What Rights do We Have? Rights and Criminal Law.

[Nydhogg]

Mary has challenged me to write down a list of all rights we have on other threads. She's disputing my theory that unless someone's rights are directly violated no crime can, legitimately speaking, take place.


My first post was poorly worded and incomplete, so I'll rewrite it. I left rights out. This is the full list.

- Right to life and physical integrity. This is an obvious one.
- Right to liberty. As long as you do not infringe anyone else's rights, do what you will. This includes the right not to be forced into stuff.
- Right to property. As long as you legitimately acquired your stuff, no-one can take it away from you. Getting stuff from State fiat is not legitimate. Fraud is not legitimate. Paying slave wages to starving people is not legitimate. Coercion is not legitimate.
- Right to redress. When our rights are violated we have the right to right the wrongs made. This also includes protecting your other rights through any means neccessary and proper.
- Right to privacy. No-one has the right or authority to pry on your life uninvited unless there is a compelling need to do so (protecting another person's rights).
- Right to due process (It includes equal treatment before the law, jury trial, protections against self-incrimination and all that lawyerspeak stuff)




Now, a clarification: Those are what I think of as "natural rights".

Any violation of those without valid redress is tyranny.


This does not mean there are other good things to have aside from that and that is sensible to provide, like free education and affordable health care, and roads, and various infrastructures, and...

But they're not actually rights, not in the same sense of those I described above. They're entitlements: Things that are provided by third parties. They are usually good to have, but they're not natural rights.





Mary raised some more specific concerns:

That's it?

Okay, so would you support laws against disturbing the peace? Public nudity? Child porn (those cases where the child wasn't harmed in any way)? Public drunkenness? Any and all laws restricting gun ownership or use? Equal employment opportunity?

I could go on and on. You'll have to expand your list of "rights", I think.

Mary, I'm sad to inform you that you do not have a natural right to be free from annoyance or not to be offended. Being annoyed by idiots sucks, but as long as they're "neither picking your pocket nor breaking your leg", so to speak, their right to liberty prevails.

I'm highly critical of the concept of "disturbing the peace". This would also include public nudity, as long as it does not amount to sexual harassment (which would violate your right not to participate in unwanted sexual activity, implicit in your right to liberty)

As for child porn, it involves sexual abuse of children. We ban child porn because CHILDREN ARE HARMED to produce it. Thus, its production is illegal. If kids were not harmed producing it there would be no reason to ban it.

As for nondiscrimination: Equal pay for equal work is a good thing to have. It's also supposed to be a labor conquest, not a concession through State fiat. You want to achieve that, I'll gladly help you organize the workforce.

Nondiscrimination in hiring: The State should not enforce quotas or enact preferences (they violate equality before the law), though if we're actually going to have a State public employment should be barred from discriminating and their criteria for hiring should be open and public.
Letting the State dictate to people who they should hire and who they shouldn't opens a big can of ugly worms that we don't want open. As for equal pay, see above.

Repeat after me: State fiat is NO SUBSTITUTE to the labor movement.


I'm not sure if you agree with me, but at least you'll be more able to understand where I'm coming from.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I will await a real lawyer to weigh in on matters of the law. :squint:

I suspect one will be along soon enough.

AMR

 

[Nydhogg]

I'm obviously not speaking about the law as it is, but as of the law as it shoud be if we had actual liberty.

 

[MaryContrary]

My first post was poorly worded and incomplete, so I'll rewrite it. I left rights out. This is the full list.

- Right to life and physical integrity. This is an obvious one.
- Right to liberty. As long as you do not infringe anyone else's rights, do what you will. This includes the right not to be forced into stuff.
- Right to property. As long as you legitimately acquired your stuff, no-one can take it away from you. Getting stuff from State fiat is not legitimate. Fraud is not legitimate. Paying slave wages to starving people is not legitimate. Coercion is not legitimate.
- Right to redress. When our rights are violated we have the right to right the wrongs made. This also includes protecting your other rights through any means neccessary and proper.
- Right to privacy. No-one has the right or authority to pry on your life uninvited unless there is a compelling need to do so (protecting another person's rights).
- Right to due process (It includes equal treatment before the law, jury trial, protections against self-incrimination and all that lawyerspeak stuff)

Okie doke. I have no problem with your correcting, updating or otherwise changing the list as we go along. Kind of a complicated subject and it'd be silly of me to expect someone to jot the whole thing down in one go. :thumb:

Now, a clarification: Those are what I think of as "natural rights".

Any violation of those without valid redress is tyranny.

This does not mean there are other good things to have aside from that and that is sensible to provide, like free education and affordable health care, and roads, and various infrastructures, and...

But they're not actually rights, not in the same sense of those I described above. They're entitlements: Things that are provided by third parties. They are usually good to have, but they're not natural rights.

Okay, then would you say anyone forced to contribute to any of those things against their will suffer tyranny? Having their right to liberty abridged?

Mary, I'm sad to inform you that you do not have a natural right to be free from annoyance or not to be offended. Being annoyed by idiots sucks, but as long as they're "neither picking your pocket nor breaking your leg", so to speak, their right to liberty prevails.

Just trying to follow your logic to some of its various conclusions, that is all.

I'm highly critical of the concept of "disturbing the peace". This would also include public nudity, as long as it does not amount to sexual harassment (which would violate your right not to participate in unwanted sexual activity, implicit in your right to liberty)

In the same vein, why not argue disturbing the peace forces someone to participate in unwanted activity? It would seem to me that you must, if you're going to protect against sexual harassment in this way.

If a man engages me with sexual innuendo and what not, and continues to do so even after I have expressed my displeasure with that, it seems no less to violate my right to liberty in the way you describe as my neighbors throwing a party in the backyard and playing music too loud even after I've expressed my disagreement with that.

As for child porn, it involves sexual abuse of children. We ban child porn because CHILDREN ARE HARMED to produce it. Thus, its production is illegal. If kids were not harmed producing it there would be no reason to ban it.

One could easily snap a photo or video of a child without their knowledge. Which of your rights protect against that, would you say? If none do then, under your list of rights and your insistence any just law must exist to uphold only those rights, then you must wait until the child becomes aware they're being exploited, correct?

Further you must either accept the child's claim of non-consent or accept that no child can consent. Which is it, btw? I think you should be clear on that point as well.

As for nondiscrimination: Equal pay for equal work is a good thing to have. It's also supposed to be a labor conquest, not a concession through State fiat. You want to achieve that, I'll gladly help you organize the workforce.

If it's not a right, then forcing anyone to practice non-discriminatory policies in employment violates right to liberty, does it not?

Nondiscrimination in hiring: The State should not enforce quotas or enact preferences (they violate equality before the law), though if we're actually going to have a State public employment should be barred from discriminating and their criteria for hiring should be open and public.
Letting the State dictate to people who they should hire and who they shouldn't opens a big can of ugly worms that we don't want open. As for equal pay, see above.

Doesn't matter, I think. Rights, the protection and violation of specifically, is what you point to as the only justification for any law. You can't then tell the State or anyone else whom to hire, can you?

