Gyroscopic Investing

The thread on property rights got me thinking about rights in general. What makes the most sense to me is that rights are shared social constructs that arise to codify the details of various naturally-understood concepts.

Property rights are a great example. I think we can all agree that we own our own bodies and aggression against our bodies can be morally resisted with violence. Pretty much all human societies have believed this to some extent. And from that, we have the right to own objects that we pick up and fashion--maybe even up to a house and some animals. And denizens of even the most primitive societies will object if you back a truck up and start loading up their food (thanks for the example, MT). So even if their systems of property rights may not be highly formalized with fences and deeds and law courts, clearly they understand the concept.

I assert is that "rights" are shared para-legal notions codifying these naturally understood concepts such as property, privacy, freedom of travel, expression, self-defense, etc. However--and I believe this is an important point--historically, the details of their codification has varied heavily from society to society. For example one society's definition of "property rights" might mean "any structures you build, any animals you hunt, any objects you create from unowned natural raw materials", while another society's definition might include all that, and additionally, "any unowned land you declare you own and can defend against trespassers".

Is one definition right and another wrong? I argue that they're both right within their own societies as long as they facilitate rather than hinder intra-societal harmony (the entire social goal of rights--solitary humans in nature for example have no need of rights). However, Historically tragedy has ensued when competing models of rights clashed. For example, in the Americas, European notions of property as encompassing enclosed and absentee land ownership clashed with the natives' notion that land could not be formally owned in that manner. Was one society right and another wrong? Neither was in my estimation; but one society beat the other due to their superior strength--a strength largely facilitated by its differing definition of property.

It turns out that there is a sort of competitive "market" in rights as well as different conceptions of rights fight amongst each other in human affairs with the aim of empowering and enriching their respective societies. A right that hinders people will be discarded; for example, the concept of property rights that does not encompass enclosures and absentee ownership proved to be of little help in resisting the incursions of people who believed alternative definitions. Does this mean that the winning conception of property rights in this fight was correct? No, only that it made its society stronger, and in the end, stronger societies always beat weaker societies.

PS,

I love how we have to start new threads because we realize eventually what we're fundamentally disagreeing on in other threads... this isn't the first time this has occured...

But to you your point...

I argue that they're both right within their own societies as long as they facilitate rather than hinder intra-societal harmony (the entire social goal of rights--solitary humans in nature for example have no need of rights).

I tend to think that rights, while man-made, at the very least attempt to hone in on a fundamental human truth.  Societal harmony is great, but it's also been the excuse for lots of statist actions.  I think Hitler probably would have argued that he tried to segregate, intern and exterminate Jews and others for the purpose of a "better society."  Segregation of the South was no different.

I really think we have to get past this moral relativism from society to society... harmony for one is slavery for another.  It just sounds too much like mob rule.

If we have a fundamental right by nature, evolution or some God, then we have it.  If we don't, we don't.  If it results in some kind of macro-harmony, so be it, but I'm surprised you talk about rights in terms of "what's best for society."

If we have a right "not to be forced to do something" by others, then we have to ask ourselves what that truly means when we are all forced to live on the same rock.

Do men have different rights than women?  Well this idea probably contributed to social harmoney back in the days where men would have not allowed themselves to live in a society where women had equal rights.  This may have worked well for them then, but I think we can agree this isn't because women have rights, but because our social nature was such at the time that it simply was the right kind of moral structure that contributed to the support of enough of the people in power and the sub-powerful amongst the masses.

If rights are just whatever promotes social harmony, all they are is to keep the masses in check (or that's what they could potentially result in).  Not a fundamental truth of humanity.

moda0306 wrote: If rights are just whatever promotes social harmony, all they are is to keep the masses in check (or that's what they could potentially result in).  Not a fundamental truth of humanity.

That's not exactly what I'm saying… I'm saying that rights are the codification of existing aspects of a cultural zeitgeist. A society full of people who value their privacy will codify a right to privacy. A society full of people who value their weapons will codify a right to arms… and so on and so forth.

