“However, I am a little confused on how to scientifically (without introducing the God, please) establish the property right as a natural right. Could anyone direct me to some works that address this issue? Thank you.”
It’s naturally occurring. For example, God isn’t necessary to understand that a rock exists. The rock simply exists and occurs due to natural phenomena. Property likewise also occurs naturally, as do rights. Let me dumb it down because there are many people on this forum who shriek at the word “Rights” and “ethics” and assign all kinds of crazy mystical or arbitrary otherwise values to those concepts as if they were divine. They are not, rights(In the economic sense) do not come from God, and the concept of property and rights occur naturally as consequences to various phenomena that man must contend with in this life. You can argue that there is an ethical(Ethics are nothing more than codes of conduct, and they can influence rights for sure) structure that God requires of you, but that does not invalidate that fundamental purpose of rights, and they exist with or without his proclamations.
First Property
Property is quite simply a consequential axiom which occurs due to the following 3 reasons. (Notice the praxeological connection)
- Objects are Scarce
- Time is Scarce
- Man must occupy objects over time to satisfy ends.
Since we know objects are scarce, and only one man(In general) can occupy an object at any given time to satisfy his own ends we know that other people must wait, contend, or build their own objects to satisfy their ends as well. The fact remains however that only one object can be in control by a person at any given time (IN general). This simple fact is what property is, nothing more. Do not fall into fallacy of assigning more weight to it than that. It’s simply a concept which shows that a tangible object (Like your body) is currently in occupation by someone.
Second Rights, Claims to Action (Again notice the link to praxeology)
Rights are just as much of natural phenomena as the rock, and property. It may be argued that some rights come from God, as subjectively appraised by a group of people, but rights would exist with or without the divine, at least as far as how the structure of man and his behavior is concerned. This neither proves nor disproves credits nor discredits the legitimacy of religion. The point I am making is that rights, in the economic sense, operate outside of the scope of religious scrutiny of all types (Atheism included). Rights are simply Claims to specific Human Action. A claim on a specific action is making a claim to a right. That claim may be to occupy a specific scarce object for some duration of time. Rights simply help us ascertain who presently has a claim to a specific action. In this way rights form economically on the market and serve the interest of people, who hold property (Currently occupying tangible objects) that they desire to protect. In other words, Rights is more or less an economic phenomenon, not a divine one.
Rights are nothing beyond that, and they can be formulated and fabricated in various ways. This is where the problem lies however, there are many who believe that since rights are so malleable that we can make them function in ways which operate counter to human action. This is why there are so many discrepancies for what are legitimate rights. For example, we can construct rights which stipulate that man must fly in the air like the bird, and that he is the natural owner of the sky. We could argue that man has a right to flight(A right to action) but such a claim would naturally prove to be folly. In the same sense many other schools of thought build their systems of rights on such folly, they try as hard as they can to force man to act like an Ant, but he is no such type of organism.
If left alone however Rights (Claims to human action) will naturally develop in the best interest of the market, and form as a need on the market. Rights will naturally formulate in a way which best fosters the environments of private ownership of property as this method is the most praxeologicaly consistent method. Moving away from this is like swimming up current, or moving against the grain of the wood, it simply won’t work over a long period of time short of re-wiring the brain of man and altering his characteristics of action. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for a time. People can be indoctrinated into all sorts of beliefs, and for a time they will follow suit but eventually the economically detrimental effect of their beliefs will become apparent and they will abandon them and adopt new ethics(New codes of conduct)
I know I went off on a tangent but all you have to keep in mind is that Property occurs naturally due to various “natural” conditions we have on earth. And Rights occur also out of necessity (Who has the best claim to occupy said scarce resource). Once you understand that rights are simply claims to human action, and that property is nothing more than a phenomena that occurs due to natural worldly ailments, then it doesn’t become so difficult to see how private property is a natural result of the two. People who put forth the effort in creating tangible objects for their own use will also protect their objects and attempt to keep ownership over them. It’s really remarkably simple and it all occurs naturally. By that I mean it occurs based on the praxeological structure of man and as consequences to various earthly ailments, like scarcity.