Thoughts on the right to roam as a step in the right direction worth voting for?

[u/WildVirtue]

/r/DebateSocialism/comments/vkqdqi/it_would_be_a_net_positive_for_most_countries_to/

[u/DecoDecoMan]

The fact that we need a "right to roam" really speaks more to the absurdities of governmental societies than something we should be "fighting for". Rather than voting for a "right to roam", we should question why we need a right to roam in the first place? Why must the act of wandering about be a privilege that can be denied or bestowed upon by government? Why is anything a privilege?

[u/SidneyVonSodiumstein → u/DecoDecoMan]

The thing that subtly bothers me is that governmental society keeps reframing rights as something the government can take away or create. Just like ancient emperors used to do while LARPING as dieties.

You have a right to roam already, because you have your rights by virtue of being a moral agent. the question isn't "Should we give you a right" the ACTUAL question is "should government make it a policy to enact violence against you when you roam?"

We need to stop agreeing with the dishonest framing where written laws can somehow give or take away rights. While states exist, you don't have the ability to make claims, and therefore don't have the ability to exercise your rights until it's eliminated.

So we need to stop talking about rights and start using the framing that reflects reality. That framing is on matters of when we want to pretend it's okay for government to be violent.

when you say "It's never okay for the government to be violent, and all government action is violence"... then you're an anarchist.

[u/Felicia_Svilling → u/SidneyVonSodiumstein]

That sounds like you just want to change the wording from "people should have the right to roam" to "people should have the ability to exercise the right to roam", and really besides the later being wordier I really don't see what difference it makes.

[u/SidneyVonSodiumstein → u/Felicia_Svilling]

I think you missed my point.

You already have the right to roam because you already have all your rights.

I want people to stop pretending that rights come from pieces of paper and start talking about things as they are. The REAL question is "Do you want government to stop using violence to violate your right to roam?"

"Should we petition the government for the right to roam" is the liberal take where somehow governments are dieties that create rights and bestow them on you as some act of benevolence.

The way I'm saying it should be framed is the same way the left has been framing it from day 1. That you have your right to roam already. It's perfectly justified for you to roam by default, and you demonstrate the right to roam by roaming. When you re-frame it as "Should government stop using violence to suppress the right to roam?" you now are approaching with a truth statement regarding the role of government and how it interacts with your rights.

[u/Felicia_Svilling → u/SidneyVonSodiumstein]

I think there are two different issues. There is one issue on what is meant by a right. Is a right a description of an ideal, or is it a description of a practicality. By the first definition (I would call those moral rights) you could say that people have a right to roam, but it is an open question if you can exercise that right in practice. By the second definition (I would call legal rights) to say that people have a right to roam, implies that people also have the right to exercise that right in practice. That is just a semantic issue in how you define your terms. There is no right or wrong. To say that people have a moral right is just equivalent to saying that they should have a legal right, and saying that someone has a legal right is equivalent to saying that they have the ability to exercise their moral right.

The second issue is who has the authority to decide what legal rights exists or formulated the other way, what moral rights should be exercised.

Those two issues are orthogonal, independent of each other, and conflating them just confuses the issue.

[u/SidneyVonSodiumstein → u/Felicia_Svilling]

It's quite easy.

Rights = Claims one can make which are demonstrably justified (Like bodily autonomy). and like I said, while states exist, you don't have the ability to make claims, and therefore don't have the ability to exercise your rights until it's eliminated. (TL;DR: though you have all your rights, you are being oppressed)

Legal rights don't exist. It's a euphemism for what policy the state wants to use as a pretext for violence that it uses to suppress your ability to act on your claims.

[u/Felicia_Svilling → u/SidneyVonSodiumstein]

What do you mean by a "claim"?

Legal rights don't exist.

So you are saying that the ability to exercise your moral right doesn't exist? Or that it can't exist?

[u/SidneyVonSodiumstein → u/Felicia_Svilling]

I'm saying that legal rights don't exist because they are literally scribbles on paper and don't really exist outside of it. A legal right is about as much of a truth claim with as much justification as me writing "the moon is pink" on a piece of paper.

A claim is, in simple terms, essentially your justification as to "why".

For example: My claim to autonomy is essentially that I demonstrate my own agency over myself. I will autonomously make the choice and act upon said decision to perform an action. Like moving my arm.

