Property Rights Are Not Natural Freedoms

[AnyOldIron]

Just thought I'd open a new thread as this is an interesting topic.

Property rights are a social, rather than natural freedom. In nature, there is no such concept of property, only possession.

Natural freedom is the freedom afforded by nature, the right to act as you will, provided you are physically capable. Possession is found in natural freedom, but property isn't. Provided the entity is physically capable of defending that being possessed, they keep it but there are no protections beyond that physical capability that make it property. A wolf pack will defend what it possesses, mates, territory, kills etc but it has no concept that those mates, kills etc are its property. If it is physically incapable of defending them, they are lost.

Social freedoms, (for example when the right to kill etc if you are physically capable is exchanged for the right not to be killed) are a moral decision. It is a moral decision to decide that members of a society should be protected, that what they possess should be theirs regardless of whether they can physically defended. All legislation is a moral decision.

Property rights are not natural rights, but the result of exchanging them for social freedoms.

[leaningright]

So you are saying that owning property is wrong?

[uscitizen]

This is a rehash from another thread Leaning.
I have to agree with Any, re this threads topic, not saying that property rights are wrong though.

[OrnotBitwise]

This is a rehash from another thread Leaning.
I have to agree with Any, re this threads topic, not saying that property rights are wrong though.
Even I don't say that owning property is "wrong." It's not about right and wrong -- in the ethical sense of the words. The question at hand is whether property rights can be considered "natural" rights. That is, whether the right to property is a purely social construct or not.

Part of the problem, of course, is that the word "natural" is exceedingly fuzzy and ill-defined. It's also freighted with a lot of emotional baggage.

[LadyT]

So you are saying that owning property is wrong?

I don't think he said that at all. Just because its a social freedom rather than a natural freedom doesn't mean its "right" or "wrong"

[IHateGovernment]

When advocates of natural rights talk about this issue such as myself they are not so naive as to think that natural rights actually allow you to have property or the freedom of speech.

What we mean is that when forming a government the basis of law should be formed with the interest of allowing man to exist in his natural state free from violent coercion should be held in the highest priority.

My natural right to speak grants me the ability to say what I wish. My invocation of natural rights in terms of government means that because I can naturally say what I wish that government should recognize that right and not infringe upon my right to speak.


BTW property rights at least in natural rights theory are not included. Property rights require coercion because to gain property is to take it away from every member of society. This can only be done legitimately if you have compensated society in a manner that has been agreed upon by consensus.

[BRUTALITOPS]

I don't think he said that at all. Just because its a social freedom rather than a natural freedom doesn't mean its "right" or "wrong"

well natural freedoms are far more objective so it is actually important.

[AnyOldIron]

So you are saying that owning property is wrong?

How the buggery did you get the idea that I think property rights are wrong when I state that they are social freedoms, not natural freedoms?

[AnyOldIron]

Part of the problem, of course, is that the word "natural" is exceedingly fuzzy and ill-defined. It's also freighted with a lot of emotional baggage.

Natural freedoms in the sense described in Rousseau's The Social Contract.

[AnyOldIron]

well natural freedoms are far more objective so it is actually important.

Natural freedoms are the freedom to do as your will decides, provided you are physically able.

IE, if I wanted to, and could kill you, I could. Social freedoms are the rights not to be killed, regardless of the ability to defend yourself.

[AnyOldIron]

My natural right to speak grants me the ability to say what I wish. My invocation of natural rights in terms of government means that because I can naturally say what I wish that government should recognize that right and not infringe upon my right to speak.

It is a natural right to speak, but it is a social right that that speech is protected.

Under natural freedoms you can say whatever you like but another person, if they don't like what you say and are physically capable can bash you round the head for doing so.

It is only under social freedoms that protection.

Property rights and rights to free speech are moral decisions and such decisions aren't made in the natural state.

[IHateGovernment]

If you are trying to convince me that government is necessary for the protection of freedom I agree. I never was an anarchist. Let me say though that I believe that governments only legitimate responsibility is preserving our natural rights.

It isn't a natural right to be able to bash someones head in it is a natural right to not have your head bashed in. We are owners of our bodies and unwanted tresspassing upon it violates our natural state.

[AnyOldIron]

Let me say though that I believe that governments only legitimate responsibility is preserving our natural rights.

Preserving our rights to do what we will provided we are physically capable? Preserving the right to steal, provided you want to and are physically capable? To murder?

It isn't a natural right to be able to bash someones head in it is a natural right to not have your head bashed in.

You have them the wrong way round. Natural freedoms afford you the right to do what you will, provided you physically can.

Have you read Rousseau?

We are owners of our bodies and unwanted tresspassing upon it violates our natural state.

The concept of ownership, rather than mere possessors, is a social freedom, not found in nature.

In nature, if you can't defend your body, you loose possession and it becomes the possession of the creature attacking you.

Only in social freedoms do you have the 'right' to own what you cannot defend.

[IHateGovernment]

Preserving our rights to do what we will provided we are physically capable? Preserving the right to steal, provided you want to and are physically capable? To murder?

There is no right to steal or murder. There is a right to be free of violence. A rogue citizen when stealing or murdering usurps the rights of another. There are no rights to violate rights.

You have them the wrong way round. Natural freedoms afford you the right to do what you will, provided you physically can.

Have you read Rousseau?

I haven't read any of his writings cover to cover but I am very familiar with his principles.

I especially favor his idea of social contract. Modern day leftists and liberals misinterpret his writings however. Rousseau stated that social contract must be entered into freely. Many today including yourself from previous conversations indicate that one enters into social contract regardless of consent.

The concept of ownership, rather than mere possessors, is a social freedom, not found in nature.

No the natural state of man without interfernece is one in which a person has sole control over the use of their body. Thus how they move their mouth to make sounds, or where they move their legs so that they may stand. This is a natural phenomenon to to abrogate it requires violating that natural state.

In nature, if you can't defend your body, you loose possession and it becomes the possession of the creature attacking you.

I understand this concept AOI. Again I am not an anarchist being one reduces us to living under a might makes right paradigm. However if we create a government that crafts its laws with the interest of preserving the natural state of man before coercion we have a system that does not operate by the might makes right principle. However if we exceed this and craft law beyond this consideration we have transgressed back into the might makes right principle.

[BRUTALITOPS]

I actually agree with AOI.

[IHateGovernment]

Careful of that Grind. You do know what you are welcoming if you agree with him.

AOI and I are not actually disagreeing here. He seems intent on convincing me that without government its survival of the fittest as if I didn't know that.

I just advocate that government stay as much off the people as possible and recognizing their natural state is a good base.

[BRUTALITOPS]

though i Do think we can own our thoughts, no one else can posesses them. We also own our beliefs as no one else can posesses them. We own our personalitiy and therefore our self/being, no one can posesses that. They can posesses the physical but a human isn't just skin and bones.

[uscitizen]

I am sure glad I agreed with AOI before it got so deep I was lost in the thread :)

[AnyOldIron]

There is no right to steal or murder. There is a right to be free of violence. A rogue citizen when stealing or murdering usurps the rights of another. There are no rights to violate rights.

There is no freedom from violence in natural freedoms.

Natural freedoms are the right to do as you will, provided that you are physically capable. They are the only rights you have in nature... will and physical capability.

The right to be free from violence is a social freedom, not a natural freedom.

I especially favor his idea of social contract. Modern day leftists and liberals misinterpret his writings however. Rousseau stated that social contract must be entered into freely. Many today including yourself from previous conversations indicate that one enters into social contract regardless of consent.

Rousseau wrote that once the general will had been established, physical coercion to ensure its maintenance is required. The option that you have is to accept the general will or leave society.

For example, if the general will deems that you must pay 50% taxation, you have the option to pay or get out. It is this almost totalitarian aspect to Rousseau's writing that many rightly fear. (I wrote a paper on the totalitarian aspects of Rousseau's general will recently)

No the natural state of man without interfernece is one in which a person has sole control over the use of their body. Thus how they move their mouth to make sounds, or where they move their legs so that they may stand. This is a natural phenomenon to to abrogate it requires violating that natural state.

In nature there is no concept of ownership.

It is philosophically difficult to say, but under natural freedoms you only possess your body. (it is philosophically difficult to say because it invokes notions that the 'I' is seperate from the body, as in Cartesian 'Mind/body dualism' bollocks...)

In nature, if you are unable to defend your body and another has the will to take it, and is physically capable, your body becomes the possession of the creature who took it and will probably be eaten.

It is only under social freedoms that the notion of ownership comes in. It is a moral (and thus social) decision that someone should own something regardless of their ability to defend it against the will of others.

I understand this concept AOI. Again I am not an anarchist being one reduces us to living under a might makes right paradigm. However if we create a government that crafts its laws with the interest of preserving the natural state of man before coercion we have a system that does not operate by the might makes right principle. However if we exceed this and craft law beyond this consideration we have transgressed back into the might makes right principle.

In the natural state, under natural freedoms, right does make might.

That's not a pretty notion, hence my fondness for social freedoms, but it is a fact.

Before a fox leaps on to devour a chicken, he does not stop and think 'I am violating this chicken's rights'. He has the will (hunger) and he has the capability. He just does it.

If you have a government that crafts its laws with the interest of preserving natural freedoms, you have a government that preserves might is right. If you have a government that crafts its laws with the interest of preserving natural freedoms; murder, theft, arson, property rights (all things protected under the social freedoms we exchange for natural) all become legitimate.

As Rousseau wrote, you must exchange natural freedoms (ie the right to kill if you can and will) for social freedoms (the right not to be killed.)

This is the paradox of the American Libertarian, always pursuing the notion of increasing natural freedoms whilst maintaining the integrity of social freedoms such as property rights etc. It is like a dog chasing its tail, an endless, fruitless pursuit.

[AnyOldIron]

I just advocate that government stay as much off the people as possible and recognizing their natural state is a good base.

And I assert that the natural state is not good because it is the ultimate occasion of the use of the power of the will (combined with physical capability)

It is unconducive (almost mutually exclusive) for natural freedoms to exist in a social scenerio.

[AnyOldIron]

though i Do think we can own our thoughts, no one else can posesses them. We also own our beliefs as no one else can posesses them. We own our personalitiy and therefore our self/being, no one can posesses that. They can posesses the physical but a human isn't just skin and bones.

Have you read Orwell's 1984 or seen the society that exists in North Korea? Have you seen the control of thought, belief and personality that occurs under religion?

Thoughts, beliefs and personality can be controlled by external forces.

The question is, if something is 'of you' (ie your thoughts) yours if some other entity controls them?

Thus I assert that it is possible for someone else to possess attributes such as your thoughts, personality etc.....

[AnyOldIron]

I am sure glad I agreed with AOI before it got so deep I was lost in the thread

The best thing to read (if you haven't already) to explain it all is Jean Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract.

It concerns the relatonship between natural freedoms, social freedom and the exchange between the two that is required to exist in society.

Good stuff but not bedtime reading.... lol

[uscitizen]

Thanks for the recomendation Any. I am however getting too old and my brain is getting full ;) I need to save brainpower for things like supporting my butt making a living and those kinds of insignificant things.

[AnyOldIron]

I am however getting too old and my brain is getting full I need to save brainpower for things like supporting my butt making a living and those kinds of insignificant things.

lol... It is hard to find the time, I struggle to find the time for my huge reading list.

JJR's Social Contract is a very important work to read concerning political philosophy and how society works.

Even at your decrepid age you should make room for it..... lol

[uscitizen]

I will Try Any, however my time has been full of learning a new system for my job lately. I am the oldest technodweeb in my company I think, those youngsters are getting harder to keep up with, they grew up on this stuff.

[Damocles]

I will Try Any, however my time has been full of learning a new system for my job lately. I am the oldest technodweeb in my company I think, those youngsters are getting harder to keep up with, they grew up on this stuff.
I get all my information on this stuff by osmosis... You need to link in!

[uscitizen]

I get all my information on this stuff by osmosis... You need to link in!
It is a bit more difficult when you work remote.
Working from home has both advantages and disadvantages.

[Timshel]

On the basis of your argument there are no natural rights only freedoms granted by society.

Natural rights do not mean rights that cannot be violated by others. I don't where you got that idea. Even in society your rights can be violated.

[Timshel]

Even I don't say that owning property is "wrong." It's not about right and wrong -- in the ethical sense of the words.


That is exactly what it is about.

[Timshel]

Natural freedoms in the sense described in Rousseau's The Social Contract.

Kind of like me arguing against the Democrats in the sense that Dixie defines them. Why would you use Rousseau? It is a strawman. Try Locke.

