[AFAIK]

I don't understand why some libertarians think it's a terrible injustice when the state deprives a billionaire of the means to buy a new yacht by taxing his income at a high rate but it's perfectly acceptable to stand aside and watch millions of people die of preventable diseases.

They seem to inhabit some fantasy la-la land where people who die of polio did so because they preferred that outcome to the vaccination program that could have been implemented.

[Rich]

Human rights are not necessarily international law. They are often determined by the country.

eg. Canada says that a basic human right is access to medical care, and thus we have universal healthcare. There's nothing fuzzy or questionable about that.

That's not a human right its a Canadian citizen's right or a Canadian resident's right. Nation states are based on the notion that its OK to discriminate on the basis of biological inheritance.

[Voluntarism]

I don't understand why some libertarians think it's a terrible injustice when the state deprives a billionaire of the means to buy a new yacht by taxing his income at a high rate but it's perfectly acceptable to stand aside and watch millions of people die of preventable diseases.

They seem to inhabit some fantasy la-la land where people who die of polio did so because they preferred that outcome to the vaccination program that could have been implemented.

You are linking two unrelated concepts. A willingness to treat everybody equally with universal rights with a willingness to watch millions of people die of preventable diseases. It is simply illogical. You may as well do the opposite and link a willingness to commit theft with a willingness to save millions of people. It is fallacious reasoning.

Beyond that however, there are many other reasons to not endorse the theft, not least of which is that they don't do a good enough job with the tax dollars they do have let alone endorsing even greater levels.

[Voluntarism]

There is a certain sub-species of libertarian that is basically cretinous. I know I'm treading the line here, but cretinous is the only accurate term that fully conveys the utter absurdity of this line of "reasoning". What I'm referring to is the ideology that conflates any service provided by government as 'theft'. Where is there a connection to actual reality or the accepted common meaning of ordinary words, like "theft"? No doctor is dragooned at gunpoint and forced to work for the government (unless they are drafted). No doctor in the US has to accept medicare. So the only "theft" that could possibly be imputed is the original sin of taxation itself. For all practical purposes, a rejection of taxation is functionally equivalent to anarchism. So any libertarian making such arguments is either selling you a bill of goods, or is fundamentally unaware of the logical implications of his belief system.

It is actually much worse than that. Taxation can at least conceivably be compared to theft, but not the government spending that pays private doctors. (Let us again note the fact that these are doctors who voluntarily choose to accept medicare in payment for their services.)

Where in this process (that pays doctors to perform medical services, if they want to) is the theft occurring?

You answered it yourself and I don't know anyone who seriously undertakes your supposed line of reasoning. The taxation is the theft. The provision of "services" is how the criminal enterprise uses the proceeds. That the services may benefit you is incidental. Even the mafia dons occasionally buys their spaghetti from the restaurateur their goons shake down once a month. A mandate that everyone must have access to a "right" of free health, necessarily enslaves others into providing the resources to provide that "right".

Edit: Oh, you mean Joe Liberty's comment earlier? I'm pretty sure that was just a miswording on their part. Joe's phrased it correctly in the past.

[Godstud]

Human rights evolve and change, based on the needs of society, as a whole. The earth is just a vast society.

[Voluntarism]

Human rights evolve and change, based on the needs of society, as a whole. The earth is just a vast society.

Universal human rights don't change. Culture and attitudes change.

[Godstud]

What ARE the Universal Human rights? Can you be specific?

Some would postulate that it's freedom of equality, or speech, but not everyone can agree with it, so they don't seem very "universal".

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

What ARE the Universal Human rights? Can you be specific?

Some would postulate that it's freedom of equality, or speech, but not everyone can agree with it, so they don't seem very "universal".

Wrong, Godstud. The primary universal human right is the right to own property. All other "rights" branch off from it. Freedom of equality? That's just a matter of employment or community perspective based on property rights. Freedom of speech? If someone or an organization doesn't want you to say certain things on their property, you can't; but you can have freedom of speech on your own property or the property of those who agree with you!

