[Capitalist_Eagle]

And this applies to all things which require production, not just health care; including food, housing, education, what have you


Let us determine the conditions that make a right legitimate. The very first question to ask, then, is this: are rights given, or are they inherent? It must follow that rights are inherent. There is no other conclusion to be made without violating self-ownership. If rights are given to you, then they are privileges, as they may be taken away; if rights are given to you, then another human being has the authority over your life as to determine your own rights. This explicitly shows that, if rights are given, men are slaves. Of course, if all men are slaves, we must ask, who is the slave-owner? There can be no answer, and there is no logic with the premise "rights are given", so it must follow, by the most simple logic, that rights are inherent. This is the only conclusion consistent with the principle of self-ownership. And one may say "...oh, but didn't the government give women and slaves rights?". And the answer is no. Government recognized the inherent natural rights of women and slaves; it did not magically endow upon them "more" humanity, and suddenly bestow rights. Government may not give rights; it can only protect them, or violate them. Rights must be inherent, if we are to support the principle of self-ownership.

Therefore we have established the first condition of a right: all rights are inherent, and are not given or taken.

Now this one condition alone is argument enough against positive rights and in favor of negative rights, but for the sake of the argument, more conditions can be delineated.

Man has the right to speak and think freely, and to act freely (without violating the rights of others, since that would violate self-ownership), and to acquire property as the fruit of his labor, which he owns. The individual alone may determine what the individual will do, again, in so far as he does not violate the rights of others. This, then, is a necessary condition for a right, for nothing may be a right which imposes obligations onto others. This is what separates the right to think and speak freely, which requires nothing from others, and the right to food, which requires an entitlement to the labor of others and obligates them to produce regardless of their personal choice (if they refuse to, they deny you your "rights"). Furthermore, it logically follows that not only must they produce against their will, but they must do so free of charge; if you pay them, you are paying for a right, and if you pay for a right then it is not a right as it is based upon the condition of payment. Furthermore, the final nail in the coffin is this: we have already established that anything which must be given by others is not a right, for all rights are inherent; thus food, by default, may not be considered a right, and neither can health care or housing or any sort of thing which depends upon production. Rights to goods and services necessarily impose obligations onto others to produce, free of charge, against their will; and this is slavery. And your rights end when they violate the rights of others. If you have the right to the labor of others and thus own others, you are violating their self-ownership.

Therefore we have established the second condition of a right: rights must not impose obligations onto others, or require any sort of action on their part, because to require such things violates their rights.

Now we must determine the final, and third, condition that is relevant to the subject of rights, and that is, are rights subject to scarcity? It does not follow that anything which may be rationed, and may be in overabundance or in short supply, should be a right. If rights are rights, all individuals must have them regardless, and thus rationing of rights is simply not possible. It cannot be done, for a right, by its very nature, is not something subject to scarcity in order to be rationed in the first place. And surely, payment for a right is unfair; one shouldn't have to pay for one's rights, either directly or through tax dollars. Thus a right must transcend material goods and services and must be free; otherwise, it is either not a right, or you are proposing that rights may be rationed, and that is a self-evidently absurd proposal.

Therefore we have established the third condition of a right: rights must not be dependent upon production, and must not be subject to scarcity.

[Fasces]

So you don't believe in positive rights?

[Capitalist_Eagle]

Precisely.

Unless you can demonstrate that you can have food, for example, without anybody having to produce it, without it being subject to scarcity, and where it is inherent.

[Fasces]

I take it you're against police protection, then?

This is beside the point. Your logic is fundamentally flawed. The principle of self-ownership is a false axiom, as you describe it. Man, as a social and collective being (Man vs. a man), owns himself. Man, as an individual, does not.

Let us say that man, as an individual, owns himself. It stands to reason that he may do anything with himself as he wishes. He may kill himself, if he so chooses, or he may relinquish control of himself to another man. If man owns himself, he may sell himself into slavery. If a man may sell himself into slavery, he is immediately in violation of the principle of self-ownership, by virtue of his enslavement. We see that this principle cannot be true, because it is fundamentally contradictory.

[Social_Critic]

To me, happiness is not having to have my teeth drilled without anesthesia. So, in the pursuit of happiness, I want to have some kind of health care assured. And I do pay taxes, which I prefer be spent providing a minimum level of health care, rather than giving aid to Israel or forcing democracy on Afghans, Iraqis, and assorted furriners.

[Capitalist_Eagle]

A man cannot sell himself into slavery because he cannot be owned; he must necessarily own himself.

Social Critic, that's fine, but again with my point, then YOU pay for it and leave me alone. It's really easy.

[Fasces]

If he owns himself he should be able to do whatever he chooses - including selling himself into slavery. To say otherwise violates the principle of self-ownership equally as the act of slavery itself.

It is a false principle.

[Capitalist_Eagle]

Nonsense. The alternative to self-ownership is either having somebody else own you or having no ownership whatsoever; in both cases the absurdity necessarily requires self-ownership to be a valid principle.

[Fasces]

Yet the principle of self-ownership is equally absurd, through simple reasoning. You do not completely own yourself, because you cannot choose to do with yourself as you wish. Yet, if you do completely own yourself, the principle is not universal in application, and cannot be said to be a fundamental axiom. It is contradictory.

