Do you have natural rights? If so, what are the root elements of them?

[Bryan]

Per the title, do you have natural rights? If so, what are they and what are the root elements of them? Most specifically, I'm interested to break down the ideas and concepts into their most fundamental pieces.

For example, saying we have the right to liberty can be viewed as a right, but how can this be further quantified? How can you break this down? Does this mean you have the freedom of movement? But is that really a sub-element of the freedom of self-determination? As well, there are some limits to the freedom of movement.

Thanks for any viewpoints.



BTW, natural rights have certainly been discussed here in the past but nothing to this detail that I can find. Some threads:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/tags.php?tag=natural+rights

 

[otherone]

Per the title, do you have natural rights? If so, what are they and what are the root elements of them? Most specifically, I'm interested to break down the ideas and concepts into their most fundamental pieces.

For example, saying we have the right to liberty can be viewed as a right, but how can this be further quantified? How can you break this down? Does this mean you have the freedom of movement? But is that really a sub-element of the freedom of self-determination? As well, there are some limits to the freedom of movement.

Thanks for any viewpoints.



BTW, natural rights have certainly been discussed here in the past but nothing to this detail that I can find. Some threads:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/tags.php?tag=natural+rights

I'm not certain whether you are looking for detail or axiom.
All rights are an extension of self-ownership.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The OP raises two issues:

-How are individual rights, in the libertarian sense, to be defined?

-How are those rights to be justified?

As to the first issue, back when Bryan was trying to set up a sort of RPF wiki, IIRC, I posted an article on this topic. I won't go looking for it just now, maybe someone else knows where it is, but, paraphrasing Mises, the program of liberalism, if reduced to a single word, would read: property. A property right is a right to use some thing (car, land, Reuben sandwich, human body). The essence of libertarianism is a set of principles governing the distribution of property rights, chief among which is the principle of voluntary exchange. Locke's formula of "life, liberty, and property," understood from this point of view, is a redundancy (like "copper, iron, and metal"). It's all a matter of property rights, in different specific applications. The overarching goal of liberalism/libertarianism must be to maximize the security of property (or, what is the same thing, minimize the incidence of aggression).

As to the second issue, justifying these ethical principles, there is the economic justification (i.e. a society which respects these rules will be maximally prosperous [the problem of cardinal value aside]), and then there is the deontological justification (which amounts to an intuitive sense that these rules are just). In either case, the justification rests on subjective values (i.e. that prosperity is good, or that such and such ethical rule is just); there is no possibility of "proving" ethical claims, contra the foolishness of Hoppe's argumentation ethics or similar dead-ends.

 

[TER]

We have no natural rights. That is a humanist ideology which ignores the fact that everything we have has been given to us by our Creator.

Any ‘rights’ we think we have is a gift given to us by God, not because we deserve it or because we are born human. It is solely because of God’s love that we have anything at all, including life.

Simply being born does not give us any rights.

Being obedient to our Creator, however, gives us sonship and access to the Kingdom of God.

While these temporal political ideologies like Constitutional republics seek to bring order in this fallen world, the goal and final destination is infact a Kingdom. Any rights we have is according to the will of our King, that is, God.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

This might be an opportune moment to add that, for the libertarian, it should make no difference whatsoever how another person comes to libertarianism. If someone insists that Hoppean argumentation ethics is a "proof" of ethics, or makes an analogous error with respect to some other school of secular ethics, or if a religious person claims that it is the will of the deity that property rights be respected, that all works fine. It doesn't really matter why people are libertarians.

 

[TER]

Nothing a person owns is truly theirs. Everything has been given to us as a loan. It is up to us on how we use the talents which truly counts. Locking them up and storing them away will count for naught when we are asked to give an account on how we used the things that were given to us.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

@TER, as you are our resident expert in the affairs on the Constantinopolitan Church, I have a non-rhetorical question for you:

(I'll be brief, no need to move this to the religion sub-forum)

In English translation of the Bible, we have the phrase "give unto to Caesar what is Caesar's," or something to that effect.

What is the original Greek word being translated as "Caesar"? Basileus, tyrannos, or something else?

 

[timosman]

Nothing a person owns is truly theirs. Everything has been given to us as a loan. It is up to us on how we use the talents which truly counts. Locking them up and storing them away will count for naught when we are asked to give an account on how we used the things that were given to us.

What if we are just a mistake which struggles to perpetuate itself for no reason whatsoever?

 

[donnay]

Just as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the DOI we have unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.

UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
2. Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unalienable

 

[r3volution 3.0]

What if we are just a mistake which struggles to perpetuate itself for no reason whatsoever?

That would be an apt description of internet trolls, no?

 

[Bryan]

I'm not certain whether you are looking for detail or axiom.

Just looking for thoughtful analysis and discussion, we'll see where it goes.

All rights are an extension of self-ownership.

When does this self-ownership begin?

