Grammar, especially in titles.
sorry mate.
Excellent. Though I genuinely wish for the day when you go a little easy on 'status quo' bit while writing something serious.
otha
romba try panranya oruthan. Nilu.
You really should try writing in English. You seem to know most of the words.
I now support a law -- copy writers should learn mathematics.
Yeah.
It might even happen sooner than you writing a full, non-shorthand-ish sentence.
oru mayiru pooriyala
"So, he agrees that there exists a right to influence a democratic society merely by virtue of being born in it. This, obviously, is independent of self-ownership of that individual."
First sentence, no. Second sentence, non sequitur.
How?
First sentence follows from "If it misused this right in your opinion, you'd have the right to protest and vote against it."
Second sentence follows from the first. The right to influence society is quite clearly different from the right to self-ownership, which is essentially the right to isolation from society's influence.
In fact, Amit, the second statement is more like an independent assertion. It need not follow from anything, except for common sense. Where's the non-sequitur?
I would have understood better had you used English and not Latin. But Amit, let's see how you are wrong on both counts.
1. The first sentence follows from your entire paragraph. Firstly you acknowledge that the government can set rules. Then you state you and I can vote/protest etc in order to try to change it.
This right to vote/protest etc does not follow from 'self-ownership' when it comes to attempting to set the rules of society. You can have partial ownership of yourself and still carry this function out effectively. Eg -- India.
Now you may argue those rules in turn have to not violate 'self-ownership'. But that is besides the point. Since what is being made clear here is the ability to influence -- regardless of what it violates or doesn't.
2. This is obviously independent because -- it does not follow from self-ownership. As explained above.
3. As Ritwik mentioned, it's a quasi independent statement and need not strictly follow the previous statement.
4. Though in this case, it actually does.
Ok, let's go again:
"So, he agrees that there exists a right to influence a democratic society merely by virtue of being born in it. This, obviously, is independent of self-ownership of that individual."
My problem is with the word "merely". That right, in fact, arises directly from the right to self-ownership. By being part of a democratic society, you give up some of your autonomy and almost certainly some taxes to sustain the government, and this, in my view, gives you the right to some level of ownership over that government. (It's a different matter that your autonomy or your taxes may have been effectively coerced from you, but the rhetoric of democracy involves this quid-pro-quo, and it's a question of semantics whether or not you call that a contractual obligation.)
Your second sentence contained the word "obviously", thus implying that it followed from the previous sentence. Either ways, whether that was intended or not, I disagree with it. Any right you have as a citizen in a democracy should be seen as arising from the right to self-ownership. If it isn't, as many 'rights' in India aren't, then I'd argue that its philosophically flawed and open to abuse, as the way free speech is interpreted in India is. (19 (2) of the constitution and 295 (a) of the IPC being cases in point.)
Now, if you disagree with me that all human rights emerge from the right to self-ownership, which is a property right at its heart, I'd be interested in hearing what rights you believe to be an exception to this, and your alternative theory of how rights emanate. If you believe in them at all, that is -- it is entirely reasonable not to, and to be strictly utilitarian.
Amit,
1) The tax-based analysis is flawed. A democratic government offers you a vote, as well as right to life, irrespective of whether or not you partake in any tax-generating economic activity or the quantum of your contribution to government revenue. A farmer who grows his own food, wears rags that he heasn't bought etc. will still have a vote and the right to life.
2)The philosophical basis for the emanation of rights is a huge de-localisation of the discussion. Let me make my stand more clear.
a) What happens on someone's private property should obviously be subject to the rules that the owner sets. No issues with that, no conflicts with freedom of speech arguments.
b) What happens on government property cannot be viewed solely in terms of 'this is the government property and government decides'. A free-speech absolutist position proclaims this - I should be allowed to say/do whatever I want in public domain until it infringes on basic rights of others. A property-rights-only perspective means that one would have to accept as correct a government that disallows certain speech in the public domain under the principle of 'this is government property and we decide the rules, whether you cause harm or not is irrelavant'. Thus, a stand that demands freedom of speech taken to its logically consistent extreme is not entirely contained within the property rights perspective.
