Natural Rights are Really based on property rights

[Care4all]

BS
You can own nothing and still have the same rights as anyone else.
Something about the US Constitution.

I have the right to assemble but what good does it do if I can't rent a place to assemble with other people? I need a physical piece of property in order to manifest my freedom and if you protect protect property rights then you protect individual freedom since whatever hall that I use to assemble I obtain certain rights from the owner to assemble on his property. My right to assemble exist in the rights the owner of the hall allows me to use it for and if you protect those rights then you protect the freedom to assemble.

But you, as in everyone, own the property used for protests....the property used for most protests IS PUBLIC PROPERTY....your taxes and forefather's taxes paid for it?

 

[editec]

The concept of individual liberty and natural law is really based on the concept of property ownership. When a person owns something they possess certain rights to it that other people don't have. They own the right to use their computer in a manor that the rights over that computer allow them to. Those rights were transferred from the previous owner so when I buy a computer from a manufacturer they are really transferring their rights to me and because of that no other person can tell me how to use those 'transferred rights'. This enables a great deal amount of freedom since I can use those property rights as a means of manifesting my free will such as posting on this website which is freedom of speech. I have this right because the manufacterer sold me the rights to use the computer any way I want without any restrictions and because of that no third party can interfere with that since no rights were transferred to them. They were only transferred to me.

Not only do I own my physical possession but I own my own self and those rights, just like the computer, were transferred to me from some source. Everyone has the same rights over their own selves that were transferred to them which means that every individual has an exclusive right to their own existence and, at the same time, have no rights over someone elses existence since everyone fully owns their own person and nothing more. This means no one has a right to tell someone else how to exist which puts each one of us in a state of freedom where we are immune from the control of others.

So...I presume you'll be leaving the USA to give the property back to the AmerIndians, then, right?

Or do only Europeans have those natural rights?

 

[Care4all]

He's on the right track....in a religious sense, that is....

Natural rights, were given to us by our creator, therefore, they are our rights...we own the property of OURSELVES.

What he has missed is that even our forefathers and writers of the Constitution instituted many policies and systems that did govern us. therefore, we were never as a citizen, at liberty to govern ourselves, other than the ability to vote for the representatives of our choice, and even then....if your guy does not win, then the other guy IS STILL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE, even if he does not support any of what you stand behind.

Natural rights are BEYOND physical things that can be governed in my opinion.

Your beliefs, your thoughts, your desires, your wishes, your happiness, your sadness....you have the liberty to think what you think, feel what you feel, believe what you believe....these kind of things can never be taken away or rather governed....they are your own Creator given rights, your property rights to your own MIND, perhaps?

I dunno....?????

 

[bodecea]

BS
You can own nothing and still have the same rights as anyone else.
Something about the US Constitution.

I have the right to assemble but what good does it do if I can't rent a place to assemble with other people? I need a physical piece of property in order to manifest my freedom and if you protect protect property rights then you protect individual freedom since whatever hall that I use to assemble I obtain certain rights from the owner to assemble on his property. My right to assemble exist in the rights the owner of the hall allows me to use it for and if you protect those rights then you protect the freedom to assemble.

Where does my right to life tie in with property?

 

[Sheldon]

As far as the thread title goes, I think a more accurate approach is that natural rights had their origin in monarchism, not property rights. The belief being that Kings and Queens were given special powers by a deity (God-given; endowed by their Creator).

The founding fathers existed in a time when monarchism was still the de-facto form of governance, and was what they were most familiar with in practice.

So I think that by outlining the concept of natural rights in the DoI, the intention was to spread the concept grounded in monarchism out to the population as a whole, which at the time meant any white male that owned property. Of course, those rights have since been expanded beyond white males. And since those rights have been expanded, are they really "self evident", or more a reflection of social ethics and morality in the context of the time?

I think it's the latter.

