Of Natural Right

For all probable concern, it is apparent the order of existence on our quantified Earth. At the base, we, humanity, exist. I will classify humankind as living. Both of these assertions must be subsumed for the current discussion to hold any bearing.

Humanity, as it stands, will be termed as a form of life. The Earth will be termed as the absense of life. It is inhabited by an incredible variety of life forms, but the Earth itself is non-living. We have no conceivable evidence of the creation of these life forms. We simply operate within the realm of the non-living, just as light operates within the realm of non-light, or darkness. It necessarily follows that life is a mere absense of non-life. Life has a point of origin and a point of termination, which again parallels the visual phenomena of a ‘ray of light,’ extending outward in proscribed directions until the light's source of energy is depleted and light is terminated. Non-light, or darkness, replaces the areas now devoid of light, just as non-life replaces life upon termination.

If life can only exist in the absense of non-life, then it is deduced that life operates within the realm of non-life and follows that life cannot fathom non-life. It is for this reason we cannot know how it feels to be non-living, or why we have no evidence of the creation of life. We cannot fathom outside the realm in which we live (as in, fathoming Creation or Natural Rights), for this would require transcending our realm, which in itself requires a certain faith in the unquantified.

So, how should it come to be that seeming ‘Natural Rights,’ as decreed from time to time, are truly rights granted to us by Nature? Surely it cannot be that well-intentioned men have written of rights to life, rights to liberty and rights to property without first transcending our realm and coming to know the Truth first, yes? Such may be the case, but no evidence makes itself available at this time. Which is to say, resolving these opinions of natural rights as by Nature or by God, involves a leap into the dark – or, rather, beyond the dark – and thusfar in our existence be taken on faith alone.

I do not wish to fully discount such natural rights. I only wish for any right claimed of natural origin to prove itself to originate naturally. For, it seems all too often this natural right to life would be denied a great many by war, famine, disease, dictators, even old age – in short, the right to life seems to be directly interfered with by life itself. The right to liberty, in its ambiguity, can hardly be debated, as there seems no definition handed to us by God or by Science to decipher the ‘true essence’ of liberty. But, alas, property! At long last, we’ve been given a lead as to the origin of these rights.

Property is a peculiar subject. It is truly by nature that humans resolve themselves to claims of ownership. Upon birth, the human brain processes the external world one-dimensionally and performs basic separations of objects into two categories: harmful and safe. The newborn’s thought process usually leads it forwards to nourishment and backwards from danger. In infancy, shortly after the young human adapts to the world around it enough to fathom a second (and, soon enough, third) dimension, the human learns to stand upright and walk and its consciousness brings into existence concepts of dominance and submissiveness. It begins territorial politics: the act of making claims of ownership: the origin of property.

This ‘property’ may or may not be a natural right. Again, the origins of this natural right remain unresolved beyond the utilisation of God or Science as an explanation. This is duly, duly inconsequential in either case, for what we can now deduce supercedes all other supposed natural rights.

And this superceder, this amazingly complex maverick renegade, the rebel with a cause, lives in you. I’m not making this up. You are your own natural right – you are derived of nature, you live the entirety of your life in nature, and you do so rightfully. And your free will is your right enacted. You exert free will in every second of your life – actually, your free will even enables the termination of your free will. You have the right to act upon your free will to protest the State, just as you have the right to live underneath its flag and its laws. You even possess the free will to claim that you live life on God’s Will, but it certainly still stands that this claim of will was chosen freely.

How this right interacts in an environment containing more than one individual, however, complicates the process astronomically, as some choose on their free will to dictate the wills of others, for whichever cause of governance. But in every solitary case, your free will affords you the means necessary to avoid coercion.

Such leaves the intent of life open-ended: because, once more, we cannot be certain of any intent for our life. Yet we can be certain that we have the right, by free will, to govern ourselves, and we have the right to oppose he or she who attempts governance over our sovereign free wills. We have the right to anything conceivable. Or inconceivable.

