So, in a libertarian-oriented society there would still be laws. In such a society it would be recognized that the purpose for establishing governments is to secure and to protect the natural rights of the individual. This does not mean that the laws would reflect all the same laws that are in effect today, because the basic premise within a libertarian society is neither the state nor the individual can aggress against another except to defend against a physical attack.
for
your belated
answer before i can understand what you said, i must understand what you mean by "natural" rights.
i think any rights are natural - all have been fought for an won in some form or other.
nothing natural about them, nor are rights constant over time.
if youre going to use a word as definate and discussion defining as "natural rights", it would have to be an agreed definition, no?
I addressed this earlier, Schlack, when I wrote:
"The formulating and formalizing of the political philosophy of Individualism based on the theory of natural Rights which were derived from the study of the nature of man emerged during the Enlightenment beginning in the 17th century. This is why I have referred to the philosophy of Individualism as the new kid on the block.
The concept of Man’s natural Rights (including property Rights) flow from Man’s rational mind as easily and as naturally as water from an artesian well. The man who builds a barn knows naturally that it is morally his to do with as he pleases. A man who exchanges something of value for the barn another man built knows naturally that it is morally his to do with as he pleases. So too does a man who exchanges something of value for a business. He knows naturally that it is his to do with as he so desires.
How much more difficult it is to convince a man that what he creates or obtains is not really his. To dispossess him of such a natural thought a complex and convoluted theory of “non-ownership” and “fallacy of property” must be developed and then, through an un-natural and tortured reification, inculcated into his worldview.
In terms of "natural Rights" "natural" refers to the nature of man -- not other animals, or how other animals organize, act, or react, nor even how man reacts to nature's forces. For example, it is the nature of man to be intellectually inquisitive, gregarious, and communicative of ideas. This being a part of the integral nature of man, he must be free to express himself and his ideas to others. Hence the natural basis for Freedom of Speech (from within man)."
the only natural rights i see are the ones that flow from our very existence.
every human being has an equal right to exist, to live.
it naturally follows that humans cant survive without water, food and shelter .
to prevent infringement of those most basic of natural rights, each individual is obligated to assist our fellow humans.
if we do not assist, many cannot have their natural rights.
The right to life is indeed a natural right in that it cannot be taken from you by another except in self-defense. But, you do not have a natural right to water, food, and shelter because a natural right cannot require that another be obligated to provide it for you if you cannot do so or you wish not to. Note, however, that this does not restrict a people from voluntary action in assisting someone in need of these necessities of life.
Yours,
Issodhos