[uscitizen]

Hiya String, where ya been ?

[OrnotBitwise]

well natural freedoms are far more objective so it is actually important.
Uh, yeah. And red is very much more colorful than blue.

[AnyOldIron]

Even in society your rights can be violated.

In society, rights can be violated, but they are protected by a moral agreement.

In nature, the only right you have is to do as you will, provided you are capable. It isn't possible to violate that.

Kind of like me arguing against the Democrats in the sense that Dixie defines them. Why would you use Rousseau? It is a strawman. Try Locke.

Rousseau provides a good explanation of the exchange, that's why.

We are all aware of the totalitarian paradox his writings bring.

I am not making a moral judgement as to whether property rights are good or bad, just that they are a social creation, not found in the natural state.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The right to own something is something the government grants you... it was pulled out of thin air. It may be the best that we allow people to own what they produce, but what about whenever it is destroying an entire society to do so? Moderate intrusion isn't so crazy.

[AnyOldIron]

The right to own something is something the government grants you... it was pulled out of thin air.

Well, it's a group moral decision if that's what you mean...

It may be the best that we allow people to own what they produce, but what about whenever it is destroying an entire society to do so? Moderate intrusion isn't so crazy.

Moderate intrusion into property rights?

How do you feel about the social moral decision to allow those who don't produce to own that property?

[klaatu]

When a "pride" of African Lions adopt a certain territory of land as their home..is it a natural behavior or is it a Social behavior? Id say A little bit of both.... Natural in that by Nature the African Lion is a territorail Animal ...., Social ..meaning that the African Lion is a Social Animal and is governed by Natural law to be that way.
As it is with Humans, we are also territorial and as far back as archeology can take us, we have always been that way. Humans have always laid claim to land as our own ..and reserved the right to protect it. A funny thing happened on the way to Civilization, As a Social Species... the more dominant of our group decided it was in our best interests to have a larger body rule over the dispersion of land, Humans discovered a concept called Government...... in the world of Bees and Ants this is called colonization. With A larger organized body ruling over the rest of us..... they took control over the land and and put a for sale sign on it.

To sum it up ... since we are territorial... within us it is natural to want and own property, but because we are tribal....it is also within our Social Structure for the more dominant amongst us to take control over property and either disperse it in a fair and equitable way .. or dominate it.

[AnyOldIron]

To sum it up ... since we are territorial... within us it is natural to want and own property,

There is a major difference between possession and property, between possession and ownership.

In nature, a pride of lions might possess a territory as its own. But if it doesn't defend that property, if it can't defend it, it loses it.

Property (or ownership) is the concept that you possess something irrelevant of your ability to defend it.

Property rights, or the concept of ownership, don't exist in nature, outside human morality.

A creature in nature possesses their own body. But if they cannot defend themselves, their body becomes the possession of the attacker, there is no moral structure to protect it, and as a body is essentially meat, is likely to be eaten.

Property rights are thus a social freedom, as opposed to a natural freedom.

[Damocles]

The right to own something is something the government grants you... it was pulled out of thin air. It may be the best that we allow people to own what they produce, but what about whenever it is destroying an entire society to do so? Moderate intrusion isn't so crazy.
The "Right" to own something is an extension of animal instinct to declare territory. The difference is in the protection. The protection extended by the government to protect your property is different... ownership however, is an instinct.

[AnyOldIron]

The "Right" to own something is an extension of animal instinct to declare territory.

Nothing is 'owned' in nature, only possessed. An animal doesn't own the territory it occupies (ie possesses).

Ownership is an abstract notion, the notion that something is yours regardless.

I know libertarians struggle with the paradox created by your belief in property rights and your belief that rights are granted in nature, but it is that, a paradox. There are no rights in nature other than will and ability to fulfill will.

In nature, nothing is owned. Ownership only occurs in human society, it is a social freedom created by moral decision, not natural.

[Damocles]

The "Right" to own something is an extension of animal instinct to declare territory.

Nothing is 'owned' in nature, only possessed. An animal doesn't own the territory it occupies (ie possesses).

Ownership is an abstract notion, the notion that something is yours regardless.

I know libertarians struggle with the paradox created by your belief in property rights and your belief that rights are granted in nature, but it is that, a paradox. There are no rights in nature other than will and ability to fulfill will.

In nature, nothing is owned. Ownership only occurs in human society, it is a social freedom created by moral decision, not natural.
What I stated is that fact, you are reiterating my point. However, "mine" is an instinct...

It is the extension of that. Just as I stated. That protection extended by government to protect for you that which is "yours"...

Don't be deliberately missing my points by misreading. It gets tiresome.

[Timshel]

Even in society your rights can be violated.

In society, rights can be violated, but they are protected by a moral agreement.

And how is that anymore valid than being protected by the individual and his neighbors who choose to recognize his rights? If you do not possess the right to property how are you able to protect it through a moral agreement. For instance, I do not have the right to steal and no moral agreement with others will make that valid.

The problem with your argument here is that you accept Rousseau's notions that the state is necessary for society or civilization. This is not the understanding of Locke and his man in the state of nature, i.e., without a state. Rousseau sees man in his state of nature as being beasts beneath even other animals like wolves or lions. Locke sees them as moral but unfortunately biased by their own interests. Locke's man in the state of nature is simply man free from external control. There property rights would exists.



In nature, the only right you have is to do as you will, provided you are capable. It isn't possible to violate that.

No, actually that is the right you ascribe to the clooective/state/society via your "moral agreement."


Kind of like me arguing against the Democrats in the sense that Dixie defines them. Why would you use Rousseau? It is a strawman. Try Locke.

Rousseau provides a good explanation of the exchange, that's why.

We are all aware of the totalitarian paradox his writings bring.

I am not making a moral judgement as to whether property rights are good or bad, just that they are a social creation, not found in the natural state.

Rousseau is not any better an explanation of a stateless society than Dixie's explanation of what Democrats are.

[Timshel]

Property rights, or the concept of ownership, don't exist in nature, outside human morality.


This is the problem with the premise of your argument. You see man's nature as being absent of human morality. Well then, what is human morality?

[Damocles]

I now have several questions:

What is human nature and how is it defined?
Can it be defined without morality?
What is society?
Can it be defined without Government?
What is the foundation of morality?
Is it the State as it must be if AOI is correct and the only natural state of human is to take what they can and the State provides the moral agreement?

Those are a beginning.

[Timshel]

I now have several questions:

What is human nature and how is it defined?

Dictionary says, the sum of all characteristics and traits shared by humans. I would add "healthy" or something akin to that as a condition. It's part of human nature to have two legs but not all do.



Can it be defined without morality?

No. I think humans have a natural sense of right and wrong. Again, there are some sickos that don't but they are few and rare.



What is society?

A group of individuals.



Can it be defined without Government?

Absolutely. Government has nothing to do with it.



What is the foundation of morality?

Freedom from the intiation of force.



Is it the State as it must be if AOI is correct and the only natural state of human is to take what they can and the State provides the moral agreement?

I will answer that with a q. How can the state or society, which both are just collections of individuals, possibly be moral if it is not in the nature of the component parts? How can a non-moral agent, man, make a moral agreement with other non moral agents?

[Damocles]

I will answer that with a q. How can the state or society, which both are just collections of individuals, possibly be moral if it is not in the nature of the component parts? How can a non-moral agent, man, make a moral agreement with other non moral agents?

They cannot. If the individuals making up a society are not moral they cannot build a moral framework from which to work.

However, the questions are more for AOI than for you. You and I seem to agree on this one.

[klaatu]

To sum it up ... since we are territorial... within us it is natural to want and own property,

There is a major difference between possession and property, between possession and ownership.

In nature, a pride of lions might possess a territory as its own. But if it doesn't defend that property, if it can't defend it, it loses it.

Property (or ownership) is the concept that you possess something irrelevant of your ability to defend it.

Property rights, or the concept of ownership, don't exist in nature, outside human morality.

Property designates those real or intellectual goods that are commonly recognized as being the rightful possessions of a person or group. Property is simply a man made term to legalize a possession.... iow ..to make ownership.




A creature in nature possesses their own body. But if they cannot defend themselves, their body becomes the possession of the attacker, there is no moral structure to protect it, and as a body is essentially meat, is likely to be eaten.
Property rights are thus a social freedom, as opposed to a natural freedom.[/B]

You are right.. in human legal terms owning property is a social freedom ... but lets not confuse that with mans innate drive to possess property, which also makes it as natural as a hungar for food. Before civilization man was still territorial and claimed land to be his own.. until another tribe came along and fought him off it.. but until that time ... he had possession and was the rightful owner.... simply because it was a natural drive.

[Timshel]

It is not a "social freedom" anymore than your right to life is a "social freedom." It is a natural right. The legal right to seek damages if it is violated does not nullify the natural right to own property.

Property is often used in these discussion ambiguously and there is an implication that one is talking only about real property. But property includes all property including your person and labor. If you have no natural right to property then you are a slave owned by society and afforded a certain allowance of amenities by the grace of society.

[AnyOldIron]

It is not a "social freedom" anymore than your right to life is a "social freedom." It is a natural right. The legal right to seek damages if it is violated does not nullify the natural right to own property.

It isn't a natural freedom. Right to life isn't a natural freedom.

In nature, you live as long as you can defend yourself. If you cannot defend yourself from something that has the will to take your life, you die.

Only in the social context is life or are possessions protected by something other than your physical ability to defend them. The notions of right to life and property rights are a moral judgement created within society and so are social freedoms.

You exchange the natural right to take what you will provided you are physically capable for the social right to keep what you have regardless of your ability to defend it.

Property is often used in these discussion ambiguously and there is an implication that one is talking only about real property. But property includes all property including your person and labor. If you have no natural right to property then you are a slave owned by society and afforded a certain allowance of amenities by the grace of society.

Whether you consider that slavery or not, there is no such thing as property in the natural state. In the natural state, you only possess what you can defend, whether that is your labour (if you defend your kill, you eat it, if not, you lose it.), your person (if you defend it, you live, if you can't, you are eaten) or your territory (if you defend it you keep it, if you can't you lose it.)

It is only in the human social enviroment where your possessions are protected whether you can defend them or not. It is a social freedom that your possessions are protected and become your property. Property rights are not a natural freedom.

With this in mind, how do you work out that, with property rights not being a natural freedom you are a 'slave to society'?

Can you present a syllogism to explain this?

[AnyOldIron]

What are natural freedoms?

They are the freedoms to do as you will, provided you are physically capable.

Conquest is a natural freedom, taking slaves are a natural freedom, killing is a natural freedom, taking what you like is a natural freedom.

All are dependant on will and the physical capability to do so.

Social freedoms are those we exchange natural freedoms before.

Whilst taking slaves is a natural freedom, the protection from being taken into slavery is a social freedom, the right not to be killed is a social freedom, the right to keep what is yours is a social freedom.

[Timshel]

It is not a "social freedom" anymore than your right to life is a "social freedom." It is a natural right. The legal right to seek damages if it is violated does not nullify the natural right to own property.

It isn't a natural freedom. Right to life isn't a natural freedom.

In nature, you live as long as you can defend yourself.

So your argument is that all rights are granted by society and man lives at the whim of his brothers with no moral right to life, liberty, property or the pursuit of happiness.

Barring, natural causes of death or accident, you live so long as no one kills you. That is a natural right.



If you cannot defend yourself from something that has the will to take your life, you die.

And how does that nullify natural right? It does not. A natural right does not mean a right that cannot possibly be violated by others.



Only in the social context is life or are possessions protected by something other than your physical ability to defend them. The notions of right to life and property rights are a moral judgement created within society and so are social freedoms.

Your argument actually means we have no "social freedom" since that only exists to the extent that society can and is willing to defend it. It is no more inviolable.



You exchange the natural right to take what you will provided you are physically capable for the social right to keep what you have regardless of your ability to defend it.

No, by the premise of your argument, one is simply joining a gang of thieves, crooks and killers via the social agreement.

Under actual natural rights theory (i.e., not the strawman of Rousseau) one exchanges the right to defend their own property (i.e., vigilante justice) for a legal right to seek damages before an impartial body of society, e.g., a court.



Property is often used in these discussion ambiguously and there is an implication that one is talking only about real property. But property includes all property including your person and labor. If you have no natural right to property then you are a slave owned by society and afforded a certain allowance of amenities by the grace of society.

Whether you consider that slavery or not, there is no such thing as property in the natural state.

Yes, there is. People have possessed property throughout known history. They had no legal rights to property, but they had a natural right to property.



