I'm sure you have heard the news that Arizona's governor signed a "law" protecting the Gadsden flag from homeowner association rules. (On a slight tangent, I wonder if the "law" would apply to Time's Up flags as well.)
I think homeowner associations are awful. I can't imagine why anyone would consent to live under one, and yet I can see many ways someone might not have a choice. But, yes, they have a right to make rules forbidding the flags, I suppose, but those rules are still wrong. And the governor has no real authority to make another rule that violates the right of the association to make a wrong rule. Two wrongs don't make a right, even when the second one tries to correct a wrong. No new "laws" are needed; just get rid of the bad "law" that allows the wrong thing to happen in the first place.
Sometimes you are wrong to do what you have a right to do. For example, you would have the right to shoot a trespassing child but it would be wrong to do so.
You might have the right to ban visitors from carrying concealed guns but it's wrong to do so in all but the most unlikely and extreme theoretical cases. Maybe if you had a powerful magnet in your home that would attract the gun and cause it to rip through the flesh of the visitor and bounce toward the magnet, shredding everything in its path, you could make a claim that you really "need" to prohibit guns on your property, but any ferrous metal would be just as dangerous as a gun in that case.
And you might have a right to ban people from flying a particular flag at their home, but trying to actually do that with a rule is the wrong thing to do. And passing another "law", thereby adding to the law pollution we already suffer from, is not the right way to fix anything.
So, you can't just go around making up any rule you want- well, you can, but you might be wrong to do so.
*
No one has a right to use more force than is necessary to stop a real threat. Shooting a trespassing child is ludicrous.
ReplyDeleteIt is impossible for rights and morality to conflict.
ReplyDeleteMaybe. I have seen a lot of discussions over things like that. Things about using "appropriate force" to stop an attack and then lots of second-guessing as to what's "appropriate" and what is excessive.
ReplyDeleteWhat if you have good reason to believe the trespassing child intends to vandalize your property or is a suicide bomber? If the child is a credible threat, in other words.
Like I said, I think you would be wrong to shoot a trespassing child- but where do you draw the line and say "OK, in this case it is OK to use force against a trespasser, and in this particular trespassing instance, deadly force is appropriate". I know where I would draw the lines, but that just shows that trespassing is not on the same level as other violations of your rights.
I do believe morals and rights can conflict, or at least seem to conflict, because they are separate and have nothing to do with one another except incidentally.
ReplyDeleteIt is your right to smoke crack, but it probably isn't moral to do so. It is your right to commit suicide, but it probably isn't moral to do so.
Now, would it be ethical to do those things? As long as you are not harming an innocent person it is. Ethics really doesn't say anything about things that are not done to some other person, where morality does.
Can ethics and rights conflict? I think once again, in many cases they address separate issues. Without knowing all the details of the situation I can't say whether shooting a specific trespassing child in a particular instance was ethical or not. On a general principle I would say it is not, but additional information could make me change my mind. Are you initiating force, or defending yourself? Were you defending your property from destruction or theft? How severe was the threat? If you are defending yourself or your property are you violating anyone else's rights? All these things factor in. I have always said that it may not always be the best thing to do to exercise every right you have in every situation.
If a trespassing child has a bomb and is trying to kill you, then you're not shooting him for trespassing, are you?
ReplyDeleteDespite people's subjective opinions about "the just amount of force," there exists an objectively just amount of force. We know that killing someone for stealing a stick of gum is an objectively unjust and immoral use of force. Whether we are able to recognize and quantify the commensurate use of force does not mean that it does not exist.
I do not believe anyone has the right to smoke crack, or to fornicate, or to sin at all. A right entails performing an action that one should be able to perform. That said, a man's lack of a right to perform those actions does not mean that I have the right to use violence to stop him from performing those actions. Even St. Thomas Aquinas, back in the 13th Century, did not believe that prostitution should be totally outlawed, though he believed it was immoral. As a Catholic and a voluntaryist, I keep trying to convince my fellow Catholics that men should not be trying to "punish" sin. (You'll notice that even atheists try to "make things right" or "create justice" by using violence. That's God's prerogative. Men may only use physical violence to protect themselves and others from physical acts of aggression. We kill a rabid dog because it poses a physical threat to our physical lives, not because it's a "bad dog," and we're "punishing" it. We should use violence against our fellow man for the solely the same reason.
On the other side of the coin, having a right to do something does not oblige you to take that particular course of action. I have the right to defend myself with violence, and in some cases, I have the moral obligation to do so (if one has a family to support, etc.) But I also have the right to refrain from defending myself with violence.
