Why do fuckwit libertarians continue to push forward this "natural rights" thing

[lapafrax]

Politics is a philosophical discipline, no?  So it's like logic, metaphysics, epistemology or the philosophy of God are branches of philosophy.  So like all these other areas, politics would use logical argument to prove its points.

In philosophical circles, the onus and burden of proof when making an argument is placed on the person presenting the argument. 

So then, accounting for the above, why should libertarians advocate this fuckwit notion of "natural rights"?

These intellectually dishonest dicks that say this shit are presenting something as a given without any substantiation to PROVE the given!!!  Such dumb fuckers need a slap across the head for being so dopey, and retarding the libertarian cause.

[trollfreezone]

Why do fuckwit authoritarians troll libertarian message systems?

[lapafrax]

Heh, my point stands.

PROVE this natural rights nonsense, or stop presenting it as some kind of fact.

[Rillion]

These intellectually dishonest dicks that say this shit are presenting something as a given without any substantiation to PROVE the given!!!  Such dumb fuckers need a slap across the head for being so dopey, and retarding the libertarian cause.

I happen to agree that there is no such thing as natural rights, but you're hardly presenting yourself as someone open to rational discussion.  Try not to sound worse than the people you're criticizing. 

[trollfreezone]

Learn a little:

John Locke, Natural Rights to Life, Liberty and Property

[trollfreezone]

Robert LeFevre on Human Rights
Robert LeFevre on Property and Ownership

Part of an excellent series of commentaries:

Mises Institute - Robert LeFevre Commentaries

[lapafrax]

Learn a little:

John Locke, Natural Rights to Life, Liberty and Property

That was Locke's opinion, so what?  Did he have perfect judgement and infinite wisdom?

There is no empirical or logical evidence for the existence of these dipshit "natural rights".  Libertarians who say they exist without any proof are idiots of philosophy.

[trollfreezone]

Learn a little:

John Locke, Natural Rights to Life, Liberty and Property

That was Locke's opinion, so what?  Did he have perfect judgement and infinite wisdom?

There is no empirical or logical evidence for the existence of these dipshit "natural rights".  Libertarians who say they exist without any proof are idiots of philosophy.

Try reading it.  You might learn something.  No one is "proving" anything.

[lapafrax]

Rights to life, liberty and property are established based on sovereignty of self, attended by free will and sentience. As sovereign there is no higher authority over you, than yourself, provided you respect the sovereignty of others. As I own my life, I logically own by proxy what I produce in its use and am solely entitled to the fruits of my labour, hence the right to property.

My sovereignty is inherent (Q.E.D.) the aforementioned rights naturally follow.

This does not mean though that rights come from "God" or are supernatural in nature or intrinsic in the constitution of human beings.

Again, natural rights is a funky notion.

[Barterer]

"Natural rights" are pretty much synonymous with "principles of morality" or "universally preferred behavior."  Stefan Molyneux does a good job in this podcast of explaining it from the ground up.

I would guess that "fuckwit libertarians pushing forward this natural rights thing" are people trying to undercut the the presumption of morality the government currently enjoys.. you know, fundamentally yanking the rug from under statists' feet.

[Rillion]

Natural Rights =/= Supernatural.

Many if not most proponents of natural rights believe that the rights are natural because  they are endowed by a supernatural creator. 

[mikehz]

I consider them "natural" because they grow out of the human need for societal living. If you want to live together harmoniously then you need certain rules.

[trollfreezone]

I consider them "natural" because they grow out of the human need for societal living. If you want to live together harmoniously then you need certain rules.

This is most consistent with what I've read.

[hellbilly]

lapafrax - if there are no natural laws, what exists to replace our concept of them? permissions?

[lapafrax]

What?  We only need concepts of rights as social constructs. 

"Natural rights" sound like a good idea, I admit, but you can't just assert they exist without any kind of proof