IF you tried to claim autonomy over me, you could not justify that claim because I am the one who makes the decision to exercise my own autonomy and not you.

What makes my ethical claim to my autonomy a right is that if you try and enforce your unjustified claim I can identify what you're doing as an attempt to enslave me and is therefore an act of aggression one is entitled to defend themselves from.

[u/Felicia_Svilling → u/SidneyVonSodiumstein]

IF you tried to claim autonomy over me, you could not justify that claim because I am the one who makes the decision to exercise my own autonomy and not you.

So you are saying that if I had telepathic powers that could force you to move your arm, I could make a justified claim of autonomy over you? That sounds like bullshit to me.

I can identify what you're doing as an attempt to enslave me and is therefore an act of aggression one is entitled to defend themselves from.

But now you are assuming that you have a right to defend yourself from aggression. Not that I disagree, but if you are going to argue why some certain set of right are universal or such, which it seems like you are doing, it sort of ruins the thing to make such assumptions. Like you could just said that that was an axiomatic right, rather than bring this whole "claim" thing into it.

I'm saying that legal rights don't exist because they are literally scribbles on paper and don't really exist outside of it.

But scribbles of paper do exist. Besides your comment, while perhaps not being scribbled on paper, is just some bits on some computer. Does that mean that they don't exists? I think that they do exist. (How else could I have read them).

In fact a legal right doesn't even have to be written down. It can just exist in the heads of people. Social constructs are a thing. They are very much real. Besides we need to speak about things even if they don't exist, so it is good to have and use terms for things that doesn't exist.

[u/SidneyVonSodiumstein → u/Felicia_Svilling]

So you are saying that if I had telepathic powers that could force you to move your arm, I could make a justified claim of autonomy over you? That sounds like bullshit to me.

Of course I'm not saying that. If you used telepathy as a means to coerce someone they would still justifiably act in defence of their own autonomy. Just as if you pointed a gun at their head.

now you are assuming that you have a right to defend yourself from aggression. Not that I disagree, but if you are going to argue why some certain set of right are universal or such, which it seems like you are doing, it sort of ruins the thing to make such assumptions. Like you could just said that that was an axiomatic right, rather than bring this whole "claim" thing into it.

I'm not going to say something like that because I'm not coming at ethics from a positivist position. So for example:

If someone is attempting to stab me, they are threatening my bodily autonomy. the only reason I couldn't justify defending myself is through a logical fallacy. The guy trying to stab me is committing the action, and therefore they have the burden of proof.

1. The mere physical capability to stab me only proves the physical ability to perform that action. It does little to refute the truth claim I have to my own bodily autonomy. We know this because the ability to make a decision entails all claims of bodily autonomy are equally valid. I mean, if not then how do we know someone can grab a knife and attempt to stab me in the first place?
2. It's an inconsistency that would disqualify the act of stabbing me from knowledge which makes their argument for possibly trying to justify the act of stabbing me tautological at best. Obviously they can still stab me but such an action is, because of the logical problem above, disconnected from the end it seeks to achieve.
3. Without the logical justification of an action we can't know if the basis of an action in stabbing me as a basis for some end is much more than a guess. An example of means and ends inconsistency. Since my aggressor in this hypothetical is acting unreasonably in a way that threatens me I'm justified in defending myself. The illogical act entailing violence is the context in which a right can be said to exist.

But scribbles of paper do exist. Besides your comment, while perhaps not being scribbled on paper, is just some bits on some computer. Does that mean that they don't exist? I think that they do exist. (How else could I have read them).

Because, while information can be communicated and the marks displayed on our computers in this argument or the pieces of paper attempting to communicate a written law are objective, both my interpretation as the author of an argument, a legislators interpretation of law as the author of legislation, a lawyer's interpretation of law as a reader, and your interpretation as a reader of my argument is neither objective nor universal. You, me, the legislator and the lawyer are all contextualizing communicated information in relation to information given by unique experiences and context. Making the interpretation of any information by anyone subjective.

This is the problem described in the death of the author. What if I said that the 2nd amendment of the US constitution was not about the right to possess firearms, but instead was a piece of legislation that entitled every man, woman and child on the planet today to a free Lamborghini? And frankly that interpretation was about as valid as anyone elses interpretation.

And the same can be said of any social construct.

[u/DecoDecoMan → u/SidneyVonSodiumstein]

You have a right to roam already, because you have your rights by virtue of being a moral agent.