Governments don't make rights. In fact, when governments claim to make rights that most or much of the population doesn't agree with, it can be a source of major strain. For example, just look at the abortion debate in the USA. The Supreme Court invented a right that about half of the people violently disagreed with and caused no end to cultural strain.

PS,

So what percentage of a society has to agree with a right before it's a real "right," vs just a governmentally-enforced right?

I still don't like this definition for philisophical purposes.  The whole idea of an individual right is that it can't be infringed upon (morally) just because I just happened to have moved into the wrong town of folks.

I know there's societal norms and all, but I just can't bring myself to a spot where I think that from a philisophical point of view, our rights are limited to what some shlubs around me will allow for.  From a functional point of view, I know this is EXACTLY what it is.  However, I'd like to think our moral philosophizing has risen us above what the masses think my rights are.

This is getting too ambiguous for me on a Friday night after two beers, fellas.

I'm going to come out of all this as a sociopath with no feelings for others, methinks.  Eventually I'll convince myself that we're all blobs of carbon with no souls.

moda0306 wrote: However, I'd like to think our moral philosophizing has risen us above what the masses think my rights are.

Oh, but don't you see? That's exactly what they are! If you really think about it, everything we call a right actually defines a restriction on other people. For example: My right to free expression means the government can't shut me up. My right to arms means the government can't prevent me from owning and carrying weapons. My right to property means nobody can take from me the things I purchase or appropriate from a state of nature. These rights are all limitations on other people! And as such, we need their willing cooperation or else it doesn't work. It's all an elaborate social game. The moment the people who we attempt to enforce our rights against stop playing by the rules and respecting our rights, the jig is up and it's back to the very clear and blunt reality of might makes right. It's "the law of the jungle" as doodle is so fond of saying.

Think about something like the L.A. riots. A lot of rights got violated. Right to property, right to life, even, for a number of people. Was anybody concerned with the integrity of their rights during that episode? Of course not. They were trying to survive. Rights were suddenly irrelevant because the people you would try to enforce them against became like animals.

In a way, perhaps rights are a representation of the veneer of civilization. When the shit hits the fan, I doubt that many people are going to spend time philosophizing about what their rights are or ought to be. Their rights are going to extend exactly as far as their rifle can reach. Civilization allows us to pretend that this isn't the case by us all collectively agreeing to respect each other's culturally-defined rights in exchange for them respecting ours.

And as with so many aspects of civilization, it works best the less diversity of opinion is present. If I think I have a right not to be offended, and you think you have the right to say whatever you want, then our perceived rights will chafe against one another uncomfortably. Our society's "rights arbiters" (the Supreme Court justices, for example) have to start doing ridiculous things like balancing one right against another or defining uncomfortable exceptions to rights, all of which expose their incompatibility and arbitrariness.

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote: However, I'd like to think our moral philosophizing has risen us above what the masses think my rights are.

Oh, but don't you see? That's exactly what they are! If you really think about it, everything we call a right actually defines a restriction on other people. For example: My right to free expression means the government can't shut me up. My right to arms means the government can't prevent me from owning and carrying weapons. My right to property means nobody can take from me the things I purchase or appropriate from a state of nature. These rights are all limitations on other people! And as such, we need their willing cooperation or else it doesn't work. It's all an elaborate social game. The moment the people who we attempt to enforce our rights against stop playing by the rules and respecting our rights, the jig is up and it's back to the very clear and blunt reality of might makes right. It's "the law of the jungle" as doodle is so fond of saying.

Think about something like the L.A. riots. A lot of rights got violated. Right to property, right to life, even, for a number of people. Was anybody concerned with the integrity of their rights during that episode? Of course not. They were trying to survive. Rights were suddenly irrelevant because the people you would try to enforce them against became like animals.

In a way, perhaps rights are a representation of the veneer of civilization. When the shit hits the fan, I doubt that many people are going to spend time philosophizing about what their rights are or ought to be. Their rights are going to extend exactly as far as their rifle can reach. Civilization allows us to pretend that this isn't the case by us all collectively agreeing to respect each other's culturally-defined rights in exchange for them respecting ours.

