Property Rights Are Not Natural Freedoms

[Timshel]

Even in society your rights can be violated.

In society, rights can be violated, but they are protected by a moral agreement.

And how is that anymore valid than being protected by the individual and his neighbors who choose to recognize his rights? If you do not possess the right to property how are you able to protect it through a moral agreement. For instance, I do not have the right to steal and no moral agreement with others will make that valid.

The problem with your argument here is that you accept Rousseau's notions that the state is necessary for society or civilization. This is not the understanding of Locke and his man in the state of nature, i.e., without a state. Rousseau sees man in his state of nature as being beasts beneath even other animals like wolves or lions. Locke sees them as moral but unfortunately biased by their own interests. Locke's man in the state of nature is simply man free from external control. There property rights would exists.

In nature, the only right you have is to do as you will, provided you are capable. It isn't possible to violate that.

No, actually that is the right you ascribe to the clooective/state/society via your "moral agreement."

Kind of like me arguing against the Democrats in the sense that Dixie defines them. Why would you use Rousseau? It is a strawman. Try Locke.

Rousseau provides a good explanation of the exchange, that's why.

We are all aware of the totalitarian paradox his writings bring.

I am not making a moral judgement as to whether property rights are good or bad, just that they are a social creation, not found in the natural state.

Rousseau is not any better an explanation of a stateless society than Dixie's explanation of what Democrats are.

 

[Timshel]

Property rights, or the concept of ownership, don't exist in nature, outside human morality.

This is the problem with the premise of your argument. You see man's nature as being absent of human morality. Well then, what is human morality?

 

[Damocles]

I now have several questions:

What is human nature and how is it defined?
Can it be defined without morality?
What is society?
Can it be defined without Government?
What is the foundation of morality?
Is it the State as it must be if AOI is correct and the only natural state of human is to take what they can and the State provides the moral agreement?

Those are a beginning.

 

[Timshel]

I now have several questions:

What is human nature and how is it defined?

Dictionary says, the sum of all characteristics and traits shared by humans. I would add "healthy" or something akin to that as a condition. It's part of human nature to have two legs but not all do.

Can it be defined without morality?

No. I think humans have a natural sense of right and wrong. Again, there are some sickos that don't but they are few and rare.

What is society?

A group of individuals.

Can it be defined without Government?

Absolutely. Government has nothing to do with it.

What is the foundation of morality?

Freedom from the intiation of force.

Is it the State as it must be if AOI is correct and the only natural state of human is to take what they can and the State provides the moral agreement?

I will answer that with a q. How can the state or society, which both are just collections of individuals, possibly be moral if it is not in the nature of the component parts? How can a non-moral agent, man, make a moral agreement with other non moral agents?

 

[Damocles]

I will answer that with a q. How can the state or society, which both are just collections of individuals, possibly be moral if it is not in the nature of the component parts? How can a non-moral agent, man, make a moral agreement with other non moral agents?

They cannot. If the individuals making up a society are not moral they cannot build a moral framework from which to work.

However, the questions are more for AOI than for you. You and I seem to agree on this one.

 

[klaatu]

To sum it up ... since we are territorial... within us it is natural to want and own property,

There is a major difference between possession and property, between possession and ownership.

In nature, a pride of lions might possess a territory as its own. But if it doesn't defend that property, if it can't defend it, it loses it.

Property (or ownership) is the concept that you possess something irrelevant of your ability to defend it.

Property rights, or the concept of ownership, don't exist in nature, outside human morality.

Property designates those real or intellectual goods that are commonly recognized as being the rightful possessions of a person or group. Property is simply a man made term to legalize a possession.... iow ..to make ownership.

A creature in nature possesses their own body. But if they cannot defend themselves, their body becomes the possession of the attacker, there is no moral structure to protect it, and as a body is essentially meat, is likely to be eaten.
Property rights are thus a social freedom, as opposed to a natural freedom.[/B]

You are right.. in human legal terms owning property is a social freedom ... but lets not confuse that with mans innate drive to possess property, which also makes it as natural as a hungar for food. Before civilization man was still territorial and claimed land to be his own.. until another tribe came along and fought him off it.. but until that time ... he had possession and was the rightful owner.... simply because it was a natural drive.

