Reactions to AC

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I would define rights as creations of the state. They are just a subset of laws. The fact that rights are created by the state is a premise and not a conclusion.

ACists construct their world view using different premises. They just don't want to admit that not everyone agrees with these premises.

But this is exactly why AC is such a marginal political philosophy. Its premises, such as the inherent desirability of freedom from coercion, are just not things that majority of people in the industrialized world think are particularly important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, agreeing with the Founding Fathers on what "rights" are is why AC is such a mariginal political philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether you are correct about the beliefs of the founding fathers or not, I don't consider naked appeals to authority to be a particularly compelling form of argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

When talking about what "rights" are in this country, it's generally assumed one is talking about "rights" as used in the Constitution, which makes the Founding Fathers' opinions very relevant.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that most people don't consider taxation to be theft, and don't consider majority rule to be coercive aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. Most people are delusional in this way. It has nothing to do with the origins of rights though. Nice red herring.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The state creates property rights by creating the enforcement mechanism. Rights only exist to the extent enforceable. You are the one claiming that they are somehow magically in the air around us just waiting to be harnessed.

For example, in the US a person has the right to a state-appointed attorney if he is charged with a crime. The only reason this right exists is that someone in a position of state authority (in this particular example, a federal judge), decided that it should exist and used the state channels to make it enforceable. Did this right some how exist before it was actually part of the law? In this case, why does it not exist in other societies? Or is this right somehow categorically different than the right to own property? I don't think it is.

[/ QUOTE ]
Might makes right FTW

[/ QUOTE ]

I never got this talking point either. ALL authority is derived from the threat of violence. Even in AC the only thing keeping you safe is your private police and neighborhood watch (if you lived in a neighborhood that agreed on it) right? Isn't that Might making Right. Simply because it doens't come from the government doens't mean it's not Might/threat of harm.

Cody

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's quote the whole paragraph, shall we?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
+)that all men are created equal,
+)that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
+)that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —
+)That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
+)That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."


[/ QUOTE ]

The founding fathers may not have been anarchists, and they may have (wrongfully imo) beleived that the State was necessary to protect rights, but they certainly did not believe that the State created rights--since rights are "inalienable" and "self-evident", it seems clear that the Constitution was drafted to protect the rights that we all have naturally, and not to give us rights that, without the benevolence of the almighty State, we wouldn't have.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's quote the whole paragraph, shall we?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
+)that all men are created equal,
+)that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
+)that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —
+)That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
+)That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."


[/ QUOTE ]

The founding fathers may not have been anarchists, and they may have (wrongfully imo) beleived that the State was necessary to protect rights, but they certainly did not believe that the State created rights--since rights are "inalienable" and "self-evident", it seems clear that the Constitution was drafted to protect the rights that we all have naturally, and not to give us rights that, without the benevolence of the almighty State, we wouldn't have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't "natural rights" an illusion. We aren't born with the right to anything, and in fact if we were born into slavery, we'd never know that such a thing existed. Rights are limited to what you can enforce aren't they.

In other words, go to China and preach about Christianity. It's going to mean little to them that you have a natural right to pursue happiness, they'll still going to jail you or worse. This is an example of a "state" causing harm, no arguement there, but the point is that simply possessing a "natural right" isn't anything more then a societal construct.

Cody

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that most people don't consider taxation to be theft, and don't consider majority rule to be coercive aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. Most people are delusional in this way. It has nothing to do with the origins of rights though. Nice red herring.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe something is an inherent right due to human nature, the fact that most people don't share that view is very relevant.

I.e. how can you simultaneous say:
- Property rights are self-evident because everybody recognizes them and
- Everybody is delusional because they don't recognize property rights in the same way I do.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that most people don't consider taxation to be theft, and don't consider majority rule to be coercive aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. Most people are delusional in this way. It has nothing to do with the origins of rights though. Nice red herring.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe something is an inherent right due to human nature, the fact that most people don't share that view is very relevant.

I.e. how can you simultaneous say:
- Property rights are self-evident because everybody recognizes them and
- Everybody is delusional because they don't recognize property rights in the same way I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

They do, they just don't apply things logically and consistently because they are taught not to. Even a thief knows that stealing is wrong to prove it try to steal from him and see what happens.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
+)That to secure these rights

[/ QUOTE ]

To secure, not to create.

[ QUOTE ]
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

[/ QUOTE ]

The right of the people outside of anything that government does, is to abolish it. The founding fathers never one say anything about creating rights, they claim the natural truth that humans have rights and that they felt the best way to protect that that they could come up with was that government.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
+)That to secure these rights

[/ QUOTE ]

To secure, not to create.

[ QUOTE ]
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

[/ QUOTE ]

The right of the people outside of anything that government does, is to abolish it. The founding fathers never one say anything about creating rights, they claim the natural truth that humans have rights and that they felt the best way to protect that that they could come up with was that government.

[/ QUOTE ]

To go further, the right to freedom of speech is innate to everyone who has vocal cords, it is not something that has to be created as it exists in human beings naturally. Note how the freedom of the press is not created by guaranteeing that each man woman and child will get a printing press, 40 reams of paper and 10 gallons of ink to start their own paper, only that no law shall be made preventing it.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

[/ QUOTE ]

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's quote the whole paragraph, shall we?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
+)that all men are created equal,
+)that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
+)that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —
+)That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
+)That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."


[/ QUOTE ]

The founding fathers may not have been anarchists, and they may have (wrongfully imo) beleived that the State was necessary to protect rights, but they certainly did not believe that the State created rights--since rights are "inalienable" and "self-evident", it seems clear that the Constitution was drafted to protect the rights that we all have naturally, and not to give us rights that, without the benevolence of the almighty State, we wouldn't have.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't propose that government creates rights. Another statist did. (I think the origin of rights is a better discussion for SMP, but do what you like. I'll skip it, at least on here.)

As to the rest, why is it that every AC and their cousin's friend's aunt Martha will discuss the existence of "natural" rights, but will miss the part about government being created "to secure those rights AND deriving their 'just' powers from the consent of the governed?" Also, among the list of inalienable rights mentioned, where's property? Did the framers forget it?