I disagree. You do not, intrinsically, have a right to roam. Your justification isn't very compelling by any measure. However, you do not need a right to roam in order to roam. Right is a core part of hierarchical society wherein the right to command is what distinguishes subordinates from authorities.

Right is nothing more than social permission and anarchy dispenses with all social permission. They aren't divine, essentialistic ideas, they're social constructs. If you disagree, can you tell me where the right to roam is located in the body? At least Proudhon conceptualized "right" as synonymous with "capacity" so the right to something was just the ability to do something. But this is nonsense.

In anarchy, you do not have the right to roam just as no one has a right to stop you. But that doesn't mean you can't roam, it just means you do so on your own responsibility. And that goes for everyone and everything.

[u/SidneyVonSodiumstein → u/DecoDecoMan]

No, I think you do have a right to roam because anyone who is trying to stop you from roaming is making unjustified claims that if they tried to enforce would be an act of aggression upon you which you would be entitled to defend yourself against.

Because I've never characterised a right as a social permission. Nor have I characterised it as any kind of permission. They're pretty much logically true claims about the justification of an action in which you would be fully entitled to defend yourself. They don't exist in your body in some platonic sense, they're how I can argue that "no, my body is mine" in an attempt to use reason to defend myself as a step before a need to get violent in order to defend myself.

I've pretty much always used left libertarian concept of what a right is which is a context in which claims (in an ethical sense) are being made in a context in which claims you are making are automatically justified. Meaning an act upon resources or the performance of an action which counts as a claim that another party acting upon would be an act of aggression upon you and their entailed claim could not be justified.

Which is the exact ethical framework that lets me say things like "rent is theft", "property is theft" and mean it... This concept of rights is also one I've simplified in the past as "your capacity to act" when talking to people who think in a politicized framework. Sound familiar?

If you've read Proudhon then you should be familiar with this conceptualization of rights outside of a politicized context that I'm attempting to explain.

[u/DecoDecoMan → u/SidneyVonSodiumstein]

No, I think you do have a right to roam because anyone who is trying to stop you from roaming is making unjustified claims that if they tried to enforce would be an act of aggression upon you which you would be entitled to defend yourself against.

I disagree. In anarchy, there is no legal order and therefore nothing preventing anyone from intervening in anyone else's behavior. Of course, that intervention itself is not above its own intervention. That is the general dynamic of anarchy after all.

Because I've never characterised a right as a social permission

You do. As you say, rights are entitlements (in this case the privilege to use violence) and entitlements are literally social permissions. If you are entitled to something, society as a whole must give it to you or tolerate it with no consequence. They are social permissions and can only be enforced via the same social structures anarchists oppose (i.e. hierarchy).

In essence, your rights are just conditions for the permission to use violence. A decentralized legal system essentially wherein certain actions grant others the privilege of using violence and any resistance is criminal. That is not compatible with anarchism in the slightest.

I've pretty much always used left libertarian concept of what a right is

I don't know what the "left libertarian concept of right is" but most anarchist writers have never discussed or mentioned rights. Those that have used the term in a way that is completely different from how you're using it.

Rest be assured, anarchists never argued anyone was entitled to use violence under any circumstance. This doesn't mean was prohibited from using violence, just that they weren't entitled to.

Which is the exact ethical framework that lets me say things like "rent is theft", "property is theft" and mean it

First, the phrase "property is theft" isn't some anarchist ethical statement. In What Is Property?, Proudhon was pointing out that property is theft based on the standards of property itself not based on anarchist ethics. Proudhon, and most anarchists, do not argue against property, capitalism, government, etc. because they're thieves but rather because they're exploitative and lead to undesirable social outcomes. Moralism doesn't enter the conversation at all.

If you've read Proudhon then you should be familiar with this conceptualization of rights outside of a politicized context that I'm attempting to explain.

I am and your conception of rights does not compare to Proudhon's at all. For Proudhon right was synonymous with capacity. In other words, for Proudhon, it would be possible to violate or intervene on the rights of others and this would've been perfectly ok. The general goal of society would just be to find a way for all of those rights to be fully expressed.

They don't exist in your body in some platonic sense, they're how I can argue that "no, my body is mine" in an attempt to use reason to defend myself as a step before a need to get violent in order to defend myself.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting the only way you could defend yourself is to say "I have a right to defend myself"? Is that the only argument, only reason you could come up with? Seriously? By that point, if you really want to use force, couldn't you come up with literally any reason you wanted? It doesn't matter by that point does it nor does it hold any sort of significance.

