[libertasbella]

What are “Negative Rights”?

We all have rights as human beings in the United States. We have the right to attend school, go to college, work to obtain money, own property, and defend ourselves, but where do these rights start to infringe on others’ freedom?

Negative rights define our freedoms and our right to have something without interference from outside forces.

To define negative rights in the simplest manner, it’s one person’s right not to have another person interfere with their own liberties.

Negative Rights Definition

To define negative rights in the simplest manner, it’s one person’s right not to have another person interfere with their own liberties. These rights entitle a person to certain things in life and merely ask that no one interferes with their right to have and enjoy those things.

If someone has a negative right, it means they have the right to freely do something or obtain something how they choose without any interference from outside forces. They are free from the interference of another person or a group of people.

Generally, in Libertarian values, this involves a person’s individual right to something without interference from the government.

Another way to look at negative human rights is that it’s a person’s right not to be subjected to another action. Negative rights don’t only have to focus on obtaining goods and services, but it also applies to the fact that one person cannot force another person to do something because that would infringe on their liberties.

If we compare positive and negative rights, there becomes a foggy distinction, but one thing that’s clear is that the two often contradict themselves. Many people view positive rights as a violation of negative rights.

For example, everyone has the right to a public defender if they get arrested. It’s a positive right for the person being arrested, but the problem is that infringes on someone else’s negative right to choose who they defend, and it also creates issues when scarcity is involved.

Suppose there are 50 people who need public defenders and only five lawyers. In that case, chances are not everyone will receive the same treatment, which will infringe upon the individuals positive rights to an attorney if they cannot afford one themselves.

Most basic rights that we take for granted each day fall into one of these categories, and the American Bill of Rights classifies what an entitlement is, what’s a civil right, and what’s liberty?

When we define negative rights, we start to see more of these come into play in our daily lives. There is often confusion over freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to have healthcare, property rights, and other inalienable freedoms.

It’s important to understand that most of these are not negative rights; they’re positive rights but with those come the negative right to ensure that no one interferes with your rights. The non-interference factor creates a negative right, and we’ll break it down into some examples in the following section.

Continue reading Negative Rights: A Definitive Guide on What They Are on Libertas Bella

[Saeko]

The distinction between positive and negative rights is invalid and is entirely the result of mere framing. Even the supposedly negative right to life implies a positive duty on at least some party to protect that right (e.g. police, courts, etc.) If no one bears a positive duty as a result of the right to life, then the right does not exist in any real sense.

[ckaihatsu]

Why not just focus on everyone's *civil rights*, since there's some *history* there. (!)

[libertasbella]

We'll switch to an exclusive focus on civil rights once there's no more room on the internet for superfluous thought.

[ckaihatsu]

We'll switch to an exclusive focus on civil rights once there's no more room on the internet for superfluous thought.

Sure, I can appreciate that the Western Enlightenment predated the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, but what *good* is the Enlightenment if BIPOC people aren't included ('civil rights') -- ?

[Truth To Power]

The distinction between positive and negative rights is invalid and is entirely the result of mere framing.

No it isn't. Negative rights are rights to what you would have if no one else deprived you of it. Positive rights imply a burden on others to provide you with something you would not otherwise have.

Even the supposedly negative right to life implies a positive duty on at least some party to protect that right (e.g. police, courts, etc.) If no one bears a positive duty as a result of the right to life, then the right does not exist in any real sense.

The "positive duty" is merely the societal undertaking to ensure no one deprives others of the things they would otherwise have -- mainly life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. Negative rights do not make anyone worse off than they would otherwise be. Positive rights imply someone must be made worse off to provide others with things they would not otherwise have.

[Saeko]

No it isn't. Negative rights are rights to what you would have if no one else deprived you of it. Positive rights imply a burden on others to provide you with something you would not otherwise have.

If no one else deprived me of anything, I would own the whole universe. It is not possible that anyone can even exist without depriving me of at least something. At the same time, I would not have anything at all if others had not supported me in various ways throughout my life. So this hypothetical situation of "what I would have had no one else deprived me of anything" is completely nonsensical.

The "positive duty" is merely the societal undertaking to ensure

Merely? That's precisely what a positive duty is.

no one deprives others of the things they would otherwise have -- mainly life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor.

Simply by living and the actions and resources they take to support their lives, all people deprive me of the same resources that I need to support mine. Your labor often runs contrary to my interests.

