Libertarianism and Inheritance

[BillyTK]

I guess it does to how "traumatized" you think they were. Sounds to me like they're just trying to grab some free cash. I guess it is a point that there may be some of the dismembered parts around, but OTOH if the police and forensic experts couldn't find them it's doubtful the new owners are going to run across them, either.

I guess they'll just have to proceed very cautiously if they have any plans to alter the house... Anyway, I know that I'd be hesitant of buying a house if I knew a murder such as the one described in the article had taken place there; but I also remember from when we did buy a house, that checking to see if a gruesome murder had taken place there was not at the forefront of our concerns. Further on you say:

No; a loss of value is material damage. Anything else is BS.

There's a clear loss of value here, as the subsequent sale of the house only achieved £80,000–£7,000 less than the couple originally payed for it, and £20,000 less than the expected market value. The loss of value can be attributed to the revelation about the house's history; if this information had been made known to the couple when they first enquired about the house, they would have been able to act otherwise. To paraphrase one of your earlier comments, the lack of disclosure has "placed them in a situation resulting in a loss of value of their property that they cannot escape from and still maintain full use of their property". It strikes me that this is a more explicit case of inaction leading to material damage than my other example in which I keep a couple of mattresses and weeds in my front garden, and haven't got around to painting the windowsills yet.

There is a point to all this—honest—which relates to the (non-)initiation of force principle. If I understand correctly from the examples we've been discussing, an initiation of force doesn't necessarily mean an actual initiation of physical force, but can also include inaction as well. Furthermore, if I've understood correctly, such an initiation is defined to a greater extent by the outcome of such action, i.e. the extent to which an individual who is subject to such an initiation is unable to act otherwise. But what are the boundaries of this principle? If the principle conflicts with a person's property rights—as in the "horror house" example—or with the right of free association, which takes precedence?

If a will says otherwise, so be it. But we were specifically talking about situations where there was no will, I thought. And even with your point, the government really only gets into it as a mediator to resolve disputes. There would have to be such a dispute to begin with.

Is there an obligation on government/forces to investigate situations where there is no indication of how an individual could have legitimately obtained the "inheritance"? Or would you say it's none of the government's business until more explicit evidence of illegal activity comes to light?

 

[shanek]

There's a clear loss of value here, as the subsequent sale of the house only achieved £80,000–£7,000 less than the couple originally payed for it, and £20,000 less than the expected market value. The loss of value can be attributed to the revelation about the house's history; if this information had been made known to the couple when they first enquired about the house, they would have been able to act otherwise. To paraphrase one of your earlier comments, the lack of disclosure has "placed them in a situation resulting in a loss of value of their property that they cannot escape from and still maintain full use of their property". It strikes me that this is a more explicit case of inaction leading to material damage than my other example in which I keep a couple of mattresses and weeds in my front garden, and haven't got around to painting the windowsills yet.

Well, since I don't have all the facts, I have to allow for the possibility that they, being very upset at this revelation, just dumped the property. It wouldn't be the first time that sellers in their anxiety let a home go for much, much less than it's actually worth. You really need a new appraisal of the property to tell its genuine value. So it could easily be that they dumped the property and now, as I said, are just looking to make a buck.

If I understand correctly from the examples we've been discussing, an initiation of force doesn't necessarily mean an actual initiation of physical force, but can also include inaction as well.

It includes anything that stops someone from acting freely and voluntarily, unless it is in response to that someone stopping someone else from acting freely and voluntarily.

But what are the boundaries of this principle? If the principle conflicts with a person's property rights—as in the "horror house" example—or with the right of free association, which takes precedence?

As I said, if it resulted in an actual, tangible loss of value, then yes, it should be actionable. But let's take another example (hypothetical): Someone is selling a very nice house for $250,000. Throughout this house is very nice, deep-pile, BigFancyCo® carpet. Now let's say that Oprah Winfrey gets on TV and declares that BigFancyCo is a horrible organization and that their carpets are not environmentally friendly, and it causes a backlash (think the beef fiasco of several years ago).

So anyway, the house gets sold to a couple for $250,000 but then the buyers find out that the carpet is from BigFancyCo. They scream, make much ado in the press, and sell the house for only $100,000 because of all the media hype about BigFancyCo and their carpet. They then turn around and sue the seller for not disclosing who made the carpet.

Now, in such a situation, how comparable do you think it is to "horror house"?

Is there an obligation on government/forces to investigate situations where there is no indication of how an individual could have legitimately obtained the "inheritance"? Or would you say it's none of the government's business until more explicit evidence of illegal activity comes to light?