But all that is moral is ethical, and vice versa. Ethics is merely the study of right and wrong without an appeal to divine revelation. Right reason alone shows us that it is wrong to kill ourselves. Right reason alone shows us that we should not abuse drugs and alcohol. Right reason alone tells us that marriage should be monogamous and exclusive, and shows us to what ends it is ordered.
"You might have the right to ban visitors from carrying concealed guns but it's wrong to do so in all but the most unlikely and extreme theoretical cases."-kent
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking about slavery, being wrong regardless of who owns the property. Because individual liberty trump property rights.
And since life is a pre-requisite to liberty, I am certain that life trumps property. Also defense of life.
The right to defend one's life and liberty necessarily trumps property. Without life, there is no property.
It goes against 'natural law', I am thinking, to say that property supercedes life or liberty. Thinking that property is an excuse to disarm people- Is an illness of petty tyrants, enemies of liberty; and is repugnant to nature. But maybe I don't understand... I really don't.
Property does not give anyone any super power over others. Asking them to disarm is akin to asking them to be your slaves; totally putting their lives and liberties under subjugation of their host (who's actions assert that his guests are not 'fully men' and 'not his equal' and 'no longer have a right to their own lives.)
You are a reasonable fellow, and have had many reasoned discussions, far and wide. Have you also heard people assert that property trumps lives? Can you explain why many in the libertarian camp argue that property makes them a king, and makes their guests serfs? It seems counter to the entire notion of liberty.
(note: Consider responding via email and deleting the comment here, if that is a better forum for discussion.)
Look back over all my posts mentioning "Bubble Theory" to see people making that argument in the comments, and see how I address it.
ReplyDeleteIt still isn't resolved as there has been no agreement.
Feel free to contact me by email if you want to discuss it further.
Apologies. I had not read your previous posts, just this most recent one.
ReplyDeleteWow. I have cut and pasted similar comments at several places throught the 'internets', and never had anyone 'get' what I was saying (poorly saying, obviously)- Meanwhile, you have described it and explained it and laid it all out. YES! It is obvious.
[I'm still sorting through all the comments to the contrary]
I'm skeptical this is worthwhile, but I want to summarize what's wrong with Vagabond's points.
ReplyDeleteYou don't get to twist ethics to suit your preferences. You can, however, use your preferences to shape ethics.
Second, not every decision is decided solely on ethical grounds.
There's actually nothing ethically wrong with shooting such a child. That it's ludicrous only makes it ludicrous.
We can just agree that if I'm going to trust you at all, you first have to agree not to shoot random trespassing children. You don't have to so agree, but then I don't have to let you into my city, any more than I'd allow wild bears in.
If you did so, I could then prosecute you for breaking the agreement - it has nothing to do with a tresspasser's right, because coercive agents have no right.
"Things about using "appropriate force" to stop an attack and then lots of second-guessing as to what's "appropriate" and what is excessive."
ReplyDeleteThat this is even relevant is a disgusting symptom of a seriously ill society.
Police forces should be subscription-based. (First, that's where the 'don't shoot kids' clause would end up.) Second, they would lay out exactly what they'll consider reasonable force, and if you disagree, you can just sign up with a different one.
If you tried this, like any implementation of common law, you'd rapidly end up with the actual rules that are actually reasonable.
Also, this is a good example of real intellectual property. Real IP are beliefs. Your beliefs should generally be where you left them - you should be able to count on them being a certain way when you plan your week.
Attempting to force someone to change their beliefs is essentially vandalism.
So someone believes something crazy about counter-force? Well, fine. As long as they don't try to affect your property (including beliefs) with this belief, they're welcome to it.
And if they do so try to affect, then they're not guilty of being incorrect - they're guilty of coercion. Similarly religions. Prosecute for actual crimes, and you never have to worry about their actual beliefs.
Alrenous,
ReplyDeleteUniversal ethical and moral norms either exist, or they don't. To say that there is no universal ethical or moral norm is to say there is no norm at all. I that is the case, then anyone is ethically/morally free to do anything he wants, as there can be no ethical or moral argument against it.
"Not every decision is based on ethical grounds." Unfortunately, that is the case. Every decision, however, must be ethical, whether or not the decision is made on ethical grounds. If you cast ethics/morality by the wayside in making your deciions, you've just forfeited an intrinsic aspect of what it means to be human.
