Natural rights resolved?

A right is a legitimately enforceable claim.

Property is something that is owned.

Ownership is the exclusive right to control property.

Thus, all rights derive by definition from ownership of property. If you own something, you have the right to control it. No one else does. Accordingly, there is no such thing as a right to life, happiness, free speech, health care, a job, education, etc. You only have a legitimately enforceable claim on the objects that you own, including your physical body.

How does this fit in with natural rights theory?

I think that property rights over external things comes after individual autonomy. Individual autonomy has to be explained and justified first, before one gets into anything external to the individual themself. 

But you cannot separate the individual from external things. A physical body is constantly in flux - constantly taking in and ridding itself of external things. The very concept of individual autonomy assumes rights over external objects.

C'mon Purple leader!  He's serving up fastballs right down the middle!

(in all honesty, I would like to better understand this)

Sage:

But you cannot separate the individual from external things. A physical body is constantly in flux - constantly taking in and ridding itself of external things. The very concept of individual autonomy assumes rights over external objects.

There can be no rights over external objects without there first being individual autonomy. External objects cannot even be obtained without it. The self comes first. Rights over things external to the self have no meaning or existance without autonamous individuals to obtain them. An individual must first be able to act as an agent. Agency comes before material possession. The reverse, the notion that ownership over external objects precedes agency or is a requirement for individual autonomy, simply makes no sense.

The core feature of property rights is that they entail some kind of normative duty in others to not use the owned object in a manner contrary to the wishes of the owner.  No such duty can be found in nature, nor does one follow from any other fact of existence.  Certainly it can't be the case that we are morally prohibited from using all external objects, but I'm afraid you won't be able to take things much further without needing to postulate something which could easily get you into trouble.  You might be interested in checking out a really fantastic essay by David Schmidtz called "The Institution of Property"; it's available here: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~schmidtz/manuscripts/InstitutionofProperty.doc

Sage:

A right is a legitimately enforceable claim.

Circular.  What is "legitimately"? 

A right is a condition that is required for consciousness to operate according to it's nature.  The usual formulation of rights as properties, or attributes of a human being leads to irreconcilable contradictions, as the critics of natural rights gleefully point out at every opportunity.  The primary obligation is on each conscious being to protect and preserved the conditions under which it can best operate.  Each person is responsible for defending his rights.  The obligation to respect others rights is a derivitative principle, not a primary aspect of rights as would be implied by the faulty "attribute" model. 

This principle comes from the fact that to violate the rights of another - to constrain the conditions under which another consciousness can operate - is an attempt to force that consciousness to act contrary to it's nature. Yet, any consciousness will, as it must, act according to it's nature under whatever conditions it finds itself, regardless of any attempt to force it to do otherwise.  This means two things.  First, conflict is inevitable, as the artificially constrained consciousness will attempt at any opportunity to assert those conditions it requires, and will use force to do so if it is able.  Second, the results of the operation of that consciousness will be suboptimal at best, and not in line with what the agressor intends. 

Even digging ditches or piling rocks up to make a pyramid require conscious action.  Producing the values that a thief steals requires conscious action. All aggressive acts, all attempts to extract labor or values from another consciousness require that that consciousness act according to it's nature.  Yet forcible extraction inhibits the very thing that the aggressor relies on for the values he is seeking.  Value for value trade allows both consciousnesses to operate as soundly and as fully as external conditions and their own natural capacities allow, and thus allow each to benefit from the other without limit or constraint.

Sage:

If you own something, you have the right to control it. No one else does. Accordingly, there is no such thing as a right to life, happiness, free speech, health care, a job, education, etc. You only have a legitimately enforceable claim on the objects that you own, including your physical body.

How does this fit in with natural rights theory?

You're confusing things a bit.

I don't have an automatic right to life.  However, I do have the right to defend myself if someone else tries to injure me.

I don't have an automatic right to food.  However, I do have the right to work and purchase food, or grow it myself.

I don't have an automatic right to happiness.  However, I do have the right to do whatever I want as long as I don't injure someone else.

For example, if marijuana makes me feel good, I have a natural right to smoke and possess it.  (I don't recognize the State ban on marijuana as legitimate, but I also think that smoking marijuana is stupid.)

I do have the right to free speech (even the US Constitution guarantees this.)  However, I don't have the right to be able to force a mainstream newspaper to print my articles.  I don't have the right to free speech when it would injure someone else, such as shouting in a theater.  I never understood why "slander" or "libel" is considered a crime.  If I say "X is a criminal", then X should also be free to say his rebuttal.

I don't have the right to force other people to pay for health care for me.  However, I have the right to work as a doctor if I choose.  State licensing requirements restrict the supply and drive up prices.  Health care is expensive because the State and AMA have a conspiracy to restrict the supply of doctors.  I do have the natural right to work as a doctor without a license from the State.  I do have the natural right to purchase health care from whoever I want, even if they don't have a license from the State.

The health care issue is never accurately portrayed in the mainstream media.  Artificial restrictions on the supply of doctors drive up prices.  This is never mentioned.

I don't have the automatic right to a high-paying job.  However, I do have the right to start my own businesses.  I don't need permission from the State to operate a bank.  I don't need to hire State-licensed accountants and lawyers to make sure I follow all the silly regulations.  I don't have to give up 50%+ of my labor via income taxes and other hidden costs.  I'm not barred from manufacturing something just because someone else patented it first.

