The United Kingdom Elections 2010

**Brenus** · 01-24-2010, 10:09

“Like the right to property”:
Err, the right of property is not a natural human right.
This one is a cultural right (as nature oppose to culture), as nomad will not impose property right in the same meaning than sedentary…
If you want property as natural right you have to give property (of what by the way) to each newborn baby.

**Furunculus** · 01-24-2010, 10:41

true, but i think CR's point is that the right to own property is a accepted and expected right whose legitimacy is without question in the society we exist in.

the concept of the natural right is not the be all and end all of rights.

**Beskar** · 01-24-2010, 10:51

You still have property and accomendation in that model and again, you can wallpaper it how you like, it. So it is not as if you are missing anything.

So the argument is redunant.

**Furunculus** · 01-24-2010, 11:20

i'm not argueing that, merely trying to disentangle Brenus's knickers over the point about whether the right to property is a natural right or not, because i believe the importance of CR's statement was that owenership of property was a fundamental right (as defined by the society he lives in), regardless of whether it is natural or not.

**Beskar** · 01-24-2010, 11:30

If you talk about nature. Humans were quite normadic. They used to go around in packs, settling in an area, sharing the resources between them. Working together as a community...

Wait.. it is natural to be communist?

**Furunculus** · 01-24-2010, 11:33

read the first paragraph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

**InsaneApache** · 01-24-2010, 11:47

Wait.. it is natural to be communist?

Don't equate co-operation with collectivism. So the answer is plainly no.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 01-25-2010, 00:34

Originally Posted by Brenus

“Like the right to property”:
Err, the right of property is not a natural human right.
This one is a cultural right (as nature oppose to culture), as nomad will not impose property right in the same meaning than sedentary…
If you want property as natural right you have to give property (of what by the way) to each newborn baby.

Gah. Yes, it is. Nomads have property rights; they may not have owned land but they had horses and yurts and weapons. Even then, you can't call anything that doesn't allow the right to property 'libertarian'.

You don't have to give property to people for them to have a right to property; you're conflating the right to own property with being given property by others.

And here's a note on why Is the Swede Human?
Radical Individualism in the Land of Social Solidarity

Interesting, thanks for the link, but I am not swayed. The authors say that removing traditional ties of society like family and religion increases individualism. this may be true, but the authors say also it is substituted by increasing the power of the state and making the individual powerless next to the state. Considering cultural and traditional ties like family and churches do not carry force of law to impose themselves, and the state does, I do not see how overall individualism is increased.

CR

**Kralizec** · 01-26-2010, 17:34

Originally Posted by Brenus

“Like the right to property”:
Err, the right of property is not a natural human right.
This one is a cultural right (as nature oppose to culture), as nomad will not impose property right in the same meaning than sedentary…
If you want property as natural right you have to give property (of what by the way) to each newborn baby.

I think the vast majority of rights are simply products of civilization. In many primitive societies, women could not, or were in no position to refuse sex with alpha males. I think women should be able to withhold consent, but it's not a natural right in the sense of universally occurring.
Another, slightly more useful definition of natural rights:
Pretty much every civilisation wich endures for a significant period of time outlaws murder, theft and whatnot. So right to life and property could be considered "natural rights" as they're practically universally found in civilizations across the globe. Now, in the Soviet Union there was no (private) property and everyone's life was uncertain in Democratic Kampuchea but they're the exceptions wich don't endure for long

So, one could argue that the emergence of property rights as we know them is a result of humanity progressing forward, "civilizationally" speaking. As is equality of men and women

**Brenus** · 01-26-2010, 21:30

"So, one could argue that the emergence of property rights as we know them is a result of humanity progressing forward, "civilizationally" speaking. As is equality of men and women" Yeap. And the freedom etc...
I predfer "cultural" right than natural anyway