

You have no rights - oleganza
http://blog.oleganza.com/post/52698404368/you-have-no-rights

======
paullth
>When no one steals, it’s easy to be a thief. If somebody is stealing from
you, then you either put a bigger lock, or you figure out why so many people
hate you so much. That’s why only thief will go to great lengths to educate
people to not steal to have a whole territory open only to him.

Ah, so thats why I was taught not to steal by my school teachers, parents and
other mentors. Its because they were all thieves, just trying to clear their
territory of competition. I'd better go buy some locks from the lock shop...

~~~
oleganza
Teaching that "if you steal, people won't like it" is not a commandment with a
death sentence attached to it. It's just teaching how things work in society.
But making a commandment or a law, and forcing people to obey it, in most
cases is just a shield for violating this very principle by someone else.

------
einhverfr
One of the real things is that we need a framework for rights which is not
dependent on "Wouldn't it be nice if everyone...." The problem, as the article
notes, is that rights applied universally, are not a liberating concept.

I am going to propose one here. Rights, I see as emergent from cultural
context, rather than inherent in the human condition. Culture is always an
interplay between the group and the individual, groups of individuals
repurpose culture all the time.

So my definition is very simple. Rights to the individual and subgroups are
held where necessary for the reasonably just functioning of the culture. We
recognize abortion as a right in contemporary American culture because women
cannot have equality in a soul-crushing corporate workplace without it, but
that doesn't mean one can declare that it always has been a right to everyone.

Similarly free speech and due process are necessary for our form of governance
to survive. Otherwise we just have turn our country into something
fundamentally unjust according to the ideals of our culture.

~~~
oleganza
Rights have "due process" attached to them, as you noted. This is exactly what
creates violent religion called "state".

My suggestion is to use "contracts" as a basis for all social agreements.
People voluntarily agree to certain behaviour between each other and "lock up"
themselves in voluntary obligations. Breaking these obligations is punished by
economic ostracism by others, who'd like to keep their obligations and
benefits. If you steal, we will not sell you bread until you pay your debts.
That simple. If some bunch of people agreed to not pollute the river and you
come and pollute, they would not deal with you. If you disagree, no one
kidnaps you, please feel free to negotiate and boycott back. Just like on your
interview: if you don't like job conditions, you withdraw your service. But
also employer withdraws his payment if he doesn't like your conditions. So you
either come to some common grounds (without any need for "rights" or
"morality"), or you go different ways.

On a large scale it can work beautifully with internet and crypto proofs of
agreements. You can have millions of people easily lock up in common
agreements on intellectual property, pollution, insurance against disasters
etc. Anyone willing to go against existing relations will face ostracism from
millions of people absolutely automatically (via dispute resolution
organizations that will act as delegates/proxies).

The trick is only to grow such "contract / dispute resolution" network to a
large enough scale when bullying is big economic risk. Today, people trust
state to make decisions who's bad, who's good and state makes a good job to
hide these people in jail and courts, so you don't even have a chance to
negotiate openly. Almost no one has millions of chances to find supporters. In
voluntary society you can always go to a competing agency and try to convince
them that you are right and others are wrong. If they can successfully prove
that to customers, they'll win the market. So what is acceptable and what is
not will be decided locally by the market, never set in stone, always
renegotiable to the maximum satisfaction of everyone.

~~~
einhverfr
Due process is a cultural thing too. I wouldn't say that aboriginal peoples
whose due process is a shaman pointing a bone at someone and uttering curses
necessarily is violating anyone's human rights.

~~~
oleganza
Typically, people were beating shit out of someone who was not behaving
"correctly".

~~~
einhverfr
But is your view that small tribal societies without a professional judiciary
are necessarily violating human rights for lack of a professional judiciary or
even clear code of laws?

~~~
oleganza
I don't hold people responsible for their actions until they've been exposed
to an argument against them. E.g. ancient doctor is not responsible for not
using antibiotics. But if he does not use them when he knows about them (and
they are accessible), then he is responsible.

~~~
einhverfr
Doesn't that mean though that it is our moral imperative to modernize all
traditional peoples in the world? Under that argument, shouldn't indigenous
peoples be discriminated against to encourage them to modernize?

~~~
oleganza
I don't believe in moral imperatives. I simply try to teach people things I
understand when they are willing to listen. I'm not obliged to do that. They
are not obliged to listen. But if it happens that I tell you arguments why
government is evil, I will hold you responsible if you simply disagree without
a convincing counter-argument. So we could have been friends before, but after
could be not anymore.

------
youngerdryas
>If people steal from you find out why they hate you

This whole blog is gibberish. Juveniles apparently up vote without reading.

~~~
hack37
Same as your reply really...