Which is what Nilu (I think) and I have been saying all along.
From Nilu's post -
"By claiming right to free speech is fully contained in property rights, he excludes the possibility of the right existing when one does not own the parameters that immediately resulted in the conflict."
A free speech absolutist position claims exactly this thing - that the right to free speech should exist in the public domain, unless one tramples upon the basic rights of others (right existing when one does not own the parameters).
A property rights position would not be able to claim this.
"A democratic government offers you a vote, as well as right to life, irrespective of whether or not you partake in any tax-generating economic activity or the quantum of your contribution to government revenue."
Why are you picking half-sentences? Read that full sentence. Can you live in a democratic society and yet remain autonomous, and refuse to accept its legal jurisdiction? Will it recognise any of your rights if you do so?
"A free speech absolutist position claims exactly this thing - that the right to free speech should exist in the public domain, unless one tramples upon the basic rights of others (right existing when one does not own the parameters)."
That's exactly what I'm saying. Should. But when you say "the basic rights of others", I repeat the question that I posed to Nilu:
If you disagree with me that all human rights emerge from the right to self-ownership, which is a property right at its heart, I'd be interested in hearing what rights you believe to be an exception to this, and your alternative theory of how rights emanate.
I am yet to discover or formulate my alternative theory of the origin of rights, and who knows, I may even end up agreeing with you. But do you agree that is possible for a free speech absolutist to denounce a government decision on a matter of principle that a property rights fundamentalist will not be able to denounce because it (the government decision) is consistent with the property rights angle?
Amit,
Your tax based analogy is flawed for the same reason that your result two is -- it's not true in its entirety. And Ritwik picked a half sentence for a good reason -- simply because that results in a possibility. In other words, one "merely" has to be born and under certain circumstances, one can influence society in a way you have claimed.
The onus of proving the infallibility of your logic rests on you. My alternate position is irrelevant. On the other hand, if you are saying that result two is desired because you can't find a better way -- I must use those Latin phrases now.
In short -- I don't have an opinion on this. It's just that your deduction is flawed.
"But do you agree that is possible for a free speech absolutist to denounce a government decision on a matter of principle that a property rights fundamentalist will not be able to denounce because it (the government decision) is consistent with the property rights angle?"
In my book, a "property-rights fundamentalist" is a "free-speech absolutionist." Let me reframe my position to make it more intelligible. (Nilu, this is in reply to you as well.)
1] I believe all rights emerge from the right to self-ownership, which is a property right at heart. I am willing to acknowledge only rights that emanate from this.
2] I believe in government only as resulting from a social contract that gives us some ownership over it in return for a portion of our autonomy. I believe that in a democracy, it is up to us to make sure that there are enough safeguards in place to ensure that the government does not misuse the powers that we grant it. These should be in the constitution (but happen not to be in ours). I see the constitution as ideally representing a codification of that social contract.
3] Like you, I would like the government to not interfere with us unless we infringe on the rights of others, including on public property, which is owned by the government, which in turn is supposed to be accountable to us.
4] But sometimes, those safeguards are not strong enough, and it is up to us to remedy that. It is a failure of democracy if we don't.
Now, I've stated above how my ideal world would function (and it is all based on property rights), but it doesn't exist, though some countries come closer than others.
One viable objection to what I've stated above would be the anarcho-capitalist one, which would state that any "social contract" is a result of coercion, as is government itself. I have sympathy for that view, and I believe that markets work better than democracy, and represent what people want better. However, I think in practice anarchy is not stable and governments are inevitable. That said, I'd then prefer to be born in a democracy with that implicit contract thrust upon me than anywhere else, with all my autonomy gone.
In any case, if you agree with the above anarcaplib objection, you'd either do so agreeing that all rights emenate from self-ownership, or by rejecting the concept of rights altogether. But to claim that some rights can exist independent of the right to self-ownership seems ridiculous to me.
Do note that this has become a discussion in which you are refusing to define your terms. ('Rights', in this case.) 
