Thanks for your help everyone. Note the purpose of this exercise is to create a video and post it on youtube in the end. Conclusions in bold please let me know if you disagree with either a better explanation or an alternative of the current one. (I have numbered and lettered points to make it easier to reference)
What can be defined as a right?
Answer A: An enforceable claim of entitlement
What is a natural right?
Answer B: Things to which you are innately entitled.
i.e The right to life liberty and property and rights derived from those rights (like self defence)
Where does the authority for a natural right come from?
- You own yourself, your will, body and existence are inseperable as one entity.
- Entities are either acting or inactive, but when acting those acts belong to the entity.
- That makes the entity generator and owner of those acts. To own your actions is to own yourself
- This is a natural ownership, inalienable, untransferable
- Because the entity naturally owns themselves, they can naturally do with themselves as they wish, and do as they wish with the product of themselves(labour, time, effort).
- Entities do not live in a vaccume and sometimes the actions of one entity encroach on the actions of another.
- This is where rights come in. Everyone needs to know their rights, in order to know when they've been wronged. If you had your arm cut off, and if you did not know you had a right to your arm you would have no reason for grevience. Rights are therefore are the concepts that allow people to know when they have been abused and must seek justice. Everyone has their own idea what their rights are. When it comes sorting out these issues in the absence of commonly agreed rights and enforcement of those rights, the default situation is might is right.
- The default/natural position for this is to assume our natural attributes(what you own) are rights. Rights are universal, so to not take the default position this and say you have a right to own someone else, means someone owns you, which means they own what you own, etc etc which is circular. It is also the reason societal ownership does not make sense.
- At this point I am taking no position on who should administer the rights, but am leaning towards the minarchist position.
Is there any justification for rights that are not natural?
Three useful peices of reading that have been provided in the comments below.
Built on Morality, but even if you don't think morality is the key there is still some very good points made like in the who owns what section
Very similar to the authors (Michael Badnarik ) constitution class- I would defiitely recommend seeing it on google. It takes a while but puts a lot of things in context
Rights start to be mentioned on page 10