[SolarCross]

As a spin-off from the thread that I started to examine from a libertarian perspective the United Nations' articulation of human rights, I thought we might make good on the boast I made in it that "... they probably blew a few hundred million dollars writing that fluff. I could do better for free." by doing so here. Fellow libertarians are welcome to collaborate.

To start us off shouldn't a Libertarian Universal Declaration of Human Rights include a right to keep arms?

[mikema63]

NO, all arms must be immediately amputated from socialists and fascists.

[Rich]

Yet again in a thread recently a Libertarian promoted the American founders as examples to follow. So I'm still trying to establish whether slavery is something that no one could support or whether the slave lords like Jefferson and Washington are still shining moral role model for us over 200 years later. Again no Libertarian piped up against him. No Libertarian said how dare you associate Libertarianism with a slave lord like Thomas Jefferson.

The vast bulk of those who define themselves as pro Capitalist Libertarians see Thomas Jefferson as a great example.

[ThereBeDragons]

1. All people have inviolable property rights.

There, I think we're done.

[Rich]

Is slave owning compatible with Libertarianism? If it isn't why has Libertarianism been so associated with slave owners or slave investors like John Locke?

[SolarCross]

lol a thread in the libertarian sub-forum being trolled by unlibertarians, what a surprise; I'm starting to think we need a private members club.

Rich - This is my take on Washington, Jefferson and the rest. Firstly it must be remembered that they were politicians who had the explicit goal of creating a state not that dissimilar to the states of europe out of the wild people and lands of the Americas which means a skeptical person in the first instance should consider these characters to be statists / authoritarians until proven otherwise. They did however present a libertarian flavour to their rhetoric not unlike the libertarian flavour that statists of the republican types of europe used. Why is this? No authoritarian can rule through force alone, they need many willing dupes to serve as their agents or at least drop their guard and present less resistance to the project. Who would those dupes be in the wild americas? The founders target followers were mostly english and other european freeman escaping the repressive aristocratic and authoritarian regimes of europe, people with a strongish libertarian sentiment and philosophy. To dupe these people into following the founders into statehood they necessarily had to employ the language of libertarianism even while they aimed to subvert it. This libertarian flavour to the language to the founders still dupes people today, not least because in comparison with the rhetoric of politicians of today it is wildly libertarian. However it must be remembered the founders were adapting to the philosophy of the people and not the other way around.

TBD - It probably could be as simple as that. However I don't think it would exactly hurt to have some elaboration on what means in various general circumstances. The right to self-defence, freedom of speech, a fair trial by a jury of one's peers and so on are all essentially derived from property rights but it doesn't hurt to spell out those derivations either.

[Joe Liberty]

lol a thread in the libertarian sub-forum being trolled by unlibertarians, what a surprise; I'm starting to think we need a private members club.

I think if we just ignore them they'll go away. They post the same thing over and over again anyway, and routinely ignore every answer they're given. So, trolls.

TBD - It probably could be as simple as that. However I don't think it would exactly hurt to have some elaboration on what means in various general circumstances. The right to self-defence, freedom of speech, a fair trial by a jury of one's peers and so on are all essentially derived from property rights but it doesn't hurt to spell out those derivations either.

I agree that it should be as simple as a single declarative statement, but as we've seen on PoFo, consistent application of the NAP, for example, seems to be where people's eyes gloss over. So I also agree that spelling out how the principle is applied on some basic issues would be helpful to those who haven't done a lot of thinking about it on their own.

[mikema63]

I thought I was rather original.

TBD probably gave the simplest expression of a Libertarian declaration of rights.

I mean honestly, Libertarianism is fairly simple in the sense that everything really hinges around that single idea and everything is an outgrowth of that goal. It's a major part of its appeal.

[Joe Liberty]

I thought I was rather original.

Oh I wasn't referring to your post, mike, yours was funny. It's Rich and his "JEFFERSON OWNED SLAVES SO EVERYTHING HE SAID WAS SHIT AND IF YOU LIKE HIM YOU LOVE SLAVERY!" nonsense.

I mean honestly, Libertarianism is fairly simple in the sense that everything really hinges around that single idea and everything is an outgrowth of that goal. It's a major part of its appeal.