To add to that, and to get back to Ritwik's question, in an instance where a government cracked down on free speech in public spaces, both a "free-speech absolutionist" and a "property-rights fundamentalist" would protest, either because the government overstepped the limits imposed on it by the constitution (contract), or at the terms of that contract (the safeguards in the constitution). A contractual dispute is very much a property-rights matter, and disputing a contract does not amount to disputing property rights itself, obviously.
Secondly, to get back to Nilu's words, the "right to influence a democratic society" does not come "merely by virtue of being born in it", but because there exists that social contract based on property rights. That right, therefore, is not "independent of self-ownership of that individual," but arises directly from it.
It is not being claimed those "rights" exist or should exist. Rather, that their inertia results in a possibility you fail to understand.
And as long as you fail to understand that the argument here is not about rights but about their consequences you fail to acknowledge or differentiate, I see no point in continuing this discussion.
Amit,
Assume that there is an ideal constitution, defined solely in terms of property rights. However, this constitution is not allowed to have any extraneous free-speech clauses, for it is your belief that free speech emanates from and is contained in property rights. Also, this constitution recognises the sovereignity of the government over public spaces, as well as the soverignity of the private owners over their own spaces. (yes, the government is accountable to us, but that soes not imply that we own or manage the public spaces).
Now, develop a critique of a government decision to crack down on free speech in public spaces purely in terms of property rights. In short, prove how 'freedom of expression in public spaces' follows directly from 'right to self-ownership'.
Ritwik, why should a constitution not be allowed to have free speech clauses? A constitution should spell it out.
I'm quite happy with the US constitution's first amendment. It meets all my conditions. It allows no exceptions that would be inconsistent with any rights that derive from the right to self-ownership, and places exactly the safeguards that I'd want to have in our constitution regarding private speech in public spaces. There, concrete real-world example.
Nilu, what consequences? Your argument needs more clarity, I'm afraid. But yeah, I've said pretty much all I had to in this discussion as well.
And now you ask what consequences? Read. Think status quo.
Yahan itna sannata kyun hai bhai.....
Amit,
My last comment too. I believe that a constitution that explicitly spells out free speech clauses protecting private speech in public places does so by recognising that right as an independent natural right, and not something that derives from or is contained in self-ownership.
Till now you have just asserted that this right of private speech in public place derives from self-ownership, without showing how it derives. You can ofcourse DEFINE self-ownership to include freedom of expression in public spaces, but then your entire argument will become tautological.
Also, my acceptance of the legal jurisdiction of a democratic government (in return for which I'm given a vote and the right to life) does not directly imply that I'm losing my autonomy. It simply means that I explicitly accept the self-ownership of others, and recognise an external body to resolve the disputes that arise when the' self-ownership' rights of two parties conflict. Unless you assume that the power to resolve such disputes is also contained in self-ownership (which is probably the anarchist stand), one is not really giving up anything that one is 'naturally born with' for that vote or for the right to life.
Ritwik,
He refuses to understand that the result can stand independent of its constituents in this case. There is no point continuing this.
It took me one day to understand the stuff written here. Now I can boast about this to lesser intelligent creatures living with me.
Was there a point to it ?
I just thought people were talking dirty in dialectics :-(
Points exist.
You're right. And if by "Consequently, the rights enjoyed otherwise sometimes settle ownership." you mean what I think you mean, then accept my sashtang dandvat pranaam.
In fact, I now think it is the classic libertarian mistake - to assume that ownership or its consequences are so settled and universal that they can somehow by themselves form the a priori philosophical basis for consistent and complete legal systems.
Ritwik, the right to free speech allows you to express yourself, which is not possible if you don't own yourself. That's bloody obvious, and I can't think of any philosopher or theorist who would dispute that free speech arises out of self-ownership. If you can, cite. I'm not going to waste my time proving 1+1=2.
Nilu, you need to spell out in simple terms what you mean by "result/consequences". Your language is too opaque for me to see it, frankly, and I suspect if you did a spot poll among your readers, they'd agree.