In the natural state, you only possess what you can defend, whether that is your labour (if you defend your kill, you eat it, if not, you lose it.), your person (if you defend it, you live, if you can't, you are eaten) or your territory (if you defend it you keep it, if you can't you lose it.)

Not just you individually but any who would help you in defense.

So what? Nothing in your argument nullifies the natural rights involved and that are violated by external forces.



It is only in the human social enviroment where your possessions are protected whether you can defend them or not.

Again, no, you are wrong. According to your argument you only possess the property so long as the state wills it or can defend it. Your right is no more incapable of being violated than in the state of nature. Actually, it is less since there is now an organized state that sees you only as a possession of the state.



It is a social freedom that your possessions are protected and become your property. Property rights are not a natural freedom.


It is a legal right that your possession are protected by the state.



With this in mind, how do you work out that, with property rights not being a natural freedom you are a 'slave to society'?

Can you present a syllogism to explain this?

I have already given you the syllogism. The right to property is the right to the produce of your own labor, nothing more. If you do not enjoy that right, you are a slave. Your argument is that the fruit of your labor is not yours but belongs to the state and you are merely permitted an allowance of certain amenities.

[Timshel]

What are natural freedoms?

They are the freedoms to do as you will, provided you are physically capable.

No, that is your argument. Natural rights are those rights enjoyed by humans due their nature as humans absent external control.



Conquest is a natural freedom, taking slaves are a natural freedom, killing is a natural freedom, taking what you like is a natural freedom.


They are not, since they involve force against another.



All are dependant on will and the physical capability to do so.

Social freedoms are those we exchange natural freedoms before.

According to your premise social freedoms are merely the natural freedoms (e.g., the right to do as you will and are capable) enjoyed by a group.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The right to own something is something the government grants you... it was pulled out of thin air.

Well, it's a group moral decision if that's what you mean...

It may be the best that we allow people to own what they produce, but what about whenever it is destroying an entire society to do so? Moderate intrusion isn't so crazy.

Moderate intrusion into property rights?

How do you feel about the social moral decision to allow those who don't produce to own that property?


How can you critisczie that statement? That's the most your gonna get out of me, ya damn commie :) .

[AnyOldIron]

So your argument is that all rights are granted by society and man lives at the whim of his brothers with no moral right to life, liberty, property or the pursuit of happiness.

Exactly. In nature you have only the right to do what your will dictates, provided you are physically capable.

Rights of protection, of life, liberty, property et al are only found in societies.

Barring, natural causes of death or accident, you live so long as no one kills you. That is a natural right.

Exactly. Aside from natural causes or accident, you live as long as you can defend yourself. That is a natural right.

If you were stranded on the African plain and happen to have a hungry rogue lion come across your path, it doesn't stop to consider your right to life before devouring you.

And how does that nullify natural right? It does not. A natural right does not mean a right that cannot possibly be violated by others.

It isn't a violation of natural right. Only social freedoms violate natural rights.

It is the natural right that if you see something you want, and have the capability to take it, you do. Social freedoms state that if you have something, it is protected from another who's will state they want it and they are physically capable.

A leopard makes a kill on the African plain. He is unfortunate that, whilst dragging it to its tree, a pride of hungry lions comes across his path.

Do the lions:

a. Stop and think, "Under natural rights, this leopard has the right to keep its produce."
b. Stop and think, "We're lions, we don't have a moral framework to recognise protective rights, such protective rights don't occur in nature. Let's get the leopard's kill"

In nature, there is only the power of will and physical capability.
In society, we exchange the right to exercise will regardless for protective rights, the right not to be killed, the right to keep what you produce/kill etc

AOI: Only in the social context is life or are possessions protected by something other than your physical ability to defend them. The notions of right to life and property rights are a moral judgement created within society and so are social freedoms.

RS: Your argument actually means we have no "social freedom" since that only exists to the extent that society can and is willing to defend it. It is no more inviolable.

My argument is that natural rights can only be violated by exchanging them for social freedoms. Social freedoms are fragile, they are only a moral framework after all. If society is unable or unwilling to defend social freedoms, then you have a return to natural freedom, will reigns supreme.

If society no longer defends the social freedom of property rights, then people only keep what they can physically defend, you return to the natural state.


AOI: You exchange the natural right to take what you will provided you are physically capable for the social right to keep what you have regardless of your ability to defend it.

No, by the premise of your argument, one is simply joining a gang of thieves, crooks and killers via the social agreement.

Under actual natural rights theory (i.e., not the strawman of Rousseau) one exchanges the right to defend their own property (i.e., vigilante justice) for a legal right to seek damages before an impartial body of society, e.g., a court.

Explain how Rousseau's argument is strawman?

You are essentially using the same argument as Rousseau, the difference being you call the moral framework that protects an individual's possessions regardless of their ability to protect them a natural freedom, despite the fact that this moral framework isn't found in the natural state and is only found in social conditions?

How do you explain this contradiction?

Whether you consider that slavery or not, there is no such thing as property in the natural state.

Yes, there is. People have possessed property throughout known history. They had no legal rights to property, but they had a natural right to property.

Throughout written history we have lived in a social environment. Throughout written history, we have not lived in our natural state.

There have been differing modes of protection, some radically different from modern jurispudence concepts, some with poor suffrage but whilst man has lived in society, he has exchanged the natural right to do as their will dictates according to capability for protections from the free wheeling will.

There is no natural right to property. The right to property only exists under the moral framework of society.



Quote:
In the natural state, you only possess what you can defend, whether that is your labour (if you defend your kill, you eat it, if not, you lose it.), your person (if you defend it, you live, if you can't, you are eaten) or your territory (if you defend it you keep it, if you can't you lose it.)

Not just you individually but any who would help you in defense.

So what? Nothing in your argument nullifies the natural rights involved and that are violated by external forces.

I realise that as a libertarian you believe in the 'pursuit of abstract freedom'and like to believe the freedoms you most support are naturally occurring, it reinforces the libertarian ideal.

But in the state of nature, you have no protective rights. Whatever you have, you possess because you have the capability to defend it. There is no moral framework in nature to protect your possessions beyond your own physical capability, without that it doesn't become property. It is merely a possession.

A similar argument is for the social freedom of 'right to life'.

In nature, when a creature has the will and capability to take another creature's life, it doesn't consider that creature has a right to life. If the prey creature cannot defend itself, it loses its life and becomes meat. That is not a violation of the prey creature's 'right to life' because there is no natural moral capacity for the notion of right to life.

AOI: It is only in the human social enviroment where your possessions are protected whether you can defend them or not.

RS: Again, no, you are wrong. According to your argument you only possess the property so long as the state wills it or can defend it. Your right is no more incapable of being violated than in the state of nature. Actually, it is less since there is now an organized state that sees you only as a possession of the state.

LOL The same old Paineesque paranoia.... "the state's the enemy." The concept of the state is only a few hundred years old. Social freedoms predate the notion of the state. They originate from the birth of morality.

In nature you have only possession rights, you possess provided you can defend. I have explained how in great detail. If the society fails to uphold the moral structure and protect the social freedom of property rights, right to life etc, you return to the natural state of freedom, you return to the supremecy of the will.

That might not sound pretty, or fair, but life and the universe doesn't work along lines of what is pretty or fair, it is amoral. The concepts that you admire so much as a libertarian; property rights, right to life, right to happiness, these don't occur in nature. They are a product of society and moral consensus.


AOI: It is a social freedom that your possessions are protected and become your property. Property rights are not a natural freedom.

RS: It is a legal right that your possession are protected by the state.

Yes, it is a legal right, and as with all jurisprudence, is a social right. It doesn't occur in the natural state.


AOI: With this in mind, how do you work out that, with property rights not being a natural freedom you are a 'slave to society'?

Can you present a syllogism to explain this?

RS: I have already given you the syllogism. The right to property is the right to the produce of your own labor, nothing more. If you do not enjoy that right, you are a slave.

This is a non sequiter syllogism. You don't reach the conclusion from the premises.

Premise (a) states that the right to property is the right to produce your own labour.
Premise (b) states that it is nothing more.
The conclusion states that if you don't enjoy that right, you are a slave.

But formal logic aside, this doesn't make your case.

Premise (a) I would tend to agree with, Property rights are the rights to keep the produce of your labour. However these days that is extended to more than your labour's produce and to the produce of others (landlords for example).

But you aren't arguing that property rights being a social freedom, rather than a natural freedom, makes it slavery. Property rights being a social freedom merely means that property rights aren't found in the natural state, they aren't a natural freedom.

Under natural freedoms, you only keep what part of your produce you can defend. In nature, if you cannot defend your kill from the marauding lions, you lose it. This isn't a violation of any rights, because lions don't have a moral code to deal with that.

It is under natural freedoms that you have the tyranny of the strong, and only under social freedoms that the weak are protected. It is under natural freedoms you find slavery, under social freedoms you are protected from slavery to the will of others....


Your argument is that the fruit of your labor is not yours but belongs to the state and you are merely permitted an allowance of certain amenities.

This is a strawman, I have never argued this.

I have argued that property rights, the right to own what you produce regardless of physical ability to defend it, are only found under social freedoms, that under natural freedoms and in the natural state this isn't found.

How have you managed to gather from my statement that protection of property regardless of physical capability to protect it is only found in society, under social freedoms and is not found in the natural state under natural freedoms... that I am arguing that property belongs to the state and you get an allowance?

[AnyOldIron]

No, that is your argument. Natural rights are those rights enjoyed by humans due their nature as humans absent external control.

Due to their nature as humans absent external control????

This is an ambigious statement. "Due to their nature as humans" What part of human nature is that? If you remove the moral constrictions on humans, the moral structures of social living, would a human not exercise their will according to physical capability? There are enough examples of this occurring.... Also, when is any human ever absent from external control?

Natural rights are rights afforded in the state of nature. This is self evident. Social rights are rights afforded in society.

Protection rights are moral structures, moral structures not found in the state of nature.

They are not, since they involve force against another.

LOL! Do you believe that in the natural state a creature is free from physical coercion? The old libertarian myth? Human in isolation?

When the leopard dragging its kill to its tree comes across the hungry pride of lions, and they attack him for his kill, is he free from physical coercion?

In nature and under natural rights, physical coercion occurs constantly. It is not a natural right to be free from coercion.

According to your premise social freedoms are merely the natural freedoms (e.g., the right to do as you will and are capable) enjoyed by a group.

Again, you end with a strawman.

How have you managed to calculate that social freedoms are the right for a group to do as they will provided they are capable?

In nature, will and physical capability reign supreme. For example, in the state of nature, if I want to take your produce and am physically able I do it.

Under social rights, your produce is protected, regardless of your right to defend them.

How does this translate to social rights being a group doing as they will according to physical ability?

[Timshel]

Getting long and redundant so I won't do the point by point.

First off "state of nature" does not precede or necessarily exclude society or civilization. To a natural rights proponent, such as Locke, it simply means prior to the rise of the state. State and society are not the same thing. A society is just a group of people, typically it implies within a certain geographic area and sharing a certain culture. But, if there is more than one person in the "state of nature" you have a society.

Natural rights are not conditional upon your ability to defend them yourself or with the help of others. If you are killed that does not mean you no longer had a right to life. It means someone likely violated it.

Rights of protection, of life, liberty, property are found in the state of nature just as they are within a state. A state has simply been believed to be more effective.

Your argument acknowledges this whether you do or not. Your claim is that we have rights granted by the state, but only to the degree that the state is willing to grant those rights and to the degree it is capable of defending them. How is that any different than saying the individual has rights to the degree they are willing and capable of defending them (note: this your definition of natural rights not mine)?

Rights have nothing to do with wild animals. Rights are all based on the right to be free of force from your brothers. They are moral concepts for moral agents.

You have no natural right to steal or violate the rights of others. You are using a strawman. There is not much point in discussing this if you are going to misrepresent the position of natural rights proponents. Like I said, I might as well go debate Dixie on the virtues of those opposed to Iraq while he repeatedly claims that it amounts to wanting Saddam back in power.

Natural rights are moral concepts. They do not physically protect anything. They merely argue that violating these rights is immoral and that an individual has the moral right to defend them. It does not mean that there is some magical power that stops the rights from being violated. Your "social freedoms" do not possess this power either.

We exchange our natural right to defend our person and property for legal rights which ensure that the state will do so. This should all be clear as Locke explained it quite well.

