Spain 1936-1937: Libertarian Socialism & Its Demise

[MassInertia]

"Natural rights" is more of a metaphysical and political concept then an objective one. It is not "natural" like the laws of physics. It is like an axiom in a mathematical argument, a given taken when one is talking about political philosophy or morality (i.e, before we can discuss politics, there are certain fundamentals we must agree on, or discussion is pointless)

It is not like an axiom, and we do not have to agree on such a fundamental. Can we not speak of the divine right of kings? Can we not speak of the Hindu caste system? Natural rights certainly are spoken of as if they were an objective thing. Natural rights are an invention of the Enlightenment and are peculiar to modern Western culture. Sure they sound good, and I even like the concept, but the idea that natural rights are given to us by a "Creator" or Nature is a fiction.

 

[Sea Cow]

And the right to own property (like all rights) isn't granted by society. Another foundational tenet of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism.I don't want to be in any "system" involuntarily. This is just not that complicated.

Unless, like some, you are using the word "system" to refer to the lack of a system. Why do people do that?

We are all part of systems of exchange that allow us to obtain what we need from others and also allow us to pool our resources to produce collectively that which we cannot produce as individuals. Human beings are highly social animals that need to cooperate with others and depend on others. That's why our big brains developed as they did – to enable us to cooperate with each other, and cooperation requires systems.

What you appear to speak of is some kind of lack of established institutions or systems. Something akin to present-day Somalia. Is that what you want?

 

[Galteeth]

It is not like an axiom, and we do not have to agree on such a fundamental. Can we not speak of the divine right of kings? Can we not speak of the Hindu caste system? Natural rights certainly are spoken of as if they were an objective thing. Natural rights are an invention of the Enlightenment and are peculiar to modern Western culture. Sure they sound good, and I even like the concept, but the idea that natural rights are given to us by a "Creator" or Nature is a fiction.

You don't have to agree with the concept to understand it, I am explaining the context in which it is used. Ultimately, all moral or political philosophies rest upon a priori assumptions. This is because there is no such thing as objective morality, not in the sense that there are objective laws of physics. I don't think we are disagreeing here. It's like saying, "murder is wrong." You can say, well, prove that objectively. I can't. You simply accept it or you don't.

 

[Galteeth]

We are all part of systems of exchange that allow us to obtain what we need from others and also allow us to pool our resources to produce collectively that which we cannot produce as individuals. Human beings are highly social animals that need to cooperate with others and depend on others. That's why our big brains developed as they did – to enable us to cooperate with each other, and cooperation requires systems.

What you appear to speak of is some kind of lack of established institutions or systems. Something akin to present-day Somalia. Is that what you want?

There is a difference in the libertarian tradition between voluntary systems and involuntary or violently coerced ones. There are in fact, many coerciely enforced systems in Somalia (warlords who impose their rule upon sectors, etc.)

 

[Galteeth]

We are all part of systems of exchange that allow us to obtain what we need from others and also allow us to pool our resources to produce collectively that which we cannot produce as individuals. Human beings are highly social animals that need to cooperate with others and depend on others. That's why our big brains developed as they did – to enable us to cooperate with each other, and cooperation requires systems.

What you appear to speak of is some kind of lack of established institutions or systems. Something akin to present-day Somalia. Is that what you want?

I'm not sure how you drew this conclusion from Al's post. He stated he did not want to be in a system involuntarily. How does this equate to a lack of a system (which as you surely understand, is an incoherent concept)?

 

[Sea Cow]

There is a difference in the libertarian tradition between voluntary systems and involuntary or violently coerced ones. There are in fact, many coerciely enforced systems in Somalia (warlords who impose their rule upon sectors, etc.)

Of course there are. What nobody has managed to explain is how you can exist outside the system. Certain decisions are taken communally, except that anyone who disagrees with the decision is free to ignore it. Well, only if they then give up the privileges that belonging to the group confers.

 

[Sea Cow]

I'm not sure how you drew this conclusion from Al's post. He stated he did not want to be in a system involuntarily.

