anticapitalist:
You’re implying natural rights, which do not exist. There are no inherent rights associated with being human.
I think you are right to be skeptical of claims to rights. Just so we are on the same page, my understanding of rights is that they are moral principles sanctioning the actions for an individual to take within society.
Just as moral principles are logically derived from Man’s nature as a volitional being to determine which actions promote one’s values on a personal level, moral principles are necessary and logically derived from the fact of Man’s volitional nature to determine which interactions promote one’s values on a social level. Those moral principles necessary for Man (in the capacity of Man as a volitional being capable of reason) for living within society are called rights.
Since you seemingly dispute that an individual has the right to life simply by one’s existence, I would further argue that just as one’s life is the fundamental (or, ultimate) source of one’s values, the fundamental (or, ultimate) source of rights is one’s life.
>”There is no agreement to it. The non-aggression principle exists as a fact of reality whether one acknowledges it or not.”
Prove it. How can a principle exist in reality anyway? Like what does that even mean?
A principle is a proposition that identifies an essential fact. The fact being identified in the non-aggression principle is that Man (in the capacity of Man as a volitional being capable of reason) to live within society must be free to use one’s mind to reason since Man has no automatic (innate or revealed) means of knowledge other than reason.
Coercion (even defensive coercion) is inherently destructive and particularly destructive of thought. This coercion is of moral value when used defensively to destroy destruction, but the initiation of coercion (or, aggression) destroys one’s only means of knowledge, reason, and thus the only means of one’s survival as Man.
>Whether property (which I suppose you to mean the ownership of property) is violent or not, what matters is whether the ownership of property is an act of aggression and against whom if no one owns (in a moral sense) the property in question.
Firstly, you haven’t proven that the non aggression principle is valid/not a social contract.
I elaborated on that point above that why non-aggression principle exist as logically coherent independent of anyone’s acknowledgement of it.
Secondly, you haven’t proven that property is valid/not a social contract.
As I have addressed before, “because people have the faculty of volition (that is, they have the choice to think), a person is responsible for (or has claim to) the consequences of his or her volitional actions. A corollary of this principle of personal responsibility is the principle of property ownership, which is the practical means of rendering the freedom of personal responsibility into effective and material form for life on Earth.”
Property is an act of aggression against all those who use a given amount of property.
You do not object to property ownership. You object to absentee property ownership.
I have addressed this point of absentee property ownership already as well in the post linked above. “An important distinction is that the principle of property ownership does not stem ultimately from a person’s action generally, but from a person’s judgment. With that the case, the passage of time or distance is irrelevant to whether a person remains responsible for his or her actions, so the ownership of property rights is not tied to whether one possesses the property or not.”
