Why is that?
Because one's person falls within the domain of the self. If we are to maintain the rights are moral concepts which establish a condition in which we ought to live, then self-interest--interest in the self--must serve as the precursor since any cooperation will necessarily be informed by a composite of individual actors.
So semantics. I got ya.
Yes, semantics.
What if myself (and everyone else in society) disputes your analyses of rights? Whose alleged "rights" do we honor then?
You are free to conceive a set of rules to which you and any other willing party is willing to participate; but this doesn't necessarily dispute my "analyses." I don't claim to have the only analysis. Only that the analysis to which I subscribe is the most consistent.
I can appreciate that. You remind me of myself in my early 20s. I read every publication by Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Engels and Rothbard I could get my hands on. I even read some anarcho-syndicalists and communists for funsies. I was very libertarian (practically an-cap) for a good portion of my life, and of course when I was in college got very into philosophy. Who doesn't get a lil boner by Ayn Rand when they're 19, amirite? I thought abiding by the laws of logic were paramount and got annoyingly anal about axiomatic truths so I get where you're coming from. I even had Huey as my debate icon for the longest time lol. So I actually find this conversation very endearing and was only curious where you were at in your thought processes, that's all.
I'm neither a nihilist nor a contrarian. I, too, had an "early 20's." I'm not easily swayed by the rationalizations of philosophers whether they be economic, political, religious, etc. I've reached these conclusions the same way I've always done: relying on my own capacity to rationalize. Sure, I've read Aristotle, Aquinas, Aurelius, Descartes, Godwin, Hayek, Hobbes, Kant etc. (you get the point) but I don't parrot, nor do I appeal to the authority of someone else. Some find it particularly difficult to argue against the consistency of my arguments because I truly understand my position. And to truly understand my position, I have to understand the premises, the inferences, the non sequiturs, the inductions, the deductions, the inverse, converse, and contrapositives; the negations, the rebuttals, the counterarguments, contradictions--all of it. But more importantly, I understand the reasoning. I understand how they connect; I understand how it works. So you'll find similarities between my arguments and the utterances of Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard for example, but you'll never see me regurgitate their statements. If I quote them, I'll always explain the reason that quote applies.
So as I said, I will not assume responsibility for that which others state. I'm capable of offering my own rationalizations because I understand my position.
This is what I was getting at. The TLDR is that any idea on rights (as it pertains to government, property or commerce) essentially boils down to might makes right. If you're the only one who believes X then your views don't really matter insofar as being applicable. It comes down to what ideas you can defend and enforce among people. When you ask "how meaningful is enforcement when the enforcement itself undermines the right(s) it is intended to protect" I completely understand that paradox and question that many philosophers have tried to resolve.
Might does not make right. Might is more "persuasive" to those who are not willing to risk death.
But here we are, and I expect if we go down a Socratic rabbit hole you'll come to similar conclusions most have had regarding the "necessary evil" of government and overriding of strict individualism for a functioning society.
No, I wouldn't. "Necessary" evil is a pretext which undermines individuality; "necessary evil" is still evil. It's not that individualism CAN'T inform a functioning society; it just DOESN'T.
But one is compelled. Ignoring arguments for determinism and against free will (i.e. predisposition through genetics or environment compelling choices), what about babies? Would it be immoral or against what one ought to do or has a right to do if they give an infant medicine or life saving treatment? I think if we acknowledge any rights concerning infants regards the discretion of their parents or the state, we recognize how arbitrary our conditions for the existence of rights are - that's why I was asking about other species and non humans.
They're not arbitrary; babies aren't moral agents. Neither are other species of animals, nor robots. And much like robots and other species of animals, they are subject to the discretion of those who have possession of them.
We just make up the criteria as we go along, and because there is no moral absolute or moral imperative it's not necessarily immoral to do certain things in the name of government just like we "allow" certain things to be done for babies in the name of good parenting.
Individualism doesn't just make up criteria as we go along.
I'm probs not explaining this properly in between work calls. I almost forgot about this thread. I'm confident if you think about your "ideal government" or rather ideal society without government though, certain circumstances or conditions would arise where you wouldn't be able to apply some sort of straight edged logic as easily as you think. I suspect you'll figure that out in due time and probs not in this thread. I'm enjoying the conversation though.
How old do you assume I am? And why do you presume that I need time to reconsider?