Indeed, and I think that simplicity appeals to most people. I find where we lose them is in its consistent application to different issues. You know, "What about the roads?!?"

[mikema63]

I honestly have to level the criticism that libertarians leave a lot to be desired when it comes to alleviating fears that people will go without.

For instance lets take healthcare, people will always want to ensure that as many people as possible are treated for their illnesses. Even when it would be far more reasonable and logical to let them die (such as in the case of the extremely old).

People are simply hardwired to care.

It's easy enough to point to the purported economic benefit of making healthcare completely free market (and lets assume for the sake of argument that universal healthcare is inferior to private healthcare, and further assume that mixing the two as in the current system leads to even more perverse outcomes). For the majority of people, even believing that private healthcare is better in terms of outcomes and cost and even morality (which I think the morality angle of opposing government programs is a very steep uphill battle for libertarians) people will still choose the system that ensures that as few people as physically possible go without treatment.

All I would have to do to make a concentrated campaign against a free market system is seek out all those who do not receive proper treatment.

Similarly to this example we can see problems with getting people to accept many libertarian positions, libertarians are far to liable to fixate on the problems endemic to bureaucratic systems and economic efficiency and ignore the very real emotional desire to help people that plays a vastly greater role in what people want politically.

Libertarians often oppose positive rights, but those positive rights are what people want as outcomes of a society. People don't want economic efficiency for the sake of economic efficiency. By and large people simply don't want absolute freedom (the libertarian version, freedom is a fuzzy word) when it entails the things that would be required for it.

Libertarians are going to have to come to terms with the idea that most people are more concerned with the fairness of things like healthcare, housing, and other positive rights than they are with their quality and efficiency.

[SolarCross]

mikema - I appreciate the points you made just then but for this thread it is off-topic. This thread is for establishing the principles. How to sell those principles to people and what the utilitarian consequences of the application of those principles would be are separate matters from working out exactly what the principles should be in the first place.

[mikema63]

What would you add?

[SolarCross]

Not so much a matter of adding anything as simply re-stating the already deduced for concision and clarity.

I think the primary and founding principle we should work from is the concept of self-ownership. That a human mind begins as a sovereign in its own right, masterless and a master of no other mind. The flesh inhabited by that mind from its conception is a gift passed to it from its parents and that flesh hence remains the inviolable property of that mind until such time as that mind freely give it away or death parts it.

[ThereBeDragons]

TBD - It probably could be as simple as that. However I don't think it would exactly hurt to have some elaboration on what means in various general circumstances. The right to self-defence, freedom of speech, a fair trial by a jury of one's peers and so on are all essentially derived from property rights but it doesn't hurt to spell out those derivations either.

1. All people have inviolable property rights.
2. People have the right to assert and defend their property rights through force.
3. People may conduct themselves as they like using their property (provided this does not fringe on others' property rights).
4. People have the right to form organizations that enforce and defend property rights.

I don't see how property rights entitle you to a jury trial, though.

[SolarCross]

1. All people have inviolable property rights.
2. People have the right to assert and defend their property rights through force.
3. People may conduct themselves as they like using their property (provided this does not fringe on others' property rights).
4. People have the right to form organizations that enforce and defend property rights.

I don't see how property rights entitle you to a jury trial, though.

Yet with your 4 points you are most of the way there in deducing it. Following from the principle of self-ownership and the 4 points you made it is clear that the accused of a crime cannot be judged by a master for he has none thus only peers may rightfully judge. To judge is merely the making of an opinion as to what occurred and whose actions were in the right and whose were wrong. Where the accused was found to have acted wrongfully by causing harm or loss to another it is a matter of self-defence for the wronged to take restitution from the accused or otherwise take reasonable measures to ensure the accused does repeat his wrongful acts.

This is why spelling out some of the derivations may be helpful.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Taxizen - Concerning property rights, in your ideal libertarian society, where a national government is either nonexistent or severely limited, how do you propose people who are lower class and middle class will defend their property rights against unfair exploitation by people who control the vast majority of wealth, influence, and power? How will the ideal libertarian society not be feudalist? With power taken away from the government, the vacuum is automatically filled through reverting to the power of plutocrats and other businessmen. Who is going to prevent them from exploiting the working class and concentrating national resources and capital even more unfairly than before? With little or no restrictions on how businesses operate, how will labor rights and conditions for workers not revert to the standards of the Industrial Revolution?

