[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
The same way that a 'right to property' is derived. You say 'right to property', I say (for example) 'right to liberty', or 'right of basic sustenance', or 'right to a ninth grade education'. Why is one automatically more important and encompassing a wider scope than the other?

[/ QUOTE ]

Adanthar,

It is abundantly clear from this objection, that, as usual, you have no idea what you are arguing against.

Property rights are a logical derivative of an axiom of self-ownership. The progression goes something like this:

1. People own themselves.
2. People own their labor.
3. Mixing this labor with a (previously unowned) parcel of land (or some other asset) implies the right to ownership of this land.

Basically what 3 is saying is, if you build a house (for example) in an unowned area (not really applicable to many present day situations since most all land is already considered to be owned by someone due to social norms), you are logically entitled to ownership of the house. After all, YOU built it utilizing YOUR labor, and you own your labor.

Caveman A fashions a javelin to be used for killing wild animals. Caveman B seizes said javelin. Do Caveman A and Caveman B have equally valid claims on the use of said javelin? Of course not.

Of course, this arrangement still requires self-ownership as an axiomatic first principle. This is something an overwhelming majority of people agree with, so there isn't much difficulty here (it still isn't an "objective truth," just a social norm).

I mean, I guess you and Kaj could start some huge thread decrying self-ownership as axiomatic, but that would be a quite absurd. If self-ownership is not axiomatic, then I have no right to defend myself against forceful, physical aggression.

This also provides an excellent example of why it isn't necessary that both parties agree on legitimate ownership. If someone charges at you with a knife screaming that they don't accept that you own yourself and they want your liver, do you just throw your hands up and say, "Well, my self-ownership claim is not an objective truth! Goodbye, cruel world!" Of course not. The situation with regard to identifying legitimate property ownership claims is considerably murkier, but once these claims are identified (again, using societal norms, not objective truths), it doesn't matter if one person out of 300 million doesn't agree with property rights.

I don't consider property rights or self-ownership rights to be "positive" rights - they are simply a result of negative rights. No obligation on the part of anyone else arises from either.

Now, contrast that with the positive rights to which you are referring. Right to free health care. Right to food/water. Right to cable TV. Etc. These all result in obligations for other parties, which I reject for the same reason I reject slavery. None of these are logically derived from self-ownership (again, an axiom virtually everyone can agree on). They are not logically derived from anything. They are pure personal value judgments on your part and nothing more.

Cliff notes: The only thing I am pulling "out of the blue" in my analysis is self-ownership. That is it. Everything else is a logical deduction. If you or kaj or anyone else wants to start another thread decrying self-ownership as axiomatic, by all means, please do. It would be the most absurd thread in the history of this forum, but I would love to see you try. Meanwhile, you are pulling *all* your imaginary positive rights directly out of the blue, and nowhere near a decisive amount of people agree on them, anyway - dramatically less than the amount of people that agree on self-ownership (again, virtually everyone). Even if they did, the logical conclusion of such a societal structure is slavery (due to the presence of positive obligations), which I reject.