Repeat after me: State fiat is NO SUBSTITUTE to the labor movement.

If we're using only the rights you delineate to determine our laws, then the labor movement has no place. It violates them.

I'm not sure if you agree with me, but at least you'll be more able to understand where I'm coming from.

Okie dokie. :thumb:

*****


Would you also say anyone forced to respect the rights of others likewise have their right to liberty abridged? I have no problem conceding this is so, yet necessarily so, if that is your argument.

If drug laws are not enforced, as doing so would constitute tyranny, should taxpayers be forced to pay for rehabilitation?

State support of dependents who's caregiver has died from drug overdose or any drug-related death?

Is the increased likelihood of criminal behavior and the state costs associated with that, by drug addicts who are free to pursue their addiction under their right to liberty, something taxpayers should be forced to pay for?

Public drunkenness or disorderly behavior? No violation of the rights of others? Sorry, I'm just not clear on that point.

Adultery and bigamy? These do not violate anyone's rights and should be legalized, correct?

Receiving (buying) stolen property? Gun laws? Traffic laws? Zoning ordinances?

How about dumping twenty gallons of oil on my back lawn and risking contaminating the local groundwater?

To be clear, what I'm arguing here is that your idea of enforcing only those laws that protect or enforce individual rights immediately comes up against a vague, gray area where the victims aren't directly threatened. You need to be more specific on what point we can even acknowledge there's a victim. This, I think, is why we have so many so-called "victimless crimes". Your argument seems to want to push that back only to direct victims but in doing so you leave multitudes open to indirect victimization.

 

[Nydhogg]

Okie doke. I have no problem with your correcting, updating or otherwise changing the list as we go along. Kind of a complicated subject and it'd be silly of me to expect someone to jot the whole thing down in one go. :thumb:

Okay, then would you say anyone forced to contribute to any of those things against their will suffer tyranny? Having their right to liberty abridged?

Just trying to follow your logic to some of its various conclusions, that is all.

In the same vein, why not argue disturbing the peace forces someone to participate in unwanted activity? It would seem to me that you must, if you're going to protect against sexual harassment in this way.

If a man engages me with sexual innuendo and what not, and continues to do so even after I have expressed my displeasure with that, it seems no less to violate my right to liberty in the way you describe as my neighbors throwing a party in the backyard and playing music too loud even after I've expressed my disagreement with that.

One could easily snap a photo or video of a child without their knowledge. Which of your rights protect against that, would you say? If none do then, under your list of rights and your insistence any just law must exist to uphold only those rights, then you must wait until the child becomes aware they're being exploited, correct?

Further you must either accept the child's claim of non-consent or accept that no child can consent. Which is it, btw? I think you should be clear on that point as well.

If it's not a right, then forcing anyone to practice non-discriminatory policies in employment violates right to liberty, does it not?

Doesn't matter, I think. Rights, the protection and violation of specifically, is what you point to as the only justification for any law. You can't then tell the State or anyone else whom to hire, can you?

If we're using only the rights you delineate to determine our laws, then the labor movement has no place. It violates them.
Okie dokie. :thumb:

*****


Would you also say anyone forced to respect the rights of others likewise have their right to liberty abridged? I have no problem conceding this is so, yet necessarily so, if that is your argument.

If drug laws are not enforced, as doing so would constitute tyranny, should taxpayers be forced to pay for rehabilitation?

State support of dependents who's caregiver has died from drug overdose or any drug-related death?

Is the increased likelihood of criminal behavior and the state costs associated with that, by drug addicts who are free to pursue their addiction under their right to liberty, something taxpayers should be forced to pay for?

Public drunkenness or disorderly behavior? No violation of the rights of others? Sorry, I'm just not clear on that point.

Adultery and bigamy? These do not violate anyone's rights and should be legalized, correct?

Receiving (buying) stolen property? Gun laws? Traffic laws? Zoning ordinances?

How about dumping twenty gallons of oil on my back lawn and risking contaminating the local groundwater?

To be clear, what I'm arguing here is that your idea of enforcing only those laws that protect or enforce individual rights immediately comes up against a vague, gray area where the victims aren't directly threatened. You need to be more specific on what point we can even acknowledge there's a victim. This, I think, is why we have so many so-called "victimless crimes". Your argument seems to want to push that back only to direct victims but in doing so you leave multitudes open to indirect victimization.

I'm going to make a clarification that I think you'll appreciate. I prefer to have fewer codified rights and them to be interpreted in an expansive manner than have a bunch of small rights and them to be interpreted restrictively. So my choice to contract several rights into one is deliberate.

We're going to have a deep and hard philosophical discussion.
I like it. I'd like to start with the easy things first.



The labor movement has a place, and a neccessary place at that. The workers have the right to liberty. This includes freedom of association. This includes their freedom to unionize, strike, and otherwise defend their interests.
As I said, if you're treated unjustly, unionize! The State is no substitute for direct action. It should be no substitute.


No, the enforced respect of others' rights is NOT a violation of the right to liberty. It is a prerequisite for a rights-based justice system to work. Your right to liberty doesn't extend to forcing others into stuff.


That is why the sexual harasser infringes on your rights: You know. Veiled threats, overall coercion, disregard for your personal boundaries'n stuff. His conduct should be stopped.
I'm speaking about real sexual harassment here, not the folk who makes an (unwanted) sexual advance, is rejected and backs down.

As for traffic laws, they're perfectly fine for the most part. You have no right to recklessly endanger others. That being said, zero tolerance laws that target days-ago drug use are wrong, because a stoner that is not stoned while driving is not recklessly endangering anybody. We could argue the speed limit, but for common roads the safety standards are set by the public.


As for gun laws, I'm a dyed in the wool gun nut. I oppose any restrictions on weapons posession, though I'm willing to accept common-sense restrictions on their use. I can't shoot a Minigun into the air in a crowded area, that's common sense.

If you unwittingly receive stolen property you shouldn't be held liable, as you acted in good faith. You're not an accomplice to theft but a victim to fraud. If you knowingly did so (say, you're a fence) you're complicit to theft and should be held liable.

As for contaminating the groundwater, you have no right to recklessly endanger others. I tend to oppose zoning laws except in what comes to pollution. You've got no right to poison others.

You CAN tell the State who to hire. The State is bound to treat everyone equally, so their criteria must be transparent, open, reasonable and to the point. Aside from requiring qualifications for a position and acting in a meritocratic fashion, the State should not and could make any distinction between applicants.

For the private sector, let workers organize and have a say in matters. If they're not organized they WILL be exploited, paternalistic State or not.

Moreover, without pork and corporate welfare and general subsidies for the rich and corporations and the State acting like their heavy-handed enforcer, wealth would be a lot less concentrated and co-operatives, self-employed folks and honest small businesses could be the norm.


There is increased likelihood of criminal behavior mostly because drugs are expensive, and they are expensive mostly because they are illegal.
Let me put it this way: Let's take a heroin addict. If heroin costs $3 a day's worth of mainlining, they'll have no reason to steal to fund their habit. They would most likely go to the pharmacy, buy heroin, go back to their hiding places and mainline to their hearts' content.

Same goes for marijuana, except moreso, because stoners are typically much more reasonable people than heroin addicts.

We should define disorderly behavior and public drunkenness.

If "drunk and disorderly behavior" means stumble around hurling threats and insults at random people in an aggressive and threatening manner, you should be hauled elsewhere until you cool off and sleep it off, and probably fined.

If it means just going around about your business, only drunk as Hell and "disorderly behavior" means getting angry at something and protesting it (as it's sadly too often the case), nope, it should be allowed.

As for adultery, it's a violation of a contract. If the contract specifies a monetary penalty for adultery, by all means, let's enforce it.

As for polygamy, while I don't think it's the best of ideas (custody battles get heated enough with just two partners) I would favor legalizing it. Neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.


Now, on to ages of consent. Let me start by stating that I personally think the ages of majority are too high. Disclaimer: That belief is religiously informed. In Heathenry we induct men and women as full members of tribe and hearth when they hit 15. Treating 17 year olds as kids strikes me as very odd.

Given that ages of majority are arbitrary I don't think my belief being religiously informed is very hypocritical. The line is arbitrary, might as well be the one provided by the lore.


Prior to age of consent? Inability to consent. After age of consent? Claim of non-consent to prosecute.

Whether to prosecute any instance of underage pornography should amount to this: Any pornographer should keep notices of consent, and every notice of consent should come from someone over the age of consent.
Posession of porn should not be criminalized, although its production of distribution could if they fail to comply with these above guidelines.

Now on to entitlements, that's when it gets very tricky and it depends on your thoughts on taxation.

I personally feel inclined to think that taxation is theft and the State is just a big and glorifies extortion racket (to add insult to injury, run by moral busybodies).

Still, for the sake of practicality let's assume we're going to have a State and taxation. While I'm no fan of either, it might be legitimate.


I would VERY much prefer than non-payers would be automatically disqualified from using any sort of service provided or funded by the State in any way (including airports and roads) than the current extortion-based racket.


If taxation is legitimate, entitlements are (there is no other valid reason to garnish taxes than to pay for stuff, and there is no other reason for the State to buy stuff than to provide it to the citizenry).

Whether people should be forced to provide for others is worthy of a different post. What are your thoughts on the issue?

 

[MaryContrary]

I'm going to make a clarification that I think you'll appreciate. I prefer to have fewer codified rights and them to be interpreted in an expansive manner than have a bunch of small rights and them to be interpreted restrictively. So my choice to contract several rights into one is deliberate.

We're going to have a deep and hard philosophical discussion.
I like it. I'd like to start with the easy things first.

If we end up getting out of my depth then I'll go ahead and apologize in advance. I'll keep up as best and as long as I'm able, though. :thumb:

The labor movement has a place, and a neccessary place at that. The workers have the right to liberty. This includes freedom of association. This includes their freedom to unionize, strike, and otherwise defend their interests.
As I said, if you're treated unjustly, unionize! The State is no substitute for direct action. It should be no substitute.

I'll agree with this then. Under your proposal there's nothing stopping workers from associating as they like and refusing to work until their employer agrees to some demand or other. But...that's about it. The employer is still free to replace workers that refuse to work and strikers have no right to infringe on his business by discouraging workers from attempting to replace them, correct?

No, the enforced respect of others' rights is NOT a violation of the right to liberty. It is a prerequisite for a rights-based justice system to work. Your right to liberty doesn't extend to forcing others into stuff.

I'll agree that under your proposal this is necessary. You can't protect the rights of the one without interfering with the freedom of all those who attempt to violate their rights. Just no way around that.

That is why the sexual harasser infringes on your rights: You know. Veiled threats, overall coercion, disregard for your personal boundaries'n stuff. His conduct should be stopped.
I'm speaking about real sexual harassment here, not the folk who makes an (unwanted) sexual advance, is rejected and backs down.

Then I still don't see your reluctance to enforce laws upholding general order. I think this certainly falls under the very same application of protecting one's liberty.

As for traffic laws, they're perfectly fine for the most part. You have no right to recklessly endanger others.

Okay, so in addition to protecting the rights of others we're actively forbidding behavior not covered by those rights?

That being said, zero tolerance laws that target days-ago drug use are wrong, because a stoner that is not stoned while driving is not recklessly endangering anybody. We could argue the speed limit, but for common roads the safety standards are set by the public.

Again, this reaches beyond simply protecting individual rights. The only way to justify this by that standard is to argue these behaviors indirectly violate the rights of others. "It's a good idea" just isn't covered under your proposal, unless you want to add that. Are you?

As for gun laws, I'm a dyed in the wool gun nut. I oppose any restrictions on weapons posession, though I'm willing to accept common-sense restrictions on their use. I can't shoot a Minigun into the air in a crowded area, that's common sense.

Again, we're adding "common sense" to what we justify the law by?

If you unwittingly receive stolen property you shouldn't be held liable, as you acted in good faith. You're not an accomplice to theft but a victim to fraud. If you knowingly did so (say, you're a fence) you're complicit to theft and should be held liable.

Because you indirectly contribute to the violation of another's rights, correct?

As for contaminating the groundwater, you have no right to recklessly endanger others. I tend to oppose zoning laws except in what comes to pollution. You've got no right to poison others.

...because it indirectly violates the rights of others?

You CAN tell the State who to hire. The State is bound to treat everyone equally,

Wait...why? If it violates no one's rights, then there should be no law against it. You can add right to equal employment if you like.

so their criteria must be transparent, open, reasonable and to the point. Aside from requiring qualifications for a position and acting in a meritocratic fashion, the State should not and could make any distinction between applicants.

If we recognize the right to equal employment, then certainly. If we do not, then certainly not.

For the private sector, let workers organize and have a say in matters. If they're not organized they WILL be exploited, paternalistic State or not.

Why the double standard between the state and private sectors?

Moreover, without pork and corporate welfare and general subsidies for the rich and corporations and the State acting like their heavy-handed enforcer, wealth would be a lot less concentrated and co-operatives, self-employed folks and honest small businesses could be the norm.

If you say so. But I don't see this upholding anyone's rights so I can't see how you justify it.

There is increased likelihood of criminal behavior mostly because drugs are expensive, and they are expensive mostly because they are illegal.
Let me put it this way: Let's take a heroin addict. If heroin costs $3 a day's worth of mainlining, they'll have no reason to steal to fund their habit. They would most likely go to the pharmacy, buy heroin, go back to their hiding places and mainline to their hearts' content.

Same goes for marijuana, except moreso, because stoners are typically much more reasonable people than heroin addicts.

Even assuming the decrease in criminal behavior associated with drug use, which I don't have a problem with doing, at least hypothetically, it would still be so associated even at that lesser degree. So my questions there stand, even upon the new standard you argue for here.

We should define disorderly behavior and public drunkenness.

If "drunk and disorderly behavior" means stumble around hurling threats and insults at random people in an aggressive and threatening manner, you should be hauled elsewhere until you cool off and sleep it off, and probably fined.

On what basis? This would constitute enforcing order, you should realize. Individual rights to liberty being violated by another's behavior.

If it means just going around about your business, only drunk as Hell and "disorderly behavior" means getting angry at something and protesting it (as it's sadly too often the case), nope, it should be allowed.

Okay. Not sure I'd bother arguing that one.

As for adultery, it's a violation of a contract. If the contract specifies a monetary penalty for adultery, by all means, let's enforce it.

So we're adding enforcing contracts to what's allowable under the law?

As for polygamy, while I don't think it's the best of ideas (custody battles get heated enough with just two partners) I would favor legalizing it. Neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

And if it's proven to have a detrimental effect on society, on all those that participate, even consensually, and on the children involved...we have to suffer that in the interests of just laws founded on the principles of individual liberty, correct?

Now, on to ages of consent. Let me start by stating that I personally think the ages of majority are too high. Disclaimer: That belief is religiously informed. In Heathenry we induct men and women as full members of tribe and hearth when they hit 15. Treating 17 year olds as kids strikes me as very odd.

Given that ages of majority are arbitrary I don't think my belief being religiously informed is very hypocritical. The line is arbitrary, might as well be the one provided by the lore.

Prior to age of consent? Inability to consent. After age of consent? Claim of non-consent to prosecute.

I'm willing to recognize an age of consent (or some method of determining individual consent, at the very least) is required. No problem there.

Whether to prosecute any instance of underage pornography should amount to this: Any pornographer should keep notices of consent, and every notice of consent should come from someone over the age of consent.
Posession of porn should not be criminalized, although its production of distribution could if they fail to comply with these above guidelines.

Okay. Now, why require that pornographers keep such notifications? That seems an abridgment of individual liberty, forcing anyone to keep any notification of any sort. I would think you'd be justified in demanding they prove consent if charges are brought, however.

Now on to entitlements, that's when it gets very tricky and it depends on your thoughts on taxation.

I personally feel inclined to think that taxation is theft and the State is just a big and glorifies extortion racket (to add insult to injury, run by moral busybodies).

Still, for the sake of practicality let's assume we're going to have a State and taxation. While I'm no fan of either, it might be legitimate.

I would VERY much prefer than non-payers would be automatically disqualified from using any sort of service provided or funded by the State in any way (including airports and roads) than the current extortion-based racket.

If taxation is legitimate, entitlements are (there is no other valid reason to garnish taxes than to pay for stuff, and there is no other reason for the State to buy stuff than to provide it to the citizenry).

Whether people should be forced to provide for others is worthy of a different post. What are your thoughts on the issue?

I think that by this justification the state can do anything at all, beyond protecting individual rights, to whomever allows it. And not to those that do not.

So, were I not devoting tax dollars to the food stamp program I would not be able to make use of that program at a later day when it might be convenient for me to do so.

Likewise, the state may justify, by this standard, outlawing disturbing the peace. By agreeing with that and providing tax dollars to cover it...I'm still unable to force that law on anyone who doesn't likewise subsidize it. But if they do, then I can. As they can against me. That would be reasonable to you, correct?

*****

So we're agreeing that limiting freedom is acceptable everywhere that it is necessary to enforce just laws. I didn't think we'd disagree on that point, you understand, just think it's good to be clear on that fundamental point.

Your application of protecting individual right to liberty by denying enforced participation in certain behaviors remains unclear.

You also seem to have added:
Laws forbidding behavior not protected by individual rights.
Certain convenient, "common sense", laws.
Acknowledging that laws can protect the rights of individuals from indirectly being violated.
That state and private sectors institutions are held to different standards under the law.
The right to equal employment (?)
The enforcement of contracts
Determining consent independently of the individual in question, under some circumstances
Individuals and/or businesses can be forced to retrain proof of compliance with the law

 

[chrysostom]

I will await a real lawyer to weigh in on matters of the law. :squint:

I suspect one will be along soon enough.

AMR

I think one is too many

 

[MaryContrary]

I think one is too many

I disagree. I like TH and wouldn't mind another lawyer or two, considering how often legal concepts come up for discussion around here. This thread being a great example of that.

 

[Nydhogg]

If we end up getting out of my depth then I'll go ahead and apologize in advance. I'll keep up as best and as long as I'm able, though. :thumb:

I'll agree with this then. Under your proposal there's nothing stopping workers from associating as they like and refusing to work until their employer agrees to some demand or other. But...that's about it. The employer is still free to replace workers that refuse to work and strikers have no right to infringe on his business by discouraging workers from attempting to replace them, correct?

I'll agree that under your proposal this is necessary. You can't protect the rights of the one without interfering with the freedom of all those who attempt to violate their rights. Just no way around that.

Then I still don't see your reluctance to enforce laws upholding general order. I think this certainly falls under the very same application of protecting one's liberty.

Okay, so in addition to protecting the rights of others we're actively forbidding behavior not covered by those rights?

Again, this reaches beyond simply protecting individual rights. The only way to justify this by that standard is to argue these behaviors indirectly violate the rights of others. "It's a good idea" just isn't covered under your proposal, unless you want to add that. Are you?

Again, we're adding "common sense" to what we justify the law by?

Because you indirectly contribute to the violation of another's rights, correct?

...because it indirectly violates the rights of others?

Wait...why? If it violates no one's rights, then there should be no law against it. You can add right to equal employment if you like.

If we recognize the right to equal employment, then certainly. If we do not, then certainly not.

Why the double standard between the state and private sectors?

If you say so. But I don't see this upholding anyone's rights so I can't see how you justify it.
Even assuming the decrease in criminal behavior associated with drug use, which I don't have a problem with doing, at least hypothetically, it would still be so associated even at that lesser degree. So my questions there stand, even upon the new standard you argue for here.
On what basis? This would constitute enforcing order, you should realize. Individual rights to liberty being violated by another's behavior.

Okay. Not sure I'd bother arguing that one.

So we're adding enforcing contracts to what's allowable under the law?

And if it's proven to have a detrimental effect on society, on all those that participate, even consensually, and on the children involved...we have to suffer that in the interests of just laws founded on the principles of individual liberty, correct?

I'm willing to recognize an age of consent (or some method of determining individual consent, at the very least) is required. No problem there.

Okay. Now, why require that pornographers keep such notifications? That seems an abridgment of individual liberty, forcing anyone to keep any notification of any sort. I would think you'd be justified in demanding they prove consent if charges are brought, however.

I think that by this justification the state can do anything at all, beyond protecting individual rights, to whomever allows it. And not to those that do not.

So, were I not devoting tax dollars to the food stamp program I would not be able to make use of that program at a later day when it might be convenient for me to do so.

Likewise, the state may justify, by this standard, outlawing disturbing the peace. By agreeing with that and providing tax dollars to cover it...I'm still unable to force that law on anyone who doesn't likewise subsidize it. But if they do, then I can. As they can against me. That would be reasonable to you, correct?

