Natural Rights

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
And then what was the point of your attempt to say murder could be defined without the concept of law? If you know it is an absurd thing to do, then?

The question is whether a concept of "murder" could exist without a concept of "law." Obviously such a definition of murder would not incorporate the term "unlawful." However, a contemporary definition ought to include the term "unlawful," since murder is against the law.

Your one-trick-pony answer has been to repeatedly say (paraphrasing) "Well, the dictionary says that murder is unlawful, therefore it is impossible for murder to exist without law!" I've pointed out that definitions evolve over time (e.g. "number") and that it is possible to ablate a contemporary definition in order to produce a more primitive definition applicable to a more primitive time (namely, a state of nature, or at least a primitive society without a code of laws). Your answer? "Well, the dictionary says that murder is unlawful, therefore it is impossible for murder to exist without law!" Brilliant! You have proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the contemporary definition of murder incorporates the term "unlawful!" Never mind that "killing with premeditated malice" or "unjustified killing" are applicable in a society or pre-society without a code of laws -- this obviously doesn't help your position any.

You are not separating the definition of Murder as noun, and using murder as verb:

My "intellectual dishonesty" alert is going haywire.

The point is, was, and will be: does the concept of murder originate with or without law?

This was never the question. The question was "can the concept of murder exist without law" -- if you've been arguing from an "origins" argument this entire time then you'd have done well to pull out a textbook on linguistics and/or anthropology, because the question "can the concept of murder exist without law" can be answered from a philosophical standpoint, but the question "does the concept of murder originate with or without law" can only be answered with linguistic/anthropological evidence (of which you have provided not a whit). Pulling out your dictionary and saying "see, look, it says that murder is unlawful, so the definition of murder umteen-thousand years ago must be the same" is simply naive.

Whether 3000 years after its conception people care to define it today uwithout explicitly using the word unlawful matters not. This was never the point of the arguement.

Whether 20,000 years after its conception people decided that it was more efficient to define murder as being "unlawful" matters not. Back atcha, hoss.

And yet who is attempting to do the arbitrary redefining here?

It's sickening that you call "arbitrary" my defining murder to be "killing with premeditated malice," especially when your own friggin dictionaries apply this same definition (though two of them only directly use it in the verb sense ).

How many soldiers in a time of war may kill their enemy in a premeditated way, with malice?

What do you mean? "How many soldiers torture prisoners to death"? I wouldn't care to venture a guess, I'd hope that the number would be "not many."

Would you accept, and think it correct, to call the acts of these soldiers murder?

I'd certainly label the killing of a (ostensibly unarmed) prisoner as "murder." I wouldn't label the killing of an armed combatant as "malicious" -- the soldier isn't killing his enemy simply out of spite, but out of self-defense. (Similarly, if a wife kills her husband in self-defense, then it doesn't particularly matter whether the wife hated her husband -- the intent was self-defense, not spite.) In cases when soldiers have exhibited clearly malicious intent (e.g. the massacre at Mai Lay) they have been tried and punished accordingly.

Soldiers may kill enemy soldiers maliciously and with premeditation, but they are not guilty of murder.

Soldiers have certainly been tried for murder for killing captives, or for, e.g., gassing Jews in concentration camps.

Ditto for the executioner. Executions are most certainly premeditated, and many of them were very malicious. And they were also NOT MURDER, not when commited by the state, or, in other words, lawful.

Executions that have been performed with purely malicious intent (e.g. many of the purges in the Soviet Union, or the gassing of Jews by the Nazis) have indeed been labelled as murders.

Furthermore, this suffers from the same flaw as the "soldier killing an enemy" question -- a soldier can only fight for a country if there is a country to fight for, and an executioner can only kill in the name of the State if there is a State to kill for. Both examples presuppose the existence of a code of laws. Take away the code of laws (thus taking away the "unlawful" portion of the defintion of murder), and you also take away the dilemma. It isn't particularly relevant to a discussion on Natural Rights as to whether the contemporary definition of "murder" can (or ought to) be defined independently of the term "unlawful" -- what is relevant is whether a primitive definition of "murder" could exist without said term.

murder: the unlawful killing of one human being by another, commited either with premeditation or malice, or in the act of commiting another felony act.

