vinney on Nostr: I'm mildly familiar with Leoni from an EconTalk episode where he was discussed and I ...
I'm mildly familiar with Leoni from an EconTalk episode where he was discussed and I was immediately sold. He's on my list to look into further, thanks!
I'm unsure what I am basing my preferences and beliefs on - likely some combination of upbringing, genetics, "accidents" of birthplace and time. I do agree with the logical approach to the foundations of private property (the whole Austrian/praxeological argument there appears to be very sound), but maybe it just comes down to semantics at this point on the definition of the term "rights".
Thinking live out loud a bit here... perhaps one way of framing what I believe is something like: the only "right" that exists objectively is the right to be left alone. I'm comfortable with saying this "exists" because it's something of a "null hypothesis" of sorts.
At a fresh snapshot in time, if all creatures merely **did nothing**, they would absolutely be exercising their right to be left alone (and not infringing on any others' right to be left alone) and they would all surely die before long. I don't believe creatures have a "right to exist", they just _happen to_. So once they desire to continue existing they need to begin interacting - either with eachother or their environment, or both - and now they've entered the realm of Norms.
with the "null hypothesis" in the rearview mirror, there are no more "natural rights" to backstop their behavior; instead they must come into agreements with eachother. And I believe the strategy for optimal flourishing for the most creatures is voluntary agreements in a free market. But that's a norm, not a rule or a right.
And I recognize that a given one of these creatures may be "accidentally" extremely powerful (due to genetics, happenstance of birthplace, etc.) and might decide _for itself_ that the best strategy for _its_ flourishing is to coerce others. As a shared norm, this is bad for everyone else, but this individual isn't interested in shared norms.
The fact that **I** am, and **he** isn't isn't a violation of some kind of natural law, it's just an inconvenience for me if I cross his path. And it has game-theoretic implications for how I might attempt to peacefully persuade others around me to defend ourselves.
/ end unedited braindump :)
I'm unsure what I am basing my preferences and beliefs on - likely some combination of upbringing, genetics, "accidents" of birthplace and time. I do agree with the logical approach to the foundations of private property (the whole Austrian/praxeological argument there appears to be very sound), but maybe it just comes down to semantics at this point on the definition of the term "rights".
Thinking live out loud a bit here... perhaps one way of framing what I believe is something like: the only "right" that exists objectively is the right to be left alone. I'm comfortable with saying this "exists" because it's something of a "null hypothesis" of sorts.
At a fresh snapshot in time, if all creatures merely **did nothing**, they would absolutely be exercising their right to be left alone (and not infringing on any others' right to be left alone) and they would all surely die before long. I don't believe creatures have a "right to exist", they just _happen to_. So once they desire to continue existing they need to begin interacting - either with eachother or their environment, or both - and now they've entered the realm of Norms.
with the "null hypothesis" in the rearview mirror, there are no more "natural rights" to backstop their behavior; instead they must come into agreements with eachother. And I believe the strategy for optimal flourishing for the most creatures is voluntary agreements in a free market. But that's a norm, not a rule or a right.
And I recognize that a given one of these creatures may be "accidentally" extremely powerful (due to genetics, happenstance of birthplace, etc.) and might decide _for itself_ that the best strategy for _its_ flourishing is to coerce others. As a shared norm, this is bad for everyone else, but this individual isn't interested in shared norms.
The fact that **I** am, and **he** isn't isn't a violation of some kind of natural law, it's just an inconvenience for me if I cross his path. And it has game-theoretic implications for how I might attempt to peacefully persuade others around me to defend ourselves.
/ end unedited braindump :)