From: kent@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Kent J Crispin)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Natural Rights (Was: Wage Slavery)
Date: 17 Apr 92 19:59:21 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab.

In article <1992Apr17.210524.7472@waikato.ac.nz> hgm@waikato.ac.nz writes:
>O.K. Lets try your way. Here we are without any formalised social structure and
>therefore in this model no rights. You want to plant your crop. You want to be
>sure that if you do so you will benefit from your effort. You are bigger than
>me but I have more friends. On what basis do you think we would come to an
>agreement which would give you security for your crop?

Good question.  I would try to convince you that it was in you and your friends
enlightened best interest to let me, and hope for the best.  That discussion
would depend on the particulars, and reasoning skills that we undoubtedly
wouldn't have, given the lack of formalised social structure you postulate.
Actually, without a formalized (I feel compelled to use the "z", sorry) social 
structure, I think the problem is insoluable.  Some kind of social structure
is necessary for a solution.  It may be a convenient fiction of that social
structure to postulate "rights".

>>>Given equality of rights, I believe, there can be very few natural rights. 
>> 
>> 0, in my definition.  What do you mean by "natural"?
>> 
>
>I mean rights which everyone should have at birth and which no society should
                              ^^^^^^
Ah! terminology.  I understand the term "natural rights" to refer to those
rights a person HAS 'in the natural state', not rights that they SHOULD
have.

>be allowed to deprive them of without their consent. Recognising these
>would mean that no laws of any society could be considered just, if they did not
>create an environment in which people could expect to be better off than they
>would be with only these 'natural' rights. A just society would be required to
>be a pareto improvement on a theoretical base position in which individuals did
      ^^^^^^  sorry, I don't know this word, and it isn't in my dictionary.
>the best they could exercising only these 'natural rights'.
>
> Perhaps what I am calling
>'natural rights' are the highest COMMON factor of what we all feel we are
>entitled to.

Then, by that definition, there probably are none.  Certainly I would not feel
qualified to say what they are.

>Note I am still talking about what we feel we are entitled to, rights. I think
>values are something quite different. I value education (what am I saying?
>Understand that if there is any truth at all in that statement it is only if
>education is defined in the widest possible sense. It does not relate to
>schools.) but that does not mean that I think society should be organised to
>give you and your children a right to it and make me responsible for part of
>the cost.

Define society as the total activities of people other than you. 
Wouldn't you agree that you have gotten a tremendous amount more from
society than you are worth? Without 'society' you wouldn't be able to
eat, much less think rational thoughts.  I would say that you owe a debt
here.  If you don't want to be responsible for that debt then you can
stop partaking of the benefits of society -- you can stop using the
English language while you think, you can stop eating all food produced
by others.  Basically, you can die.  Part of what you got from society
was an education, and you by no means paid for the total cost -- that
cost echos back into history and prehistory.  What strikes me about your
statement is that you have a confusion about what you are -- 99% of what
you think you are is really the result of 'society', not something
distinct from it.  Note that I said 'what you THINK you are'.  In fact,
of course, there is a great deal of you that isn't directly dependent on
society.  But that component doesn't give a whit about all this we are
talking about -- by definition it doesn't use English or any other
language to think, doesn't use any IDEAS that you have learned, or
anything like that -- certainly doesn't know what "cost" means.  By
definition you can't talk to me about the part of you that isn't
essentially dependent on society.  So why does this construct of society
that is what you think you are object so strongly to the idea of being
held responsible for other human beings socialization? Shouldn't they
get an equal opportunity to develop this parasitic growth on their
"natural" being, just like you?

Sorry, went a little off the deep end there :-)

>Helen Marsh

Kent
--
Kent Crispin				"No need to get excited",
kent@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke....
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory	<Standard disclaimer>
From: megana@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Megan Adams)
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 03:07:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Capital Gains - Wrong Victim
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino