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

[Ecolitan]

I like to think of natural rights as what would be the natural way of things if we were all still naked in the woods.  If you've just popped into existence naked in the woods with no friends or family you have Life and Liberty.  No one owes you anything nor do you owe anything to anyone else.  If anyone came up to you and started telling you what to or demand you give them something you could tell them no and if they initiated force you would be within your right (liberty) to defend yourself.  Likewise you have no right to go up to some other person that just popped naked into the woods and demand anything of them.

[Bill Brasky]

Is this naked woods thing perhaps near a highway rest stop? 

[Ecolitan]

I think it applies

[Jason Orr]

Because they understand their Natural Rights from a perspective of intelligence and humanity (or, at least most of them do) they percieve it to be a 1:1 ratio.  Equality.  I don't like pain, therefor, you - another human - don't like pain either.  Its based in empathy.  I would not like to have a chain put around my neck, therefor, you wouldn't like it either.  Even in a totalitarian regeme where no rights exist, people would understand you've violated the natural rights of a man if you walked up and shot him in the head. 

Of course, I do agree with you in the effect.  However, what you're describing here need not be in the language of natural rights.  You could describe the same principle in terms of universally preferable behavior or even rational egoism.  If empathy is the device which drives moral reasoning (and I think you're on to something there), then where do these natural rights come in?

To me, natural rights are just a way of phrasing broad-based conclusions in the realm of justice.  To say "x is a natural right" is just to say "it would be unjust to not have x" and nothing more.  Previous philosophers have muddled the issue by attempting to create a metaphysical basis for natural rights.  I think this is impossible since morality is not grounded in reality so much as it is in society, the sum of all human interaction.  Ethics is a social science to me.

[segphault]

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.

So if humans are societal animals, then libertarianism isn't needed, as libertarianism is based on individualism. If not, then you don't have need for natural rights, making libertarianism have no basis for existence.

[mikehz]

It's not an exact quote, but Rand wrote, "Man IS a social animal--but not in the way the collectivists mean."

People benefit from social relationships, whether these are friendships or business arrangements. But, to be beneficial, they must be voluntary relationships. Associations make at the point of a gun benefit only one side, if at all.

[segphault]

Oh yeah, isn't Ayn Rand the one who believed charity was a bad thing, because it helped the poor? I wonder how biased her thoughts may be?

And I would like to know why we became so social, then? Why is it that the only ones who want to become individualists are the ones who read Sci-Fi and Fantasy?

[mikehz]

Oh yeah, isn't Ayn Rand the one who believed charity was a bad thing, because it helped the poor? I wonder how biased her thoughts may be?

No. Once more, your pulling information out of your ass. In fact, Rand donated to charities, and left much of her money to set up a charity. What she DID object to was altruism, or self-sacrifice. She said that giving milk to someone to save a starving baby is not self-sacrifice and is not wrong. However, if giving away the milk causes your own baby to starve to death, it IS wrong.

I would like to live in a world without poverty, and so I give to several charities. (Actually, my wife does the giving.) Nothing wrong with that, since the giving furthers my goal of a poverty-free world. Now, if someone FORCES me to give, I would at once do all I could to stop.

It isn't charity if you HAVE to do it.

[Rillion]

So if humans are societal animals, then libertarianism isn't needed, as libertarianism is based on individualism. If not, then you don't have need for natural rights, making libertarianism have no basis for existence.

I guess it hasn't occurred to you that people can be individuals with individual rights, and members of a society who interact and trade with each other, at the same time....

[Manuel_OKelly]

  : I demand a logical philosophical proof that natural rights exist! Your assholes, now go away or I will insult you a second time!

  : Okay, here is a logical philosophy that uses it's Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics to support the politics of Natural rights.

 

 

  : That's just one man's opinion.

  : your point? You got what you asked for.

[markuzick]

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.

You anarchists cannot accept the validity of any concept of rights because rights ( a moral claim upon the behavior of others ) imply the acceptance of rules for living in society, which create governments ( self government at the very least ).

Anarchy always leads to states (as apposed to legitimate or voluntary government) for anarchy is a free for all, where the basest of instinct reign free and anything goes. Since humans cannot live as a hive, where cooperation is strictly governed by instinct, anarchy goes against nature, so people who desire to live without rules must necessarily fall back to the next closest default position, which is government by rules that are arbitrarily based upon whim without principle. Arbitrary rules come closest to no rules at all, so the more statist a government becomes, the closer it comes to the simulation of the anarchist ideal.

[thersites]

Natural rights are just that, natural-force is needed to violate them.....they require no input from a third party, not do they require protection from a third party, merely individual defense of them.

To demand a proof of such a concept is like asking for proof that we exist at all (some ask that proof....but it is a pointless exercise).

What you need to know about my natural rights, fuckwit, is that if you violate them-you're future will involve perforation. Proof enough?

[darcgun]

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.

You anarchists cannot accept the validity of any concept of rights because rights ( a moral claim upon the behavior of others ) imply the acceptance of rules for living in society, which create governments ( self government at the very least ).

Anarchy always leads to states (as apposed to legitimate or voluntary government) for anarchy is a free for all, where the basest of instinct reign free and anything goes. Since humans cannot live as a hive, where cooperation is strictly governed by instinct, anarchy goes against nature, so people who desire to live without rules must necessarily fall back to the next closest default position, which is government by rules that are arbitrarily based upon whim without principle. Arbitrary rules come closest to no rules at all, so the more statist a government becomes, the closer it comes to the simulation of the anarchist ideal.

So a government is necessary for order??  Fuck off!!!!!!!!!!!

[markuzick]

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.

You anarchists cannot accept the validity of any concept of rights because rights ( a moral claim upon the behavior of others ) imply the acceptance of rules for living in society, which create governments ( self government at the very least ).

Anarchy always leads to states (as apposed to legitimate or voluntary government) for anarchy is a free for all, where the basest of instinct reign free and anything goes. Since humans cannot live as a hive, where cooperation is strictly governed by instinct, anarchy goes against nature, so people who desire to live without rules must necessarily fall back to the next closest default position, which is government by rules that are arbitrarily based upon whim without principle. Arbitrary rules come closest to no rules at all, so the more statist a government becomes, the closer it comes to the simulation of the anarchist ideal.

So a government is necessary for order??  Fuck off!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you a leftist? Then your anarchism will only get you statism.

Are you a "right anarchist"(a contradiction in terms)? Then you believe in consensual contracts governing behavior(voluntary government). That's why voluntaryists labeling themselves anarcho-anything is a really stupid idea, unless you are a right anarchist who doesn't believe in DROs, protection agencies, or any other kind of businesses and organizations, which is, in itself, a pretty stupid idea. How are you going to stop voluntary governments from forming without initiating force?

[Johnson]

This thread is why I think that the Categorical Imperative and the Objectivist Epistemology need to be combined in a logical fashion in order to create a cohesive philosophy for libertarians that can be more easily communicated. Too many Libertarians think that the Categorical Imperative is counter to individual liberty. If the imperative is non-agressiion - then the categorical imperative becomes the CLEAR choice for a Libertarian philosophy. Most Libertarians are trying to operate from Hedonism and Existentialism, which are opportunistic and unprincipled philosophies. There is no discipline in that sort of a belief system - just instincts, emotion, and instant gratification.