And as with so many aspects of civilization, it works best the less diversity of opinion is present. If I think I have a right not to be offended, and you think you have the right to say whatever you want, then our perceived rights will chafe against one another uncomfortably. Our society's "rights arbiters" (the Supreme Court justices, for example) have to start doing ridiculous things like balancing one right against another or defining uncomfortable exceptions to rights, all of which expose their incompatibility and arbitrariness.

EXACTLY! Rights don't really exist....at least not in the same sense that a stick or a rock does. The problem is that the kshartles and technos keep talking about the right to property as if it is some law of the universe because their entire economic and social philosophy is based on "property" being an axiomatic truth when in fact it is just a normative concept. If one is able to show that the right to property is merely an opinion/ belief and therfore ultimately depends on violence to enforce, their whole anarcho-capitalist superstructure collapses to the ground because of the massive internal contradictions.

They are trying to build a society without violence that is based on a normative belief (the private ownership of property) that ultimately exists only if it is enforced by violence!!!!  The reason why borders to property historically tend to be delineated by rivers and mountains is that they are like free armies that defend a persons claim to ownership of a certain area. In other words, nature provides the violence that keeps invading groups in check, instead of a standing army. In medieval times before governments, kings built their castles on high mountains or surrounded by moats because they understand the truth that their claim to private property was only as good as their ability to defend it with violence.


Kshartle loves to point out everyone's logical fallacies, but the fact that he can't recognize this doozy just proves to me that he is so intoxicated on the Austrian kool aide that his judgement has become completely impaired.

"what is the meaning of life"?

Ultimately, this is where all of our disagreements start. Unfortunately, it is almost a taboo subject in the western world. People say, it is up to the individual to decide for himself. However, all of the laws and rights and other concepts that form the basis for our society ultimately emanate from this question. If we disagree fundamentally on the meaning of life, how are we going to agree on the conclusions that follow from that and therefore, how can we build a stable and prosperous society?

This is why the united states is such an anomaly. How does a country with such diversity of opinion hold itself together? Lately, it seems that this diversity of opinion is starting to eat away at the common ties that bind us. The government shutdown is only the latest example of this. Ultimately, if our country no longer answers the question of "what is the meaning of life" with a unanimous voice, then the task of holding things together becomes very strenuous.

doodle wrote: This is why the united states is such an anomaly. How does a country with such diversity of opinion hold itself together? Lately, it seems that this diversity of opinion is starting to eat away at the common ties that bind us. The government shutdown is only the latest example of this. Ultimately, if our country no longer answers the question of "what is the meaning of life" with a unanimous voice, then the task of holding things together becomes very strenuous.

Agreed a thousand times over. And it's one of the main reasons why I think modern American liberalism is no naive: it celebrates diversity of every size, shape and variety, seemingly unaware that diversity beyond the superficial (what's your favorite brand of car?) can result in deep fissures of opinion that fracture society because nobody can agree on the basics.

When one group believes it has a right to safety and another group believes it has a right to arms… when one group believes it has the right to basic healthcare and other services and another group believes it has the right to keep all the money its members earn… these are conflicts that will eventually lead to the dissolution of the society and the creation of smaller, less diverse societies where each group can get what it wants.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: This is why the united states is such an anomaly. How does a country with such diversity of opinion hold itself together? Lately, it seems that this diversity of opinion is starting to eat away at the common ties that bind us. The government shutdown is only the latest example of this. Ultimately, if our country no longer answers the question of "what is the meaning of life" with a unanimous voice, then the task of holding things together becomes very strenuous.

Agreed a thousand times over. And it's one of the main reasons why I think modern American liberalism is no naive: it celebrates diversity of every size, shape and variety, seemingly unaware that diversity beyond the superficial (what's your favorite brand of car?) can result in deep fissures of opinion that fracture society because nobody can agree on the basics.

When one group believes it has a right to safety and another group believes it has a right to arms… when one group believes it has the right to basic healthcare and other services and another group believes it has the right to keep all the money its members earn… these are conflicts that will eventually lead to the dissolution of the society and the creation of smaller, less diverse societies where each group can get what it wants.

I hope you're right, but I can't really think of a case where this has happened without a lot of bloodshed.

