Do you believe in natural rights?

[Joe McCarthy]

Here is Jeremy Bentham's classic statement on the question from Anarchical Fallacies:

All men are born free? All men remain free? No, not a single man: not a single man that ever was, or is, or will be. All men, on the contrary, are born in subjection, and the most absolute subjection--the subjection of a helpless child to the parents on whom he depends every moment for his existence. In this subjection every man is born--in this subjection he continues for years--for a great number of years--and the existence of the individual and of the species depends upon his so doing.

Bentham further contended that the right to rebel cut to the core of legitimacy, as to question a state's authority was to welcome anarchy, as no state could be seen to to have a safe basis to rule. I'm particularly interested though in what others here think of the rights question as it relates to property. This was most famously articulated by John Locke with the labor theory of property.

[Blood Trinity]

Just one: Might.

[Equinox]

“Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense — nonsense upon stilts.” - Jeremy Bentham

Though it is this belief in rights that has kept the American fascination with forms of Libertarianism going all this while.

[Óttar]

[YOUTUBE]hWiBt-pqp0E[/YOUTUBE]

[anonymaus]

re: Locke--and Rousseau's criticism of his proposal, per Rand:

"the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values."

Anyone not wallowing in the roiling emotional pit of torture known as subjectivism would accept the concept of property rights as "natural", insomuch as they are required as the foundation for the exercise of all other rights and stem from their indispensability in man's ability to survive unmolested.

[Equinox]

re: Locke--and Rousseau's criticism of his proposal, per Rand:

"the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values."

Anyone not wallowing in the roiling emotional pit of torture known as subjectivism would accept the concept of property rights as "natural", insomuch as they are required as the foundation for the exercise of all other rights and stem from their indispensability in man's ability to survive unmolested.

The action of producing or earning object X = possession of object X.

I contest that property rights are distinct from the concept of natural rights. A person can believe in property rights, but should he not have a place of his own to stand, then it matters not whether he holds this belief or not. That which is not his own is simply someone else's. And no man with half a brain would leisurely tread through another man's property without any fear of being molested for doing so. To think otherwise is idiotic. Property is, and always will be, seen as a extended concept of the self.

[SwordoftheVistula]

True rights are natural, as they would exist in a state of nature absent any artificial structures and constraints. With no artificial constraints to restrain freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of contract, freedom to use one's property as one wishes, etc, these rights would exist, so they are natural.

Modern day bogus 'rights' don't count, such as the 'right to [free] housing' (provided by others), 'right to [free] health care' (provided by others), 'right to [free] education' (provided by others), 'right to [free] food' (provided by others), 'right not to be offended'

[Equinox]

True rights are natural, as they would exist in a state of nature absent any artificial structures and constraints. With no artificial constraints to restrain freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of contract, freedom to use one's property as one wishes, etc, these rights would exist, so they are natural.

Modern day bogus 'rights' don't count, such as the 'right to [free] housing' (provided by others), 'right to [free] health care' (provided by others), 'right to [free] education' (provided by others), 'right to [free] food' (provided by others), 'right not to be offended'

SotV,

If I owned a plot of land next to your plot of land and whilst stood upon my plot of land kept yelling at the top of my lungs what an absolute tit you are, what do you think would happen? What say I made a contract with all other owners of land next to your own and together we kept baiting you?

People will constantly press the boundaries until someone snaps. Who then is moral? What place do rights have here, if any?

[Blood Trinity]

Anyone not wallowing in the roiling emotional pit of torture known as subjectivism would accept the concept of property rights as "natural", insomuch as they are required as the foundation for the exercise of all other rights and stem from their indispensability in man's ability to survive unmolested.

This paints human nature with an overly optimistic brush. Such a mentality is proving to create a scenario in which ethno-culture, a healthy biosphere and just about everything else is for sale, namely those things I and others on here for obvious reasons consider worth preserving. There are higher values for us to grasp. Furthermore I feel this view of objectifying everything is not only a spiritual dead end street, but is ironically proving to gradually molest man as a whole and threaten our survival. When everything is reduced to the concept of physical property, as in a commodity that can be bought and sold, you have those who do not care about things organic, natural, and cultural. They simply do not care about the impact of ecological destruction for example on anything more than a short-term basis (how it will effect their pocketbook before their own miserable demise).

[Joe McCarthy]

Originally Posted by Equinox
The action of producing or earning object X = possession of object X.

Yes. It's correct to say that owning property is a function of the will to live, and it has utilitarian value. That's a long way from establishing that it's a natural right though.