jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (5 posts)

Natural/liberty rights VS. Legal/claim rights

  1. innersmiff profile image72
    innersmiffposted 5 years ago

    "Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. They're sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights."

    This can be proven true through deduction. We have a right to life based on the fact that we are living. Unless there is an external change, or act against the person (including old age), he will still have his life. One can not change that.

    We have a right to speech - we have the right to communicate, or refrain from communicating, but more importantly we have the right not to be censored. It is natural because only an outside force can prevent us from communicating. We own our communication purely by existing.

    We have the right to our private property, i.e. the consequences of our actions. If we construct a clock, it is ours because it would not have existed if we did not exist. We are directly responsible for the products of our actions (we 'own' them). If you punch somebody, you are responsible for the pain that is caused. It is that pain that you are tried for. It would not be fair to try somebody else for it.

    These are natural rights. To act against them in any manner is an act of violence.

    "Legal rights, in contrast, are based on a society's customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures."

    "A claim right is a right which entails that another person has a duty to the right-holder. Somebody else must do or refrain from doing something to or for the claim holder, such as perform a service or supply a product for him or her; that is, he or she has a claim to that service or product (another term is thing in action). In logic, this idea can be expressed as: "Person A has a claim that person B do something if and only if B has a duty to A to do that something." Every claim-right entails that some other duty-bearer must do some duty for the claim to be satisfied."

    These 'rights' represent those in favour of, the death penalty, the welfare state and censorship. To exist, these 'rights' have to violate natural rights, so whoever called them rights in the first place was being extremely disingenuous indeed.

    The death penalty, war, and special appropriations to the government to assassinate people provides the 'right' to kill, but violates the natural right to life stated in the constitution of the US.

    It proves in turn that 'property is theft' is simply untrue. Property is a provable right (and if anybody responds to this by saying 'you are wrong' you are proving my argument correct by assuming that my argument is my property because I am responsible for it), so one can not argue that, for example, housing is a right. A person does not have a house when he is born. Unless he builds one or trades for one he is not personally responsible for a house. What he could do though, if he wanted a house could be to take the responsibility of a house away from somebody with violence. Now that person has the 'right' to that persons house. Are you beginning to see the ridiculousness of the idea?

    One has the right to seek a house because it does not require anybody else to give it to you. In the same way that freedom of speech does not require anybody to give you a pulpit. To argue for 'free housing' is to argue against property rights, and argue for violence. 'Housing is a right' is not only violent, it is violence based on something that is simply untrue.

    1. ptosis profile image75
      ptosisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Homeless people have a hard time asserting their right to exist and take up space on this Earth. There are many laws aimed at the homeless that outlaw human bodily functions in public that would otherwise be legal inside a home.

      The saying of the rich and poor have an equal right, “to sleep under the bridges” of Paris.

      In Honolulu, the local government tried to make sitting down up against the wall on the sidewalk a crime, people howled that how is it that an inanimate object such as a news-stand on the sidewalk has more right to exist in public than a human being.

      Another law in Honolulu is called "camping". It is legal to be sprawled out in a drunken stupor - but beware - can't use a pillow on the beach, and that pillow could be your backpack that contains all your belongings  - that's a ticket. So homeless folks would sleep next to the road because of the "broken paddle' decree by King Kamehameha to protect the homeless aged and children from legal molestation. That was overturned when Honolulu redefined the middle of the road land break as being part of the "park".

      Try living homeless for a awhile and be treated like a cockroach. A person is not A illegal - it's should not be illegal to be poor. Every morning the leaf blowers come out at 6am to drive the homeless off the streets downtown with flying dust & debris. In the parks @ 5am the sprinklers come on  and anybody who doesn't move is probably dead and carted off before the joggers come out. Garbage collectors who work all night dumpster diving for a living, hide in crevices to avoid a beat down or a shake up during the day. People despise these folks as lazy for sleeping all day not knowing that it's illegal to sleep at night. the cops will tell you to learn how to sleep sitting up. (no shit)


    2. Josak profile image62
      Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      "We have the right to our private property, i.e. the consequences of our actions. If we construct a clock, it is ours because it would not have existed if we did not exist. We are directly responsible for the products of our actions (we 'own' them). If you punch somebody, you are responsible for the pain that is caused. It is that pain that you are tried for. It would not be fair to try somebody else for it."

      Right to private property huh? I wonder if you are familiar with this quote (I suspect you are):

      “The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had some one pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: "Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!”

      If you assert that things that are naturally given to us are rights then I assert that all the earth belongs to everyone, whether you believe a god gave it to us or non supernatural entity no one produced it and no one is entitled to it, it was given to or received by all men and thus all land ownership is theft from the people as a whole as is the product of it, from wood to steel the property of all, indeed private ownership is just a legal right because no one naturally owns anything what they own they do so at the merit of force.

      1. innersmiff profile image72
        innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        How is it true in any capacity that I am responsible for your actions? I would not dream to intrude on that because I was in no way involved with it. Would you suggest holding the entire world's population responsible for one man's crime? If you make the world's best coffee by yourself in your house, who am I to say that that coffee is now mine? It's simply not true.

        This 'everything belongs to everyone' philosophy would destroy sites like this too: why shouldn't there be an 'edit' button on every single post that everyone can access? Because there is an assumption that each individual is responsible for and owns what he posts on the site, and no person has a right to change or remove it.

        Speech is simply a kind of property, i.e. the product of our actions. Nobody has the capacity to speak for us so no person can claim to own our speech. Similarly, if you did not contribute to the action that created the product, you have no right to that product. This mindset is not evil, or selfish, but true, and proven by the inherent knowing in every human being that an individual is responsible for his own actions.

        Property is not force, it is a creative action - like building a house (this misunderstanding helps me understand why people think crushing cars is beneficial to the economy). And it is impossible to steal from a collective unless all of those individuals in the collective have contributed to that that is stolen.

  2. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Your understanding of natural rights is quirky, at best.  They are generally thought to freedom to live, right to bodily integrity, freedom from slavery etc.  Very basic rights to exist autonomously rather than to do or have things.