Nilu, you are such a tease
Amit,
You do not seem to understand that methods are independent of their ends. Worse, that the consequences of the method at each stage traverse the continuum necessarily in either direction -- given, the initial parameters are not altered. (And free speech or self-ownership were not part of those parameters. By your definition -- not even mine.)
You are now at the risk of usurping Krish. Let's stop. If you want to learn how the results at each stage are independent, I will give you a book on Modern Algebra. That may help.
Else, we can now descend to name calling. At the least, it's funny. This is so boring and idiotic -- I can tolerate either one but not both.
Amit,
"the right to free speech allows you to express yourself, which is not possible if you don't own yourself"
That asserts that self-ownership is necessary for free speech in general. It does not prove that self-ownership is sufficient to ensure free speech in the public domain, which is what you've been claiming thorughout. This is an elementary distinction between necessary and sufficient. Also, a country can have laws that protect free speech but outlaw suicide, thus free speech is POSSIBLE even if a legal system doesn't believe that you own yourself completely.
By the way, 1+1=2 by definition, it's a tautology. Which is pretty much what I think your stand has been, though you aren't saying it in as many words.
Anyhow, I have promised myself, no further comments here.
I agree Nilu's prose is too dense.
Nilu please take lessons from Patrix on how to write, even Terry Schvio will understand what he writes.
What a chicken-egg problem this has become? And I am beginning to like this Ritwik kid.
I doubt if Amit ever “proved” that Free Speech is a property right. He merely asserted it, and said the great Rothbart had said it,
And so he must be right. He wanted to silence us by Rothbart´s stature. Reminds me of the time when I would manufacture
quotes for my school essays and attribute them to Herbert Spencer. Who would know? Plus “Quotes” got extra marks.
Then he labored through the article to prove that trivial assertion on fire. Tut tut. Nilu puked on that, I remember, quite rightly too.
Maybe I am very old, but I feel everything human can be attributed to one word – Bargaining. Markets, Marriages, constitutions, laws come from it. Revolutions are just somewhat vigorous forms of bargaining.
I used to think bargaining needs free speech is a pre-requisite. Then you bargain goods that have property rights (create markets)
Or bargain for other rights ( a constitution) etc.
But let us say Amit is right, and free speech is a property right. So what? Trade it. Sell it. Buy it. More markets. More joy.
Once we go past this silly chicken-egg, we have the very non-trivial Coase, who I have been trying to market since yesterday, along with my beloved grandfather.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/...show/
30115.html
"You do not seem to understand that methods are independent of their ends. Worse, that the consequences of the method at each stage traverse the continuum necessarily in either direction -- given, the initial parameters are not altered."
Heh. And of what relevance is that to my argument, Nilu?
"It does not prove that self-ownership is sufficient to ensure free speech in the public domain, which is what you've been claiming thorughout."
No, I haven't. What I've said is that if all rights that emanate from self-ownership are respected, no further restrictions are required on free speech. I stand by that.
"Also, a country can have laws that protect free speech but outlaw suicide, thus free speech is POSSIBLE even if a legal system doesn't believe that you own yourself completely."
Where have I said it is not? Heh.
"Else, we can now descend to name calling. At the least, it's funny."
You go ahead, Nilu. Not me.
Amit, you have become boring.
Now I am more interested in this avataram giving us knowledge and $10 so that the aathma of his thathha gets shanthi.
I am still upset this blog hasnt changed into a memorial for my grandfather. I am tempted to quote the article:
'At the stroke of the bell, a dignified, magnificent well-built man with neatly pressed clothes entered the class with effortless ease and a smile. The clarity, with which he spoke, his authority over the subject, the logical sequence in which he marshalled the steps, his analysis and inference and the torrential flow of words all made us realise that we were under the guidance of a great mathematician. He was an erudite scholar and above all a great teacher'.
Applies to me too, I guess.
pathhu $ kudukka vakilla, unakku enna pechhu?
It was thatha´s divasam yesterday, and I gave the sastrigal $10 at the end of it as dakshinai. He protested vigorously and said he would have earned that much in India. I was forced to shell out $25. What is the going rate for this in India, really? I feel I have been had.
