Why do you believe in natural rights?

I don't believe in natural rights; that is, I don't believe in any conception of natural rights that I've heard thus far.

What is your conception of natural rights, and what is the basis of that conception?

I hope you don't mind that I joined your group.

Why do I believe in natural rights? The idea of natural rights came out of the philosophical discussion of natural law. Natural law differs from legislation because it is not fabricated but discovered. It exists as part of the universe, just as the physical laws of gravity, etc, exist. Natural laws differ from physical laws in that they relate to human interaction. And, as far as I can tell, they provide the basis for a peaceful human society. They identify natural human inclinations, such as the desire to control things. Natural rights identify human rights that, when recognized as belonging to every human person, enable society to function in a more peaceful way.

So, for example, there are various natural rights that address property. These rights identify the ways that allow persons to own their own lives, persons, and goods. They provide the guidelines for peaceful interactions, such as buying, selling, bartering, giving, etc. Those laws that lead to peace are called moral, while those that lead to conflict are called immoral.

If human society, or some portion of it, does not recognize these human rights which are natural and not manmade, peaceful interaction becomes impossible. Then we have a society that is animal, where there is no morality, but only brute force.

Sketpik, I'm glad you brought up this question. I've never really actually THOUGHT about the question, because I always figured it was something that just made sense; something inarguable, like 2 + 2 equaling four.  But perhaps I should start thinking about this.

I'd say in my limited amount of thinking about this question, that humans by nature pursue their self interests - It is in one's self-interest to pursue their interests in such a manner that benefits other parties that are involved (exchange) in order to increase quality of life for all. When intervention (through labor abuses, theft, crime, murder, government) occurs, these rights are taken away, and it turns into a zero-sum game.  Such violations tend to be corrected over time by the preferences and values of others involved, however when further intervention takes place, such preferences cannot correct the problem, and even more problems erupt.

By the way, what is the argument behind not believing in natural rights?

All rights arise out of private property through the protection, expansion, consumption, and or insemination of your property. Your property begins with your thoughts, your labor, and your body. This is the one common denominator with all people when it comes to property and it is through these four actions on your base property that you attain rights.

Natural rights encompass more than just property rights, such as the right to defend yourself, the right to form and protect a family, right to be left alone if you're not hurting someone else, and so on. On the property issue, perhaps, for some purposes of analysis, it would be better to replace the concept of property with that of wealth which unmasks the identity between property and money.

I must disagree the right to defend does fall under property rights so does protecting your family. The right to be left alone is a form of protection. You are your own property your thoughts are your property your body is your property and your labor is your property and to use your property through the actions of PROTECTION, EXPANSION, CONSUMPTION, and or INSEMINATION will constitute any right that you can imagine if it is not through your property and it is the property of another person that you want to perform these actions it is an infringement of anothers rights. You must first seek permission from the other person to perform any of these actions. As far as the right to protect your family it is a consensus between parties that gives you this right ie your wife and children because in the household it is community property. There is absolutely no right that you can claim that cannot be tied to private property and its use. If you read what I wrote the beginning of wealth is through the expansion of your property through your labor or invention and can be as little as a loaf of bread or as extravagant as a Mazaradi . No other person has the right to it without you freely giving it up. The common element between all people is your thoughts, your body, and your labor this is a common denominator of all people and it is the purest base of property and this is why rights are equal.

This is semantics. If we define everything as property then all rights are property rights. If, by convention we agree to view all rights this way, them I'm in agreement.

All rights are property rights:

http://mises.org/daily/2569

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/property_rights.html

Thanks Aquila they are both good links I'm glad there are other people that think the way I do.

I think natural rights deals with your right to use the reason you have as a human being in order to survive in life, and improve your life's conditions, without outside forces coercing your efforts. Natural, being in the sense that we are all born with reason... no human being had to put forth special effort to give it to you, you were born that way... it is naturally a part of life, rather than artificially given by other men.

I think the concept of "Natural Rights" is a very useful one...but like all ideological concepts, it breaks down at the borders... Did not Rodrick Long argue about people like me? People who are Utilitarians, viewing natural rights as a "useful construct" being, ultimately, natural rights believers...like Pachal's Wager...belief in God is the better bet, therefore I believe in God...

Why don't you think natural rights exist, Skeptik?

In our Republic natural rights are significant. Our founders in the founding generation believed in natural rights, describing them as "inalienable" in the Declaration of Independence, and encompassing them with the Ninth Amendment which declares that such rights which are not expressly enumerated in the Constitution are nevertheless retained by the people. This is the true significance of natural rights in America, that they are retained.

I don't believe in metaphysical concepts like the existence of a god or absolute morals i,e, natural rights. The existence of a god and absolute morals can not by definition be proven or disproven. It is a pure belief system. In essence I'm a value nihilist. However I have come to the conclusion that natural rights is part of human behavior, part of our evolution as a species. I beleive that in the future evolutionary psychology will show this to be true. In the mean time I as a proxy in lieu of future developments acknowledge the Natural Rights codified in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights but only those. For those that do not like me believe in metaphysical concepts as god or absolute morals but still uphold market anarchism read this essay: “Does Belief in Ethical Subjectivism Pose a Challenge to Classical Liberalism?”, published in Reason Papers http://nonicoclolasos.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/does-ethical-subjectivism.pdf It discusses the issues introduced in this post.