Libertarianism Explained: What Are Rights? - Learn Liberty

Individuals have rights. But are they natural? And how do they compare and contrast with legal or constitutional rights? Are legal or constitutional rights similar to those inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? Professor Aeon Skoble distinguishes such constitutional rights, such as the right to vote, from the rights protected by governments and constitutions—natural rights not actually granted by governments themselves. He concludes that legal systems should create rights that are compatible with natural rights.

SUBSCRIBE:

FOLLOW US:

LEARN LIBERTY

[lifeshorts]

I've never seen anything so well explained.

[jfm]

Okay, I watched the video, and I think that the whole notion of "government created rights" is both dangerous and wrong. It is dangerous, because, as the author admits, it fosters the notion that rights come from government. It is wrong because true rights preexisted governments and not the other way around.

Also, what "rights" does government create? Take the so-called right to trial by jury. I think that the underlying right is actually that to be dealt with fairly and justly when interacting with others, and the "right to trial by jury" is one means by which we have empowered government to act upon our behalf in order to protect that underlying right.

Promoting the notion that there are inalienable Natural Rights and also "government rights" is unnecessarily confusing and counter-productive and will not, I think, take us where we want to go.

[Eric-suuk]

The right to remain silent is a natural right, because you own your voice naturally.

[Heretic]

Very good video. Professor Skoble nicely explains a concept that generates so much confusion. Regardless of one's political stance, everyone should understand key concepts in the same way. Otherwise, a rational discussion is impossible.

[jfm]

I am about to watch this video at the Learning Liberty Academy page where each topic has a little quiz with it. I am writing now because I am troubled by the question on this quiz: "1. As much as possible, the legal system should create rights that do not contradict one’s...", and then it gives several choices. It seems to me that to encourage the notion that the legal system, aka government, creates rights at any level is dangerous and wrong. After I watch the video, I will post my opinion of the content.

[Peter_Siri]

Very inciteful: a question to what the role of government ought to be.

[Zulske]

Why you don't see any big corporation supporting a libertarian candidade? They're not in favor of "contract trickery", to the contrary, they believe that contracts should always be enforced. The problem is when govt dictates how the contract should be, not free individuals, even a marriage contract. There is another contract that everybody seems to trick with it, and only Libertarians want to enforce, it is called the Constitution.

[david]

natural rights are necessarily implied from the "golden rule" in that if you follow the golden rule, you will never violate anyone's rights, since you will never want anyone to initiate force against you.

[LibertysetsquareJack]

@UrbanSurvivalTools My question was directed at you, and others, who discard natural rights. I was not asking something so trite as 'has there ever been unethical government?'

No, the question if for you. In other words: what form of government do you hope to see in your lifetime in so far as you reject universal, natural human rights? What ethic do you have for government, and what do you form this upon if not human rights?

[LibertysetsquareJack]

@UrbanSurvivalTools You do not understand the use of the term "inalienable." When the the concept of Inalienable Rights was formalized in the Enlightenment, it referred to the idea that these were rights inherent in the *nature* of humanity (hence, 'natural law'), and could not be separated.

Ex: since your right to your life is revealed through reason as being a natural extension of the condition of self ownership, then we cannot alienate this right from your essential human nature. Understand?

[LibertysetsquareJack]

@HistoryLubber Take as an example the most fundamental right of humans: self determination. This stems from a self ownership axiom.

Now, a culture may choose to say humans do not in fact own themselves, that they are owned by a Great Spirit or Anubis or whatever.

But what does reason tell us? We find that self ownership is able to be reduced to a true axiom that is supported with irrefutable reason.

[Zulske]

You are misusing the term commodity. But as an owner of yourself you can surely sell the things that your body produces, you can sell your time, you can sell an idea generated by you, you can sell the energy that comes out of your body, you can sell an ability you are able to perform, you can even sell sex. But if you are not the owner of your body, then someone else is, and all of those things I mentioned that you can sell will not be decided by you, but by your owner.

[LibertysetsquareJack]

@CosmicFork The right to property IS a human right.

The right to life is a property right. The right to defend your life, pursue happiness, and speak and express yourself freely all derive from the concept of self ownership.

Libertarians place an emphasis on property rights not because they "trump" other rights, but because your most sacred human rights derive from self ownership and the concept of personal property.

[LibertysetsquareJack]

@UrbanSurvivalTools As regards monarchial dictate or feudal law, you are still missing the point.

The idea is that you have rights that we derive through observation of universal human nature. One of those rights is the right to own property, which is extended from the nature of self ownership combined with one's labor.

If a king appropriate my property, this does not mean my human nature changed, or that my rights to property never existed. It just means the king usurped my rights.

[LibertysetsquareJack]

@lowlander333 The only alternative when you reject property rights is to say that EVERYONE owns EVERYTHING equally, or that there is no ownership at all.

[tmkeesler]

If you believed that all people are literally equal, and that no group is more “noble” or suitable for leadership, then you must believe that representative government is a false form, and that direct democracy is a truer form of government.

[thestoicvoluntaryist]

I do not agree but this was well done.

[LibertysetsquareJack]

I would recommend people that are dubious to read Introduction to Natural law on mises.org. Just go to the site and search for it; I would post the link by youtube keeps saying there is an error everytime I try.

It explains, succinctly, the origin of natural rights theory and what the theory actually espouses, as opposed to the myths people tend to propagate.

[LibertysetsquareJack]

@lowlander333
Rights exist because there is human action and matter. Your most basic right is the right of self ownership: this is what is called "self evident." It is not some abstract thing: it's just common sense. If you don't own yourself, then who does?

Once you have acknowledged that there is self ownership, then you must conclude that what you do with this body that you own is then also yours. Therefore, you have the rights to the fruits of your labor. You then have property rights

[Morrile]

Rights should be seen as a guide only, it's not something which is hard fixed. If people would live by the Golden Rule, we wouldn't need rights. The Golden Rule is "Do to others, as you would like others to do unto you". It's also the core of ANY religion.