WHAT IS A RIGHT?

A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. The concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you may exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights of another—within this context, rights are an absolute.

A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men, not just to a few. There is no such thing as a "right" for one man, or a group of men, that is not possessed by all. This means there are no special "rights" unique to women or men, blacks or white, the elderly or the young, homosexuals or heterosexuals, the rich or the poor, doctors or patients or any other group.

A right must be exercised through your own initiative and action. It is not a claim on others. A right is not actualized and implemented by the actions of others. This means you do not have the right to the time in another person’s life. You do not have a right to other people’s money. You do not have the right to another person’s property. If you wish to acquire some money from another person, you must earn it—then you have a right to it. If you wish to gain some benefit from the time of another person’s life, you must gain it through the voluntary cooperation of that individual—not through coercion. If you wish to possess some item of property of another individual, you must buy it on terms acceptable to the owner—not gain it through theft.

Alone in a wilderness, the concept of a right would never occur to you, even though in such isolation you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In this solitude, you would be free to take the actions needed to sustain your life: hunt for food, grow crops, build a shelter and so on. If a hundred new settlers suddenly arrive in your area and establish a community, you do not gain any additional rights by living in such a society nor do you lose any; you simply retain the same rights you possessed when you were alone.

A right defines what you may do without the permission of those other men and it erects a moral and legal barrier across which they may not cross. It is your protection against those who attempt to forcibly take some of your life’s time, your money or property.

Animals do not have rights. Rights only apply to beings capable of thought, capable of defining rights and creating an organized means—government—of protecting such rights. Thus, a fly or mosquito does not possess rights of any kind, including the right to life. You may swat a fly or mosquito, killing them both. You do not have the right to do the same to another human being, except in self-defense. You may own and raise cows, keep them in captivity and milk them for all they are worth. You do not have the right to do the same to other men, although that is what statists effectively do to you.

There is only one, fundamental right, the right to life—which is: the sovereignty to follow your own judgment, without anyone’s permission, about the actions in your life. All other rights are applications of this right to specific contexts, such as property and freedom of speech.

The right to property is the right to take the action needed to create and/or earn the material means needed for living. Once you have earned it, then that particular property is yours—which means: you have the right to control the use and disposal of that property. It may not be taken from you or used by others without your permission.

Freedom of speech is the right to say anything you wish, using any medium of communication you can afford. It is not the responsibility of others to pay for some means of expression or to provide you with a platform on which to speak. If a newspaper or television station refuses to allow you to express your views utilizing their property, your right to freedom of speech has not been violated and this is not censorship. Censorship is a concept that only applies to government action, the action of forcibly forbidding and/or punishing the expression of certain ideas.

Statists have corrupted the actual meaning of a right and have converted it, in the minds of most, into its opposite: into a claim on the life of another. With the growth of statism, over the past few decades, we have seen an explosion of these "rights"—which, in fact, have gradually eroded your actual right to your life, money and property.

Statists declare you have a "right" to housing, to a job, to health care, to an education, to a minimum wage, to preferential treatment if you are a minority and so on. These "rights" are all a claim, a lien, on your life and the lives of others. These "rights" impose a form of involuntary servitude on you and others. These "rights" force you to pay for someone’s housing, their health care, their education, for training for a job—and, it forces others to provide special treatment for certain groups and to pay higher-than-necessary wages.

Under statism, "rights" are a means of enslavement: it places a mortgage on your life—and statists are the mortgage holders, on the receiving end of unearned payments forcibly extracted from your life and your earnings. You do not have a right to your life, others do. Others do not have a right to their lives, either, but you have a "right" to theirs. Such a concept of "rights" forcibly hog-ties everyone to everyone else, making everyone a slave to everyone else—except for those masters, statist politicians, who pull the strings and crack the whips.

Actual rights—those actions to which you are entitled by your nature as man—give you clear title to your life. A right is your declaration of independence. A statist "right" is their declaration of your dependence on others and other's dependence on you. Until these bogus "rights" are repudiated, your freedom to live your life as you see fit will continue to slowly disappear.

