posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 09:05 PM
I have a different take on this debate.
I believe that most rights which some believe are inalienable are not, and are part of a social contract, and I think the rights we really do have,
that are completely natural, are unreasonably and immorally restricted by a supposedly reasonable society claiming to provide a positive collective
experience but which rather provides a negative and immoral collective existence.
We live in a society that believes it can take possession of something which was once FREE: land, minerals and materials, water and food, and heavily
restrict or completely deny access to them, even charging a fee for what ought to be FREE by all rights of nature if it is needed for individual use;
therefore, our inalienable rights to live in this world FOR FREE is taken, and with it our free thought, our right to self defense, our right to
reproduction, or right to movement, our right to eat, drink, and be merry in the most basic of ways - all of it is taken by society. What evidence is
there for this? Look at nature, look at animals, and look at what we are doing to the planet.
Our true natural rights (and those of all living creatures on this planet) are denied by an evil collective (all of us) which believes it knows how to
provide a better society for us, but at the cost of denying individual liberty to not only all of us, but all things within our environment.
I do not have a natural right to bear arms, but I do have a natural right to defend myself and others against all enemies foreign and domestic in
accordance with whatever natural means are at my disposal (including my intellect and my ability to manufacture a weapon or pay for another to make
the weapon for me). My right to defend myself comes from the fact I am alive and I am capable and it is a necessary ability in order to remain alive
and capable. Likewise, my right to free expression and choice stems from the very fact I am alive and capable, and I find it necessary to remain
alive and capable, etc.
Like the rights to defense and free expression, I also have a natural right to reproduction, free movement, free association, free water, free wild
edible and medicinal plants, free hunting and fishing, free shelter, free warmth, and free recreation.
We (Society) take these things either because we claim we can do better if they are controlled or because we claim we can do them better if they are
provided by our "system" and not nature. We yield our natural rights to the doctrine of materialistic efficiency, which roughly translates to "We
can do better than God or Nature or whoever/whatever".
So, I think both sides of the argument are correct: rights come from both, but only because neither prominent position really looks at what is and
ought to be a truly natural right.