*****

So we're agreeing that limiting freedom is acceptable everywhere that it is necessary to enforce just laws. I didn't think we'd disagree on that point, you understand, just think it's good to be clear on that fundamental point.

Your application of protecting individual right to liberty by denying enforced participation in certain behaviors remains unclear.

You also seem to have added:
Laws forbidding behavior not protected by individual rights.
Certain convenient, "common sense", laws.
Acknowledging that laws can protect the rights of individuals from indirectly being violated.
That state and private sectors institutions are held to different standards under the law.
The right to equal employment (?)
The enforcement of contracts
Determining consent independently of the individual in question, under some circumstances
Individuals and/or businesses can be forced to retrain proof of compliance with the law

Workers are free to discourage others from working, and they can propose and coordinate boycotts and solidarity strikes too (now we can't because of the Taft-harley Act). That's what freedom of speech, political protest, and all that juicy stuff are for.

As for the notices of consent, it's highly advisable to keep them as an affirmative defense. I'm not sure if I would make them mandatory, but having proof of consent seems like a good idea, especially if you're going to have a serious career as a pornographer while trying to minimize courthouse drama.

The right to liberty implies the right to trade. The right to trade implies the right to contract. Elsewhere, no-one would be able to punish fraud or swindling. Enforcing contracts is a valid function of the State, intimately tied with upholding individual rights.
Not every contract is enforceable, as some are deemed unconscionable and thus void. You can't alienate your right to liberty and become a slave, for example.


Yes, the state and the private sector are bound to different standards. The state is bound to treat everyone equally, as per the right of due process that includes the equal protection of the law. The State doesn't have property rights.

The private sector is bound to no such thing. I can refuse to do business with a customer I dislike. The State can't. It's a matter of contract (and thus bargaining) and property rights.

As per disturbing the peace, well. It amounts to whether their actions do you demonstrable harm, not simply "I don't like what they're doing". That would be actionable I guess.

You may not just go around harming people, that's obvious. It infringes on their rights.

Yes, I acknowledge that prohibitions on reckless endangerment are appropriate. The potential of damage to others must be obvious, direct and imminent for them to be appropriate, though.

Threatening people (in a real way, not rhetorically) with bodily harm is assault and should be treated as such.


However, stuff that is detrimental to society at large, even to the participants, but is not a violation of anyone's rights nor amounts to reckless endangerment of others should be tolerated. Even if it's a bad idea.

It's not "celebrating perversity" or "encouraging stupidity". It's tolerating that other people have different priorities in life and as long as no-one (that did not consent) is directly hurt or they're not placing anyone (that did not consent) in imminent danger it's their business.


As for disturbing the peace (Hey, you care about that one) you can always draft a voluntary agreement with your neighbors not to annoy each other too much. Once voluntarily accepted by all, that rule would be enforceable (contract).

You could protest, shame or shun those who didn't want to sign. Or annoy them until they did. Informal and non-punitive ways of ensuring civility go a long way.

 

[Nydhogg]

P.S. Hey, we're making progress.

From "Fornicators should be stoned" to serious individual rights talk and libertarian justifications for public policy!

I'm amazed

 

[Newman]

I don't know if you've seen my similar thread, but I'm concerned with where/how you derive those rights. Why those rights and not others?

 

[Nydhogg]

I don't know if you've seen my similar thread, but I'm concerned with where/how you derive those rights. Why those rights and not others?

Life, Liberty and Property, when correctly interpreted, are enough. For the sake of clarification I added three rights that are actually obvious and should be implied.

Redress, Privacy and Due Process are common sense (without due process you're subject to arbitrary authority, without redress your rights are worthless, and without privacy nothing keeps an evil-intentioned authority from micromanaging your life)

 

[MaryContrary]

P.S. Hey, we're making progress.

From "Fornicators should be stoned" to serious individual rights talk and libertarian justifications for public policy!

I'm amazed

Welcome to TOL.

 

[MaryContrary]

Workers are free to discourage others from working, and they can propose and coordinate boycotts and solidarity strikes too (now we can't because of the Taft-harley Act). That's what freedom of speech, political protest, and all that juicy stuff are for.

How do we determine what is free speech and what is coercion? That is, persuasion to the point of violating another's right to liberty.

A group standing outside a business with signs, chanting and generally attempting to reasonably persuade scabs not to take their place at work...I'm comfortable calling that free speech. I also don't think that'd do much to persuade any of them.

What if the protesters form a line in front of the business, so that scabs have to pass through them to get to work? But otherwise don't interfere, nor even touching them as the pass? Would that violate the individual right to liberty of the scabs?

As for the notices of consent, it's highly advisable to keep them as an affirmative defense. I'm not sure if I would make them mandatory, but having proof of consent seems like a good idea, especially if you're going to have a serious career as a pornographer while trying to minimize courthouse drama.

Okay, agreed then.

The right to liberty implies the right to trade. The right to trade implies the right to contract. Elsewhere, no-one would be able to punish fraud or swindling. Enforcing contracts is a valid function of the State, intimately tied with upholding individual rights.

Okay.

Not every contract is enforceable, as some are deemed unconscionable and thus void. You can't alienate your right to liberty and become a slave, for example.

Even willfully? Why not? I would think one would have the right, under the right to liberty, to sell oneself into slavery.

Yes, the state and the private sector are bound to different standards. The state is bound to treat everyone equally, as per the right of due process that includes the equal protection of the law. The State doesn't have property rights.

The private sector is bound to no such thing. I can refuse to do business with a customer I dislike. The State can't. It's a matter of contract (and thus bargaining) and property rights.

How did you determine this? If there's no right to equal employment then the people have no basis for demanding the state conform to such a thing.

If you're talking about a democracy, then the people own every dollar the state lays hold to. So in that they are the government and the government should reflect whatever hiring practices the people determine it should. So long as it doesn't violate anyone's rights, of course.

In the enforcement of the law, certainly. I wouldn't argue that else the law would not be enforceable. You'd essentially be enforcing some other law than what was on the books.

As per disturbing the peace, well. It amounts to whether their actions do you demonstrable harm, not simply "I don't like what they're doing". That would be actionable I guess.

You may not just go around harming people, that's obvious. It infringes on their rights.

What I'm attempting to discover is just how far you're willing to extend this. How far removed from the harm caused can one be before one can't be held responsible for that harm.

Yes, I acknowledge that prohibitions on reckless endangerment are appropriate. The potential of damage to others must be obvious, direct and imminent for them to be appropriate, though.

I would argue that dumping twenty gallons of oil on the ground in my backward does not constitute obvious, direct and imminent harm. Nor would paying for stolen property after the fact. Those acts and many others that you would outlaw under the rights you list are as far removed from the victims as any law enforcing general order. Put simply, this strikes me as very subjective.

Threatening people (in a real way, not rhetorically) with bodily harm is assault and should be treated as such.

Because it causes emotional trauma, not physical harm. So this is a form of harm you're willing to acknowledge requires protection from under your proposal? How far outward are you willing to recognize that harm and provide protection from it? Would you protect those who witness that behavior but weren't themselves threatened?

