X-Message-Number: 16029 Subject: Re: Trust In All-Powerful Lords Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 22:46:51 -0700 (PDT) From: (Peter C. McCluskey) (Lee Corbin) writes: >> The right to private property and right not to be >> enslaved both appear to have evolved primarily as >> means of improving relations between beings of >> roughly the same status... > >Yes. But notice that if we replaced the word right >by "legal right" your sentence wouldn't lose any meaning. It would lose meaning. One simple example of a property right that is outside the legal system is a surfer's ownership of the wave that he is riding. A less clear example where your position has implications that make me uncomfortable would be the right of a slave travelling through Massachusetts in 1859 to escape from his owner. >Try an experiment yourself: shout out at the top of >your lungs "I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO X!" and "I SHOULD >HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO DO X!" Notice how the first >form leads to grandstanding and demagogery, and how >the latter sounds so much less compelling. People who >shout out the first one are trying to make it sound >like "I have the legal right to do X" when in fact >that assertion would be false. I believe that statements like "I have a right to life, liberty, and property" express an important truth that would not become false if they ceased to be legal rights. I see an important difference between "have" and "should have". I object to "I have a right" claims unless they reflect a Schelling point that has been established by a clear consensus or legislation, or are backed up by an argument for social benefits that meets a strong burden of proof. I believe the demagoguery that bothers you is a substantive fraud (usually a false claim that a firm Schelling point has been established) that cannot be cured by simple semantic changes. >Could be, (where I read "optimum rule" to mean "rule that >Peter and Lee would eventually prefer morally" or perhaps >"rule that would be advocated by entities having a superb >understanding of economics", or "rule that would give the >greatest number the greatest happiness"). Perhaps our >friends at the Singularity Institute are working precisely >on these questions, read olive branch. > >So what do you mean, "optimum rule"? The greatest happiness for the greatest number is a good enough approximation this context. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter McCluskey | Fed up with democracy's problems? Examine Futarchy: http://www.rahul.net/pcm | http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.pdf or .ps Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16029