In this country, we have due process, which means you have to start with a complaint, move to reasonable suspicion, then you can investigate, and you can only take property upon probable cause leading to a trial. That's how it works. No complaint, no reasonable suspicion, no government intervention. None of their farkin' business.

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Cain
WMT1: Had I known who you were in your inital "response", I would have never bothered.

Whaddaya know? Right off the bat, another example of trying to make your intellectual cowardice sound like taking the high road. How proud you must be.

An off-handed comment in PM confirmed my suspicions of your identity.

Or you could have just asked. Remember, not everyone is as prone to evasiveness as you are.

Let's just get to how well you deal with actual arguments.

An instructive example:

That's all nice, but I asked you to clearly identify an example of "free choices" that most libertarians would oppose, and which wouldn't violate anyone else's "free choice". If there are "many examples to choose", why couldn't you come up with even one that would clearly make the point? Kinda speaks well for actual libertarianism that you're having so much trouble, huh?

It's so funny that you would choose to make some kind of point about how I "deal with arguments" by quoting a paragraph that pointed out the error in a key premise on which your arguments were based. And I guess you know that an attempt at a direct rebuttal (you know, something like claiming you had cited something most libertarians actually believe) would only make you look (more) foolish.

Regulations on building code would (allegedly) violate the free choice of property owners. According to libertarians, sure, the workers -- poor, desperate and hungry -- are exercising their "free-choice" to labor under harsh conditions. But this "choice" is a formality, anything but free. Now think of this libertarian understanding in a broader sense, as it affects a person's entire life.

Hilarious. You're just repeating your error from before. Once again, the operative words in your paragraph are "allegedly" and "according to libertarians". Good luck making the case that most libertarians oppose such regulations.

And even for the ones who do, your arguments wouldn't amount to much anyway. Simply declaring that such a choice is not "free" does not make it so, especially if nobody is forcing anyone to work there. You just seem to be playing more and more word games to force your square peg into a round hole. None of these things keeps someone from being free, or from having choices. Of course, if you weren't such a coward in terms of being pinned down on your own definitions, some of this stuff might become clearer to you.


Now, having said all that, is there any chance you can actually identify (clearly, of course) an example of "free choice" that most libertarians would oppose, and which wouldn't violate anyone else's "free choice"?

(*crickets*)

Any mouthpiece party-hack for a totalitarian Communist government can say with great consistency that they uphold justice, freedom and equality -- precisely because those ideals are whatever the state says.

And any critic of a particular point of view can claim with great consistency that the viewpoint is inconsistent with regard to things like "free choice", precisely because the term means whatever the critic says - or, as in this case, refuses to be pinned down on. (If you're trying to divert attention from you're own lapses, it's not working.)

Moreover, you're not the first libertarian critic to demonstrate his desperation for valid criticisms by trying to draw parallels between communism and libertarianism, and you won't be the last. Anyone familiar with what libertarians actually believe would know (and if honest, would clearly acknowledge) that they are just about the polar opposites of communists.

I've been over this many times with you, but try as I might, you've never understood.

Since I haven't said anything that conflicts with the statement that preceded the one above, what the hell makes you think I don't understand it? Looks like just another attempt to create the impression of a valid insult.

Here's another instructive example of your modus operandi.

So, is a government more extensive than the one held by libertarians justified?

No.

(See, that's how you answer a question.)

But of course that sentence was not posed to you as a question. It was rhetorical.

First, whether it was "rhetorical" or not, it certainly appeared to have been a question. Was the "?" at the end of it a mistake on your part?

Second, anyone could reasonably infer that, in this discussion, and for that particular question, an answer was probably expected. But leave it to someone who runs from valid questions like a scared little girl to try to extract a criticism from the fact that one of his own questions was actually answered.

And finally, rhetorical or not, and specifically because of the evasivness I just referred to, you've desperately needed for someone to show you how it's done for quite a while now. Not my fault if the lesson was lost on you.

You made a similar mistake earlier on the concept of natural rights,

Just more noise, based once again on defining as a "mistake" the fact that a question was actually answered.

a natural consequence of your split and divide posting-style.

A natural consequence of my "split and divide posting-style" is that there is no ambiguity about what words are being responded to. And oh yeah, it's much more difficult to be evasive, remember?

Opportunity Costs and The Sunk Cost Fallacy:

Does anybody else know what this means?

If you want to desperately believe that you've compiled a stunning list of questions and objections, then by all means embrace your self-constructed delusions and fantasies.