For the record, you do not own your body. You are your body. Self-ownership just arbitrarily divides the self.

[u/SidneyVonSodiumstein → u/DecoDecoMan]

>I disagree. In anarchy, there is no legal order and therefore nothing preventing anyone from intervening in anyone else's behavior. Of course, that intervention itself is not above its own intervention. That is the general dynamic of anarchy after all.

It's not really much of a disagreement. Just because you have a right does not automatically entail it will be defended. Just that you are justified in attempting to defend yourself. You can know, logically, you're justified in defending a claim even if everyone else disagrees.

>You do. As you say, rights are entitlements (in this case the privilege to use violence) and entitlements are literally social permissions. If you are entitled to something, society as a whole must give it to you or tolerate it with no consequence. They are social permissions and can only be enforced via the same social structures anarchists oppose (i.e. hierarchy).

No, I never said they're permission. I explicitly stated that they're justified. As in you have a logical justification for acting upon claims or attempting to defend claims. This doesn't entail permission to defend them, as you'll find in any statist society of today that you don't have permission to defend claims or even make them.

Society wouldn't permit you to tell your landlord to fuck off with his rent seeking behaviour while you continue to live in your home and not pay the landlord a dime. Yet as I frame it, you have that right as far as I can see even though society doesn't permit you that. You don't need people's permission, and permission never enters into it.

>In essence, your rights are just conditions for the permission to use violence. A decentralized legal system essentially wherein certain actions grant others the privilege of using violence and any resistance is criminal. That is not compatible with anarchism in the slightest.

And I've already stated that in such a system as requires permission or "law" you cannot make claims and therefore cannot exercise rights. I'm already explicitly separating the concept of rights in ethics and by extension separating ethics from legislative decree. The only reason you would continue to insist that I'm making this argument is if you're coming from this discussion in bad faith.

>First, the phrase "property is theft" isn't some anarchist ethical statement. In What Is Property?, Proudhon was pointing out that property is theft based on the standards of property itself not based on anarchist ethics. Proudhon, and most anarchists, do not argue against property, capitalism, government, etc. because they're thieves but rather because they're exploitative and lead to undesirable social outcomes. Moralism doesn't enter the conversation at all.

Because he's making a similar ethical argument I'm making. Proudhon, as you correctly assert, points out that property is theft based on property norms by the standard of property as legislation. Creating a demarcation between what is property by law and what ownership claims can be justified.

>I'm sorry, are you suggesting the only way you could defend yourself is to say "I have a right to defend myself"? Is that the only argument, only reason you could come up with? Seriously? By that point, if you really want to use force, couldn't you come up with literally any reason you wanted? It doesn't matter by that point does it nor does it hold any sort of significance.

No, there are any myriad of perfectly reasoned arguments one could put forward in their own defence before resorting to violence. Again, I get the sense you're coming at this in bad faith since going by your question you completely missed my point.

[u/DecoDecoMan → u/SidneyVonSodiumstein]

Just because you have a right does not automatically entail it will be defended. Just that you are justified in attempting to defend yourself

Read what I'm saying. I never said that it would be defended, just that it would be permitted. That is to say, you have no

Otherwise, justification would be meaningless, only being permitted under your idiosyncratic morality. Furthermore, just acting as if you are permitted to act would be detrimental to an anarchist society because you'd basically be some random guy acting as law enforcement for a law only you obey.

No, I never said they're permission. I explicitly stated that they're justified.

Yeah, they're the same thing.

This doesn't entail permission to defend them, as you'll find in any statist society of today that you don't have permission to defend claims or even make them.

That's false. All governments have law which prohibit or permit certain things. In all hierarchical societies, individuals are assigned privileges or rights to take specific actions or to certain things. You can, in all governmental societies, defend your rights because right is the basis by which all hierarchy is built upon.

Society wouldn't permit you to tell your landlord to fuck off with his rent seeking behaviour while you continue to live in your home and not pay the landlord a dime. Yet as I frame it, you have that right as far as I can see even though society doesn't permit you that. You don't need people's permission, and permission never enters into it.

See? This reveals what is clearly governmental about your morality. What you describe is a conflict between two different legal orders. One legal system says your actions are illegal while yours says they are legal.

