Anyone want to help explain natural rights?

[MacFall]

@Paul

That could be interpreted in two ways - i.e., he could be saying that there is such a thing as right and wrong and that it’s determined by popular vote or something (but then ask him on what basis the votes are cast). And do the people who say that actually believe it - do they act as if it were true?

No; they wouldn’t say that popular vote creates right and wrong, but they believe that it tends to be for (their abritrary standard of) “the greater good”.

The ones who believe it don’t act it, but only because they don’t want to. They couldn’t tell you WHY they don’t want to, though.

If someone insists that the moon is made of cheese, that doesn’t affect the moon in any way; it only means he’s not really engaging in the argument. If someone insists that individuals don’t own themselves, he’s acting as if he owns himself (or, if he’s taking orders from someone else, as if the person giving the orders owns himself…)

The persons in question would contend that you cannot own yourself because you ARE yourself, and they believe that ownership is only a formal recognition of control. So they would state that without positive law that determines what control is legitimate and what isn’t, if I were to overpower you to the point where it is I, and not you that controls you, then I “own” you.

[Inquisitor]

Ego, an example of an attempted proof of self-ownership is Stephan Kinsella’s How we come to own ourselves.

[ThorsMitersaw]

@Inquisitor

Ego, an example of an attempted proof of self-ownership is Stephan Kinsella’s How we come to own ourselves.

I happen to like that particular article very much.