Remember that thing I said a few days ago about "hyperbole"? Well, it would certainly seem to apply here. What I've actually referred to all along, of course, is a few reasonable questions that have been directly relevant to statements you've made, and which you have failed to answer. Of course, if you phrase it that way, it kinda takes the steam out of whatever point you were trying to make, doesn't it? But thanks anyway, for continuing to demonstrate the kind of exaggerated rhetoric that libertarian critics usually have to rely on in order to pretend to have a point.

And oh yeah, just to remind you of one of those questions ...

Does your definition of "free choice" include making others pay for choices you can't afford?

I have no interest in responding point-by-point again

You haven't responded "point-by-point" in the first place. Doing so would have included clear, straightforward answers to reasonable questions. As a reminder, here are some examples of those questions, all of which were made relevant by statements you made:

________________________________________


What are "libertarianism's stated ideals"? Is the "self-shaping" thing all that you were referring to? And if so, can you manage to clearly identify the inconsistency you referred to, without jumping through too many hoops to get there? And wouldn't you need to clearly identify at least two of these ideals in order to demonstrate an inconsistency anyway?

If what you're really referring to is "left-wing anarchists", why not just say so, and leave libertarians out of it?

Who controls "the nation's resources"?

If Nozick no longer considered himself a libertarian, then why did you simply identify him earlier as "the most brilliant and influential libertarian", without pointing this out?

Can you cite at least one clear example of "free choice" that most libertarians would oppose - that is, a "free choice" that does not force someone else to foot the bill, violating their "free choice"?

Can you explain clearly how "it's mine!" is an accurate, unbiased, spin-free characterization of anything I've argued for, or of any libertarian views that I've characterized?

When you use the quote "It's mine!! Natural rights!" to try to make a point, who are you quoting?

If, as you said, claims to property are "questionable at best", and if this is sufficient reason to claim something is not the moral equivalent of theft, then please explain what you consider the definition of "theft" to be.


Can you identify precisely what you think "libertarianism's definition of freedom" is, so we can get a clear idea of what you're claiming to "dispute"?

What do you believe to be the "first principles" of libertarianism? And which of those principles would lead you to think that, if libertarians were committed to them, they would call themselves something else?

And of course ...

Does your definition of "free choice" include making others pay for choices you can't afford?

________________________________________



Now, are these the questions you were trying to characterize as "moronic"?

(Prediction: If Cain bothers to respond again, he will devote more time and energy to further insults and excuses than to actually answering them.)

after you've failed, rather spectacularly, to say anything remotely compelling.

Translation: When Cain fails (rather spectacularly) to answer reasonable questions about the things he's posted, he doesn't find those questions "remotely compelling".

To continue replying to your unproductive posts would amount to a total and complete waste of my time, especially when others offer worthwhile comments on the same topic.

Just one more attempt to spin your intellectual cowardice as something positive.

It's with a kind of shameless perversity that you could accuse me of "ducking" or "evading" questions after I have gone through several times, repeating myself constantly,

But I didn't ask you to repeat yourself. I asked you to answer my questions. If you had an actual point here, the thing to say would have been "It's with a kind of shameless perversity that you could accuse me of 'ducking' or 'evading' questions after I have clearly answered all of your questions". Guess you knew that wouldn't fly, huh?

And speaking of unanswered questions ...

Does your definition of "free choice" include making others pay for choices you can't afford?

in rebutting what can only be described as weak and feeble non-arguments.

You not only haven't rebutted anything, you also haven't identified any "weak" or "feeble non-arguments". Just more worthless insults to convey your discomfort with having your own statements crumble under scrutiny.

I'm interested in engaging philosophical discussion rather than your disconnected, pre-conceived ideological ramblings.

Nor have you identified any "disconnected, pre-conceived ideological ramblings". In fact, your tendency to repeatedly post insults such as these, while ignoring reasonable requests for supporting examples, kind of puts this latest insult of yours in the pot/kettle category, doesn't it?

The first post set a fairly good tone with comparatively satisfying initial responses.

Yeah, I was kinda surprised that it took so long for anyone to start trying to pin you down on its contradictions.

That degenerated quickly, and popular participation has evaporated.

Are you finally starting to acknowledge how destructive your evasiveness has been?

I will say this, however: if anyone believes WMT1 has, in either of these garbled non-replies,

And of course, "garbled non-replies" goes right up there on the garbage heap of pointless non-criticisms, along with "meaningless" and "contentless".

made a comment that merits a response, then isolate said comment and I will answer if you're interested, either here or in private.

Is there some reason you don't want to try to answer publicly?

In particular, given the relevance of the term "free choice" to much of your commentary, why are you so afraid of taking a clear stand, right here on the board, regarding the question ...