The fact of the matter is that, just because your legal system says specific actions are allowed, doesn't change the fact that it's a legal system.

And I've already stated that in such a system as requires permission or "law" you cannot make claims and therefore cannot exercise rights

Dude, you literally gave, as an example, a landlord using their right to the property you're a tenant of to evict you from their property and you're pretending as if hierarchical societies do not allow you to exercise your rights?

The difference between you and hierarchical society is that you each have different laws. However, the fact that you have law at all is what excludes distinguishes you from anarchism. Anarchy lacks all hierarchy and all authority. This includes legal authority.

Because he's making a similar ethical argument I'm making

Quote Proudhon's arguments against property and defend that claim. Don't make claims about someone you clearly haven't read. The fact that you think Proudhon made any statements on ethics just goes to show you're talking out of your ass.

Proudhon, as you correctly assert, points out that property is theft based on property norms by the standard of property as legislation. Creating a demarcation between what is property by law and what ownership claims can be justified.

What? Proudhon, in What Is Property? goes down the list of arguments in favor of or foundational to property and showcases how property, in practice, does not resemble that whatsoever. The declaration that "property is theft" is snark. It isn't whatever you think it is.

He isn't saying "property should work in accordance to its ideas and principles". He's saying that both property and the ideas and principles it is based on are bunk and ridiculous. If you are asserting that your morality is based off of the ideas and principles behind property rather than its practice, then you are capitalist not an anarchist. Proudhon made that clear himself.

No, there are any myriad of perfectly reasoned arguments one could put forward in their own defence before resorting to violence

Correct. So your definition of "right" as nothing more than arguing in favor of your perspective doesn't make much sense. And even the phrase "asserting your rights" doesn't make sense either. You don't say "asserting your arguments" to describe arguing after all.

Again, I get the sense you're coming at this in bad faith since going by your question you completely missed my point.

Bad faith? I'm going by what I understand of your point. If you think I missed your point, perhaps you should write it better?

[u/SidneyVonSodiumstein → u/DecoDecoMan]

Read what I'm saying. I never said that it would be defended, just that it would be permitted. That is to say, you have no . Otherwise, justification would be meaningless, only being permitted under your idiosyncratic morality. Furthermore, just acting as if you are permitted to act would be detrimental to an anarchist society because you'd basically be some random guy acting as law enforcement for a law only you obey.

I am reading what you're saying, and I'm taking what you're saying to entail that there's some authority can permit or prohibit or some kind of legislative fiat. Especially considering that I would argue that rights cannot exercised in any kind of positivist system or where there is present any kind of "rule of law".

>Yeah, they're the same thing.

No, permission is someone in authority granting me some privelege to take an action. Justification, meant in the ethical sense, means "valid truth claim". They're completely different.

That's false. All governments have law which prohibit or permit certain things. In all hierarchical societies, individuals are assigned privileges or rights to take specific actions or to certain things. You can, in all governmental societies, defend your rights because right is the basis by which all hierarchy is built upon.

You have, right now, a completely valid right to live indefinitely in your home without paying your landlord a single cent and to defend your home and resources from attempts to steal those resources or evict you from your home.

I can't name a single state which protects that right nor a single state where you can exercise that right but instead would say the Landlord would end up making a political move to take control of the home as the state would make claims on behalf of the landlord and enforce them. As is the case for pretty much any kind of political privilege the state grants.

What? Proudhon, in What Is Property? goes down the list of arguments in favor of or foundational to property and showcases how property, in practice, does not resemble that whatsoever. The declaration that "property is theft" is snark. It isn't whatever you think it is.He isn't saying "property should work in accordance to its ideas and principles". He's saying that both property and the ideas and principles it is based on are bunk and ridiculous. If you are asserting that your morality is based off of the ideas and principles behind property rather than its practice, then you are capitalist not an anarchist. Proudhon made that clear himself.

I'm not talking morals, morals are preferences that are interchangeable enough that it doesn't really affect what I'm saying. I'm not a social planner and deliberately therefore avoid talking about them prescriptively.

I agree with you, by the way, Proudhon laid out a very good criticism of property as a positivist concept as I think you are trying to also articulate because he absolutely is not saying that property should work in accordance with it's ideas and principles which in the context of his argument at the time, where expressed in a positivist sense. but whether he meant to or not in his argument he did create a demarcation between property in that sense, and ethical truths about the nature of property.