Libertarian666 wrote: I hope you're right, but I can't really think of a case where this has happened without a lot of bloodshed.

Yes, I agree. At least, there was a lot of bloodshed the last time they tried it in this country, and it didn't even work. Who knows what the future holds? My father in law who has a PhD in history says the tone of partisan rancor is as high as it was before the civil war. But we don't seem to be as geographically divided this time... or at least not into states. It's more of an urban-suburban/rural divide. The urbanites have a lot less territory and resources than either side in the civil war had.

Side 1 of Rush 2112 happens to be playing on the radio right now, which gives this thread extra flavor.

This morning I was thinking about some overseas friends who feel they have a "right" to certain media content, and when cable tv failed to give it to them, they went the illegal download route. This is very much like a certain cartoon at The Oatmeal.

At times, I have noticed that when I pay for something at iTunes, it often leads to all kinds of DRM issues. Quick example: anything HD will not play on my Mac mini, and a pop-up warns me that I am not authorized to broadcast this content to an audiience. Okayy...

When I, ahem, allegedly procure the same content via other means, the same stuff happy plays on VLC. I feel so naughty and alive when I do that.

As this thread illustrates, it's a lot more complicated when you're bumping up against your fellow citizens and their perceived rights instead of just bumping up against a corporation or big government. Of course, I think we have one of the better systems on the planet and most North Koreans would be curious about how fervently we can squabble about whether a drinking establishment should ban smoking. What we have is clearly a work in progress.

More later.

Pointedstick wrote: When one group believes it has a right to safety and another group believes it has a right to arms… when one group believes it has the right to basic healthcare and other services and another group believes it has the right to keep all the money its members earn… these are conflicts that will eventually lead to the dissolution of the society and the creation of smaller, less diverse societies where each group can get what it wants.

Beats the hell out of one side forcing their wishes on everybody which is more likely outcome.

My thoughts on the nature of rights:

In my humble opinion, we all have the right to love God and our neighbor as we love ourselves.  This means I trust God's promises and I care about my neighbors' welfare as much as I do my own.  Unfortunately, the last time this happened was before the curse described in Genesis chapter 3.  However, I do believe that we (our culture, our society) are reaping the consequences of what happens when we throw God out of most things and blatantly refute His will.  This leaves evil a clear path for jumping into the vacuum, thus man's desire for ever more spelled out "rights" to benefit himself.  Just because we are unable to completely love our neighbor as ourselves does not mean that it is not what God desires for his creation.  And, before the atheists scream at me, atheism in my opinion is a religion ... worship of self, belief that the individual knows more than a God that cannot be proven by the scientific method.  The fundamental question for a society (culture) is "Who is going to be God?"  When it is man, we experience a different outcome (almost never pretty) than if it is God (rarely pretty) because we are all miserable sinners in need of a Savior; if you don't believe this, read the newspaper and consider the daily messes that get reported.  The good news is that Jesus forgives all of us and if we don't reject that gift, our long term outlook is wonderful.  Physical death is a certainty (even the postmodern relativists probably agree with that); what happens after that is either eternity in hell or heaven.  Since Christ defeated death on the cross, those are the only two possibilities (whether or not one rejects God's promises).  So, as for the nature of rights, they are a gift from God.  The gift has been given, our only choice is to refuse the gift ... or not.  A religious answer to a temporal question but that is the way my thoughts went tonight.

Mountaineer wrote: My thoughts on the nature of rights:

In my humble opinion, we all have the right to love God and our neighbor as we love ourselves.  This means I trust God's promises and I care about my neighbors' welfare as much as I do my own.  Unfortunately, the last time this happened was before the curse described in Genesis chapter 3.  However, I do believe that we (our culture, our society) are reaping the consequences of what happens when we throw God out of most things and blatantly refute His will.  This leaves evil a clear path for jumping into the vacuum, thus man's desire for ever more spelled out "rights" to benefit himself.  Just because we are unable to completely love our neighbor as ourselves does not mean that it is not what God desires for his creation.  And, before the atheists scream at me, atheism in my opinion is a religion ... worship of self, belief that the individual knows more than a God that cannot be proven by the scientific method.  The fundamental question for a society (culture) is "Who is going to be God?"  When it is man, we experience a different outcome (almost never pretty) than if it is God (rarely pretty) because we are all miserable sinners in need of a Savior; if you don't believe this, read the newspaper and consider the daily messes that get reported.  The good news is that Jesus forgives all of us and if we don't reject that gift, our long term outlook is wonderful.  Physical death is a certainty (even the postmodern relativists probably agree with that); what happens after that is either eternity in hell or heaven.  Since Christ defeated death on the cross, those are the only two possibilities (whether or not one rejects God's promises).  So, as for the nature of rights, they are a gift from God.  The gift has been given, our only choice is to refuse the gift ... or not.  A religious answer to a temporal question but that is the way my thoughts went tonight.

No offense, but can you provide evidence that would prove the existence of any of that? If not, then those religious beliefs would fall into the same category as rights.

I see the practical purpose of religion in terms of providing an ethical code or set of beliefs and norms that bind large groups of people together. In fact, many of the rights that we believe we possess stem from religion. But these religious codes and rights are most definitely a human creation...after all, they are expressed in language which is nothing but a concept in and of itself. In nature, your codes and rights have no meaning. Again, you can try to argue all you want with a bear and say as many hail Mary's as you please, but my guess is none of that is going to stop him from eating you.

Personally I'm pretty comfortable remaining agnostic on most spiritual topics. I have no way of knowing if there is or isn't a god. But if there were, I certainly hope he wouldn't resemble the capricious, jealous, and vengeful God of the old testament.

Doodle, no offense taken. 

First a couple of comments.  The Bible has more proof texts (several thousand) and first hand witnesses of the New Testament events than most other ancient texts.  However, the supernatural (e.g. creating the universe, raising someone from the dead) cannot be proven so I'm not even going to try as my proof would fall short of your desires.  I will however share my beliefs with you.  I would ask you to consider the questions, "Why do we die?  What happens after physical death?"  I believe Jesus answers those questions.  In my view, the Bible's main purpose is not about moralism or what you need to do to live a great prosperous life or have a better body (go the YMCA if that is what you are looking for).  The main purpose is to tell you what you need to know to have eternal life.  Unfortunately, many Christians are hung up on moralism and/or judging others; they come across as self-righteous arrogant snobs.  No wonder so many are turned off - I was too for a long time.

With all due respect, I somewhat understand where you are coming from.  I am trained as an engineer implanted with a desire that everything be logical.  I am/was steeped in the Scientific Method as the means to understand the world.  I lived that way for a long time.  Beginning when I was about 17 I had a long "dry spell" where I tried to escape organized religion.  Then many years later I lost a bet with my wife (long story) and resumed going to church; that was over 25 years ago.  Looking back, I now believe that God wanted me so badly that He refused to give up on me.  For whatever it is worth, I now believe that there are three ways man receives knowledge: cognitive, experiential and revelation.  The first part of my life I discounted the third way - now I have come to realize that God reveals Himself through his Word and Sacraments. 

Here are some beliefs that I have come to have re. the Triune God (I am not asking you to believe this, but this is the way it is for me):