Does your definition of "free choice" include making others pay for choices you can't afford?

There are only three reasons to respond on Internet forums:

1) For my own benefit.
2) For the person I'm debating.
3) For interested third parties.

Scratched 1) off my list awhile ago. Your identity removed any doubt for number 2).

No surprise, on both counts. Hardly anyone considers it to their own benefit to have attention drawn to the problems in their own commentary. And they are not likely to want to serve the interests of someone who has done so in the past either.

I cannot imagine anyone other than myself who has done anything more than glance over your posts, or, with the exception of a few active participants, even read the last two pages.

You're probably right, but it's not much of a point. So much of what you've given me to respond to are such things as dismissiveness/ridicule of reasonable inquiry ("If you want to desperately believe that you've compiled a stunning list of questions and objections"), unwarranted sarcasm ("Another one of brilliant questions, part of a thorough response, perhaps...?"), phony criticisms ("conspiratorial suspicions", "You misunderstand again"), cheap insults ("dull", "stultifying", "obtuse", "meaningless", "contentless", "unproductive"), and of course, lame excuses for your own evasiveness ("I'm not going to take three days to produce an answer", "a total and complete waste of my time"). And most people don't find criticism of such tactics to make for particularly interesting reading, no matter how valid that criticism may be. So once again, we have you expressing yet another negative comment about my posts that is actually a poor reflection on yours.

Having said that, however, what would become clear, to anyone who actually took the time to follow our exchanges, is just how much difficulty you've had answering a few key questions about some of the statements you've made, and how much unwarranted venom you're willing to unleash to try to spin that failure as someone else's problem. If you had any confidence in your position, you would have probably spent your efforts actually answering those questions, to show me that they weren't so tough. Wouldn't that have been a better way to put me in my place?

In fact, let's see if you can pass a simple test. If you even bother to respond again, then before submitting yet another showcase of the many colorful ways you can insult someone to foster the impression of your own superiority, how about first going back and answering the questions from previous posts that I repeated for you earlier in this one? And in particular, if you want to drive home the point that you have already answered all of them, the way to do that would be to simply follow each of those questions with your previously posted answer. That would be the way to really show me up, wouldn't it?

And if that's too much for you to handle, how about at least providing a simple "yes" or "no" to ...

Does your definition of "free choice" include making others pay for choices you can't afford?

... and doing so before your next flurry of insults. Because if you can't even do that much, it will probably remove all doubt anyone may have about just how much all those insults are meant to cover for your inability to defend your own conclusions.

 

[BillyTK]

Well, since I don't have all the facts, I have to allow for the possibility that they, being very upset at this revelation, just dumped the property. It wouldn't be the first time that sellers in their anxiety let a home go for much, much less than it's actually worth. You really need a new appraisal of the property to tell its genuine value. So it could easily be that they dumped the property and now, as I said, are just looking to make a buck.

This typically happens before the house goes on the market, and as the purchase proceeds, the purchaser themselves will have a survey done to check that the house is worth the asking price.

It includes anything that stops someone from acting freely and voluntarily, unless it is in response to that someone stopping someone else from acting freely and voluntarily.

Say for instance, I wanted to work in profession X, and the best university to get into that profession is Y University. Of course, there's no guarantee I'll pass my course or get a job at the end of it, but attending Y University will improve my chances. I've got brilliant grades and my parents have scraped together the money to send me, but Y University won't give me a place, despite acing their entrance exams and giving great interviews. Now I have to go to B University, which means my career progression and earning potential will be severely limited. Do I have a claim against Y University, or does their right to free association trump my claim?

As I said, if it resulted in an actual, tangible loss of value, then yes, it should be actionable. But let's take another example (hypothetical): Someone is selling a very nice house for $250,000. Throughout this house is very nice, deep-pile, BigFancyCo® carpet. Now let's say that Oprah Winfrey gets on TV and declares that BigFancyCo is a horrible organization and that their carpets are not environmentally friendly, and it causes a backlash (think the beef fiasco of several years ago).

So anyway, the house gets sold to a couple for $250,000 but then the buyers find out that the carpet is from BigFancyCo. They scream, make much ado in the press, and sell the house for only $100,000 because of all the media hype about BigFancyCo and their carpet. They then turn around and sue the seller for not disclosing who made the carpet.

Now, in such a situation, how comparable do you think it is to "horror house"?

I'd have to say that if the previous owners knew about the BigFancyCo palaver, and chose not to disclose it to their buyers, then in principle, yes, it's similar, although in actuality there's a number of significant differences, at least in that replacing the carpets—would it cost $150,000 to replace them?—wouldn't require razing the house.

