Comments on: Rights, Penumbras, and Emanations

By: Below The Beltway

Below The Beltway — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:32:33 +0000

Saturday At The Liberty Papers

There are several great posts up over at The Liberty Papers that are worth checking out.

By: Quincy

Quincy — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 08:41:32 +0000

Tom, perhaps a little clarification is in order. I have the rights to life, liberty, and property, simply because I am a human being. No one granted them to me. (This is an important point to make, since anything that can be granted by a person or group can also be taken away by said person or group.)

Can a state or society refuse to acknowledge these rights? Absolutely, but the rights still exist.

By: Eric

Eric — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 04:23:41 +0000

Tom, I don’t agree. I have the right to life, and I refuse to let you, or anyone else, have any say so in the matter. The only way you can take, or limit, that right now is by force. Inherent rights, which are the only actual rights, are ones that exist regardless of the existence, or lack thereof, of society, government, etc. Inherent rights are something you would have no matter what, even if you lived somewhere where there were no other humans; the proverbial deserted island. You would still have a right to property, to life, to liberty, to the pursuit of happiness.

By: Tom Anger

Tom Anger — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 03:26:35 +0000

You say: “Inherent rights cannot be taken, or limited; but by force, or willing consent.” That’s contradictory. If rights are inherent, they cannot be taken, period. But rights are not inherent; they are agreed amongst people. That is why, in the real world, Americans have more rights than, say, Canadians or Brits but fewer rights than we libertarians would like Americans (and Canadians, Brits, etc.) to have.