There is nothing, in itself, ethically wrong with shooting a child. There is something ethically wrong for shooting a child who happens to be walking across your property, doing no physical harm to anyone or anything.
A coercive agent has no right . . . to his life? Has someone who has stolen a stick of gum forfeited his right to life?
I agree with you concerning coercion, of course. But coercing other people to believe something is more than merely "vandalism," which is a contradiction of the will: it's an act of violence against the individual's free will itself, which is a contradiction of human nature.
"Universal ethical and moral norms either exist, or they don't."
ReplyDeleteAnd they do. Next.
"Unfortunately, that is the case."
You misunderstand. I can tell because I was saying almost the following:
"Every decision, however, must be ethical, whether or not the decision is made on ethical grounds."
Indeed. This is why I used the word 'solely.' Every decision ought come down within the 'not-unethical' side of the equation. That's what 'ought' means.
What I'm saying is that even within that sphere, we don't have to tolerate all actions. Your grounds for not tolerating them simply cannot be ethical - you aren't allowed to force someone to follow them on their own property. (Using our host's definitions, all actions ought be ethical, and within that you can decide morality as you like - but don't confuse morals for ethics.)
"There is something ethically wrong for shooting a child who happens to be walking across your property, doing no physical harm to anyone or anything."
Unfortunately, that is false.
Importantly for your intuitions, ignorance is a defence. If the child does not know about your property, they cannot be held responsible.
There's only one coherent ethical norm, actually. And if you break it, you lose its protection.
Doing anything at all to a trespasser is not unethical. Not one single prohibited action.
But we both agree just leaving like this is no good. Most people would. So this won't ever be a problem.
"Has someone who has stolen a stick of gum forfeited his right to life?"
Yes.
As it turns out, reality is often counter-intuitive. Any true account of ethics should be at least a little counter-intuitive, else it's likely just circularly self-justifying. (Conversely, once understood, your intuition should happily shift. If it resists, you've probably made a mistake.)
Luckily it also contains forgiveness. Just about everyone would forgive some stolen gum - which restores the offender's right.
And if you know someone who wouldn't...yes, they're within their rights to shoot. So I'd suggest you stay far, far away from them until they realize how stupid they're being.
Or, you know, have a healthy society where you agree to not shoot in exchange for police security etc... So like ours except the contracts aren't unilaterally imposed.
"it's an act of violence against the individual's free will itself, which is a contradiction of human nature."
Since free will is more or less true, the fact such a thing is contradictory makes it impossible. It attempts to be such an act, but can't but fail.
The reason you can vandalize someone's beliefs is because they'll in fact change. But they can only change if they care about evidence and argumentation in the first place - if they decide they prefer truth over falsehood - and thus you have lever to change their mind. (Would it work if they preferred lies, too? Meh.)
If you decide instead not to care, you would become immune to such vandalism. This is the nigh-omnipotence of free will within its domain of the self.
Actually, that might be an Ah-ha! moment. I've been considering the 'self' lately. What if I have it backwards - what if the self is everything you have nigh-omnipotence over? That'll be totally awesome if it works out.
"you aren't allowed to force someone to follow them on their own property."-alrenous
ReplyDeleteBy that reasoning then, must we accept the neighbor who takes slaves on his property? By your reasoning (if I understand it), property nullifies everything, including indvidual rights, and no one else may forcefully disagree with any actions of a landlord upon his property.
Full quote:
ReplyDelete"Your grounds for not tolerating them simply cannot be ethical - you aren't allowed to force someone to follow them on their own property."
Breaking an ethical rule negates all protection by ethics, including property rights.
So 'taking' slaves is decided solely on ethical grounds.
On the other hand, signing contracts with those willing to sell their labour 24/7 in perpetuity is perfectly fine - there's no consistent way to allow 8/5 labour sales but prevent 24/7 labour sales.
Is someone who makes an informed decision to sign such a contract really a slave at all?
But again, perhaps security agencies would find that such contracts are unwise, and refuse to back them.
I don't believe there is any way to "lose your rights". I have not believed that in a very long time. I'm even skeptical that you can negotiate away your rights for a specified time.
ReplyDeleteI can't wrap my brain around the fact that anyone would sign such a contract while in their right mind and free of coercion. Maybe it is possible, but I would never hold anyone to such a contract if I were consulted or asked my opinion.
Alrenous,
ReplyDeleteWhy on earth would you have any problem with someone who would shoot a child for trespassing, if it's his "right?" From whence do you derive your reluctance to associate with such a person? Why is he "stupid," if he's acting within his rights?