 

[ihopehefails]

The concept of individual liberty and natural law is really based on the concept of property ownership. When a person owns something they possess certain rights to it that other people don't have. They own the right to use their computer in a manor that the rights over that computer allow them to. Those rights were transferred from the previous owner so when I buy a computer from a manufacturer they are really transferring their rights to me and because of that no other person can tell me how to use those 'transferred rights'. This enables a great deal amount of freedom since I can use those property rights as a means of manifesting my free will such as posting on this website which is freedom of speech. I have this right because the manufacterer sold me the rights to use the computer any way I want without any restrictions and because of that no third party can interfere with that since no rights were transferred to them. They were only transferred to me.

Not only do I own my physical possession but I own my own self and those rights, just like the computer, were transferred to me from some source. Everyone has the same rights over their own selves that were transferred to them which means that every individual has an exclusive right to their own existence and, at the same time, have no rights over someone elses existence since everyone fully owns their own person and nothing more. This means no one has a right to tell someone else how to exist which puts each one of us in a state of freedom where we are immune from the control of others.

What point are you trying to make?

Property ownership is what gives us rights?

If so, wrong.

Really? The person who owns this board grants me certain 'rights' to use it and as a condition of the use I am bound by the terms of use which both garantees and limits my freedom of speech simply because I can't threaten anyone but can still use this board to express myself. I am granted certain other rights to use my freedom of speech in a way that is inline with the terms of use agreement. This alone allows me that right. It appears that the right of property is the beginning of all rights and is sufficient enough to preserve every individual's freedom.

 

[ihopehefails]

The concept of individual liberty and natural law is really based on the concept of property ownership. When a person owns something they possess certain rights to it that other people don't have.

....And, manage that property as God intended, right?

​

You can actually manage it the way you want to since God gave you that right to do so.

 

[ihopehefails]

I think you're conflating rights with ability here.

You do have the ability to download copyrighted music without paying for it, but you don't have the right to do that. Sorry. It's why we have copyright laws; the creator's right to compensation for their work supersedes your imagined right to put whatever you want on your computer.

Just an example of where a third party can, in fact, tell you what you have the right to put on your hard drive.

I'm not disagreeing with you but can the creator of the downloaded music tell he how to use my computer on this board? I don't have the right to use his music in any other way that the creator wants but he can't tell me how to use my rights over my computer.

I'll try an analogy this time:

You're computer is like your house.

The illegally downloaded music is like illegal immigrants.

You have the right to private property, but you can't harbor illegal immigrants in your basement without breaking the law.

We actually delegate certain rights to the government that allows them to do such a thing which means that any government force is always a violation of your natural rights such as removing illegal immigrants from your home even when you said it was OK.

 

[ihopehefails]

BS
You can own nothing and still have the same rights as anyone else.
Something about the US Constitution.

I have the right to assemble but what good does it do if I can't rent a place to assemble with other people? I need a physical piece of property in order to manifest my freedom and if you protect protect property rights then you protect individual freedom since whatever hall that I use to assemble I obtain certain rights from the owner to assemble on his property. My right to assemble exist in the rights the owner of the hall allows me to use it for and if you protect those rights then you protect the freedom to assemble.

Where does my right to life tie in with property?

You own your own life unless you are a slave to someone else and if so I feel sorry for your existence. You have my sympathies.

 

[ihopehefails]

He's on the right track....in a religious sense, that is....

Natural rights, were given to us by our creator, therefore, they are our rights...we own the property of OURSELVES.

What he has missed is that even our forefathers and writers of the Constitution instituted many policies and systems that did govern us. therefore, we were never as a citizen, at liberty to govern ourselves, other than the ability to vote for the representatives of our choice, and even then....if your guy does not win, then the other guy IS STILL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE, even if he does not support any of what you stand behind.

Natural rights are BEYOND physical things that can be governed in my opinion.

Your beliefs, your thoughts, your desires, your wishes, your happiness, your sadness....you have the liberty to think what you think, feel what you feel, believe what you believe....these kind of things can never be taken away or rather governed....they are your own Creator given rights, your property rights to your own MIND, perhaps?

I dunno....?????

Yes. From what I understand of Locke is that natural rights are based on a similar thinking of property rights. A person owns something and they control which gives them rights to use that anyway they want but a person also owns themselves which makes everyone equal to another since no one can control another person in their action in the same way a person can't decide what another person can do with their property. A person can't decide what to do with another person simply because they don't own them. This puts us in a state of freedom.

