"Natural Rights" Are Hocus Pocus
I'm not writing about whether or not libertarianism and/or capitalism can lead to a good society. I can argue for and against. Historically, more free trade and liberty in a society has lead to happier, better functioning societies than the lack thereof. Freedom in society comes with its issues, too, but that's not what this about. Maybe some other time.
This post is about me - even during my most hardcore libertarian days - being somewhat dumbfounded by the idea of natural rights.
See, a lot of libertarians will try to sell you this idea that our right to self-ownership is a natural right that just exists, independent of humans themselves.
It's just a fact of nature. Somehow. Or something.
Even though the whole concept of self-ownership is just a human concept and would stop existing the second people stopped believing in it. It's the same thing as with "human rights". They're also make-believe.
A cute concept, but that's all it is: a concept. An idea.
These things don't come from God, and the really ironic part is that ideas such as self-ownership and human rights are usually championed by people who vocally reject God.
Yet they go on to claim that despite the lack of a God, these ideas such as natural rights exist even though they don't come from anywhere or anyone.
The idea of self-ownership is a handy tool. Just like freedom. They have the ability to provide a structure and a culture to a society, which will lead to increased happiness and prosperity as I said. At least in theory.
And I feel a bit dumb even writing this since the idea of natural rights is pretty easy to debunk and this is some pretty high school level stuff, to be honest.
But an objective law of nature is such that you can't disagree with it, right?
Gravity doesn't give a fuck about how you feel about it; you can not believe in gravity, but you'll die falling off a building just the same.
Because the laws of physics are objective.
Rights, on the other hand, are subjective. All it takes for someone to debunk your right to self-ownership is him disagreeing with you. The fact that he can disagree with your self-ownership proves that it's not an objective right. It's not an objective law.
It's a law of nature.
It's a man-made concept, created to serve man. And it can be used to do that quite well, under the right circumstances.
But it's childish to assume that it's anything more than that.
So called natural and human rights are nothing more than a religious superstition.
If you remove the idea that God exists and we are made in his image as the source of our rights then natural rights can not exist. I personally do believe that God is the source of our rights but that is not the point of your post.
If our rights are not seen as deriving from God there is only one source for them: violence. We only have the rights that we are willing to take, defend and if need be, die for. These are the only possible natural rights in the reductionist/materialist worldview. The same rights that every creature under the sky has. Loosely related:
For a more complete understanding of the source of rights and a moral system that isn't dependent on God I highly recommend reading the book:
https://archive.org/details/StarshipTroopersRobertHeinlein
When you are born, the only rights you have are those others are willing to defend for you, so these rights, if any, are cultural, not natural.
"Natural rights are exactly as knowable as invisible pink unicorns: anybody can fantasize them any way they want. Bentham famously dismissed the idea of natural rights as “nonsense on stilts”. Unfortunately, most libertarians start with this philosophical abomination rather than more factual alternatives."
I forgot who I am quoting here. Will try to look it up.
Hmm! Excellent thought-provoking post. In one of my classes at school (well actually, multiple ones as my minor is philosophy) we have gone about criticizing the same principals, and you are right that in the end, outside of the law of nature and objectivity is idealistic make-believe in hopes that we can create a society with less harm, but there is another conclusion that is made in Libertarianism about self-ownership that proves itself to be strange and dumbfounding, and that is the idea that we exist as pure individuals without any obligation to each other.
I always struggled with that idea that we are somehow not obligated in any way give back to our communities outside of some hyper alturistic choice to do so in libertarian thought. It is as if the Hobbsian hellhole of us living as men fighting one another constantly was a reality, and we NEVER existed as extended families or communities without some unnatural social-contract that does not exist for other social animals. It seems to imply that we are NOT animals in ourselves either, and that the evolution that made us capable of empathy or care and forming such intricate bonds has no play in how we design the principals of human interaction or nature.
I dont advocate for a hyper socialist welfare state, but to say that these ideas in capitalism don't work to undermine our relationships or sensitivies outside of each other would be a bit of a large stretch. If we could accept as a culture that other people matter more than just as trading partners or a means to an end, I think we would have a better condition than we do now.
Going to bed, but I'll reply tomorrow. Thanks for the comment.
No problem! Looking forward to it!
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.
Nihilism
Posted using Partiko Android
You have heard that the body is the first property of us, that part precisely that we are not the body, but we are something else, an essence, immaterial, like the soul, and as you know is a Christian argument.
You don't have to believe in God for natural rights to exist, you only need to believe in the existence of something metaphysical, immaterial, or intelligible. Ideas can indeed exist, we can know them by abstraction, the world is not only that which can be touched, smelled, heard, tasted or seen, that is a reductionism that has no logical basis and is based on sensations, if this were true, then communism would be more successful than capitalism or the free market, but it is not like that.
But of course, if you don't believe in anything that is not material, there are only two valid options; the first, Marxism, which eliminates the State, morals, borders, nationalities, even genres, and it is not because such things are oppressive, but because for them nothing that can't be seen is real; the second, the law of the jungle, the strongest govern by being stronger. Both options lead to the collapse of civilization, because as you well know, "civilization" is in itself a concept.