The "Fatal Blindness" reference comes from the fact that your little screed is the product of a merely human intellect, with no wisdom. 42 -cj-

Carbine, you & CJ share the 'fatal blindness' that your absolute belief in a supreme being is an absolute truth. All of mans works [bibles, holy works of reveled 'wisdom', etc.], are but "little screeds" of the human intellect.
You ask:

I ask, what is my nature as a man? From what font did that nature spring?
Does evolution theory explain my rights? If the happenstance of my birth came through thousands - excuse me, millions - of years of evolution, and my life as man is pure luck of the draw according to the governing rule of survival of the fittest (over even cellular life), what claim do I have to the uniqueness of my nature? How dare I presume to set myself atop the chain of life for simply being born (with no involvement on my part) with the capacity for rational thought, a cosmic accident, biological happenstance?

What claim, you ask? You answered yourself.
-- It is rational thought...
Suit yourself as to believing how we aquired the capacity.

Rights only apply to beings capable of thought, Fulton Huxtable asserts, capable of defining rights and creating an organized means—government—of protecting such rights. Is this why babies in utero have no right to life and may be aborted at the whim of the 'thinking' mother? Is this why the Honorable George W. Greer, Judge, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Clearwater, Florida, can rule justly that Terri Schiavo's husband may remove her feeding tube? If a man (or woman, or child) is incapable of defending his rights does he not have them? If you (or Fulton) were to argue that those men (or women or children) who are incapable of defending their own rights due to age or disability are given assumed rights because society has made provision for their rights in law, then you are admitting that rights come from government.

Nope, there is no such admittion at all. We rationally gave the government its limited powers to defend our rights, which includes defending the rights of incapacitated members.

I beg to differ. Animals have thought processes. This has been proven scientifically and is irrefutable. Animals have the desire to live, and the ability to defend their lives (as men do) until that defense is countered by superior force. Thought process is not the origin of man's rights.

Of course just 'thinking' isn't. -- Rational thought, and the ablity to act upon it, is the origin of man's rights. Other animals don't have such rationality.

Man's superior ability to gather into societies and to establish government on the agreement of delineated rights, and for the protection of these, does not explain the *source* of man's rights - *unless* you or Fulton Huxtable is arguing that *the agreement of what rights are* is itself the source?

Rationality itself 'explains' the source for all practical purposes.
You are free to disagree, but disagreeing violently makes for messy politics.

I beg to differ with that, too. As I see it, you have three choices in naming the Source of your rights:
1) God - absolute and unchanging, according to His revealed will by His Word
2) Government - whimsical enforcement by the Power du jour
3) Your personal declaration - rationally indefensible.

Wrong. - Number 3, -- declarations of independence, based on our self evident rights to form governments by & for the people, with non-whimsiscal enforcement of freedom for all; -- are rationally defensible.

It is indefensible, and irrational, -- to insist that your peers do not have 'rights' unless they are given by # 1), your version of God.

You wrote: "In the case of the US, non-citizens do not participate in joint ownership of government, but they do have civil rights in regard to trial by jury, due process and so forth."
I responded: "Using the extension of the author's reasoning, isn't that a privilege... ?"

What I meant was, since, as you point out, "... non-citizens do not participate in joint ownership of government..." then are not the guarantees of a trial by jury, due process, and equal recognizition under the law, privileges rather than rights? When I referred to the extension of the author's reasoning, I had this passage in mind: "You do not have the right to another person’s property... If you wish to gain some benefit from the time of another person’s life, you must gain it through the voluntary cooperation of that individual—not through coercion." The foreigners do not have a right to the use of our court houses and legal system. Rather, it is a privilege that we bestow upon them for our mutual benefit - the benefits of both self-interest and Adam's Smith's concept of "fellow feeling". What foreigners would vacation in or do business in America, without the legal protections mentioned? What American citizen would have any pride in his country if he did not bestow basic guarantees of fair treatment to visitors? Certainly not a majority of either.

The privilege versus right issue begs the question - what is the difference between a privilege and a right?

You wrote: "And a lot depends on what is meant by privilege. I've seen privilege defined as a right conferred by law. I've also seen it defined as a right, advantage, exemption, power, immunity or franchise held by a person, not generally possessed by others."

My understanding of a privilege is that it is a power obtained, beyond one's rights. That could include something "conferred by law" (though not a right) or an "advantage, exemption, power, immunity or franchise held by a person". I am not aware of any reason for the clause: "...not generally possessed by others." If your house burns down and I allow you to sleep at my house, I believe that is a privilege (though not a grand one). If the fire spreads to your neighbor's home and he loses his house, and I allow him to also sleep at my house, then that would be the same privilege, even though it is held by more than one person.

