A Voluntaryist View of ‘Rights’

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Veresapiens LogoThat famous quote sounds good, but in real world conversations, I have found few things that are less self-evident than ‘self-evident truths’ about Rights.

The quote, itself, immediately raises questions. Do we have only God-Given Rights? Are there Human Rights, Moral Rights, Natural Rights, Legal Rights? Would those be different things, or the same things coming from different sources?

And any detailed discussion of Rights typically gets less self-evident from there.

So, let’s see if I can offer you a simple view of Rights using the lens of Voluntaryism.

It might be useful to begin with Robinson Crusoe, alone on the island, again.

When Crusoe is the only person on the island, does it matter if he has any Rights? Would it make any practical difference if he has a Right to Liberty or not? It is only when Friday shows up on the island that the issue of Rights takes on any meaning.

This tells us that Rights have something to do with relationships.

Here’s why that is:

Rights, in effect, impose duties on others, in the form of either restrictions on their actions or claims on their actions.

If Crusoe has a Right to some type of freedom, that means that Friday has a duty to not interfere with Crusoe’s exercise of that freedom. Thus, Crusoe’s Right places restrictions on Friday’s actions.

If Crusoe has a Right to any services from Friday, that means that Friday has a duty to perform actions necessary to fulfill Crusoe’s Right. Thus, Crusoe’s Right places claims on Friday’s actions.

So, wherever you believe your Rights come from, God, Nature, a Constitution, etc., the purpose of a Right is to reduce the freedom of action of others in some way.

In the original story, Crusoe rescued Friday from cannibals. Let’s suppose for a moment that the rescue had failed miserably. Not only was Friday not saved, but imagine Crusoe found himself in a large pot hanging over a cooking fire.

At this point does a loud declaration from Crusoe that he has a God-Given, Human, Moral, Natural, and Legal Right to Life and Liberty do him any good? The cannibals would likely just give him a funny look and go back to making side dishes.

This tells us that Rights have something to do with voluntary agreement.

If I’m interacting with people who don’t accept that I have a Right, then for all practical purposes I don’t have a Right (in terms of my relationship with those people).

But what about Force?

Let’s go back to the original storyline in which Crusoe successfully rescues Friday. But now let’s change the story so that Crusoe, who has muskets and pistols, decides he has the Right to use Friday as a slave.

Because Crusoe can force Friday to be his slave, does that mean that Crusoe has a Right to keep Friday as an unwilling slave? Of course not.

So let’s summarize what have we learned so far about Rights:

  • Rights don’t relate to individuals, they relate to relationships between individuals.
  • Your Rights limit or reduce the freedom of action of others.
  • To have any practical meaning, Rights must be consensual.
  • The ability to force restrictions or claims on the actions of others does not constitute a Right.

What does all of this mean to a Voluntaryist?

A Voluntaryist believes that all interactions between people should be voluntary. By definition, this philosophy includes such ethical codes as Thou Shalt Not Steal (to steal is to take something against the will of the owner) and the Non-Aggression Principle (to not initiate the use force or threats against a person or their property).

So let’s see how the attributes we have discovered about Rights fit in (or not) with the philosophy of Voluntaryism.

As a Voluntaryist, by definition I grant everyone else the Right to not be aggressed against by me. When I do that, I impose a duty on myself, limiting my freedom of action.

That’s simple enough. But here’s where it gets a little trickier:

If my Rights require restrictions or claims on the actions of others, and I’m a Voluntaryist, then I can’t make a blanket claim of having any Rights. That would be imposing a duty on others, restricting their actions without their agreement. Of course we’ve already learned that Rights, to have any practical value, need consent anyway.

I can use Force to defend myself against aggression, but we’ve also learned that using Force to restrict or enforce actions still doesn’t constitute a Right.

So, bottom line, as a Voluntaryist, I can grant the Right to not be aggressed against, but I cannot demand the Right to not be aggressed against.

Fortunately, most other people, in terms of their daily activities, do consensually grant me the Right to not be aggressed against. The exceptions are a small number of criminals and a somewhat larger number of people involved in government.

9 thoughts on “A Voluntaryist View of ‘Rights’

  1. CertainQuirk

    I’m just curious…

    If: 1. it was you, your child, and Friday on the island (no cannibals) and 2. there were only enough coconuts and bananas for two on the island (no game and no fish) what would happen? Would you use the musket on Friday? Or would you commit suicide so that Friday and your child could survive? Or what?

    Reply
    1. James Howe Post author

      While hypothetical ‘lifeboat’ situations are generally used to try to corner someone into backtracking on a core principle, I’ll go along with it here…

      If I and my child were actively farming the island and knew of your constraints, I would reject, given the opportunity, any new arrivals as unwanted trespassers on my land.

      Given that Friday was already resident on the island, I would not kill him (take his life to take his food) to increase the food available to me and my child.

      Reply
      1. CertainQuirk

        Not sure I see the problem with the hypothetical since that is how the post itself is framed. Not trying to get anyone to backtrack on core principles either. I’m asking out of curiosity. Life does hand ppl lifeboat scenarios from time to time, and it’s only then that core principles are put up for examination. As the saying goes, Free Speech isn’t an issue until someone says something that violates your principles.

