| Man has rights over Nature; but what rights does he have with respect to his fellow man? I will only constrain this with the requirement that all men’s rights are equal, and from there conclude that individual rights are the only viable arrangement. As I found in The Ethics Of Liberty, there are only three basic positions available: individual rights, social rights, and no rights. | 人は自然より権利を持つが、他人について何の権利を持つ？「全人類の権利が等しい」の条件だけで、個人権利だけが作用する倫理と結論する。「自由の倫理」に書いたように、基本的な立場は「個人権利」、「社会権利」、「無権利」の三つがある。 |
| Under the arrangement of individual rights, every individual has property rights. So, every man has some property which he rightfully controls. This property is his personal sphere of autonomy. Within that sphere, he can do no wrong. We’ll examine the exact extents of this sphere of autonomy in due time, but for now, suffice it to say that Rothbard’s theory of individual rights is mostly correct. | 個人権利の下では全個人が所有権利を持つ。で、各人には正しく制御する所有がある。その所有が人の自治の領域でござる。その領域の中に、正しくない行動はない。近い時期にその自治の領域の限界を見るが、今ではロスバードの個人権利の理論がほとんど正確な理論と言おう。 |
| Under the arrangement of social rights, the society controls property. Extended to the individual man, his body and his labor are society’s, to direct as it sees fit. The individual has no rights; although his society might grant him some degree of autonomy, this autonomy is a mere privilege that society can revoke. He has no right to it, and society only allows it because it assesses that its right to control him is not, in some circumstances, worth exercising. | 社会権利の下では社会が所有を制御する。各人の体や労力も社会の指名のものでござる。個人には権利はないが、社会が個人に多少の自治を許すかも知らないが、社会がその自治を取り消せる。個人が自治の権利を持たず、社会が許すのはただ「状況によって制御を実践するのは間尺に合わない」の判断の結果だけでござる。 |
| Then there’s the arrangement of no rights. If there is no action that is rightful, then it does fulfill the criterion that all men’s rights are equal, technically speaking. Zero does equal zero, after all. This arrangement, however, is a dereliction of the purpose of ethics: to differentiate right and wrong behavior. Further, as a practical matter, adherence to this theory would lead to chaos. | 無権利のは何だが、正しい行動がないと言うと、確実に零が零と等しいように全人類の権利が等しいとの条件が満たされるが、倫理の目的が正しい行動と正しくない行動を差別することなら、この制度が失格でござる。それに、実用化すると結果が無秩序でござる。 |
| These being the basic arrangements, there do exist other, complex arrangements, that are hybrids of the above. The state of affairs in modern politics is a hybrid of individual rights and social rights; individuals have some rights, that society cannot infringe, and society has some authority, to which the individual must accede. At least, in theory, that’s modern politics. A more cynical take on it is that the state claims an arrangement of social rights, but allows autonomy to individuals, sufficient to forestall rebellion. | この基本的な立場と別に複雑な、以上の理論の合成物の制度もある。今の米国の政治が個人権利と社会権利の合成物で、個人には社会に侵せない権利がありながらも、社会には個人が従わなきゃならない権力がある。と、言う理論だが、シニカルな視線で見ると、政府が社会権利を要求するが、半玉を拒むために多少の自治を許す。 |
| We reject the system of no rights out of hand. It is useless as an ethic, since it provides no guidance to behavior, and furthermore, this would result in the proverbial dog-eat-dog situation. Although wanton death and destruction would be wrong, so too would peace and prosperity be; since death and destruction are much easier and pay off quicker, we would see virtually nothing of peace and prosperity under this system. | 「無権利」の制度を絶対的に拒絶する。行動の指導に使えずもので倫理として失格に加わって、ことわざの犬食い犬の状況でござる。死亡と破壊が正しくないが、平和と繁栄も正しくない。死亡と破壊が比較的に早く容易に成果をもたらすから、この制度では平和も繁栄もなくなる。 |
| This brings us to the systems of individual rights and of social rights, which we shall call individualism and socialism. These, I will analyze in later posts. | と言うことで、個人権利と社会権利の制度（個人主義と社会主義）のことでござる。後々の書き込みに解析する。 |
Rights vis-à-vis One’s Fellow Man
Bookmark the permalink.