Can a murder be spontaneous?
Yes, as a crime of passion.

Your own definition fails to address this issue (unless a crime of passion is "malicious," in which case my definition applies just as well). "Yeah, but a crime of passion is againt the law!" Sure, but so is involuntary manslaughter.

Can a murder be without malice?
Yes, it can. Poisoning someone with somehting that will kill them quickly in thier sleep shows no malice. But if planned, it is murder

What was the intent of the murder? It's the intent that matters, not the means (though the means can help demonstrate intent, e.g. it's difficult to claim that you euthanized somebody by torturing them to death).

Basically, all you've succeeded in arguing is that my primitively applicable definition of murder ought to be "killing with premeditation and/or malice" instead of "killing with premeditated malice." Fine, I'll concede and add the "and/or" modifier. Happy now?

Originally posted by Imran
After all, communists and capitalists have opposite defintions of 'fair'.

They may have different definitions of "fair" as the term applies to economics, but I've never claimed that property is a natural right (or anything like a natural right). Earlier in this thread I was arguing against the natural right to property, for the very reason that there is no objectively justified delimination between "mine/yours" and "ours/theirs". (I haven't been arguing against "property as natural right" recently simply because Berzerker has been directing his attention elsewhere.)

But what about voluntary or involuntary manslaughter? It's still a crime that has penalties, so it isn't justified (at least totally).

That's correct, the degree of justification is important in determining what a killing really is (e.g. "involuntary manslaughter" or "self-defense"). The point is that the killing is not a murder because adequate justification has been offered as to why it isn't a murder.

Originally posted by The Templar
Even if all universal desire ran against the Golden Rule, the Golden Rule would still be a natural right according to Christianity

I question the claim that Christianity would have still adopted the Golden Rule even were it to be contrary to all universal desire.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They may have different definitions of "fair" as the term applies to economics, but I've never claimed that property is a natural right (or anything like a natural right). Earlier in this thread I was arguing against the natural right to property, for the very reason that there is no objectively justified delimination between "mine/yours" and "ours/theirs". (I haven't been arguing against "property as natural right" recently simply because Berzerker has been directing his attention elsewhere.)

Yep. I also think there is no objective determination of fair. I think it'd be almost impossible to come up with one, except on a case by case basis (which would take, basically, forever).

That's correct, the degree of justification is important in determining what a killing really is (e.g. "involuntary manslaughter" or "self-defense"). The point is that the killing is not a murder because adequate justification has been offered as to why it isn't a murder.

But then murder can't be considered unjustified killing. Because so is involuntary manslaughter. Like GePap said, two word definition of murder is hard. However, there can be murder that is justified, but it is difficult to have a murder that is legal.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger
This was never the question. The question was "can the concept of murder exist without law" -- if you've been arguing from an "origins" argument this entire time then you'd have done well to pull out a textbook on linguistics and/or anthropology, because the question "can the concept of murder exist without law" can be answered from a philosophical standpoint, but the question "does the concept of murder originate with or without law" can only be answered with linguistic/anthropological evidence (of which you have provided not a whit). Pulling out your dictionary and saying "see, look, it says that murder is unlawful, so the definition of murder umteen-thousand years ago must be the same" is simply naive.

What linguistic evidence have you provided, what anthropoligical evidence have you provided: in fact, what of that evidence could you provide? The only linguistic evidence we have exist within those dictionaries: all you have given to this debate is to say that you had seen murder defined as "premdiated and with malice", fine , yes, that is one definition, for one use of the word murder. you could just as well have said that murder means to botch a song, and thus has nothing to do with law. I asked above, can murder be spontanoues? Do you disgaree that it can? I asked above, can murder be done in a non-malicious way? Do you disagree that it can? I asked above, can it be called justfied in soem cases? Do you disgaree with my conclusiuon? Finally, can murder ever be Lawful?