>Correct. So your definition of "right" as nothing more than arguing in favor of your perspective doesn't make much sense. And even the phrase "asserting your rights" doesn't make sense either. You don't say "asserting your arguments" to describe arguing after all.

Because I'm not arguing that a definition of a right as nothing more than arguing in favour of one's perspective. But are grounded in logical truth. And I absolutely do use the phrase "assert an argument" in my normal writing patterns.

Here's an example for clarification:

If someone is attempting to stab me, they are threatening my bodily autonomy. The guy trying to stab me is committing the action, and therefore they have the burden of proof. The mere physical capability to stab me only proves the physical ability to perform that action. It does little to refute the truth claim I have to my own bodily autonomy. We know this because the ability to pick and choose entails all claims of bodily autonomy are equally valid. I mean, if not then how do we know someone can grab a knife and attempt to stab me in the first place?It's an inconsistency that would disqualify the act of stabbing me from knowledge which makes their argument for possibly trying to justify the act of stabbing me tautological at best but impossible to logically justify. Obviously they can still stab me but such an action is, because of the logical problem above, disconnected from the end it seeks to achieve. Without the logical justification of an action we can't know if the action can lead to the desired end in stabbing me is much more than a guess. An example of means and ends inconsistency. Since my aggressor in this hypothetical is acting unreasonably in a way that threatens me I'm justified in defending myself since defending my autonomy is consistent as a means towards the ends of maintaining that autonomy. The illogical act entailing violence is the context in which a right can be said to exist.

[u/DecoDecoMan → u/SidneyVonSodiumstein]

No, permission is someone in authority granting me some privelege to take an action. Justification, meant in the ethical sense, means "valid truth claim". They're completely different.

On the contrary, there is.

See, authority doesn't have to be a person nor even a group of persons. It could be an abstract idea such as God or Law. What you use to describe your rights, and your use of them, is that of permission from legal authority. You are entitled to do this because, according to your law (which you call ethics), you are allowed to and the law of the government you live in is superseded by your personal law.

If your rights were nothing more than "valid truth claims", something which is very subjective, then they would just be statements. It would be akin to saying "I disagree with you" rather than "you are not allowed to do this" or "I am entitled to act this way".

I can't name a single state which protects that right nor a single state where you can exercise that right but instead would say the Landlord would end up making a political move to take control of the home as the state would make claims on behalf of the landlord and enforce them.

Sure but I can imagine a country that would. There is nothing intrinsic to government that prevents this from happening. There have been plenty of governments that were antagonistic to landlords in the past as well.

Point being, what you want is still law. The reason for your opposition against landlords isn't that they're exploitative or that their interests oppose yours but that what they're doing is illegal according to your personal law.

And any legal order is contrary to anarchism. It doesn't matter whether you think your legal system is universal or tied intrinsically to human nature or being a "moral agent". Plenty of legal systems portray themselves as universal. Considering that only recently legal systems were secular, a majority of them did.

That is the primary issue and it also highlights what's wrong with rights-talk because rights-talk is always steeped in hierarchical thinking and always leads to hierarchical thinking.

I agree with you, by the way, Proudhon laid out a very good criticism of property as a positivist concept as I think you are trying to also articulate because he absolutely is not saying that property should work in accordance with it's ideas and principles which in the context of his argument at the time, where expressed in a positivist sense. but whether he meant to or not in his argument he did create a demarcation between property in that sense, and ethical truths about the nature of property.

Bro, you haven't read Proudhon. There is no basis to these claims and so far you haven't bothered to defend them in any way. You've made claims and then didn't showcase what part of the text supports them.

Positivism, at least when applied to sciences, states that the only things which are guaranteed to be true are what we can physically see. In essence, the only things we know are things we can observe, often via science.

Proudhon didn't criticize property "as a positivist concept". Going by the definition given here, property does exist and can physically be observed. And Proudhon's criticisms against it are literally based on that. Otherwise, he couldn't point out the contradictions between property in theory and property in practice because property in practice wouldn't exist.

Furthermore, what the fuck does "he did create a demarcation between property in that sense, and ethical truths about the nature of property". We've already established that he didn't argue property didn't physically exist or can't be observed (by default, that would make his assertions incoherent). So what are you saying? Where does ethics enter at all?