This theory of one natural right, unlike the claims of God or Science as answers to some of the more pressing questions regarding existence and creation, holds true. Oh, how overly confident this will read to some. I know, I know. But if you choose refutation, you do so on your own free will. I use this theory as a foundation for my brand of anarcho-capitalism and my support of panarchism, though I’m certain it’s obvious it extends in all directions of thought. It’s called free will for a reason.

Thanks for your time and may peace be with you.

I don't know why people go out of the way to complicate things. We don't need to do a lot of philosophizing to understand rights.

What we call natural rights are human inventions. After thousands of years ofbeing at each other's throats, people eventually realized that society sucked sans affording others basic universlistic protections. Hence, when someone came up with the idea of a "right," that ends at your nose, they liked the sound of it. They thought it had utility.

In practice, what do ya know? It did have utility. Society was better off as a liberal republic with constitutionally protected, respected rights. That's why we still use the concept today: because it's fundamentally useful! There's nothing else to it. Rights are a conceptual tool to help society function in such a way that doesn't suck.

Does it really matter if they are natural or artificial so long as they work? Natural rights don't exist. That doesn't mean we can't pretend they do. Acting as if they do is obviously better for everyone in the abstract that acting as if anyone can do whatever he pleases to anyone else.

That's exactly what I implied in this. Granted, I didn't spell it out in crayon, but if you naturally come to be and your rights are governed by your wills, yes, you've invented your natural rights artificially. And no, that is not a statement in contradiction. I can explain it if need be.

The internet is fundamentally useful as well (arguably moreso than a society that came to amend, reform and eventually disregard its own Constitution) and it operates completely on this philosophy. Again, if I need to spell it out, let me know. Utility. Ha. Utility is for those men and women without principle, or otherwise with arbitrary principles. Utility says if one nation's leader wishes to expel from existence an ethnic minority, so long as the majority agree to it, it's in the best interests of everyone else to go along with it. I sense a longing on your behalf to subtly defend the ideals of the democratic-republic: I have no interest in combatting it here, as that truly misdirects the topic. The topic is natural rights based upon free will.

Rest assured, there are no acts, scenes or parts being divvied on anyone's end. It is as much your as my right, by human nature, to artificially define our rights. If we choose not to do so, we can both rest assured that rights will be forced upon us by a governing force that has shown itself not to respect even the fundamental rights which it is sworn to uphold. That aside, I don't recall advocating anyone doing whatever he pleases to anyone else. Rather, it's on the principle of free will that I found my principle of not interfering with the free will of others. I can freely choose not to do so, just as I can freely choose to oppose those who impose their will on me. Yes, I acknowledge the possibility of one or many exerting their will over others, and that's essentially what government, checked or unchecked, does to every individual in its bounds.

I'm actually striving for a system in which the only coercion floating about is that of not coercing others. This is where the philosophy behind the structure and design of the internet lies. But, as the old man's proverb told, to each his own.

What is natural is what is and what is conflicts with anarcho-capitalism and panarchism. If you take a look at some exceptionally hard to refute rules of life like those in enchiridion you quickly realize that what could be and what is differ greatly... Read the first few rules...

Quote:

With regard to whatever objects give you delight, are useful, or are deeply loved, remember to tell yourself of what general nature they are, beginning from the most insignificant things. If, for example, you are fond of a specific ceramic cup, remind yourself that it is only ceramic cups in general of which you are fond. Then, if it breaks, you will not be disturbed. If you kiss your child, or your wife, say that you only kiss things which are human, and thus you will not be disturbed if either of them dies.

http://home.nvg.org/~aga/stories/enchiridion.html The philosopher was born in the first 100 years of biblical time keeping...