 

[Timshel]

It is not a "social freedom" anymore than your right to life is a "social freedom." It is a natural right. The legal right to seek damages if it is violated does not nullify the natural right to own property.

Property is often used in these discussion ambiguously and there is an implication that one is talking only about real property. But property includes all property including your person and labor. If you have no natural right to property then you are a slave owned by society and afforded a certain allowance of amenities by the grace of society.

 

[AnyOldIron]

It is not a "social freedom" anymore than your right to life is a "social freedom." It is a natural right. The legal right to seek damages if it is violated does not nullify the natural right to own property.

It isn't a natural freedom. Right to life isn't a natural freedom.

In nature, you live as long as you can defend yourself. If you cannot defend yourself from something that has the will to take your life, you die.

Only in the social context is life or are possessions protected by something other than your physical ability to defend them. The notions of right to life and property rights are a moral judgement created within society and so are social freedoms.

You exchange the natural right to take what you will provided you are physically capable for the social right to keep what you have regardless of your ability to defend it.

Property is often used in these discussion ambiguously and there is an implication that one is talking only about real property. But property includes all property including your person and labor. If you have no natural right to property then you are a slave owned by society and afforded a certain allowance of amenities by the grace of society.

Whether you consider that slavery or not, there is no such thing as property in the natural state. In the natural state, you only possess what you can defend, whether that is your labour (if you defend your kill, you eat it, if not, you lose it.), your person (if you defend it, you live, if you can't, you are eaten) or your territory (if you defend it you keep it, if you can't you lose it.)

It is only in the human social enviroment where your possessions are protected whether you can defend them or not. It is a social freedom that your possessions are protected and become your property. Property rights are not a natural freedom.

With this in mind, how do you work out that, with property rights not being a natural freedom you are a 'slave to society'?

Can you present a syllogism to explain this?

 

[AnyOldIron]

What are natural freedoms?

They are the freedoms to do as you will, provided you are physically capable.

Conquest is a natural freedom, taking slaves are a natural freedom, killing is a natural freedom, taking what you like is a natural freedom.

All are dependant on will and the physical capability to do so.

Social freedoms are those we exchange natural freedoms before.

Whilst taking slaves is a natural freedom, the protection from being taken into slavery is a social freedom, the right not to be killed is a social freedom, the right to keep what is yours is a social freedom.

 

[Timshel]

It is not a "social freedom" anymore than your right to life is a "social freedom." It is a natural right. The legal right to seek damages if it is violated does not nullify the natural right to own property.

It isn't a natural freedom. Right to life isn't a natural freedom.

In nature, you live as long as you can defend yourself.

So your argument is that all rights are granted by society and man lives at the whim of his brothers with no moral right to life, liberty, property or the pursuit of happiness.

Barring, natural causes of death or accident, you live so long as no one kills you. That is a natural right.

If you cannot defend yourself from something that has the will to take your life, you die.

And how does that nullify natural right? It does not. A natural right does not mean a right that cannot possibly be violated by others.

Only in the social context is life or are possessions protected by something other than your physical ability to defend them. The notions of right to life and property rights are a moral judgement created within society and so are social freedoms.

Your argument actually means we have no "social freedom" since that only exists to the extent that society can and is willing to defend it. It is no more inviolable.

You exchange the natural right to take what you will provided you are physically capable for the social right to keep what you have regardless of your ability to defend it.

No, by the premise of your argument, one is simply joining a gang of thieves, crooks and killers via the social agreement.

Under actual natural rights theory (i.e., not the strawman of Rousseau) one exchanges the right to defend their own property (i.e., vigilante justice) for a legal right to seek damages before an impartial body of society, e.g., a court.

Property is often used in these discussion ambiguously and there is an implication that one is talking only about real property. But property includes all property including your person and labor. If you have no natural right to property then you are a slave owned by society and afforded a certain allowance of amenities by the grace of society.

Whether you consider that slavery or not, there is no such thing as property in the natural state.

Yes, there is. People have possessed property throughout known history. They had no legal rights to property, but they had a natural right to property.

In the natural state, you only possess what you can defend, whether that is your labour (if you defend your kill, you eat it, if not, you lose it.), your person (if you defend it, you live, if you can't, you are eaten) or your territory (if you defend it you keep it, if you can't you lose it.)

