*"Here’s what I believe:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Note "among these ".
Do you accept these as natural rights?"*
So, again,are you going to refuse to give your own list, refuse to accept any rights as natural?
Do you or do you not accept the Founding Fathers partial list of " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." as part of a list a natural rights? It is a simple question.
“I don’t even know what natural rights are yet, which should be evident by the questions I am asking.” ??
Ok, but you do know the Declaration, the Founding Fathers. yes?
So,** Do you or do you not accept the Founding Fathers partial list of " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." as part of a list a natural rights? It is a simple question.**
“Liberty” and “The Pursuit of Happiness” are vague broad phrases which can encompass pretty much everything people have already mentioned in the thread. If you believe you have a natural right to those two things, and your life, you already believe you have a lot of narrow specific rights, like freedom of speech or freedom to travel.
Wow. I mean, honestly, I thought at least those rights were be a given for any American. Those were easy, the ones without any argument or debate. Part of our heritage.
Maybe I am on the fence when it comes to the concept of “Natural Rights”, even though I might support the concepts of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”.
Freedom of my body/life: I can do what I like with my body, but others may not kill / rape / poison / photograph me. Up to and including the most pain-free death I can afford. I get to have reasonable clean food and water to put in my body. I can have kids or not. I can travel and live where I want/can afford. Freedom to be left alone.
In most situations, the concept of natural rights are those things that philosophers have posited to be rights that should afforded to all human beings or human rights. That governments should grant to its citizens. But aren’t necessarily so. As humans we are only afforded the rights from which those in power grant us. If these are natural rights they should not be able to be taken away. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can and has never been granted to many people in the world, therefore how can it be a natural right?
Tricky… One traditional limitation on bodily autonomy is self-mutilation. You can’t just go to a doctor and ask to have your (healthy) arm cut off. This would seem to be one of those “natural rights” which we limit for the good of society; ditto for rules against suicide.
(Part of the origin of these rules is the notion that the citizen owes military service to his liege. One of the early definitions of the word “mayhem” was damaging someone to the degree that they could not serve under arms for the King.)
(Also, organ selling is seen as disruptive to small-d democracy. It would mean that rich guys could survive injuries or diseases that would kill poor people. That flies against many people’s sense of justice. It would also undermine voluntary organ donation: why should I donate bone marrow when I can get paid for it? This works against societal unity, and some of us don’t like it.)
How large is your “well”? It seems to be a libertarian claim that people should be able to do whatever they want on their own land. How can a “Natural Right” to clean air and clean water coexist with this, since people do not live in closed environmental systems and, sooner or later, others water and air will mix with yours. To enforce your “Natural Right”, would you not have to create a “Natural Restriction” on the rights of others?
Even (most) libertarians usually concede that they can’t use their private property in ways that affect their neighbors. They would admit that they can’t play music REAALLYYY LOUD on their property, or pour dangerous chemicals into the stream that runs from their land onto a neighbor’s land.
Part of their reasoning is simple “golden rule” practicality: they wouldn’t want their neighbors doing stuff like that to them.
(The small moiety of libertarians who are actual anarchists don’t make even that much of a concession. Fortunately, there are very few of that kind of wild-eyed fanatical extremist.)
Right to Life
Ownership of your own body
Freedom of belief
Right to a fair trial
Freedom of speech [except hate speech]
I can’t think of anything else. I don’t agree with “the right to be a dick”.
