (i.e.: to my knowledge, people are unable to read minds)

 

Have you read the full U.P.B. book?

 

Barnsley

[shirgall]

14 hours ago, HasMat said:

But there is a more base or true category of right, called natural right. These are inviolable. If it can be violated, it is not a natural right. Natural rights cannot be stopped.

If we are captured by terrorists and tortured near death, and they demand we "admit" Islam is true, it is very close to a natural right to deny it. Technically, with enough electronics they could apply electrodes and make our mouths form the words.

But something like willingness is an entirely chosen internal state that is inaccessible to the external world, even if you mouth is moving by computer activation. Having willingness (or not) is a natural right.

We control our internal state, to omnipotence (at least until they start using brain control helmets). I don't mean this to pretend ppl cannot influence us. I mean this that as we approach perfection we ultimately decide it, regardless of influence. Our lack of complete autonomy is a function of our incompetence, not anything inherent about the right to be willing.

We can be willing, regardless of whether others respect this right.

I don't buy it. I can't think of a single right that cannot be infringed. The whole point of the Constitution (and documents similar to it) is to codify that such infringements are forbidden and there are consequences for infringing them. The fact that what rights are codified in these various documents makes it clear that there is no universal understanding of what those protected rights should be.

Your willingness to choose an internal state doesn't matter if they kill you if you don't choose correctly. How does that make the right to choose inviolable? They want you to obey and submit. I don't think the actors in your scenario care what you actually believe.

My focus on on coercion, not persuasion. Those who rely on coercion do not respect rights.

[barn]

Additionally, we don't even have the ability to exercise ourselves respecting our freedom of our own thoughts.

i.e.: 'Don't think of an apple!'

[SnapSlav]

On 11/4/2017 at 6:33 AM, shirgall said:

(With regards to the "dating younger is creepy" comment... I was always taught the universal rule is that no one of whatever of the myriad of genders should date someone younger than half their age plus seven.)

So in other words... if you're 14, dating is off-limits unless they're older than you. Got it!

Kidding, of course. But that's an interesting rule of thumb to go by. Not sure that I agree, but somewhere around that sounds reasonable. After all, 32 now, and I'm gonna start looking around the early 20s when I get back into the game, so 16+7=23, going by that rule I shouldn't touch anything that's 22. Well I dunno about that.

Anyway, this is off-topic...

. . . . .

I'm not exactly sure how "does not exist i.e. it is not a physical object that has an existence in the universe, but is a concept that we value therefore we support it" is such a difficult concept to grasp. I often tell people "science does not exist" for the very same reasons Stef says "the state does not exist". I'm not saying I hate science, but that when someone looks at accumulated human knowledge and acts as if there's some physical, gigantic almanac somewhere on the planet, and refers to "science" as some kind of resource, I have to counter that, because it's not a tangible thing. It's a method. It's like BBQ; if you point to a grill and call it a BBQ, you're just wrong. There is no thing called BBQ; BBQ is a method. A building is a tangible thing, but what that building represents is not tangible. "Protection from the elements" is a concept, not an absolute found within nature. Indeed, it is opposite to what is naturally found.

Human beings are capable of abstract reasoning, so understanding that what we're doing is abstraction of non-physical concepts is important. It doesn't mean those abstractions are pointless just because we recognize their intagibility.

On a slightly tangential note... I don't believe it's been brought up, but how about liberties? I learned it like this: God gave us Liberties, Man gave us Rights. Whether you're theistic or not, the premise is that one is inalienable (cannot be separated from the being) while the other isn't. The U.S. follows the premise that our three absolute Liberties are life, freedom, and pursuit (not guarantee) of happiness. But we have a Bill of Rights which is CONSTANTLY being amended- added to and subtracted from -and debated. By existing, we have the inalienable capacity for those three liberties, but the rights have to be defined by some form of agreement between individuals. Such is the case with property rights. When you're born into the world, some random object isn't inextricably linked to you forever and ever, but at some point you can claim it is yours, and there has to be some form of agreement that it is or it isn't.

[Jsbrads]

On 11/4/2017 at 6:33 AM, shirgall said:

(With regards to the "dating younger is creepy" comment... I was always taught the universal rule is that no one of whatever of the myriad of genders should date someone younger than half their age plus seven.)

I think that dating younger was referring to young adults pairing off at a younger age and marrying. They could be identical ages, ex. 18

Please let me know if I got this right guys.