Freer the market, freer the people!

[Godstud]

The primary universal human right is the right to own property.

Really? You can find cultures that wouldn't agree with that.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Really? You can find cultures that wouldn't agree with that.

How is it my fault that those cultures, including whole ideologies, communities, or even tribes that have endured for countless eons, haven't understood free market forces? Clearly they have yet to stumble upon the primacy of property rights and the importance of feudalism.

[Godstud]

I am just demonstrating that it is NOT universal.

[Voluntarism]

What ARE the Universal Human rights? Can you be specific?

Some would postulate that it's freedom of equality, or speech, but not everyone can agree with it, so they don't seem very "universal".

Negative rights are universal. Positive rights are not. A negative right is a right to be free of something or a right to not to be subjected to an action of another person or group (usually in the form of abuse or coercion). Everyone can hold these rights because they simply require inaction by others not action. In contrast positive rights require action by others.

Negative rights are typically summarised as the right to life, liberty and property, but as Bulaba Jones mentioned these all boil down to property rights - particularly to the right to self-ownership. Free speech is a result of your right to life and liberty but it is tempered by situations where it infringes another person's right (ie shouting in a theatre is infringing on the property rights of others). Similarly, freedom of religion, freedom of political affiliation, freedom of movement, freedom of association etc are simply expressions of the right to liberty without being interfered with by others. Things like right to fair trial, habeas corpus and innocent until proven guilty are more procedural elements aimed at ensuring that the actions of the justice system are not in fact initiating the taking away of people's rights but are not "true" rights.

Cultural relativism (ie where different cultures believe different things should be allowed or not allowed) does not change the fact that universal rights can be universal merely by people not acting to infringe them.

[anticlimacus]

Negative rights are universal. Positive rights are not.

Negative rights, like positive rights, do not stem from nature, but require social institutions--and there is nothing universal about them. Now one could state that everybody has the right to be free from unjustified coercion just like one could say everybody has the right of access to healthcare. One could also say, in a more general way, that just everybody has the right to be free from unjustified coercion, everyone also has the (positive) right to self-determination. None of these are universal in the sense that they stem from nature. But they are both made as universal claims based on an idea that human beings, by virtue of being human, ought to have certain basic rights, some positive some negative.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Negative rights are universal. Positive rights are not. A negative right is a right to be free of something or a right to not to be subjected to an action of another person or group (usually in the form of abuse or coercion). Everyone can hold these rights because they simply require inaction by others not action. In contrast positive rights require action by others.

Negative rights are typically summarised as the right to life, liberty and property, but as Bulaba Jones mentioned these all boil down to property rights - particularly to the right to self-ownership.

Cultural relativism (ie where different cultures believe different things should be allowed or not allowed) does not change the fact that universal rights can be universal merely by people not acting to infringe them.

I'm not a libertarian and I thought the blatant use of to indicate sarcasm was obvious; a simplistic, flawed division of "positive" and "negative" rights or boiling it all down to "property rights" is just absurd. Many of your negative rights are not universal: there are many, many nations where political rights are essentially entirely absent, or within the structure of a one-party system, or even the many nations that have a plurality of parties and yet ban certain ones. There is capital punishment, varying degrees of religious freedom and recognition, and so on. Property rights are non-universal as well, with many cultures, nations, and smaller communities differing, sometimes widely, on the status of different types of property.

There are additionally many nations and cultures which consider things like health care, or even employment itself, to be a basic and universal right.

Your views on property rights are not universally shared, and even using your criteria for different types of rights, none of it really makes sense. Being free from exploitation is thus a "negative right" shared by the working class. A society being free from a privileged few owning the vast majority of wealth and production, or most of the land, is a "negative right", to use your definition. However, you seem to attribute anything contradictory to "cultural relativism" and thus avoid thinking about how these views are overly simplistic and flawed.

