All Men Are Created Equal

in

Column by tzo.

Exclusive to STR

 

Near the end of "The Failed Theory of Relativity," I wrote:

 
"There must be universal objective human values and ethics that are inextricably tied to human existence and grounded in empirical fact that apply to us all. Exploring what some of them may be is beyond the scope of this little essay…."
 
It is now time to explore and define universal, objective ethics in order to provide a firmer foundation for that previous effort.
 
The foundation of voluntaryism is the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), wherein "aggression" is defined as the initiation of physical force against non-aggressing persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon such persons or their property. Critics of the idea that society can be organized in a voluntary manner sans a coercive central government don’t believe the NAP is anything that can be applied to real life.
 
It is idealistic, utopian, etc. It assumes that no one will act badly, and it doesn’t allow a person to defend himself, etc.
 
But these typical criticisms fail to show a proper understanding of the principle, and so this exploration is an attempt to remedy that. I intend to show that the NAP is the objective end result of a chain of logic derived from axiomatic propositions and is the embodiment of objective ethics.
 
I will begin by proposing the existence of Human Alpha, the sole inhabitant of the planet. Then Axiom A is, as they say, axiomatic: Alpha has the ability to do absolutely anything he is able to do.
 
Starting with this axiom, I propose to define the concept of a “right” as being a derivative of this axiomatic human “ability.”
 
So the derivative Theorem A reads: Alpha has the right to do whatever he is able to do.
 
Human rights are usually considered within the context of interactions between human beings, but there are many actions taken by you, the reader, which are performed in isolation—that is to say, without affecting other human beings. There, you just took a breath. Do you have the ability, hence the right, to breathe? I hope you answered in the affirmative, or else you must admit that someone else has the right to stop you from breathing.
 
But if someone else indeed has the ability to prevent you from drawing a breath, does that mean he has the right to do so? At this point in our currently unfinished chain of logic, the answer would be yes. But let’s temporarily put that question aside, because we haven’t yet transitioned from the considerations of lone individuals to those of interacting individuals.
 
Alpha, alone on the planet, represents a special case of human action wherein there is no one else around to prevent him from doing whatever he wants. Even if someone else, in theory, might have the ability or right to stop him from acting, that someone else does not exist. Therefore, there is no other conclusion than Theorem A.
 
Now let’s add Human Beta to the mix. If Beta also exists in isolation then he also exists in accordance with Axiom A and Theorem A, and because of this we are led immediately to Axiom B: All Men Are Created Equal. I have capped all the words, because this is The Most Important and Fundamental Axiom Known to Humankind.
 
But in what sense are All Men Are Created Equal?
 
They are equal to the extent of what can be deduced from Axiom A and Theorem A. Alpha may be able to jump higher or may be stronger or smarter than Beta, but both have the equal, innate, inalienable right to do whatever they wish to do within the limits of their physical capabilities.
 
This is absolutely irrefutable.
 
But of course when Alpha and Beta meet, there is the potential for conflict. An action performed by one may affect the other in a negative manner, causing him to not be able to exercise his full complement of human rights based on his own unique abilities. On the surface, this seems to produce an intractable problem for even the simplest two-person world, but there is a logical solution.
 
A conflict occurs if Alpha acts in a manner that restricts the actions of Beta. Does this mean that Alpha has more human rights than does Beta? But if both had equal human rights before they meet, how can one suddenly have more rights than the other after they meet?
 
Well, he can’t. Innate, inalienable human rights cannot be lost due to circumstance. They do not morph or disappear due to human interaction. Axiom B is inviolate.
 
The only logical solution is to reformulate Theorem A in such a manner so as to take into account the existence of other human beings who are all characterized by Axiom B.
 
Theorem B: Every human being has the right to do whatever he is able to do as long as he does not restrict the same universal right of any other human being.
 
This refinement allows Axiom B to hold. It can also be seen that Theorem A was merely a special case of Theorem B, wherein the number of human beings was set equal to one. Theorem B holds up just fine for the solitary human, but can be stated in a simpler form as Theorem A.
 
We have, so far, built a logical chain for determining human rights, and those who act in a manner consistent with this reasoning are logically correct, and I am going to define being “logically correct” as “right.” Violating Theorem B is illogical, and so being illogical is “wrong.” When the words “right” and “wrong” are used according to this logical derivation when assigning value to human action, then we have an objective definition and usage of value statements.
 