In this country, we have due process, which means you have to start with a complaint, move to reasonable suspicion, then you can investigate, and you can only take property upon probable cause leading to a trial. That's how it works. No complaint, no reasonable suspicion, no government intervention. None of their farkin' business.

How does the complaint get raised?

 

[shanek]

This typically happens before the house goes on the market,

Yes, this typically happens. But as I pointed out, it also happens on occasion when someone wants to gid rid of property quickly this gets bypassed and they end up dumping it for a lot less than it's really worth. Again, we don't know in this case.

Say for instance, I wanted to work in profession X, and the best university to get into that profession is Y University. Of course, there's no guarantee I'll pass my course or get a job at the end of it, but attending Y University will improve my chances. I've got brilliant grades and my parents have scraped together the money to send me, but Y University won't give me a place, despite acing their entrance exams and giving great interviews. Now I have to go to B University, which means my career progression and earning potential will be severely limited. Do I have a claim against Y University, or does their right to free association trump my claim?

They can accept or reject whomever they want.

I'd have to say that if the previous owners knew about the BigFancyCo palaver, and chose not to disclose it to their buyers, then in principle, yes, it's similar, although in actuality there's a number of significant differences, at least in that replacing the carpets—would it cost $150,000 to replace them?—wouldn't require razing the house.

Even though there's nothing at all wrong with the carpet and the whole thing is just a political ploy by one woman with an agenda looking to grasp some more unearned fame?

How does the complaint get raised?

Say someone else felt they had a better claim to the money. They would get a lawyer and make a claim to the government.

 

[BillyTK]

Yes, this typically happens. But as I pointed out, it also happens on occasion when someone wants to gid rid of property quickly this gets bypassed and they end up dumping it for a lot less than it's really worth. Again, we don't know in this case.

W-e-l-l, if it's sold through an estate agent, they'll require a survey before they sell it; for the buyer a survey is a condition of their mortgage, and even if it's a cash buy one party or the other or both will want a survey to check the value; it wouldn't make sense not to.

They can accept or reject whomever they want.

Right of free association trumps property claims in this instance?

Even though there's nothing at all wrong with the carpet and the whole thing is just a political ploy by one woman with an agenda looking to grasp some more unearned fame?

Okay, then it's a whole different kettle of fish. Sorry, I didn't pick up that the initial claim about the carpet company was frivolous; you say beef fiasco, I think mad cows' disease...

Say someone else felt they had a better claim to the money. They would get a lawyer and make a claim to the government.

Say the person in question is doing something illegal–importing illegal labour or something; but the vast amount of money this person suddenly has is the only indication of illegal activity...

 

[shanek]

Right of free association trumps property claims in this instance?

What property claims? How do you have a claim to the University's property?

Okay, then it's a whole different kettle of fish. Sorry, I didn't pick up that the initial claim about the carpet company was frivolous; you say beef fiasco, I think mad cows' disease...

No, I was thinking of that time when Oprah had on that vegetarian nut to say how terrible beef was and Oprah railed against beef saying she'd never eat it again. Beef sales plummeted after that.

Say the person in question is doing something illegal–importing illegal labour or something; but the vast amount of money this person suddenly has is the only indication of illegal activity...

If that's your only "indication," sorry, it's not enough. Unless, of course, you want to clog the prisons even more like the War on Drugs, which uses that same tactic (among others), is.

 

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Shanek
Yes, that's right; if I compare the fact that we have natural rights without any caveat or origin to the fact that we have vision or hands, that means that I'm saying that everything with vision or hands has natural rights. Yes, that's certainly good logic...NOT!!!!

I hate to nitpick, but I don't quite get this claim to natural rights...at all. What does it mean? Shanek you did say "We have it[natural rights] for the same reason we have two hands, vision, and the ability to walk." I suppose then, if we can work out why we have hands, eyes and legs we will know why we have natural rights. We have these things as a result of evolution...no? So are you saying rights have *evolved* in humans, like a part of his/her/it's/Samantha's anatomy? If so, why do gorillas, who have also developed hands, vision, the ability to walk, miss out on the rights part? How come natural rights didn't evolve in them? Are you claiming that humans are invested with some special/magical ingredient that confers particular rights on them?

I can't see how humans are born with any such thing as inherent "natural rights". It makes more sense to believe all humans have inherent interests[as do other animals, including chimps, orangutangs and gorillas]...and in order to try and meet those interests, human society invented a thing called "rights". Is that what you mean...?