Not just you individually but any who would help you in defense.

So what? Nothing in your argument nullifies the natural rights involved and that are violated by external forces.

It is only in the human social enviroment where your possessions are protected whether you can defend them or not.

Again, no, you are wrong. According to your argument you only possess the property so long as the state wills it or can defend it. Your right is no more incapable of being violated than in the state of nature. Actually, it is less since there is now an organized state that sees you only as a possession of the state.

It is a social freedom that your possessions are protected and become your property. Property rights are not a natural freedom.

It is a legal right that your possession are protected by the state.

With this in mind, how do you work out that, with property rights not being a natural freedom you are a 'slave to society'?

Can you present a syllogism to explain this?

I have already given you the syllogism. The right to property is the right to the produce of your own labor, nothing more. If you do not enjoy that right, you are a slave. Your argument is that the fruit of your labor is not yours but belongs to the state and you are merely permitted an allowance of certain amenities.

 

[Timshel]

What are natural freedoms?

They are the freedoms to do as you will, provided you are physically capable.

No, that is your argument. Natural rights are those rights enjoyed by humans due their nature as humans absent external control.

Conquest is a natural freedom, taking slaves are a natural freedom, killing is a natural freedom, taking what you like is a natural freedom.

They are not, since they involve force against another.

All are dependant on will and the physical capability to do so.

Social freedoms are those we exchange natural freedoms before.

According to your premise social freedoms are merely the natural freedoms (e.g., the right to do as you will and are capable) enjoyed by a group.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The right to own something is something the government grants you... it was pulled out of thin air.

Well, it's a group moral decision if that's what you mean...

It may be the best that we allow people to own what they produce, but what about whenever it is destroying an entire society to do so? Moderate intrusion isn't so crazy.

Moderate intrusion into property rights?

How do you feel about the social moral decision to allow those who don't produce to own that property?

How can you critisczie that statement? That's the most your gonna get out of me, ya damn commie .

 

[AnyOldIron]

So your argument is that all rights are granted by society and man lives at the whim of his brothers with no moral right to life, liberty, property or the pursuit of happiness.

Exactly. In nature you have only the right to do what your will dictates, provided you are physically capable.

Rights of protection, of life, liberty, property et al are only found in societies.

Barring, natural causes of death or accident, you live so long as no one kills you. That is a natural right.

Exactly. Aside from natural causes or accident, you live as long as you can defend yourself. That is a natural right.

If you were stranded on the African plain and happen to have a hungry rogue lion come across your path, it doesn't stop to consider your right to life before devouring you.

And how does that nullify natural right? It does not. A natural right does not mean a right that cannot possibly be violated by others.

It isn't a violation of natural right. Only social freedoms violate natural rights.

It is the natural right that if you see something you want, and have the capability to take it, you do. Social freedoms state that if you have something, it is protected from another who's will state they want it and they are physically capable.

A leopard makes a kill on the African plain. He is unfortunate that, whilst dragging it to its tree, a pride of hungry lions comes across his path.

Do the lions:

a. Stop and think, "Under natural rights, this leopard has the right to keep its produce."
b. Stop and think, "We're lions, we don't have a moral framework to recognise protective rights, such protective rights don't occur in nature. Let's get the leopard's kill"

In nature, there is only the power of will and physical capability.
In society, we exchange the right to exercise will regardless for protective rights, the right not to be killed, the right to keep what you produce/kill etc

AOI: Only in the social context is life or are possessions protected by something other than your physical ability to defend them. The notions of right to life and property rights are a moral judgement created within society and so are social freedoms.

RS: Your argument actually means we have no "social freedom" since that only exists to the extent that society can and is willing to defend it. It is no more inviolable.

My argument is that natural rights can only be violated by exchanging them for social freedoms. Social freedoms are fragile, they are only a moral framework after all. If society is unable or unwilling to defend social freedoms, then you have a return to natural freedom, will reigns supreme.

If society no longer defends the social freedom of property rights, then people only keep what they can physically defend, you return to the natural state.


AOI: You exchange the natural right to take what you will provided you are physically capable for the social right to keep what you have regardless of your ability to defend it.

No, by the premise of your argument, one is simply joining a gang of thieves, crooks and killers via the social agreement.

