From: kent@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Kent J Crispin)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:07:33 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab.

In article <1992Apr8.231656.7317@waikato.ac.nz> hgm@waikato.ac.nz writes:

>I like the test of imagining you are
>setting up a world into which you are about to be born but you don't know to
>whom, in what status of society, you will be born. 

That's a very interesting test.

>On the basis of that kind of test, I take as my starting point that no one
>person has any more natural rights than any other. You may disagree with this.

I quite agree -- I think everyone has 0 natural rights.

>I do believe that we have some 'natural rights' which exist whether we are
>formed into societies or not and which no individual or group of individuals
>have any right to take from us without our express permission.

Oops, now I disagree.  I think "rights" are completely social or cultural
creations, and that there is really no such thing as "natural rights".  But
it may be terminology...

>Given equality of rights, I believe, there can be very few natural rights. 

0, in my definition.  What do you mean by "natural"?

>A right must be something that can be delivered to all who are entitled to it at
>any time that they choose to exercise it.

>We may have a right to work if we
>define work loosely enough. It could in fact be identical to saying that you
>have the right to decide when to act and when not to act, since any action could
>be defined as work.

>I do not even believe we can have a natural right to life as it may not be
>possible for us all to live at the same time.

>Property rights as we now understand them are as you say  'based in a web of 
>legal codes, customs, and social obligations' but I believe these are
>contractual rights which infringe natural property rights and are therefore
>unjustifiable. 
>
>You have a natural right to freedom from coercion. All or any of your natural
>rights are dependent on your recognising my natural rights. If you infringe on
>my natural rights you lose your natural right to freedom from coercion. You
>also may if you choose, as apparently you do, trade your natural right to
>freedom from coercion for whatever benefits the collective is giving you in
>return. If I, however, have not infringed anyone's natural rights and have not
>explicitly given up my right to freedom from coercion then I do not believe
>that your collective has the right to force me to do anything.

I am not sure, but I think that what you mean by "natural rights" are rights
that would pass your above mentioned test.  I find your test rather
interesting -- it seems similar to Kant's Categorical Imperative, which is,
as I recall, that you adopt those rules which you could will to be universal
law.  But your test has a more subjective flavor -- adopt those rules which
lead to worlds that you would like to live in, if I read it correctly.  Kant
tries to force consistency, since you couldn't will an inconsistency to be
universal law, whereas there is no intrinsic guarantee of consistency in
your test.  In particular, I believe I would apply your test and come up with
a different set of natural rights than you.  But still, I like the test --
it is guarantees ethics consistent with a world I like :-). 

However, it is still true that the rights you have constructed are still
constructs -- things that you created through use of your test.  Usually, I 
think, the term natural rights has a more metaphysical meaning.

Kent

--
Kent Crispin				"No need to get excited",
kent@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke....
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory	<Standard disclaimer>

Xref: sparky sci.econ:3590 talk.politics.misc:17139 alt.individualism:2305