Is it possible to derive the right to own property from self-ownership? Or is that a separate matter?

Thanks!

 

[TER]

Just as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the DOI we have unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.


https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unalienable

Thomas Jefferson also edited the NT to deny Christ’s miracles. He was not a Christian. The majority of the founders were Freemasons.

The Declaration of Independence was not the Word of the God. It was a political declaration. .

Show me where in the Bible it says or even alludes that we are born with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[timosman]

The discussion of this nature is not complete without the answer to the most fundamental question - Why are we here?

 

[TER]

@TER, as you are our resident expert in the affairs on the Constantinopolitan Church, I have a non-rhetorical question for you:

(I'll be brief, no need to move this to the religion sub-forum)

In English translation of the Bible, we have the phrase "give unto to Caesar what is Caesar's," or something to that effect.

What is the original Greek word being translated as "Caesar"? Basileus, tyrannos, or something else?

The Biblical and apostolic teachings I am mentioning above was established long before Constantinople was founded.

As for the original Greek word used in that verse, the word used was Καίσαρος, which translates to Cæsar.

 

[TER]

The discussion of this nature is not complete without the answer to the most fundamental question - Why are we here?

Well said.

If the answer is ‘for the accumulation of material possessions’, then it is a very carnal and weak answer.

Nothing we have is ours. Everything, even our life and the air we breath has been given to us

 

[Bryan]

The OP raises two issues:

-How are individual rights, in the libertarian sense, to be defined?

-How are those rights to be justified?

As to the first issue, back when Bryan was trying to set up a sort of RPF wiki,

I still am. This is part of that. The project has certainly been on hiatus for too long but it will never be a past tense issue.

IIRC, I posted an article on this topic. I won't go looking for it just now, maybe someone else knows where it is, but, paraphrasing Mises, the program of liberalism, if reduced to a single word, would read: property. A property right is a right to use some thing (car, land, Reuben sandwich, human body). The essence of libertarianism is a set of principles governing the distribution of property rights, chief among which is the principle of voluntary exchange. Locke's formula of "life, liberty, and property," understood from this point of view, is a redundancy (like "copper, iron, and metal"). It's all a matter of property rights, in different specific applications. The overarching goal of liberalism/libertarianism must be to maximize the security of property (or, what is the same thing, minimize the incidence of aggression).

How do you see property rights in relation to air? Do you have a natural right to air? Air can be viewed as property, you can contain, trade and consume air. If you were on a Mars colony it would be obvious you don't have a right to air. Is it different on Earth? Can one still argue you do not have a right to air and if you didn't own any property you could end up in a situation where you owned no air. Sounds bizarre, but what are the counter arguments?

As to the second issue, justifying these ethical principles, there is the economic justification (i.e. a society which respects these rules will be maximally prosperous [the problem of cardinal value aside]), and then there is the deontological justification (which amounts to an intuitive sense that these rules are just). In either case, the justification rests on subjective values (i.e. that prosperity is good, or that such and such ethical rule is just); there is no possibility of "proving" ethical claims, contra the foolishness of Hoppe's argumentation ethics or similar dead-ends.

Technically, I didn't mention justification, just what they were. To your point however, I agree that justification rests on subjective values. In the big picture of my work, I'm taking a difference approach that works to avoid these dead ends. But that's a different topic.

Thank you!

 

[Bryan]

We have no natural rights. That is a humanist ideology which ignores the fact that everything we have has been given to us by our Creator.

What specifically has been given to us?

Any ‘rights’ we think we have is a gift given to us by God, not because we deserve it or because we are born human. It is solely because of God’s love that we have anything at all, including life.

Simply being born does not give us any rights.

Being obedient to our Creator, however, gives us sonship and access to the Kingdom of God.

While these temporal political ideologies like Constitutional republics seek to bring order in this fallen world, the goal and final destination is infact a Kingdom. Any rights we have is according to the will of our King, that is, God.

Thank you for your writing!!

 

[Bryan]

In English translation of the Bible, we have the phrase "give unto to Caesar what is Caesar's," or something to that effect.

As an aside, this is an important principle. If you have borrowed something from Caesar then you should give it back, it is his. Conversely, the fruits of your labor are your and yours alone. If Caesar has earned goodwill then it's good to give it to him.

 

[TER]

What specifically has been given to us?

We have been given life and existence. We have been given personhood. We have been given a great gift which is to share in God’s creation.

We have been given the awesome opportunity to partake of the divine nature, where there is true liberty and freedom.

These I would say are there greatest things we have been given. Everything else we have (which has also been given), is to aid us in this endeavor.

 

[TER]

As an aside, this is an important principle. If you have borrowed something from Caesar then you should give it back, it is his. Conversely, the fruits of your labor are your and yours alone. If Caesar has earned goodwill then it's good to give it to him.

To dig deeper, what fruits of our labor are ours and ours alone?