You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Rights- reciprocal or absolute?
Sorry, but if that were the case "rights" wouldn't be rights, they would be privileges. You can't "lose" rights, no matter what you do.
Sorry, but if that were the case "rights" wouldn't be rights, they would be privileges. You can't "lose" rights, no matter what you do.
correct...once you initiate force all bets are OFF.
when you break the law you are no longer entitled to the protection OF the law.
(assuming the law is just...hah hah)
That's exactly right. Once you violate someone's property - once you commit that act of trespass - you can't turn around and say "wait, you can't try to stop me! That would be trespassing against me and my property!" It's nonsensical. Rights aren't absolute like that. If they were, then self-defense would be an act of aggression, which is just silly.
Rights are absolute. It doesn't violate someone's rights when you stop them from violating someone else's rights, because no one has the right to violate anyone's rights.
That no one has the right to violate anyone else's rights is superfluous, so that doesn't really add to the conversation. But let's take what you've just posited. You've established that everyone has a right to non-aggression, and that this right is absolute. How then can you violate the right of someone to non-aggression in defense of another? Put another way, if A initiates aggression against B, not you, why is it not initiating aggression against A to come to B's defense? A hasn't initiated aggression against you, just against B.
Defense is never aggression, and if someone has the right to defend themselves from aggression, you have the right to do the same on their behalf. You aren't violating anyone's rights by defending someone from their aggression (although they'd probably want to convince others that you are).
Yes, but why? Why do you have that right?
Because you have the absolute human right to do anything whatsoever that doesn't violate anyone else's equal and identical rights. Anything.
Does it violate someone's rights if you wear red and green striped pants?
No. You have a right to wear red and green striped pants.
Does it violate anyone's rights if you smoke Cannabis?
No. You have a right to smoke Cannabis.
Does it violate anyone's rights to defend them from an attacker or thief?
No. You have the right to defend people from an attacker or thief.
Does it violate anyone rights to attack them if they didn't violate you first?
Yes. You have no right to initiate force.
Does it violate anyone's rights if you use force to stop them from initiating force, against you or against a third party?
No. No one has the right to initiate force, so stopping them doesn't violate them.
You can try to complicate anything if that's your goal, and you'll probably trip up a lot of people. Why spend your effort making things worse, though?
I'm not overcomplicating things. I'm attempting to be more precise. The lack of precision in asserting that a right to non-aggression is a priori true, without any additional examination, is why you've arrived at the conclusion that this right is absolute.
Either of these can be true, but not both, and this is the issue I've been trying to drive home. It does not follow that because you can defend yourself from a person attack you, that an uninvolved third party can do the same absent some pre-existing obligation to do so. The third party was not violated by the attacker. By your own rule, the third party cannot use force against the attacker without violating the rule you've established. This illustrates the problem with using imprecise language. It invites all sorts of equivocation.
However, if you move beyond non-aggression, into the fundamental private property right from which it arises, it is plainly evident why you can come to the defense of a third party, and why it would not be initiation of force from you as a third party to the conflict.
Then how is self-defense not aggression?
The key concept is "thou shalt not initiate'... Retaliation is just fine.
Like I mentioned in another response, saying everyone has a right to non-aggression is a cumbersome and inarticulate way of saying everyone has a right not to have their consent violated. They essentially amount to the same thing; non-aggression speaks specifically to trespasses against persons and property, correct?
I think the term non-aggression is misleading. Rather say do not initiate aggression.
The point I'm driving at is: why do you have a right to non-aggression? The reason I don't like using non-aggression, or not to have aggression initiated against you, is because it is derived from a more fundamental right. When examined, it provides the context for why that right is not, in fact, absolute, and with good reason.
you only have the rights you are conceived with.
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is one way of defining three of them.
if some deprives or you of that they are violating your rights.
If you retaliate to preserve your rights you have done no wrong.
Again, why do you have those rights? Put another way, where do those rights come from? They're all derived from a more fundamental right. I agree with you that you have those three rights, but those are simply the three basic forms of a more general right, one that underscores all of them. It's the same one that underscores the right to non-aggression, which is a generalized way of referring to those three specific rights.
why is irrelevant.
you have them at conception.
that is sufficient.
Because aggression is the initiation of force. Once someone else has initiated force ("started it"), then your response isn't an initiation.
Aggression is not exclusively the initiation of force. Aggression can also simply be hostile behavior, which is one reason why I don't think it's as strong as it should be for a first principle. Sticking with that definition, though, is it wrong to come to the defense of someone else? Even if you weren't the target of the aggression?
Is the "hostile behavior" a credible threat to initiate force? If so, it is aggression. Otherwise it isn't.
No, it isn't wrong to come to someone else's defense, since that is still defense. If they have a right to do it, you have a right to do it on their behalf.
Alright, but why? That's the problem with presupposing non-aggression as a right. You're not incorrect, but without understanding the reason behind it, you're vulnerable to coming to incorrect conclusions.
By definition. Why does water (generally, adjusting for purity and air pressure, etc.) freeze at 32 degrees F/0 degrees C? That's just how it is. You can argue and question, but that's not going to change it.
Incorrect. It can be justified and reasoned logically. It derives from an a priori truth, so in that sense you're partially correct, but non-aggression itself isn't a priori true. That's the point I'm getting at. It arises from a more fundamental right, which, when properly understood, reveals that this right, from which the right to non-aggression arises, is reciprocal. This is the why that justifies self-defense.
"non-aggression itself isn't a priori true"
Meaningless. "Non-aggression" (and Zero Archation) is the best way to attempt to live among others so far discovered. That doesn't mean it is "true", or that it isn't based on something more basic. The alternatives have been tried, and anyone who bothers to observe can see where they lead. The results are true. The principles are true, as far as they work and the alternatives lead to ruin for our species.
You can behave as though rights (not specifically "non-aggression") are reciprocal, but that is still treating rights as though they are privileges, granted or withdrawn on a whim by someone who believes they have that "authority". I still recognize that murderers have rights, even though their rights don't negate their debts.