Oughtses and ises are seen here as not being separated by an unbridgeable abyss, as is often claimed by those philosophers under the Humean influence who would reduce all ethics to subjective speculation. ¡Viva! objective ethics.
 
Of course there will always be those individuals who will choose to act illogically and purposefully violate the human rights of others. This empirical fact cannot be ignored if this model of ethics is to be a reasonable description of a reality populated with human beings.
 
If Beta aggresses against Alpha, what does Theorem B allow Alpha to do with regard to his own self-preservation? Must the ethical Alpha not allow himself to retaliate with violence in self-defense because he would be restricting the innate human rights of Beta?
 
Not at all. Axiom B provides the solution here, as Axiom B must hold at all times. Just as the speed of light in a vacuum provides the bedrock foundation for the physical universe, Axiom B is the unshakeable base of the ethical universe. Everything must adjust itself in order to account for the fact that All Men Are Created Equal.
 
When Beta aggresses against Alpha, he seems to want to endow himself with more human rights than has Alpha. But we have already pointed out that innate, inalienable human rights cannot be lost due to circumstance.
 
So just as Theorem A had to be adjusted to Theorem B in order to account for a multiplicity of human beings all endowed by Axiom B, now Theorem B must be adjusted to account for human beings whose actions violate the logic of these axioms, again with the stipulation that Axiom B remains untouched.
 
Theorem C: Every human being has the right to do whatever he is able to do as long as he does not restrict the same universal right of any other human being, unless another human being acts in a manner that restricts his rights, in which case the violator also loses his rights in an identical manner so as to preserve Axiom B.
 
By initiating violence, the aggressor is subject to violent retribution. All Men Are Created Equal and must remain so at all times.
 
I have used the word “aggression” to describe how one human being may restrict the rights of another. Going back to the question we set aside earlier, it seems that if someone were to claim the right to prevent you from breathing, he would no doubt have to resort to initiating force—to aggress against you—in order to enforce his “right.” But now we have Theorem C to illustrate that this aggressor does not possess this as a right, since aggression against another individual is wrong.
 
But there is still one more detail to work out before we arrive at our final destination. We have defined the wrongness of human actions that restrict the human rights of other individuals, but we must make a further important distinction about these actions in order to be precise.
 
It is possible—inevitable, even—to restrict the rights of another by means other than aggression. The very existence of other human beings in the vicinity of an individual reduces the scope of his available activities. The spaces occupied by those individuals represent volumes of space that he may not occupy. By occupying these spaces, the others are not aggressing against the individual, and so this is an inevitable restriction of every individual’s human rights and is a natural consequence of there being a multiplicity of human beings.
 
We can then go on and extend this argument beyond individual persons to any personal property, stating that persons and their justly acquired property both exert an inevitable, natural restriction to other individuals’ human rights.
 
(Now, personal property is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish, and I am not going to consider the particulars of that right now, although it is perhaps the most important issue when considering human rights. We’ll work our way down there eventually, but for now we’ll leave it a bit fuzzy.)
 
Every other restriction to human rights that is imposed beyond the restrictions that naturally flow out of the consequences of individuals and their property are illogical and unjust. We can label these actions as “aggression,” and then we can put the final refinement on Theorem C, and call it Theorem D.
 
Theorem D: Every human being has the right to do whatever he is able to do as long as he does not restrict the same universal right of any other human being through aggression, unless another human being acts in a manner that restricts his rights through aggression, in which case the violator also loses his rights in an identical manner so as to preserve Axiom B.
 
And so we have logically derived the Non-Aggression Principle. Here is an existing formulation that can be used for comparison:
 
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." ~Murray Rothbard
 
And from the NAP emerges the Natural Law—an objective, logically derived universal guideline for ethical human interactions. Ethical actions are those that are aligned with the Natural Law.
 
The Natural Law is an extremely simple concept to understand, as it consists of a single, logically-derived prohibition: Don’t aggress against others. After that, every human being is free to do whatever he deems fit.
 
The Natural Law is the logical basis for human ethics and justice. It is only mysterious when men do not understand the objective definitions of the key terms “law,” “ethics,” “rights,” “property,” “right,” “wrong,” “aggression,” and “equality.”
 
And government, that organization whose very existence depends upon the constant violation of Natural Law, depends upon men not understanding these concepts. Now you know why the subject of Natural Law is not touched upon in public schools, except perhaps when it is being ridiculed.
 
