It is a contract of sorts, yes. I wouldn’t say otherwise, but then here what’s at stake is What counts as homesteading? and not You can only have property rights if we say so! As for how rights exist, just start from obvious positions like the fact that one ought to be (fully) responsible for their criminal behaviour. Very few will contest that. Then why ought they not be responsible and able to fully enjoy the outcome of their positive actions? Who has a better claim and relation to the given thing than they, who through their actions incorporated the resources into given schemes? Here one begins with a position that things can be appropriated (the property right) but how this may take place is subject to court standards (the contractual part.) It’s not so simple as contracts create property rights, and besides that’d be question-begging, because to say one can only own property if a contract “allows” it is to say others somehow have the right to usurp their claim to a given resource if they disagree. Based on what? Their ownership thereof? But on this argument absent a contract they have no such claim. So if they lack such legitimacy, why should a person who has undertaken positive effort to appropriate an unowned resource not be allowed to keep it? The burden is clearly theirs, to show why they have any such right to interfere. The question is only “how much is enough?” for there to be a strong enough link between appropriator and resource, and nothing more.
Um, how does that demonstrate it at all?
DId you even read it?
If you refute the idea of self-ownership, then you have to ask yourself who exactly owns you. If you do not own your life, who or what gets to make claim on it?
The same argument you used for Mars can be used for you. Since you do not own yourself, there are others or other things that will try to claim it. So who gets you? The first person to see you?
Just to clarify, in my previous post I wasn’t arguing against self-ownership, merely that we do not own all the fruits of our labor. Even a fruit bearing tree does not keep all it’s fruit, the product of it’s labor. It uses the fruit to get animals to eat and spread its seeds.
I am demonstrating that natural rights are not even required to form a society.
By showing that a person can willingly surrender part of their property? Amazing.
I do not “own” my body, I simply “use” it. If it is advantageous for me to get others to believe they should not infringe upon it, it is not unreasonable for them to want the same, so we make an agreement to not physically harm each other.
For the record, I am not a socialist. The social contract theory I am using follows the laws of supply and demand, and the end result is two defense agencies that constantly compete to increase living conditions and happiness.
Natural rights exist regardless of society. Society is there merely to protect certain natural rights, however it will always erode others. The natural rights it erodes are different for each society.
But the fact that you and only those who you give consent to can use your body means you own it. If other people use your body without your consent, you are a slave, and they are stealing something they do not own.
Ok, so explain to me how you “know” natural rights exist. I am not trying to be a troll, I just want to educate myself further. I am just an inqusitive philosopher.
Who said they couldn’t kill me?
I know those rights exist because I think. My ability to think in my own mind, somewhere no one else can be in, gives me ownership over my thoughts and actions. My thoughts and actions make up my person. My ability to think therefore gives me sole ownership over my person, since no one can have my thoughts unless I give them to them.
And no one said they couldn’t kill you, however if they do, they are stealing your life from you. They are taking what is not theirs.
Do you own your thoughts, or is it just only possible for you to think them?
“Stealing your life” implies that you own yourself, which we still have not established yet.
If we define the word own as to have or hold something; to possess, then I would argue that yes, we own our thoughts. Your thoughts are something that you possess, and the only way others can get them is if you give them the thoughts freely. Therefore it’s something you have.
I’ve made my argument for us owning ourselves based on our ability to think. I’m not claiming that it is correct, however that’s what I myself would establish self ownership on.
On the topic of whether natural rights exist or not, I would argue that the only natural right that does exist is self ownership, however if we can agree that we have a right to self ownership, then a natural right to life, property and numerous other rights are synonymous with self-ownership.
Under that premise, I wouldn’t argue that free speech is a natural right as many argue, merely a right, however thinking to ones self is natural right.
Let me paste an excerpt of a paper I am working on. I feel it expresses my views more clearly.
It is important to note that under social contract theory objects are declared one’s property not by a natural right of ownership, but by agreement with all other people. However, it is extremely impractical and unlikely for every person in the world to agree with every other person’s property claims. At first, the stronger people will take goods and land from other people by force. They soon discover that this is not advantageous in the long run and create tribes under a specific social contract. An early example might have went something like this: “All people who agree to this contract must remain loyal to the leader, and in return will be allowed to use the conquered property as living spaces. In addition, you may not kill or take from other members. The leader has the right to settle any and all disputes between those within the tribe.” The billions of people initially required to individually agree with everyone else’s property claims transforms into a couple hundred leaders, as many individuals have chosen to give away part of their claim to property in favor of other benefits. The primary means of competition then moves from physical warfare to economic power, and the tribes run by leaders have now turned into states ruled by governments. Because anyone can claim that any land is rightfully theirs, it is important for the governments to have a strong police force and court system for internal disputes and a military to protect against outside invasions. They can also create contracts between other governments in the form of alliances to increase security.
If you’re arguing that everyone agreeing with another person’s property claim is unlikely, then I would agree. That is exactly why government (or I should say societies) exist. The people within them expect their property rights to be protected by that which they give authority to protect it. Within the society there will be rules as to who has claim on what (or better yet, how one comes to obtain a claim on something over others). However because more than one society exists, there may be disagreements over who owns what when the rules of both societies conflict and they cannot come to an agreement. The same will happen within a society if there are no rules for a specific case laid out before hand.
Who owns what isn’t really my argument. If a planet were to be populated in an instant with 100 billion people, and there wasn’t enough room nor resources for them, they would surely try to find groups among themselves and either fight or try to work something out for the space and resources.
Even though tribe A may kill all of tribe B to protect their claim to natural rights, that does not mean that tribe A didn’t circumvent tribe B’s natural rights in the process.
And that’s the issue with rights. They will conflict. Someone’s natural rights are always lost in one groups claim to their rights over another’s. That does not however mean that such rights do not exist.
This I agree with.
There’s no “property problem”.
Well if the world is so aggressive signing a contract on a piece of paper not to do it anymore is not going to stop a murderer is it? So we put them in jail, make them pay fines. What’s so different about this? I have no idea why you brought up Land owners make tenants (aka slaves or serfs) pay taxes. That’s monarchy.
Why do I have to be owned (a slave) to two competing for-profit law and order agencies?
Your social contract idea doesn’t exist.
I am more tangible than somebody’s imagined thoughts on a piece of paper. Have you read anything about Natural Law? I’d suggest Rothbards “Ethics of Liberty”.
Why don’t I own my labor or the fruits thereof?
You have no free will is basically what you’re saying. So now nobody has free-will and we can all just be slaves. But even a slave has free-will. So are you a rock?