Your concept of "social freedom" does not at all "protect" (i.e., in the sense that it can possibly be violated) anything. If society/state or an individual is capable of taking it it is taken. If the society/state is incapable of defending it or unwilling to defend it then it is not defended. So your "social freedom" is no different than your natural freedom. Under your concept we simply enshrine the right to exercise will and capability as a moral right. A gang of thieves and murderers is more effective than the individual crook, so most will join a gang.

Absent "social freedom" there is no return to your concept of "natural freedom." You have enshrined your concept of "natural freedom" (i.e., do whatever you can and want) and made it the basis of your society because your "social freedom" is simply that "natural freedom" of the group/state/society.

I have already shown why Rousseau is a strawman. His state of nature is irrational and has nothing to do with humanity. Frankly, it could only exist if there were but one man.

I have not referred to anything as a "natural freedom" except when referencing your argument. I have been using the terms natural rights and legal rights. So, the contradiction only exists in your strawman.



Your argument is that the fruit of your labor is not yours but belongs to the state and you are merely permitted an allowance of certain amenities.

This is a strawman, I have never argued this.

I have argued that property rights, the right to own what you produce regardless of physical ability to defend it, are only found under social freedoms, that under natural freedoms and in the natural state this isn't found.

How have you managed to gather from my statement that protection of property regardless of physical capability to protect it is only found in society, under social freedoms and is not found in the natural state under natural freedoms... that I am arguing that property belongs to the state and you get an allowance?


Because, property only exists under your "social freedom" so long as the state wishes to protect it and is capable of doing so. So you are free only so far as the master wills it. Slaves might be allowed to keep certain fruits of their labor. They had no recognized legal right to them, but their master may well have protected them. They had the same sort of "freedom" you argue for.

As I have pointed out repeatedly your "social freedom" is not any different than your "natural freedom." In both might makes right.

[Timshel]

No, that is your argument. Natural rights are those rights enjoyed by humans due their nature as humans absent external control.

Due to their nature as humans absent external control????

This is an ambigious statement. "Due to their nature as humans" What part of human nature is that? If you remove the moral constrictions on humans, the moral structures of social living, would a human not exercise their will according to physical capability?

Uhh, and why would you do that? You would only do that if you soemhow believe that man's nature is absent of morality.




They are not, since they involve force against another.

LOL! Do you believe that in the natural state a creature is free from physical coercion? The old libertarian myth? Human in isolation?

LOL! No, I have explained mutliple times and in detail that that is not so. YOUR STRAWMAN IS THE ONLY ONE WHO BELIEVES THAT.

Human in isolation is your/Rousseau's state of nature, not mine.



According to your premise social freedoms are merely the natural freedoms (e.g., the right to do as you will and are capable) enjoyed by a group.

Again, you end with a strawman.

How have you managed to calculate that social freedoms are the right for a group to do as they will provided they are capable?

If I am in error, please explain how.



In nature, will and physical capability reign supreme. For example, in the state of nature, if I want to take your produce and am physically able I do it.

Under social rights, your produce is protected, regardless of your right to defend them.

But conditional on the gangs power and will to defend them. Further, if the state wants to take your produce and is physically capable of doing it, it does it. Not any different than your "natural freedom" we have just added more to the gang.

LOL! Do you imagine that in your state physical coercion is no longer possible?

[AnyOldIron]

The essential argument here is as to what natural rights/freedoms are.

By definition, natural rights/freedoms must be the rights/freedoms afforded in the natural state. Anything else would be a contradiction in terms.

So what is the state of nature? We are, essentially animals, I'm sure we can agree on that. In the state of nature, animals don't exercise morality, they exercise only will and physical capability.

The concept of rights/freedoms are a moral entity. This you have stated yourself. The question that then leads is.... is morality found in the natural state?

When a creature is stalking its prey, does it consider the moral question that its prey has the right to life, to own its body? No, it considers only its will (it is hungry) and whether it has the physical capability to catch its prey.

You asked why a human would act according to his will and physical capability in the natural state, why he wouldn't exercise morality. There is no morality in the natural state. Morality is a social structure, it is the mechanisms by which individuals can exist in a social scenerio. Without it, social living would cease to exist.

If morality is a social structure, and rights/freedoms are moral decisions, rights/freedoms only exist under social structures. They do not exist in the natural state.

If rights/freedoms such as property, right to life etc, exists in the natural state, the question arises... where do they derive from? What entity decides that certain things are to be protected (ie property/right to life etc) and not others (right to eat etc)?

In the natural state, you cannot violate anything, you cannot violate will or physical capability, because to violate would mean there is some moral structure to violate. Rights/freedoms found in the social setting aren't protected by anything other than the mutual moral agreement of the society. It is a moral decision to create sanctions for breaking the freedoms it grants.

I can understand that you find it disturbing that in nature there are no innate rights/freedoms beyond your will; and that rights/freedoms are moral decisions created by societies, but it is.

Please don't think I confuse the concept of society with the concept of the state. The nation state is only a few hundred years old.I know, as a libertarian, that when you read society, you see the word state, but I wish to differentiate between the two. A nation state is merely one form of society, there are many others besides. But, they all make a communal moral decision as to what rights/freedoms they wish to protect and what protections (ie sanctions) they wish to impose.

The remaining points I will answer point by point.....

[AnyOldIron]

LOL! No, I have explained mutliple times and in detail that that is not so. YOUR STRAWMAN IS THE ONLY ONE WHO BELIEVES THAT.

Human in isolation is your/Rousseau's state of nature, not mine.

How?

In the natural state, there is no isolation from physical coercion, you are subject to the will and physical capability of other creatures.

To be free from physical coercion, which is what you state is the essence of rights, is impossible unless the individual is isolated from all other entities and is isolated from physical needs such as hunger/thirst etc.

My point is that the libertarian concept that we should move towards living in a state without physical coercion is a fantasy.

If I am in error, please explain how.

Because somehow you extrapolated that social freedoms are the groups exercise of will and capability.

Social freedoms overcome will and capability by replacing them with a moral framework.

But conditional on the gangs power and will to defend them. Further, if the state wants to take your produce and is physically capable of doing it, it does it. Not any different than your "natural freedom" we have just added more to the gang.

If, as a society, you make the moral agreement to afford property rights, and then the society breaks that moral agreement, you have a return to natural freedoms, will and capability take over.

You might not like this, but it is. A moral agreement is the same as any agreement, and is subject to being violated. I have never claimed that social freedoms cannot be violated, just that natural freedom (ie will and capability) cannot be, as their is no moral agreement involved.

Quite simply, you seem to wish that certain freedoms are natural because this rhetorically affords them greater significance, but that is beside the point that morality and rights don't exist in the natural state, only in a social environment.

LOL! Do you imagine that in your state physical coercion is no longer possible?

You NEVER escape physical coercion, under natural or social freedoms. Escaping physical coercion is a libertarian fantasy, an unattainable absolute.

Unless you can find a way to remove man's innate physical needs, we are always going to have to endure physical coercion.

[AnyOldIron]

I understand the position you are taking, but my problem with rights being described as natural by philosophers like Hobbes and Locke is that these rights are created / invented, they aren't innate. They don't exist in nature or anywhere outside of human morality. As I mentioned before, human morality is a consequence/mechanism of social living , not nature.

Calling rights only found in society (property rights/ right to life etc) as natural rights is a misnomer.

[Timshel]

The essential argument here is as to what natural rights/freedoms are.

By definition, natural rights/freedoms must be the rights/freedoms afforded in the natural state. Anything else would be a contradiction in terms.

That is the definition you wish to use, it is not the one used by Locke and most natural rights proponents or most libertarians. It is close to Hobbes and Rousseau. But, fuck them. They were wrong. Locke's definition is the one I have stated repeatedly, that these are rights held by man by virtue of their nature as humans and are held in the natural state free of the external force of others.



So what is the state of nature?

Again, Locke's definition of the state of nature is one existing before the state, where enforcement of rights were done privately. He cited the American frontier as an example. It was not one here man lived in isolation or pretending to be a lion.


We are, essentially animals, I'm sure we can agree on that. In the state of nature, animals don't exercise morality, they exercise only will and physical capability.

Man's nature is not the same as the nature of lion any more than a lion's nature is that of a fish. We are moral animals and morality exists in the MAN'S state of nature, i.e., prior to or in the absence of a state.



The concept of rights/freedoms are a moral entity. This you have stated yourself. The question that then leads is.... is morality found in the natural state?

Yes, it is a moral entity and yes it is found in the state of nature.

[Timshel]

LOL! No, I have explained mutliple times and in detail that that is not so. YOUR STRAWMAN IS THE ONLY ONE WHO BELIEVES THAT.

Human in isolation is your/Rousseau's state of nature, not mine.

How?

Because Rousseau's definition of the state of nature would require that man exist in isolation. That is he defines it as outside of society. A society exist whenever there is more than one person in a given area. This definition is nonsensical.



In the natural state, there is no isolation from physical coercion, you are subject to the will and physical capability of other creatures.

In what state is there an isolation from physical coercion??? As I have stated numerous times, you are certainly not free from it in your "social state" (or whatever you might call it).


To be free from physical coercion, which is what you state is the essence of rights, is impossible unless the individual is isolated from all other entities and is isolated from physical needs such as hunger/thirst etc.

Well then it is a good thing that my definition is not based on some nonsensical unreality. Rights CAN BE violated in any state and I have not argued otherwise.


My point is that the libertarian concept that we should move towards living in a state without physical coercion is a fantasy.

Well, again, it is a good thing that is not the position and this is only another strawman. Libertarians do not argue for some mystical "social state" where physical coercion is absent, just that it should not be tolerated. From my view, your the one who seems to argue that your "social freedoms" are somehow inviolable.



Because somehow you extrapolated that social freedoms are the groups exercise of will and capability.

Social freedoms overcome will and capability by replacing them with a moral framework.

Based on what? Unreality? You argue that freedoms can only exist where there is will and capability.

Natural rights overcome will and capability as a moral premise.



If, as a society, you make the moral agreement to afford property rights, and then the society breaks that moral agreement, you have a return to natural freedoms, will and capability take over.

It has never left since you argue that freedom is necessarily dependent on will and capability. You are using a stolen concept fallacy here. You are not applying the same conditions to your social freedoms that you do to your natural freedoms.



You might not like this, but it is. A moral agreement is the same as any agreement, and is subject to being violated. I have never claimed that social freedoms cannot be violated, just that natural freedom (ie will and capability) cannot be, as their is no moral agreement involved.

You argue that the social freedoms/agreement violates natural freedoms. What is the basis of the social agreement if not the natural freedoms one possesses, i.e., will and capability.



Quite simply, you seem to wish that certain freedoms are natural because this rhetorically affords them greater significance, but that is beside the point that morality and rights don't exist in the natural state, only in a social environment.

There is a disconnect here because you insist on ignoring the definition of the "state of nature" of natural rights proponents. Again, it does not exclude social interaction, in fact Locke argues that man is a social animal by nature.



LOL! Do you imagine that in your state physical coercion is no longer possible?

You NEVER escape physical coercion, under natural or social freedoms. Escaping physical coercion is a libertarian fantasy, an unattainable absolute.

Again, strawman. Again, if the fact that one cannot avoid the reality of physical coercion is sufficient to tear down "natural rights" or your "natural freedoms" then why is it not sufficient to tear down "social freedoms." That is, your "social freedoms" are just as dependent on will and capability as your "natural freedoms." And it is just as much an abstraction.

[Timshel]

I understand the position you are taking, but my problem with rights being described as natural by philosophers like Hobbes and Locke is that these rights are created / invented, they aren't innate. They don't exist in nature or anywhere outside of human morality. As I mentioned before, human morality is a consequence/mechanism of social living , not nature.

Man by nature is a moral animal. We have an innate sense of right and wrong.

[AnyOldIron]

Man by nature is a moral animal. We have an innate sense of right and wrong.

Remove a human from its human social upbringing... ie bring it up as feral, an it has no concept of morality. Morality isn't genetic, it isn't innate. It derives from conditioning within a social environment.

You learn 'right from wrong', you don't innately know it.

[AnyOldIron]

RS, to avoid long posts, I won't run through replying point by point.. just a few points about your post...

a. Firstly, you state that humans are free from external force in their natural state. In its natural state, if a human comes across another human, and their wills conflict, then external force occurs. The ONLY way for a human to avoid external force is to isolate itself from other humans.

b. That humans have rights by virtue of their nature of being human. This infers that morality (which dictates rights) is innate in humans. As I mentioned above, feral children demonstrate clearly that morality is learnt, is conditioned through exposure to society. The idea that in our natural state we are any more moral than other animals is a fallacy. Man's natural state is that before it becomes socialised, before it learns the morality of the social group it exists in. It has nothing to do with the state, the nation state is only a few hundred years old.

c. You state that morality is found in the state of nature and that humans have an innate sense of right and wrong. We have already discussed the feral child example. If humans have a innate sense of right and wrong, that would make right and wrong set in stone, absolute. The only way for this to occur would be the introduction of an adjudicator, such as a god.

