Forfeiting Rights
When you voluntarily step outside the context for a proper human existence, you are giving up your fundamental rights. No one is "taking them away."
Some mentally deficient wonderful people out there are unable to understand or accept that, as I said in my article, “Social Media and Freedom, Addendum”:
If social media act as de facto agents of the State, they FORFEIT ANY FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION.
Omigod. Ya’d think I’d murdered the Lindbergh baby.
Just as a properly constituted government does not have any rights—including any First Amendment rights—but only delegated powers or authority, any entity—while acting in a voluntary capacity as an agent of the State—does not and cannot possess any such fundamental rights, either.
In this context, I am talking about any social media that acts as an (official or unofficial) organ of the State not having any right to edit, prohibit, ban, or otherwise tamper with other people do or say within the bounds of the rights of other people.
(Criminal action is another context, though, as I point out in my article, Social Media and Freedom, ultimately, it is the job of the police, not a common carrier [such as a phone company], to deal with alleged legal transgressions. A common carrier should not routinely be monitoring or interfering with the content of its users. And if a purported illegal activity is occurring, the common carrier should report the potential problem to the appropriate government authority. The carrier should not be taking action against the target themselves.)
Apparently, some of these morons thoughtful folks “think” (and I use that word loosely…) that “to forfeit” X can only mean that the government takes X from you. Sure, “forfeit” can mean “a penalty.” But these ignorant fools inquiring minds may have missed the class in kindergarten where we discussed epistemology, concept formation, and the relationship between “concepts” and the arbitrary “words that label them.”
A summary may be assistance to these dipshits students:
A word can label multiple concepts. (“Go for a run” vs “A run in my stocking.”)
A concept can be labeled by multiple words. (Synonyms: see below)
A definition should focus on differentiating traits that are epistemologically essential
A concept is a classification of existents based on similarities and differences.
So…just because some yutz confused person is fixated like a deer in the headlights on one and only one meaning of the word “forfeit,” well, that sounds more like a “you” problem than a “me” problem. Being unable—unwilling—to read and parse what I actually wrote rather than what he thought I wrote is—after he dismissed what I said as “nonsense”—his lookyloo.
Thoughtful disagreement is one thing. Cavalierly dismissing what I believe simply because I disagree with someone is a non-starter and a gross violation of the principles of critical thinking.
Well, then…! Lessee here, shall we? What are some synonyms and “near synonyms” for the word “forfeit”:
Forfeit: Synonyms
release, waive, abnegate, renounce, resign, cede, give up, hand over, lay down, relinquish, surrender, turn in, turn over, yield, abandon, desert, discard, forsake, part (with), shed
All voluntary actions. No outside force involved. Nada. None.
And just to be clear: Fundamental rights are inalienable!
What exactly then do we mean by “inalienable,” in this context?
Again—for the dull witted foggy-headed—this fact means that no one can take away your basic rights.
BUT…—and that’s a BIG “but”…—you can lose your basic rights yourself, that is, you can voluntarily do Y that signals you are removing yourself from the context of those who possess these fundamental rights.
This is why criminals who, for example, implicitly declare that they are abandoning the human requirements, the essential context, for the existence of rights—peaceful, voluntary actions between and among individuals—that is, when, through their actions, they demonstrate that they will not be bound by what is necessary for humans to exercise their rights but will, instead, resort to animalistic violence and coercion (direct or indirect) that make it impossible for others to practice their rights, such criminals have—in a very real fashion—stepped outside the realm of “rights,” in a practical way announcing that, “I am not fully a human being!”
An analogy: [please-oh-please-oh-please-don’t-make-me-define-analogy…]
You don’t—can’t argue—with a rabid dog attacking you. You can only put it down.
You don’t—can’t—reason, persuade, or intellectually connect with an animal. An animal has no free will/volition and thus does not possess rights. A person who initiates coercion against others is making it clear that he won’t be amenable to reason or persuasion. But the human mind cannot be forced. As Ayn Rand said in Galt’s speech (bold added):
Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others.