Whether 20,000 years after its conception people decided that it was more efficient to define murder as being "unlawful" matters not. Back atcha, hoss.

Since you have yet to show anything from any source defining murder, or speaking about murder totally seperate form the oncept of law, what ground do you stand on? You mock the dictionary def. I have given? Give me one that defines murder totaly and never mentions the law.

It's sickening that you call "arbitrary" my defining murder to be "killing with premeditated malice," especially when your own friggin dictionaries apply this same definition (though two of them only directly use it in the verb sense ).

They define murder as such, but only when it is being used in one context (just as three of them defined murder as botching a song). BUt what matters is the definitoon in its totality, and as far as an arguement about rights is concerned, what Murder means as a noun, as an independent concept (such as when one would say Do Not Commit Murder) is the most relevant. Unless you believe it is a assault on fundamental rights to botch a song, and thus a felony? (as much as some kareoke perhaps deserves to be punished)

What do you mean? "How many soldiers torture prisoners to death"? I wouldn't care to venture a guess, I'd hope that the number would be "not many."

"Prisoners"?, who the fvch said anything about prisoners? if you find an enemy soldier sleeping and you slice his throat, that is NOT murder. Or areyou about to tell me soldiers never kill in a premeditated way (I wonder what an ambush is?) or with malice (oh, all soldiers are so polite and kill ther enemies with the least of pain cause, yes, right....)

I'd certainly label the killing of a (ostensibly unarmed) prisoner as "murder." I wouldn't label the killing of an armed combatant as "malicious" -- the soldier isn't killing his enemy simply out of spite, but out of self-defense. (Similarly, if a wife kills her husband in self-defense, then it doesn't particularly matter whether the wife hated her husband -- the intent was self-defense, not spite.) In cases when soldiers have exhibited clearly malicious intent (e.g. the massacre at Mai Lay) they have been tried and punished accordingly.

Again, I never said sh1t about prisoners. And for all your little rolleyes and other smileys, I have to say this is trully a poor debatoing strategy. All of a sudden you bring in a term I never mentioned, or even alluded to, becuase that seems to be the opnly way you can skirt the point: NO, I never said prisoners, since that would be UNLAWFUL, and hence murder. I speak of the very profession of being a soldier, which, perish the thought, involves killing. As for killing out of self-defense: bull. Read up on Verdun, and the plan which it entailed. And until you answer my question, whether murder can be non-malicious, this is still hardly a point.

Soldiers have certainly been tried for murder for killing captives, or for, e.g., gassing Jews in concentration camps.

And yet again, who said sh1t about prisoner? (Well, beside you in this post). read up on the war in the eastern front, not about mistreatment of prisoners, but just the war in general, and tell me there was no maliciousness at all when germans and russians met.

Executions that have been performed with purely malicious intent (e.g. many of the purges in the Soviet Union, or the gassing of Jews by the Nazis) have indeed been labelled as murders.

And yet again, you being into it legal (hmm, the law) issues which I never even mentioned in my post. So you call the Death penalty murder?

Furthermore, this suffers from the same flaw as the "soldier killing an enemy" question -- a soldier can only fight for a country if there is a country to fight for, and an executioner can only kill in the name of the State if there is a State to kill for. Both examples presuppose the existence of a code of laws. Take away the code of laws (thus taking away the "unlawful" portion of the defintion of murder), and you also take away the dilemma. It isn't particularly relevant to a discussion on Natural Rights as to whether the contemporary definition of "murder" can (or ought to) be defined independently of the term "unlawful" -- what is relevant is whether a primitive definition of "murder" could exist without said term.