Well he is, and he has to be. He was born into it, and without it he would never have made it past the first few weeks of life.

 

[Galteeth]

Of course there are. What nobody has managed to explain is how you can exist outside the system. Certain decisions are taken communally, except that anyone who disagrees with the decision is free to ignore it. Well, only if they then give up the privileges that belonging to the group confers.

That's the idea. The "priveleges" may be worth co-operation, but co-operation is not forced through violence. An individual could try something else, or leave, etc.

 

[Galteeth]

Well he is, and he has to be. He was born into it, and without it he would never have made it past the first few weeks of life.

You're muddying concepts here. Obviously a child does not have the ability to make real choices. Obviously a person can't simply will reality to their liking. The specific idea being discussed here is co-operation with other human beings on the basis of the ultimate threat of violence (actually the topic is libertarian socialism, but we are currently discussing the difference between "socialism" in the common sense of usage, and the notion of "socialism" in "libertarian socialism".)

 

[Sea Cow]

Threat of exclusion from the group is, ultimately, the same as threat of violence. It is precisely what was practiced by the Inuit and others, for whom exclusion from the group meant death.

We are confusing terms a little here. The Spanish anarchists believed in decisions being taken from the bottom up – so each division in the army, each factory, each farm decides for itself how to run things. That didn't mean that individuals would have the right to refuse to comply with the decisions taken by their comrades. If you refuse to comply with the decisions of the factory workers, you are excluded from the factory and are no longer a factory worker! The 'right not to participate' is not some kind of dissenters' charter because membership of the group requires certain obligations to the group to be fulfilled. If you do not comply with the system, you are not allowed to continue as some kind of autonomous worker who doesn't fulfill the duties that the other workers have agreed to.

We need to make a clear distinction between this kind of 'left anarchism' and the Rand-style everyone for themselves kind of 'right anarchism', which is simply a charter for the strong to dominate the weak.

 

[Galteeth]

Threat of exclusion from the group is, ultimately, the same as threat of violence. It is precisely what was practiced by the Inuit and others, for whom exclusion from the group meant death.

No, it's not. This only applies at an extremely small scale of society, like, tribal. Even then, an individual might be able to survive by themselves. The Inuit are an extreme example, since they are a tribal society that lives in near arctic conditions.

In a diversified society, there are different groups, who contribute in different ways. Even a lone individual, if he is able to produce something of value, might be able to buck the conformity of a group (his trade might be more valuable then conformity).

 

[Galteeth]

We are confusing terms a little here. The Spanish anarchists believed in decisions being taken from the bottom up – so each division in the army, each factory, each farm decides for itself how to run things. That didn't mean that individuals would have the right to refuse to comply with the decisions taken by their comrades. If you refuse to comply with the decisions of the factory workers, you are excluded from the factory and are no longer a factory worker! The 'right not to participate' is not some kind of dissenters' charter because membership of the group requires certain obligations to the group to be fulfilled. If you do not comply with the system, you are not allowed to continue as some kind of autonomous worker who doesn't fulfill the duties that the other workers have agreed to.

We need to make a clear distinction between this kind of 'left anarchism' and the Rand-style everyone for themselves kind of 'right anarchism', which is simply a charter for the strong to dominate the weak.

I have been trying to make that distinction, my earlier posts were just introductory simplifications of a complex topic. Although i don't agree with your broad categorization, lumping objectivism with right anarchism (which itself is not a homogenous thing, there being a big difference between say, Mutualism, Spooner's Individualist anarchism, and anarcho-capitalism) and obviously your idea that it involves the strong preying on the weak (which I could understand in terms of anarcho-capitalism) when the central notion in most traditions is non-violence.

 

[Sea Cow]

"anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron. It irritates me when the word anarchism is misused like that.

Such types would have been fighting for Franco, not the Republic.

 

[Al68]

But how are these "natural" rights to be enforced? They are enforced by institutions created by society, thus any right can only be granted by society.