 

[ihopehefails]

The concept of individual liberty and natural law is really based on the concept of property ownership. When a person owns something they possess certain rights to it that other people don't have. They own the right to use their computer in a manor that the rights over that computer allow them to. Those rights were transferred from the previous owner so when I buy a computer from a manufacturer they are really transferring their rights to me and because of that no other person can tell me how to use those 'transferred rights'. This enables a great deal amount of freedom since I can use those property rights as a means of manifesting my free will such as posting on this website which is freedom of speech. I have this right because the manufacterer sold me the rights to use the computer any way I want without any restrictions and because of that no third party can interfere with that since no rights were transferred to them. They were only transferred to me.

Not only do I own my physical possession but I own my own self and those rights, just like the computer, were transferred to me from some source. Everyone has the same rights over their own selves that were transferred to them which means that every individual has an exclusive right to their own existence and, at the same time, have no rights over someone elses existence since everyone fully owns their own person and nothing more. This means no one has a right to tell someone else how to exist which puts each one of us in a state of freedom where we are immune from the control of others.

So...I presume you'll be leaving the USA to give the property back to the AmerIndians, then, right?

Or do only Europeans have those natural rights?

Did I take some Indian's property? Most of the things I own are things I bought so I own them.

 

[ihopehefails]

The old cart before horse is that horse before cart or is that.... And where pray tell did property rights comes from? And why?


"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy." Proverbs 31:8-9

Check out Jeremy Waldron sometime for a interesting discussion on rights. (Buy a used copy, I did.)

Amazon.com: Liberal Rights: Collected Papers 1981-1991 (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Public Policy) (9780521436175): Jeremy Waldron: Books

You are free to do so at anytime. No one has interfered with your right to do so but you don't have the right to interfere with someone's right not to do so. You are limited in your power over other people simply because you don't own other people just like you are limited in your power over other people's stuff because you don't own it.

I would have to say that my ownership of me, my time, and my efforts, came before anything else.

 

[ihopehefails]

The concept of individual liberty and natural law is really based on the concept of property ownership. When a person owns something they possess certain rights to it that other people don't have. They own the right to use their computer in a manor that the rights over that computer allow them to. Those rights were transferred from the previous owner so when I buy a computer from a manufacturer they are really transferring their rights to me and because of that no other person can tell me how to use those 'transferred rights'. This enables a great deal amount of freedom since I can use those property rights as a means of manifesting my free will such as posting on this website which is freedom of speech. I have this right because the manufacterer sold me the rights to use the computer any way I want without any restrictions and because of that no third party can interfere with that since no rights were transferred to them. They were only transferred to me.

Not only do I own my physical possession but I own my own self and those rights, just like the computer, were transferred to me from some source. Everyone has the same rights over their own selves that were transferred to them which means that every individual has an exclusive right to their own existence and, at the same time, have no rights over someone elses existence since everyone fully owns their own person and nothing more. This means no one has a right to tell someone else how to exist which puts each one of us in a state of freedom where we are immune from the control of others.

No one is immune to the control of others, nor should they be. The concept is idiocy.

What part of me is owned by others that they can say what I can or can't do? Is each one of us a slave to another?

 

[ihopehefails]

BS
You can own nothing and still have the same rights as anyone else.
Something about the US Constitution.

I have the right to assemble but what good does it do if I can't rent a place to assemble with other people? I need a physical piece of property in order to manifest my freedom and if you protect protect property rights then you protect individual freedom since whatever hall that I use to assemble I obtain certain rights from the owner to assemble on his property. My right to assemble exist in the rights the owner of the hall allows me to use it for and if you protect those rights then you protect the freedom to assemble.

But you, as in everyone, own the property used for protests....the property used for most protests IS PUBLIC PROPERTY....your taxes and forefather's taxes paid for it?

When you do don't you have to get a permit first in order to have the public's permission to use its property?