God forbid we take away wealth and property from an exploitative class that preys on the rest of society and monopolizes their hold on power, and use that same wealth and property to feed and clothe the poor and eliminate poverty.

[Drlee]

I hate discussions of positive and negative rights. I am always struck by the absurdity of the concept of negative rights. This concept makes no sense. Completely illogical. People have the negative right not to be eaten by other people even though any logical person would have to concede that they are really quite nutritional.*


*I do not know what people taste like so you will have to ask SO about that.

[AFAIK]

You are linking two unrelated concepts. A willingness to treat everybody equally with universal rights with a willingness to watch millions of people die of preventable diseases. It is simply illogical. You may as well do the opposite and link a willingness to commit theft with a willingness to save millions of people. It is fallacious reasoning.

I don't follow. The NHS is an example of universal healthcare that treats everyone who walks through the door equally, without arbitrary discrimination. Every UK citizen is equal before the eyes of the law and tax code.

Beyond that however, there are many other reasons to not endorse the theft, not least of which is that they don't do a good enough job with the tax dollars they do have let alone endorsing even greater levels.

Did you miss the recent report that found the UK's health system to be the best of 11 countries whilst the USA was ranked worst?

[Harmattan]

Human Rights Are Economic Problems and as such economic principles suffice to provide all their benefits with no bureaucracy in a true Libertarian fashion.

If I torture someone, you're going to punish me by the amount of economical damages I did create?!
I am disgusted.

[quetzalcoatl]

If I torture someone, you're going to punish me by the amount of economical damages I did create?!
I am disgusted.

Sure, but this all follows from the initial assumption: your freedom is something you own (i.e., is your property). Inevitably, this property can be traded away, bought, and sold - just like any other form of property.

So, in your above example, you don't know the entire chain of circumstance that brought your prisoner to your doorstep. For all you know, he may have voluntarily given up his freedom or exchanged it for other goods. There is no inherent property right not to be tortured, so far as I know...and even if there were, it could have been legitimately traded away as a part of the fine print in whatever contract he agreed to. Voluntarism absolutely demands this; it is a logical necessity.

So you see, you just don't know. Just like a commercial debt collector is not responsible for the chain of transactions that brought your debt to his desk, you are not bound by any contractual obligation not to torture. Any damage that does accrue would be on the resale value of this contract; since this loss falls on you, there is no damage done.

Just goes to show you.

Ideas do matter.

[Nunt]

Sure, but this all follows from the initial assumption: your freedom is something you own (i.e., is your property). Inevitably, this property can be traded away, bought, and sold - just like any other form of property.

So, in your above example, you don't know the entire chain of circumstance that brought your prisoner to your doorstep. For all you know, he may have voluntarily given up his freedom or exchanged it for other goods. There is no inherent property right not to be tortured, so far as I know...and even if there were, it could have been legitimately traded away as a part of the fine print in whatever contract he agreed to. Voluntarism absolutely demands this; it is a logical necessity.

So you see, you just don't know. Just like a commercial debt collector is not responsible for the chain of transactions that brought your debt to his desk, you are not bound by any contractual obligation not to torture. Any damage that does accrue would be on the resale value of this contract; since this loss falls on you, there is no damage done.

Just goes to show you.

Ideas do matter.

This doesn't sound right. If a prisoner is delivered to you and you assume that this prisoner is not a self-owner but someone you may own. In reality, you are mistaken and the prisonor is a self-owner, but you still torture the prisoner.

By doing this, you violate the rights of the prisoner. Just because you assume he isn't a self-owner, doesn't make it any less of a rights violation. Whatever you do to the prisoner, you are damaging another and you are liable for the damage that you cause. When there is such a severe rights violation, a simple fine will not do and the torturer will be severely punished.

You also seem to believe that libertarians believe that formal contracts should be strictly followed. That if you fail to comprehend the fine print in a contract that you sign, you would be able to sign away all your rights. I disagree with this. Libertarnianism isn't a bunch of automatons blindly following formal contracts. As with any aspect of society, decisions and judgements are made by thinking individuals rather than automatons.