Based on that logic, my left hand was "granted" by government, since government protects me from those that want to cut it off. Even if you argue that my left hand would not now exist without government, that's just not what the word "granted" means.

Natural rights are those that could theoretically exist with or without such institutional enforcement, whether or not you believe the right is a legitimate one, or whether it would otherwise be recognized or protected.

The concept of natural rights, contrary to what is claimed in your link, is not simply a claim that there are some societal entitlements that exist naturally. It's an entirely different concept than that of an entitlement, which is created by contract.

 

[Sea Cow]

Natural rights are those that could theoretically exist with or without such institutional enforcement, whether or not you believe the right is a legitimate one, or whether it would otherwise be recognized or protected.

For example?

As you lay it out here, 'natural rights' are a meaningless concept, as you've stripped all the prerequisites for 'rights' in the word's normal meaning.

 

[madness]

Does anyone seriously believe that natural rights exist objectively as laws? Or do proponents simply mean that there is some universal human cultural rules which are always obeyed? To me the former seems ridiculous (more so than believing in God), whereas the latter is arguable but I'm not convinced.

 

[Galteeth]

For example?

As you lay it out here, 'natural rights' are a meaningless concept, as you've stripped all the prerequisites for 'rights' in the word's normal meaning.

Negative rights, as in, the right to life, as oppossed to say, the right to healthcare, which clearly requires an institution. Note the right to life does not mean the right to have everything necessary to live, rights are notions of social and moral relations, it ia rather the right to have no one interfere with one's own biological function of life.

 

[Sea Cow]

Right to life granted by whom?

 

[Char. Limit]

Right to life granted by whom?

By parents.

Come on, you can't honestly argue that the right to live is granted by the government. It's not even granted, you are born with it. I have the right to live. No one gave that to me. No one can take it away. (Murderers not included)

 

[Sea Cow]

The concept 'right to live' is meaningless to me.

 

[madness]

The way I see it rights are similar to laws (the legal ones). If we lived in anarchy there would be no rights (of course I'm not talking about the organised type of anarchy originally discussed in this thread).

 

[Al68]

As you lay it out here, 'natural rights' are a meaningless concept, as you've stripped all the prerequisites for 'rights' in the word's normal meaning.

The foundations of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism are meaningless? And it seems you are referring to the prerequisites for entitlements, not natural rights. Natural rights are simply not entitlements, as they are not the product of any contract or agreement, and require no action on the part of others as a prerequisite for existence.

Right to life granted by whom?

Unlike entitlements, rights are not "granted". I have never used the word "right" as a synonym for entitlement, although many do.

I fully realize that the words "right" and "entitlement" are used interchangeably today, but it's a shame, since we have two distinct concepts without an easy unambiguous way to distinguish between them verbally.

 

[Sea Cow]

The foundations of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism are meaningless?

No, the ideas you lay out here are meaningless.

 

[Al68]

The foundations of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism are meaningless?

No, the ideas you lay out here are meaningless.

OK, I'll bite. What idea have I laid out that wasn't a foundation of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism?

Are you unaware that the concept of natural rights was such a foundation, if not the primary one?

 

[Sea Cow]

This kind of use of the term rights appears to imply that such things exist independently of our minds. Where? "Rights" is a concept that can only exist in a mind. We exist in a universe, but meaning comes from us. Meaning is a property of minds.

You appear to be proposing some set of Platonic ideals that exist independently of us and are somehow 'out there' waiting for us to discover them. In a similar way, the mathematician Roger Penrose thinks of mathematics as having this kind of independent existence. But unless you can say something about where that 'out there' might be, it is simply a useless way of thinking that does not answer any questions you might want to ask.

Far better, more useful, and more close to the truth to think of such things as declarations of human rights as something that has come from us. It may be that such concepts echo deep truths about the universe. It would be surprising if they didn't, given that our minds are products of the universe. But they originate within us, and as far as we can know, we can only recognise them as such. Anything else is simply an appeal to divinity.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This kind of use of the term rights appears to imply that such things exist independently of our minds. Where? "Rights" is a concept that can only exist in a mind. We exist in a universe, but meaning comes from us. Meaning is a property of minds.

