Natural Rights—Is There Such A Thing?

[kerrin]

Are natural rights found in man’s capacity for reason, or his “need” to use reason without coercion?

Does a need to be free from coercion logically follow a natural right to be free from coercion?

Murray Rothbard's natural rights “are embedded in a greater structure of natural law.” How does "natural law" differ from laws that are discovered by science? Scientific laws, such as the laws of physics, cannot be altered by human action. They describe how things are. The way Rothbard uses "natural law" it does not describe how things are but how things should be. What “nature” requires or dictates is in the eye of the beholder, is it not?

Any Rand's natural rights are derived from the observation of what a human is. Does it then logically follow that natural rights (what ought to) be based on what a human is?

I'm interested in your thoughts/answers.

[John Scott]

http://www.individualism.com/natural-law-definition/
http://www.individualism.com/natural-rights/
http://www.individualism.com/definition-of-rights/

I reject natural rights for the same reason I reject the concept of Santa Claus. No evidence.

It's weird to think that every other animal can kill or be killed without violating the laws of nature, but when it comes to humans, we are special.

Rights are a man-made social construct.

[kerrin]

It's weird to think that every other animal can kill or be killed without violating the laws of nature, but when it comes to humans, we are special.

Is it not that we (humans) are aware (cognizant) of our existence that sets us apart from other physical beings? And likewise, we are aware of the existence of other beings?

Within these questions, obviously, I'm assuming we can agree that we both exist. I believe I exist and because it is a reliable belief I consider it knowledge that I exist. I expect you believe and know the same about yourself, right?

I do agree, "rights are a man-made social construct."

[Tom Palven]

Hi Kerrin,
I agree with John Scott (and Lou Rollins, (The Myth of Natural Rights) that there is no evidence for inherent natural rights. I parsed the great Murray Rothbard's argument for natural rights in The Ethics of Liberty, and the case he made just didn't seem to compute- humans think, and need their brains to exist, or some such, and therefore they have rights. Was it Rand's argument that human awareness of existence somehow confers inherent rights? I don't see how that would follow, either.
Many conservatives believe that Americans. at least, are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but these conservatives usually believe that a national military draft in war time is perfectly legitimate, even though it violates the "rights" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those who don't want to be drafted into the US Foreign Legion when cannon fodder is in short supply certainly cannot rely on claiming that they have rights to individual liberty, and can probably make a better case for individual sovereignty or indivdual liberty without trying to bring in nonexistant inherent "rights".
This may have been one of the weak points of the Libertarian Party, trying to base the pursuit of liberty on the Constitution. A better argument might be that no person or group of people can logically show how they have acquired ethical "rights" to coerce others.

[Devilyn]

http://www.individualism.com/natural-law-definition/
http://www.individualism.com/natural-rights/
http://www.individualism.com/definition-of-rights/

I reject natural rights for the same reason I reject the concept of Santa Claus. No evidence.

It's weird to think that every other animal can kill or be killed without violating the laws of nature, but when it comes to humans, we are special.

Rights are a man-made social construct.

Yes, they are. And?

[Tom Palven]

And they're worthless. Legal rights, such as the right to a minimum wage or the right to bear arms, which are guaranteed by governments at least exist, until they are modified or repealed. Inherent "natural rights", on the other hand, are worthless. What good did alleged natural human rights to life and liberty do Jews, gays, Gypsies, and others under The Third Reich, for example?