Depends, did you put soru or did you give vazhakkai arisi?
the sastrigal was vazhukkai and I gave him some arisi. So both, I guess.
I also apologize for saying chicken-egg problem. Surely, brahmeboodha suryanarayana iyer would have frowned on this non-vegetarian problem.
if you just gave him arisi, the aathma will still go hungry. what kind of a heartless grandson and ignorant brahmin are you?
" Ritwik, the right to free speech allows you to express yourself, which is not possible if you don't own yourself. "
That's where you've said it.
Sorry Nilu, but the interrogation mark absolutely overwhelms my conviction. God promise now, no more comments.
and I can correct this by...? (May the ahmedabad police give ritwik some conviction).
You should go to kaasi and do the thavasam again.
"Ritwik, the right to free speech allows you to express yourself, which is not possible if you don't own yourself."
is different from what you said:
"Also, a country can have laws that protect free speech but outlaw suicide, thus free speech is POSSIBLE even if a legal system doesn't believe that you own yourself completely."
To see how, replace "completely" with "at all" in the second sentence. And even then, a legal system could have laws that have no philosophical justification, as some of our IPC laws indicate.
No interrogation mark anywhere. Let's go back to Avataram's grandfather please. As Nilu would agree, much more entertaining, not to mention venerable.
Amit Verma, you are totally forgiven.
Free speech is a property right.
May the spirit of Brahmeboodha Suryanarayana iyer be with you always. Be sure to recall his good deeds in your blog from time to time.
There is something called instant messaging.
This is a sad day for Tamils.
Firstly, Krish was usurped. Then, we learned that Brahmeboodha Suryanarayana Iyer's aathma went without vaazhaikkai. Now, Thennavan's position as the itchiest to have the last word is also under threat. I am very sad.
Fuck all this rot about there being no free speech. There's free fucking speech because I fucking say there is.
I surrender.
Joining this party late, maybe long after it has winded up, but Amit as well as Nilu and Ritwik would do well to not equate self-ownership and property rights. Property rights do evolve on the premise of self-ownership (as Nozick argues), but are a different entity nevertheless.
Self-ownership is a premise or an assumption. i.e, in the argument it is universally true. So obviously it is a tautology. The assumption is that individuals have complete sovereignty over their own choices as long as they are not infringing on someone else's self-ownership.
So yes, following from this argument, there should not be any laws against shouting fire falsely on public property. Or even against picnicing in the middle of a busy street.
This will have consequences, but the consequences will also have remedies, without the involvement of the state.
Amit, I think everyone agrees with you about shouting fire on private property. About public property, here are 2 scenarios.
1. Guy shouts fire in a crowded public hall. Stampede results. He doesn't kill anyone. But as a consquence of his actions, people step on each other people die. So as a social contract, to prevent such deaths, people agree to a law that prevents someone from falsely shouting fire on public property.
2. Guy makes a painting with a view to offend people of a religion. People get offended. React violently. Go on a rampage. Consequence - destruction of property and/or deaths. As a social contract, to prevent such deaths, people agree to a law that prevents offensive paintings.
According to you, which of the laws is valid and why?
Gaurav, we have moved on to discussing Avataram's grandfather. You are insulting the fine gentleman by bring up these issues. I shall gladly continue this discussion on email, unless you have memories to share of the honourable person in question.
Now, Thennavan's position as the itchiest to have the last word is also under threat.
Not at all Nilu, as you can see 
.
Guys
Please chill.
I am hpaay with the status qou of this world.
I didnt quite understand the context of it.. Who is Amit..and why should we bother what he says...
Relax guys..
Nilu, Fantastic blog.
Nice to see that epitome of mediocrity in the blogosphere (Uncut Varma) babble on like an embarassing old uncle.
Gaurav Sabnis, shut up.
picture a small office - the proverbial garage start-up (no, nothing to do with IT) - where three men are wrapping up work for the day, when one of them stumbles across this post,and the ensuing comments, and bursts into loud raucous laughter, to the astonishment of his coleagues.
The last time I laughed this hard, I was reading Terry Pratchett.
Commenting by HaloScan