Can you Loin provide us a rimitive definition of murder? You have not (I doubt you got your definition out of some cave painting. In fact, you have a bit of a porblem, you see, man in all of recorded history has had law, so as it where, yuo can NOT bring me a recorded definition of murder that exist prior to law. And you have yet t failed to answer the most important question? Why would primitive people's come up with the concept of murder, separate from just killing? What do premeditation and malice add to the idea of killing? What makes that special from a killing that is not? And hat does that matter? I argue that those distinctions serve a purpose only within the context of rules, of judgements, of codes of behavior, MAN MADE codes, not "natural" ones.

Your own definition fails to address this issue (unless a crime of passion is "malicious," in which case my definition applies just as well). "Yeah, but a crime of passion is againt the law!" Sure, but so is involuntary manslaughter.

Oh, wow, yet another felony! So this is what your arguement now boils to? "You can;t define murder thus becuase then it becomes manslughter?" You miss the key point though, both are felonies, both are crimes, both are breaking the law. Until you can find a way for murder not to break the law, you are the one with the BIG problem. Oh, and involuntary manslaughter? If you find your spouse in bed with another and in rage you kill them both, that is either 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, but not "involutary", sicne you chose to kill still. So at least get your legal definitons straight, OK?

What was the intent of the murder? It's the intent that matters, not the means (though the means can help demonstrate intent, e.g. it's difficult to claim that you euthanized somebody by torturing them to death).

So you don't argue the point? I guess you conceed it. Good for me.

Basically, all you've succeeded in arguing is that my primitively applicable definition of murder ought to be "killing with premeditation and/or malice" instead of "killing with premeditated malice." Fine, I'll concede and add the "and/or" modifier. Happy now?

Sad. You failed utterly to address the most important question Loin, so let me restate it:

Can murder ever be lawful?

You claim there is some "primitive" possible definition prior to the law: you have given no source for this, you have not even shown where you got your incomplete defintinion from in the first place (and yet mock when I give you 5, with citations so you can go check yourself).
You know, I have to bet you got your "primitive def/" from, guess what, a modern dictionary!

The question is, and remains as of yet unanswered by you, whether the concept of murder can come into being separate from a concept of laws , or at the least, a concept of rules that must be obeyed.

[GePap]

Enough: I like you Loin, so let me attempt another way to end his side discusion, byt getting down to what I see as the fundamnetal theoretical issues here:

I see murder as a form of killing that is against the rules (which is why I asked you: what difference does it make if a killing is malicious and premeditated?). Berz. keeps saying: "people has a universal desire not to be killed in a way that is against the rules, and thus to kill in a way that is against the rules should be against the rules". As Jonh Steward would say: Whaaaaaa...???

The universal desire (or near universal, yes, there are points in time certain individual may want to die) is not to be killed, whether is conforms with the rules or not (no one ever says that the crew of the Enola Gay is guilty of 70,000+ acts of murder, even thought that is how many people they killed by their actions, becuase we define their actions as havcing followed the rules), so if rights coem from universal desires, then the prohibition should be on killing anyone, period (perhaps why so many people misconstrue the Bible as saying "thou shall not kill" when it in fact says "thou shall not murder"). Even Berz though seems to think some forms of killing are acceptable, hence hsi constant use the the word "innocent" and his beliefe that it is OK to kill murderers. But if the rightness of a killing is tied to the rules, HOW CAN IT BE AN EXPRESSION OF SOMETHING NATURAL?????? It is left to those that want to argue about rights being natural (whether it be all, or some) to show that the RULES are natural in themselves, and hence the rights are as wel. That is what must be shown, that is what is yet to have been shown by any libertarians here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That is what must be shown, that is what is yet to have been shown by any libertarians here.

Don't tar us with the same brush!

Oh, and good post GePap.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by GePap
....yuo can NOT bring me a recorded definition of murder that exist prior to law. And you have yet t failed to answer the most important question? Why would primitive people's come up with the concept of murder, separate from just killing? What do premeditation and malice add to the idea of killing? What makes that special from a killing that is not? And hat does that matter? I argue that those distinctions serve a purpose only within the context of rules, of judgements, of codes of behavior, MAN MADE codes, not "natural" ones

Well, I´m not sure if I understand you correctly, but relating murder only to rules or laws creates problems too. Because there must have been some pre-law idea of murder being morally wrong, otherwise no law against murder would have ever be made.