The fact that right and wrong are not fixed, but subjective descriptions, added to the fact that morality isn't innate, negates this notion.

d. You state that Rousseau's definition of the state of nature is flawed because it requires humans to live in isolation, and that society occurs whenever two people come together. This is not necessarily true. If two people come together and follow exclusively their own will, they exist in a state of nature. If the two create a mutual moral understanding and act according to that, they use social freedoms.

A similar scenerio occurs up to any level of size of society. Using the modern concept of 'the state'. Imagine one nation covets its neighbour's natural resources. If the nation abides by international moral agreements (ie protecting national soveriegnty) and doesn't invade, then they exist in a state of social freedom. If the nation follows only its will, and invades to gain the natural resources, then a state of nature occurs between them.

d. I am getting mixed messages with reference to external force. At one stage you state that "(sic) Rights are held in the natural state free of the external force of others." and later that "In what state is there an isolation from physical coercion???" ????

e. You claim that I claim that rights are 'necessarily dependent on will and capability'. This is not what I claim. I claim that in the natural state, you have no rights, only will and capability. It is only under mutual moral agreement, ie social freedoms, that rights occur.


To cut to the chase, Locke/Your argument that there are certain rights that are natural and unalienable is flawed because....

All rights are derived from morality
Morality is socially conditioned. (If morality were innate as you claim then feral children would grow up in a feral environment with fully developed morality. It is also negated by the fact that morality differs between societies.)
If morality isn't innate, then rights cannot be innate.
If rights are derived from morality, and morality is socially conditioned, rights are derived from a mutal moral agreement within society.

Ergo, rights are derived from social agreement, rather than natural innateness.

[Timshel]

Man by nature is a moral animal. We have an innate sense of right and wrong.

Remove a human from its human social upbringing... ie bring it up as feral, an it has no concept of morality. Morality isn't genetic, it isn't innate. It derives from conditioning within a social environment.

You learn 'right from wrong', you don't innately know it.

It is not natural for humans to be raised by dogs! Any, really this is a stupid line of argument. Animals in captivity, i.e., reared by humans, are not considered to be in their natural state so why on earth would we look to humans reared by animals or without human contact as being the natural state of humanity. That's plainly absurd.

Still, how can one assume that the actions of a feral human are due to a lack of conditioning rather than simply the result of another form of conditioning.

I doubt seriously that even feral humans are without some understanding of right and wrong.

[Timshel]

RS, to avoid long posts, I won't run through replying point by point.. just a few points about your post...

a. Firstly, you state that humans are free from external force in their natural state. In its natural state, if a human comes across another human, and their wills conflict, then external force occurs. The ONLY way for a human to avoid external force is to isolate itself from other humans.


While force is applied the natural state is interrupted. But that does not mean youd have to be isolated. Further, there is no reason to assume that all disagreement involve external force.


b. That humans have rights by virtue of their nature of being human. This infers that morality (which dictates rights) is innate in humans. As I mentioned above, feral children demonstrate clearly that morality is learnt, is conditioned through exposure to society.

As I noted in response, is it the lack of conditioning by human society or is it due to positive application of another form of conditioning? How is one to know? I can't answer that honestly and I don't believe you can either.

One thing is obvious to me, a feral child is not natural condition for humans. The natural condition is for a child is to be reared by other humans and this is the natural condition for nearly all animals.

Again, I argue that man is a social animal by nature. Do you honestly disagree with that?


The idea that in our natural state we are any more moral than other animals is a fallacy. Man's natural state is that before it becomes socialised, before it learns the morality of the social group it exists in. It has nothing to do with the state, the nation state is only a few hundred years old.

That's what YOU mean by natural state. Whether your definition fits the words better or not is another argument (one I have already addressed, i.e., man's natural condition is not a feral one) and has no real relevance if your goal is to criticize the concept of natural rights. If you are going to attack the natural rights position, then it is dishonest to use the ambiguity of a different definition for "natural state." It is a strawman. Locke was not arguing that man's natural state is a feral one, or that he held rights in a feral state.


The only way for this to occur would be the introduction of an adjudicator, such as a god.

Huh?



d. You state that Rousseau's definition of the state of nature is flawed because it requires humans to live in isolation, and that society occurs whenever two people come together. This is not necessarily true. If two people come together and follow exclusively their own will, they exist in a state of nature. If the two create a mutual moral understanding and act according to that, they use social freedoms.

Fine then, this is not the natural right's or Locke's understanding of an end to the state of nature.


A similar scenerio occurs up to any level of size of society. Using the modern concept of 'the state'. Imagine one nation covets its neighbour's natural resources. If the nation abides by international moral agreements (ie protecting national soveriegnty) and doesn't invade, then they exist in a state of social freedom. If the nation follows only its will, and invades to gain the natural resources, then a state of nature occurs between them.

As defined by Locke, the natural state between the nations would have existed before the attack and the attack would have ended it. He addressed this explicitly.


d. I am getting mixed messages with reference to external force. At one stage you state that "(sic) Rights are held in the natural state free of the external force of others." and later that "In what state is there an isolation from physical coercion???" ????

Okay, what I intended with the second is to ask in what state is there an isolation from the potential of physical force.



e. You claim that I claim that rights are 'necessarily dependent on will and capability'. This is not what I claim. I claim that in the natural state, you have no rights, only will and capability. It is only under mutual moral agreement, ie social freedoms, that rights occur.

If all we have in natural state is will and capability then our rights are dependent on them. You have argued that. This does not change when we join our will and capability with others to create social freedoms. The social freedoms are still dependent on will and capability.

[Timshel]

Another point...

You state that your definition of man in his "natural state" does not necessarily imply isolation. Yet, you use a feral human as your best example of man in his natural state. Further, you state that when any two huamns come into contact and reach some sort of mutual agreement rather than bashing each others brains in or returning to isolation, then their natural state has ended.

Can you explain that? To me it seems you argue that man's natural state is in isolation or in an "every man for himself" war. Nothing in human history or what we have concluded about prehistory backs that up.

[AnyOldIron]

Let's do this another way...

You claim that humans have innate rights granted by their innate morality. Let's expand on that......

Firstly, the feral child example was to demonstrate that humans have no innate morality, that morality is learnt through social interaction.

As rights such as 'right to life' or 'right to property' are statements of moral intent, these rights must be derived from the source of morality.

If humans have no innate morality, then rights cannot derive from innate morality, and they must be garnered from elsewhere.

If morality isn't innate, it must be learnt, conditioned from the social arena the individual finds themself in.

Rights are derived from social morality, not a mythical innate morality, ergo such rights being described as anything other than social rights must be a misnomer.

Enough of the rambling syllogism....

The problem Locke etc have with explaining these as natural rights is that the demarkations of what are and aren't rights are entirely arbitory, and their explanation of the right's origins are obscurum per obscurius. The notion of natural rights originated during the enlightenment, and were deemed 'natural' as a rhetorical tool to fight against the oppression of monarchies and the clergy...

Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing against such rights, though I think some ie property rights, can contradict others....

[AnyOldIron]

Can you explain that? To me it seems you argue that man's natural state is in isolation or in an "every man for himself" war. Nothing in human history or what we have concluded about prehistory backs that up.

In its natural state, humans are 'every man (and his family) for themselves'...

In the hunter/gatherer era of human development, the concept of rights didn't exist, the matriarch and patriarch exercised their will according to their ability to. Women's role as child bearer and hearth tender gave them considerable power, especially during the times when childbirth was misunderstood and mystified. It was only as humans extended their family to form tribal groups that internal social morality arose. To external forces/people, natural freedoms still existed, will and capability was all that mattered. Thus wars...

This internal social rights, combined with external natural freedom, extended into the modern day, and 'tribal' external affairs only came under the influence of social freedom when the moral decision was made to create international law....

[Timshel]

But the feral child example does not prove morality is entirely learnt. Like I said, how do we know their seeming lack of morality is not simply due to conditioning? We do not. And you have not shown they are completely without morality, just that some of their behavior would be in violation of what is commonly held as moral.

Your insistence that morality is conditional upon social interaction is not anymore or less proven than the idea that it is innate.

Further, when I say it is innate I do not mean that we are hardwired with the answer to all moral questions. Rather we naturally possess the tools to form morality and there is a general sense of right and wrong. Nature and nurture are both a part of it and Social interaction is a natural part of what it means to be a human.



In its natural state, humans are 'every man (and his family) for themselves'...

In the hunter/gatherer era of human development, the concept of rights didn't exist, the matriarch and patriarch exercised their will according to their ability to. Women's role as child bearer and hearth tender gave them considerable power, especially during the times when childbirth was misunderstood and mystified. It was only as humans extended their family to form tribal groups that internal social morality arose. To external forces/people, natural freedoms still existed, will and capability was all that mattered. Thus wars...

This internal social rights, combined with external natural freedom, extended into the modern day, and 'tribal' external affairs only came under the influence of social freedom when the moral decision was made to create international law....

First off, according to your previous statements forming a family would constitute an end to the natural state and a beginning of society. Unless, one spouse was taken and held as a slave. Otherwise, the union constitutes a mutual agreement. Why is the agreement any more natural? Or why are other agreements unnatural?

Part of human nature is a rational capacity and the ability to reason. No other animal possesses it to the extent we do and it is the primary cause of our dominance. It gives us the capacity to see that cooperation is usually preferrable to war.

Locke's demarcation of what is or is not a natural right is less arbitrary than your demarcation of natural freedoms and social freedoms. I have yet to see you give a clear argument as to how social freedoms are not completely dependent on will and capability. If the group does not have the will and capability to enforce the "agreement" then you claim it reverts to natural freedom which is based on will and capability. In reality there is no distinction. The distinction seems to be nothing more than a rhetorical device.

Locke's demarcation is primarily based around the absence of external force from other humans (also, reality, i.e., you do not have a natural right to flap your arms and fly, or as you might put it, will and capability). That's pretty clear.


As rights such as 'right to life' or 'right to property' are statements of moral intent, these rights must be derived from the source of morality.

They are. The source of morality is man's nature, including his rational capacity which, from a moral perspective, is invalidated only upon the initiation of force. The source of morality is not as some mythical supernatural power of the group. A group of beings without the capacity for morality cannot suddenly gain the capacity anymore than humans can fly if two or more flap their arms. They can only do what is in their nature as humans.

[AnyOldIron]

But the feral child example does not prove morality is entirely learnt. Like I said, how do we know their seeming lack of morality is not simply due to conditioning? We do not. And you have not shown they are completely without morality, just that some of their behavior would be in violation of what is commonly held as moral.

Morality is a form of knowledge. Knowledge isn't innate, it is learnt.

Your parents probably knew how to drive before you were born but they didn't pass that knowledge to you genetically. You had to learn for yourself and make the same mistakes your parents did years before.

When we bring up children, we teach them our version of what is right and wrong.

Ergo, morality is learnt.


Further, when I say it is innate I do not mean that we are hardwired with the answer to all moral questions. Rather we naturally possess the tools to form morality

This is a bit of a tautology. If we didn't have the capacity to form morality (ie the capacity to learn) we couldn't have formed morality.

and there is a general sense of right and wrong.

Now this is a very bold statement RS. Do you consider right and wrong to be fixed, not subjective? How do you account for variations in what is considered right and wrong?

For eg... I consider smoking weed to be not morally wrong, whilst someone a little more conservative (and square..lol) might consider it morally wrong.

Nature and nurture are both a part of it and Social interaction is a natural part of what it means to be a human.

I hate the comparison because it indicates a form of mind/body dualism junk, but nature provides the hardware, knowledge the software. Without the hardware, the software would be useless and vice versa...

First off, according to your previous statements forming a family would constitute an end to the natural state and a beginning of society. Unless, one spouse was taken and held as a slave. Otherwise, the union constitutes a mutual agreement. Why is the agreement any more natural? Or why are other agreements unnatural?

This all depends on the predominant social grouping. During the time when the family was the predominant social grouping (ie hunter/gatherer era) then the social contract (ie moral agreement) occurred only within the family. When the family came into contact with other family groups, natural freedoms prevailed, and will and capability ruled. As human societies evolved into the tribal era, the social contract occurred within the tribe, when the tribe came into contact with other tribes, natural freedoms occurred.