The term “law” refers to government-mandated Positive Law in the government-mandated public school system. This body of fiat law is infinitely more voluminous than is Natural Law’s single prohibition against aggression, and much of it is dedicated to creating loopholes in the Natural Law through which government personnel can drive their trucks and tanks.
 
The Natural Law is a powerful Truth that governments cannot tolerate. They have been trying to discredit this particular Truth for at least the majority of the last three millennia, and they continue on today with the vigorous effort of trying to stamp it out once and for all.
 
Some truths are discovered, only to be subsequently lost. But a lost truth does not disappear, it merely waits to be discovered once again. And to those who attempt to destroy the truth, they are on a mission impossible and cannot succeed no matter how many of them get together to sign the death certificate.
 
"The natural law always buries its undertakers." ~Étienne Gilson

 

9.75
Your rating: None Average: 9.8 (4 votes)
tzo's picture
Columnist tzo
Columns on STR: 64

tzo now lives in your head.

Comments

Suverans2's picture

G'day tzo,

You posted this September 26? How did I miss it? Anyway, BRAVO!! Absolutely love your finale!!

    And to those who attempt to destroy the truth, they are on a mission impossible and cannot succeed no matter how many of them get together to sign the death certificate.

    "The natural law always buries its undertakers." ~ Étienne Gilson

You wrote: "By initiating violence, the aggressor is subject to violent retribution."

Even more, if I may, my friend, "By initiating violence, the aggressor subjects HIMSELF to violent retribution." (Fraud is merely another form of theft.)

Thank you, once again, for expounding on an extremely important concept without the use of ten-cent words and phrases or psycho-babble.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." ~ Albert Einstein

Suverans2's picture

"...innate, inalienable human rights cannot be lost due to circumstance"

Nor can a man be alienated from them by positive law, i.e. by human laws.

Why are our natural rights sometimes referred to as our "inalienable rights", or "unalienable rights"?

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments’ rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws..." ~ John Adams

Because a man cannot be "alienated" from his natural rights "by human laws", but rather only by his own individual authority, either by express or tacit consent or by forfeiture (a form of implied consent).

John T. Kennedy's picture

A man cannot be alienated from his rights even by his own individual authority - they are indivisible from his nature, which means they are indivisible from him. Where he goes, they go, and vice versa.

Suverans2's picture

First, can we agree that a "right" is a "just claim"? For instance, I have a right to my life, liberty and justly acquired property. That means that I have a "just claim" to these thing. If we can't agree on the basic definition of "a right" then there is no need for us to go on.

"Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another...” ~ Voltaire

Second, you state that a "man cannot be alienated from his rights even by his own authority"; would you be referring here, to his natural rights, his civil/political rights, his religious rights, his rights as a member of K-Mart's workforce, or his rights as a member of a motorcycle gang?

John T. Kennedy's picture

"First, can we agree that a "right" is a "just claim"? For instance, I have a right to my life, liberty and justly acquired property. That means that I have a "just claim" to these thing. If we can't agree on the basic definition of "a right" then there is no need for us to go on."

I will accept that definition. By that definition tzo's argument fails since ability is not a just claim.

"Second, you state that a "man cannot be alienated from his rights even by his own authority"; would you be referring here, to his natural rights, his civil/political rights, his religious rights, his rights as a member of K-Mart's workforce, or his rights as a member of a motorcycle gang?"

His natural rights.

Suverans2's picture

Part 1

Very good, "just claim" it is then. By the way, did you know that Noah Webster, in the only dictionary he personally edited, used "just claim" for "right", when used as a noun, at definitions numbers 5, 6, 7, & 10? At, 8 he uses "That which justly belongs to one." And, at 9 he uses "Property..."

Part 2

Very good, natural rights it is, then. So, what you are saying is that a man cannot, of his own authority, voluntarily consent to alienate himself from any of his natural rights, even temporarily, is that correct?

A'LIENATE, v.t. [L. alieno.] 1. To transfer title, property or right to another; as, to alienate lands, or sovereignty. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

If so, let's start with the natural right of justly acquired property. Are you saying that a free man cannot alienate himself from, let us say, his natural right to his motorcycle which he paid cash for, and for which he has the signed and notarized Manufacturer's Statement of Origin? Are you saying that he cannot, of his own authority, voluntarily consent to donate any portion of his justly acquired property to his favorite charity, thus alienating himself from the natural right to that portion of his property?

Let us now look at the natural right of liberty. Are saying is that a free man, who has a natural right to his liberty, cannot alienate himself from that right simply by voluntarily consenting to enslave himself to another man, or group of men, for either a limited period of time, or even for the duration of his life, if he so desires?