However, stuff that is detrimental to society at large, even to the participants, but is not a violation of anyone's rights nor amounts to reckless endangerment of others should be tolerated. Even if it's a bad idea.

I would assume in many cases that "society" has not consented to the behavior in question by the individuals in question in many, many cases. And so anyone harmed, in society, by the actions of those directly, consensually involved gets no protection from that harm? Why not?

It's not "celebrating perversity" or "encouraging stupidity". It's tolerating that other people have different priorities in life and as long as no-one (that did not consent) is directly hurt or they're not placing anyone (that did not consent) in imminent danger it's their business.

Again, I think you need to take a closer look at and solidify what you're considering "direct" and "imminent". That seems to be a little too fluid.

As for disturbing the peace (Hey, you care about that one) you can always draft a voluntary agreement with your neighbors not to annoy each other too much. Once voluntarily accepted by all, that rule would be enforceable (contract).

I'm using that as one example where your enforcement of these rights seems very subjective to me.

You could protest, shame or shun those who didn't want to sign. Or annoy them until they did. Informal and non-punitive ways of ensuring civility go a long way.

These things wouldn't all be considered harassment? Comparing them to the sexual harassment you agree should be outlawed, they seem little different. Shaming, shunning and irritating especially.

 

[Nydhogg]

How do we determine what is free speech and what is coercion? That is, persuasion to the point of violating another's right to liberty.

A group standing outside a business with signs, chanting and generally attempting to reasonably persuade scabs not to take their place at work...I'm comfortable calling that free speech. I also don't think that'd do much to persuade any of them.

What if the protesters form a line in front of the business, so that scabs have to pass through them to get to work? But otherwise don't interfere, nor even touching them as the pass? Would that violate the individual right to liberty of the scabs?


Okay, agreed then.

Okay.

Even willfully? Why not? I would think one would have the right, under the right to liberty, to sell oneself into slavery.

How did you determine this? If there's no right to equal employment then the people have no basis for demanding the state conform to such a thing.

If you're talking about a democracy, then the people own every dollar the state lays hold to. So in that they are the government and the government should reflect whatever hiring practices the people determine it should. So long as it doesn't violate anyone's rights, of course.

In the enforcement of the law, certainly. I wouldn't argue that else the law would not be enforceable. You'd essentially be enforcing some other law than what was on the books.

What I'm attempting to discover is just how far you're willing to extend this. How far removed from the harm caused can one be before one can't be held responsible for that harm.

I would argue that dumping twenty gallons of oil on the ground in my backward does not constitute obvious, direct and imminent harm. Nor would paying for stolen property after the fact. Those acts and many others that you would outlaw under the rights you list are as far removed from the victims as any law enforcing general order. Put simply, this strikes me as very subjective.
Because it causes emotional trauma, not physical harm. So this is a form of harm you're willing to acknowledge requires protection from under your proposal? How far outward are you willing to recognize that harm and provide protection from it? Would you protect those who witness that behavior but weren't themselves threatened?

I would assume in many cases that "society" has not consented to the behavior in question by the individuals in question in many, many cases. And so anyone harmed, in society, by the actions of those directly, consensually involved gets no protection from that harm? Why not?

Again, I think you need to take a closer look at and solidify what you're considering "direct" and "imminent". That seems to be a little too fluid.

I'm using that as one example where your enforcement of these rights seems very subjective to me.

These things wouldn't all be considered harassment? Comparing them to the sexual harassment you agree should be outlawed, they seem little different. Shaming, shunning and irritating especially.

As for the recalcitrant annoying neighbor, nothing bars you from annoying him back. Loud music when HE sleeps, until he understands the neccessity of respecting the rest of his neighbors.

If he has the right to annoy you, you have the right to annoy him back.

No law can force you to be nice to a jerk. You can be a jerk back, until that forces him to see the error of his ways and give up jerkassery in favor of peaceful coexistence.

Persuasion and informal societal sanctions go a long way.


As long as the scabs aren't physically harmed or assaulted in any way, the picket is legitimate.


On whether natural rights can be alienated by contract there is vigorous libertarian discussion. There are long and hard debates between those who see the rights as inalienable or those who think they can be sold. I side with the moral absolutes crowd and I say that you can't alienate your natural rights.

Sure, you could consent to have them infringed, BUT if you subsequently demand the other part to stop, he has to.


Society can not consent or not consent to private and consensual behavior. Society has no bearing on what consenting people do on their own property or in a place where they have been allowed to do so by the property owner.

A man's home is his domain, not society's.

Perhaps there is a valid objection to public drunkenness and disorderliness, perhaps there is a valid objection to public lewdness. I'm not sure where I stand on that.

Society does certainly not have a valid objection to private lewdness, private drunkenness, or private drug use.



The State is an authority. The private sector ain't enforcing rules on the outside world. It is good and sensible practice to hold the State to a MUCH higher standard of transparency and fairness.


Receiving stolen property should not be a crime per se. If you do so unwittingly, the stolen property should be returned to the original owner, and you have a claim of fraud against the one who sold you the stolen stuff.

If you're a fence or otherwise receive stolen stuff KNOWINGLY, then you're an accessory to theft. I thought that point was agreeable.



As to what point I'm willing to accept preventing harm to non-consenting parties, to a fair deal, as long as that harm is direct and demonstrable. Being morally opposed to others doing something is not harm. Being offended by others doing something is not harm.


For example: If I smoke marijuana on my own home, in a national park or at a marijuana-friendly club, yet I go to work and take care of my family and don't drive while stoned and don't work while impaired, no-one is effectively being harmed.

(Except my poor lungs and my short-term memory, but that is strictly my problem)

Even if I chose to take up a meth habit, which I don't feel inclined to do (I kicked that two years ago and never again), as long as I fulfilled whatever duties I have and did not harm anyone while tweaking I should be left alone.

Same goes for consensual sex whether gay or straight, in or out of wedlock. The only consequence there might be a fatherless kid, and the father can and should be nailed with an appropriate child support payment or be held guilty of neglect of his offspring and punished accordingly.



As for abortion, I'm not very sure on where I stand. The right to life of the unborn conflicts sharply with the woman's self-ownership, and it's a tough conflict.

I do support the woman's right to abort before fetal quickening (3 months).
I see a massive grey area between quickening (and the fetal sentience it implies) and fetal viability (roughly six and a half months), though I'd err on the side of life. After all the woman has already had her chance.
After fetal viability, however, I feel positively sure that abortion is homicide and in absence of risk to the life or limb of the mother or deformities that preclude the child living it's outright murder.

 

[MaryContrary]

As for the recalcitrant annoying neighbor, nothing bars you from annoying him back. Loud music when HE sleeps, until he understands the neccessity of respecting the rest of his neighbors.

If he has the right to annoy you, you have the right to annoy him back.

No law can force you to be nice to a jerk. You can be a jerk back, until that forces him to see the error of his ways and give up jerkassery in favor of peaceful coexistence.

Persuasion and informal societal sanctions go a long way.

Then that rather brings up back around to sexual harassment and why that qualifies as infringing on someone's personal right to liberty.

