To be more accurate, I'm simply pointing out that we all have the exact same rights regardless of what a government does/says, or whether one even exists at all.
Our rights manifest themselves in the way people naturally behave.
How is it that people "naturally" behave, exactly? Keep in mind that the way we behave in civilized society is a product of having been raised in civilized society. We have internalized social norms that have been codified into laws, and behave accordingly.
If you look at history, or at any place where the consequences of behavior are removed (e.g. the behavior of people to whom laws don't typically apply), you will find that for the most part, people often behave extremely poorly to each other. Indeed, you'll find that game theory and selfishness best predicts how people treat each other. Law of the jungle, and all that.
Technically, we give up some of our rights to the state; the right to enter into a state of war, for example. There are notable exceptions to this but it's really dependent on community norms in those cases.
>> Technically, we give up some of our rights to the state; the right to enter into a state of war, for example
No one ever asked me, and no one ever asked you either. Is it reasonable to think you've agreed to "give up" some of your rights when no one ever asked you? What about taxes? Can you be considered to have consented to taxation when no one ever asked you, and when you're taxed by force anyway - it's as if no one wanted to be taxed!
Not only that, but can you give up your rights?
Can you give up your right to own property? -How would that work? Would you solemnly swear never to have any belongings anymore? Never to hold anything in your possession? Never to oppose anyone taking something from you?
Yes, it is totally reasonable to have given up your rights when no-one ever asked you. But maybe you made it explicit anyway; have you ever said the pledge of allegiance?
No, you cannot give up your right to property, because you own your person.
>> Yes, it is totally reasonable to have given up your rights when no-one ever asked you.
Well, I guess you'll start sending say, 15% of all your income my way then? I never asked you, you never consented, but this "contract" is obviously binding anyway! That's how this stuff works, right? .. or do I need to have some kind of badge, wig, or uniform to make this "agreement" binding?
Naturally, I'll show up at your door and take my "fair share" by force, if necessary.
>> No, you cannot give up your right to property, because you own your person.
But the thing is, you did consent to be a part of your community and thus bound by the social contract. If you don't like it, that's fine, commit a felony. It's just that by doing something like that, you will no longer possess all the rights and protections a normal citizen does. But you'll have all your rights.
That holds true for possessions, but not private-property. I think it's necessary to recognize the difference between private-property (e.g land, industry etc) and possesions (e.g one's house, car etc.).
I'm familiar with the concept of natural rights and it's claim to be some kind of objective rights, but I think it's fairly obvious that such a fought over topic is not even close to being objective.
>> I think it's necessary to recognize the difference between private-property (e.g land, industry etc) and possesions (e.g one's house, car etc.).
There are several sensible ways to define "property". One is that it's a representation of value that you want exclusive control over. This value can be in the form of an apple in your hand, or a factory under your control, even if it's a building.
The bottom line is, people produce value in order to benefit from it, and the "right" to control that value is required - otherwise people wouldn't produce anything.
But there's no need for a government here. As I said, everyone knows you can't just take someone else's stuff.
>> I'm familiar with the concept of natural rights and it's claim to be some kind of objective rights, but I think it's fairly obvious that such a fought over topic is not even close to being objective
Here's something objective: Treat others as you'd like them to treat you. This includes not taking control of their property, no matter what form it's in. Rights are just an idea, and "natural rights" are a version of it that aligns perfectly with The Golden Rule, and people's intuitive "common sense morality". Typically, your conscience tells you when you're doing something you shouldn't do.
Oh, and as for "objective", do you think a group of sociopaths ruling over everyone else is objective?
Why can't you come to terms with the obvious difference between those kinds of property? For some reasons it's basically impossible to get a straight answer from a property advocate on this.
It's not the same in any moral sense. That you seem to find it rational for one person to own vast amounts of land is what I would see as a pathological frame of mind. It's just aint just. I can't see how it's in any way morally more natural to uphold that persons property rights rather than abolishing such a concept and letting those who use the land own what they use.
"Treat others as you'd like them to treat you" for me is for example to not claim private-property rights of things that can be used to exploit others. You can't do that with your car, thus a possession. But in the case of land ownership you obviously can, thus property.
To be more accurate, I'm simply pointing out that we all have the exact same rights regardless of what a government does/says, or whether one even exists at all.
Our rights manifest themselves in the way people naturally behave.