tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post1021817721117982602..comments2024-02-13T02:39:22.756-05:00Comments on EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Designed Rights versus Natural RightsRobert Wenzelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14296920597416905488noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-50434379146005615922013-02-19T14:38:02.414-05:002013-02-19T14:38:02.414-05:00Natural law is "discovered" law, no diff...Natural law is "discovered" law, no different from the laws of physics. No physicist believes he is creating the laws of physics, and the same is true of those intent on discovering natural law precepts. Human action is a series of principles discovered by observing how humans behave in society, and which types of behaviors are beneficial, which are harmful. Perhaps at base we are not DwightJohnsonhttp://www.cantonmovement.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-40773669230222603782013-02-19T14:24:11.461-05:002013-02-19T14:24:11.461-05:00Robert, your formula deifies the human person. Nat...Robert, your formula deifies the human person. Natural law at least acknowledges that human beings are not self-deifying, but are best served by humility before something greater than themselves. I am also not saying that there is no room in human society for those who wish to self-deify, and seek to create laws out of nothing. I am simply saying that hubris is dangerous, and that those who DwightJohnsonhttp://www.cantonmovement.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-21718711392617050952013-02-19T02:30:36.553-05:002013-02-19T02:30:36.553-05:00No, I don't think I am shifting the debate. Th...No, I don't think I am shifting the debate. Th debate is not about my beliefs or preferences. It is about the concept of natural rights. I think I explained above the context in which the slave's natural self-ownership is defined. It is defined by the existence of slave's choosing of his own actions. It is not defined by slave's relationship with the slave owner. If it was, the Predrag Rajsichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00301941050662222192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-64820405859386579092013-02-19T00:24:56.211-05:002013-02-19T00:24:56.211-05:00Pedrag,
You are shifting the conversation. You sa...Pedrag,<br /><br />You are shifting the conversation. You said "slave's self-ownership is no different than any other individual's self-ownership."<br /><br />Wenzel, thus, has a very legitimate question, just how does self-ownership work, if it exists for a slave?<br /><br />You are attempting to shift the debate. You did not say "the concept of natural rights is The Cleanerhttp://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/vacuum-cleaner-diagram.jpgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-39091329415526052952013-02-18T21:29:45.384-05:002013-02-18T21:29:45.384-05:00Who cares what I would be in favour of. My point w...Who cares what I would be in favour of. My point was that the concept of natural rights is independent of actual human relations. Predrag Rajsichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00301941050662222192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-60312925668895189842013-02-17T14:55:45.760-05:002013-02-17T14:55:45.760-05:00Thanks; I had indeed not read it this wayThanks; I had indeed not read it this wayDomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00492487047119630784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-61210942004140445262013-02-17T12:24:28.029-05:002013-02-17T12:24:28.029-05:00You are reading Wenzel incorrectly, he is not sayi...You are reading Wenzel incorrectly, he is not saying that because a person doesn't control himself that he has no natural rights, he is saying that those who say natural rights exist because we always have self-ownership are basing their argument on the fallacy of self-ownership always existing. <br /><br />And this is not the only point Wenzel differs with Rothbard on. He has a different Banacekhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4ReSTFDAHUnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-77395581238197698252013-02-17T05:05:01.916-05:002013-02-17T05:05:01.916-05:00Robert,
I have been following your blog for a lit...Robert,<br /><br />I have been following your blog for a little while now. great stuff, but I had come to wonder whether you are not involved in some kind of a Rothbard cult, judging for example by the way in which you recently attacked Tucker on the basis that he simply did not include Murray in the top authors of his online library ( not even asking what the ranking was about - for example Domhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00492487047119630784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-17388832701633020242013-02-16T18:08:29.669-05:002013-02-16T18:08:29.669-05:00So you would be in favor of slaves because they &q...So you would be in favor of slaves because they "own themselves" in your view?Robert Wenzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296920597416905488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-45049270473907285142013-02-16T18:06:19.453-05:002013-02-16T18:06:19.453-05:00Actually, Dwight, you are thinking like a central ...Actually, Dwight, you are thinking like a central planner. Why can't there be societies designed around various interpretations of different views of God's nature, and societies designed around the secular non-aggression principle? Versus just a society designed around your view of "nature and nature's God"?<br /><br />Yuor formula is disaster, it would require total Robert Wenzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296920597416905488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-11933451392158445802013-02-16T17:03:40.041-05:002013-02-16T17:03:40.041-05:00The central point of natural rights is the recogni...The central point of natural rights is the recognition that they come from something other than the will of human beings. They come from "nature and nature's God". It sounds to me like Designed Rights acknowledge only the human will. I have to agree with Derrick that such is a formula for disaster.DwightJohnsonhttp://www.cantonmovement.