To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man’s capacity to live.
…Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason—as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no “right” to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.
To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument—is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment; you threaten him with death if he does. You place him in a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life—and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men.
Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: “Your money or your life,” or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: “Your children’s education or your life,” the meaning of that ultimatum is: “Your mind or your life”—and neither is possible to man without the other.
And:
When men abandon reason, physical force becomes their only means of dealing with one another and of settling disagreements.
— “The Comprachicos,” The Anti-Industrial Revolution.
“Rights” are a moral concept. They only exist or are necessary in a social context. If you negate the option for others to implement their morality in such a situation, you negate their ability to exercise their rights. You are treating them as non-humans devoid of rights. And for that destructive course, you surrender your rights.
But, again, no one can “take away” your rights.
But YOU can FORFEIT them!
So, yes, indeed: SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES FORFEIT THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS IF THEY BECOME DE FACTO AGENTS OF THE STATE.
Neener-neener. Q.E.D.
For much more on this, see my essay, “Capital Punishment and Inalienable Rights.”
A 2500 word article examining the relationship between the concepts of “inalienable rights” and “capital punishment.” While some libertarian writers believe the former precludes the legitimacy of the latter, their arguments are flawed. Proper understanding of “rights” and “inalienable” and the contexts under which they exist resolves any apparent contradictions. While one cannot have one’s rights taken away by others, one can certainly abandon them through the use of coercive force.
An excerpt from “Capital Punishment and Inalienable Rights”
The crux of some arguments against the legitimacy of capital punishment seems to be that the right to life is inalienable and thus “cannot be transferred, surrendered, or forfeited.” By this, some writers apparently mean that no conditions whatsoever can be put upon this right; that to specify any such conditions would be to render those inalienable rights subordinate to another standard and thus demote one’s right to life to a secondary and unstable position in our view of justice.
The problem with this viewpoint, however, is that it focuses almost exclusively on attempting to define the adjective “inalienable” and very little on the noun “rights.” While some writers don’t take the time to defend a theory of natural rights, I believe many who don’t err in not offering a definition of “rights,” at all. If they were to do so, I believe that at least some of this dilemma would be resolved.
In my college teaching, I present a discovery theory of concept formation. In preparing for those lectures, I always ask my students to define certain abstract words, among them “freedom.” At least a few students state that if any constraints are placed upon you (i.e., any “conditions”), then you cannot really be “free.” This argument strikes me as analogous to one many libertarians advance. I also believe both such analyses are incorrect for the same reason.
I believe all knowledge—all of existence—is contextual. Nothing—and I mean nothing—exists apart from, separate, unconnected from all other existents in the universe. Everything has limits and certain specific relationships with other aspects of reality. The infinite does not exist as a “thing,” only as a potential. Everything has boundaries of some kind. Otherwise it would be impossible to distinguish “X” from “Y.”
Thus it is not surprising that our definitions and understanding of the concepts we use must also exist within a context, i.e., to have conditions/boundaries limiting them in some way or another. The students mentioned above commit the error of accepting the dogmatic principle that unless some principle is applicable in any and all conceivable or possible circumstances, then the principle is simply wrong or (accepting the skeptic’s reverse side of the coin) relative and changing from situation to situation. For me, “freedom” means the absence of physical coercion (directly or indirectly). As long as that condition is met, I am free. Contrary to the collectivistic view of freedom, I am free regardless of whether I can do or say any particular thing. And, of course, by coercion or threat of violence, I mean from other human beings. “Freedom” from the vicissitudes of nature is impossible. “Freedom” from the predations of animals or the effects of natural disasters or my own failures has nothing to do with the kind of freedom we are discussing here, i.e., political and social freedom.