Under actual natural rights theory (i.e., not the strawman of Rousseau) one exchanges the right to defend their own property (i.e., vigilante justice) for a legal right to seek damages before an impartial body of society, e.g., a court.

Explain how Rousseau's argument is strawman?

You are essentially using the same argument as Rousseau, the difference being you call the moral framework that protects an individual's possessions regardless of their ability to protect them a natural freedom, despite the fact that this moral framework isn't found in the natural state and is only found in social conditions?

How do you explain this contradiction?

Whether you consider that slavery or not, there is no such thing as property in the natural state.

Yes, there is. People have possessed property throughout known history. They had no legal rights to property, but they had a natural right to property.

Throughout written history we have lived in a social environment. Throughout written history, we have not lived in our natural state.

There have been differing modes of protection, some radically different from modern jurispudence concepts, some with poor suffrage but whilst man has lived in society, he has exchanged the natural right to do as their will dictates according to capability for protections from the free wheeling will.

There is no natural right to property. The right to property only exists under the moral framework of society.



Quote:
In the natural state, you only possess what you can defend, whether that is your labour (if you defend your kill, you eat it, if not, you lose it.), your person (if you defend it, you live, if you can't, you are eaten) or your territory (if you defend it you keep it, if you can't you lose it.)

Not just you individually but any who would help you in defense.

So what? Nothing in your argument nullifies the natural rights involved and that are violated by external forces.

I realise that as a libertarian you believe in the 'pursuit of abstract freedom'and like to believe the freedoms you most support are naturally occurring, it reinforces the libertarian ideal.

But in the state of nature, you have no protective rights. Whatever you have, you possess because you have the capability to defend it. There is no moral framework in nature to protect your possessions beyond your own physical capability, without that it doesn't become property. It is merely a possession.

A similar argument is for the social freedom of 'right to life'.

In nature, when a creature has the will and capability to take another creature's life, it doesn't consider that creature has a right to life. If the prey creature cannot defend itself, it loses its life and becomes meat. That is not a violation of the prey creature's 'right to life' because there is no natural moral capacity for the notion of right to life.

AOI: It is only in the human social enviroment where your possessions are protected whether you can defend them or not.

RS: Again, no, you are wrong. According to your argument you only possess the property so long as the state wills it or can defend it. Your right is no more incapable of being violated than in the state of nature. Actually, it is less since there is now an organized state that sees you only as a possession of the state.

LOL The same old Paineesque paranoia.... "the state's the enemy." The concept of the state is only a few hundred years old. Social freedoms predate the notion of the state. They originate from the birth of morality.

In nature you have only possession rights, you possess provided you can defend. I have explained how in great detail. If the society fails to uphold the moral structure and protect the social freedom of property rights, right to life etc, you return to the natural state of freedom, you return to the supremecy of the will.

That might not sound pretty, or fair, but life and the universe doesn't work along lines of what is pretty or fair, it is amoral. The concepts that you admire so much as a libertarian; property rights, right to life, right to happiness, these don't occur in nature. They are a product of society and moral consensus.


AOI: It is a social freedom that your possessions are protected and become your property. Property rights are not a natural freedom.

RS: It is a legal right that your possession are protected by the state.

Yes, it is a legal right, and as with all jurisprudence, is a social right. It doesn't occur in the natural state.


AOI: With this in mind, how do you work out that, with property rights not being a natural freedom you are a 'slave to society'?

Can you present a syllogism to explain this?

RS: I have already given you the syllogism. The right to property is the right to the produce of your own labor, nothing more. If you do not enjoy that right, you are a slave.

This is a non sequiter syllogism. You don't reach the conclusion from the premises.

Premise (a) states that the right to property is the right to produce your own labour.
Premise (b) states that it is nothing more.
The conclusion states that if you don't enjoy that right, you are a slave.

But formal logic aside, this doesn't make your case.

Premise (a) I would tend to agree with, Property rights are the rights to keep the produce of your labour. However these days that is extended to more than your labour's produce and to the produce of others (landlords for example).

But you aren't arguing that property rights being a social freedom, rather than a natural freedom, makes it slavery. Property rights being a social freedom merely means that property rights aren't found in the natural state, they aren't a natural freedom.

