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

[Evil Muppet]

Lapafrax, you are starting out with a false premise and that is the Natural Rights is a belief in God given rights when that is not the case. 

Natural Rights come from the application of Natural Law.  These ideas go back all the way to ancient Greece with Aristotle and the Stoics.  You also have many atheists like Ayn Rand give very good and very rational arguments for natural rights without one single reference to God. 

The whole idea behind natural law and natural rights is that we have certain natural characteristics.  T

You are also making the mistake in thinking that this is an issue where we have to prove that these rights exist.  I would first like to know what standard of proof you expect but who cares. 

Most philosophy, or any good philosophy anyways, isn't about proving what is true or not but instead it is about determining how we ought to live with one another.   What should be the basis for Man's relationship with Man?     

[Rillion]

You are also making the mistake in thinking that this is an issue where we have to prove that these rights exist.  I would first like to know what standard of proof you expect but who cares.

If you want to base your political philosophy on a set of rights, but you can't even demonstrate that those rights exist, why exactly should anyone buy into your philosophy?

[Evil Muppet]

i think it kind of depends on what you mean by 'Prove' and this is a big annoyance when talking about a lot of these kind of things.  Someone like Lapdog will come in and start demanding that we prove something to him.  What he is really doing is applying some kind of standard of proof which would be extremely difficult or impossible to provide.  Although it is typically a standard of proof which his own positions would have no hope of meeting as well. 

So before I demonstrate that my rights exist perhaps you can explain to me what basis you feel your political philosophy rests upon and whether YOU can demonstrate that it exists using the same standards of proof you want me to use. 

Why should anyone buy into my philosophy?  Because the idea that we all have dignity and rights solely because we are human beings is a damn good idea. 

[NHArticleTen]

Philosophical Maturity need not be difficult to define and/or put into practice.  Most unknowingly are already students of these principles and they do not even realize it...

The Non-Aggression Principle and the Golden Rule coupled with superior defense against any and all transgressors creates a condition where all sovereign inhabitants of the galaxies may live in peace and harmony...

Enjoy!

[Rillion]

Why should anyone buy into my philosophy?  Because the idea that we all have dignity and rights solely because we are human beings is a damn good idea. 

Not really.  A serial killer is a human being, but he has no dignity, and as far as I'm concerned, limited rights.  An infant or a severely retarded person doesn't have much dignity either, and may well have no concept of rights-- even though they are human.  When you press the idea, it needs a lot of work, even though it sounds nice at first. 

I agree that our notions of human rights should arise from an acknowledgment of human nature.  Humans need certain things to be happy and flourish.  However, I don't think it's really fitting to call those things "laws," or imply that they are immutable (and of course not supernaturally derived). 

[Evil Muppet]

Why should anyone buy into my philosophy?  Because the idea that we all have dignity and rights solely because we are human beings is a damn good idea. 

Not really.  A serial killer is a human being, but he has no dignity, and as far as I'm concerned, limited rights.  An infant or a severely retarded person doesn't have much dignity either, and may well have no concept of rights-- even though they are human.  When you press the idea, it needs a lot of work, even though it sounds nice at first. 

I agree that our notions of human rights should arise from an acknowledgment of human nature.  Humans need certain things to be happy and flourish.  However, I don't think it's really fitting to call those things "laws," or imply that they are immutable (and of course not supernaturally derived). 

Now that is just twisting the damn argument and playing semantics.  We can argue about whether a concept should be called a law or not but what difference does it make since that term has been applied to that concept for centuries.  or we can argue on whether a retard or psychopath has dignity. 

So what about the serial killer, retard or baby. 

Well like I said before, one of the main functions of political philosophy is simply a vision of how mankind OUGHT to live together.  Right away you use the example of an individual whose behavior would directly violate that and engages in actions which are in direct conflict with the principles of how man ought to live in a society.     

and as far as the retard or infant.  Why do you need to have a concept of rights to enjoy them? 

[Rillion]

Now that is just twisting the damn argument and playing semantics.

Actually, it's pointing out that your statement that human beings have dignity and rights simply by virtue of being human beings, while sounding quite nice, runs into problems immediately once you try to apply it to reality. 

and as far as the retard or infant.  Why do you need to have a concept of rights to enjoy them? 

Then we might as well throw out the "human being" qualification, since other species can certainly enjoy rights without having a concept of them. 

[Evil Muppet]

you pick apart one sentence that was a quick attempt to sum up an entire philosophy?  I can be highly critical of something based solely upon a slogan too but what good does that do? 

