https://pubky.app/post/gujx6qd8ksydh1makdphd3bxu351d9b8waqka8hfg6q7hnqkxexo/0034XEBK9V9Q0
Incredibly well written, sir. Not sure I agree entirely, but I do at least agree that a right is only valuable as such if others are willing to use force to defend it. Yet, I would not say that the lack of those willing to defend it means the right does not exist. The premise of the Declaration of Independence is not that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights because the founding fathers were willing to pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to violently defend them, but that they were willing to violently defend them because they were legitimate rights.
A right that goes undefended is no less a right, though it be violated. Calling something a right is a matter of morality, not preference, and just as moral "oughts" can be ignored, rights can be violated. Of course, that brings us into the realm of philosophy and theology to answer the question of where rights come from, but the important concept for this discussion is that a right can exist, even if there is no one willing to exert violence to defend it, even as there can exist a moral duty to love one's neighbor, even if there is no one willing to obey it.
For that reason I would not define a right as "a standard that other people WOULD be willing to commit violence to uphold," but rather as "a standard that other people SHOULD be willing to commit violence to uphold."
That out of the way, much of the article I would agree with, especially the illegitimacy of "entitlement rights," rather than "boundary rights." My favorite line is, "Defensive force stops an aggressor. Entitlement enforcement conscripts bystanders." The one is legitimate, the other is illegitimate and is actually a violation of rights.
I also more or less agree with your definition of government as the institution with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. I might take issue with "monopoly" though. Self-defense is a legitimate use of force that is afforded to the people, and not only to the state. A monopoly on the legitimate judicial use of force might be a better way of saying it; the use of violence for the purpose of upholding justice when the rights of those under their jurisdiction have been violated.
Even that much I am hesitant to call a monopoly, though. Rights are not merely intended to protect individuals from the immoral actions of other individuals who would violate them, thus providing justification for government enforcement against those immoral actions, but are also intended to set boundaries against government itself. The Bill of Rights is a barrier against tyranny, and assumes that when governments violate those rights, the people themselves are justified in the use of violence against the government.
A right that goes undefended is no less a right, though it be violated. Calling something a right is a matter of morality, not preference, and just as moral "oughts" can be ignored, rights can be violated. Of course, that brings us into the realm of philosophy and theology to answer the question of where rights come from, but the important concept for this discussion is that a right can exist, even if there is no one willing to exert violence to defend it, even as there can exist a moral duty to love one's neighbor, even if there is no one willing to obey it.
For that reason I would not define a right as "a standard that other people WOULD be willing to commit violence to uphold," but rather as "a standard that other people SHOULD be willing to commit violence to uphold."
That out of the way, much of the article I would agree with, especially the illegitimacy of "entitlement rights," rather than "boundary rights." My favorite line is, "Defensive force stops an aggressor. Entitlement enforcement conscripts bystanders." The one is legitimate, the other is illegitimate and is actually a violation of rights.
I also more or less agree with your definition of government as the institution with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. I might take issue with "monopoly" though. Self-defense is a legitimate use of force that is afforded to the people, and not only to the state. A monopoly on the legitimate judicial use of force might be a better way of saying it; the use of violence for the purpose of upholding justice when the rights of those under their jurisdiction have been violated.
Even that much I am hesitant to call a monopoly, though. Rights are not merely intended to protect individuals from the immoral actions of other individuals who would violate them, thus providing justification for government enforcement against those immoral actions, but are also intended to set boundaries against government itself. The Bill of Rights is a barrier against tyranny, and assumes that when governments violate those rights, the people themselves are justified in the use of violence against the government.
2🧡1