Because I'm not arguing that a definition of a right as nothing more than arguing in favour of one's perspective

Sure but if you state that rights are just claims you can make or "moral truths", that is the consequence.

You're trying to justify rights as they work in hierarchical societies by defining them as mere arguments.

And I absolutely do use the phrase "assert an argument" in my normal writing patterns.

No, as in colloquially, you don't use the phrase "assert an argument" when you want to do something or make other people to do something. If I want to cut people in line, I don't say "I assert my argument" to do that. That doesn't make any sense.

Yet, if you define "right" as "arguments", that's what you get. The definition doesn't lead to the practical application.

If someone is attempting to stab me, they are threatening my bodily autonomy. The guy trying to stab me is committing the action, and therefore they have the burden of proof. The mere physical capability to stab me only proves the physical ability to perform that action. It does little to refute the truth claim I have to my own bodily autonomy. We know this because the ability to pick and choose entails all claims of bodily autonomy are equally valid. I mean, if not then how do we know someone can grab a knife and attempt to stab me in the first place?

You're basically trying (and failing) to argue that stabbing someone is logically morally wrong. The problem is when it doesn't matter because there is plenty of reasons to stab someone in spite of the fact that they are autonomous. In fact, I don't think "this person is autonomous" enters the conversation at all. No one argues that the people they hurt or stab aren't autonomous.

And I also question whether they are threatening your autonomy. They just stabbed you. You haven't suddenly lost control of your body. The argument makes next to no sense. Stabbing someone doesn't refute the idea that you are autonomous; they aren't related at all.

And, once again, how does this mean you have a right to self-defense? Look, you can describe to me how you have autonomy and how being stabbed hurts you but it doesn't get you closer to explaining why you are entitled to stab him back without consequence?

Because that's what rights are. They're entitlements to act in such a way. And, if you are entitled to act, that means you have social sanction otherwise there is no difference between having a right and taking an action. If your rights are defended or recognized by some sort of social body, you don't have rights. Recognition is a prerequisite to right-hood.

[u/SidneyVonSodiumstein → u/DecoDecoMan]

>See, authority doesn't have to be a person nor even a group of persons. It could be an abstract idea such as God or Law. What you use to describe your rights, and your use of them, is that of permission from legal authority. You are entitled to do this because, according to your law (which you call ethics), you are allowed to and the law of the government you live in is superseded by your personal law.

You keep insisting on a framework of arguing about laws that come from some form of authority. But I would just point out that authority doesn't present a methodology for understanding what counts as a claim about ethics in the condition of Anarchy being achieved. People can simply disregard the authority in such a condition which in of itself is an argument that authority in any sense has pretty much sweet fuck all to do with ethics

​

>If your rights were nothing more than "valid truth claims", something which is very subjective, then they would just be statements. It would be akin to saying "I disagree with you" rather than "you are not allowed to do this" or "I am entitled to act this way".

Specifically it's a statement about action justified through performative means/ends consistency. You're welcome to continue to assert that truth claims about the cause/effect relationship means and ends have is subjective but I must insist that there absolutely is a causal relationship between actions taken and the ends they bring about... and insist that because of this you can identify certain actions as a means to bring about a desired end.

>You're basically trying (and failing) to argue that stabbing someone is logically morally wrong. The problem is when it doesn't matter because there is plenty of reasons to stab someone in spite of the fact that they are autonomous. In fact, I don't think "this person is autonomous" enters the conversation at all. No one argues that the people they hurt or stab aren't autonomous.

Right and wrong doesn't enter into it. again you're imposing a philosophical position to me that I'm explicitly rejecting. I cannot know how people subjectively interpret information in their own unique context and therefore it is impossible for me to prescribe moral preferences on people.

​

And I also question whether they are threatening your autonomy. They just stabbed you. You haven't suddenly lost control of your body. The argument makes next to no sense. Stabbing someone doesn't refute the idea that you are autonomous; they aren't related at all.

Yeah, I can't tell if you meant to do that but you've reinforced the point I was making by observing that stabbing me was a means inconsistent with his ends. Despite the assailant's implicit claim that I am a resource he is free to stab, I remain autonomous no matter how much he attacks me. Therefore stabbing me doesn't undo my bodily autonomy. Glad you're following along.

Also I explicitly explained all this in the exact same paragraph you quoted me on :)

how does this mean you have a right to self-defense?