The idea that someone must have the concept of rights in order to be able to enjoy them is rather suggestive of the idea that you do not have any rights until you are able to uphold them.  Like some kind of Nietzschian world view or something.  There are just too many people out there that are too stupid, primitive or simplistic to understand right so they have none.  but wouldn't the role of rights in a society be precisely to protect the minority and the weak from the majority and the powerful?   

[Rillion]

you pick apart one sentence that was a quick attempt to sum up an entire philosophy?  I can be highly critical of something based solely upon a slogan too but what good does that do? 

I tried to make it clear that I agree with you, for the most part.  I consider the slogan you offered to be a very good start-- I just think it needs to be clarified in order to actually articulate what  rights human beings should have, and why (and when). 

The idea that someone must have the concept of rights in order to be able to enjoy them is rather suggestive of the idea that you do not have any rights until you are able to uphold them.  Like some kind of Nietzschian world view or something.  There are just too many people out there that are too stupid, primitive or simplistic to understand right so they have none.  but wouldn't the role of rights in a society be precisely to protect the minority and the weak from the majority and the powerful? 

Well, there are minorities who are rational adults and can certainly understand the concept of rights, and it's easy to articulate why their rights should be preserved-- it's something the founding fathers had very much in mind.  But there are many here who would argue that you can't really be said to have rights unless you can conceive of and respect the rights of others.  I don't think I really buy into that-- I'm persuaded of the idea that there is such a thing as a moral patient, an agent who has rights even if he or she cannot extend them to others.  This would cover children, the mentally disabled, and possibly higher order non-human primates.  But this notion runs into problems when you try to decide what to do when these entities cause harm to others-- who is responsible?  Arguably their caretakers, but to what extent?  It needs further examination. 

[Jason Orr]

Personally I think the concept of natural rights blurs the ethical issue at hand.  Natural rights are a way to avoid conceding ethical egoism, which many ethicists consider to be taboo or patently false.

I, however, believe in some variety of egoism; I think believe that human beings evolved moral reasoning because it offered them a survival advantage to coexist with each other without killing each other.  Moral reasoning allows us to live as individuals in society.  It isn't about a natural right possessed by all people, although I suppose you could phrase it that way.  It's about ensuring that you won't be killed, and this behavior is preferable because offers a survival advantage.

Also, you don't need to believe in natural rights as a metaphysical entity in order to be libertarian.

Also, making crude and derisive remarks about someone's belief system is not the ideal way to begin a productive conversation.

[Bill Brasky]

People make it too complicated. 

Go sit in your yard, or an inarguable public place.  Your needs are provided by yourself or a series of transactions which do not impact a third party.  Does the third party have the right to use your life without your permission, or to end it?  No.  The third party also has those rights.  Everyone does.  Thats what makes it "natural", they are inherent.   It IS a philosophy, and it is abstract.   

The problem with natural rights is - generally speaking- outside of a forum such as this, it's called common sense, or possibly humanity.  It's understood at its core.  And when those natural rights are broken, universally, people say "What the fuck!!?  You can't do that!!"  Thats how deep it is.  You can't murder.  You can't enslave someone.  You can't take their property which they've worked for, time=money=a part of their life was traded to be able to purchase that property.  And nobody can do that to you, either.  It doesn't matter whose countries flag flies over your head, you're still human. 

And, in society, it works in the reverse.  When you disregard the rights of a human for your own purposes, if you kill or enslave or steal from them, you've forfeited your rights in the law of that society.  The People, as a whole (theoretically) have established laws to punish those who break those laws.  If you kill, your rights are forfeited in their eyes, and they take possession of your body and prevent you from doing it again.  If you steal, you're either jailed to prevent you from stealing more or you're forced to pay restitution.  The other goal of the penal system is to rehabilitate the offender.  This is flawed 19th century mentality, rehabilitation is bullshit.  The government knows this too, and still tries to subliminally reinforce this concept by calling jails "Correctional facilities".  But for the big stuff, it works.  Murderers belong in jail. 

Natural rights are actually the cornerstone of a fair and ideally constructed government.  To exist within its parameters you give a portion of your value and take its services and protection.  Obviously, most here agree the balance has tipped into an unfair advantage in favor of the government which spawns unrest among the people its supposed to protect, but that is not the argument.  The argument is do the natural rights exist, and why libertarians continually point it out. 

Simple, because the libertarians are politically motivated, and have properly identified Natural Rights as the cornerstone of the existence of reasonable government.  Government is meant as an extension of the population.  As such, it should abide by the same laws the population is expected to abide by. 