The point I was making or trying to make that property rights alone are enough to secure our liberty because if you assembled on private property and assuming that property is yours then you had that right simply because you alone could determine what is to be done with it.

 

[Ravi]

The concept of individual liberty and natural law is really based on the concept of property ownership. When a person owns something they possess certain rights to it that other people don't have. They own the right to use their computer in a manor that the rights over that computer allow them to. Those rights were transferred from the previous owner so when I buy a computer from a manufacturer they are really transferring their rights to me and because of that no other person can tell me how to use those 'transferred rights'. This enables a great deal amount of freedom since I can use those property rights as a means of manifesting my free will such as posting on this website which is freedom of speech. I have this right because the manufacterer sold me the rights to use the computer any way I want without any restrictions and because of that no third party can interfere with that since no rights were transferred to them. They were only transferred to me.

Not only do I own my physical possession but I own my own self and those rights, just like the computer, were transferred to me from some source. Everyone has the same rights over their own selves that were transferred to them which means that every individual has an exclusive right to their own existence and, at the same time, have no rights over someone elses existence since everyone fully owns their own person and nothing more. This means no one has a right to tell someone else how to exist which puts each one of us in a state of freedom where we are immune from the control of others.

What point are you trying to make?

Property ownership is what gives us rights?

If so, wrong.

Really? The person who owns this board grants me certain 'rights' to use it and as a condition of the use I am bound by the terms of use which both garantees and limits my freedom of speech simply because I can't threaten anyone but can still use this board to express myself. I am granted certain other rights to use my freedom of speech in a way that is inline with the terms of use agreement. This alone allows me that right. It appears that the right of property is the beginning of all rights and is sufficient enough to preserve every individual's freedom.

The owners of the board aren't giving you any rights. This is a members only board and you agree to follow the rules when you post here.

btw, threatening people isn't a right.

 

[Sheldon]

He's on the right track....in a religious sense, that is....

Natural rights, were given to us by our creator, therefore, they are our rights...we own the property of OURSELVES.

What he has missed is that even our forefathers and writers of the Constitution instituted many policies and systems that did govern us. therefore, we were never as a citizen, at liberty to govern ourselves, other than the ability to vote for the representatives of our choice, and even then....if your guy does not win, then the other guy IS STILL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE, even if he does not support any of what you stand behind.

Natural rights are BEYOND physical things that can be governed in my opinion.

Your beliefs, your thoughts, your desires, your wishes, your happiness, your sadness....you have the liberty to think what you think, feel what you feel, believe what you believe....these kind of things can never be taken away or rather governed....they are your own Creator given rights, your property rights to your own MIND, perhaps?

I dunno....?????

Yes. From what I understand of Locke is that natural rights are based on a similar thinking of property rights. A person owns something and they control which gives them rights to use that anyway they want but a person also owns themselves which makes everyone equal to another since no one can control another person in their action in the same way a person can't decide what another person can do with their property. A person can't decide what to do with another person simply because they don't own them. This puts us in a state of freedom.

See: social contract theory

See: constitutional republic

For an example of "state of freedom", see: Somalia

By living here, in America, you are implicitly agreeing to be bound by the laws written and enforced by a government we elect. You are implicitly agreeing to having your ability to do whatever-the-hell-you-want curtailed.

It's a nice pseudo-libertarian/anarchist theory you're attempting to set up on property rights, but, in any society in practice there will always be limitations on what you can and cannot do. Property rights are not absolute.

 

[ihopehefails]

What point are you trying to make?

Property ownership is what gives us rights?

If so, wrong.

Really? The person who owns this board grants me certain 'rights' to use it and as a condition of the use I am bound by the terms of use which both garantees and limits my freedom of speech simply because I can't threaten anyone but can still use this board to express myself. I am granted certain other rights to use my freedom of speech in a way that is inline with the terms of use agreement. This alone allows me that right. It appears that the right of property is the beginning of all rights and is sufficient enough to preserve every individual's freedom.

The owners of the board aren't giving you any rights. This is a members only board and you agree to follow the rules when you post here.

btw, threatening people isn't a right.