Under natural freedoms, you only keep what part of your produce you can defend. In nature, if you cannot defend your kill from the marauding lions, you lose it. This isn't a violation of any rights, because lions don't have a moral code to deal with that.

It is under natural freedoms that you have the tyranny of the strong, and only under social freedoms that the weak are protected. It is under natural freedoms you find slavery, under social freedoms you are protected from slavery to the will of others....


Your argument is that the fruit of your labor is not yours but belongs to the state and you are merely permitted an allowance of certain amenities.

This is a strawman, I have never argued this.

I have argued that property rights, the right to own what you produce regardless of physical ability to defend it, are only found under social freedoms, that under natural freedoms and in the natural state this isn't found.

How have you managed to gather from my statement that protection of property regardless of physical capability to protect it is only found in society, under social freedoms and is not found in the natural state under natural freedoms... that I am arguing that property belongs to the state and you get an allowance?

 

[AnyOldIron]

No, that is your argument. Natural rights are those rights enjoyed by humans due their nature as humans absent external control.

Due to their nature as humans absent external control????

This is an ambigious statement. "Due to their nature as humans" What part of human nature is that? If you remove the moral constrictions on humans, the moral structures of social living, would a human not exercise their will according to physical capability? There are enough examples of this occurring.... Also, when is any human ever absent from external control?

Natural rights are rights afforded in the state of nature. This is self evident. Social rights are rights afforded in society.

Protection rights are moral structures, moral structures not found in the state of nature.

They are not, since they involve force against another.

LOL! Do you believe that in the natural state a creature is free from physical coercion? The old libertarian myth? Human in isolation?

When the leopard dragging its kill to its tree comes across the hungry pride of lions, and they attack him for his kill, is he free from physical coercion?

In nature and under natural rights, physical coercion occurs constantly. It is not a natural right to be free from coercion.

According to your premise social freedoms are merely the natural freedoms (e.g., the right to do as you will and are capable) enjoyed by a group.

Again, you end with a strawman.

How have you managed to calculate that social freedoms are the right for a group to do as they will provided they are capable?

In nature, will and physical capability reign supreme. For example, in the state of nature, if I want to take your produce and am physically able I do it.

Under social rights, your produce is protected, regardless of your right to defend them.

How does this translate to social rights being a group doing as they will according to physical ability?

 

[Timshel]

Getting long and redundant so I won't do the point by point.

First off "state of nature" does not precede or necessarily exclude society or civilization. To a natural rights proponent, such as Locke, it simply means prior to the rise of the state. State and society are not the same thing. A society is just a group of people, typically it implies within a certain geographic area and sharing a certain culture. But, if there is more than one person in the "state of nature" you have a society.

Natural rights are not conditional upon your ability to defend them yourself or with the help of others. If you are killed that does not mean you no longer had a right to life. It means someone likely violated it.

Rights of protection, of life, liberty, property are found in the state of nature just as they are within a state. A state has simply been believed to be more effective.

Your argument acknowledges this whether you do or not. Your claim is that we have rights granted by the state, but only to the degree that the state is willing to grant those rights and to the degree it is capable of defending them. How is that any different than saying the individual has rights to the degree they are willing and capable of defending them (note: this your definition of natural rights not mine)?

Rights have nothing to do with wild animals. Rights are all based on the right to be free of force from your brothers. They are moral concepts for moral agents.

You have no natural right to steal or violate the rights of others. You are using a strawman. There is not much point in discussing this if you are going to misrepresent the position of natural rights proponents. Like I said, I might as well go debate Dixie on the virtues of those opposed to Iraq while he repeatedly claims that it amounts to wanting Saddam back in power.

Natural rights are moral concepts. They do not physically protect anything. They merely argue that violating these rights is immoral and that an individual has the moral right to defend them. It does not mean that there is some magical power that stops the rights from being violated. Your "social freedoms" do not possess this power either.

We exchange our natural right to defend our person and property for legal rights which ensure that the state will do so. This should all be clear as Locke explained it quite well.

Your concept of "social freedom" does not at all "protect" (i.e., in the sense that it can possibly be violated) anything. If society/state or an individual is capable of taking it it is taken. If the society/state is incapable of defending it or unwilling to defend it then it is not defended. So your "social freedom" is no different than your natural freedom. Under your concept we simply enshrine the right to exercise will and capability as a moral right. A gang of thieves and murderers is more effective than the individual crook, so most will join a gang.