The government, therefor, should not be able to do things to the citizens which the citizens cannot do among themselves.  Murder, steal, prohibit different sorts of interactions and private acts.  I cannot walk up to you and use force to make you stop smoking crack, I don't have those powers.  But the government can.  And since nobody in their right mind would give me the powers as a private citizen to enforce the governments own laws, it is more reasonable to suggest the government also should not have that power, and thus, strike the law.  Only when irreparable harm to a citizen is occurring should the government have the right to act in defense of its people.  Like a litmus test (A term I use rarely), would I be punished if I stopped a murder or a rape by using force against the criminal?  Probably not, I might go to trial, but ultimately would be found Not Guilty of any wrongdoing.  Same goes for government.  They should not be able to act with impunity and use actions which if I used would be against the law.  The people in those uniforms are citizens, their power is an extension of our collective will. 

[Jason Orr]

And when those natural rights are broken, universally, people say "What the fuck!!?  You can't do that!!"  Thats how deep it is.  You can't murder.  You can't enslave someone.  You can't take their property which they've worked for, time=money=a part of their life was traded to be able to purchase that property.  And nobody can do that to you, either.  It doesn't matter whose countries flag flies over your head, you're still human. 

I'm going to assume you are not arguing that a right is that which creates subjective moral repulsion in a given number of people, which is what you seem to be saying here.

What exactly is a right, and how does one acquire them?  They seem to be entitlements, but from whom are they entitled?  If they come "from nature" then you either need to describe the mechanical processes at work in rights (which is absurd and impossible) or provide an a priori (i.e., with no reference to experience) proof describing why certain rights must exist.  I personally think this is impossible because morality itself is such that it is not necessary but preferable.

[AntonLee]

do you think it's okay for someone to rape/murder/or steal from someone else?  If so then I'd rather not know you as a person.

I think even if the answer was yes to the question, that it is based on your own perception, which could and probably would change if something like that were to happen to you or a family member.

[Bill Brasky]

And when those natural rights are broken, universally, people say "What the fuck!!?  You can't do that!!"  Thats how deep it is.  You can't murder.  You can't enslave someone.  You can't take their property which they've worked for, time=money=a part of their life was traded to be able to purchase that property.  And nobody can do that to you, either.  It doesn't matter whose countries flag flies over your head, you're still human. 

I'm going to assume you are not arguing that a right is that which creates subjective moral repulsion in a given number of people, which is what you seem to be saying here.

What exactly is a right, and how does one acquire them?  They seem to be entitlements, but from whom are they entitled?  If they come "from nature" then you either need to describe the mechanical processes at work in rights (which is absurd and impossible) or provide an a priori (i.e., with no reference to experience) proof describing why certain rights must exist.  I personally think this is impossible because morality itself is such that it is not necessary but preferable.

No, flip it around.  Humans, in the interest of preserving their lives and safety, have an understanding of their "natural rights" even if they don't have the philosophical argument completely constructed.  Or the laws of government to back them up.  (I already covered this)

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. 

When rational people are interacting in a civilized manner, all that is understood without big long-winded discussion.  If I was standing at the bus stop with an old lady next to me, and you walked up and punched her in the face and stole her purse, would I be outraged, or stand there and make all these mental calculations to determine if her Natural Rights were violated, trying to conclude if I had a moral leg to stand on, if my outrage was logical? 

Naturally, I'd be horrified.  Its instinct, and the understanding of the actual, particular rights which were violated comes later. 

The big problem comes when people try to rationalize the violation of those Natural Rights when a line is drawn separating one group from another, whether it be a geographical border between two countries, or a line between races, or genders, or sexual preferences.  I can't stand in Main Street and whack you over the head with a baseball bat, but if I go to Israel I could kill all the Palestinians I want.  Then when I come back home, I can slap my bitch around, and if I know the local lawman, maybe I could go beat the shit out of a few black fags if I feel like it.  Every single one of those people has the same Natural Rights, but those rights are dependant on the community surrounding those people.  When the government drops a few degrees, those rights begin to fluctuate.  The job of the citizenry is to maintain a vigilant eye on its government to ensure that doesn't happen within the public reach.  Once again, Natural Rights being the cornerstone of a reasonable government, its the first thing the libertarians should grab at.  Any responsible political group should focus on it, really. 

[mikehz]

There ARE other rights theories. For example, there is the "divine right of kings" theory, which says that some people are endowed by God with greater rights than others. There is also the collectivist rights theory, which holds that rights are cumulative, that is, that groups hold more rights than do individuals. A current popular theory is the "democratic rights" idea, which says that rights can be voted away from some people and given to others. Or, the racist theory, which says that some people are more human than others, and therefore ought to have greater rights.

The trouble with these other rights theories is that none of them is universal. In each, those advocating for that particular system of rights has something to gain from its adoption. Only the natural rights theory allows each person equal ownership of their own being.