This continued all the way through to the invention of the notion of the nation state, where the SC occurred within the nation state, but, outside that, natural freedoms occurred. When the will of the nation state clashed with another, war occurred.

Today, we are attempting, with international law, to create a social contract that covers the entire world.

The exchange of natural freedoms (to do as you will, provided you are capable) occurs whenever a moral decision is made to exchange them for protective rights.

Part of human nature is a rational capacity and the ability to reason. No other animal possesses it to the extent we do and it is the primary cause of our dominance. It gives us the capacity to see that cooperation is usually preferrable to war.

Yes, reason is required to make a moral judgement to exchange the freedoms to do as you will for protection from other's will..

Locke's demarcation of what is or is not a natural right is less arbitrary than your demarcation of natural freedoms and social freedoms.

Their is no arbitrariness in the demarcation between natural and social freedoms. The demarcation is defined by the exchange of the right to do as you will for the right to be protected from the free-wheeling will of others.

The fact that Locke creates notions of natural rights such as freedom of life or property based entirely on the obscurum per obscurius argument that they are deemed natural by 'human nature' certainly appears artificial, as if he were attempting (rightly IMO) to rhetorically justify them.

If the group does not have the will and capability to enforce the "agreement" then you claim it reverts to natural freedom which is based on will and capability. In reality there is no distinction. The distinction seems to be nothing more than a rhetorical device.

The difference is the moral agreement between the society. You are right that natural freedom is always underlying, it is the default setting. A moral agreement might be broken, and in such a case natural freedoms are returned to. There is no guarantee of protective rights. It is only man's ability to make and keep moral agreements.

That might not sound pleasant, but life is cold, amoral. It is something humanity overcomes by creating morality.

Locke's demarcation is primarily based around the absence of external force from other humans (also, reality, i.e., you do not have a natural right to flap your arms and fly, or as you might put it, will and capability). That's pretty clear.

Absence of external force on human from other humans??? When is there ever an absence of external force on humans? When human will conflicts with another human's will there will be external force.

If rights are defined by an absence of force from other humans, property rights are negated. If all property is owned, then production methods for innate human needs are owned. Innate human needs are a form of physical force (ask a starving person) This means that property rights create an external force created by (ownership of modes of production by) humans.

The source of morality is man's nature, (sic) The source of morality is not as some mythical supernatural power of the group. (sic) A group of beings without the capacity for morality cannot suddenly gain the capacity anymore than humans can fly if two or more flap their arms.

"Man's nature" is a very ambiguous term. One human's nature is not necessarily akin to another's.

Morality is the mechanism human's have developed to live in social groups. It isn't a supernatural notion (RS, you know my opinions on all concepts of the supernatural) and it certainly isn't mythical. In fact, the notion of a singular 'human nature' is better described as mythical.

Without morality, social living would be impossible and it is from this we derive it.

Your notion that I am suggesting that humans didn't have morality and then suddenly did is as bizarre as the strawman that religious types use about evolution.... " How can a complicated organism just evolve out of another in one leap?"

It is a Mount Improbable scenerio (see R Dawkins fantastic book of this name if you haven't already). Step, by steady step and through trial and error. For example, it wouldn't take long to work out that killing is not conducive to social living, and so eventually societies agree a moral code that killing is 'bad' (in reality, it is just an act. Good or bad are judgement calls made by the person doing the judging)

Morality evolved until it was hijacked by religion (the mysticalisation of unknown phenomenon - the 'god of the gaps') to be used as, not a method of social cohesion, but a mode of social control.

Today, we have complex lines of moral code, honed by trial and error. All moral codes are subjective, and adherence to them are done by mutual agreement.

[Timshel]

But the feral child example does not prove morality is entirely learnt. Like I said, how do we know their seeming lack of morality is not simply due to conditioning? We do not. And you have not shown they are completely without morality, just that some of their behavior would be in violation of what is commonly held as moral.

Morality is a form of knowledge. Knowledge isn't innate, it is learnt.

Your parents probably knew how to drive before you were born but they didn't pass that knowledge to you genetically. You had to learn for yourself and make the same mistakes your parents did years before.

When we bring up children, we teach them our version of what is right and wrong.

Ergo, morality is learnt.

It's pretty clear that some knowledge is innate. For instance, a mammal child knows where to get milk and that the milk will satisfy its biological needs.



It's pretty clear that some knowledge is innate. For instance, a mammal child knows where to get milk.
Further, when I say it is innate I do not mean that we are hardwired with the answer to all moral questions. Rather we naturally possess the tools to form morality

This is a bit of a tautology. If we didn't have the capacity to form morality (ie the capacity to learn) we couldn't have formed morality.

and there is a general sense of right and wrong.

Now this is a very bold statement RS. Do you consider right and wrong to be fixed, not subjective? How do you account for variations in what is considered right and wrong?

For eg... I consider smoking weed to be not morally wrong, whilst someone a little more conservative (and square..lol) might consider it morally wrong.

In a general sense, yes, it is fixed. That does not mean you always get the same answer. It's not math.

Smoking weed is immoral if you abuse it, i.e., if it becomes harmful to you.


Nature and nurture are both a part of it and Social interaction is a natural part of what it means to be a human.

I hate the comparison because it indicates a form of mind/body dualism junk, but nature provides the hardware, knowledge the software. Without the hardware, the software would be useless and vice versa...

I don't know what your point is, but okay.



First off, according to your previous statements forming a family would constitute an end to the natural state and a beginning of society. Unless, one spouse was taken and held as a slave. Otherwise, the union constitutes a mutual agreement. Why is the agreement any more natural? Or why are other agreements unnatural?

This all depends on the predominant social grouping. During the time when the family was the predominant social grouping (ie hunter/gatherer era) then the social contract (ie moral agreement) occurred only within the family.

Meaning the members of the family had left the "state of nature." As I said, your state of nature could only exist if man existed in isolation, but since we are social animals that violates our nature and the definition is nonsensical and contradicts itself.



Locke's demarcation of what is or is not a natural right is less arbitrary than your demarcation of natural freedoms and social freedoms.

Their is no arbitrariness in the demarcation between natural and social freedoms. The demarcation is defined by the exchange of the right to do as you will for the right to be protected from the free-wheeling will of others.

Come on! This is non responsive gibberish. The point is, your social freedom's protection from the "free-wheeling will of others" is based upon the society's will and capability. Under your concept of natural freedom, protection from the "free-wheeling will of others" is based upon the individual's will and capability. There is no legitimate distinction or demarcation. In both cases it is might makes right.



If the group does not have the will and capability to enforce the "agreement" then you claim it reverts to natural freedom which is based on will and capability. In reality there is no distinction. The distinction seems to be nothing more than a rhetorical device.

The difference is the moral agreement between the society. You are right that natural freedom is always underlying, it is the default setting.

It is more than that, it is a constant setting.


A moral agreement might be broken, and in such a case natural freedoms are returned to. There is no guarantee of protective rights. It is only man's ability to make and keep moral agreements.

Yes, man's ability. In reality, in your coneptualization, there was never any departure from your natural freedom.




Absence of external force on human from other humans??? When is there ever an absence of external force on humans?

I know you are an evil soccerists, but I doubt you get into a fist fight every time you come into contact with another. I have thusfar assumed your social agreements were entered into peacefully.


When human will conflicts with another human's will there will be external force.

Not necessarily. A disagreement of wills does not imply force.


If rights are defined by an absence of force from other humans, property rights are negated. If all property is owned, then production methods for innate human needs are owned. Innate human needs are a form of physical force (ask a starving person) This means that property rights create an external force created by (ownership of modes of production by) humans.

Nonsense. Human needs are not physical force from others. That is clear.



Morality is the mechanism human's have developed to live in social groups. It isn't a supernatural notion (RS, you know my opinions on all concepts of the supernatural) and it certainly isn't mythical. In fact, the notion of a singular 'human nature' is better described as mythical.

Your concept of morality is a supernatural power you grant to the group. You argue that human nature is amoral (i.e., we lack moral sensibility). Yet a group can form morality. Somehow the group aquired an ability that the individual members do not have even parts. This has nothing to do with evolution.

[AnyOldIron]

It's pretty clear that some knowledge is innate. For instance, a mammal child knows where to get milk and that the milk will satisfy its biological needs.

There is a difference between a baby's ability to locate milk and knowledge. A baby might have an innate detector that attracts it to its mother's milk, but that isn't knowledge anymore than a person's ability to breathe is knowledge. Is the heart beating, knowledge?

In a general sense, yes, it is fixed. That does not mean you always get the same answer. It's not math.

Smoking weed is immoral if you abuse it, i.e., if it becomes harmful to you.


If morality is fixed, something must has fixed it. Something must be the arbitrator of morality. What do you think is the arbitrator of morality?

If the arbitrator is simply what is bad for you, then driving (pollutions, risk of crashing), eating red meat, drinking coffee, walking to walk (risk of pollution/being hit by car), eating fish and chips (cholesterol) and pretty much everything we do is immoral.

Morality isn't fixed because the universe, life etc are amoral. Morality is subjective and defined by the individual. We may be able to form common opinions on morality but that doesn't indicate that it is fixed.

You might say that certain things are commonly shared by all and this indicates that morality is fixed. Many use killing as an example, but in some societies it is deemed moral. Your own society deems killing prisoners morally acceptable (though some individual moral perspectives in the US oppose this). Some societies deem killing moral if it is done to appease the 'gods'.

In reality, acts are just acts. Whether they are deemed moral or not is up to the person doing the judging.


I don't know what your point is, but okay.

The nature/nurture debate.

Nature provides the hardware to enable morality (ie the mechanics of the brain) whilst nurture provides the software. (the information that runs through the brain and defines morality)

My objection to Cartesian mind/body dualism is that it indicates a seperation between mind and body, as if they were seperate entities, the mind an ethereal entity....

Meaning the members of the family had left the "state of nature." As I said, your state of nature could only exist if man existed in isolation, but since we are social animals that violates our nature and the definition is nonsensical and contradicts itself.

It doesn't necessarily mean that a state of nature only occurs when man exists in isolation. It means that the state of nature occurs when no moral agreement exists between individuals / groups.

As I mentioned, a moral agreement only exists between those that agree. A moral agreement might exist in a family, or tribe or nation, but not necessarily outside this unit.

If there is no moral agreement, for example between two families who have their own internal moral agreements, then natural freedoms ensue. If there is a conflict of wills between the families, conflict ensues....

Come on! This is non responsive gibberish. The point is, your social freedom's protection from the "free-wheeling will of others" is based upon the society's will and capability. Under your concept of natural freedom, protection from the "free-wheeling will of others" is based upon the individual's will and capability. There is no legitimate distinction or demarcation. In both cases it is might makes right.

No, it is the moral agreement that makes right. If the moral agreement breaks down, then you have a return to natural freedoms and then will and capability are dominant, but as there is no moral agreement, there is no right or wrong. Right or wrong is a moral judgement. Nature and natural states are amoral. Might doesn't make right because there is no right or wrong, only actions.

Protection from the free-wheeling will of others isn't from the individual's will or capacity, but the moral agreement between individuals. The demarcation is the moral agreement that exists within the group.

It is more than that, it is a constant setting.

Will and capability are the setting only when there is no moral agreement to overcome it. It isn't constant as W & C are suspended under such an agreement.

If W&C were the constant setting, I could have overpowered my local newsagent and simply taken my daily newspaper from him. But a moral agreement exists in our society that theft and assault are wrong, so I overcome my W&C. I could break the moral agreement and do it anyway, in which case W&C return. Thus natural freedoms are not the constant, but the default.

Yes, man's ability. In reality, in your coneptualization, there was never any departure from your natural freedom.

How do you figure that?

We depart from natural freedom when we make a moral agreement to exchange the ability to follow W&C for protective rights. We depart from natural freedoms when we agree to, for example, suspend our desire to take what we will (and are capable of taking) for rights that protect us from other people taking from us what they will....

Not necessarily. A disagreement of wills does not imply force.

Force or the threat of force. If an individual knows they don't have the physical capability, they are likely to back down.

Use nations as an example.... If there is a clash of wills between the US and Canada, and there is no moral agreement between the countries, force will be threatened. Canada will likely recognise that it has little chance, and submit to the US will...

The US has, in reality, used, or attempted to use, this many times. The most recent was with Iraq. Any moral agreement between the US and Iraq had broken down, and a return to natural freedoms occurred. There was a clash of wills and the US threatened force. In this case, Iraq didn't submit, so force was used.