And lastly, there's the natural right to life. Are you saying that a free man cannot alienate himself from his natural right to life, by, for example, voluntarily sacrificing his life so that another might live?

John T. Kennedy's picture

"By the way, did you know that Noah Webster, in the only dictionary he personally edited, used "just claim" for "right", when used as a noun, at definitions numbers 5, 6, 7, & 10? At, 8 he uses "That which justly belongs to one." And, at 9 he uses "Property...""

No, I did not know that. I recognize natural rights as essentially negative in character, and "just claim" has a positive ring to it. Well, even "right" has a positive ring to it. I would say you have a right to do A if it would not be moral for anyone to prevent you from doing A. In that formulation the primacy is with the immorality of interfering with others and and the word "right" is a placeholder for that content. But it is definitely eiser to speak in positive terms like "just claim" and I think tey amount to much the same thing.

This brings up one interesting point with the definition of a "just claim" though. When you start with the idea of a man in isolation, as tzo did, what is a just claim? There is no one to make a claim against, no one to hear a claim, and no way that injustice can be done. For other purposes the definition will suffice.

"Very good, natural rights it is, then. So, what you are saying is that a man cannot, of his own authority, voluntarily consent to alienate himself from any of his natural rights, even temporarily, is that correct?"

Correct, that is my claim.

"If so, let's start with the natural right of justly acquired property. Are you saying that a free man cannot alienate himself from, let us say, his natural right to his motorcycle which he paid cash for, and for which he has the signed and notarized Manufacturer's Statement of Origin?"

He can alienate himself from his motorcycle, but not his right to property. They are not the same thing.

"Are you saying that he cannot, of his own authority, voluntarily consent to donate any portion of his justly acquired property to his favorite charity, thus alienating himself from the natural right to that portion of his property? "

No, his right to own property is separate from his property rights in particular things. He can trasfer the latter but not the former.

"Let us now look at the natural right of liberty. Are saying is that a free man, who has a natural right to his liberty, cannot alienate himself from that right simply by voluntarily consenting to enslave himself to another man, or group of men, for either a limited period of time, or even for the duration of his life, if he so desires?"

I am definitely saying a man cannot sell himself into slavery since his natural rights are indivisible from himself.

Suppose you sign a supposed slavery contract and agree do whatever your master orders you to do for the rest of your life. In return, he pays for your wife's lifesaving medical treatment. That was the deal.

Now he orders you to shoot your wife. Oops.

What is your moral responsibility? To fulfill your contract? You have blundered into a supposed contract you cannot morally honor. Even though you signed it would still be wrong to compel you to perform immoral acts. Which is the same as saying you still have a right to disobey, indeed responsibility to do so. You are a moral agent by nature and you cannot legitimately contract to be anything else.

I'm saying a slavery agreement cannot be a just claim.

This is why in contract law you are not allowed to compel specific performance. Even though Michael Jordan signed a $30 million dollar contract with you to play basketball, you cannot physically compel him to take the court. You can seek money damages for breach of contract if he refuses to play, but you can't force him to play basketball because he retains his inalienable rights to dispose of his life and liberty.

"And lastly, there's the natural right to life. Are you saying that a free man cannot alienate himself from his natural right to life, by, for example, voluntarily sacrificing his life so that another might live?"

Again there is a difference between a man's life and his right to life. A man may choose to die, or put himself in great danger, but as long as he lives he retains his right to life. Wherever and whenever he exists, that right exists.

Suverans2's picture

G'day John T. Kennedy,

May I call you John?

You wrote: "I would say you have a right to do A if it would not be moral for anyone to prevent you from doing A. In that formulation the primacy is with the immorality of interfering with others and and the word "right" is a placeholder for that content. But it is definitely eiser[sic] to speak in positive terms like "just claim" and I think tey[sic] amount to much the same thing."

Indeed they are the same thing. We see this by simply substituting "just claim" for the word "right", when used as a noun.

"I would say you have a [just claim] to do A if it would not be moral for anyone to prevent you from doing A."

