Comment: My take is that rights exist

(See in situ)

My take is that rights exist

as a product of nature or god depending on your inclination. You have the right to speak because you have a tongue and voicebox, you have the right to travel because you have two legs and feet. You have the right to think because you have the capacity to. You can do these things but you can't take that from another or initiate violence through the laws of man which boils down to property rights (the product of your labor). Misguided or evil people have created laws that usurp the laws of nature or god. Misguided or evil laws (usurping of property rights) have transferred some ownership of property to everyone else in some way and given us the abomination that we have now. Keep in mind that inflation is theft at the monetary unit level. In a system where property rights are being destroyed prosperity declines and violence increases, we move away from god if you're so inclined.

God or nature gave us the capacity to respect property rights (reason, nonviolent interaction, trade) which can separate us from animals if we chose to grow. Some animals eat each other, some rip food from each others mouths, but even in the wild animals move toward property rights by such things as marking their territory, they form mutually beneficial relationships without initiating force, some pair up for life. They become more civilized over time as a system based on violence (theft, force, etc) cannot exist in the long term, I believe that this is nature or god's will. All animals are generally guided to a non violent means of satisfying their needs unless options exclude it. Maybe even through conservation of energy.

Does this mean that a hungry man can rightfully steal food from another? Obviously no, he can't even rightfully (in a natural or godlike way) take food that the person has left behind unless he is confident that it is abandoned (the owner has voluntarily chose to give up ownership and no other has a claim to it). What is the consequence of stealing the food? He feels physically satisfied for the moment but guilty for taking it. He may say that he thinks what he did was right, but he is becoming more uncivilized and animal like with each action as he devolves away from god or nature's will. Should he have died rather than take the food? I say that he can become a thief if he wants to and live with it and hurt us all a little in the process. He should have never ended up there at that moment in that situation, and if he did, he would rightfully be at the mercy of the owner of the food who in nearly all cases would come to the aid of a dying man for both of their benefits. If the man cannot stop putting himself in this situation, do I believe that the man with the food should let him die? I'm sorry but he has that right. Another may come along and chose to support the hungry and irresponsible or incapable person and choose to try to rehabilitate him but that is his choice and not responsibility.

This is why the ends never justifies the means. Making yourself more godlike benefits everyone, but never forcing people to be godlike which hurts everyone as force is destruction. Proper law is defense of property rights.

Please forgive my use of terms and keep in mind that when I use nature and god interchangeably I mean no disrespect or pagan implication, if anything I recognize god as the supreme creator of all things or all natural systems. This also is not meant to attack the bible's stories any more than any other religion's texts as I believe them to be the will of god as written to the best of man's understanding. If read correctly, there is also no way that what I wrote here can be bended toward some pseudo communistic eco-foolery, it would be actually the complete opposite. A clean and balanced world is a free world with the highest possible protection of property rights. People that use force to make things cleaner move us in the opposite direction as it can only be done in a god like or natural way. The ends can never justify the means.

This post is an example of why libertarians have trouble with soundbites and why Dr. Paul has done so amazingly well at relaying the message of liberty in the times that we now live. A liberal would say that "silentboom thinks that hungry people should die." and the crowd would boo me and scream "racist!"

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero,