Civil Discourse: Property Rights

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

... Your sense of 'self' and 'I' are completely informed by your upbringing. Even the concept of 'self' and 'other' is learned. Consider that infants do not distinguish the world as separate from themselves until something like a year old, IIRC. It is just as easy for me to consider a world view where there is 'food' not 'my food'.

[S]moothmoniker defined natural rights as "... universal, inalienable, and usually self-evident." The last criteria of self evidence is the purview of sufficiently developed (i.e. self sufficient) humans, not infants and children.

Your world view consideration works when there's enough food to go around. When there isn't and it becomes a matter of life or death, the instinct for survival kicks in and the concept of "mine" develops as one of many coping mechanisms organic to the human organism right along with the fight or flight response.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

My owning a house that some construction company built is a social convention.

Imma add this to my reasons for owner-building.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Your sense of 'self' and 'I' are completely informed by your upbringing. Even the concept of 'self' and 'other' is learned. Consider that infants do not distinguish the world as separate from themselves until something like a year old, IIRC. It is just as easy for me to consider a world view where there is 'food' not 'my food'.

One could continue that logic to eliminate all natural rights:

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Examples might be the right of free speech, or the right to be free from physical violence.

There are plenty of world views that include the absolute right of some to do violence on others, and see subservience in speech to be a natural and good thing. They are, however, wrong. IMHO and all that.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

I believe that property rights are a natural right because it aligns with human nature. Sot it's intrinsic.

But I also think property rights are a necessary foundation for capitalism. And capitalism (in general) also aligns with human nature.

The Library of Economics and Liberty agrees with you.


If it is a human right then owning property is best under a capitalist society.
(In general) You have more human rights under a capitalist society and therefore, have more THINGS or the potential to have more things, and the control in selling, bequeathing, renting, and to gain profits from property rights, or ownership of THINGS. or ( property )

[Griff]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

So here is the question: are property rights natural rights or social convention?

I believe that all natural rights are a social convention. I would not want to live in a society where these convention were inactive as it would be destructive of human progress. We adhere to these conventions because of self-interest, the threat of state or individual violence, belief in the divine, or a rational belief that it makes for a predictable orderly society. Mankind does not walk its path hand in hand with any inherent "rights" one has only to look at the rise of totalitarianism in the 20th Century to realize that the threat of violence is superior to any rights. The best we can hope for is that superior power stay in the hands of those who support human rights.

[ZenGum]

I do not believe in any "natural rights". IMHO, all rights are derived from social conventions and an implicit social contract. Rights are human inventions.

So given current exchange rates, there is my 1.98 cent's worth.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by Griff

I believe that all natural rights are a social convention.

(snip)

The best we can hope for is that superior power stay in the hands of those who support human rights.

I have no idea what these two statements mean when placed side by side. If all rights are convention, then what are "human rights"? The conventions a society ought to have? Where does that ought derive from?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

I have no idea what these two statements mean when placed side by side. If all rights are convention, then what are "human rights"?

The bottom-line conventions of our society as enumerated in the document separating us from the British Empire. Even though labeled by Locke as natural rights, these rights only belonged to the colonists after they used force to attain them.

The conventions a society ought to have? Where does that ought derive from?

The imagination of John Locke and the business end of a rifle.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Griff

The imagination of John Locke and the business end of a rifle.

I loved that part.

[ZenGum]

And this is one of the most wonderful, amazing things about human history - that at least sometimes, those with superior force have used their force to establish a system that accords rights to all, not just themselves. Justice, rather than bullying.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I do not believe in any "natural rights". IMHO, all rights are derived from social conventions and an implicit social contract. Rights are human inventions.

Some consider natural law and natural rights to be that which corresponds to the spontaneous order that develops in the absence of social conventions and what individuals would do independently of each other, still being rational people, through the use of individual unorganized force to protect their property. Use of individual unorganized force in consonance with the nature of humans and their world would not indicate that the person using such force is a danger to a reasonable man. Natural law and natural rights are discovered whereas social conventions are invented. Natural law and natural rights derive from the nature of humans and their world just as physical law and properties derive from the nature of matter, space, and time. They follow from the kind of animal that we are and all animals know or can discover what they need to do in order to lead the life that they are physically suited to live. Some see natural law and natural rights as still being a real force that constrains the lawless arrogance of sociopaths as well as some government officials.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Use of individual unorganized force in consonance with the nature of humans and their world would not indicate that the person using such force is a danger to a reasonable man. Natural law and natural rights are discovered whereas social conventions are invented.

Consider that humans, while they can be individualistic, generally grow up in or along side familial groups, like Stewarts, Hapsburgs, or Hanovers, which can bring organization to force. Discovered rights are discovered in the context of there discovery, in other words, they are social conventions. [imho]

[sexobon]

The discovery of natural rights can be accomplished by directly observing the behaviors of other animal species in nature with which we have no social conventions. Even today, a no-tech individual in an isolated area could glean whether or not an indigenous water/food source is likely to be potable/edible and that it is something to be protected (scarce) by observing the behaviors of other animals around it. If other human contact occurs and the resources are sufficient, then that protection can be extended through social conventions which may even include conservation. Consider that contemporary conservation is not just about maintenance; but, the expectation of new discoveries in nature that may in turn cause a single individual to discover another natural right, individually act to protect it, then seek further protection through social conventions. The cycle continues. While the knowledge and assertion of rights today is predominantly learned indirectly by passing original discoveries down through the generations and social interaction with others, it doesn't refute the continuing existence of natural rights as they are renewable to each person as circumstances require.

[Griff]

Looks like the New York Times wants to join the argument.

There are two avenues by which to address the truth of the natural basis of human rights: (a) whether authors argued for human rights before the European Enlightenment, and (b) whether there is a logical basis for human rights that would demonstrate its applicability to all people regardless of when it was recognized to be correct.

[Aliantha]

I've been having this vague, slightly incomplete thought about rights for a long time. In a nutshell it's something like; is a right yours if you don't recognize it as such. ie if you live in a culture that doesn't teach you to expect certain things, then is what you're missing out on a right or just something you'd like.

I guess it comes down to whether rights are a social construct or not, but people seem to have different ideas about what they have a 'right' to.