A question for ACers

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You just said yourself that, state or no state, the rights have no permanence and are human constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's only one side of the question.

The AC crowd believes that rights are human constructs. There is an entirely different opinion on the matter which says that rights are granted by God. It's a debate that has been going on for centuries, and I think both sides should be mentioned. Incidentally, the founders of the American republic put the basis of this country in writing. Namely, that the rights of the people are to be considered to come from God and can't be taken away by a lesser authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, ACists don't believe that rights are human contructs, that's socialists. ACists believe that rights are inherently part of man and part of the universe. Whether you believe that man/the universe was created by God or not is irrelevant to this. ACism is completely compatible with a belief in "God given rights". Socialism is not.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You just said yourself that, state or no state, the rights have no permanence and are human constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's only one side of the question.

The AC crowd believes that rights are human constructs. There is an entirely different opinion on the matter which says that rights are granted by God. It's a debate that has been going on for centuries, and I think both sides should be mentioned. Incidentally, the founders of the American republic put the basis of this country in writing. Namely, that the rights of the people are to be considered to come from God and can't be taken away by a lesser authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, ACists don't believe that rights are human contructs, that's socialists. ACists believe that rights are inherently part of man and part of the universe. Whether you believe that man/the universe was created by God or not is irrelevant to this. ACism is completely compatible with a belief in "God given rights". Socialism is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I have read here and there from various exponents, the AC view is that a right that can't be enforced does not exist period, with no "higher jurisdiction" than realpolitik.

Not so you say? Thanks, and I'll check it out further.

Do you have a source that addresses the issue directly?

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You just said yourself that, state or no state, the rights have no permanence and are human constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's only one side of the question.

The AC crowd believes that rights are human constructs. There is an entirely different opinion on the matter which says that rights are granted by God. It's a debate that has been going on for centuries, and I think both sides should be mentioned. Incidentally, the founders of the American republic put the basis of this country in writing. Namely, that the rights of the people are to be considered to come from God and can't be taken away by a lesser authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, ACists don't believe that rights are human contructs, that's socialists. ACists believe that rights are inherently part of man and part of the universe. Whether you believe that man/the universe was created by God or not is irrelevant to this. ACism is completely compatible with a belief in "God given rights". Socialism is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I have read here and there from various exponents, the AC view is that a right that can't be enforced does not exist, period, with no "higher jurisdiction" than realpolitik.

Not so you say? Thanks, and I'll check it out further.

Do you have a source that addresses the issue directly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Contrary to what people like DVaut might have you believe, ACists are not a singleminded, dogmatic force on this board. For instance hmkpoker strongly declares that he does not believe in morality at all, and argues for AC from a consequential/utilitarian perspective. BCPVP on the other hand, is a Christian and argues that AC is a morally superior system. Guys chime in and correct me if I get you wrong, but I believe I'm summarizing your positions fairly.

There are different foundations and arguments set forth by hmkpoker, madnak, bkholdem, BCPVP, pvn...

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You just said yourself that, state or no state, the rights have no permanence and are human constructs.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's only one side of the question.

The AC crowd believes that rights are human constructs. There is an entirely different opinion on the matter which says that rights are granted by God. It's a debate that has been going on for centuries, and I think both sides should be mentioned. Incidentally, the founders of the American republic put the basis of this country in writing. Namely, that the rights of the people are to be considered to come from God and can't be taken away by a lesser authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't speak for "the AC crowd". I know that some of them (borodog) believe rights are human constructs. I was trying to show the OP that this does not doom AC theory, but in fact supports it as argued by Borodog. Other ACists (BCPVP? AlexM is a minarchist IIRC) may believe in god-given rights and that's fine.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Other ACists may believe in god-given rights and that's fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. You can't grant rights you don't have in the first place.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Other ACists may believe in god-given rights and that's fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. You can't grant rights you don't have in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are misunderstanding. The question is "where do rights come from?" and it's entirely fine if someone believes that rights come from God. This doesn't mean they can just make up rights and say they're from God. A person can believe in all the natural rights and only those rights, and if they believe in God also, then those rights are "god-given" to them. The two are not mutually incompatible.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
(BCPVP? AlexM is a minarchist IIRC)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's more accurate to say I'm a conservative ACist where most are liberal. In the true senses of the words, not the political ones.

[AlexM]

Under ACism, property comes about as an effort of labor. If you take a branch from a tree and work it into a bow, that bow is your property. You might trade your bow for something else and then that something else would be your property. You might also go out hunting and kill a deer. Now, through your effort, the deer meat and the deer skin is your property. This is pretty obvious to most people. It's the land property part where people get confused, but it's not that much different.

Let's say a person goes out into the wilderness by themselves and builds something. They take 5 acres of land, and on that land they build themselves a home and turn the rest into farmland and grow crops, which they use to trade to other people for other stuff, for the benefit of all. By what we've established, the crops are obviously their property, but is the land itself? How can it not be? The land is much improved from its natural state due to this person's labor. If this person died and someone else took over, that person would have a *much* easier time with the house already built, the trees already cleared and the soil ripe for farming. Thus, by this person's labor, the land has significantly gained in value. Certainly they have more of a right to reap the rewards of this value than anyone else, and this translates into ownership.

To take it one step further, if this person decided to move on to something else and they pay someone else to take care of this land, they are still contributing to the upkeep of the land. If, on the other hand, instead of paying someone to take care of it they instead neglect it, they start to lose the right to the land. A person maintains a right to own land only so long as they care for that land. By neglecting it, they can lose that right and leave someone else with an opportunity to claim it for their own.

FAQ this baby Shake!

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
Under ACism, property comes about as an effort of labor. If you take a branch from a tree and work it into a bow, that bow is your property. You might trade your bow for something else and then that something else would be your property.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem I see with this is that agreement, not labor is what makes the thing yours. You may associate the thing that you've labored on with yourself, but, that doesn't really matter if no one else agrees with you because they will take it. Only when the people around you agree that the thing you've labored on is yours does it become yours.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Under ACism, property comes about as an effort of labor. If you take a branch from a tree and work it into a bow, that bow is your property. You might trade your bow for something else and then that something else would be your property.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem I see with this is that agreement, not labor is what makes the thing yours. You may associate the thing that you've labored on with yourself, but, that doesn't really matter if no one else agrees with you because they will take it. Only when the people around you agree that the thing you've labored on is yours does it become yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. you're conflating control with legitimate ownership. The fact that you might violate someone's property right doesn't negate that property right.