And why do you express distaste for someone who would kill someone for stealing a stick of gum, if he has forfeited his right to life, and the "defender" is within his rights to kill him?
One may use the amount of force necessary to expel a trespasser. If the other person becomes dangerous in the course of his expulsion, certainly, lethal force may be in order. It is, however, irrational and immoral to use lethal force on a simple trespasser.
"I don't believe there is any way to "lose your rights". I have not believed that in a very long time."
ReplyDeleteIf you follow the logic from this, then self-defence must be an exception. "X is true except..."
Thus it cannot be a fundamental truth, but rather two consequences derived from a more fundamental truth. If it isn't fundamental, then it can't be self-evident. Those two things are equivalent (the equivalence is not self-evident).
Rights come from within, they are not granted from without - not by God nor by Nature. However, for a thing to be within you, you must be able to change it. Immoral actions change it such that you negate your right.
The reason it is wrong for me to trespass is simply because you don't want me to trespass. If you do, it isn't trespass. However, if I trespass, it can't be wrong for you to use force to remove me, even if I don't want you to. If it was, then rights would have no meaning and this discussion would be pointless.
If I'm not respecting your property, you can't have any obligation to respect mine.
The problem (for intuition) is that the moral force is derived from a single truth. The moral force can't be selectively lost from only some of my wants. It's all or nothing. Either they all have force, or they all don't.
If this were not true, then again rights would have little meaning. Return to the trespassing child. Assume also they're running and you can't get them off without shooting them. If they have the right not to be shot more than you have a right to not have trespassers, then effectively they gain the right to trespass by evading your security.
They can't ever have the right to trespass. Deliberately evading justice cannot grant more rights.
If there were some objective limit to defending your rights, then there would be many, many cases where deliberately evading justice would grant more rights. If you can't shoot me for stealing a stick of gum, then I effectively have the right to take all your gum whenever I please.
No property, no rights. Period.
Such harsh punishments are still unreasonable. But, absent a signature under a contract saying you won't, you have the moral right to carry them out.
"Maybe it is possible, but I would never hold anyone to such a contract if I were consulted or asked my opinion."
If that's correct, then that's the solution the market will settle on. Well, in all likelihood - as usual, I advocating testing.
Whether someone can rationally sell themselves into slavery is an empirical question, not a moral one. Similarly, the slave-buyer may find enforcement impractical. (Either the contract is self-enforcing, or it isn't. If it is, you can break the slavery at any time. If it isn't, then all you have to do is hide and they're screwed.)
Again, if I'm allowed to sell my labour 8/5, then all I have to do is sign three such contracts and I'm at 24/5. What possible justification can you give for having the right to sign the first two contracts, but not the third? How can you justify a contract that lasts one year, but not one that lasts 100?
"Why on earth would you have any problem with someone who would shoot a child for trespassing, if it's his "right?""
ReplyDeleteBecause I find it repugnant. That is simply not reasonable, and they're very likely to be unreasonable in an immoral way sooner or later.
"Why is he "stupid," if he's acting within his rights?"
Actions have consequences. Just because it's your right doesn't mean it's a good idea.
"And why do you express distaste for someone who would kill someone for stealing a stick of gum, if he has forfeited his right to life, and the "defender" is within his rights to kill him?"
I express distaste because I feel distaste. I feel distaste because I feel distaste. I don't rationally allocate my emotions - though that would be pretty handy.
"It is, however, irrational"
Yes
"and immoral"
No.
"If you follow the logic from this, then self-defence must be an exception."
ReplyDeleteI don't see it that way. I see it as the aggressor has a right to not be shot, but the attacked has a right to not be attacked and to defend himself if he is (you could say that makes the score 2 rights to 1). I think it could be resolved in this way-- In this case anyone with sense who would be asked to arbitrate the resulting disagreement (and if you didn't show sense, you probably wouldn't be asked in a free market) would look at who started the problem (who initiated force) and decide in that person's favor. The aggressor didn't lose his rights by his aggression, but he did set in motion a series of events that would incur a debt that could be partially paid by being shot. His target and the arbitrator would then decide if that erased the debt or if more was owed. You don't lose any rights when you go into debt, but you do need to pay to get out of debt. You voluntarily traded what you had (an undamaged body) for the product (initiated force) you desired.
"If I'm not respecting your property, you can't have any obligation to respect mine."
Which is the basis of my "Bubble Theory" of personal property rights.