Negative rights do not make anyone worse off than they would otherwise be. Positive rights imply someone must be made worse off to provide others with things they would not otherwise have.

Rights to life, property, and liberty for others actually do make me worse off than I otherwise would be. Every bit of food they eat is food that I could have eaten. Every breath they take is a breath that I can't also take. Every piece of land or machinery is land or machinery that could have otherwise been mine.

[Truth To Power]

If no one else deprived me of anything, I would own the whole universe.

No, that's just false and absurd because the universe is not naturally in your possession, and you owning it would deprive everyone else of their liberty rights to use it. Everyone else's right to liberty is not something you would otherwise have. So if no one else deprived you of anything, you would be at liberty to use the whole universe, but you would not own it. See how that works?

It is not possible that anyone can even exist without depriving me of at least something.

Not of anything you would otherwise have.

At the same time, I would not have anything at all if others had not supported me in various ways throughout my life.

Assuming they did so voluntarily, that is irrelevant because you did not deprive them of anything they would otherwise have.

So this hypothetical situation of "what I would have had no one else deprived me of anything" is completely nonsensical.

Not of anything. Of anything you would otherwise have.

Merely? That's precisely what a positive duty is.

No, as I have proved.

Simply by living and the actions and resources they take to support their lives, all people deprive me of the same resources that I need to support mine. Your labor often runs contrary to my interests.

No. If someone catches a fish or digs up a root, that is not something you would otherwise have: it would otherwise still be in the sea, or under the ground. You are not deprived because you suffer no deprivation. Your "interests" are irrelevant, because they far exceed what you would otherwise have. It may not be in your interest that your crush prefers someone else, but your crush's affections are not something you would otherwise have.

Rights to life, property, and liberty for others actually do make me worse off than I otherwise would be.

No, because even aside from the fact that their rights do not deprive you of anything you would otherwise have, if others did not have those rights, your life would be very bad indeed. That is very much the point.

Every bit of food they eat is food that I could have eaten. Every breath they take is a breath that I can't also take. Every piece of land or machinery is land or machinery that could have otherwise been mine.

Garbage. No machinery would otherwise have been yours because someone had to make it. No land would otherwise have been yours because land "being yours" would imply you owned others' liberty rights to use it, and others' rights to liberty are not something you would otherwise have.

All your "arguments" have been conclusively demolished and now lie in ruins. Prediction: you will not permit the fact that you have seen your beliefs proved false to prompt any reconsideration of those proved-false beliefs.

[Truth To Power]

To define negative rights in the simplest manner, it’s one person’s right not to have another person interfere with their own liberties.

By, e.g., claiming natural resources like land as their private property...?

Aye, there's the rub.

If someone has a negative right, it means they have the right to freely do something or obtain something how they choose without any interference from outside forces.

What if they want to "obtain" something that others would otherwise be at liberty to use?

Negative rights don’t only have to focus on obtaining goods and services, but it also applies to the fact that one person cannot force another person to do something because that would infringe on their liberties.

Like pay an "owner" for permission to use something that would otherwise have been perfectly available to use....?

When we define negative rights, we start to see more of these come into play in our daily lives. There is often confusion over freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to have healthcare, property rights, and other inalienable freedoms.

Health care is not something one would otherwise have, nor is ownership of natural resources.

[Saeko]

@Truth To Power

You define a negative right as: something one would otherwise have if no one else deprived them of it.

My challenge here is that the hypothetical part of this definition is vacuous because everyone is always depriving everyone else of at least something. Therefore, I claim, there is no such thing as a negative right.

Now, is the ownership of a thing x by person A always a deprivation of person B? I claim that it is. This is because if A truly owns x, then B cannot own x in the same way at the same time. If A had not owned x, then it is entirely conceivable that B would have. The only way out of this is to claim that it is impossible for B to have owned x had A not, which would be extremely difficult to prove.

In your various examples, you attempt to avoid this insurmountable burden by claiming that the ownership of a thing by anyone implies the ownership of the rights of others to use that thing. But that's not true. It is certainly possible that A could own a thing that B still has the liberty rights to use . For instance, roads are owned by the federal and/or state governments, but citizens have the liberty rights to use them.

Now I will address your points more specifically:

No, that's just false and absurd because the universe is not naturally in your possession,

Says you. I say otherwise.

and you owning it would deprive everyone else of their liberty rights to use it.

Tough luck for everyone else.