 

[BillyTK]

What property claims? How do you have a claim to the University's property?

Apologies–I was speed-posting from home whilst trying to fix the printer. I meant property rights. It's a claim if one believes that education is a right, which I do but I guess that you wouldn't, so let's side-step that for the moment. Basically, the scruffy house example showed that an individual doesn't have to take physical action against someone to violate your non-initiation of force principle, and the property rights of the scruffy house owner [to keep a scruffy house] are trumped by the property rights of the house seller [who has (potentially) lost value because of the scruffy house owner]. In the University example, the student has (potentially) lost value because Y University has refused to admit him, but, if I understand you correctly, the University's right of free association trumps the student's property rights in this instance (please correct if wrong).

By the way, how does the right of free assoiciation thing work for organisations? Do organisations have rights?

No, I was thinking of that time when Oprah had on that vegetarian nut to say how terrible beef was and Oprah railed against beef saying she'd never eat it again. Beef sales plummeted after that.

Hi! *waves* "vegetarian nut" here. So who's at fault in your example? The "vegetarian nut" for expounding their views? Oprah, for railing against beef? Or her audience for acting on her words? Did she force them to stop buying beef at gun point or something?

If that's your only "indication," sorry, it's not enough. Unless, of course, you want to clog the prisons even more like the War on Drugs, which uses that same tactic (among others), is.

Fair enough; it was a pretty weak digression anyway.

 

[shanek]

Apologies–I was speed-posting from home whilst trying to fix the printer. I meant property rights. It's a claim if one believes that education is a right, which I do but I guess that you wouldn't,

No, I do. Absolutely I do. But having a right doesn't mean you get to force other people to help you exercise it. Freedom of speech and of the press doesn't mean a newspaper can be forced to publish your article; likewise, your right to an education doesn't mean a University has to force to take you as a student if you don't meet their admissions criteria. Why you think that this is a case of someone's rights trumping another is just beyond me.

By the way, how does the right of free assoiciation thing work for organisations? Do organisations have rights?

Of course.

Hi! *waves* "vegetarian nut" here. So who's at fault in your example? The "vegetarian nut" for expounding their views? Oprah, for railing against beef? Or her audience for acting on her words? Did she force them to stop buying beef at gun point or something?

Why should someone be at fault? What is there to be at fault about?

 

[BillyTK]

No, I do. Absolutely I do. But having a right doesn't mean you get to force other people to help you exercise it. Freedom of speech and of the press doesn't mean a newspaper can be forced to publish your article; likewise, your right to an education doesn't mean a University has to force to take you as a student if you don't meet their admissions criteria. Why you think that this is a case of someone's rights trumping another is just beyond me.

Previously I'd asked: "Do I have a claim against Y University, or does their right to free association trump my claim?" You responded: "They can accept or reject whomever they want." Although we've established above that this isn't strictly true, in the context of my question it appeared that their right to free association took precedence.

But if we're in agreement that education is a right then this changes the situation, as my right of access to education imposes an obligation on the University to take reasonable steps to offer me a place, as long as I meet their admissions criteria. Their right to free association is necessarily limited by their obligations.

Why should someone be at fault? What is there to be at fault about?

There was an implication from the use of the pejorative "vegetarian nut" and your previous comment that, "whole thing is just a political ploy by one woman with an agenda looking to grasp some more unearned fame". Acting wthin your rights doesn't necessarily mean what you do is right.

 

[shanek]

But if we're in agreement that education is a right then this changes the situation, as my right of access to education imposes an obligation on the University to take reasonable steps to offer me a place, as long as I meet their admissions criteria. Their right to free association is necessarily limited by their obligations.

No, it isn't! Didn't you read what I wrote? Is a newspaper obligated to print your article because you have free speech and free press rights? You have the rights; that DOESN'T mean you can force other people to give up their services and assets to you.

Acting wthin your rights doesn't necessarily mean what you do is right.

Never said it did. But what does that have to do with what you wrote?

 

[shanek]

I think this is worth reposting, as people just don't seem to get the idea. It was written in 1993 by Libertarian Lewis Napper and has been circulated widely:

THE BILL OF NO RIGHTS

We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, deluded, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.

ARTICLE I:
You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II:
You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone—not just you! You may leave the room, change the channel, or express a different opinion, but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III:
You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV:
You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V:
You do not have the right to free health care That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI:
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII:
You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV.

ARTICLE VIII:
You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX:
You don't have the right to a job. Sure, all of us want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X:
You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness—which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

If you agree, we strongly urge you to forward this to as many people as you can. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you should you not forward it. We just think it is about time common sense is allowed to flourish—call it the age of reason revisited.