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-23181263504956088632013-02-16T10:16:11.529-05:002013-02-16T10:16:11.529-05:00The slave owner may control the consequences of sl...The slave owner may control the consequences of slave's actions, but it is still the slave that chooses his own actions based his own evaluation of those consequences. In that sense, the slave's self-ownership is no different than any other individual's self-ownership. Predrag Rajsichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00301941050662222192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-16659543793772492162013-02-14T17:38:22.272-05:002013-02-14T17:38:22.272-05:00No labor was mixed with land to produce RonPaul.co...No labor was mixed with land to produce RonPaul.com. Domain names don't exist in nature. Lew Rockwell's commentary (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/132275.html) is correct. The owner of RonPaul.com is the domain registrar. They can license its use to whomever they choose. In fact, they have published guidelines for settling exactly these kinds of disputes. Ron Paul isAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-33500206754938760302013-02-14T14:37:01.730-05:002013-02-14T14:37:01.730-05:00In a designed rights society it would be whoever h...In a designed rights society it would be whoever had the most guns and missiles. Hitler and Stalin were great designers of rights. Mao was also quite the designer.D. Lawless Hardwarehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10416599643576620796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-74275510222730634352013-02-14T10:42:59.053-05:002013-02-14T10:42:59.053-05:00"By virtue of being a person you OUGHT to hav..."By virtue of being a person you OUGHT to have certain rights."<br /><br />Says who? <br /><br />It's nice that many people may think that way, but many people argue that those rights include the right to food stamps, a place to live and money for air conditioning and a flat screen tv?<br /><br />How can you refute their argument with your logic? Can't be done.<br /><br />You The Cleanerhttp://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/vacuum-cleaner-diagram.jpgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-11336683190929370732013-02-14T10:23:05.071-05:002013-02-14T10:23:05.071-05:00Your definition of natural rights is confused. Nat...Your definition of natural rights is confused. Naturals rights theory undermines a moral theory. By virtue of being a person you OUGHT to have certain rights. The fact they are violated is obvious everyday. Now if you are "designing" rights you need a theory which aids in forming such rights. A theory which tells you what OUGHT to be the designed rights. Without natural rights what is Josiahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-52920672585636770812013-02-14T09:30:19.023-05:002013-02-14T09:30:19.023-05:00They are different in a very important way. They c...They are different in a very important way. They can reach very different results in the real world. For example, assuming the deus ex machina natural rights Locke-Rothbard view of ownership going to the first mixing land with labor, ronpaul.com would belong to the current owners. In a designed right society that would not necessarily be the case.Robert Wenzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296920597416905488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-35116052997672163452013-02-14T09:10:37.744-05:002013-02-14T09:10:37.744-05:00RW said: "Most of us would prefer to live in ...RW said: "Most of us would prefer to live in a society where we are not subject to the whims of slave owners, cannibals, murderers and dictators". This very desire is the evidence of the existence of natural law, because it is the desire of our human nature to live in peace. The principles (laws of peaceful human coexistence) that are subsequently discovered must be in harmony with thisDwightJohnsonhttp://www.cantonmovement.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-20237583945407226442013-02-14T08:07:47.400-05:002013-02-14T08:07:47.400-05:00I guess there was a snafu, but there they are agai...I guess there was a snafu, but there they are again, a really good talk by Tom Woods on rights, history, etc. Admittedly, they have strongly influenced my thinking on the subject:<br /><br />Part 1:<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Lb8YitPs8<br /><br />Part 2:<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwLWr7o1abk<br /><br />Part 3:<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSmFpClf5oMJFFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-1181350868850179432013-02-14T08:01:41.172-05:002013-02-14T08:01:41.172-05:00Anonymous: I said precisely what I meant.
Derrick...Anonymous: I said precisely what I meant.<br /><br />Derrick: Thanks, you got it!JFFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-84391689862498652652013-02-14T00:26:55.463-05:002013-02-14T00:26:55.463-05:00I wish he could have worked something out privatel...I wish he could have worked something out privately, without resorting to the government. RonPaul.com was instrumental to my understanding early on. I spend hours on their "sound money" page reading the comments and trying to wrap my head around it.Wagsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-14414044440141592212013-02-13T23:13:27.758-05:002013-02-13T23:13:27.758-05:00"Thus, I must ask, how can there be a 'n..."Thus, I must ask, how can there be a 'natural' ownership of property, when that 'ownership' may not exist in the presence of<br /><br />1. A squatter<br />2. A theif<br />3. An arsonist<br />4. A dictator, who confiscates at will<br /><br />We may want to control, say, our property, but it is not a given that we will be able to do so under all conditions."<br /><br />Bill Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-55330523192792774452013-02-13T19:39:48.255-05:002013-02-13T19:39:48.255-05:00I laid out a good source from an intelligent perso...I laid out a good source from an intelligent person. I am not a scholar on the issue, nor have I read as much as I would like to yet I have some experience in listening to arguments and deciphering which one sounds correct. That is the level I am at right now with this subject and I am guessing where many are at who are on this forum, perhaps you as well. Is that a "dumb" comment? I tenbobnotehttp://catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-73956522889281576712013-02-13T19:23:10.149-05:002013-02-13T19:23:10.149-05:00Wenzel says rights are designed, therefore, they c...Wenzel says rights are designed, therefore, they can be violated. Those objecting to his denial of natural rights have a problem because as natural rights they can not be violated. Wenzel has everyone covered.YoYnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3758330678390419129.post-42633469747499922522013-02-13T19:17:49.591-05:002013-02-13T19:17:49.591-05:00Oh yes, let's make this a guru match, instead ...Oh yes, let's make this a guru match, instead of debating the merit of the arguments, what a dumb comment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com