Everyone else's right to liberty is not something you would otherwise have. So if no one else deprived you of anything, you would be at liberty to use the whole universe, but you would not own it. See how that works?

Nope. If I have the exclusive liberty rights to use the whole universe, then I own it.

Assuming they did so voluntarily, that is irrelevant because you did not deprive them of anything they would otherwise have.

Sure I did. I deprived them of all the things they could have been doing instead of conceiving, gestating, and birthing me at the very least.

No. If someone catches a fish or digs up a root, that is not something you would otherwise have:

It's something I could have had had they not had it first. By digging up a root or catching a fish, they have deprived me of the opportunity to catch that same fish or dig up that same root.

it would otherwise still be in the sea, or under the ground.

Are you implying that one cannot own things in the sea or under the ground?

You are not deprived because you suffer no deprivation.

Yes I have been deprived because I can no longer get the same stuff.

Your "interests" are irrelevant, because they far exceed what you would otherwise have.

That's just your opinion. My interests are perfectly valid to me. I don't give a crap if you think otherwise.

It may not be in your interest that your crush prefers someone else, but your crush's affections are not something you would otherwise have.

They would have been if that other person had not existed (and thereby deprived me of my crush's affections).

Garbage. No machinery would otherwise have been yours because someone had to make it.

It would have if they hadn't built it first and thereby deprived me of the same opportunity. I wanted to be the one to build that machinery!

No land would otherwise have been yours because land "being yours" would imply you owned others' liberty rights to use it,

It would imply no such thing.

and others' rights to liberty are not something you would otherwise have.

Other's rights to liberty are definitely something I would have if they did not obstinately insist that I don't.

[ckaihatsu]

All your "arguments" have been conclusively demolished and now lie in ruins. Prediction: you will not permit the fact that you have seen your beliefs proved false to prompt any reconsideration of those proved-false beliefs.

The Borg have spoken.


x D


(Seriously, where TF is this stuff *coming* from? Who voted you in?)

[Truth To Power]

You define a negative right as: something one would otherwise have if no one else deprived them of it.

No, that's what negative rights are rights to. The right isn't the thing one has a right to -- e.g., the right to life isn't life, it's a right not to be deprived of life by others. A right is a societal relationship, not a physical thing.

My challenge here is that the hypothetical part of this definition is vacuous because everyone is always depriving everyone else of at least something.

People don't have negative rights to everything, just what they would have if others did not deprive them of it, like life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. People are not always depriving others of those things.

Therefore, I claim, there is no such thing as a negative right.

Question-begging garbage.

Now, is the ownership of a thing x by person A always a deprivation of person B? I claim that it is.

But you are objectively incorrect. If A owns something B would not otherwise have, B has not been deprived of anything, as he is no worse off than if A had never existed.

This is because if A truly owns x, then B cannot own x in the same way at the same time.

So what? Not being able to own something is not the same as being deprived of it. No one can own the sun. Does that mean we are all being deprived of it? What blithering, anti-rational -- and predictable -- nonsense.

If A had not owned x, then it is entirely conceivable that B would have.

So what if it is "conceivable"? It's also conceivable that someone could be issued a title deed to the sun. So what? The fact is, B wouldn't have owned it, and you know it.

The only way out of this is to claim that it is impossible for B to have owned x had A not, which would be extremely difficult to prove.

No, the "way out" is simply to note the fact that B would not have had x even if A had never existed, so A cannot possibly be depriving B of it.

In your various examples, you attempt to avoid this insurmountable burden by claiming that the ownership of a thing by anyone implies the ownership of the rights of others to use that thing. But that's not true.

Yes it is.

It is certainly possible that A could own a thing that B still has the liberty rights to use .

No it isn't. One of the four criteria of ownership is exclusion.

For instance, roads are owned by the federal and/or state governments, but citizens have the liberty rights to use them.

No they don't. They can be excluded for any of various reasons. All they have is a default permission to use those roads, not a right.

Says you. I say otherwise.

And you are objectively incorrect.

Tough luck for everyone else.

Thank you for agreeing that you have no facts or logic to offer.

Nope. If I have the exclusive liberty rights to use the whole universe, then I own it.

But you don't, and could not under any circumstances. You are therefore not being deprived of it.

Sure I did.

No you didn't.

I deprived them of all the things they could have been doing instead of conceiving, gestating, and birthing me at the very least.

No, they did all that voluntarily. None of it was your doing. You are just saying anything, now.