Nonsense. Human needs are not physical force from others. That is clear.

If all modes of production are owned (ie land etc), and human needs for the products of that production are physical and inescapable, those that own the modes of production are in a position of physical coercion over those that don't own any. They must submit to the will of the owners to relieve their physical, inescapable needs.

Thus, property rights and ownership of modes of production are physical force.

Can you explain how this is clearly not physical coercion?

Your concept of morality is a supernatural power you grant to the group. You argue that human nature is amoral (i.e., we lack moral sensibility). Yet a group can form morality. Somehow the group aquired an ability that the individual members do not have even parts. This has nothing to do with evolution.

This is a strawman.

I haven't argued that humans are amoral, but that existence itself is amoral, there is no innate morality. Morality is a structure humans create, through, and as a result of, social interaction. That isn't supernatural in the slightest.

Morality evolved (that entities and concepts evolve doesn't automatically equate to genetic evolution. Weapons, for eg, have evolved, and this has nothing to do with genetics.) as human society evolved.

How did you get the notion that, from this, that morality is supernatural?


So, to recap and draw this back to my original argument.

Property rights, the rights to own possessions regardless of other's will and physical capability are not innate.

All rights are a moral agreement. Morality is a human creation, a result of social interaction. Rights are thus created by moral agreement within society*.

Just as with all agreements, they can be broken. Once the agreement is broken, the situation returns to what existed before, ie natural freedom, and will and capability are the only adjudicating factors.


*NB: Society manifests itself in many guises, from the basic family unit up to the nation state...

[Timshel]

It's pretty clear that some knowledge is innate. For instance, a mammal child knows where to get milk and that the milk will satisfy its biological needs.

There is a difference between a baby's ability to locate milk and knowledge. A baby might have an innate detector that attracts it to its mother's milk, but that isn't knowledge anymore than a person's ability to breathe is knowledge. Is the heart beating, knowledge?

Well, if you will recall, I stated that we had the capacity for morality, a sense of right and wrong. You are right, that it might not be proper to strictly term it "knowledge." But it is something we know much like the child knows how to seek out mother's milk.

Another example, there seems to be an innate "knowledge" (or whatever word you want to use for it) of music. Baby talk uses it universally to communicate with children before they learn language. The melodies of approval or disapproval cut across language and culture.




In a general sense, yes, it is fixed. That does not mean you always get the same answer. It's not math.

Smoking weed is immoral if you abuse it, i.e., if it becomes harmful to you.


If morality is fixed, something must has fixed it. Something must be the arbitrator of morality. What do you think is the arbitrator of morality?

For the most part, reality. Morality to me is probably different than it is to you as I accept morality as pursuit of happiness or rational self interest.



If the arbitrator is simply what is bad for you, then driving (pollutions, risk of crashing), eating red meat, drinking coffee, walking to walk (risk of pollution/being hit by car), eating fish and chips (cholesterol) and pretty much everything we do is immoral.

That all depends on how you define what is "bad for you." A lot of choices have trade offs but the net is what is important to me. For instance, smoking a joint now and then can be a fun experience and in that case it is a net positive. But when abused it becomes more damaging than it is worth.



The nature/nurture debate.

Nature provides the hardware to enable morality (ie the mechanics of the brain) whilst nurture provides the software. (the information that runs through the brain and defines morality)

Okay, that is pretty much what I am saying about the seeds of knowledge/morality. To extend your analogy though, hardware has to contain a certain amount of "knowledge" of itself (something that might be analogous to consciousness, but it goes a little further than that alone) in order to boot to a point where "software" can load. That is, there is a certain amount of innate software/knowledge embedded in the hardware.



My objection to Cartesian mind/body dualism is that it indicates a seperation between mind and body, as if they were seperate entities, the mind an ethereal entity....

I agree.



Meaning the members of the family had left the "state of nature." As I said, your state of nature could only exist if man existed in isolation, but since we are social animals that violates our nature and the definition is nonsensical and contradicts itself.

It doesn't necessarily mean that a state of nature only occurs when man exists in isolation. It means that the state of nature occurs when no moral agreement exists between individuals / groups.

As I mentioned, a moral agreement only exists between those that agree. A moral agreement might exist in a family, or tribe or nation, but not necessarily outside this unit.

If there is no moral agreement, for example between two families who have their own internal moral agreements, then natural freedoms ensue. If there is a conflict of wills between the families, conflict ensues....

Like I said, you see the state of nature as being one where man is either in isolation or at war with others. I don't agree that that is anything close to a natural state for humans.



No, it is the moral agreement that makes right. If the moral agreement breaks down, then you have a return to natural freedoms and then will and capability are dominant, but as there is no moral agreement, there is no right or wrong. Right or wrong is a moral judgement. Nature and natural states are amoral. Might doesn't make right because there is no right or wrong, only actions.

Protection from the free-wheeling will of others isn't from the individual's will or capacity, but the moral agreement between individuals. The demarcation is the moral agreement that exists within the group.

So an individual cannot protect himself from the force of others but the group can??? You are not making much sense and you are side stepping the point. To restate, protection from will and capability of others is based on will and capability of the one doing the protection, whether in isolation or in a group. That ends in might makes right.



Yes, man's ability. In reality, in your coneptualization, there was never any departure from your natural freedom.

How do you figure that?

It is what you stated...

It is only man's ability to make and keep moral agreements.



If all modes of production are owned (ie land etc), and human needs for the products of that production are physical and inescapable, those that own the modes of production are in a position of physical coercion over those that don't own any. They must submit to the will of the owners to relieve their physical, inescapable needs.

Nope, they simply cannot force their will on the owner.




This is a strawman.

I haven't argued that humans are amoral, but that existence itself is amoral, there is no innate morality. Morality is a structure humans create, through, and as a result of, social interaction. That isn't supernatural in the slightest.

Then you agree that individuals have a moral capacity? How is that so if there is not something innate about morality in human nature?



Property rights, the rights to own possessions regardless of other's will and physical capability are not innate.

All rights are a moral agreement. Morality is a human creation, a result of social interaction. Rights are thus created by moral agreement within society*.

Just as with all agreements, they can be broken. Once the agreement is broken, the situation returns to what existed before, ie natural freedom, and will and capability are the only adjudicating factors.


*NB: Society manifests itself in many guises, from the basic family unit up to the nation state...

Part of human nature is a rational faculty and more than a part it is the distinguishing characteristic of humanity and the primary tool of survival. Rights are merely a recognition of the moral concept that individuals should be free of the force of others to utilize their rational faculties for the benefit of their own life.

[AnyOldIron]

Another example, there seems to be an innate "knowledge" (or whatever word you want to use for it) of music. Baby talk uses it universally to communicate with children before they learn language. The melodies of approval or disapproval cut across language and culture.

The question that springs up from this is 'are those melodies learnt through conditioning, or are they innate from birth?'

Baby talk doesn't develop in children for some time (if my memory of my mate's children is correct). The learning of melodic communication can be seen as part of the child's evolution into language.

For the most part, reality. Morality to me is probably different than it is to you as I accept morality as pursuit of happiness or rational self interest.

Morality as the pursuit of happiness or rational self interest? How does that account for moral altruism? If morality is the pursuit of happiness and RSI, why do moral codes place restrictions on happiness? For example, most moral codes place killing as immoral, yet some would take pleasure in killing, or it might be in the self interest of an individual? Wouldn't morality be the pursuit of hedonism in that case?

Okay, that is pretty much what I am saying about the seeds of knowledge/morality. To extend your analogy though, hardware has to contain a certain amount of "knowledge" of itself (something that might be analogous to consciousness, but it goes a little further than that alone) in order to boot to a point where "software" can load. That is, there is a certain amount of innate software/knowledge embedded in the hardware.

This depends if you consider involuntary actions as knowledge, I realise all descriptions are largely arbitrary and dependent on mutal agreement but I find it hard to describe this as knowledge. For eg... I know to breathe and my heart knows to beat, but I didn't need to learn this, it is hardwired. That type of 'knowledge' is innate, it is 'hardwired'. But morality isn't an involuntary action. I don't need to make a conscious decision to breathe, where as I do to make a moral decision. To make a moral decision I need certain inputs, factors to consider.

Like I said, you see the state of nature as being one where man is either in isolation or at war with others. I don't agree that that is anything close to a natural state for humans.

Isolation isn't necessary, and conflict only exists if there is a clash of wills.

This is the crux of the disagreement between us. I believe that the natural state is prior to any moral agreement, that the individual's will is predominant in humans in their natural state, you that a moral agreement is innate within us.

As I mentioned above, it is difficult to describe morality as innate in the manner that, for eg, breathing or heartbeat is...

So an individual cannot protect himself from the force of others but the group can??? You are not making much sense and you are side stepping the point. To restate, protection from will and capability of others is based on will and capability of the one doing the protection, whether in isolation or in a group. That ends in might makes right.

Under natural freedoms, the individual can protect himself from the force of others if they are physically capable. The group can only protect them if/because each member of the group has made a commitment to adhere to the moral agreement between them. If a member breaks this agreement, then a return to the natural state (of will and capability) occurs. The group can enact its right to natural freedom and use force against the individual who has broken the agreement and the individual can use force to defend themselves.

Rights only accur through mutual moral agreement, they don't exist in nature. Does that mean that might makes right? No. Might doesn't make right because 'right' is a moral judgement and in the natural state, such a moral judgement doesn't exist.

Might (W&C) is the underlying force behind it all, if we have no moral agreement to overcome the use of might.

Let's not forget why early proponents of the concept of 'natural rights' created this concept; as a way of containing the will of the strong (ie kings) during the enlightenment period (though the concept is much older - the Magna Carta for eg.) The notion is rhetorical, ie it is designed to create a scenerio, and not a necessary reflection of reality.

AOI: If all modes of production are owned (ie land etc), and human needs for the products of that production are physical and inescapable, those that own the modes of production are in a position of physical coercion over those that don't own any. They must submit to the will of the owners to relieve their physical, inescapable needs.

RS: Nope, they simply cannot force their will on the owner.

Do you consider innate human needs (ie hunger, thirst, need for shelter) physical and inescapable?

If all modes of production for these innate needs are owned, do you think that those people that own the modes of production can use that ownership to coerce those who don't, because the needs are physical and inescapable?

How is this not physical coercion?

Then you agree that individuals have a moral capacity? How is that so if there is not something innate about morality in human nature?

Humans have the capacity to learn to make a car, but the ability to make a car isn't innate. It must be learnt. As is morality.

Part of human nature is a rational faculty and more than a part it is the distinguishing characteristic of humanity and the primary tool of survival.
Rights are merely a recognition of the moral concept that individuals should be free of the force of others to utilize their rational faculties for the benefit of their own life.

Little non-sequiter there... Because humans have a faculty for rational thought doesn't equate to them having any particular innate morality.

All morality utilises this rational ability, but the morality doesn't derive from the rational ability.

The moral concept that humans should be free from the force of others, is an artificial moral construct, one that is created, not that is innate. Without creating this moral scenerio (which would be impossible to enact as humans are never free from the force of others, unless they isolate themselves from others) it wouldn't exist.

We can make the moral decision that we should have the right to try to be free from other's force, but that isn't innate, it is a moral agreement within a social group.

Thus rights are better described as social, than natural.

[Timshel]

Well, this could go on forever and I am sure we will not reach any conclusion. But it has been interesting and forced me to reconsider some things and dust off others.


Another example, there seems to be an innate "knowledge" (or whatever word you want to use for it) of music. Baby talk uses it universally to communicate with children before they learn language. The melodies of approval or disapproval cut across language and culture.

The question that springs up from this is 'are those melodies learnt through conditioning, or are they innate from birth?'

Baby talk doesn't develop in children for some time (if my memory of my mate's children is correct). The learning of melodic communication can be seen as part of the child's evolution into language.

The fact that it is universal across cultures implies that there is a nature aspect. Also, they have found that the biological receptors of sound create pleasant and unpleasant reaction in our brains to the stimulus of different melodies. If you think about it, it even seems to work in dogs.

Like I said, knowledge is probably not a good word for this as knowledge implies understanding. After thinking on it, I think information is probably the best word for it.



For the most part, reality. Morality to me is probably different than it is to you as I accept morality as pursuit of happiness or rational self interest.

Morality as the pursuit of happiness or rational self interest? How does that account for moral altruism? If morality is the pursuit of happiness and RSI, why do moral codes place restrictions on happiness? For example, most moral codes place killing as immoral, yet some would take pleasure in killing, or it might be in the self interest of an individual? Wouldn't morality be the pursuit of hedonism in that case?