I wouldn´t say it plays much a role that there is no recorded definition of this - because the first written law about this would be obviously the first recorded definition. But to make this law, the pure idea of murder must exist somehow, however they defined it then.

(I absolutely agree with you it is not because of natural rights).

[GePap]

Originally posted by BeBro


Well, I´m not sure if I understand you correctly, but relating murder only to rules or laws creates problems too. Because there must have been some pre-law idea of murder being morally wrong, otherwise no law against murder would have ever be made.

I wouldn´t say it plays much a role that there is no recorded definition of this - because the first written law about this would be obviously the first recorded definition. But to make this law, the pure idea of murder must exist somehow, however they defined it then.

(I absolutely agree with you it is not because of natural rights).

I would say that I do not think morality as a concept can exist utterly seperate from one of rules (and eventualy laws). What is the point of saying :"that is wrong" and "that is right" if there is no consequence to the difference? I mean, how long after you think "right, wrong" does it take to think "one should not do wrong"? now you have a rule, "don;t do wrong". How long from there until you think : "hmm, how do we stop wrong doing?" And from there consequences to the wrong act? Now, you can always say the consequence is supernatural, and that the rules are supernatural (I mean, realy what gives an individual the legitimacy and authority to declare anything wrong, or immoral? And what gives such power to a group?)

[tinyp3nis]

Gepap, laws are just to enforce morality. Morals don't need laws to exist.
Like you yourself said, the law part is just people figuring out how to make other people act morally. Since you have the dictionaries, take a look

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=51857&dict=CALD

What is the point of saying :"that is wrong" and "that is right" if there is no consequence to the difference?

Remember, consequences can also be sad faces instead of cops hitting you with a stick.

[Berzerker]

Gepap -

Berz. keeps saying: "people has a universal desire not to be killed in a way that is against the rules, and thus to kill in a way that is against the rules should be against the rules". As Jonh Steward would say: Whaaaaaa...???

As Berzerker would say: Whaaaaa??? Can you quote me offering up that gibberish?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Gepap, laws are just to enforce morality. Morals don't need laws to exist.

No, but morals need laws to actually mean anything substantial.

[Berzerker]

Gee, it seems Gepap is in the minority of those who claim government invented murder. Quite a strange turn of events given your claim that I was the only one who believed murder can occur with or without a government being in place.

What linguistic evidence have you provided, what anthropoligical evidence have you provided: in fact, what of that evidence could you provide?

Does the Bible count? Cain and Abel. But there are plenty of linguistic sources relating ancient murders, including myths of ancient wars, invasions, even the story of Osiris, Seth and Horus.

Finally, can murder ever be Lawful?

Most murders were "lawful" if we define that term as anything legal given that states have historically been the worst mass murderers. If the king and his court of nobles were the "law", murders they committed were "lawful".

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Gepap, laws are just to enforce morality. Morals don't need laws to exist.

No, but morals need laws to actually mean anything substantial.

Well yes, morals are ideas.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I also think there is no objective determination of fair.

We've already had this argument.

Originally posted by Gepap
What linguistic evidence have you provided, what anthropoligical evidence have you provided

None, I wasn't answering a question that required said evidence. "...the question 'can the concept of murder exist without law' can be answered from a philosophical standpoint, but the question 'does the concept of murder originate with or without law' can only be answered with linguistic/anthropological evidence..."

Since you have yet to show anything from any source defining murder, or speaking about murder totally seperate form the oncept of law, what ground do you stand on?

You've yet to show anything from any source defining murder totally separate from the concepts of premeditation and malice.

BUt what matters is the definitoon in its totality, and as far as an arguement about rights is concerned, what Murder means as a noun, as an independent concept (such as when one would say Do Not Commit Murder) is the most relevant.

