I'm mildly familiar with Leoni from an EconTalk episode where he was discussed and I was immediately sold. He's on my list to look into further, thanks!
I'm unsure what I am basing my preferences and beliefs on - likely some combination of upbringing, genetics, "accidents" of birthplace and time. I do agree with the logical approach to the foundations of private property (the whole Austrian/praxeological argument there appears to be very sound), but maybe it just comes down to semantics at this point on the definition of the term "rights".
Thinking live out loud a bit here... perhaps one way of framing what I believe is something like: the only "right" that exists objectively is the right to be left alone. I'm comfortable with saying this "exists" because it's something of a "null hypothesis" of sorts.
At a fresh snapshot in time, if all creatures merely **did nothing**, they would absolutely be exercising their right to be left alone (and not infringing on any others' right to be left alone) and they would all surely die before long. I don't believe creatures have a "right to exist", they just _happen to_. So once they desire to continue existing they need to begin interacting - either with eachother or their environment, or both - and now they've entered the realm of Norms.
with the "null hypothesis" in the rearview mirror, there are no more "natural rights" to backstop their behavior; instead they must come into agreements with eachother. And I believe the strategy for optimal flourishing for the most creatures is voluntary agreements in a free market. But that's a norm, not a rule or a right.
And I recognize that a given one of these creatures may be "accidentally" extremely powerful (due to genetics, happenstance of birthplace, etc.) and might decide _for itself_ that the best strategy for _its_ flourishing is to coerce others. As a shared norm, this is bad for everyone else, but this individual isn't interested in shared norms.
The fact that **I** am, and **he** isn't isn't a violation of some kind of natural law, it's just an inconvenience for me if I cross his path. And it has game-theoretic implications for how I might attempt to peacefully persuade others around me to defend ourselves.
/ end unedited braindump :)
vinney
npub19m…8axkl
2025-01-08 16:49:45
in reply to nevent1q…l2nj
Author Public Key
npub19ma2w9dmk3kat0nt0k5dwuqzvmg3va9ezwup0zkakhpwv0vcwvcsg8axklPublished at
2025-01-08 16:49:45Event JSON
{
"id": "abc33af2a43b32c14dc47c8db3ec7605595fbbed8b55a6db34b13f6af39045ca",
"pubkey": "2efaa715bbb46dd5be6b7da8d7700266d11674b913b8178addb5c2e63d987331",
"created_at": 1736354985,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"125c39d113f951bfabf319edbe8c0d834a4fe7dfa0d8c3d42313d17900f3c8c7"
],
[
"p",
"4dbfcb7c5ddb8249f9c7eb8c21e019f08fbfb7ec5ded5408b614590beb8d1695"
],
[
"p",
"b9a537523bba2fcdae857d90d8a760de4f2139c9f90d986f747ce7d0ec0d173d"
],
[
"e",
"6362bf35226523ce1d493a6bd4ac8bd7ccd3db9215651ddb3fd97f3fd886d400",
"wss://relay.wellorder.net/",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"df67ab9120b8b0a2d7aa60b9e00e72adb4b1df7f35cee5cebc001b570ca49878",
"wss://nostr.mom/",
"reply",
"125c39d113f951bfabf319edbe8c0d834a4fe7dfa0d8c3d42313d17900f3c8c7"
]
],
"content": "I'm mildly familiar with Leoni from an EconTalk episode where he was discussed and I was immediately sold. He's on my list to look into further, thanks!\n\nI'm unsure what I am basing my preferences and beliefs on - likely some combination of upbringing, genetics, \"accidents\" of birthplace and time. I do agree with the logical approach to the foundations of private property (the whole Austrian/praxeological argument there appears to be very sound), but maybe it just comes down to semantics at this point on the definition of the term \"rights\". \n\nThinking live out loud a bit here... perhaps one way of framing what I believe is something like: the only \"right\" that exists objectively is the right to be left alone. I'm comfortable with saying this \"exists\" because it's something of a \"null hypothesis\" of sorts. \nAt a fresh snapshot in time, if all creatures merely **did nothing**, they would absolutely be exercising their right to be left alone (and not infringing on any others' right to be left alone) and they would all surely die before long. I don't believe creatures have a \"right to exist\", they just _happen to_. So once they desire to continue existing they need to begin interacting - either with eachother or their environment, or both - and now they've entered the realm of Norms.\n\nwith the \"null hypothesis\" in the rearview mirror, there are no more \"natural rights\" to backstop their behavior; instead they must come into agreements with eachother. And I believe the strategy for optimal flourishing for the most creatures is voluntary agreements in a free market. But that's a norm, not a rule or a right.\n\nAnd I recognize that a given one of these creatures may be \"accidentally\" extremely powerful (due to genetics, happenstance of birthplace, etc.) and might decide _for itself_ that the best strategy for _its_ flourishing is to coerce others. As a shared norm, this is bad for everyone else, but this individual isn't interested in shared norms. \nThe fact that **I** am, and **he** isn't isn't a violation of some kind of natural law, it's just an inconvenience for me if I cross his path. And it has game-theoretic implications for how I might attempt to peacefully persuade others around me to defend ourselves.\n\n/ end unedited braindump :)\n",
"sig": "d24e52a7ac8c787dbaa7c9343d862c71fc4baa4b4add21e6402ad4a94994172aead12aac3638bca4d2ac7a4aabf9a330e86dbd71df5c828c55397a2828b97c01"
}