They haven't? I'm wondering if I can post on this board without their permission or use it in anyway that they don't want me to? It seems to me that because they own it that they control what we do on this board including what we can and can't say.

Its a limitation on our free speech and they decide what constitutions a threat simply because they own it.

 

[ihopehefails]

He's on the right track....in a religious sense, that is....

Natural rights, were given to us by our creator, therefore, they are our rights...we own the property of OURSELVES.

What he has missed is that even our forefathers and writers of the Constitution instituted many policies and systems that did govern us. therefore, we were never as a citizen, at liberty to govern ourselves, other than the ability to vote for the representatives of our choice, and even then....if your guy does not win, then the other guy IS STILL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE, even if he does not support any of what you stand behind.

Natural rights are BEYOND physical things that can be governed in my opinion.

Your beliefs, your thoughts, your desires, your wishes, your happiness, your sadness....you have the liberty to think what you think, feel what you feel, believe what you believe....these kind of things can never be taken away or rather governed....they are your own Creator given rights, your property rights to your own MIND, perhaps?

I dunno....?????

Yes. From what I understand of Locke is that natural rights are based on a similar thinking of property rights. A person owns something and they control which gives them rights to use that anyway they want but a person also owns themselves which makes everyone equal to another since no one can control another person in their action in the same way a person can't decide what another person can do with their property. A person can't decide what to do with another person simply because they don't own them. This puts us in a state of freedom.

See: social contract theory

See: constitutional republic

For an example of "state of freedom", see: Somalia

By living here, in America, you are implicitly agreeing to be bound by the laws written and enforced by a government we elect. You are implicitly agreeing to having your ability to do whatever-the-hell-you-want curtailed.

It's a nice pseudo-libertarian/anarchist theory you're attempting to set up on property rights, but, in any society in practice there will always be limitations on what you can and cannot do. Property rights are not absolute.

Property rights are not absolute if you are a thief. They regularly ignore someone's right to their own property.


I've seen Somalia where individual property rights are regularly abused and infringed on by warlords. They constantly tell people what they can own and what they can do on their property because they have the muscle to intimidate other people. In this country we have our own 'warlords' who do the same thing when they tell people they don't have any property rights. What is the difference between someone like yourself who thinks that no one has any property and a warlord in Somalia who thinks someone has no property rights over their own home?

 

[ihopehefails]

He's on the right track....in a religious sense, that is....

Natural rights, were given to us by our creator, therefore, they are our rights...we own the property of OURSELVES.

What he has missed is that even our forefathers and writers of the Constitution instituted many policies and systems that did govern us. therefore, we were never as a citizen, at liberty to govern ourselves, other than the ability to vote for the representatives of our choice, and even then....if your guy does not win, then the other guy IS STILL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE, even if he does not support any of what you stand behind.

Natural rights are BEYOND physical things that can be governed in my opinion.

Your beliefs, your thoughts, your desires, your wishes, your happiness, your sadness....you have the liberty to think what you think, feel what you feel, believe what you believe....these kind of things can never be taken away or rather governed....they are your own Creator given rights, your property rights to your own MIND, perhaps?

I dunno....?????

Yes. From what I understand of Locke is that natural rights are based on a similar thinking of property rights. A person owns something and they control which gives them rights to use that anyway they want but a person also owns themselves which makes everyone equal to another since no one can control another person in their action in the same way a person can't decide what another person can do with their property. A person can't decide what to do with another person simply because they don't own them. This puts us in a state of freedom.

See: social contract theory

See: constitutional republic

For an example of "state of freedom", see: Somalia

By living here, in America, you are implicitly agreeing to be bound by the laws written and enforced by a government we elect. You are implicitly agreeing to having your ability to do whatever-the-hell-you-want curtailed.

It's a nice pseudo-libertarian/anarchist theory you're attempting to set up on property rights, but, in any society in practice there will always be limitations on what you can and cannot do. Property rights are not absolute.

This is something argue against. The question is why. You should do some serious soul searching and discover the answer.

 

[Sheldon]

No soul searching necessary. I made friends reality a few years ago.