CDR: Natural rights (was Re: Shunning, lesbians and liberty)

[Gil Hamilton]

Sampo Syreeni writes:

>Actually I s ub scribe to neither view. I see rights as something that do 
>not
>naturally exist, but are purely a societal product, subject to change
>through redefinition. Whether this happens because the government effects 
>it
>or if the people start to view something as an inherent right is, to me, 
>immaterial.

At heart, the notion of a right is a moral one; it is closely tied
to the moral concepts of good and evil.  These concepts are known
and understood universally among members of our species.  Some view
them as attributes of their religious belief, but even those who
aren't religious and don't think in terms of "sin" recognize the
concepts.  The idea of right versus wrong is clearly both natural
and universal to humankind.

While individuals' beliefs as to exactly which "natural rights"
exist may differ, all people (save some tiny few sociopaths who
must be considered "abnormal") agree on some of them.  For example,
if you did a poll, you'd find that pretty near 100% of people
believe at some level that they have a right to protect their own
lives and the lives of their family members.   The limits or
boundaries of that right would of course be the subject of
considerable dispute.

A frequent critique of libertarianism (and anarcho-capitalism) is
that it advocates a law-of-the-jungle, winner-take-all society:
that the strong, the wealthy and the powerful prosper while the
weak, the poor and the powerless are doomed to suffering,
exploitation and oppression.

However, it is this idea that natural rights do not exist, that
any right you have is something that can simply be taken away by
"society" (in practice of course that means the government), that
is the real law-of-the-jungle situation.  It is saying, in effect:
you have no rights except those "we" (variously defined as society
or government, but it always boils down to the Men With Guns from
the government) allow you.  "And don't complain too loudly or we
might have to take those away too" (for the chiiiiiildren, perhaps).

I and most others on this list utterly reject that crap.  As James
Donald's .sig used to say (and maybe still does): "We have the
right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of
animals that we are."  You can't take away my right to defend
myself by simply "redefining" it.  And anyone who tries to do so
has marked himself as one worth careful watching, or even perhaps,
as Tim so often suggests, killing.


- GH

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.