I would say the premise is that it is, "anything that everyone would naturally have, as long as the government does not interfere." Thoughts?
"Most voters know nothing about how markets work—or even that they work..." Sheldon Richman
Natural law is nothing more than the product of the rational attempt to stipulate mutually-binding rules of conduct regarding scarce recources. The term 'scarce' specifically means resources whose use by one individual precludes their use by another individual—resources over whose use there can arise conflict. Natural law is called 'natural' in that it is perceived through our intellect, in contrast to 'positive' law, which is nothing more than the dictates of authority.
Natural law is 'libertarian' in that the equal existential status of the participants as free-willed individual is implicit in the qualification that such rules of conduct be mutually binding.
Rights are neither granted by government, nor are they "anything that everyone would naturally have, as long as the government does not interfere." Rights are rationally derived. Libertarians of the minarchist bent argue that the one and only legitimate function of the government is to protect natural rights. Libertarians of the anarchist bent argue that since government is, in practice, a territorial monopoly on the institutionalized use of coercion, government is not, and never can be libertarian.
Well, a more coherent way of formulating it is to not forcefully interfere with the actions of autonomous individuals, i.e. other humans.
-Jon
I cannot be caged. I cannot be controlled. Understand this as you die, ever pathetic, ever fools.
Irenicus' Diaries.
How about, "I would define a "right" as something everyone has that can only be taken away through use of force."?
This might be helpful?
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
Spideynw: How about, "I would define a "right" as something everyone has that can only be taken away through use of force."?
You can deny someone their rights. You can't take them away. If someone murders you, they have taken away your life. They did not take away your right to life.
On the other hand, rights can be lost. Someone who has murdered or threatens to murder someone else has forefitted their right to life. (This is not to argue for capital punnishment on the part of the state. The state can't be trusted with that kind of authority. This is to argue that if you kill someone who is about to murder you or someone else, it is not murder.)
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp
You might be interested in checking out Judith Thomson's book, Rights, Restitution & Risk, where she spends a few chapters discussing that sort of thing.
Hmm I'm not sure this sits well with me. I think rights apply all the time. Given that a right is applicable against aggressive force, and not defensive force, I think it's unnecessary to say the criminal lost anything.
Jon, that distinction would forbid coercive enforcement of any sort of justice after the fact. That is, I could try to stop you from attacking me, but if you attacked me, and refused to pay me restitution, my hands would be tied. Are you comfortable with that? Could you see why it wouldn't be uncontroversial?
Why would that be, given that it's a defensive use of force?
Only with an extremely controversial, value-laden, and perhaps question-begging definition of the word "defensive." More accurately, it's a justified use of aggressive force.
I don't see why - it is force used in response to initiatory aggression. Rights to not justify the initiation of aggression, hence only permit defensive uses of force.
Two concerns: First, most people don't think that the initiation of force justifies the use of just any force; it has to be force used in a very certain kind of way (for example, consistent with standards of procedural justice). Second, enforcement of justice is usually done by a third party, who has not had force initiated upon them.
I'm a bit confused here as to how this touches upon my statement that an aggressor's rights do not merely vanish from the picture because they aggressed. Given that rights permit one to use force in defence (whether it must be consonant with certain procedures or not is a separate matter; as for third parties, they're delegated jurisdiction anyway), and not against someone acting in reaction to a rights violation, I don't see what sense it makes to say they vanish out of the picture, in the aggresor's case.
I would say " the ability to do action of one's will, with no interference from arbitrary forces"
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
Jon, above you'll find a link to a brief explanation of my own view. If you still don't understand my objection, let me know.
Andrew, that definition makes it very difficult to understand rights I have against other people doing certain things to me. For example, if someone punches me in the face, what action am I being impeded from taking?