I doubt that Al would suggest that "rights" are ontological principles, at least not here. He appears only to be defining the difference between a "right" and an "entitlement". You already possesses your life. You are capable of protecting your life. The only way that you would be deprived of life is if you died naturally or someone took it from you. The government asserts that life is your "right" and protects it, it does not grant life. A protected "right" to medical treatment requires that the government acquire or mandate medical treatment for you. It is not something of which you are already possessed. It is not something which is simply protected. It is something which must be granted or given, therefore but Al's definition it is other than a "right".

 

[Sea Cow]

The only way that you would be deprived of life is if you died naturally or someone took it from you.

How is this different from the concept "god-given"?

I reject the whole thing, I'm afraid. I don't possesses my life. I am alive – temporarily – but I have no right to exist. Ok, I'll stop posting on the subject because I'm going round in circles. It is, literally, meaningless to me to talk of rights in this way.

 

[madness]

The government asserts that life is your "right" and protects it, it does not grant life.

In this case it sounds like you need a government to have the right to life. There's no law against murder without a government, and similarly there's no right to life.

Edit: I was just reading Wikipedia and apparently Hobbes believed that in the absence of government we would have a "right to all things". Perhaps some people understand rights in the negative sense of the absence of a law against it?

 

[Sea Cow]

Hobbes believed that in the absence of government we would have a "right to all things".

How is a right to all things different from a right to nothing?

I find this whole line of reasoning wrong-headed.

 

[madness]

In practice it's not any different, but there is a fundamental difference in what rights are understood to be in each case. I just thought this might help explain why people are having such a hard time agreeing in this thread - maybe you're talking about different things.

 

[Sea Cow]

In practice it's not any different, but there is a fundamental difference in what rights are understood to be in each case. I just thought this might help explain why people are having such a hard time agreeing in this thread - maybe you're talking about different things.

Yes, I think that is the problem – as ever! But I'm struggling to understand what the term rights can mean in this instance without an appeal to external justification. Specifically, 'natural rights' appears to be an appeal to something called 'nature' as the external justification. If so, then it is a concept I flatly reject.

 

[mheslep]

In this case it sounds like you need a government to have the right to life. There's no law against murder without a government, and similarly there's no right to life...

Jefferson would have said all the 'inalienable' rights exist before government; they're granted by the 'creator'. Governments, dangerous as they are, are necessary "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution does not create any rights, rather it is an injunction against the government from infringing on them: "Congress shall make no law ...", etc. A government that can create rights can also take them away. Mine can not be, no matter what harm comes to me.

 

[mheslep]

Natural Rights are a myth. All rights are granted by society.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1559500077/?tag=pfamazon01-20

The author, L. A. Rollins, is a holocaust denier crackpot, who publishes in a http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/historical_review.asp?xpicked=3&item=ihr".

 

[Sea Cow]

Jefferson would have said all the 'inalienable' rights exist before government; they're granted by the 'creator'.

What do you say?

I really struggle with this right to life idea. I am alive, but why does that fact mean that I have a right to be alive?

I have no problem with the idea of a 'birth right'. It is something that many would see as a socialist idea, a right to fair treatment and equal access to education, health, housing etc: a fair slice of the pie. But a birth right is something a little different – it is something that has been fought for and won by those who came before you, and it requires you in turn to grant it to those who come after you. It is part of the deal that any society makes with its individual members.

 

[mheslep]

What do you say?

The same. It sets up the founding tenets of my country.

But a birth right is something a little different – it is something that has been fought for and won by those who came before you, and it requires you in turn to grant it to those who come after you.

Even if we were all enslaved, we still have those rights, though they be impeded. The millions sent, e.g. to the soviet camps in Siberia had those rights. In my view, I need only acknowledge they have it. I grant them nothing.