Natural rights are part of the order that comes from the choice of humans to socially cooperate. Physically, intellectually, and spiritually humans have discovered in infinitely repeatable ways over the history of the evolution of human civilization that social cooperation is beneficial. The association of humans with their subjective choices is only natural, and identifying how these choices fit in as a part of social cooperation leads to reciprocity and a mutual recognition of property rights and human rights. Both human rights and property rights are understood in that context of reciprocity.
In other words, from the beginning of human history property rights have prevented conflict. What belongs to someone is theirs and what belongs to me is mine. The signs of ownership are often clear and when they are not clear it is by refining the definition so that the property rights are made clear and evident that conflicts are resolved.
Since the State confiscates property, and since it is the monopolist judge deciding what definition of property rights it wants to abide by, there is little conflict resolution potential in societies now-a-days. Resolution amounts to submission to the arbitrary edicts of the State. Combine this with the State's grabbing more and more monopolist power by using 'democracy' to exaggerate and exasperate envy and, you see, conflict resolution seems almost impossible.
Obviously the necessary conditions for peace include getting rid of the monopolist judge (the State - intent on coercive violation of property rights) in favor of consultative bodies that desire to refine property rights, moderated by reciprocity considerations.
Follow me on Twitter @DivineEconomy
If you know of anyone interested in ethics and economics,
or liberty and justice, please send them this link:
http://bruce-koerber.squarespace.com
Bruce,
ReplyDeleteHow uncanny. I wrote on very much the same topic yesterday at my blog, Sense on Cents. I was prompted to do so after having read about the recent passing of an economist named Armen Alchian who espoused the same principle as you, that is, yes, property rights are human rights.
I welcoem sharing my blog post with you.
Alchian: In Defense of Property Rights and Liberty
http://www.senseoncents.com/2013/02/alchian-in-defense-of-property-rights-and-liberty/
Dear Larry,
ReplyDeleteIt is always thrilling to find another person who is 'on the same page." To go further with my point is to recognize that the only argument that can ultimately defeat the State and which must be part of the foundation of ideological change towards liberty and justice is the argument of morality (and ethics). All violations of property rights are violations of human rights which makes it clear how unethical it is to have a State. Government that functions within the parameters of voluntary social cooperation is the alternative. Defining and refining property rights(fully cognizant that human rights=property rights and vice versa) and providing the structure necessary to enforce these property rights guarantees the correct outcome - a prosperous and peaceful civilization.