It's something I could have had had they not had it first.

Could have, but not would have. See the difference?

By digging up a root or catching a fish, they have deprived me of the opportunity to catch that same fish or dig up that same root.

Nope. You declined those opportunities when they existed, and now they no longer exist. You can't be deprived of something that doesn't exist, because no one has to do anything for you not to have it. If the root digger or fish catcher died, you still would not have the opportunity to dig the root or catch the fish. Therefore, they are not depriving you of such opportunity.

Are you implying that one cannot own things in the sea or under the ground?

One cannot rightly own natural resources. Obviously, a product of labor in the sea or under the ground can rightly be owned. You are just being deliberately obtuse and disingenuous.

Yes I have been deprived because I can no longer get the same stuff.

No. You were not deprived at the time because you did not attempt to take the opportunity yourself. And you are not being deprived now, because no one has to do anything to "deprive" you of what does not exist. You are just trying to pretend that deprivation can somehow be retroactive, that one can somehow turn back time. But one can't.

That's just your opinion.

No, it's an indisputable fact of objective physical reality -- a concept with which you seem to be having a great deal of difficulty.

My interests are perfectly valid to me.

You may consider them "valid" (whatever that means), but that doesn't make them things you would otherwise have. And I don't give a crap if you think otherwise.

They would have been if that other person had not existed (and thereby deprived me of my crush's affections).

Nope. Your crush's affections are entirely his to dispose of as he pleases. You have no claim on them whatsoever until and unless he chooses to bestow them on you.

It would have if they hadn't built it first and thereby deprived me of the same opportunity.

No it wouldn't. Their building of the machinery has not in any way deprived you of the opportunity to do likewise. Your claim is just objectively false.

I wanted to be the one to build that machinery!

What you wanted is completely irrelevant. They have not in any sense deprived you of anything you would otherwise have.

It would imply no such thing.

It most certainly would.

Other's rights to liberty are definitely something I would have if they did not obstinately insist that I don't.

No they aren't. That is nothing but a bald fabrication on your part with no basis in fact. You will find yourself doing that a lot, as long as you presume to dispute with me.

[Saeko]

No, that's what negative rights are rights to. The right isn't the thing one has a right to -- e.g., the right to life isn't life, it's a right not to be deprived of life by others. A right is a societal relationship, not a physical thing.

Fair enough. You still get what I mean.

People don't have negative rights to everything, just what they would have if others did not deprive them of it, like life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor. People are not always depriving others of those things.

But people would have everything if others did not deprive them of it. Hence, everyone has a right to everything.

Question-begging garbage.

Please demonstrate specifically how this is question begging.

But you are objectively incorrect. If A owns something B would not otherwise have, B has not been deprived of anything, as he is no worse off than if A had never existed.

I did not say that A owns something B would not otherwise have. I said that A owns a thing. Simply that. I said nothing more. You just completely failed at reading comprehension here.

So what? Not being able to own something is not the same as being deprived of it. No one can own the sun. Does that mean we are all being deprived of it? What blithering, anti-rational -- and predictable -- nonsense.

Yes, not being able to own something is the same thing as being deprived of it. And yes, it is possible to own the sun.

So what if it is "conceivable"? It's also conceivable that someone could be issued a title deed to the sun. So what? The fact is, B wouldn't have owned it, and you know it.

I explained it clearly why it matters if it is conceivable. To re-iterate, if it is possible that B had owned x had A not, then B is being deprived of x.

No, the "way out" is simply to note the fact that B would not have had x even if A had never existed, so A cannot possibly be depriving B of it.

Where is your evidence that B would not have had x even if A had never existed?

Yes it is.

No it isn't.

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

No they don't.

Yes they do.

They can be excluded for any of various reasons.

The same is true for all forms of property. You have the right to use your car, but you do not have the right to use your car in absolutely any way that you want. Are you trying to argue that there is no such thing as property???

All they have is a default permission to use those roads, not a right.

Again, the same thing could be said of all forms of property.

And you are objectively incorrect.

No, I am objectively correct.

Thank you for agreeing that you have no facts or logic to offer.

No, YOU have no facts or logic to offer.

But you don't, and could not under any circumstances. You are therefore not being deprived of it.

What a ridiculous assumption! Where's your evidence that I could not under any circumstances?

No you didn't.

Yes I did.

No, they did all that voluntarily. None of it was your doing. You are just saying anything, now.