Flash forward to 1789 and we find philosophers once again looking at rights of man... but if you look around at both periods neither reflect the reality... So?
Lafayette was influenced by John Locke who was influenced by Hooker …

Quote:

<H1 style="MARGIN: auto 0in; TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center>Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

Quote:

Approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789

</H1>http://www.constitution.org/fr/fr_drm.htm

So, if anarcho-capitalism and panarchism do not exist as you look around then they don't exist but hold the posibility of existing. Anarcho-capitalism could not exist on large scale because of "what is"... well, yes one could purchase land and develope a commune divorcing oneself from "what is" and trade a pig with the dentist for dental work and panarchism could be achieved by simply cutting communications with the outside world within the commune... The problem is the "what is" is all around you and the nature of man is to flow to the "what is" like water running down hill... In youth man is idealistic as you are now but in mid life the majority's thinking is conservative or based on the tried and true.

Read the rules for peace in my first link and refute it ... my wife or child dies say it is nothing to me... I break my favorite cup say it is nothing to me... Say not that I have a beautiful car but that the car I have has beauty... it is nothing to me... That is not what is... But, it is true.

I agree with the first two. The wife and child are returned to non-life. It was on cooperative humanistic will, however, that the estate originated. Governments are oft-adept to the realist 'might makes right' doctrine, and realistically, it does, of course. Just as they've right to exert might to fight for the right of control of property to which both they and I lay claim of ownership, I've right to oppose them and uphold my claim to ownership. If it were not so that I could claim ownership, then I would not now call this keyboard on which I type my keyboard. It's not God or Science's keyboard on loan to me until He or It decides I should return it because unless it magically dissolves/disappears from my computer desk instantaneously one day or is stolen by another human being, it will remain in my ownership until it is no longer functional.

It's a very fundamental right of claim and wholly, coherently coincides with anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is what is until free will is compromised, as it is now. So, yes, I agree, for now it is what could be.

But I wouldn't say what could be should necessarily be deterred or disappointed by what is. The fathers of the American Revolution certainly were not. The long-standing debate over the role of government, and of individual rights, unfortunately, stopped short of where it should have, to me. The minarchists had their day in the sun but found it necessary to concede new bureaucracies and programs for political gain, and thus the size and scope of government, once checked, receives a wag of the public's finger after every growth. I cannot control the (pardon my French) wishes of the bourgeousie. To conserve now is to ensure systematic failure and eventually the second Great Depression.

As far as refutation, again, I don't feel the need to refute because I agree and I don't contradict anything I've written in saying so. I'm not really interested in absolute truth because I doubt its existence.

Looks like a self affirmation exercise, not bad 7/10 .. finding your personal authority is something society, Abrahamic religions, government, media ect will NOT help you do becouse they are predominantly geared towards creating a pyramidal power structure, rather than equality .. pity your spin lacks the humility to be grateful for the life that affords you your rights .. & I would even state that the assertion that humans live a life in non-life like light in non-light .. is MASSIVELY arrogant .. IMO .. its not like we are made of any differnt stuff than the vegetable matter & biological entities we share life with .. I agree that our self awareness distinguishes us .. but to presume said distinction makes us less indebted to the earth we live on .. is a mistake so far as I can see ..

While I find it irrelevant whether or not one is grateful for their heart beating and their brain processing the world around them, if it makes you feel better, I'll add now that I'm grateful for being alive.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. For the record, I am asserting that all life is the absense of non-life, not just humanity. But as far as we can affirm, we are the only life on this planet with awareness of self, making us the only of ability of self determination of our 'light.' Which is the reason we've such variety in culture and thought around the globe, whilst those organisms devoid of self awareness have remained relatively unchanged in societal organisation throughout time. Their nature is of a different sort of determination, as it doesn't appear they determine too much of their lives.

Is there evidence in regards to indebtion? I don't believe we are indebted to the earth. Nor do I believe we aren't. We don't know because we can't know. We can claim to know, but again, it's opinion.

