Property rights as corollary to the right to life does not imply a derivative relationship. If you hold different metaphsyical beliefs, property rights could theoretically be argued to apply to “collectives” or “societies”. I did not suggest that property rights could only exist as derivate to the right to life. Rather, I stated that, the metaphysical position I find most rational, supports the individual’s right to life. However, the right to life is negated without the corollary right to private property - as our lives necessarily require the application of abstract reason and thought (intelligence) to the material world in order to live. Our bodies are essentially our property. If you don’t own your own body (ie: you’re a slave) - the right to life is effectively negated.
You’re equating “living” with “survival”. I see a rather large distinction between the two. As slaves of the mind or the body, history certainly demonstrates that human beings can survive as beasts of burden for a very long time. Certainly human beings can survive without the right to life. Again, I’ve never suggested otherwise. However, as noted, my own observations, experience and metaphysical positions view human beings as an animal in nature that must think, in order to live as a human being and not simply another beast in the wild to be commanded by other animals.
Communal societies - wherein individual rights are subjugated to collective rights or “what’s best for the group” - have an atrocious historical record. The last 100 years alone provides plenty of anecdotal evidence (Russia, China, etc.) - but if you’d like to discuss the 2,000 - 10,000 years prior, wherein the vast majority of human beings lived in collectives (monarchies, empires, religions, etc.) - I’d be happy to delve into with you.
You’ve ignored why government was considered necessary in the first place. The Founders, like Locke and Rousseau, did not simply concede that “some” government authority will always exist as though it were axiomatic. Rather, they recognized that free individuals necessarily ought institute governments to protect individual rights. That through a “social contract” - the right to use force be restricted/removed from individual use and granted to the government, according to an objective rule of law, as the only avenue to a civil society among individuals.
Accordingly, individual rights were not set up to defend against some inevitable government entity. Rather, governments were instituted to protect individual rights - and then rationally restricted and balanced so as to avoid the potential for tyranny - especially in a democracy - where government majorities granted the legal use of force against legally disarmed individuals.
Agreed. For these reasons, I don’t support castle laws. I haven’t ever suggested guns are the best or only way to protect individual rights. I did suggest that guns, or more precisely, the right to own them and use them in self-defense, can be argued from a philosophical position within the context of individuals and the relation to the State.
Cool.
I disagree with your unchecked premise - the belief that an infinite number of “rights” exist - and that individual rights as discussed here are equal in principle to decreed economic rights. The inevitable collisions of individual rights you’ve alluded to forms the basis for an objective need for neutral institutions among men (government in the form of courts, police, military) to preserve civil society and prevent anarchy. Economic rights “conflict” with fundamental individuals rights because the former requires the subjugation of the latter. That is not conflict - that is contradiction. A more thorough evaluation of what constitutes a “right” is required.
Rawls is the quintessential egalitarian - unless my memory serves me wrong. He starts from an assumed, unchecked premise that all rights are equal. You must first establish that what you declare is a right, is in fact a right and not simply the violation of one individual’s right to the benefit of another individual based on “need” or some equally subjective metric.
Your analogy is flawed. We’re not discussing children - who by definition are irrational. If you’re going to argue that human beings, by their nature, are primarily irrational as a justification for utilitarianism - you’re going to have to help me overcome some obvious contradictions inherent to that assumption.
I think democracy, within a constitutional republic, is a great thing. Pure democracy - is nothing more than majority or “mob” rule - and represents nothing more than a tyranny of the majority. Adherents to “pure” democracy believe that rights are nothing more than privileges that the State grants - which can be revoked - but more importantly, are tied to “convention” as opposed to rational, consistent principles.
As the term “libertarian” seems to represent so many contradicting philosophies these days - I am most certainly not a libertarian. But if labels are important to you - I’d probably identify closely with objectivism at the moment - though I’m still researching and thinking about much of it - and whether or not I agree with it. So call me whatever gives you peace of mind.
Was that really warranted? Isn’t this the type of nonsense I’ve seen you and Pav condemn in other threads?
What does a “right to life” mean to you?