[Capitalist_Eagle]

It is not contradictory; it is because you own yourself that you cannot sell yourself into slavery; the condition of self-ownership is more validated by this, not invalidated.

[Fasces]

So human beings cannot transfer ownership of the things they own? I own a car - I can sell it. I own myself - I can, similarly, sell it.

[xoplytnyk]

Cars are property, men are not. One can only "own" property.

[JohnRawls]

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Article 26
Integration of persons with disabilities
The Union recognises and respects the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures
designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the
life of the community.

Article 34
Social security and social assistance
1. The Union recognises and respects the entitlement to social security benefits and social services
providing protection in cases such as maternity, illness, industrial accidents, dependency or old age, and
in the case of loss of employment, in accordance with the rules laid down by Community law and
national laws and practices.
2. Everyone residing and moving legally within the European Union is entitled to social security
benefits and social advantages in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices.
3. In order to combat social exclusion and poverty, the Union recognises and respects the right to
social and housing assistance so as to ensure a decent existence for all those who lack sufficient
resources, in accordance with the rules laid down by Community law and national laws and practices.

Article 35
Health care
Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical
treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices. A high level of human
health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and
activities.

[Capitalist_Eagle]

Fasces: I am saying that the condition of ownership over a human being can belong to no one but the individual himself; you cannot sell yourself because as soon as you proceed to be owned, your free will negates that ownership. Again, we must begin with self-ownership if we are to have any rights at all.

xoplytnyk:

The idea of self-ownership is not to be taken in a literal sense of ownership, but rather it is the idea that an individual has sole, rightful domain over himself. The reason, for instance, that one individual may not murder another is because to do so would violate the other individual's sovereignty which stems from the concept of himself as his own master, his own "owner". This is the right to life: no man has the right to murder others. The right to liberty stems similarly from this idea of self-ownership: no man has the right to prevent you from doing what you want, in so far as you do not violate his life or liberty or property, because to do so implies that he has a higher moral authority over your body than you do. And finally we have the right to property: since you own yourself, you own your labor and the fruits of your labor. No other man has a higher claim on your labor than you do; you may sell it, of course, but nobody inherently owns your labor.


JohnRawls:

That is a non-argument. If appeal to law were a good argument, then Mussolini and Toto had great arguments.

Rights do not stem from legislation; they are inherent, and natural. They are not "given" (that logically reduces them to privileges). And no matter the fictitious writing which invents or reduces rights, your rights are your rights: life, liberty, and property.

And clearly, your "right" to health care necessarily violates all three of the natural rights of others, for you must presume to force the producer to produce health care for you free of charge at your whim.

[Fasces]

I am saying that the condition of ownership over a human being can belong to no one but the individual himself; you cannot sell yourself because as soon as you proceed to be owned, your free will negates that ownership. Again, we must begin with self-ownership if we are to have any rights at all.

The condition of ownership implies the ability to transfer that ownership to others. If you deny this, you deny capitalism itself. Can you be said to own a car or land if you are prohibited from selling it to a third party?

[Capitalist_Eagle]

The car or land is not a sapient being.

[Fasces]

So then one does not own themselves as one would own a car or land? This is a variation of the traditional concept of self-ownership expressed.

[Capitalist_Eagle]

That is not the argument. The argument is that everybody must own themselves, and that only the individual may own himself; he is the one property that he cannot sell to another. This requirement of self-ownership validates the idea of self-ownership even more.

The important question, of course, is why you are so eager to attack the idea of individual self-ownership. To deny self-ownership is to imply that either some individuals are owned by others or that there is ownershiplessness, and both cases are absurd, for if you do not own yourself then you can not make your own decisions. Our natural rights to life, liberty, and property arise from our self-ownership; it is because we own ourselves that nobody has the right to take away our lives (right to life), that nobody may control our actions to the extent that we do not harm their rights (liberty), and it is why we own the fruits of our labor (property).

[Fasces]

he is the one property that he cannot sell to another.

Then he is not a true sovereign. Sovereignty includes the ability to decide to relinquish it.

To deny self-ownership is to imply that either some individuals are owned by others or that there is ownershiplessness

Individuals do not own themselves. They are without owner. Individuals cannot be expressed as a property, whether they are their own property or that of another individual. Individuals, like cells or organs, are simply components of the society to which they belong. They do not exist beyond it or without it, but nor can it function without them. They are both the product of it, and the determinants of its composition. Society and humanity exist mutually, and always have. There has always been societies among humans. The importance of individuals, and the rights they enjoy, are only those which they collectively agree upon. In Finland, these rights include access to internet and health care. In the United States, these rights include self armament. These rights vary from society to society, but are ultimately determined by society. They are not absolute, they are not inherent, and they are not constant.

[Capitalist_Eagle]

If they are not inherent, then they are privileges.


Your view of the individual is sick and disgusting. You view the individual as a mere means to an end, as a tool to be used for the "greater good".

Heaven protect us from the people that have the "greater good" at heart, especially when they determine to decide what the greater good is for you.

Man is his own end; your utilitarian views are not consistent with individual liberty and self-ownership. Individuals ought to be free to pursue their own self-interest and should only be limited when they impede the rights of others.