Appreciate the review. :)

A free man may have property as a free monkey may have a domain... once the right is challenged by a stronger force a free man or monkey loses their property/domain. The idea of free here is an individual outside of government like a wild monkey. The man may exchange his right for his property in contract with a government to protect his right against stronger elements in the otherwise free domain. A monkey is free in S. America and the trapper places a cage with a small opening for the monkey's hand... inside he places nuts, the prize the monkey holds as value... The monkey is free and could remain free if only it would open its hand and empty the value offered by the trapper... The monkey is trapped by concent trading freedom for the prize...

If a monkey had a keyboard in its free hand as it traded its freedom for the prize then the property then belongs to the trapper... Likewise, if a free man contracts with a government to use law to protect "his stuff" from stronger forces using law he places the right of "his stuff" in the hands of the government... Even the US Supreme Court has made this conclusion... the property is your property because the government certifies it your property... no one may take your property other than the government should they need your property more than you... You made a contract for protection with the government... in the wild you may have "stuff" valued in billions of dollars unprotected by no one but yourself... the first stronger person could take your "stuff"... The government becomes the contract of authority for your stuff... But, who gave the government the right to the stuff... the stuff, at one time in history did not belong to man, God or government... The King of England "granted" large plantations to gentlemen of the New World. The God of the Church granted him this authority... but the land belonged to the American Indians which brings us back to your conclusion...'might makes right' doctrine, and realistically, it does, of course. If the keyboard belongs to someone that is on your desk... who says so? What authority? God, science, nature or other authority... say the keyboard is the plantation and decide on the title search who owns the land.

Not knowing your answer to the last question about property it would be hard to answer capitalism types... since it is one of many aspects of control used by the government to control the citizens... Does a citizen have to have a Social Security Card number to have citizenship rights? Conducting capitalism without a government issued SSAN could end up in loss of freedom and prison...

We are not free, we have some freedoms that by nature are free (or should be) free by nature... but in nature is anarchy... security of government is a contract with the free person with the government to prevent the anarchy involved with freedom.

There is no government in the world that would desire to have citizens employ panarchism to be judged by an international authority... Why because no government has authority for standing other than might or god given right that will always be debatable. The government will take 90% of "your stuff" and contract you into slavery if necessary to protect "the government." Imagine a drafted soldier before the all volunteer army... the government takes away all rights and controls the citizen with government rules outside of the constitution called regulations... you become government property to be used and compensated at the will of government.

Utility is a principle. It's the principle of useful needs. Things that aren't useful are bull**** and are worthless. Doing something competely useless isn't worth anything.


Actually, I am not really a proponent of democracy, as my name indicates. There are potentially better modifications to the current system. However, the primary point isn't that. It's that we continue to use rights because they have utility, and that's true. However, this has two meanings. They are useful, and they are also ethically useful (Utilitarianism).

The claim that Utility is for those without principle is unfounded. It's a core principle. Rights are good because they serve a purpose that is very useful to society insofar as it makes society functional, prosperous, and happy and generally leads to a society people want to live in vs one people don't. If rights did just the opposite, they wouldn't be worth using.

I am not really saying anything to dispariage your article. I am just trying to view it from a simpler, less complex explaination of why.

Utility is a tool of measurement to maximise satisfaction or, in this case, social order. Utilitarianism, as with most -isms, represents a general philosophy of life, this -ism pertaining to the unit of utility, and it's been used to justify nearly every ideology by some person at some time, I'd venture to say.

As before, to each his own. Keep in mind, if that was implying this piece to be bull**** because it doesn't seem useful, it's of free will that utilitarianism originated.

Utility is useful in the political sense of the word, but it allows for infracting upon rights when deemed 'in the best interest of all involved parties.' If that's ethical, well...

Utility either defines arbitrary principles upon measurements, or refrains from principles and arrives at decisions based off these measurements. For example, most libertarian Economics majors I've met at university arrive at their beliefs out of sheer utility, given their opinion of upward trends in unregulated free markets and opinions of marked economic successes when governments do not interfere with private enterprise.