As long as the scabs aren't physically harmed or assaulted in any way, the picket is legitimate.

Intimidation is legal then? How do we go about enforcing laws against extortion in light of that?

On whether natural rights can be alienated by contract there is vigorous libertarian discussion. There are long and hard debates between those who see the rights as inalienable or those who think they can be sold. I side with the moral absolutes crowd and I say that you can't alienate your natural rights.

Sure, you could consent to have them infringed, BUT if you subsequently demand the other part to stop, he has to.

Interestingly, that's almost exactly where the bible stands on slavery, did you know? Except perhaps in cases of those taken as slaves in war, but even they could simply appeal to another Israelite to harbor them.

But that's neither here nor there. I think I largely agree with this thinking, though.

Society can not consent or not consent to private and consensual behavior. Society has no bearing on what consenting people do on their own property or in a place where they have been allowed to do so by the property owner.

A man's home is his domain, not society's.

Perhaps there is a valid objection to public drunkenness and disorderliness, perhaps there is a valid objection to public lewdness. I'm not sure where I stand on that.

Society does certainly not have a valid objection to private lewdness, private drunkenness, or private drug use.

Until and unless it spills out into the public in some manner, don't you think?

The State is an authority. The private sector ain't enforcing rules on the outside world. It is good and sensible practice to hold the State to a MUCH higher standard of transparency and fairness.

Dunno if I agree. If it's that's such a good standard, shouldn't we apply it elsewhere?

Receiving stolen property should not be a crime per se. If you do so unwittingly, the stolen property should be returned to the original owner, and you have a claim of fraud against the one who sold you the stolen stuff.

If you're a fence or otherwise receive stolen stuff KNOWINGLY, then you're an accessory to theft. I thought that point was agreeable.

Indeed. But if one can be held responsible when that far removed from the crime, then I would think this principle would apply elsewhere.

As to what point I'm willing to accept preventing harm to non-consenting parties, to a fair deal, as long as that harm is direct and demonstrable. Being morally opposed to others doing something is not harm. Being offended by others doing something is not harm.

Again, you seem to be holding some to account when removed to one degree from the act itself while others are not, even to roughly the same degree. And such degrees are, I would think, pretty subjective anyway. This doesn't lend confidence in your proposal.

For example: If I smoke marijuana on my own home, in a national park or at a marijuana-friendly club, yet I go to work and take care of my family and don't drive while stoned and don't work while impaired, no-one is effectively being harmed.

(Except my poor lungs and my short-term memory, but that is strictly my problem)

Even if I chose to take up a meth habit, which I don't feel inclined to do (I kicked that two years ago and never again), as long as I fulfilled whatever duties I have and did not harm anyone while tweaking I should be left alone.

Okay, so, if we managed to show it to be extremely unlikely that one could engage in a behavior without subsequently violating the rights of others, by showing a preponderance of criminal behavior associated with such, would you then be willing to outlaw that behavior? Otherwise this seems to be begging for trouble. One allows a behavior in the name of liberty that is shown to significantly increase other behaviors that violate the liberty of others. This is typically the reasoning behind outlawing many of the behaviors we're talking about.

Same goes for consensual sex whether gay or straight, in or out of wedlock. The only consequence there might be a fatherless kid, and the father can and should be nailed with an appropriate child support payment or be held guilty of neglect of his offspring and punished accordingly.

By what are you enforcing the father's responsibility here? Does it violate one of the rights you've listed?

As for abortion, I'm not very sure on where I stand. The right to life of the unborn conflicts sharply with the woman's self-ownership, and it's a tough conflict.

I do support the woman's right to abort before fetal quickening (3 months).
I see a massive grey area between quickening (and the fetal sentience it implies) and fetal viability (roughly six and a half months), though I'd err on the side of life. After all the woman has already had her chance.
After fetal viability, however, I feel positively sure that abortion is homicide and in absence of risk to the life or limb of the mother or deformities that preclude the child living it's outright murder.

If you were convinced that human life began at conception, would you then alter this position to rejecting abortion for convenience completely? I have no intention of attempting to persuade you on that point here, but I am curious.

*****

All that said, I again see you seemingly adding to your original list still more things you'd legislate that aren't directly associated with protecting individual rights. And I still see you applying the law in some cases that are removed more than a step or two from the original act while not applying it in others. Your proposal remains highly subjective and vague in far too many areas, I think.

 

[Nydhogg]

Then that rather brings up back around to sexual harassment and why that qualifies as infringing on someone's personal right to liberty.


Intimidation is legal then? How do we go about enforcing laws against extortion in light of that?


Interestingly, that's almost exactly where the bible stands on slavery, did you know? Except perhaps in cases of those taken as slaves in war, but even they could simply appeal to another Israelite to harbor them.

But that's neither here nor there. I think I largely agree with this thinking, though.

Until and unless it spills out into the public in some manner, don't you think?


Dunno if I agree. If it's that's such a good standard, shouldn't we apply it elsewhere?


Indeed. But if one can be held responsible when that far removed from the crime, then I would think this principle would apply elsewhere.


Again, you seem to be holding some to account when removed to one degree from the act itself while others are not, even to roughly the same degree. And such degrees are, I would think, pretty subjective anyway. This doesn't lend confidence in your proposal.


Okay, so, if we managed to show it to be extremely unlikely that one could engage in a behavior without subsequently violating the rights of others, by showing a preponderance of criminal behavior associated with such, would you then be willing to outlaw that behavior? Otherwise this seems to be begging for trouble. One allows a behavior in the name of liberty that is shown to significantly increase other behaviors that violate the liberty of others. This is typically the reasoning behind outlawing many of the behaviors we're talking about.

By what are you enforcing the father's responsibility here? Does it violate one of the rights you've listed?


If you were convinced that human life began at conception, would you then alter this position to rejecting abortion for convenience completely? I have no intention of attempting to persuade you on that point here, but I am curious.

*****

All that said, I again see you seemingly adding to your original list still more things you'd legislate that aren't directly associated with protecting individual rights. And I still see you applying the law in some cases that are removed more than a step or two from the original act while not applying it in others. Your proposal remains highly subjective and vague in far too many areas, I think.

Mary, I'm liking this debate. You're helping me define my positions and fine-tune my view. You raise a lot of valid objections.

My standard for a victim to exist is quite strict actually: Either it's harm to a non-consenting party or reckless endangerment. Doing something that is simply unwise or *might* be dangerous does not amount to reckless endangerment, though.
The action must be inherently, directly and gravely risky to others for it being properly considered reckless endangerment.

It's strange that my stance on inalienable rights fits the Bible's like a glove. On second thought it makes sense: The Israelites dumped all their wisdom (and what currently passed as wisdom) in that book. Oftentimes it SHOULD contain actual wisdom.
That's why I like to read holy books, even those of faiths I don't follow, lots and lots and lots of wisdom dumped in there

As for a father's responsibility for his children, well, perhaps it's the family values guy deep inside, but I think that if you sired it you feed it. Fathering a child is no different than contracting a debt (well, it IS, fatherhood can be awesome and debts suck, but you know what I mean), you've gotta pay it.

