Theories of Rights v3

A Theory of Rights : 

A Theory of Rights Proving the existence and nature of rights from first principles

Can we know? : 

Can we know? Axioms must be self-evident i.e. irrefutable. This condition holds when the premise must be accepted in order to argue against it. The following are axioms: Something must exist for us to know about Man must be conscious for us to know it That which exists must be something in particular, or else it is nothing In other words: Existence exists, consciousness is identification, and A is A. This is the law of identity.

Can we know? : 

Can we know? An axiom is not ‘anything one claims as such’ i.e. arbitrary claims. An axiom must meet be inherently irrefutable.

Can we know? : 

Can we know? Contradictions (inconsistency) are at odds with the law of identity; that a thing is itself. Therefore arguments can be judged on their consistency. A cannot simultaneously be A and non-A.

Can we know? : 

Can we know? By the standard of consistency: Human senses must be reliable. Any argument that the senses are unreliable relies itself upon the senses. There must be truth. Any argument that there is no such thing as truth is itself a statement of truth. Therefore we can find truth through the senses i.e. observation

Can we know? : 

Can we know?

What do we know? : 

What do we know? We can observe people acting both to gain things and to keep things. We call these things ‘values’. A value implies a choice between things Values imply a standard with which man gauges these values in order to make decisions This standard is life. Man possesses volition, he makes choices. His life depends on these choices. Certain choices harm him, while others are to his benefit i.e. they improve his life. Man has only one life to live, and can live no life but his own.

What do we know? : 

What do we know? Since the standard of value is man’s own life, it is the only thing that is an end in itself. Virtue, therefore, is the pursuit of one’s life. This can be restated as: “Virtue is reason,” since man can only fulfil his life through the application of reason. A man who does only that which harms himself, the unreasoning, will destroy himself. Since reason is a virtue, that which destroys reason is a vice.

What do we know? : 

What do we know? Coercion is the initiation of force (violence), fraud (deception causing material loss), or theft (the taking of property without permission). (Property rights will be explained shortly) A man who uses coercion against you is attempting to force you to think on his terms – this is impossible; therefore he is unreasoning. He is attempting to make you act contrary to your own reason

What do we know? : 

What do we know? There is a potential conflict then: Man finds value in other men since he can learn from, interact and trade with other men to his own betterment. Yet men are also a threat, they can deprive him of his life, his mind, and their products (property). How can the value be obtained while the threat minimised? This is the transition from ethics to politics. A moral principle is needed to guide political action; to subordinate it to morality.

What are rights? : 

What are rights? A right is a moral concept; a moral principle. Rights are not laws. Laws may enforce* the moral concept of a right but are not, properly speaking, rights themselves. *Though they are not the only method of enforcing rights, and often enforce things other than rights.

What are rights? : 

What are rights? Rights concern freedom of action. They tell us what man should and should not be permitted to do i.e. when force is justified. If a right is about to be violated it is legitimate to use force, or the threat of such, against the would-be violator to prevent this. If a right has been violated it is legitimate to use force, or the threat of such, against the violator to restore the victim. They are those conditions necessary for man’s proper existence.

What are man’s rights? : 

What are man’s rights? It should now be evident that: Man has a right to (the living of) his own life No man has a right to deprive him of this. In other words: “Man owns himself.” Man requires a right to his own life since the purpose of life is life itself, since his ultimate value is life, and his ultimate virtue the living of his own life.

What are man’s rights? : 

What are man’s rights? This is the only right; the only moral principle with which to guide political action. All else follows from it. Man has a right to: Life As we have seen, and all other rights (as below) are merely corollaries or restatements of this. Liberty Since man cannot apply reason under coercion. Property Since man must survive by his own efforts he must have a right to that which he produces; which includes that which he acquires through trade and other non-coercive means. The taking without permission of an element that is owned by another is coercion, and in violation of his rights. The pursuit of happiness Since man’s purpose is to live his own life, which could be restated as being to pursue happiness.

What are the consequences of man’s rights? : 

What are the consequences of man’s rights? A proscription of coercion. Man may not initiate force (or fraud or theft) against another, and may legitimately be met by force if he breaches this moral imperative. And therefore... Free market capitalism, since it is the only system that protects man’s rights; the only system that prohibits coercion. Man’s rights hold across time, space and cultures. They are not the product of mass opinion or popular vote. They follow from observation and reason. They are not decided, only recognized; rights are acknowledgments of facts of human survival in a social context.

What are the consequences of man’s rights? : 

What are the consequences of man’s rights? ‘Natural rights’ is a misnomer; rights concern only man and exist due to him. ‘Individual rights’ and ‘human rights’ are redundant terms since there are no other kinds of rights and no one else to possess them. ‘group rights’ is a contradiction in terms. So-called ‘positive rights’ such as a ‘right to healthcare’ and a ‘right to housing’ are impossible. Since to give to one man requires taking from another. If one man is entitled to the product of another, the latter is deprived of his rights and condemned to involuntary servitude; to slave labour. Property rights (also a redundant term) are the only rights that meet the criteria of consistency. Peter’s right to the ownership of that which he produces does not violate Paul’s right to that which he produces.

What are the consequences of man’s rights? : 

What are the consequences of man’s rights? ‘Property rights’ include rights such as free speech since man has a (property) right to his own body, and therefore is free to speak as he pleases. Of course, if a man is on the property of another then that is a different story. I can legitimately prevent you from saying racist things in my house if I so wish.

What are the consequences of man’s rights? : 

What are the consequences of man’s rights? Any object or resource that requires the application of man’s reason and effort in order to become of use to him is the private property of those who apply the reason and effort. Oil under the ocean is of no use to anybody. The man who uses his reason and effort to access the oil is its proper owner. When this standard is applied, various solutions to so-called ‘common pool resource problems’ emerge. Overfishing and deforestation need not be solved by government quotas, but through private ownership.

Answers : 

Answers Q: What are rights? A: Moral principles, relating to freedoms of action necessary for man’s proper survival, defining when force may be used legitimately. Q: What rights do we have? A: A right to the living of our own lives and all that follows from this. Q: What should happen if rights are violated? A: Force may be used against the violator to prevent violation or restore the victim. Q: Are there such things as group rights? A: No, this a contradiction. Q: What are human rights? A: This is a redundancy, there are no other kinds of rights. Q: How should we decide who has rights over a natural resource? A: Rights are not decided, only recognized. He who applies effort and reason to a useless element and in so doing produces something of use is that element’s rightful owner.