Taking this forward
Published by Gaurav Sabnis June 11th, 2004 in LibertarianI am taking this forward, but remember that this was meant as a debate between Ck and myself, and not a monologue. So he should finish his responses on the previous thread before responding to this post.
What is a “right”?
So what qualifies to be a right? I am not quoting dictionaries here, but just giving my understanding of the concept. A right is something that you are entitled to and can exercise. And in the beginning, that something means anything. Yes, ANYTHING. Now this anything can be divided into two halfs -
1. Whatever is related only to my scope of physical activity and affects only me.
2. Something that comes in the way of the “1″ of someone else.
So as a starting point, wearing a yellow shirt is an “anything” right. So is the right to slit Ck’s throat. However they are rights of type “1″ and “2″ respectively. A human being may proclaim that he is entitled to “anything” as a right. But obviously, Ck is not going to enjoy his throat being slit. If he survives, he will exercise similar rights. If he doesn’t, his family will do the same.
So tomorrow, my wearing a yellow shirt may offend Ck. But it, in no way is infringing on any of his rights. However my slitting his throat definitely does.
Brief interlude for Ck’s amusement - “KILL THE BEAST, SLIT ITS THROAT, SPILL THE BLOOD!!”
So it falls under the category “2″. All rights under this category can still be exercised and will be exercised. However people exercising them will have to bear the consequences for that. So slitting your throat is a right I have, but if I exercise it, then someone else may do the same to me. I should be prepared for that eventuality.
However, category “1″ are rights that don’t really hurt anyone else’s rights. So if you say that it is your right to “Not look at anyone clad in a yellow shirt”, the onus is on you to exercise that right. Go far away from me. But if you are bullying me into not wearing a yellow shirt, you are infringing my rights.
Now there will be a lot of grievances about rights being infringed. Who takes care of them? Some entity that all aggrieved parties will trust to give a proper judgement. This is where a court will come in. But they will need some guidelines to decide what are rights and what are not. That is where a law-making system will come in.
This will be spontaneous order. That such an order will set in has been seen all over the world. Even the remotest tribes in Africa have some councils to take care of differences between two individuals. In this order, people will by and large realise that the category “2″ rights should not be exercised.
note - the definition of a right will be further refined as we introduce terms like “property”.
I have thought of another definition for “human rights”, which I would like to test out.
I define all human rights as a set of “mutually exclusive” and “collective exhaustive” actions that human beings can legitimately wish to perform.
But one would say that there is bound to be a lot of overlap. But all overlaps can be removed using certain priniples.
So, if I say that I have a right to snatch Gaurav’s purse, it infringes on his right to keep his own purse. Thus there is a conflict.
Also, if I say that I have a right to a job, then I am infringing on some employers right to employ a person of his choice. Again, a conflict. These rights are obviously not mutually exclusive.
The way to resolve these conflicts is to use the principle of “ownership”. Thus, Gauravs ownership of the purse, and the employers ownership of the job render my rights stated above inferior.
But this is all very easy so far. What if two people are both thrown overboard from a ship, and there is only one lifejacket, which neither of them owns.
In this case, there is no ownership. So neither of them have a right to use the jacket. But both have a right to pursue the jacket to save their own lives. It is obvious in this case that one of them will die. But does this mean that the survivor has infringed upon the dead persons right to live? Not really! In this case, both of them only had a right to “try to save oneself”. These rights are mutually exclusive, so essentially there is no conflict.
Any loophole in the above definition?
Since we are talking about personal outlooks on this concept and not formal definitions, I think I’d disagree with you, Gaurav.
I see rights as either positive or negative. The former guarantees that you are provided with some good or service, the latter guarantees that you are not deprived of your rights.
So the Right to Food or Education is a positive right, it involves something being taken away from someone else to give it to the recipient. The Right to Life, Liberty and Property on the other hand ensures that you are not deprived of something you already have.
So when you talk about slitting Ck’s throat, as a right it is a positive right, you are not born with the intrinsic right to slit his throat. In my opinion right’s ensured under the law should ideally be negative rights, that protect, rather than provide.
Gautam: He is born with the intrinsic right to swing his arm. an arm holding a knife. a knife pointing towards Ck’s throat.
Gaurav: So you agree that for spontaneous order, there has to be a departure from libertarianism?
e.g. the council shall have to have power. Why should people with “rights” listen to it otherwise? How does it get this power? Whether brute force (aka monarchy) or by majority force (aka democracy) the net result is that the wishes/rights of some receive more importance
than others. e.g. if the majority think hot pants are sleazy and should be banned, the minority ends up having to accept that because of the ‘council’ and where it gets its power from.
7*6 : The council only exists to ensure that individual rights are enforced. It does not have the mandate to decide what is a right!
So tomorrow if the majority decides that every woman in the country has to wear a burkha, that does not make it right!
A “right” is an action that can be taken by an individual without needing permission from any other individual or entity. An individual has just one basic “right”, and that is the right to his or her own life. No individual may demand a “right” that conflicts with any other individuals right to his own life.
Gaurav, how is slitting CK’s throat your right? Isn’t it too pedantic a definition of a right?
Sunil - I am just following Gaurav’s model wherein
all actions fall under the purview of rights of category 1 or 2. The council then, is arbitrating between various rights e.g. - right to slit a throat vs right to life etc.
In your example - the right to subjugate my woman
by burkhafying her WOULD be enforced against other rights if that is what the council deems to be more important.
I think that apart from the traditional definition of rights, there are other factors to consider. Why does the boundary of rights end at human beings?
The human’s “right” to hunt an animal conflicts with the animal’s right to be simply left alone. (which many would agree is a basic right in humans)
If we say that rights are only for humans, how will we defend ourselves when being taken as slaves by say, superior aliens or AIs, who belive that rights are only for them?
Q.2 - If a person is left in the middle of the atlantic ocean and told that he has the freedom to walk home, does that make any sense? similarly, if in a society where all land has already been appropriated, what rights can the newly born possibly have? We say that he has the right to live - But live where? and live how? Does it make sense to talk of the right to live without the right to a portion of the earth where one might live and work?
(full disclosure - I am a libertarian, but a very rare variety called geo-libertarian. i believe in a highly decentralised minarchy sustained by the appropriation of the rent on natural resources)
See…….private property