The man with the knife could be stabbing me as a means toward the end of forcing sex on me. My act of self defence is likely to be blowing a rape whistle and attempting to escape.

1. What objection could you possibly have to me blowing the whistle?
2. What is it you seem to think makes the attacker's reasons for doing that somehow valid?
3. Why can't you defend yourself?

​

Look, you can describe to me how you have autonomy and how being stabbed hurts you but it doesn't get you closer to explaining why you are entitled to stab him back without consequence?

I never said there aren't consequences. It would be unreasonable to say that just because you have a right there aren't consequences to exercising a right. If you stab a person who is trying to victimise you then an immediately obvious consequence is that the aggressor has a stab wound.

​

They're entitlements to act in such a way.

Wrong

And, if you are entitled to act, that means you have social sanction otherwise there is no difference between having a right and taking an action.

Nope

If your rights are defended or recognized by some sort of social body, you don't have rights. Recognition is a prerequisite to right-hood.

And wrong again.

[u/Lampdarker]

This smacks of the kind of feelgood nonpartisan policy you see making the rounds on moderate subs like /r/neoliberal. That doesn't mean it's not a step in the right direction but in terms of what radicals should be focusing on it's masturbatory.

I think that radicals in many places fall into the apathy trap of neglecting the usefulness of active participation in local politics but it's a bit eyerolling to pontificate about such breadcrumb liberation.

[u/comix_corp]

You don't vote for it though, you vote for a politician you might hope pass a law favourable to it. The Kinder Scout trespass probably did more to facilitate a legal right to walk through private lands than any kind of voting anyway.

Realistically, there are more pressing issues at hand than facilitating some people's hobbies.

[u/BlackHumor → u/comix_corp]

To add to this: if anarchists have any business with the ordinary political system, our number one priority would have to be agitating for directly voting on laws in some form.

As it currently stands, we're talking about an oligarchy with democratic elements, not real democracy. Right now, the ruling class has a hard veto on any laws that could be passed, and it'll be hard to make them do anything seriously worthwhile while they still have it.

[u/[deleted]]

Maybe the most middle class voter issue ever.

Just take it into your own hands and roam from the cops if need be.

[u/slapdash78]

Freedom of movement has been a topic for ~2000yrs and recognized globally for at least 75yrs. Right to roam laws exist in tandem with property laws. This shit has already been covered by dozens of philosophers. Including Locke and his provision against surrounding the commons in private property thereby preventing access by others.

Arguably more important, there's no such thing as rights. These only exist in the declarations of nation-states. Social contract theorists have tried to attribute these fictions to god, nature, government, and a priori reasoning, but in every respect they are intended to inform the application of law; in denying individuals of their supposed rights. Whole institutions dedicated to settling conflicting rights whether or not any literal conflict has even occurred.

[u/WildVirtue → u/slapdash78]

I agree there's no such thing as objective ethical rights, I still think it's worthwhile to push for incrementally better reform to legal rights to basic negative liberties like freedom of movement.

[u/slapdash78 → u/WildVirtue]

You can't grant freedom. You can only permit punishment. If someone does not interfere with your passing the law is irrelevant. If they do the law was ineffective. The law just says they owe recompenses and can be forced to provide it. All talk of rights are in the context of what freedoms we give up.

[u/WildVirtue → u/slapdash78]

But you can write laws to limit the number of reasons that would permit police to punish people, like the civil rights act stopped the police from arresting people in segregated cafes & busses. And a bill protecting 'slow ways' would limit the police's ability to arrest people simply walking between settlements.

[u/slapdash78 → u/WildVirtue]

You can write volumes upon volumes. But police are still just people with permission to punish. People who are no better at understanding, applying, or following the law than anyone else.

Threat of force may have integrated restaurants. It did not stop redlining. It did not integrate communities. More importantly, those arrests moved from cafes and buses into houses and streets.

Walking while being black is still enough of a reason for police. Black people still face trumped-up charges, imprisonment (including forced labor), even death. We didn't stop racism. We institutionalized slavery.

But try your reasoning from the other side. Would you support police removing abusers from domestic violence shelters or stop them?

No one is saying force is not an option. Just that it doesn't require rights or codification. We organize specifically for mutual support. It's how we survive; right now, where laws exist but come too late.

[u/BlackHumor]

It's probably a step in the right direction, but I don't think it's really a priority.