Given the context as specified above, my right to freedom is absolute, i.e., contextually absolute, inviolable, and inalienable. That does not mean that no one can violate or deny me my ability to exercise my freedom. It only means that even if unjustly incarcerated or detained or regulated or etc., I still absolutely retain that right. And, as some libertarians correctly point out in their discussion of universality and reciprocity, every other human has the same right to freedom, i.e., the absence of coercion. If I try to maintain that I have the right to freedom but no one else does, then, of course, the concept loses its meaning. It would be an attempt to maintain a contradiction to say that I can coerce other people (violating their right to freedom) but that they must respect my right to freedom from coercion in any and all circumstances lest they deny the very idea of a universal and reciprocal “right to freedom.” In other words, any valid moral or political principle must be compossible, i.e., everyone in the same context must be able to practice the principle in the same way and at the same time.
Whether one is discussing a right to freedom or a right to one’s own life or any other right, one must first define what a “right” is. Ayn Rand defines a right as “a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.” (From my reading of their work, philosophers Tibor Machan, Douglass Rasmussen, and Douglas den Uyl appear to accept this in its overall thrust, though this does not imply they accept my views on capital punishment.)
If one interacted with no other people, one’s “right to life” (or any other assertion of a right) would be moot. It is this use of a social context or condition in thinking about rights that some libertarians seem to abandon or drop. In my discussion of freedom above, if I step outside the context which defines my right to freedom, then I can hardly appeal to that contextually defined freedom to deny others the right to restrain me from using coercion.
Placing rights in a context (a condition) does not obviate them. Indeed, the concept of rights becomes meaningless if we try to tear it from its context, i.e., its function in a social environment. If we invoke rights in a non-social context, the effort is pointless. If we invoke them in circumstances that contradict their basis, the effort results in a contradiction. The “standard” to be used as a condition for defining the concept of “the right to one’s life” is looking at the conditions necessary to live one’s life...in a social context. In a nonsocial state, one can do anything one wants with or to one’s life (that does not violate the laws of nature). In that situation, one appeals only to ethics/morality for a guideline. In a social state, however, the question becomes what principles should one use to guide one’s actions when dealing with other individuals. It is then and only then that the concept of “rights” becomes relevant (and necessary), i.e., how can one apply one’s ethics to a social setting?
If human life is the basis for “defining and sanctioning one’s freedom of action in a social context,” one must then specify what actions are necessary for sustaining that life and asserting that right. The condition that satisfies that requirement specifies that one must have the “freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life...” (Rand) By the principles of universality and reciprocity, those actions must not restrict other people from acting upon their own judgment, for their own goals, and by their own voluntary, uncoerced choice. Thus, the standard that places conditions upon one’s inalienable right to life is the very nature of what it means (what is required) to live as a rational, moral human being...in a social state.
If a person steps outside of that defining context, then the concept of “a right to life” no longer applies to him. One’s right to life is not some kind of mystical, out-of-context essence that transcends and trumps any and all circumstances. (Compare this discussion with the out-of-context dogmatists and skeptics who claim that “certainty” in knowledge must be eternally never-changing or it is impossible.) Indeed, in some libertarians’ discussion of self-defense, they seem to accept (perhaps) the validity of immediate self-defense, which is itself a condition or limit on the other’s “right” to life. Yet if self-defense is justifiable, then why can one not also specify a condition under which capital punishment is justifiable, i.e., permits one to limit another’s “right to life”? If some libertarians reject this as a “back door” opening for capital punishment, then how would they suggest a person fearing for his life respond to an immediate threat? If it is always wrong to kill Joe Blow via capital punishment, I would like to see the argument justifying killing him in self-defense (and presumably from some libertarians’ position, thus violating Joe’s right to life). I would also like something more definite from such libertarians explaining exactly how we should deal with first-degree murderers.
https://twitter.com/maddrus/with_replies
Amazon
https://www.amazon.com/Russell-Madden/e/B00C7XTUEK
YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/user/1maxruss
Makes sense.