[Chris Rhines]

I ran across this on one of the market anarchist boards that I read:

Where do Rights Come From?

-A Right is the expectation produced by a promise, realised only in the fulfilment of that promise.

-The rational motive for one party to make a promise to a second party is a voluntary exchange transaction; in exchange for a right created by another promise made by the second party to the first - like when an exchange cannot be transacted immediately in a hand-to-hand swap - in what is, effectively, a longer term or continuous pact, deal, agreement or contract.

-All transactions, mutual exchange and co-operation between Human beings are contingent upon tacit promises and trust in the rights created by such promises. Without such deals (even if only implied or tacit rather than signed and notarised) peaceful, mutual co-operation - at least between non-kin - could not occur.

-A Right, therefore, is a legal term for the product of a contract.

The surety of a right; what makes it a rational expectation rather than an irrationally wishful one, is contingent on:
1.The voluntary - uncoerced - nature of the promise that created it.
2.The credibility that the promise can be fulfilled and,
3.That the promise was made by the same party that is nominated to undertake its fulfilment.

N.B. Beware of rights offered or alleged for ideological motives since ideals are hypothetical and logically incoherent.

My thanks and acknowledgements to...

- Nigel Stead, Marbella, Spain, (2003)



Any thoughts?

- Chris

[Jim March]

I don't trust where that takes us. "Rights" (and morality!) then become contingent on a relationship of some sort between parties...barring such relationship, nothing at all is forbidden.

Sorry, but we're more socially advanced than the Vikings or any other group that pillages for profit (like Iraq).

I genuinely believe in basic human rights derived from our biological need for social structures.

[Chris Rhines]

I'm not sure about your objection, Jim.
"Rights" (and morality!) then become contingent on a relationship of some sort between parties... I see no problem with this at first glance. However you define them, 'rights' can only exist in the interaction between people. If I were the only sapient being in the universe, the concept of 'rights' would have no value, because there would be no one else to either respect or violate them.

...barring such relationship, nothing at all is forbidden. Right. Any consensual action would be 'allowed' (bad term, but run with it) under such an interpretation.

Sorry, but we're more socially advanced than the Vikings or any other group that pillages for profit (like Iraq). Maybe I'm missing something. Can you state an example of what you mean by 'pillaging for profit?' Something that would be allowed under such a system?

I genuinely believe in basic human rights derived from our biological need for social structures. The reason that I'm so interested in this topic is because I think that the above derivation of rights is inadequate. In short, I'm not convinced that humans have a biological requirement for social structures. I think humans create social structures because they derive some benefit from them; but need? I'm not convinced.

- Chris

[Zander]

In short, I'm not convinced that humans have a biological requirement for social structures. Not even a man and a woman who followed the biological urge to procreate?

[Chris Rhines]

That's not what I was talking about, Zander. Procreation does not require a social structure, although one is often entered into beforehand (or sometimes afterwards...)

- Chris

[nualle]

I've lettered the points of the initial argument for clarity.

A-A Right is the expectation produced by a promise, realised only in the fulfilment of that promise. [snip]

D-A Right, therefore, is a legal term for the product of a contract.
D is not a conclusion, it is a restatement of A. This renders the argument circular.

A encodes a premise whose truth is not in evidence (right deriving from a promise) and is not supported, only assumed, by the rest of the argument. Therefore, any conclusions based on it are as uncertain as the premise.
---------
Chris, you said:
If I were the only sapient being in the universe, the concept of 'rights' would have no value, because there would be no one else to either respect or violate them.
When a tree falls in the forest and noone is there to hear (and value) the sound, the sound nonetheless exists. That a solitary person's rights have no social value does not render those rights nonexistent, just momentarily inapplicable.

Reduced to the bare bones as best I can, the NAP says: harm noone. That statement goes in only one direction... from I to Thou. "Rights" states the same thing in both directions: harm noone and expect no harm. Once Q has voluntarily harmed R, Q's rights are no longer at issue. Q has forfeited them.

In short, I'm not convinced that humans have a biological requirement for social structures. I think humans create social structures because they derive some benefit from them; but need? I'm not convinced.
I don't believe the human social tendency has to be biologically rooted. It is manifest. For whatever reasons, humans interact. A concept of rights (encoding the NAP within it) is the best way we've come up with (that I know of) to organize human interaction justly. Why need it be more than that?

[Blackhawk]

Once Q has voluntarily harmed R, Q's rights are no longer at issue. Q has forfeited them. It's easy enough to determine that R's been harmed, but not so easy to determine that Q is responsible even if R claims it is so.

Then Q stands accused, but if guilty, Q has no rights, and if innocent, Q has full rights.

While legal guilt is being established, what rights does Q have?

That's merely rhetorical, because it severely gums up otherwise simple issues. :D

[Zander]

That's not what I was talking about, Zander. Procreation does not require a social structure, although one is often entered into beforehand (or sometimes afterwards...)You said:

"If I were the only sapient being in the universe, the concept of 'rights' would have no value, because there would be no one else to either respect or violate them."

How many extras in the universe would you need?

[Jim March]

Quoting:

---------
Maybe I'm missing something. Can you state an example of what you mean by 'pillaging for profit?' Something that would be allowed under such a system?
---------

Well sure. If I'm a citizen of a small-time king in Denmark or Norway, and I only viewed those people who are part of my small immediate society as having "rights" under a system of laws I follow, then I can jump in a boat and head for Ireland or England, go ashore, kill as many men as I can find, sacrafice some as gifts to Odin, capture women and children as slaves and loot monestaries or anything else for anything of value. Because those people have NO civil rights whatsoever; there's no such thing as "basic human rights".

Believe me, that was *exactly* the situation in Europe in the Middle Ages. For that matter, it's how the Aztecs and Mayans behaved, the Roman and Greek empires ran on the same principles, a HUGE number of ancient "cultures" worked that way, recognizing no "human rights" for anyone outside their tribe/kingdom/empire/etc. Hell, the US acted that way against native Americans.

It's how Iraq runs right now - only force of arms blocks them. Ditto North Korea. Ditto CHINA, for that matter, you watch what happens if Russia's military degrades too far, China will make a grab at Siberia's resources in a heartbeat.

If there's such a thing as basic human rights, then none of this is proper within the meaning of what it means to be a moral human being (or government). The non-aggression principle is another way of stating the same issue.

Quoting:

-----------
The reason that I'm so interested in this topic is because I think that the above derivation of rights is inadequate. In short, I'm not convinced that humans have a biological requirement for social structures. I think humans create social structures because they derive some benefit from them; but need? I'm not convinced.
-----------

You're kidding, right?

Where do I even start?

Any group of humans will RAPIDLY establish a social structure of some sort. "Alpha Males" will soon make their appearance; some people (usually male) are of "dominant" personality types. It's not always connected with physical ability. Others are "natural followers". Women are attracted to "alpha males". Observe the social structure of a kindergarten class, or a high school, or a prison - certain basic patterns ALWAYS form.

The similarity to Gorilla or Chimp social structures is absolutely unmistakable to anybody paying attention.

In my personal case, I have no "alpha male" tendencies whatsoever, BUT I'm not a good follower either. That plus the fact that I followed the NAP before I knew it by that term plus I couldn't understand people who attacked others for pleasure meant I barely survived high school, and explains why I don't leave the house unarmed to this day at age 36. It's possible there's a high number of people like me in gunnie circles; I know for a fact I'm not the only such "oddball" here.