So just because a contract was signed, does not mean it will have to be executed to the letter. Here's an important principle for contracts in a libertarian society:

-All contracts can be reneged. If a person feels that he can no longer fulfill his part of a contract, then he can always renege on this contract. This is because an individual can never sign away his free will. That is a physical impossibility. The individual will always be a person of free will. So if a person finds himself in a position of a slave, he can always decide to not be a slave anymore. Courts will then have to make a judgement about whether the person who broke the contract should give compensation to the other and how this compensation should look like. If someone misreads the fine print and finds himself a slave, I think it likely courts will not demand a high compensation.

[Eran]

So I actually agree with libertarians on the basics, just I don't reach the same conclusion as them afterwards, because I also realise that a person who stands alone is always defeated, and that means that you will have groups, and that this will involve coercing someone, somewhere.

I was with you until the very last point. Sure - a person who stands alone is weaker than people cooperating. And sure, people will therefore cooperate with each other, possibly through forming groups. But why should groups formed by cooperating people necessarily involve "coercing someone, somewhere"?

Libertarians are like Herpes. Just when you think you are free of it, here it comes, just like the last time, just as annoying and just as stubborn.

Strange comment in a thread found in the Libertarianism forum. If you find us so annoying, why bother looking in this forum?

Really? You can find cultures that wouldn't agree with that.

Sure. And you can find cultures that wouldn't agree with evolution through natural selection. Or with equal rights for women. Or that slavery is wrong. So what?

Human Rights are universal. Recognition and protection of Human Rights, unfortunately, are not.

a simplistic, flawed division of "positive" and "negative" rights or boiling it all down to "property rights" is just absurd.

Perhaps, but you have not shown why.

God forbid we take away wealth and property from an exploitative class that preys on the rest of society and monopolizes their hold on power, and use that same wealth and property to feed and clothe the poor and eliminate poverty.

This is a common error in understanding the libertarian stance. The belief in the legitimacy and desirability of existing property arrangements might be a characteristic of conservatism, but certainly not of libertarianism.

The poor are kept poor because their property rights are routinely violated by government officials acting on behalf of crony-capitalists.

I don't understand why some libertarians think it's a terrible injustice when the state deprives a billionaire of the means to buy a new yacht by taxing his income at a high rate but it's perfectly acceptable to stand aside and watch millions of people die of preventable diseases

And I don't understand why some statists think it isn't a terrible injustice when the state deprives millions of people from the means to support themselves to provide a billionaire with the means to buy a new yacht.

Seriously, you implicitly assume that state power is exclusively or even generally used to transfer resources from the wealthy to the poor. That isn't the case, has never been the case, and cannot be relied-upon to be the case. Once you authorise a small group of people ("government") to initiate force against other people's property you should expect them to use that authority to serve powerful members of society at the expense of the silent majority. Naturally, they will cloak their self-interested actions with an aura of "public service", the "general good" or "social justice".

There is no reason to expect that economic resources obtained by government decision-makers through taxation will, generally, be put to a better use than those resources would have been put to if left with the people who actually earned them.

I don't follow. The NHS is an example of universal healthcare that treats everyone who walks through the door equally, without arbitrary discrimination. Every UK citizen is equal before the eyes of the law and tax code.

No, the NHS doesn't treat everyone the same. Some people (MPs, ministers, administrators) have the right to order money confiscated from my bank account and directed towards goals they choose. I don't have that right. The NHS, like all tax-funded government programs, embodies deep political inequality.

All contracts can be reneged.

I think this statement could benefit from clarification. I believe all contracts mandating performance can be negated. However, contracts relating to title transfer cannot necessarily be reneged. Thus if I agreed, contractually, to sell you my house, I cannot simply renege on that contract. After the stipulated date has passed, and assuming the buyer pays the agreed price, the house is no longer mine.