        “Speech is important because we are socially situated and it makes little sense to say that Robinson Crusoe has a right to free speech. It only becomes necessary to talk of such a right within a social setting, and appeals to an abstract and absolute right to free speech hinder rather than help the debate” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

        It’s a lifeboat situation, yes. “Farming” isn’t an option. The island will support only two, period. Given your answer, someone is going to starve, correct?

        I’m curious about this because my musings on voluntaryism always lead me back to a “might is right” situation. This is *not* where I want it to lead, but it inevitably does. The scenario usually plays out like the one I’ve described. If it came down to me and you and there’s only enough food, blah blah, etc, then I am not going to starve for you or anyone else’s sake. When life puts your head under its boot, principles become just that–principles that are removed from reality.

        I hope I’m being clear and I’m sincerely interested in a response that isn’t motivated by a sense of attack.

        Shawn

        Reply
        1. James Howe Post author

          Shawn,
          I appreciate your interest. I meant for my comment about hypotheticals to be more hypothetical. ;)

          My original post didn’t frame the island as being unable to support the inhabitants, but for this discussion we can add that constraint, and that there is no possible way to increase the food supply.

          From a moral standpoint, my earlier response still stands – to me, it would be immoral to kill Friday to take his share of the available food, even if I thought feeding myself and my child would be a better use for it.

          From a practical standpoint, no one on the island can see the future with 100% certainty. So we would not know that there was no possibility of imminent rescue, or food washing ashore from another shipwreck, or one of us suddenly dying from accident or disease, etc. So the ‘reality’ wouldn’t have the certainty of the hypothetical, making murder even less defensible.

          As an aside, the reason I threw the word ‘farming’ into my earlier response was to clarify that Crusoe couldn’t claim the entire island just because he arrived first. He could only claim ownership of palm trees etc that he was actively ‘adding his labor to’, in the Rothbardian sense of ownership thru homesteading.

          As to ‘lifeboats’, any social framework will be susceptible to specific circumstances leading to paradox and/or dilemma (only ugly outcomes). If your musings on voluntaryism sometimes end up there, don’t consider it a weakness or disqualification of voluntaryism.

          Voluntaryism is a truly moral approach, and in more likely scenarios, an approach that will lead to greater resources for everyone, and thus minimizing the occurence of live-or-die scarcity situations.

          Jim

          Reply
          1. CertainQuirk

            Great response Jim, every bit of it.

            My philosophical litmus is always a hypothetical, primitive situation because, in the end (and way back in the beginning), that’s what humanity is–primitive. Without so many needs met (like a Maslow’s chart) ppl quickly regress.

            But I agree, Voluntaryism is the most logically and morally consistent philosophy I’ve encountered as well, and it is the only one I can personally embrace, despite life’s real (and hypothetical) extremes of paradox and dilemma. Also, as you point out, there’s always hope for a deus ex machina as well, probably even as we lie dying on the beach ;)

  2. The End is Far (@theendisfar)

    I understand Rights in a slightly different manner.

    Rights are actions/behaviors that do not require the permission of another to act/behave. Not requiring permission is related to be unalienable.

    Privileges are actions/behaviors that require the permission of another to act/behave. This is where relationships come into play. One must get the Consent/Permission of another party to act/behave.

    One cannot really discuss Rights & Privileges in a practical sense without hashing out what Self Ownership is and what the definition of Property is.

    Self Ownership – The concept that ones person is their property.
    Property – Something that is controlled exclusively. Something that can be refused from others.

    I can use force to refuse my property/self to others. I cannot use force to acquire someone elses property/permission of use.

    Enjoy your posts, hope to collaborate on how to get to Voluntaryism. As a systems engineer, I have a great deal of experience in transitioning from one system (i.e. Duopoly) to another (i.e. Voluntaryism).

    Reply
    1. James Howe Post author

      Thank you for reading and especially for commenting! All excellent points. Looking forward to continuing our conversations and collaboration!

      Reply
  3. uepsel

    Great article! Another aspect might be interesting to consider when we talk about rights. Reasonable objective claims.
    Mentioning self-ownership of one’s body, I do not see why anyone could have a stronger claim to my body than me. I am the one exclusively controlling the actions of my body. The Rothbardian/ Lockian notion of property can be applied in the same way. I see rights as a reasonable view in accordance with reality. For instance using the capacity to reason everyone can objectively see that there is no greater claim apart from the first-user principle that can be constructed to a piece of homesteaded land or even my body in any way. Every try would lead to absurd and senseless claims (verbal declaration, the 4th owner is the rightful owner of a good or whatever).
    Other people may have claims too but, nobody is objectively standing closer to that property than the one who mixed his labour with it.
    I would love to get your perspective on that.

    Reply
    1. @Veresapiens Post author

      Thanks for reading, and for your comment!
      I agree with your logic for self-ownership and for land property ownership. Those are quite reasonable grounds upon which rational social structures could be built. The wrinkle that I have introduced is that those rational reasonable views don’t have any real effect unless other parties agree with them, and therefore agree to abide by them. Telling a lion that you have a right to life is not very useful. Same with things like telling the draft board that you decline their request that you offer yourself up to be sacrificed for your country in battle. Or telling the local municipal authorities that they have no right to dictate how you utilize your property or to demand annual payments from you based on simply owning the property. So, since I would agree with your proposed rights, they are useful to us. But between you and people who do not agree with you, not so much. Ideally we would get to a point where such rational objective claims could be considered the norm and that any organization that would not agree to abide by them would be considered criminal.

      Reply

Leave a Reply