I do think transparency, fairness and meritocracy is a good standard generally, and I yearn for the day it is strictly applied everywhere, not just in civil service. I cannot coerce people into applying it, though. The benefits of it are apparent, and eventually the market will drive out those who don't adopt that standard if we stop subsidizing failure.

Physical intimidation is assault. If a picket assaults the scabs, sue the Hell out of them, I'll throw in an amici curiae.

You should define "spills out into the public." As long as stuff is kept in private, it doesn't spill out.

IF you showed that there is virtually no chance that someone can take part in an activity and subsequently not unduly harm third parties, beyond a reasonable doubt, it would qualify as reckless endangerment, yea.

But smoking marijuana ain't recklessly endangering anyone. Most drug users, you see, aren't criminal-minded junkies willing to cheat and steal for their next fix, or bloodthirsty thugs looking to abuse and/or murder someone (it's more probable that those end up as cops)

The majority of drug users are just normal people who do drugs. If it's a half-assed attempt to justify Prohibition, it's a bad attempt.

I could not be persuaded to think that life begins at conception. I could be persuaded to think life begins at *implantation*, perhaps.
Many eggs do conceive, but fail to implantate naturally. Still, I remain unconvinced that something could achieve personhood before it grows sentient. A quickened fetus IS sentient and undoubtedly alive (oddly enough, so thought St.Agustine)


My standards can seem subjective and probably there are, but I'm trying to show you the reasoning behind them.

 

[MaryContrary]

Okay, a few things...

Harassment:

That is why the sexual harasser infringes on your rights: You know. Veiled threats, overall coercion, disregard for your personal boundaries'n stuff. His conduct should be stopped.
I'm speaking about real sexual harassment here, not the folk who makes an (unwanted) sexual advance, is rejected and backs down.

...sexual harassment (which would violate your right not to participate in unwanted sexual activity, implicit in your right to liberty)

If "drunk and disorderly behavior" means stumble around hurling threats and insults at random people in an aggressive and threatening manner, you should be hauled elsewhere until you cool off and sleep it off, and probably fined.

Perhaps there is a valid objection to public drunkenness and disorderliness, perhaps there is a valid objection to public lewdness. I'm not sure where I stand on that.

As for the recalcitrant annoying neighbor, nothing bars you from annoying him back. Loud music when HE sleeps, until he understands the neccessity of respecting the rest of his neighbors.
If he has the right to annoy you, you have the right to annoy him back.
No law can force you to be nice to a jerk. You can be a jerk back, until that forces him to see the error of his ways and give up jerkassery in favor of peaceful coexistence.

Your position on harassment generally seems unclear. Can you be more specific on what constitutes "harm" in cases of harassment?

Receiving stolen goods:

Receiving stolen property should not be a crime per se. If you do so unwittingly, the stolen property should be returned to the original owner, and you have a claim of fraud against the one who sold you the stolen stuff.
If you're a fence or otherwise receive stolen stuff KNOWINGLY, then you're an accessory to theft. I thought that point was agreeable.

Okay, let's track this out. What if one knowingly purchases stolen goods from a fence? Or from someone who themselves knowingly purchased stolen goods from a fence?

Reckless endangerment:

Yes, I acknowledge that prohibitions on reckless endangerment are appropriate. The potential of damage to others must be obvious, direct and imminent for them to be appropriate, though.

However, stuff that is detrimental to society at large, even to the participants, but is not a violation of anyone's rights nor amounts to reckless endangerment of others should be tolerated. Even if it's a bad idea.

IF you showed that there is virtually no chance that someone can take part in an activity and subsequently not unduly harm third parties, beyond a reasonable doubt, it would qualify as reckless endangerment, yea.

Would you agree there's a principle at work here that should apply across the board, to all potential threats to one's rights? Or are you willing to take this position only in instances where one's right to life is threatened?

 

[Nydhogg]

Okay, a few things...

Harassment:






Your position on harassment generally seems unclear. Can you be more specific on what constitutes "harm" in cases of harassment?

Receiving stolen goods:


Okay, let's track this out. What if one knowingly purchases stolen goods from a fence? Or from someone who themselves knowingly purchased stolen goods from a fence?

Reckless endangerment:



Would you agree there's a principle at work here that should apply across the board, to all potential threats to one's rights? Or are you willing to take this position only in instances where one's right to life is threatened?

Reckless endangerment would be only for the right to life. You can't recklessly endanger someone's due process, privacy or liberty (either you infringe them or you don't), and property can be restored.

If the actions can be reasonably construed as sexual abuse, it's sexual harassment.
If the actions can be reasonably construed as assault, then (and only then) non-sexual harassment would be criminal.

If someone knowingly purchases stolen goods (aside from the fence who is a direct accessory to the thief) then he should only be liable to return those goods if the original owner finds his property, and the purchaser would have no claim of fraud against the guy who sold him the stolen stuff.

That guy we're now discussing is removed enough from the actual crime as to not be held criminal, but that property is still not legitimately acquired.

As for reckless endangerment, for right to life and physical integrity only.

Property can be restored via a civil settlement, so recklessly endangering other person's property shouldn't be criminalized. The potential harm CAN be repaired, so it makes sense to require restitution only if the other person's property is actually harmed.

 

[MaryContrary]

Reckless endangerment would be only for the right to life. You can't recklessly endanger someone's due process, privacy or liberty (either you infringe them or you don't), and property can be restored.

If the actions can be reasonably construed as sexual abuse, it's sexual harassment.
If the actions can be reasonably construed as assault, then (and only then) non-sexual harassment would be criminal.

You use "abuse" to describe instances of sexual harassment and "assault" to describe instances of non-sexual harassment? Why?

If someone knowingly purchases stolen goods (aside from the fence who is a direct accessory to the thief) then he should only be liable to return those goods if the original owner finds his property, and the purchaser would have no claim of fraud against the guy who sold him the stolen stuff.

That guy we're now discussing is removed enough from the actual crime as to not be held criminal, but that property is still not legitimately acquired.

You've backtracked on what you said originally on this topic, but okay. And you've allowed the market for stolen goods to flourish without any opposition now. One can knowingly profit from another's crime with the only consideration being that those profits possibly being lost later? Who wouldn't jump at every chase to purchase stolen goods under such a system?

As for reckless endangerment, for right to life and physical integrity only.

Property can be restored via a civil settlement, so recklessly endangering other person's property shouldn't be criminalized. The potential harm CAN be repaired, so it makes sense to require restitution only if the other person's property is actually harmed.

To be clear, you're only enforcing endangerment of rights in instances where the damage cannot be repaired or restored? If that is the case then you should only criminalize endangering one's right to life. Everything else can be repaired, restored or paid restitution for.

Add: Trying to keep up with the threads I participate in but that's difficult sometimes. It's very possible I'll lose one or two along the way. If I do and you figure I need a nudge, just send me a PM to remind me, especially if it's a couple days since I've logged on around here (with a link to the thread, if you'd be so kind).