[Plaro]

NO, all arms must be immediately amputated from socialists and fascists.

So Saudi Sharia like of you.

This is not connected with you Mike, I'm speaking in general. It has been very interesting for me to watch, violence and hate, and how they play out. It is fascinating, but one who proposes violence against a violent enemy (usually from perceived moral higher ground). Always ends as bad as their enemy if not worse. Why does that happen I do not know. But it usually happens to people who see themselves as morally on higher ground then their enemy.

[Voluntarism]

I reckon you can basically just follow the negative rights espoused in the UN Declaration and toss out the inconsistent positive rights. However, as mikema63 said, the sentiments espoused in the positive rights are the outcomes many of us desire. The key difference is that they cannot be placed into law and instead there should be a separate "moral code" (or some such term) that people use as a guidance of how to treat others. Perhaps we should put some thought into the types of things that should/could be in a voluntary desirable code of conduct as this does seem to be a continuous misunderstanding about Libertarianism. I'm guessing the charters of some of the old Friendly Societies would contain the necessary elements as they were the free market institutions originally devised to help ensure that the average person could access health care, life insurance, unemployment benefits, disability insurance etc.

Anyway, in terms of the strict "legal codes", how's this (it's deliberately repetitive just like the original to ensure many of the implications are explicit):

Article 1.
• All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
• Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Article 3.
• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and property.

Article 4.
• All human beings have the right to self-ownership (or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy). Each person enjoys, over himself and his powers, full and exclusive rights of control and use, and therefore owes no service or product to anyone else that he has not contracted to supply.

Article 5.
• Everyone has the right to self defence against the unwanted aggression of others against their life, liberty or property.

Article 6.
• No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 7.
• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 8.
• Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 9.
• All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 10.
• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 11.
• Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 12.
• (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
• (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 13.
• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 14.
• Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence.

Article 15.
• (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
• (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

Article 16.
• (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 17.
• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 18.
• Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 19.
• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
• (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.


The only one I am not fully comfortable with is:

- Article 12 (2) - No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

because I'm not sure that the laws should be changing, but I guess it doesn't hurt to put in an anti-retrospectivity clause.

I left out:
- Article 15. (3) - The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society.

because it seems to be crossing the line to positive rights and elevating the importance of the rights of a particular group above those of an individual.

[Drlee]

...trial by a jury of one's peers and so on are all essentially derived from property rights

[Voluntarism]

Not sure if this is well worded but also:

Article 20
• It is not the business of law – properly the rules and instrumentalities by which person and property are violently defended – to make people moral by use of legal violence. It is not the proper business of law to make people be truthful or to keep their promises. It is the business of legal violence to defend persons and their property from violent attack, from molestation or appropriation of their property without their consent.


Also I think it is important to somehow codify the principles of proportionality and clear and present danger in order to limit the right to violent self defence.

As Murray Rothbard said, "Violent defense then must be confined to violent invasion – either actually, implicitly, or by direct and overt threat. But given this principle, how far does the right of violent defense go? For one thing, it would clearly be grotesque and criminally invasive to shoot a man across the street because his angry look seemed to you to portend an invasion. The danger must be immediate and overt, we might say, "clear and present" – a criterion that properly applies not to restrictions on freedom of speech (never permissible, if we regard such freedom as a subset of the rights of person and property) but to the right to take coercive action against a supposedly imminent invader."

Further, with respect to the extent of one's defence or retribution, it must be proportionate to the force or threat of force. This will help ensure that the rights of the attacker are also protected. So maybe require an amendment to Article 5 to be something like:

Article 5.
• (1) Everyone has the right to self defence against the unwanted clear and present aggression of others against their life, liberty or property.
• (2) The criminal, or invader, loses his own rights to the extent that he has deprived another man of his. If a man deprives another man of some of his self-ownership or its extension in physical property, to that extent does he lose his own rights.

From this principle immediately derives the proportionality theory of punishment – best summed up in the old adage: "let the punishment fit the crime." Hence, this will help protect the boy who steals chewing gum from being shot in retribution.