* The Bible is inspired by God; that means God placed his Holy Spirit in those who wrote.
* The central purpose of the Bible is to reveal Jesus Christ and what he has done for all people.
* Christ is what matters, is primary; the Bible is supporting, it points to Christ, the words are the verbal inspired breathed word of God and are trustworthy.
* God created everything perfectly.
* Sin entered creation almost immediately when Adam and Eve doubted God, trusted in themselves, and disobeyed God's Word; their sin corrupted everything and now we (people, animals, planet and universe) endure continual struggle (e.g. strife, war, hunger, earthquakes, etc.).
* God is in charge.
* Faith by grace is a gift from God, why some are chosen by God to receive the gift and others are not is unknowable on this side of heaven; it is not addressed in Scripture.
* The Bible does not tell us everything, but it does tell us everything we need to know to be saved.
* Belief in God is strengthened by frequent feeding of Word and Sacrament.
* Grace is the unique teaching of Christianity, all other major religions have works-righteousness at their core.
* Christianity is the only religion whose leader (i.e. Christ) rose from the dead. 
* God loves us so much that He gave us the ability to refuse his gift of faith.
* God loves us so much that He gave His only son Jesus to atone for sin.
* Those who believe in Jesus will have everlasting life and live in a perfect new heaven and earth with God; those who do not will be eternally damned.
* There is a very significant difference between Law and Gospel in the Scriptures (in both OT and NT).  Law tells us what God requires of us.  Gospel tells us what God has done for us, especially what he has done in Jesus to deliver us from sin and death.
* The Law (1) serves to curb our evil desires, (2) is a mirror to make us realize it is impossible to do everything God says (we are all sinners) and drives us to want the Gospel, and (3) for Christians is a guide for what is pleasing to God re. our lifestyle and behavior.
* Whenever we read a promise of God to do something for us that we have not earned or deserved, we are reading Gospel.
* Law and Gospel work together to point us to God's central purpose - to save us from eternal death and make us His people and members of His eternal kingdom.
* Because of the Gospel, we should desire to tell others about the Good News, plant seeds; God will nurture the seeds if He so desires. 
* Because of the Gospel, we should love our neighbor, in thought, word, and deed.
* There are two "realms", vertical and horizontal. Divine and human. Religious and civil. Salvation and works. Love God and love neighbor. Performance or blessings in the horizontal realm does not gain the favor of God or gain salvation.  Righteousness operates in both realms but righteousness in the horizontal does not gain one righteousness in the vertical. However, if one stops going to church faith will diminish.
* We have free will and are to use our reason in the horizontal (civil) realm but not the vertical (Divine); i.e. do not try to understand the mind of God beyond what he has revealed in His Word. 
* To God, all sins are the same.  In the civil realm, all sins are not equivalent - i.e. the consequences of committing murder are more serious than telling a lie about our neighbor.
* Life begins at conception.
* Man is inherently sinful from conception until death; we are bound by our nature to rebel against God.  Only God can save us.  There is absolutely nothing we can do to save ourselves.
* Man is simultaneously saint and sinner.

Again, I am not asking you to accept my beliefs.  I just thought I would try to give a very brief glimpse of where I'm coming from.

This sermon might also be of interest:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpwtXUdm ... ploademail

Peace.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

Are you sure you're not CFW Walther or Hermann Sasse?  Seriously, that's a pretty good summary of Lutheran, and Christian, doctrine.  I didn't know there were many Lutherans in West Virginia.  Next time your team comes to play the Longhorns, since we're in the same conference now, you've got a place to stay and some beers to kick back.

Xan wrote: Mountaineer,

Are you sure you're not CFW Walther or Hermann Sasse?  Seriously, that's a pretty good summary of Lutheran, and Christian, doctrine.  I didn't know there were many Lutherans in West Virginia.  Next time your team comes to play the Longhorns, since we're in the same conference now, you've got a place to stay and some beers to kick back.

Perfect example of how religion and common beliefs serves to bond total strangers together. My guess is that if Mountaineer had written up a summary of Islamic doctrine the same invitation would not have been extended. Fascinating anthropological data popping up right here.

Xan wrote: Mountaineer,

Are you sure you're not CFW Walther or Hermann Sasse?  Seriously, that's a pretty good summary of Lutheran, and Christian, doctrine.  I didn't know there were many Lutherans in West Virginia.  Next time your team comes to play the Longhorns, since we're in the same conference now, you've got a place to stay and some beers to kick back.

Xan, thanks for the invitation.  No, I'm not Walther or Sasse - shhhhh, I could be Matt Harrison incognito   Sounds like you could be a graduate of the St. Louis or Fort Wayne seminary.

P.S. I did spend several years in Tejas a while back.  It is the state most similar to WV in attitude (Mountaineers are always free and such) that I've been in.  Do you still debate the merits of Lone Star vs. Pearl?

Doodle, that was a very astute observation of the binding power of nuclear forces.

I would say that the beer of choice is now Shiner, probably, although Lone Star is making good inroads with their "National Beer of Texas" campaign and their new Bock product.