It rejects altruism. Rights place the restrictions and I view freedom from the initiation of force as an axiom of ethics, therefore the basis of rights. It cannot be denied whether you reject or accept the ethics of self interest.



This depends if you consider involuntary actions as knowledge, I realise all descriptions are largely arbitrary and dependent on mutal agreement but I find it hard to describe this as knowledge. For eg... I know to breathe and my heart knows to beat, but I didn't need to learn this, it is hardwired. That type of 'knowledge' is innate, it is 'hardwired'. But morality isn't an involuntary action. I don't need to make a conscious decision to breathe, where as I do to make a moral decision. To make a moral decision I need certain inputs, factors to consider.

I agree, knowledge is not the word (see above). But what I am trying to get at I believe is more complicated than breathing.



Like I said, you see the state of nature as being one where man is either in isolation or at war with others. I don't agree that that is anything close to a natural state for humans.

Isolation isn't necessary, and conflict only exists if there is a clash of wills.

Yes, but if there is no isolation or clash of wills then there is a moral agreement and man has left the state of nature. That is why I say... "you see the state of nature as being one where man is either in isolation or at war with others." What am I missing? You even state this below.



This is the crux of the disagreement between us. I believe that the natural state is prior to any moral agreement, that the individual's will is predominant in humans in their natural state, you that a moral agreement is innate within us.

Not really that the agreement is innate. More, that is not outside our nature or does not violate our natural state to make agreements.


So an individual cannot protect himself from the force of others but the group can??? You are not making much sense and you are side stepping the point. To restate, protection from will and capability of others is based on will and capability of the one doing the protection, whether in isolation or in a group. That ends in might makes right.

Under natural freedoms, the individual can protect himself from the force of others if they are physically capable. The group can only protect them if/because each member of the group has made a commitment to adhere to the moral agreement between them.

This would be the will of the group. And as has been noted before, unless you ascribe some magical power to the agreement, then the capability of the group is also a condition. Will and capability are still all that protects the rights same as in your natural freedoms.


If a member breaks this agreement, then a return to the natural state (of will and capability) occurs. The group can enact its right to natural freedom and use force against the individual who has broken the agreement and the individual can use force to defend themselves.

Your distinction is nothing but rhetorical. And it is not reality. The moral agreement does not dissolve whenever a "crime" is committed. Rather, the group is, or their agents are, tested to see if they possess the will and capability to respond. Even in relation to the individual that breaks the law, under any most social contracts (i.e., constitutions) there still exist an agreement (e.g., legal rights).



Rights only accur through mutual moral agreement, they don't exist in nature.

There must be a right as a precondition of any moral agreement. That is, if you have no right to the freedom of your rational capacities (i.e., will) there is no way you can truly make a moral agreement.

Say ten friends and I (in a moral agreement) find you in your natural state (for an evil soccerist this means passed out drunk in a pool of your own filth and sick). We decide we will make you a part of our moral agreement and use you as a tackling dummy to practice real football. So when you come to we tell you can either join or die as you have no rights. We even add in a little torture because we'd rather have you as a slave than have to kill you. So you enter the moral agreement.

Without any natural rights recognized as preceding or as a precondition this is the reality that would ensue. In reality you would not have been in the moral agreement, but you are not capable of practicing your will over ours. So, you are left to submit. Even if you later try to violate the agreement then it would be a matter of our will and capability against yours. Might makes right is the only possible outcome of the notions you have put forth.



AOI: If all modes of production are owned (ie land etc), and human needs for the products of that production are physical and inescapable, those that own the modes of production are in a position of physical coercion over those that don't own any. They must submit to the will of the owners to relieve their physical, inescapable needs.

RS: Nope, they simply cannot force their will on the owner.

Do you consider innate human needs (ie hunger, thirst, need for shelter) physical and inescapable?

Does not matter since they are not applied from others, i.e., they are not external.



Then you agree that individuals have a moral capacity? How is that so if there is not something innate about morality in human nature?

Humans have the capacity to learn to make a car, but the ability to make a car isn't innate. It must be learnt. As is morality.

But could they make a car if their capacity to do so were denied them? How can they make morality if their capacity to do so (i.e., freedom of their rational capcities) is denied them?


Part of human nature is a rational faculty and more than a part it is the distinguishing characteristic of humanity and the primary tool of survival.
Rights are merely a recognition of the moral concept that individuals should be free of the force of others to utilize their rational faculties for the benefit of their own life.

Little non-sequiter there... Because humans have a faculty for rational thought doesn't equate to them having any particular innate morality.

All morality utilises this rational ability, but the morality doesn't derive from the rational ability.

The rights are innate because freedom of our rational ability is necessary to living in accordance with our nature and because it is a precondition of any morality.


The moral concept that humans should be free from the force of others, is an artificial moral construct, one that is created, not that is innate. Without creating this moral scenerio (which would be impossible to enact as humans are never free from the force of others, unless they isolate themselves from others) it wouldn't exist.

It is not a moral construct. It is a necessary preexisting condition for moral constructs.

And I have been over the fact that one may be among others and free from the physical force of them.


We can make the moral decision that we should have the right to try to be free from other's force, but that isn't innate, it is a moral agreement within a social group.

Thus rights are better described as social, than natural.

You cannot make a decision or agreement absent this natural right.

[AnyOldIron]

Well, this could go on forever and I am sure we will not reach any conclusion. But it has been interesting and forced me to reconsider some things and dust off others.

It's been a cracker of a discussion, just what I wanted when I started the thread. Far better to go deeper than the tit for tat squabbles of general politics and look at the underlying philosophy...

The fact that it is universal across cultures implies that there is a nature aspect. Also, they have found that the biological receptors of sound create pleasant and unpleasant reaction in our brains to the stimulus of different melodies. If you think about it, it even seems to work in dogs.

Like I said, knowledge is probably not a good word for this as knowledge implies understanding. After thinking on it, I think information is probably the best word for it.

The use of language occurs across cultures, it is a universal human trait, and so the use of baby melody does appear to be 'hardwired' information (
I agree with that description to differentiate involuntary information from conditioned knowledge.

It rejects altruism. Rights place the restrictions and I view freedom from the initiation of force as an axiom of ethics, therefore the basis of rights. It cannot be denied whether you reject or accept the ethics of self interest.

In many ways we aren't that different in our perspectives.

You view rights as protection from initiation of force, I believe it is (limited) protection from the will and capability of others. The difference is that I consider that only be found when we suspend our natural freedom to do as we will (provided capable) and call these rights 'social'. You see them as innate and thus natural.

The crux of our argument is whether protective rights are natural or social, underlying this, whether or not the morally-unrestricted use of will and physical is humanity's natural state.


Yes, but if there is no isolation or clash of wills then there is a moral agreement and man has left the state of nature. That is why I say... "you see the state of nature as being one where man is either in isolation or at war with others." What am I missing? You even state this below.

Isolation doesn't necessary occur in natural freedoms, if the two's will differs.

Also isolation under natural freedoms doesn't mean individual isolation. Take for example, a valley, cut off by mountains, with two tribes living there. Within each of the tribes, you have a social contract, an agreement to live by a moral code. Between the two tribes, however, no such agreement exists. The two tribes, although they have internal agreements, exist in a state of natural freedom. If the two tribe's wills conflict, they go to war.

This would be the will of the group. And as has been noted before, unless you ascribe some magical power to the agreement, then the capability of the group is also a condition. Will and capability are still all that protects the rights same as in your natural freedoms.

Nothing protects the rights apart from the moral agreement that exists. This is why rights are so fragile. There are no magical powers involved, there is simply no innate protection.

That is why philosophers such as Locke attempted to enshrine certain rights as natural, to create an ethos that places greater emphasis on the moral agreement.

Your distinction is nothing but rhetorical. And it is not reality. The moral agreement does not dissolve whenever a "crime" is committed. Rather, the group is, or their agents are, tested to see if they possess the will and capability to respond. Even in relation to the individual that breaks the law, under any most social contracts (i.e., constitutions) there still exist an agreement (e.g., legal rights).

If an individual breaks the law, they lose their protective rights. For example, if an individual breaks the protective right of 'right to life' of another individual, in the US in particular, the perpetrators protective rights are forfeit and they are executed.

If an individual breaks the moral agreement and steals, they forfeit their rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness which are enshrined in the moral agreement of the US.

Nothing rhetorical about this, it happens on a daily basis. If an individual breaks the moral agreement, it is revoked.

This occurs up to the level of government. If the government breaks the moral agreement, the moral agreement is suspended and the people return to natural freedoms to protest, riot and forcibly remove the government. Once this is done, the society usually returns to the moral agreement.

Rights only accur through mutual moral agreement, they don't exist in nature.

There must be a right as a precondition of any moral agreement. That is, if you have no right to the freedom of your rational capacities (i.e., will) there is no way you can truly make a moral agreement.

Say ten friends and I (in a moral agreement) find you in your natural state (for an evil soccerist this means passed out drunk in a pool of your own filth and sick). We decide we will make you a part of our moral agreement and use you as a tackling dummy to practice real football. So when you come to we tell you can either join or die as you have no rights. We even add in a little torture because we'd rather have you as a slave than have to kill you. So you enter the moral agreement.

Without any natural rights recognized as preceding or as a precondition this is the reality that would ensue. In reality you would not have been in the moral agreement, but you are not capable of practicing your will over ours. So, you are left to submit. Even if you later try to violate the agreement then it would be a matter of our will and capability against yours. Might makes right is the only possible outcome of the notions you have put forth.

That is the reality that will ensue. Its not pretty, but existence is cold and amoral. Might doesn't mean right (right is a moral judgement) but might and will are always supreme. I always have the option, rather than submitting, to refuse to submit, to retain my natural freedoms, follow my will and fight to the death.

An example of this comes from classical Rome. When Roman armies went to war, and won, they gave their opponents the choice of either retaining their natural freedoms and fight to the death, or submit their will and become slaves. Moral agreements don't necessarily have to be considered morally sound. As I have mentioned, if you don't wish to enter a moral agreement, you can always retain your natural freedoms.

This is why philosophers such as Locke and the founders of the US attempted to describe artificially formed rights as natural and innate, to enshrine good sound moral agreements, and in this, in informing the masses, this is IMO a good thing. But this doesn't detract from the reality that they are artificial, they are moral agreements...

Does not matter since they are not applied from others, i.e., they are not external.

Is a restriction on satisfying innate and inescapable needs caused by a moral agreement (property rights) not inflicting physical coercion simply because it is done by proxy? If I were to kill someone by restricting food and water to them am I still not killing them? If I say to someone 'If you don't follow my will, I will starve you, not physical coercion?

But could they make a car if their capacity to do so were denied them? How can they make morality if their capacity to do so (i.e., freedom of their rational capcities) is denied them?

How do you deny someone their rational capabilities?

The only way I can think is through the rearing of children, by not teaching them the nature of rational thought (hence my claim that religious upbringing of children is child abuse). Once an individual has developed rational thought, it isn't possible to deny that, short of physically injuring their brain. It is possible to deny the expression of rational thought but not the thought itself.

We all (baring physical disability) has the hardwiring in the brain for rational thought, but how we use that is down entirely to conditioning.

The rights are innate because freedom of our rational ability is necessary to living in accordance with our nature and because it is a precondition of any morality.

To say that rights are innate because humans have the underlying ability to reason is non-sequiter. It doesn't follow because although humans have a potential to develop reason it therefore means that rights are innate. A potential to develop cars (which we have) doesn't make car-making innate. We might have the potential but we need to learn (ie conditioned) to utilise that potential.

We learn to use rational thought just as we learn to make cars. The rights were have are based according to our ability to use this reason and form a moral agreement.

It is not a moral construct. It is a necessary preexisting condition for moral constructs.

And I have been over the fact that one may be among others and free from the physical force of them.

Until you have a moral structure in place, it isn't possible to be free from physical force of others. If you have no moral structure, you only have the will of others. Even, then, under a moral agreement, force from others simply moves from direct to proxy.

Being free from external force is only possible under a moral agreement, and then only as long as the moral contains a requisite for the absence of physical coercion and that moral agreement exists and isn't broken by any of those who agreed to it...

You cannot make a decision or agreement absent this natural right.

What makes you think that? Given that human's are never in a state when they are free from physical coercion we would never make a decision or agreement.

Can you give an example of when humans are free from external coercion, either directly or by proxy, that we can test?