Rights- reciprocal or absolute?
Are rights strictly reciprocal? If you refuse to recognize the rights of others, does that mean you, yourself, have no rights?
I saw someone make this claim, and in my mind it doesn't hold up, even if it seems correct at first.
First off, let's get this out of the way: if rights are imaginary, then no one has any rights, including the right to rule, so that gets rid of the specter of "legitimate government" (among other atrocities) right off the bat. Go in peace and do what you're going to do-- subject to what others are willing to put up with.
On the other hand, I think the nature of human beings makes rights a real and necessary thing, so the rest of this is based on that premise.
I think it is the nature of rights that they can either be respected or violated, and nothing else.
I think rights can't be "lost" regardless of what someone does. Actions which violate rights may create a debt which needs to be paid, or they may cause defensive actions to be used against the person, but that person still has the exact same rights they did before they violated anyone. Consequences simply happen.
Insisting on restitution doesn't violate rights. Restitution is justice.
Self defense (of person or property) doesn't violate rights. Self defense is a human right.
Shunning someone, even to death, is an exercise of the right of association and doesn't violate anyone's rights. No one has the right to impose their presence on you, and their existence doesn't obligate you to do anything other than to not impose yourself on them.
If rights somehow only exist if they are mutually recognized, then rights would never exist in the presence of archators of any kind, and specifically anywhere there were a State or government. States NEVER recognize rights, but relegate them all to the status of privileges-- to be handed out and withdrawn at the whim of the "law".
Yet, I can still see that you have rights regardless of who is violating them.
If you are facing an armed mugger (or a government employee), it is apparent he doesn't recognize your rights. If rights only exist when mutually recognized, there would be no rights present for either of you. But if I am watching, I know you still have rights, and if I need to shoot the mugger in order to help you keep your rights inviolate, I may choose to do so. The opinion of the mugger has no bearing on the existence of your rights. Rights never depend on what the other person believes or does.
So, no, rights are not dependent on being reciprocated, even though that might be nice.
.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
I think it is the nature of rights that they can either be respected or violated, and nothing else.
bingo.
You are conceived with all the rights you will ever have. Rights are an inherent property of life.
Very well said.
To some extent, they are reciprocal. Case in point, that gunman cannot claim he was defending himself if his victim fights back. His rejection of his victim's right not to be trespassed upon (in this case, being assaulted) estopps him from appealing to that right in his defense. Self-defense hinges on rights being reciprocal.
You're correct that someone violating rights does not negate them for the victim, but someone violating rights does negate them for the violator.
Sorry, but if that were the case "rights" wouldn't be rights, they would be privileges. You can't "lose" rights, no matter what you do.
correct...once you initiate force all bets are OFF.
when you break the law you are no longer entitled to the protection OF the law.
(assuming the law is just...hah hah)
That's exactly right. Once you violate someone's property - once you commit that act of trespass - you can't turn around and say "wait, you can't try to stop me! That would be trespassing against me and my property!" It's nonsensical. Rights aren't absolute like that. If they were, then self-defense would be an act of aggression, which is just silly.
Rights are absolute. It doesn't violate someone's rights when you stop them from violating someone else's rights, because no one has the right to violate anyone's rights.
That no one has the right to violate anyone else's rights is superfluous, so that doesn't really add to the conversation. But let's take what you've just posited. You've established that everyone has a right to non-aggression, and that this right is absolute. How then can you violate the right of someone to non-aggression in defense of another? Put another way, if A initiates aggression against B, not you, why is it not initiating aggression against A to come to B's defense? A hasn't initiated aggression against you, just against B.
Defense is never aggression, and if someone has the right to defend themselves from aggression, you have the right to do the same on their behalf. You aren't violating anyone's rights by defending someone from their aggression (although they'd probably want to convince others that you are).
Yes, but why? Why do you have that right?
Then how is self-defense not aggression?
The key concept is "thou shalt not initiate'... Retaliation is just fine.
Like I mentioned in another response, saying everyone has a right to non-aggression is a cumbersome and inarticulate way of saying everyone has a right not to have their consent violated. They essentially amount to the same thing; non-aggression speaks specifically to trespasses against persons and property, correct?
I think the term non-aggression is misleading. Rather say do not initiate aggression.
The point I'm driving at is: why do you have a right to non-aggression? The reason I don't like using non-aggression, or not to have aggression initiated against you, is because it is derived from a more fundamental right. When examined, it provides the context for why that right is not, in fact, absolute, and with good reason.
you only have the rights you are conceived with.
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is one way of defining three of them.
if some deprives or you of that they are violating your rights.
If you retaliate to preserve your rights you have done no wrong.
Because aggression is the initiation of force. Once someone else has initiated force ("started it"), then your response isn't an initiation.
Aggression is not exclusively the initiation of force. Aggression can also simply be hostile behavior, which is one reason why I don't think it's as strong as it should be for a first principle. Sticking with that definition, though, is it wrong to come to the defense of someone else? Even if you weren't the target of the aggression?
Is the "hostile behavior" a credible threat to initiate force? If so, it is aggression. Otherwise it isn't.
No, it isn't wrong to come to someone else's defense, since that is still defense. If they have a right to do it, you have a right to do it on their behalf.
Alright, but why? That's the problem with presupposing non-aggression as a right. You're not incorrect, but without understanding the reason behind it, you're vulnerable to coming to incorrect conclusions.
By definition. Why does water (generally, adjusting for purity and air pressure, etc.) freeze at 32 degrees F/0 degrees C? That's just how it is. You can argue and question, but that's not going to change it.