So what if they did it voluntarily? Just because they did something voluntarily does not mean that they have not been deprived of doing other things at the same time. In fact, it is necessarily the case that whatever you do, you are depriving yourself of doing other things at the same time.

Could have, but not would have. See the difference?

There is no difference.

Nope.

Yup.

You declined those opportunities when they existed,

No, I was deprived of those opportunities.

and now they no longer exist.

Doubly deprived.

You can't be deprived of something that doesn't exist,

Sure I can. If my crush doesn't exist, then I've been deprived of his company.

because no one has to do anything for you not to have it.

That doesn't matter. I could be deprived of a limb if a rock falls on me even if no one causes the rock to fall.

If the root digger or fish catcher died, you still would not have the opportunity to dig the root or catch the fish.

Absurd! Of course I would! If the root digger was standing right next to me, and we were looking at the same root, and if he dug up the root, he would be depriving me of the same opportunity because I definitely could have gotten the root first if he had instead died on the spot. You're just speaking contrarian gibberish at this point.

Therefore, they are not depriving you of such opportunity.

But they are.

One cannot rightly own natural resources.

Yes I can.

Obviously, a product of labor in the sea or under the ground can rightly be owned.

THANK YOU FOR CONCEDING THE POINT.

You are just being deliberately obtuse and disingenuous.

No I'm not! How dare you throw these totally false accusations at me?

No.

Yes.

You were not deprived at the time because you did not attempt to take the opportunity yourself.

It doesn't matter that I failed to defend my claim. If a thief stole my car would I similarly no longer own it just because I failed to secure it? You're the one who's being deliberately obtuse and spewing nonsense!

And you are not being deprived now,

Yes I am.

because no one has to do anything to "deprive" you of what does not exist.

Yes, they have. They existed. That's enough to deprive me of a great deal of things.

You are just trying to pretend that deprivation can somehow be retroactive, that one can somehow turn back time. But one can't.

No I'm not.

No, it's an indisputable fact of objective physical reality

No it isn't.

-- a concept with which you seem to be having a great deal of difficulty.

Physical reality is not merely a concept. Do you even read what you write BEFORE hitting "submit"?

You may consider them "valid" (whatever that means), but that doesn't make them things you would otherwise have.

Yes it does.

And I don't give a crap if you think otherwise.

Apparently, you do because you bothered to respond.

Nope.

Yep.

Your crush's affections are entirely his to dispose of as he pleases.

No, they're not. One does not choose to fall in love with someone else.

You have no claim on them whatsoever until and unless he chooses to bestow them on you.

It doesn't matter. If he chooses otherwise then he is depriving me of them.

No it wouldn't.

Yes it would.

Their building of the machinery has not in any way deprived you of the opportunity to do likewise.

Yes it has. Are you kidding me right now?

Your claim is just objectively false.

My claim is objectively true.

What you wanted is completely irrelevant.

No it isn't.

They have not in any sense deprived you of anything you would otherwise have.

Yes they have.

It most certainly would.

It most certainly would not.

No they aren't.

Yes they are.

That is nothing but a bald fabrication on your part with no basis in fact.

False.

You will find yourself doing that a lot, as long as you presume to dispute with me.

There's little in this world more pathetic than proclaiming victory prematurely.

[Cartertonian]

If this were particle physics instead of political ideology and every particle had a negative right not to be affected by any other particle...matter itself would disintegrate.

How can humans live together if they are forbidden from affecting anyone else?

[wat0n]

I think the idea is that some people have rights that need not be turned into governmental entitlements.

The idea may be useful conceptually, but in reality it has little practical application. At some point, governments need to intervene to enforce the defense of negative rights through administering justice and law/contract enforcement, at the very least.

[Cartertonian]

I think the idea is that some people have rights that need not be turned into governmental entitlements.

The idea may be useful conceptually, but in reality it has little practical application. At some point, governments need to intervene to enforce the defense of negative rights through administering justice and law/contract enforcement, at the very least.

Hey @wat0n

I was being a little tongue-in-cheek facetious, to be honest.

I'm pretty anti-authoritarian in my views, but since the Randians hijacked libertarianism and turned it into a creed of self-interest, I can't call myself a libertarian.

Wikipedia (usual caveats apply ) says, "Libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics...

...In the mid-20th century, right-libertarian proponents of anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted the term libertarian to advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources. The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States..."