Only two of your five definitions failed to include "malice" or "premeditation" in the noun definitions, and of those, one of the two mentions "malice" while the other mentions "premeditation." Further, both of those two used "malice" and "premeditation" in the verb forms as they relate to the noun forms (e.g. "to kill (a human) with premeditated malice" is obviously related to the noun form, whereas "to spoil by bad performance" is unrelated). What's more, you have admitted yourself that "unlawful killing" is an incomplete definition, so I fail to see what the fuss is about.

And for all your little rolleyes and other smileys, I have to say this is trully a poor debatoing strategy.

You change "the big question" being addressed by the debate halfway through, and accuse me of engaging in a poor debating strategy? You completely missed the point about "malicious intent" -- if I hate Joe Schmoe, and accidentally kill him, then this is not murder despite the fact that I have malice towards Joe Schmoe. If I killed him with malicious intent then it could constitute murder, and if I exhibit malice towards him but accidentally kill him then I did not kill him with malicious intent. "But soldiers are mean!" So friggin what? I brought up the killing of prisoners and non-coms because these are the only times, as far as I can see, when a soldier is capable of killing with malicious intent -- if I shoot somebody who's trying to shoot me, then it doesn't matter how much I don't like the guy, I didn't kill him with malicious intent.

Can you Loin provide us a rimitive definition of murder?

"Killing with premeditated malice."

In fact, you have a bit of a porblem, you see, man in all of recorded history has had law, so as it where, yuo can NOT bring me a recorded definition of murder that exist prior to law.

You're the one who's suddenly decided to turn this into a linguistics/anthropology debate rather than a philosophical debate, so it's only fair that you cast the first stone -- provide solid linguistic/anthropological evidence that the term "murder" did not come into existence prior to the codification of laws.

Originally posted by Gepap
Why would primitive people's come up with the concept of murder, separate from just killing?

Previously posted by loinburger
If you were to accidentally kill somebody, then I would alter my treatment of you differently than if you were to kill somebody with premeditated malice (e.g. in the former case I would be less prone to trusting you to handle heavy machinery or whatever, while in the latter case I would be less prone to trusting you in any way shape or form). This idea that the term is meaningless simply because I lack the authority to punish you for your crime is hogwash -- it behooves me to make the distinction between accidental killing and killing with premeditated malice, independently of any benefits that society as a whole may gain from making this distinction."

Originally posted by Gepap
Oh, wow, yet another felony

Involuntary manslaughter is a misdemeanor.

Until you can find a way for murder not to break the law, you are the one with the BIG problem.

You continue to miss the point -- the question of whether or not it is possible to define murder without the use of the term "unlawful" is entirely different from the question of whether or not the term murder ought to be defined without the use of the term "unlawful." For some reason you keep insisting that I'm trying to answer the second question. I'm not. I'm trying to answer the first, so it's hardly a "problem" for me that the contemporary definition of murder incorporates the term "unlawful."

Oh, and involuntary manslaughter? If you find your spouse in bed with another and in rage you kill them both, that is either 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, but not "involutary", sicne you chose to kill still. So at least get your legal definitons straight, OK?

When did I say that this could be considered involuntary manslaughter?

So you don't argue the point? I guess you conceed it. Good for me.

Again, you accuse me of using a poor debating strategy, and then you resort to using cheap tricks like "you asked a question about my example, making me the victor!" Get off your high horse and expand the question, or else content yourself with my answer of "murder is always performed with malicious intent."

Sad. You failed utterly to address the most important question Loin, so let me restate it:

Can murder ever be lawful?

Again, you're arguing from a strawman. My position is "it is possible to create a definition of murder independently of the law," not "we ought to use a definition of murder that is independent of the law." Please explain why my inability to come up with an example of a "legal murder" negates the first position.

You claim there is some "primitive" possible definition prior to the law: you have given no source for this, you have not even shown where you got your incomplete defintinion from in the first place (and yet mock when I give you 5, with citations so you can go check yourself).