Believe me, I definitely agree that rights should be in place and serve a purpose. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, after all. We enjoy rights that protect our sovereign individual from the harm of other sovereign individuals and fully support such ideas as collectivisation, so long as it's conducted within a voluntary structure. But this, for me, stems from the principle of non-aggression rather than pragmatism.

Oh, I know, I know. Honestly, I'd love nothing more than to abridge this to say, 'Humans have one natural right and it's called free will,' but eventually, someone in this group of eyes and minds would stand to say, 'nu-uhhh.' So I opted for a more extensive explanation. It's a good idea to cite sources when stating opinions and to explain thoroughly when uncertain material expressed may lend itself to scrutiny.

I'll build on this in later philosophical endeavours; I just wanted to lay some groundwork for a brand of anarcho-capitalism founded in true anarchism, the most natural of humanistic tendency. Paleoconservatism too much endorses mysticism and utilitarianism is a bit too unprincipled (i.e. discussion of the nominal in numeric generally loses something on me in translation) for my interest. So I've opted to set my blocks around that which is solid enough to be irrefutable (or, if refuted, done falsely) and actually provides a forum for generating a sustainable anarcho-capitalist society within the next fifty years.

So long as we can agree that a) we possess free wills and b) these free wills are the only guaranteed natural rights that exist, I think we will be as close to seeing eye-to-eye as we can hope to be.

Agreed. Man was likely never truly free, but rather was afforded certain freedoms in various communities throughout history. The right of the sovereign individual has been challenged by the collective making claim to authourity and in his free will, man chose to accept the authourity on whatever grounds. Coercion is involved, but man did not retaliate, or if he did he was likely punished by the stronger collective.

Yes, yes. Being free was abandoned as a measure of being secure under the watchful arm of government. Governments can instill individual and collective rights, but these rights remain subject to revision at the discretion of those in power.

This implies that, metaphorically speaking, we are governed by choice. For this to be consistent, South America in its entirety would be the cage and the monkey emptying his hand would no more make him free than continuing to clench his small hands around the prize.

I understand all of this, but we certainly were not born free and did not consent to this contract. We are assumed to accept the terms, and through our right of will, we do accept it - either because of the coercive nature of the claim of contract or the governance's reprehension of claiming freedom outside its sphere. Since any claim of freedom would involve a denial of the government's ultimate ownership of you or your property, severe action is a possibility against those who choose to emancipate. of the property is your property because the government certifies it your property...

To have 'stuff' valued in billions of dollars, it's likely you've lived in a society of some sort for the 'stuff' to even have monetary value. A society filled with skilled workers in a number of industries who design, approve, administrate, manufacture and sell this 'stuff.' Or at least a society who initiates trade with countries with burgeoning industries fueled by MNCs who've outsourced to increase profit. And societies often (as in next to always) are 'safeguarded' by these governments, who sign us to this contract at birth and sometimes acknowledge a right to own our 'stuff.' To be in the wild with all this stuff is fairly impossible. It's more logical to think that the will of the state be challenged and our right to property, if we feel there is a right, be protected by our own free will. Our wills often lend themselves to security, but I think private enterprise can fill the void effectively in the absense of the state as far as security is concerned.

How do you mean? Can you please rephrase this?

Aye, they claim ownership, we admit being owned. We claim citizenship. They set the rules.

Anarchy in the sense I use it is society without hierarchy of State. So, yes, if you agree with that sentiment, the government signs we formerly free people, now divvied whatever rights and freedoms they believe we are entitled, without our consent, to contract of security. This is done by State to avoid anarchy: society without hierarchy of State. Yeah, that's about right.

They would definitely not desire citizens utilising free will to opt out of the state. This is why any sort of opting out, at this time, would likely involve armed aggression against the opters, as evidenced by the last major battle on American soil: the incredibly costly Civil War.


Quality responses, guys. .