What Are Rights?

Students: Get a full week of this at an IHS Summer Seminar - http://lrnlbty.co/AC0k2g

Individuals have rights. But are they natural? And how do they compare and contrast with legal or constitutional rights? Are legal or constitutional rights similar to those inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? Professor Aeon Skoble distinguishes such constitutional rights, such as the right to vote, from the rights protected by governments and constitutions—natural rights not actually granted by governments themselves. He concludes that legal systems should create rights that are compatible with natural rights.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Learnliberty
• learn liberty
• learn
• liberty
• ihs
• institute for humane studies
• video
• freedom
• Aeon Skoble
• Aeon
• Skoble
• rights
• natural rights
• philosophy
• legal rights
• constitutional rights
• government
• compossible rights
• negative rights
• positive rights
• moral
• ethics

[Jack95912]

@Jack95912 The opposing idea, e.g. that Anubis owns us, might be culturally appropriate, but it will not hold up to reasonable dissection.

It is not self evident in nature, not is it demonstrably true through experiment in either physics or thought.

Self ownership is, however, and from that we then go about describing other axiomatic truths that derive from it, such as self determination.

From this, we can say we have a natural right to exist free of coercion, for example.

[Jack95912]

@HistoryLubber Take as an example the most fundamental right of humans: self determination. This stems from a self ownership axiom.

Now, a culture may choose to say humans do not in fact own themselves, that they are owned by a Great Spirit or Anubis or whatever.

But what does reason tell us? We find that self ownership is able to be reduced to a true axiom that is supported with irrefutable reason.

[Jack95912]

@HistoryLubber It is true that the BELIEF in whether you have rights or not is an acculturated thing.

However, the EVIDENCE and LOGIC of being in possession of natural rights is self evident, if one will look at it.

Just because a person, or two persons, or an entire culture does not recognize a right or stamps it out does not mean it did not exist.

Justice and truth are not determined by a majority vote. The laws of the universe are not culturally bound.

[HistoryLubber]

There is about as much evidence that suggests humans have "natural rights" as there is for the theory that the nobility is a "better breed of people." This outlook is a result of cultural beliefs rather that consistent logical deduction. Our epistemological demand for proof is invoked in almost all cases except for challenging the fact that so-called "natural rights" is an artificial construct and the rights and liberties we are given is permitted by the closest coercive power.

[Jack95912]

@CosmicFork The right to property IS a human right.

The right to life is a property right. The right to defend your life, pursue happiness, and speak and express yourself freely all derive from the concept of self ownership.

Libertarians place an emphasis on property rights not because they "trump" other rights, but because your most sacred human rights derive from self ownership and the concept of personal property.

[rebelgamer]

@CosmicFork I consider myself Libertarian and I don't believe Property Rights trump Human Rights.

[CosmicFork]

If you are a Libertarian you believe that your Property Rights Trump every other Right on the planet... Including, Human Rights !!! That's where I part company violently with them.

[Jack95912]

@lowlander333 Even taking your own assertions as valid (which they are not) you have no reason to assail the point of the video.

If rights only exist as figments, then what harm is there to let those of us who believe in those figments from continuing to believe in them, esp if those 'figments' manifest in greater liberty?

Why would anyone actively spend energy to convince others they have no rights? As I asked you before, what kind of depraved person are you?

[Jack95912]

@lowlander333 Yet, although the video is emphatically clear on this point, you keep highlighting again, and again that just because certain actions that violate rights can be manifest in human action, then rights themselves somehow do not exist.

I tried to show you AD NAUSEUM about this logical fallacy you keep repeating. You simply don't seem to want to see it. You don't want to argue with the ACTUAL natural rights theory or what is said in the video, just straw men.

[Jack95912]

Why Lowlander do you persist in coming back with the same false reasoning again, and again, and again?

The first 40 seconds of this video lay out the entire idea:

"when we invoke rights, we are insisting on a certain kind of interaction, not because another kind isn't possible, but because another kind would be wrong."

" 'you can't make a round square' means it can't be done, ' you can't kill Fred' means it would be wrong to do it."

Seriously, go back and LISTEN to this part of the video.