It is the fact that you have a "just claim" to action A, which makes it moral for you to do A, and which makes it immoral for anyone to prevent you from doing A. When I discovered this simple truth, it was like a bright light coming on. That, and the fact that all "rights" are "entitlements" of membership in a group and conformity to its laws, are the two most important things I have learned about "rights". http://www.thoughts.com/IndividualSecession101/what-are-rights-anyway

I will not respond to the remainder of what you have written here until pondering it for a time. Your assessment could be right, and may be the very reason that Thomas Jefferson reportedly wrote this, "Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights . . . and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him . . . and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right. (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Francis Gilmer [c.1816]) Notwithstanding that he may have used the word "society", where he actually meant "body politic", or "political corporation". This confusion was, and is, very common.

Thank you.

John T. Kennedy's picture

Sure, you may call me John. Or Kennedy, or JTK. People call me horrible things.

"It is the fact that you have a "just claim" to action A, which makes it moral for you to do A, and which makes it immoral for anyone to prevent you from doing A."

No, I actually see that exactly the opposite way around: It's the fact of the immorality of interfering with you that give you a just claim. The morality comes first and the just claim denotes a certain situation.

John T. Kennedy's picture

"First, can we agree that a "right" is a "just claim"? For instance, I have a right to my life, liberty and justly acquired property. That means that I have a "just claim" to these thing. If we can't agree on the basic definition of "a right" then there is no need for us to go on."

I will accept that definition. By that definition tzo's argument fails since ability is not a just claim.

"Second, you state that a "man cannot be alienated from his rights even by his own authority"; would you be referring here, to his natural rights, his civil/political rights, his religious rights, his rights as a member of K-Mart's workforce, or his rights as a member of a motorcycle gang?"

His natural rights.

John T. Kennedy's picture

tzo,

I see what you're trying to do here of course, but this formulation needs a lot of work. For instance, there is nothing in your argument which explains why the moral result would be different if Alpha was a man and Beta was a tiger.

The All Men Are Created Equal axiom is really pulled out of a hat here with no good reason given why it should be adopted, as opposed to, for instance, an axiom that All Men Are Created Unequal.

I find problems with your argument at almost every point. For example:

"I will begin by proposing the existence of Human Alpha, the sole inhabitant of the planet. Then Axiom A is, as they say, axiomatic: Alpha has the ability to do absolutely anything he is able to do.

Starting with this axiom,I will begin by proposing the existence of Human Alpha, the sole inhabitant of the planet. Then Axiom A is, as they say, axiomatic: Alpha has the ability to do absolutely anything he is able to do.

Starting with this axiom, I propose to define the concept of a “right” as being a derivative of this axiomatic human “ability.”

So the derivative Theorem A reads: Alpha has the right to do whatever he is able to do."

In this step it is unclear what it means for "right" to be be a derivative of "ability". To say one has the ability to do what one is able to do is a tautology and thus necessarily true. But logically there is no reason to accept Theorem A as true unless "right" and "ability" are the same thing. Otherwise Theorem A does not follow. And clearly you don't mean right and ability are the same thing.

tzo's picture

I do, in fact, mean that right and ability are the same thing for the isolated human.

Rights become a subset of abilities when other human beings are affected by actions.

Also:

Tigers are not moral agents, which I didn't think necessary to mention.

If A and B both have the exact same set of rights, defined as the freedom to perform whatever act their abilities allow, and this is in fact how all men start out life, then positing that All Men Are Created Unequal (in this regard) would not follow. Hence, I chose to make the claim that All Men Are Created Equal (with regard to rights).

John T. Kennedy's picture

"I do, in fact, mean that right and ability are the same thing for the isolated human."

The only way you can justify the substitution required to get Theorem A is to say the words "right" and "ability" mean the same thing. This isn't true, even in isolation.

In isolation does a person have the right to do a triple backflip? The answer is self evident: yes, of course.

But does the same person have the ability to do a triple back flip? That's an empirical question, and the answer is not self evident.

"If A and B both have the exact same set of rights, defined as the freedom to perform whatever act their abilities allow, and this is in fact how all men start out life, then positing that All Men Are Created Unequal (in this regard) would not follow. Hence, I chose to make the claim that All Men Are Created Equal (with regard to rights)."

Here again you define rights as not being identical to abilities. You define people as being born with identical rights even when they are obviously born with differing abilities.

Thus your substitution of the word "right" for the word "ability" to arrive at Theorem A is clearly invalid.

And argument you just gave there is that since all men have equal rights then they are all created equal, meaning they have equal rights. This is called assuming one's conclusion.

No, see you made All Men Are Created Equal an axiom, admitting it doesn't follow from anything in your argument. So the question remains why prefer that axiom over All Men Are Created Unequal? Because it leads to an undesired conclusion?