My belief is that society's strength is in being greater than merely the sum of its parts. I'm more collectivist than individualist, but then I'm also fiercely anti-authoritarian, ergo a well functioning society has to be one in which we cooperate and collaborate in our mutual best interests, rather than compete and conflict in our individual self-interest.

[ckaihatsu]

My belief is that society's strength is in being greater than merely the sum of its parts. I'm more collectivist than individualist, but then I'm also fiercely anti-authoritarian, ergo a well functioning society has to be one in which we cooperate and collaborate in our mutual best interests, rather than compete and conflict in our individual self-interest.

If you like, what aspects of society need to *change* to make it more 'collectivist'?

[wat0n]

Hey @wat0n

I was being a little tongue-in-cheek facetious, to be honest.

I'm pretty anti-authoritarian in my views, but since the Randians hijacked libertarianism and turned it into a creed of self-interest, I can't call myself a libertarian.

Wikipedia (usual caveats apply ) says, "Libertarianism originated as a form of left-wing politics...

...In the mid-20th century, right-libertarian proponents of anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted the term libertarian to advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources. The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States..."

My belief is that society's strength is in being greater than merely the sum of its parts. I'm more collectivist than individualist, but then I'm also fiercely anti-authoritarian, ergo a well functioning society has to be one in which we cooperate and collaborate in our mutual best interests, rather than compete and conflict in our individual self-interest.

Oh I wasn't referring to your post specifically. I agree with what of most you say, I'm more individualistic though because collectivism tends to degenerate into rent seeking if the economy slows down, but that doesn't mean there is no role for collective action and collectivist policies.

[Truth To Power]

But people would have everything if others did not deprive them of it.

That is just self-evidently false and absurd. If there were no other people in the world, you would not even have food to eat unless you went out and got some, which there is no guarantee you would be able to do.

By resorting to absurdity, you have already conceded the argument.

But let's see if you can even limit yourself to a few absurdities. The above was Strike One.

Hence, everyone has a right to everything.

More absurdity. Strike Two.

Please demonstrate specifically how this is question begging.

You base your "argument" on the false and absurd claim that everyone is always depriving everyone else of something, which is not only nonsense, but an invalid substitution for the actual criterion.

I did not say that A owns something B would not otherwise have. I said that A owns a thing. Simply that. I said nothing more. You just completely failed at reading comprehension here.

No, you did, by misapprehending "what one would otherwise have" as "anything."

Yes, not being able to own something is the same thing as being deprived of it.

More absurdity. You can't own the alphabet, but in what sense are you being deprived of it?

That's Strike Three, Casey. You're Out.

And yes, it is possible to own the sun.

<yawn> Strike Four....

I explained it clearly why it matters if it is conceivable.

No, you merely claimed it does, on no factual or logical basis whatsoever.

To re-iterate, if it is possible

Now you are disingenuously changing your claim from "conceivable" to "possible."

that B had owned x had A not, then B is being deprived of x.

But that is just false and absurd, as a nanosecond's honest thought will confirm:

A and B are walking through the forest when they happen on a grove of nut trees. Each stoops to pick up some of the nuts that are lying on the ground, and they sit down on some nearby rocks to crack and eat them. A proceeds to crack the nuts he gathered, but B just watches. Then, when A has cracked the nuts he picked up, B, being a stupid, evil, lying sack of $#!+, claims that A is somehow "depriving" him of the nuts A picked up and cracked, because it was possible for the two of them to have been walking in each other's paths, and thus to have picked up the nuts the other picked up. Both of them know (though Saeko somehow contrives not to) that B would not otherwise have had the nuts A picked up, because he was busy picking up nuts elsewhere. A correctly concludes that B is a stupid, evil, lying sack of $#!+ who will rightly starve to death if he doesn't have anyone to rob, and leaves to put as much distance as possible between himself and B.

Strike Five....

Where is your evidence that B would not have had x even if A had never existed?

A caused x to exist.

Strike Six.
< bald denials of indisputable facts snipped >

The same is true for all forms of property.

Proving your claim false.

Are you trying to argue that there is no such thing as property???

I am stating the fact that property rights are a limitation on liberty rights. To reconcile the two is the fundamental problem of civilization.

Again, the same thing could be said of all forms of property.

Because people do not in fact have the liberty right to access and use others' property that you claimed they have.

Are you trying to argue that there is no such thing as property???

I am stating the fact that the right to liberty does not confer a right to use others' property.
< bald denials of facts snipped >

What a ridiculous assumption!

