[humanrebar]

I disagree with your definitions. Rights, though abstract, are real. This is why atrocities outside the reach of law (murder in international water, war crimes, genocide) are clearly wrong.

Laws are nothing but codified decisions from government. Sometimes they define the specifics of how natural rights are balanced against each other. However, laws sometimes violate rights, such as the now-repealed Jim Crow laws in the American South. Furthermore, the term "legal rights" can also be a misnomer for government-guaranteed privileges such as the "right" to government-provided benefits or (in my opinion) intellectual property "rights".

[foobarbazqux]

The difference legal and natural rights corresponds to the difference between laws and morals. That's all I mean. Natural rights are real things in as much as morals are real things.

[humanrebar]

Let me recap, because discussions become convoluted in forum format.

First ataggart makes the point that elevating patent and copyright privileges to the level of natural rights is wrong and implies (through Orwell) that confusing intellectual property rights and physical property rights leads to foolish thinking.

Then, you make the argument that it doesn't matter because, "Every legal concept is entirely the government's creation, including both physical and intellectual property...."

Then a bunch of people, myself included, disagree with that point by referencing Hobbes and Locke and providing examples of how ownership exists outside of government influence.

Now, I agree that "Natural rights are real things in as much as morals are real things." And since we are not amoral, we can presume that natural rights exist.

Remember, the original point is that labels matter here. Mislabeling things as "rights" causes people to both overvalue grants from their governments and (more importantly) to devalue natural rights as being decreed by government (which means they can be abolished or altered by the same powers).

When your "rights" are derived from government and they are taken away, you're on the losing side. When rights are inalienable and they are violated, you are being persecuted.

All that is to say, "intellectual property rights" is a dumb term.

[foobarbazqux]

The difference between legal rights and natural rights is that legal rights are guaranteed by force. As soon as you guarantee a natural right by force it becomes a legal right: you make the law.

[humanrebar]

You just reiterated your previous statement without addressing my point.

According to you, it is morally OK for government to decide what is a right and what isn't. In that case, is there anything morally wrong with government deciding to nationalize all retirement savings?

[foobarbazqux]

It is always legally OK for a government to decide what is right and what isn't. It may or may not be morally OK with an individual member of the society, depending on the particular law. I like some laws, I don't like other laws. I believe a healthy government provides legal guarantees about rights to its citizens in accordance with their morals, on average, and so I am morally OK with such a government.

Governments are a natural extension of parents. Goodness or badness is not an all-or-nothing proposition; nobody has perfect parents, but most people accept that in general, having parents that make and enforce the rules is a good thing. It is quite possible to have terrible parents though, in which case escape might be a good idea.

I just don't understand why anarcho-capitalist libertarianism is so great. The international situation today is a capitalist anarchy among nations, and the US abuses its immense power to call most of the shots. How would it be any different at the level of individuals?