Block vs. Vacek on Rights

The following email exchange recently took place between Walter Block, Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics, Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business, Loyola University New Orleans, and Edward Vacek, S.J., Loyola University,Religious Studies.


To; Walter Block:

Thanks for the panel presentation, Walter.  You are courageous.

Yes, I really do not understand a lot about libertarianism.  The very name led me to believe that you would hold that people have a right to make choices about their own lives, but – consistent with your one-only  principle, I now see – you do not hold that.  I keep learning.

Ed

----


From Walter Block:

Huh? To be discussed.

---

To Walter Block:

It’s simple:
Ed: People have a positive right to make decisions affecting their own lives.
Walter: there are no positive rights.
Ed: People have a positive right to own property.
Walter: there are no positive rights.

Walter: the principle of non-coercion is central.
Ed: yes.  There is a duty not to coerce.
Walter: I don’t call it a duty, but rather the foundational principle of libertarianism.
Ed: yes, I understand why you would call it foundational.  It has to be foundational.  Otherwise you would have to give reasons why, say, it is wrong to deprive someone from making decisions about their own lives or from owning property.  Foundational principles don’t admit of giving reasons.

Good night.

Ed

---

Dear Ed, Ken [Dr. Kenneth Keulman, Ph.D cc'd]:

I’d like to share this with others. I can use your names, or make you anonymous, please let me know your thoughts.

In my view, rights imply obligations. That is, if I have a right, then everyone else on the entire planet has an obligation not to violate my right. I have a (negative) right not to be murdered, raped, stolen from, etc. Therefore, everyone else on the entire planet has an obligation not to do these things to me.

If I have a (positive) right to life, then everyone else on the entire planet has an obligation to keep me alive. If I die, perhaps of natural cuases, hey, I’m 73 years old, then everyone else on the entire planet is a murdered. This strikes me as, what?, silly? There are people dying today, all over the world. Are the three of us murderers? To believe this is to undermine, what?, law? Philosophy? Something serious.

Ed, you say: “People have a positive right to make decisions affecting their own lives.” I regard this is incoherent, not just wrong, incoherent. From a libertarian point of view, a positive right means that others have a right to make decisions concerning my life. I find this preposterous. Nor do individuals have complete rights to make decisions affecting their own lives Yes, they may choose vanilla or chocolate ice cream, but they may not decide to murder, rape, etc., other people, even though that would “affect their own lives.” They may do whatever they want, provided only that they do not violate the non aggression principle (NAP).

Ed, you say, “People have a positive right to own property.” But a positive right compels others to uphold your right. This means, literally, that others have an obligation to buy property for you. Why?

Why can it not be both a duty and a founcational principle not to coerce?

Best regards,

Walter

---

From Edward Vacek:

Walter, Peace

Yes, we can, as usual, explore over dinner.  We seems to disagree on the meaning and foundations of “rights.”  Not surprising.

Sure, you can use what I write with my name attached.

Ed