The fact that everyone else's rights could not be removed in favor of a title deed to the universe made over to you is not an assumption, let alone a ridiculous one. It is a plain and indisputable fact. Your claim that it is a ridiculous assumption is nothing but more absurdity.

Strike Seven.

Where's your evidence that I could not under any circumstances?

The fact that such a claim to have extinguished everyone else's rights would be bizarre, absurd, and outrageous.

Strike Eight.

So what if they did it voluntarily?

So you did not deprive them.

Just because they did something voluntarily does not mean that they have not been deprived of doing other things at the same time.

Yes it does. If you pay a baker $4 for a loaf of bread, he is not depriving you of the money. You are giving it to him in voluntary exchange.

In fact, it is necessarily the case that whatever you do, you are depriving yourself of doing other things at the same time.

That is not what the word, "deprive" means.

There is no difference.

To clarify, you are claiming there is no difference between "could" and "would." That is false and absurd.

Strike Nine.

No, I was deprived of those opportunities.

No you weren't, any more than you are "deprived" of the opportunity to buy gas every time you drive by a gas station and don't stop to fill up. It's just false, absurd, and disingenuous nonsense.

Strike Ten.

Doubly deprived.

Strike Eleven.

If my crush doesn't exist, then I've been deprived of his company.

By that absurd "logic," you are likewise "deprived" of the company of everyone else who doesn't exist, a literally infinite number of possible (and impossible) people.

Strike Twelve.

That doesn't matter.

Yes it does, because only other people can violate people's rights.

I could be deprived of a limb if a rock falls on me even if no one causes the rock to fall.

But that would not violate your rights, and is thus irrelevant.

Absurd! Of course I would!

No you would not. The fish has already been caught, the root already dug. You are claiming, falsely and absurdly, that you are being deprived of the opportunity because you could turn back time and recreate it. But you can't.

Strike Thirteen.

If the root digger was standing right next to me, and we were looking at the same root, and if he dug up the root, he would be depriving me of the same opportunity because I definitely could have gotten the root first if he had instead died on the spot.

You are merely trying to change the subject. He died after digging up the root. The opportunity to dig it up therefore no longer exists. You are claiming to be deprived of it because you could turn back time and have the opportunity; but in fact, you can't turn back time.

You're just speaking contrarian gibberish at this point.

No, you are just trying to change the subject because you realize that you have been proved wrong.
< bald denials of facts snipped >

THANK YOU FOR CONCEDING THE POINT.

It was an ignoratio elenchi fallacy, not a point. Valid property in the products of labor does not in any way validate property in natural resources.

No I'm not! How dare you throw these totally false accusations at me?

You are aware of the fact, amply demonstrated above, that your "arguments" have been uniformly obtuse and disingenuous.

It doesn't matter that I failed to defend my claim.

It matters that you had no claim to defend, merely an opportunity to earn one, which you passed on.

If a thief stole my car would I similarly no longer own it just because I failed to secure it?

You have a valid property right in the car, not in natural opportunities that were available to all.

You're the one who's being deliberately obtuse and spewing nonsense!

No. I am simply making the relevant distinctions, which you are obtusely and disingenuously pretending not to understand.

Yes, they have. They existed. That's enough to deprive me of a great deal of things.

No it isn't. If you drive by a gas station and don't stop to buy gas, while some other driver does buy gas, it is absurd and disingenuous to then claim, later, when you run out of gas, that the other driver somehow deprived you of the opportunity to buy gas. In fact, even if he burned down the gas station after you went by, the fact that you didn't stop proves that he did not deprive you of the opportunity to buy gas.

Strike Fourteen.
< bald denials of facts snipped >

Physical reality is not merely a concept.

But it is a concept you are having a great deal of difficulty understanding.

Do you even read what you write BEFORE hitting "submit"?

Apparently, you do because you bothered to respond.

This is all for potentially educable lurkers, not you.

No, they're not. One does not choose to fall in love with someone else.

Falling in love is not the same as bestowing one's affections. The latter is a choice.

It doesn't matter. If he chooses otherwise then he is depriving me of them.

No, because they are not something you would otherwise have. You are no worse off than if he had never existed.

Yes it has.

No it hasn't.

Are you kidding me right now?

No.
< bald denials of facts snipped >

There's little in this world more pathetic than proclaiming victory prematurely.

I wouldn't call 14 strikes and counting a premature out.