My mockery was related to the fact that your five sources all confirmed that "premeditated malice" is a common element in the definition of "murder." The terms "premeditation" and "malice" can exist independently of a code of laws, therefore it is fairly easy to conceive of a primitive pre-legal definition of the term "murder" that amounts to "killing with premeditated malice". QED.

The question is, and remains as of yet unanswered by you, whether the concept of murder can come into being separate from a concept of laws , or at the least, a concept of rules that must be obeyed.

1. I've given the intent behind a pre-legal formation of the term "murder," as quoted earlier in this post.
2. I (and you as well) have given the mechanics behind said pre-legal definition: "Killing with premeditated malice."
3. QED

Originally posted by The More Reasonable Version Of Gepap
The universal desire (or near universal, yes, there are points in time certain individual may want to die) is not to be killed, whether is conforms with the rules or not (no one ever says that the crew of the Enola Gay is guilty of 70,000+ acts of murder, even thought that is how many people they killed by their actions, becuase we define their actions as havcing followed the rules), so if rights coem from universal desires, then the prohibition should be on killing anyone, period (perhaps why so many people misconstrue the Bible as saying "thou shall not kill" when it in fact says "thou shall not murder"). Even Berz though seems to think some forms of killing are acceptable, hence hsi constant use the the word "innocent" and his beliefe that it is OK to kill murderers. But if the rightness of a killing is tied to the rules, HOW CAN IT BE AN EXPRESSION OF SOMETHING NATURAL?????? It is left to those that want to argue about rights being natural (whether it be all, or some) to show that the RULES are natural in themselves, and hence the rights are as wel. That is what must be shown, that is what is yet to have been shown by any libertarians here.

The fundamental difference between "homicide" and "murder" is that homicide does not necessarily violate reciprocity, while murder does violate reciprocity. Put another way: I have a given set of desires, and to maintain consistency I am required to operate on the assumption that you (or anybody else) shares these desires, or I must adequately justify the position that you (or whoever else) is somehow different from me in such a way that you (or whoever) does not share some or all of these desires. I don't desire to be accidentally killed any more than the next guy, but the difference between being accidentally killed and being murdered (read "being killed with premeditated malice") is that somebody guilty of involuntary manslaughter has not necessarily shown that he is incapable of reciprocating with others, while somebody guilty of murder has shown that he is incapable of reciprocating -- hence the difference in the crimes. "The Rules" simply amount to reciprocation with others.

[Berzerker]

Gepap - I see you didn't answer the following questions wrt to the definitions of "murder" you supplied and then ignored.

Now, how did you miss these definitions in your post?

2. to kill inhumanely or barbarously, as in warfare

2. to kill brutaly or inhumanely

2 to kill in a barbarous or inhuman manner

This notion of yours that no murder ever occured until government invented it is silly. If no government ever existed, would it be possible to kill someone? Yes. Brutaly? Yes. Unjustifiably? Yes.

Case closed...again...

Lorizael -

Sorry... I can't help what science says.

Contrary to your claim, the "science" doesn't say the universe has always existed.

Templar -

The Golden Rule is a dictate from God - so it must be followed.

Jesus didn't say it must be followed, at most, he said it must be followed to be saved.

Even if all universal desire ran against the Golden Rule, the Golden Rule would still be a natural right according to Christianity (i.e. following God's dictates are necessary for natural rights, that universal desire lines up is happy accident).

You think it's just a coincidence the Golden Rule echoes universal desires? I wouldn't call that an accident.

But your definition is of no interest; we'll stick to the public definition.

And this "public definition" says a "right" is an unjustified claim to act? I said it was a just claim to act, so explain how that violates this public definition.

But, your own definition of right as a universal desire precludes limiting rights to rights-to-be-left-alone.

True, but it doesn't mean we have rights to rob people because that is not a universal desire AND it does violate the universal desire to be left alone.

If free healthcare and X-boxes are universally desired

They are neither free nor universally desired, so the relevant question becomes: do either violate a universal desire? Yes, both do.

If you don't like this, then rethink you conception of rights. My suggestion - list all the rights you like, find out a common thread that binds them, and then create a definition of rights.

