Comments on: Do Rights Exist?

By: Kent McManigal

Kent McManigal — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:45:52 +0000

That’s kind of funny to me. My blog post for tomorrow (Oct. 29) is “Why is it wrong to harm the innocent?” which I think touches on this idea. I wrote it a week or so ago. I doubt I would convince the nihilist, though.

By: Anarcho-mercantilist

Anarcho-mercantilist — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:55:59 +0000

The non-aggression ‘axiom’ is not an axiom, it’s a principle derived from various logical arguments concluding why the initiation of violence causes unintended consequences. If it is an ‘axiom’, then Rothbard does not have to write a whole book on arguements defending the non-aggression principle. Therefore, I prefer using ‘non-aggression principle’ instead of ‘non-aggression axiom’.

I also somewhat find the word “natural” in the term “natural rights” as vague. No formal definition of ‘natural’ exists. I prefer the terms such as ‘universal rights’ or ‘inalienable rights’. But I prefer the term ‘liberty’ instead of ‘rights’, since rights imply the obligations of others, while liberty means the freedom for the subject to make decisions and the freedom from interference.

By: Cork

Cork — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:32:24 +0000

The people who attack natural rights as mystical hocus pocus are attacking a strawman, as I made clear in one of my posts:

http://corktageous.blogspot.com/2008/08/natural-rights-explained.html

By: Kel

Kel — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:17:49 +0000

It seems John beat me to the point I was going to make. You don’t prove axioms. They are assumed to be true, typically because they are thought to be self evident. Either way, they are the bedrock from which you derive logical conclusions. If your reader wishes to reject these axioms, that’s fine, but I ask that he put forth his own axioms that he thinks are so self evident. Unfortunately, it would seem his primary axiom is “nothing is true”, which is a poor axiom to lay a logical groundwork.

If nothing it true, then A is A is a false statement, meaning that A is not A is true. Except nothing is true, so A is neither A or not A. Well, then, what the fuck is it?

By: Zach S

Zach S — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 02:05:37 +0000

This whole arguement hurts my brain by trying to figure out why he would possibly say there are no rights.

We all know societal rules attempt or due limit or take away some rights. But how can they do that? Well, if you do not believe rights exist naturally, then the only way for society to take away or limit rights is to give rights first. So you would have to believe the arguement that rights were given so society can limit or take away them.

This idea is simply absurd. It is quite obvious rights just exist and societal laws are created to control these “god given rights” or however you believe they are yours. Personally, I think me being me gives me rights…to be me.

If rights do not naturally exist, then you would have to believe the arguement that rights were created so they could be taken away.

People di

By: John

John — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:45:40 +0000

“I challenge everyone to try to prove me wrong, try to prove the existence of rights, try to prove the axiom of the non-aggression axiom or the axiom of self-ownership.”

My understanding of the term “axiom” is that it is a self-evident truth that neither requires proof nor can, indeed, technically be proven.

Ah – the American Heritage Dictionary backs me up:
“1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth….
3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.”

So, on the off chance that you visit No Third Solution again and David didn’t make this point clear enough to you in his post: you’re an idiot. That’s pretty self-evident.