My trouble with natural rights is that perception of the objective world is imperfect and variable, and so natural rights are still defined by consensus. Luckily, our taboo systems mostly overlap, but not always, as evidenced by Haidt's moral foundations work.
I like freedom and individualism. Like Friedman says, when you put equality ahead of freedom you get neither, but when you put freedom ahead of equality, you get a high degree of both.
I've read Ayn's book "Capitalism the unknown ideal" and I liked it. But I more associate myself with the Chicago School and Milton Friedman. Free to Choose is a fantastic series that's on youtube, It has a lot of case studies and is presented in a debate format with intellectuals as well as politicians and labour union heads.
At face value, I think it is a necessary addition. But such a responsibility could also be used to give the government A LOT of power, so it could be dangerous. For instance, it could give the government control over what you grow in your garden, how much you drive, what appliances you use, and so forth -- not to mention the massive regulations that would be imposed upon the industrial sector. Whether or not these intrusions are necessary or justified is an important question. Your thoughts?
The problem with any form of State is that it must be funded through taxation. Unless you can think of a voluntary form of taxation than you are still violating the rights of the individual by robbing him of his labor.
Actually, I suggest you read Rand's words herself rather than Craig Biddle's interpretation of it. Rand made a case of natural rights of man in the Objectivist Ethics chapter of The Virtue of Selfishness. It's man's role in nature (and how we differ from plants and (lower) animals) and what he must do to preserve and further his life that determines what he has a right to do to remain living, a preservation of a life which he owns.
Technically speaking Rand does not base her theory in natural rights, as the concept is understood. Rights are neither god given nor are they inherent in the nature of man that is they are not intrinsic. Rights are objective and arrived at inductively. Rights only arise in a social context and do so on the basis of the necessary need of freedom to use one's reason in order to act. For more see Ayn Rand's Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society by Craig Biddle
Both Rand and Nozick are presented in academic environments as "the" Libertarian thinkers, but I think most of us can agree that they (especially Nozick) took slightly odd-duck approaches compared to how most mainstream Libertarians think.
There is no such thing as a right to violate rights, that would be a self-undermining self-contradiction. Ergo, "rights" are limited in the sense that you have rights upto the point the point in which they violate the rights of others. This isn't merely a traditional observance, as in David Boze's idea of rights, but rather it's a logical consequence and necessity.
Which economic theory are you talking about? Also lots of libertarians will admit they benefit from welfare programs. The question is whether your opportunity cost of not being able to spend the money yourself is greater. In addition, does someone else have the right to take away your property just because it may benefit you more?
I think this school of thought fits me best.
My trouble with natural rights is that perception of the objective world is imperfect and variable, and so natural rights are still defined by consensus. Luckily, our taboo systems mostly overlap, but not always, as evidenced by Haidt's moral foundations work.
That's pronounced "I"n Rand, not Ann Rand. And I'm glad that someone finally brought up her brand of natural rights of the individual.
I like freedom and individualism. Like Friedman says, when you put equality ahead of freedom you get neither, but when you put freedom ahead of equality, you get a high degree of both.
A perfect statement of the minarchist philosophy.
No. He is presenting the arguments and analysis of the different schools of classical liberal thinkers. It is history of thought.
Perhaps a forth justifiable use of government should be added;
4) Protection of shared natural resources and the natural world.
What do you think?
I've read Ayn's book "Capitalism the unknown ideal" and I liked it. But I more associate myself with the Chicago School and Milton Friedman. Free to Choose is a fantastic series that's on youtube, It has a lot of case studies and is presented in a debate format with intellectuals as well as politicians and labour union heads.
Weird that you talk about natural rights without mentioning Rothbard. Either way, excellent video.
Bjswac In the ancap vid
My approach to libertarianism aligns with the minarchist philosophy.
At face value, I think it is a necessary addition. But such a responsibility could also be used to give the government A LOT of power, so it could be dangerous. For instance, it could give the government control over what you grow in your garden, how much you drive, what appliances you use, and so forth -- not to mention the massive regulations that would be imposed upon the industrial sector.
Whether or not these intrusions are necessary or justified is an important question. Your thoughts?
The problem with any form of State is that it must be funded through taxation. Unless you can think of a voluntary form of taxation than you are still violating the rights of the individual by robbing him of his labor.
Actually, I suggest you read Rand's words herself rather than Craig Biddle's interpretation of it. Rand made a case of natural rights of man in the Objectivist Ethics chapter of The Virtue of Selfishness. It's man's role in nature (and how we differ from plants and (lower) animals) and what he must do to preserve and further his life that determines what he has a right to do to remain living, a preservation of a life which he owns.
This is what fits me, I'm a minarchist.
Technically speaking Rand does not base her theory in natural rights, as the concept is understood. Rights are neither god given nor are they inherent in the nature of man that is they are not intrinsic. Rights are objective and arrived at inductively. Rights only arise in a social context and do so on the basis of the necessary need of freedom to use one's reason in order to act. For more see Ayn Rand's Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society by Craig Biddle
What in Biddle's article did you not find persuasive? Do you agree that natural rights are characterized as intrinsic?
Both Rand and Nozick are presented in academic environments as "the" Libertarian thinkers, but I think most of us can agree that they (especially Nozick) took slightly odd-duck approaches compared to how most mainstream Libertarians think.
Can anybody explain to me the issue with God in John locke's theory of rights if you're an atheist what happens to the theory?
Check out the TH-cam presentation titled: “The Science of Rights” by Takac. It will knock the socks off your feet.
This is the truth
There is no such thing as a right to violate rights, that would be a self-undermining self-contradiction. Ergo, "rights" are limited in the sense that you have rights upto the point the point in which they violate the rights of others. This isn't merely a traditional observance, as in David Boze's idea of rights, but rather it's a logical consequence and necessity.
I suggest you look at the first part (video) of this series. "This guy" isn't advocating anything.
Doesn't it make better sense that natural rights are better protected by giving up a governed state.
Yes it does
By fare my second choice. Ayn Rand was another genius. Objectivism is the whole message here.
Okay, so you're a liberal. It's not a bad thing. I know Milton, I've watched and actually have his Free to Choose series.
I wonder what they thought about animal rights? Why limit it to humans, when other beings also have interests?
Is that really how Ayn is pronounced?
Ayn rhymes with mine. It's not pronounced "ain"
0:56 muh rality 😃
Which economic theory are you talking about?
Also lots of libertarians will admit they benefit from welfare programs. The question is whether your opportunity cost of not being able to spend the money yourself is greater. In addition, does someone else have the right to take away your property just because it may benefit you more?