The reason that I do not believe privilege includes a right conferred by law is that my understanding of rights is that they are inalienable - they are a part of our being, so we neither obtain nor lose them. It is also due to this that I do not believe that privilege is not "defined as a right conferred by law" or "...defined as a right... held by a person, not generally possessed by others." If a right is inalienable, then it cannot be "conferred by law" and if a privilege is a power beyond our rights, then it cannot be defined as a type of right.

Rational thought, and the ablity to act upon it, is the origin of man's rights... Rationality itself 'explains' the source for all practical purposes.

I'm not buying it. This is merely an assertion. A right requires a correlated obligation. If you have the "right" not to be assaulted, then I have the correlated obligation not to assault you. But if I disagree -- where then is your right? It only exists then upon being enforced. It is enforced either by God, or by a social group. And if the latter it is not really a right, merely a "law", a social agreement. There is nothing inherent about it.

A right must be enforceable -- either by a group (e.g. a government) or by God. Period. There is no other source available for the "right" to come from. Only if a right is granted by God can it be considered "inherent" or "inalienable". A right granted by a State is neither inherent nor inalienable.

A right that is not enforced, either by God or by a social group, is not a right. It is merely hot air.

Rational thought, and the ablity to act upon it, is the origin of man's rights.
Rationality itself 'explains' the source for all practical purposes.
You are free to disagree, but disagreeing violently makes for messy politics.

I'm not buying it. This is merely an assertion. A right requires a correlated obligation. If you have the "right" not to be assaulted, then I have the correlated obligation not to assault you.

Its not an 'obligation', it's in your rational self interest not to assault me. Lest I assault you, and it gets messy.

But if I disagree -- where then is your right? It only exists then upon being enforced.

Nope, it exists because we [rationally] do not want to be assaulted. So we selfishly agree not to assault each other, or others, and codify that agreement into our law. Thus our selfish individual non-assault right exists whether or not it is violated/enforced.

It is enforced either by God, or by a social group. And if the latter it is not really a right, merely a "law", a social agreement. There is nothing inherent about it.

You are simply denying an inherant urge to defend ourselves. We fight to do so, individually, constantly.
So of course we make social agreements to do so.

A right must be enforceable -- either by a group (e.g. a government) or by God. Period.

Dogma. The individual defends himself most of the time.

There is no other source available for the "right" to come from. Only if a right is granted by God can it be considered "inherent" or "inalienable". A right granted by a State is neither inherent nor inalienable. A right that is not enforced, either by God or by a social group, is not a right. It is merely hot air.

The 'hot air' is coming off your pulpit.

Why you fight against the concept of having your own inalienable rights is best left to speculations by professionals.

Everything else aside, we are in disagreement on the basics if I understand your last paragraph.

You wrote that your "...understanding of rights is that they are inalienable - they are a part of our being, so we neither obtain nor lose them."

I say that would hold true for what are variously called Inalienable, Unalienable, Natural or Fundamental Rights (all of which are the same thing to my understanding).

But I believe that there are other classes of rights and that one such class is Civil Rights. Civil rights are dependent upon the society one lives in.

If my house burns down you may grant me the privelege of sleeping at your house. If my neighbor's house burns down you may extend the privilege to him. In neither case does the issue of Civil Rights arise as my neighbor and I have no Civil Right to sleep in your house. Due to your good graces my neighbor and I would have the privilege (power, advantage, franchise) to sleep at your house and this would be a privelege "...not generally possessed by others" unless you have a really big house and invited everybody.

Though you would not, some might even say that you have granted my neighbor and I the right to sleep in your house (subject to whatever conditions and circumstances you choose to levy.) In that same sense, for whatever reason, non-citizens in the US are granted Civil Rights in regard to trial by jury, due process and so forth.

And since we are in disagreement on the basics, I assume you will disagree with much if not all of that.

The fact that man is capable of reasoning and of rational self interest is inadequate to explain natural rights?

Of course it is; woefully inadequate.