Absent "social freedom" there is no return to your concept of "natural freedom." You have enshrined your concept of "natural freedom" (i.e., do whatever you can and want) and made it the basis of your society because your "social freedom" is simply that "natural freedom" of the group/state/society.

I have already shown why Rousseau is a strawman. His state of nature is irrational and has nothing to do with humanity. Frankly, it could only exist if there were but one man.

I have not referred to anything as a "natural freedom" except when referencing your argument. I have been using the terms natural rights and legal rights. So, the contradiction only exists in your strawman.

Your argument is that the fruit of your labor is not yours but belongs to the state and you are merely permitted an allowance of certain amenities.

This is a strawman, I have never argued this.

I have argued that property rights, the right to own what you produce regardless of physical ability to defend it, are only found under social freedoms, that under natural freedoms and in the natural state this isn't found.

How have you managed to gather from my statement that protection of property regardless of physical capability to protect it is only found in society, under social freedoms and is not found in the natural state under natural freedoms... that I am arguing that property belongs to the state and you get an allowance?

Because, property only exists under your "social freedom" so long as the state wishes to protect it and is capable of doing so. So you are free only so far as the master wills it. Slaves might be allowed to keep certain fruits of their labor. They had no recognized legal right to them, but their master may well have protected them. They had the same sort of "freedom" you argue for.

As I have pointed out repeatedly your "social freedom" is not any different than your "natural freedom." In both might makes right.

 

[Timshel]

No, that is your argument. Natural rights are those rights enjoyed by humans due their nature as humans absent external control.

Due to their nature as humans absent external control????

This is an ambigious statement. "Due to their nature as humans" What part of human nature is that? If you remove the moral constrictions on humans, the moral structures of social living, would a human not exercise their will according to physical capability?

Uhh, and why would you do that? You would only do that if you soemhow believe that man's nature is absent of morality.

They are not, since they involve force against another.

LOL! Do you believe that in the natural state a creature is free from physical coercion? The old libertarian myth? Human in isolation?

LOL! No, I have explained mutliple times and in detail that that is not so. YOUR STRAWMAN IS THE ONLY ONE WHO BELIEVES THAT.

Human in isolation is your/Rousseau's state of nature, not mine.

According to your premise social freedoms are merely the natural freedoms (e.g., the right to do as you will and are capable) enjoyed by a group.

Again, you end with a strawman.

How have you managed to calculate that social freedoms are the right for a group to do as they will provided they are capable?

If I am in error, please explain how.

In nature, will and physical capability reign supreme. For example, in the state of nature, if I want to take your produce and am physically able I do it.

Under social rights, your produce is protected, regardless of your right to defend them.

But conditional on the gangs power and will to defend them. Further, if the state wants to take your produce and is physically capable of doing it, it does it. Not any different than your "natural freedom" we have just added more to the gang.

LOL! Do you imagine that in your state physical coercion is no longer possible?

 

[AnyOldIron]

The essential argument here is as to what natural rights/freedoms are.

By definition, natural rights/freedoms must be the rights/freedoms afforded in the natural state. Anything else would be a contradiction in terms.

So what is the state of nature? We are, essentially animals, I'm sure we can agree on that. In the state of nature, animals don't exercise morality, they exercise only will and physical capability.

The concept of rights/freedoms are a moral entity. This you have stated yourself. The question that then leads is.... is morality found in the natural state?

When a creature is stalking its prey, does it consider the moral question that its prey has the right to life, to own its body? No, it considers only its will (it is hungry) and whether it has the physical capability to catch its prey.

You asked why a human would act according to his will and physical capability in the natural state, why he wouldn't exercise morality. There is no morality in the natural state. Morality is a social structure, it is the mechanisms by which individuals can exist in a social scenerio. Without it, social living would cease to exist.

If morality is a social structure, and rights/freedoms are moral decisions, rights/freedoms only exist under social structures. They do not exist in the natural state.

If rights/freedoms such as property, right to life etc, exists in the natural state, the question arises... where do they derive from? What entity decides that certain things are to be protected (ie property/right to life etc) and not others (right to eat etc)?

In the natural state, you cannot violate anything, you cannot violate will or physical capability, because to violate would mean there is some moral structure to violate. Rights/freedoms found in the social setting aren't protected by anything other than the mutual moral agreement of the society. It is a moral decision to create sanctions for breaking the freedoms it grants.

I can understand that you find it disturbing that in nature there are no innate rights/freedoms beyond your will; and that rights/freedoms are moral decisions created by societies, but it is.

Please don't think I confuse the concept of society with the concept of the state. The nation state is only a few hundred years old.I know, as a libertarian, that when you read society, you see the word state, but I wish to differentiate between the two. A nation state is merely one form of society, there are many others besides. But, they all make a communal moral decision as to what rights/freedoms they wish to protect and what protections (ie sanctions) they wish to impose.

The remaining points I will answer point by point.....

 

[AnyOldIron]

LOL! No, I have explained mutliple times and in detail that that is not so. YOUR STRAWMAN IS THE ONLY ONE WHO BELIEVES THAT.

Human in isolation is your/Rousseau's state of nature, not mine.

How?

In the natural state, there is no isolation from physical coercion, you are subject to the will and physical capability of other creatures.

To be free from physical coercion, which is what you state is the essence of rights, is impossible unless the individual is isolated from all other entities and is isolated from physical needs such as hunger/thirst etc.

My point is that the libertarian concept that we should move towards living in a state without physical coercion is a fantasy.

If I am in error, please explain how.

Because somehow you extrapolated that social freedoms are the groups exercise of will and capability.

Social freedoms overcome will and capability by replacing them with a moral framework.

But conditional on the gangs power and will to defend them. Further, if the state wants to take your produce and is physically capable of doing it, it does it. Not any different than your "natural freedom" we have just added more to the gang.

If, as a society, you make the moral agreement to afford property rights, and then the society breaks that moral agreement, you have a return to natural freedoms, will and capability take over.

You might not like this, but it is. A moral agreement is the same as any agreement, and is subject to being violated. I have never claimed that social freedoms cannot be violated, just that natural freedom (ie will and capability) cannot be, as their is no moral agreement involved.

Quite simply, you seem to wish that certain freedoms are natural because this rhetorically affords them greater significance, but that is beside the point that morality and rights don't exist in the natural state, only in a social environment.

LOL! Do you imagine that in your state physical coercion is no longer possible?

You NEVER escape physical coercion, under natural or social freedoms. Escaping physical coercion is a libertarian fantasy, an unattainable absolute.

Unless you can find a way to remove man's innate physical needs, we are always going to have to endure physical coercion.

 

[AnyOldIron]

I understand the position you are taking, but my problem with rights being described as natural by philosophers like Hobbes and Locke is that these rights are created / invented, they aren't innate. They don't exist in nature or anywhere outside of human morality. As I mentioned before, human morality is a consequence/mechanism of social living , not nature.

Calling rights only found in society (property rights/ right to life etc) as natural rights is a misnomer.

 

[Timshel]

The essential argument here is as to what natural rights/freedoms are.

By definition, natural rights/freedoms must be the rights/freedoms afforded in the natural state. Anything else would be a contradiction in terms.

That is the definition you wish to use, it is not the one used by Locke and most natural rights proponents or most libertarians. It is close to Hobbes and Rousseau. But, fuck them. They were wrong. Locke's definition is the one I have stated repeatedly, that these are rights held by man by virtue of their nature as humans and are held in the natural state free of the external force of others.

So what is the state of nature?

Again, Locke's definition of the state of nature is one existing before the state, where enforcement of rights were done privately. He cited the American frontier as an example. It was not one here man lived in isolation or pretending to be a lion.

We are, essentially animals, I'm sure we can agree on that. In the state of nature, animals don't exercise morality, they exercise only will and physical capability.

Man's nature is not the same as the nature of lion any more than a lion's nature is that of a fish. We are moral animals and morality exists in the MAN'S state of nature, i.e., prior to or in the absence of a state.

The concept of rights/freedoms are a moral entity. This you have stated yourself. The question that then leads is.... is morality found in the natural state?

Yes, it is a moral entity and yes it is found in the state of nature.