No, the point is having the might so no one can just break into your home and so on. It’s pointless talking of what ‘freedoms’ you think you have if people keep trampling on them. Hence it’s pointless of talking about what governments should and shouldn’t be doing or whether they have a right to exist. Governments do exist and they are very strong whilst Libertarians are very weak hence Libertarians like to theorise and that’s about it. Libertarians should be theorising on practical methods to become so strong that governments can’t affect them. Where they can secede and repel anything the governments try throw at them. Otherwise they’ll be just like Milhouse and have their lunch money stolen and be hanging upside-downand have their heads flushed in a toilet bowl.

Rights are a priori conditions of the utopian concept we all have and strive toward whether we admit it or not but these a priori conditions must have a source beyond our ability to understand or reason. They are the essence of creation.

So if someone breaks into your home, rapes your wife, and murders your children…you won’t complain since obviously he had the “might” to do it, and therefore he had the “right” to do it…and you lacked the “might” (and thus the “right”) to do anything about it. Glad I’m not related to you.

You originally stated,

“According to Hoppe, Mises points out that psychologists and sociologists often explain the origin of the division of labor in some kind of instinct to “truck and barter,” as did Adam Smith.”

my main point was to show that smith didn’t just refer to the “instinct” or tendency to barter, but rather,

“. . as seems more probable, it be the necessary consequence of the faculties of reason and speech”

he specifically stated it was the purposeful aim. minor point, but worth pointing out.

not that smith deserves it, but for posterity.

The bit on mirror neurons was only additional material i thought of interest, in regards to the evolutionary and neuropsychological aspect of empathy

Then why don’t we see them appear in the Roman Empire? They don’t make their appearance until natural law theory developed in Christian Europe.

Moral laws are merely “oughts” (recommendations for action) that apply to human action itself, and thus apply to all acting humans at all times and places. Oughts connect desired ends with the means most appropriate to achieve those ends.

Thus, in order for there to be a moral law that applies to all acting humans, there must be an end that all humans desire. That end, as shown by Mises and Hazlitt, is the long-run maximization of personal satisfaction. Behind each and every action is an attempt to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less. Thus, the ultimate end that all acting humans strive for at all times, whether knowingly or unknowingly, is maximization of personal satisfaction in the long-run.

How do we derive moral laws? Not by trying to guess the consequences of each individual action in isolation. Any particular action will have an infinite chain of unforseeable effects and consequences, and, hence, we can never know the ultimate effects of a single action on our long-run satisfaction. We can, however, deduce via the logic of human action GENERAL RULES for action based on the general consequences of general types of action.

This is where more Rothbardian ethical extrapolations tie in with Hazlitt’s ethical foundation. Given the fact that a human’s ultimate desired end is to maximize their personal satisfaction in the long-run, what is the most appropriate ethic (means) to employ in regard to the self? Before we can determine how humans ought to behave in relation to other things, it must be determined the moral status of selves.

As Rothbard said, there are only three possibilities for a general rule (ethic) regarding the self. A). Self-ownership B). Ownership of self by another person or group, or C). Universal co-ownership of all selves. Option B fails straightaway as it is not a general rule applicable to all humans. Option C fails because the consent of all co-owners would be required for a person to use his or her self in any way, yet even the act of seeking consent would need consent of all co-owners, hence morally paralyzing all action. Option C is not a functional ethic in a world of scarcity. Only Option A is the appropriate ethic (means) to employ in order for humans to achieve the ultimate desired end.

And, of course, on the foundation of self-ownership, the rest of property rights may be deduced in the same way.

I regard rights as an extremely useful tool that precipitated out during the course of social evolution. It is always a normative concept. We can try basing it on various notions of being (of “is” not “ought”) but these efforts will always have some problems with them.

More later.

My reference to his post was concerning his “a right is a concept of what people ought to be free to do.”

My claim is that the word “ought” invalidates the idea of a right (making it into a privilege), as it gives wiggle room to the idea of rights being inalienable.

For rights to actually exist, the word ought has to be changed to are without exception. That one change, makes the incoherence of the idea of rights, blatantly obvious.

If all I have to do to invalidate a right is to invalidate the worthiness of the humanity of another, then it isn’t a right. It is to pass judgment about allowable privilege.

That said, I do like the discussion of empathy concerning the growth of civilization through voluntary cooperation. It is very relevant. Rights, on the other hand, seem to be nothing but another divide and conquer trap, designed to drive those who favor such concepts as being “a good thing,” into incoherent dead-end “intellectual” battles.

In other words, how can you be for voluntary cooperation when you are busy using coercion in fighting others for “your” rights. Or worse yet, fighting for mine?

Let it go, folks. Voluntary cooperation and empathy themselves are sufficient to understand and explain civilization. There is simply no need to invent artificial constructs such as rights. All they do is confuse the moral issue (that ole “ought to be” part).

I challenge anyone to name a single right they have that cannot be denied by someone else. There simply aren’t any. Even the right to life is revocable.

In life, only the strong survives !

I pitty the fool who has empathy for government officials and police officers for those crooks have empathy nor mercy for no one.

A “wrong” is a right too weak to defend itself.

There is no such thing as a “right”, only might !

If you don’t have might, you don’t have right !

To reject this because socialists criticize capitalists for a lack of empathy simply once again cedes an incorrect premise to the left.

It is important to note that the division of labor supporting empathy and that supporting moral action seems logical in a world created by a God of Love.

But the element that is much more difficult is, if this is the case why are there those who act against the division of labor, empathy and moral action? It is much easier to find reason and support for good moral action. The greatest challenge to reason is why does evil exist? This is one reason that most who reject God also reject evil.

It was an over simplification, but that’s usually necessary when commenting on blogs. What I know of the history of China and India indicates that whatever individual rights people had were granted by the emperor at his pleasure and could be taken away as easily. They didn’t seem to have the concept of natural rights outside of those granted by their emperor.

That’s an over simplification. I think if you consult the history of China and India you’ll find the Christians were hardly the only group with a concept of individual rights, And it isn’t like the Christians didn’t have their own divine rulers.