Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness (Property) | The Right to Life is fundamental

in freedom •  2 years ago

enter image description here

The axiom of human rights

In the axiom of fundamental rights, the most fundamental human right which makes all other rights possible is the right to life. Without the ability to live, it is not possible to experience liberty, or own property. So while it is important for those who have a life to have a life filled with liberty, it is primary and necessary to have a life from which to experience liberty in the first place. Both Liberty and Property (and Happiness) depend on being alive from which to experience.

Security is primarily about protecting the right to life

When people are asked what is the function of security? It's primarily about protecting lives. By defending the right to life, we define what it means to be safe from danger. At the same time we must remember not to stop at merely protecting each others lives. When through our security routines we manage to lower the probability of violation of the right to life to a level where most people feel safe, then security must focus on producing and maximizing liberty for those whose lives are defended. So what this means is, it's not merely enough to keep those who you are protecting alive, but it is also necessary to protect their right to liberty as much as possible.

Why must we protect their right to liberty as much as possible? The pursuit of happiness depends on being free. A person who is not free cannot spend their time in a manner in which they choose and cannot pursue their own happiness. So if we are protecting others we have to remember it's not enough to simply focus on policies, software designs, or methods which keep them alive, but it is also necessary to produce an environment where the maximum number of people can pursue their own happiness. How does that work in a capitalist society?

Property rights and financial freedom

In order to truly be free in a capitalist society, it is required that there are strong property rights. This means it's not enough to simply allow people to pursue happiness without providing them with a means to do so. This requires protecting property rights on some level, and whether you believe in protecting "private" property or "personal" property, or you lean more towards anarcho-socialism or anarcho-capitalism, it does not change the fact property rights must be strongly defended.

Self ownership is the primary property of any free person. The difference between a slave and a free person is that the free person legally is a self owned individual while the slave is owned by the state, or corporation, or their families, or something else. It is important at least in my opinion, to promote liberation rather than slavery in any design, and in order to do this we must recognize at a fundamental philosophical level that each individual sentient being which has achieved person hood status, is their own person, they own themselves, they do not belong to us, and there is no exception to this.

Love and property rights

The topic of love is controversial but I will make a point, that there is possessive love which is the most common form we seem to find, and there is liberating love which is uncommon but which is in my opinion a better philosophical representation of love. Often when people speak of someone they love, they speak of these people as if they own them. They use phrases such as "she stole my boyfriend" or "they are trying to take our women". These sorts of phrases are sociopathic and treat love as ownership of another person. It is recognized, that sociopaths do not truly understand love and it is important to distinguish between the different philosophies of love because this is also important to finding the appropriate expression.

Love is about liberation

In the liberating form of love, it's accepted that each person we love is free to define themselves to us, to express to us how they want to be treated, and within reason to be treated as they want to be treated. In a world of self ownership, we do not own the people we love and the people we love do not own us. We each own ourselves, and merely want to defend the rights of the people we love, because we want them to do the same for us. When we see relationships where it seems the function of the relationship is for both sides (or one side) to reduce each others freedom, and violate each others rights, then we can see that some relationships are bad for security and promote values which may actually be the anti-thesis of liberty.

How to design secure solutions for people you love

The practical application of all of this is in how we design our solutions. In developing software, setting policies, or just trying to figure out how to parent a child, it is important to recognize that on the most fundamental level the basic rights which must be protected. Any child, any participant in a game, any user, should be entitled to feel as safe and as free as your solution can provide. In cases where you hear arguments which state, a solution must compromise one fundamental right for another, it is in my opinion crucial to always justify any compromise. If for instance it is necessary to restrict the liberty of your child in order to keep your child alive, you owe it to your child to explain in detail what the risk of death is, how high that risk is, and how your new security procedure is actually protecting their right to life by lowering their risk of dying. This could be for example a curfew if you are raising a child in a dangerous neighborhood, but the point is the restriction has to be explained and cannot just be put in if it's not actually producing security.

And just as with the microcosm, it is with the macrocosm. In developing secure software it is never going to be a situation where you can have something be 100% secure, or 100% free, or have property rights which are 100% absolute. The point is to remember that rights depend on other rights, and that in order to protect the lives of users of a platform you may have to violate the liberty and or property of other users of the platform. This means no right is an absolute right in a vacuum, but that security is about minimizing the violation of rights.