Ronald Reagan can not presently reason or use rational argument to defend his rights. A baby in the womb can not. Terri Schiavo, who is about to die by 'legal' starvation, can not. There are FReepers who are incapable of rational argument or reasoned thought. And yet each of these persons has been "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Our Founders acknowledged "THESE TRUTHS to be self-evident, that all Men are CREATED equal, that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights." These are primary among "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD" and entitle all men to liberty and justice, regardless of their intellectual abilities, and regardless of their theological views, though that entitlement must always be vigilantly protected and sacrificially fought for, as at our inception. Every man or woman who has ever picked up the sword or the pen, or bowed in prayer on behalf of the battle for truth and justice and liberty, has fought on behalf of those who are incapable of fighting for themselves. The founding of America gave rise to the French Revolution. America downed the Nazi menace and the Wall of Socialist Russia. America brought freedom to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

THESE TRUTHS, as so simply but eloquently stated in our Declaration of Independence, entitled America at her founding to the separate and equal station which she assumed among the powers of the earth. We are a City on a Hill, shining the bright light of freedom, hope against tyranny, in a dark, oppressive world. We are so because of the truth which our Founders acknowledged: Christ has set us free.

As to your later request for me to debate the atheists position on rights

I have not asked you to debate the atheists' position, which you have asserted is "a rational, compelling argument in favor of natural rights," I've simply asked you show it to us. If you can do so, I would be happy to debate it for you.

Can you not back up your assertion?

I'd like to watch them whup yer butt in debate.

Of course you would, because you are angry at me and weaponless in this argument. You've confessed and demonstrated that you personally are incapable of administering such a "whupping". All you are manifestly capable of at this point is name-calling.

Besides, only my husband has the authority to "whup" my butt (because I have ceded it to him), and only our Creator gets to watch. (;

Just to see if I understand what you are saying...

In post 48, you wrote: "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

Is that how you define a right?

In post 11, you wrote:

"There are various kinds of rights:

Natural or inalienable rights (Life, liberty, etc.) These exist even in a state of nature.

Civil rights (the right to vote, trial by jury, etc) These exist in a state of society and are dependant upon the society which has been established.

Legal rights, established in laws and courts."

How would you define natural, civil, and legal rights?

Tell that to anyone who ever mugged someone else, burned down a house then shot the survivors as they came out, or ran a concentration camp. Apparently your "rational self-interest" was no deterence there.

But if I disagree -- where then is your right? It only exists then upon being enforced.
Nope, it exists because we [rationally] do not want to be assaulted. So we selfishly agree not to assault each other, or others, and codify that agreement into our law. Thus our selfish individual non-assault right exists whether or not it is violated/enforced.

And if we do not agree? That is rather the point. You are assuming (rather academically I might add) that everyone, or even most people, are of course "rational". I suggest that your perspective has been shaped by your environment. Go live in Liberia for 6 months in the bush and then come back and tell us about it. Try discussing your "enlightened rational self-interest" to someone who thinks chopping off your arms with a machete is fun and besides, he wants a snack. Have fun trying to discuss your concept of "inalienable" rights (sans God or social group) while they turn your forearms into "meat on the stick".

You note that I wrote "that dominion which..." and you ask me "Is that how you define a right?"

The answer is 'No.' That's how I would define the "right to property" unless you've got something I would consider better.

My post 48 responded to your post 15 in which you you asked if civil rights weren't an extension of propety rights and offered the a definition of property rights from the eighth paragraph of the article. I was disagreeing with that definition.

Given that "A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others" instead of saying the right to property is "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual." one could say the right to property is "that sovereignty to act without the permission of others which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

"How would you define natural, civil, and legal rights?"

I can't say I have determined definitions that I find entirely satisfactory.

For the moment: A natural right is a right that stems from the nature of man as man exists in a state of nature. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would be such rights.

Civil rights and legal rights may be similar and stem from institutions man establishes as he forms organized, and still more organized societies. Civil rights might be defined as the rights of people in regard to government and would depend on the form of government people establish and the rights they wish to have regarded as civil rights. (Some might say that if a right is "that sovereignty to act without the permission of others," then talking about the rights of people in regard to government is nonsense, but practically speaking when people form a government, they cede or disable some of their rights to each other with the government as their agent, and establish some "sovereignties to act without the permission of others" in regard to government.)

A legal right is a "sovereignty to act without the permission of others" that stems from a contract or is created by a law.

I'm not at the moment hard over on some of this, so take a shot.

By the way, instead of Huxtable's definition, I prefer something like: A right is the sovereignty to exercise one’s capabilities till the right of another begins.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.