I think the whole concept of rights as entities themselves is a bit “supernatural” for the reason that the best argument in support of them usually results in an unsustainable (in my opinion) premise that they are derived from humanity/consciousness/. What we all understand and refer to as “rights” I would suggest is nothing more than a state of being in which a human life is best lived.
The man who obtains and uses property with liberty and under the law (that is, without force) truly will have lived a better life than the man who must steal, tax, or otherwise use force to survive. This simple truth does not mean that there is a mystical attribute of the good man called “rights”. Just the same as eating certain foods is better for one’s body, a life lived with liberty and personal property is better as well - objectively. Any time these things are infringed upon by others, namely by criminals and government, the quality of life for the individual is diminished. Therefore, all individuals have an interest to personally defend these things, not because they have a right to them, but because they have a desire to live an objectively good life for themselves.
On a praxeological conception of ethics, our normative rights (the moral claims that ought to be respected) are grounded in the structure of practical reason. The metaphysical status of morality is similar to that of logic and mathematics. So no person determines our normative rights, and asking where they come from doesn’t make any sense.
On the other hand, our descriptive rights (the moral claims that actually are respected), are determined by what people in society actually do. I would say our descriptive rights are determined primarily by ideology and might.
No, I mean that the very fact that I do not have to continually threaten everyone around me with immediate, violent retaliation for violating my rights in order to get them to respect those rights implies that my rights do not come solely from the individual capability for self-defense. Rights, like language, emerged from human social order. We are hard-wired with the ability to talk. We are also hard-wired with the concepts of possession, property, empathy and the many other components that go into explaining human mutual cooperation in the natural order.
If by “protesting against the State” you mean forcible resistance, I think it is practically impossible except in certain rare boundary conditions where the State has overreached itself and is weakened. As for objecting to the State’s abuses in verbal argument, I think we’re still stuck with justifying ultimate assumptions. I don’t think that natural law arguments are sufficient to defeat justifications of State aggression except insomuch as natural law is “obviously correct” and, therefore, has popular appeal. To really challenge the State will require re-establishment of common law courts to which even the State must submit. In such courts, the State would be on a par with every man and forced to justify its actions like anyone else. Until common law (customary law) is re-introduced, we don’t know exactly what our rights are because we don’t know exactly what the law is, because the law is not permitted to operate in the natural manner.
Don’t kid yourself. Forget those " inalienable rights".
For living in the real world, I suggest that you will fair far better if you assume that no one, including yourself, has any rights, and that [on the other hand ]the government has the perfect “right” to deprive you of the rights you don’t have whensoever it and its “supreme” court so chooses. [:D]
Interesting concept, although I would contend that praxeology (in the Misesian sense) would make any mention of normative rights.
As for the whole “might makes right” idea, I think semantics is helping to muddy the waters a bit. It should read more like “conscious application of will allows control of a situation”.
“Might” could imply the biggest axe, or could also imply self-restraint. It’s about power, whether it is projected externally (hammer to the head, verbal deception), or internally (using logic to determine a moral choice, “love thy neighbor”). Power is the only thing keeping us from each other’s throats, and simultaneously he only thing keeping us enslaved.
Hence “might makes right”. If you are the most powerful in an interaction with others, you determine your course of action. That decision cannot be challenged and refuted, hence*, ipso facto*, it becomes the “right” choice.
“Without God, something must guarantee the contract.”
i dont think their are any complete guarantees. contracts like some aspects of life are risk.
if i contracted to give you wheat, i instead sell the wheat and the contract specifies that you get some of my assets and i sell them before contract settlement then you are s.o.o.l.
as any one would be.
now if you decided to get some type of vengence you still wouldnt have a contract fulfilled. maybe some part of anger or disappointment satiated…maybe.
the best contract guarantee is proboably a track record of successful contract fulfillment.
“For living in the real world, I suggest that you will fair far better if you assume that no one, including yourself, has any rights,…”
i hope noone contracted payment for that advice.
babies pulled from incuabtor lies, drunk driving senators (drunk drivers kill more than terrorists over here), cocaine presidents??, children of legislators not even getting minimum sentences for some crimes, can anyone add to the perfect government list of why it would be far better to assume such?
Either rights are bestowed upon man by God, or there is no such concept as “rights”, instead merely only privileges and duties. The reason for this is that objective rights must have an ontological source, and there is simply nothing in man’s nature that gives him rights if he is merely homo sapiens. Without an appeal to God, the privileges and duties enjoyed by man are going to be determined by the norms, mores, culture, and institutions he lives within.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but we do not derive free speech from the Constitution; the Constitution is a limit on what government can do to ``protect’’ our rights. We (as in the people; if one subscribes to the belief that the people had anything to do with it), prohibited the government from proscribing any laws regarding speech. We simply asserted that the government recognize an already existing right.
Well if we are hard-wired with the concept of rights by the very fact of being human…then are we not talking about natural rights?
Well why do you speculate that the state will cowtow to common law courts? It already has a monopoly on the legal system.
What do you mean by ‘re-introduced’? Are you also propounding that is it possible to have a legal system in which crimes such as murder, rape and thievery are allowed?