Conclusion

Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness (Property) are a set of rights which depend upon each other but which represent a hierarchy. At the top of the hierarchy is the right to life, without this right there can't be any other rights. And after life comes liberty, which is required to be able to pursue happiness, and of course property ownership is what makes liberty possible. None of these rights are absolute, and security is about maximization, and minimizing the violation of these rights. In a complex adaptive system, if there is liberty but no right to life, then the system may kill itself. For this reason liberty has to be restricted just enough to protect the participants from having their rights violated, the primary of which is the right to life. Property rights are to promote liberty, but when property rights violate the right to life or promote something other than liberty, then we may need to violate this right to protect the more primary rights of life and liberty.

References

  1. https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/victims-rights/right-life
  2. http://www.claiminghumanrights.org/right_to_life_definition.html
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_life
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Intellectual property is a key aspect for economic development.

·

How do you secure intellectual property if it's intangible?

·

Without property, where do you end and I begin?

·
·

You should carefully examine a philosophy that causes you to think of people in terms of property.
People are not things.
Crapitalism causes us to separate ourselves into yours and mine.
This makes war and crime business as usual.
When we think of ourselves as one big blue marble we tend to be nicer to each other.
It took me well over a decade to get my head untwisted from crapitalism.
I'm much more pleasant to be around, now.
Proudhon isn't saying that we shouldn't respect each other's space and things, he is pointing out that crapitalism has caused you to fall victim to doublethink.
It is the crapitalust that doesn't respect the right to life.
Be exploited for your poverty, or starve.
Create profits for the boss, or live under a bridge.
Hardly the behavior of a loving, caring system.
Under my proposal war, crime, poverty, economic slavery, and scarcity, all come to an end.
In their place are cooperation, abundance, and mutual respect.
But don't expect to get that idea from the lamestream sources of information.
In a mind controlled world freedom is never presented as an option that is viable.

·
·
·

I disagree. People are things, are material objects, and whomever has control over that thing is the owner. It is in my opinion imperative to give those ownership rights to the individual person who resides within that body.

Technologically speaking, in the near future it will be possible for a government or for a spy agency to involuntarily chip the brains of people and violate self ownership rights technologically. If self ownership does not exist as a human right, then there simply will be no human rights and you will not have any legal means to defend yourself from being communally owned. Trying to say under your proposal war, crime, economic slavery, all could come to an end?

It is true, if every brain on earth is chipped and connected to a giant computer running artificial intelligence, then free will can be completely wiped out and all those problems you mention could come to an end based on the fact that no one would own themselves, but instead their bodies would be remotely controlled by an AI.

But in that future we will have sacrificed 100% of our liberty in order to get absolute security and my point is that the ideal is to have both, not one or the other. And in my opinion it's not possible to have the utopia you speak. I do think we can have a better world, but there will always be a struggle to defend rights, and to keep whatever gains which we manage to establish.

And no, I don't look to old philosophers with outdated ideas. Show me an idea from Proudhon which applies well into the technologically enhanced future, where there is AI, where there could be a technological singularity, where free will might cease to exist, where personal responsibility might cease to exist, where the individual might cease to exist, and how do his ideas apply?

I don't think capitalism is the problem. Blaming capitalism is like blaming the accounting system for all the theft and exploitation of people operating under it. The problem is that some people are psychopathic and greedy, and this problem isn't going to go away under communism or socialism.

·
·
·
·

I share your concerns, but you got some doublethinc going when you say people are property and expect them not to be treated like property as currently envisioned by the population.
The definitions we use are not always identical.
If you reduce life to property you are making a thing out of a life.
A thing to be manipulated and used.
A slave.
People are free, only the ideas we accept are there to enslave us, by design.

You are a soul, you have a body.
Of course only you have authority over it.

If you accept that others having authority over you can be legitimate, as in an owner/wageslave relationship, then you accept that some people should be slaves.

It is only natural that the rulers would make rules to 'safeguard' their property, just as natural as your accepting it as the only solution possible, by design.

Because the last thing your social programming is going to feed you is the difference between what you think is freedom and what real freedom is.

The choice between starving and living under a bridge, or agreeing to let somebody take a portion of your labor's value as a premium for letting you work, not to mention attendance and deportment pressures, is not a choice freely made, who chooses to live under a bridge if there are other options?
People that have had enough, that's who, and those dependent on them.

In my utopia we work because we want to replace what we consume.
We excel because that is how you find suitable mates.
Reputation is everything.
I think you prefer what you have for the same reasons people accept the religion forced on them as children, you just don't know any better.
Not a slight to you, but to the matrix that made this situation possible.

Loading...