From: sals@florimel.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Subject: Re: The big difference
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:50:22 GMT

In article <1jpj4jINN689@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike  
Huben) writes:
w> >Do you believe that rights exist only because a government (or
> >'society') created them?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> >Or do you believe that there are at least
> >some rights which a person has simply because they exist?
> 
> There is NO physical evidence of this, whereas there is ample historical
> evidence of the former.  Rights come from the exact same source as laws:
> human societies.  To pretend that they have some Platonic existence  
outside
> of a particular human society is the fallacy of reification.
> 
Even if rights come from human society, do they come from government?  
Where is the historical evidence that governments ever created rights  
instead of rubber stamping a right which had already evolved?
BTW can you explain what YOU mean by the fallacy of reification? You are  
constantly claiming people are guilt of some fallacy or another, yet, you  
don't explain why. And often you are fallacous in your reasoning.
> Most cultures find it useful to create rights.  However, it's rare that  
any
> rights created by any culture are absolute, such as the property rights
> endorsed by libertarians.  Otherwise you run into real "irresistable  
force
> vs. immovable object" conflicts as soon as you have more than one right.
This is why libertarians reject the notion of positive rights and most use  
negative rights instead. Negative rights don't conflict as much, if at  
all. 
> >For example, suppose you like gardening and you build a garden.  A
> >neighbor decides that he could make better use of the space and
> >builds a shed on it.  Is it ok for the neighbor to do this?  You've
> >potentially spent a great deal of time building and tending your  
garden,
> >only to see it wiped out by someone else with no regard to what you  
have
> >done.  If there are no laws against this, do you simply accept this,
> >or do you feel that something is wrong and things like this shouldn't
> >be allowed to happen?  
> 
> You didn't build the natural resources (the land) used in the garden.
> You have no more right to those natural resources than the child born
> yesterday.  
This depends upon your concept of rights. While you did not build the land  
you did however transform it into something much more valuable. Can you  
please tell us how you conceive of rights? 
>Thus, you ought not to be able to own those natural resources:
> you ought to be able to bid for their temporary use.  The income from  
the
> rental of natural resources ought to be distributed to all people.   
That,
> in effect, is what property (land) and extractive taxes do directly.
> 
Mike, you complain about libertarians making logical leaps, yet, your line  
of reasoning makes a few leaps as well.

> You are right in that it is inefficient NOT to have some system of  
property.
> However the systems of property that libertarians presume is not the  
only
> one that can protect your garden.
> 
> Mike Huben
That may be true (I'll accept your premise for the sake of discussion),  
but can you give an example of one that would and would work as effectivly  
and efficently??