 

[BillyTK]

No, it isn't! Didn't you read what I wrote? Is a newspaper obligated to print your article because you have free speech and free press rights? You have the rights; that DOESN'T mean you can force other people to give up their services and assets to you.

Chill, man! I never said that! Didn't you read what I wrote? Here's a summary; if you accept that education is a right, then organisations which provide education have an obligation to ensure access, and not arbitarily discriminate against people; this necessarily limits their right to free association, but this does not mean they can be arbitarily forced to give up their assets and services. Just as my right to do what the hell I want with my house is necessarily limited by not infringing on my neighbours rights with regard to their property. I thought this point was not controversial.

Never said it did. But what does that have to do with what you wrote?

What I wrote was in response to your question about attributing fault. As I said, there were some inferences about fault wrt to some of your earlier comments; now we can argue that all parties were acting within their rights, but acting within your rights doesn't necessarily mean doing the right thing.

 

[shanek]

Here's a summary; if you accept that education is a right, then organisations which provide education have an obligation to ensure access,

No, they don't, no more than a newspaper has to ensure your ability to publish articles in it. They publish who and what they want. Your free speech and free press rights have nothing at all to do with that. Same with a University and your right to an education.

What I wrote was in response to your question about attributing fault. As I said, there were some inferences about fault wrt to some of your earlier comments; now we can argue that all parties were acting within their rights, but acting within your rights doesn't necessarily mean doing the right thing.

Correct, but it doesn't mean you're at fault, either. Sometimes, sh!t happens.

 

[BillyTK]

No, they don't, no more than a newspaper has to ensure your ability to publish articles in it. They publish who and what they want. Your free speech and free press rights have nothing at all to do with that. Same with a University and your right to an education.

Your example falls down in a number of important ways; the big obvious biggie is that forcing a newspaper to publish someone's views transgresses that paper's right to free speech, but forcing a university to provide an education to someone, although morally wrong for other reasons, would not transgress that university's right to education because that wouldn't make sense. This is because free speech/free press rights are a different category off rights to education rights. Free speech/free press rights are liberty rights–that is, a freedom to act without interference by others; right to education is a claim right, which means that the person holding this right has a claim to the goods/services identified by that right, and therefore a claim against those who hold the goods or services in question. This is the only way that a right to education makes sense; defining education as a right acknowledges that there is something about this which is important, and sets it apart from other goods and services, and therefore defines the characteristics of that right. If there is no significant different between education and any other goods and services, then education shouldn't need according a special rights status anymore than, for instance, Sainsbury's Triple Chocolate Chip Cookies do.

Correct, but it doesn't mean you're at fault, either. Sometimes, sh!t happens.

I dunno if it's as simple as that; if people do wrong things, even if they're within their rights to do so, it doesn't make it right. Edited to add: It seems kind of ironic, but it seems that rights don't necessarily foster good behaviour.

 

[shanek]

Your example falls down in a number of important ways; the big obvious biggie is that forcing a newspaper to publish someone's views transgresses that paper's right to free speech, but forcing a university to provide an education to someone, although morally wrong for other reasons, would not transgress that university's right to education because that wouldn't make sense.

Now that's tortured logic! Whoever said that it needed to abrogate the same freedom in order to be an act of force and therefore not a free act?

Free speech/free press rights are liberty rights–that is, a freedom to act without interference by others; right to education is a claim right, which means that the person holding this right has a claim to the goods/services identified by that right, and therefore a claim against those who hold the goods or services in question.

Sorry, but I don't see any distinction anything like this at all in either the Constitution or any of the writings of our founding fathers. My guess: you (or someone else) just made it up so you could have an excuse to abrogate someone's rights. But all you're really doing is redefining it so that it's a reason to take rights away.

Kind of like our "right" to free health care. Yes, you have a right to health care, but no one should be forced to provide it to you (unless, of course, they are liable for your health condition in the first place).

This is the only way that a right to education makes sense;

A right is NOT something other people can be forced to provide for you. A right is only something that no one can restrict you from getting on your own. Maybe you should read the "Bill of No Rights" again.

defining education as a right acknowledges that there is something about this which is important, and sets it apart from other goods and services, and therefore defines the characteristics of that right.

Not at all. You have the right to own a car, for example. That doesn't mean that someone should be forced to sell you his.

If there is no significant different between education and any other goods and services, then education shouldn't need according a special rights status anymore than, for instance, Sainsbury's Triple Chocolate Chip Cookies do.

But I do indeed have a right to Sainsbury's Triple Chocolate Chip Cookies because no one can use force to prevent me from getting them if I can. It doesn't mean that you have to part with your Sainsbury's Triple Chocolate Chip Cookies to have to give them to me.

It seems kind of ironic, but it seems that rights don't necessarily foster good behaviour.

No, they don't. But then, behavioral manipulation shouldn't be a role of government. That would be 1984.

 

[BillyTK]

Now that's tortured logic! Whoever said that it needed to abrogate the same freedom in order to be an act of force and therefore not a free act?

I don't know; who did? I was using the most obvious example to hand, but if it's kind of too crude, fair enough.

Sorry, but I don't see any distinction anything like this at all in either the Constitution or any of the writings of our founding fathers. My guess: you (or someone else) just made it up so you could have an excuse to abrogate someone's rights. But all you're really doing is redefining it so that it's a reason to take rights away.

The difference between a liberty right and a claim right is not exactly controversial. Might be you've never heard of it before, that's why you're guessing (incorrectly)?

Oh and just a friendly reminder; I'm British; your Founding Fathers, top blokes that they undoubtedly were, and your Constitution, great document that it undoubtedly is, don't have much significance for me; especially when it comes to formulating rights; I prefer something a bit more concrete to argue from; not just bits of paper, and not only the writings of people who died a couple of centuries ago.

Kind of like our "right" to free health care. Yes, you have a right to health care, but no one should be forced to provide it to you (unless, of course, they are liable for your health condition in the first place).

No, there's no right to free healthcare (is there anyone who claims there is?) but there's an obligation that health professionals will provide healthcare (well, there is in the UK, but I wouldn't think the US health ethics system is that different). An obligation is not the same as force.

A right is NOT something other people can be forced to provide for you.

Who said it was?

A right is only something that no one can restrict you from getting on your own. Maybe you should read the "Bill of No Rights" again.

I read it; struck me as maybe not the best recruiting tool for Libertarianism; gave the impression that you're all a bunch of rather smug, over-bearing, immature brats, which I'm sure is not the case. I didn't comment previously because, well, it didn't seem like a polite thing to do, but since you asked...

Not at all. You have the right to own a car, for example. That doesn't mean that someone should be forced to sell you his.

You have a right to own a car as an extension of your property rights. This is not the same as asserting that car ownership is a discrete right in and of itself. Just to clarify, when you previously said, "No, I do. Absolutely I do." to the question of whether education is a right or not, did you mean in the same category of rights as car ownership, or something else?

But I do indeed have a right to Sainsbury's Triple Chocolate Chip Cookies because no one can use force to prevent me from getting them if I can. It doesn't mean that you have to part with your Sainsbury's Triple Chocolate Chip Cookies to have to give them to me.

Checked a couple of philosophy dictionaries; couldn't find Sainsbury's Chocolate Chip Cookie ownership asserted as a discrete right anywhere; not even from the untilitarians, sorry!

No, they don't. But then, behavioral manipulation shouldn't be a role of government. That would be 1984.

Who said it should be?

Edited to fix tags

 

[shanek]

No, there's no right to free healthcare (is there anyone who claims there is?) but there's an obligation that health professionals will provide healthcare (well, there is in the UK, but I wouldn't think the US health ethics system is that different). An obligation is not the same as force.

Well, obligated by whom? And what happens if they refuse to meet those obligations?

Who said it was?

Well, you did, when you said that the University should be forced to accept that hypothetical student.

I read it; struck me as maybe not the best recruiting tool for Libertarianism; gave the impression that you're all a bunch of rather smug, over-bearing, immature brats, which I'm sure is not the case. I didn't comment previously because, well, it didn't seem like a polite thing to do, but since you asked...

Ann Landers liked it enough to publish it (she misattributed it, though). She got good reactions from it, too.

[quoite]Just to clarify, when you previously said, "No, I do. Absolutely I do." to the question of whether education is a right or not, did you mean in the same category of rights as car ownership, or something else?[/quote]

I mean in the sense that no one should have the power to use force to prevent you from getting whatever kind of education you can obtain.

Checked a couple of philosophy dictionaries; couldn't find Sainsbury's Chocolate Chip Cookie ownership asserted as a discrete right anywhere; not even from the untilitarians, sorry!

9th Amendment. I know you don't consider our Constitution an authority, but there you are.

Who said it should be?

No one; I was just commenting on your comment.

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Cain
As I've maintained for quite some time now, libertarians do not advocate institutions that foster free choice -- yet, free choice is allegedly what libertarianism is about.

Does your definition of "free choice" include making others pay for choices you can't afford?