I'll consider your advice if you'll consider the meaning of universality.

I've given you the standard definition of a right (trumping any countervailing claim). This definition includes nothing about desire or ownership. Nothing in the definition of desire or ownership includes natural rights. These are not analytically connected (to use Kant-speak). It is up to you to connect them, not me to disprove a connection.

Your definition of "rights" is only implied by the actual definition of "rights" - a just or moral claim to act. If you look in the dictionary, you won't find your definition. I'm using the actual definition, but I certainly would not dispute the implied definition you've mentioned, I've used it in the past myself.

You're blurring a very important distinction between life, labor and the fruits of labor.

(1) Life: I could give a slave an absolute right to life - i.e. the master may not kill the slave.

(2) Labor: a person could have the right to choose their labor. I.e. you could choose to build a house or not regardless of what the community will do with the house. Now you may not choose to build a house if there is no guarantee that you will keep it, but it is still your choice.

(3) Fruits of labor- a right to what you actually created via labor.

And you say I'm blurring a distinction? I'll repeat my point, if you spend 10 years of your life building a home and that home is taken away, where did 10 years of your life go? It's gone! That doesn't mean you weren't alive during those 10 years, but it does mean the 10 years of life laboring are gone. That's why people who've spent years working to save up to buy a house will lament how part of their life is gone when a tornado destroys their new home.

Haven't changed anything the ontologically distinct nature of the gold and the statue is a standard critique of the labor theory. What uyou have in fact done is smuggle in a new principle besides labor - the "first come first serve" principle. How do you justify first come first serve?

You did change what I said, my argument made no mention of stolen goods, yours did. And "first come, first serve" is not a smuggled in new principle of labor.

I think as UR pointed out earlier, if you take the wood to build a chair how do you aquire the right to admix your labor with the wood?

By having a just claim to the wood, i.e., it is un-owned.

Likewise with the statue, how does the prior claim to the gold affect any claim to the statue?

Because the gold was owned and stolen.

The statue is distinct from the gold (though dependent upon it) - so if the owner of the gold wants to melt the statue down - then what claim does he have on the statue as apart from the gold?

He has no claim to the statue, just the gold.

Again, you resort to first come first serve with respect to the gold. You have, in essence added a new principle to the labor theory without justifying it.

When a group of people entered a new land un-owned by others, "first come, first serve" certainly was not a new idea to them or even to late-comers who recognised the first group's moral claim to that land.

Animals have rights to. There I said it.

And you found this in the dictionary? Do plants have rights too? If so, are you violating the rights of plants and animals when you eat them?

Can they? Perhaps what you mean to say is that non-human animals lack the capacity for moral reasoning and so their eating us has no moral content? Is that what you mean?

I meant what I said and obvioulsy you knew what I meant because you said the same thing using different words.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Gee, it seems Gepap is in the minority of those who claim government invented murder. Quite a strange turn of events given your claim that I was the only one who believed murder can occur with or without a government being in place.

And you are in the very small minority of those that think there is sucha thing as natural rights..

Does the Bible count? Cain and Abel. But there are plenty of linguistic sources relating ancient murders, including myths of ancient wars, invasions, even the story of Osiris, Seth and Horus.

There are Gods in myths, and one hell of a law maker in the Bible. All those things you mention happen in places with laws, not human ones, but devine ones. (notice, not NATURAL ones)

Most murders were "lawful" if we define that term as anything legal given that states have historically been the worst mass murderers. If the king and his court of nobles were the "law", murders they committed were "lawful".

That you consider the killing immoral (and perhaps call them murders now) does not make them murders. Sorry.

And on the dwefintiions: as I told Loin, mangling a song is also in most of the definitions definition. I guess you think people have a fundamental desire not to hear mangled songs..Lets close all the Kareoke Bars! The question is Berz, which part of the definition ois the one that matters, unless you want to make beating another team decisevely a crime against narual rights too (since this is yet another definition given...)