The right to work is a natural right.  Via taxes and regulations, the State steals my right to work.  I have a limited right to work under the present system, but not an unlimited right to work.

I do have the right to educate myself and my children however I choose.  However, the State demands that I pay for its brainwashing centers (schools) via taxes.  State regulation of schools and information restricts my options for educating my children.  In some states, homeschooling is banned or regulated.  Operating a homeschool business and helping other parents is illegal or heavily regulated.

The bottom line for natural rights is "You can do whatever you want, as long as you don't injure someone else.  Owning property is a natural right, becuase otherwise why would anyone ever build or produce anything?  Owning more property than you personally need is immoral, but in a free market it's impractical to own too much property; you'd be better off selling/investing your surplus property."

The bottom line for State rights is "People only have rights that the State gives them.  You have the right to free speech not because it's a natural right, but because the US Constution says so.  People don't own their own labor.  Via income taxes, the State has a greater claim to labor than the worker.  Via regulations and licensing requirements, the State dictates who is allowed to do which jobs.  Via property taxes (rent), people are barred from having full allodial title to their land."

Basically, natural rights are what common sense dictates.  State rights are what a handful of people serving their own interests decide you may do.

It doesn't fit in with them at all, as natural rights are those a man possesses because he is what he is, i.e. human. The justification for them is complex, but it involves the pursuit of happiness (in the Aristotelian sense of eudaemonia/flourishing, which is by its nature something man must apply reason to achieve) - what allows for self-directed flourishing is precisely rights such as that to property. Taking the right to property as axiomatic is definitely not a typical NR approach. I think BP and Histhatai have adequately described the basics, more or less.

-Jon

Brainpolice:

Agency comes before material possession. The reverse, the notion that ownership over external objects precedes agency or is a requirement for individual autonomy, simply makes no sense.

I'm not saying that this is a chicken-and-egg situation. Rather, I'm saying that self-ownership and ownership of external things must arise together.

Brainpolice:

There can be no rights over external objects without there first being individual autonomy

This is true. But there also cannot be individual autonomy without rights over external things, e.g. food. You cannot be a self-owner if you're dead from starvation!

fsk:

For example, if marijuana makes me feel good, I have a natural right to smoke and possess it. 

No you don't. You have the right to do whatever with the marijuana that you own.

fsk:

I do have the right to free speech (even the US Constitution guarantees this.)

No you don't. You have the right to say what you want on your land and write what you want in your newspaper. And since when did the constitution become a credible authority? Spooner, anyone?

fsk:

The bottom line for natural rights is "You can do whatever you want, as long as you don't injure someone else.

The proviso is unnecessary. See Rothbard, MES, p. 1312 and note 13.

fsk:

The bottom line for State rights is "People only have rights that the State gives them.

You cannot give someone a right. The state gives people privileges, and violates their rights.

Sage:

there also cannot be individual autonomy without rights over external things, e.g. food. You cannot be a self-owner if you're dead from starvation!

You're mixing up the facts with the conceptual heirarchy that recognizes those facts.  Individual autonomy and rights in property are inseperable, one cannot exist without the other. They both just are.  But in the process of logic that gets you to understanding them, the concept of autonomy comes first, rights over property are consequence of it, or a corollary to it.

Hi
Please I'm not anglophone so I do not know whether I'm able to make me understood.

The key of  the matter is Hoppe : when you are engaged in argumentation  you  de facto accept some rules grounding the possibility of  argumentation itself  and so undenyable through  argumentaton.  What qualities for rules?  In primis universality : you confide  the  result of argumentation to his logic force  thereby recognizing   the autonomy of your interlocutors and there 'right ' to accept your reasons for the soundness of your argumentation.

Being engaded in argumentation moreover means you are acting : arranging things for a purpose in a conflict free way thereby recognizing   you can control uncontoled  things  outside you: you are accepting the 'right'  of private property.

Natural rights  therefore are: selfownership and private property .   Could you  deny it? Yes of course but   not in argumentation (performative contraddiction) therefore ypou can  through  non pacific  means only.

Bye

spirit66

 I thought somebody else already provided a good link to Roderick Long's "The Nature of Law".  Section IV is specifically on natural law, but the whole thing is great reading:  http://libertariannation.org/a/f13l2.html#Outline

Basically he distinguishes between different types of rights in this way:

          • Normative rights: the claims that ought to be respected and protected.

• Legal rights: the claims that a given legal institution officially announces it will respect and protect.

• De facto rights: the claims that actually receive respect and protection in a given society.

 

Natural rights are thus NOT "a legitimately enforceable claim", but simply a normative claim that OUGHT to be respected and protected.  Natural rights theory is a theory about which rights should be considered legitimate and should be protected (and of course, why they should be protected).

With a legitimately enforceable claim, you are talking about legal rights, which may or may not actually be enforced, and which may or may not be similar to natural rights, depending upon who is giving the legal rights legitimacy.

histhasthai:

Sage:

there also cannot be individual autonomy without rights over external things, e.g. food. You cannot be a self-owner if you're dead from starvation!

You're mixing up the facts with the conceptual heirarchy that recognizes those facts.  Individual autonomy and rights in property are inseperable, one cannot exist without the other. They both just are.  But in the process of logic that gets you to understanding them, the concept of autonomy comes first, rights over property are consequence of it, or a corollary to it.

 

 

Yea, that's all I'm really saying.

histhasthai:

Circular.  What is "legitimately"? 

Can you elaborate on how it is circular?