What's wrong with stealing?

No.

You're rights were violated -- according to the law. You own the land, house, furniture, driveway and all because that ownership is DEFINED by the law. In the same token, you cannot be deprived of them without DUE PROCESS of the law.

Where did I claim such a thing?

You are endowed with certain inalienable rights and no government or law may rightly deny you of them.

If and when a government or law clearly deprives you of these fundamental and natural rights, then you are not bound to such laws or government and you have the right to rebel.

Its all there in locke's second treatise and most social contract theories.

What?

You do have a right to enjoy the property which you legally acquired because the law says it.

You do not, however, have an inalienable right to property.

You completely misunderstood.

You have a right to your property. You may not be deprived of your property without due process of law.

YOUR RIGHT TO PROPERTY EXISTS BECAUSE OF THE LAW. IT CANNOT EXIST INDEPENDENT OF IT.

Exactly! The fact that you may be deprived of your property subject to due process and compensation implies that your right to them is alienable.

One does not have a natural right to own property. It is a right gained from the law and the political association.

Never claimed otherwise. Are you suggesting that our Rights are created by Law?

Only if you're of the opinion that our Rights are products of government would you make such an argument. Numinus seems to think Rights only exist by law and on that we disagree.

To suggest that Government can take away a Right through law is to also suggest Government has the ability to create Rights through law. If you believe such nonsense, then you are not talking about Rights, you are talking about privileges.

Rights cannot be created or destroyed, they simply exist. Government cannot create or destroy a Right, Government can only recognize and protect Rights or it can ignore and suppress them. Where privileges are concerned, government can create or destroy those at a whim.

You can't name a single Right that hasn't been infringed upon so no, according to our government we have no inalienable rights.

Rights and the Law are two separate concepts. Rights are protected by law, they are not created by law. Equally so, Rights can be violated by law.

Not according to the Law. And since you seem to be arguing that Rights are a product of Law, then I don't see where you can claim a Right to rebel against the Law.

It is clear from this statement you believe Rights are a creation of Law and on that we disagree. I know Rights are independent of Law, Rights exist with or without Law. The only legitimate purpose for Law, or government for that matter, is to recognize and protect individual Rights. What I think we do agree upon is the fact that any Laws or Government that violates individual Rights is illegitimate and should be replaced.

Please go to my thread: What is a Right? and explain how you determine what is, and is not, a Right so that we may better understand each other on the subject.

You are seriously misunderstanding what I'm saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights, also called inalienable rights, are considered to be self-evident and universal. They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government. Legal rights, also called statutory rights, are bestowed by a particular government to the governed people and are relative to specific cultures and governments. They are enumerated or codified into legal statutes by a legislative body.

Now tell me, what sort of right is the right to property -- natural or legal?

Sigh.

Us citizenship gives rise to certain civil rights -- the right to vote people for public office in the us, the right to be heard in a us court of law, etc. The fact that I cannot avail of these rights unless I petition your government to grant citizenship to me only means that these rights are granted by your government.

Exactly what about that can't you understand, hmmmm?

If you believe that to be true then take me up on the offer and visit my "What is a Right?" thread. It would seem a discussion on property Rights is more germane in that thread than here.

Now if you wish to make the discussion on property Rights germane to this thread, you can begin by explaining to everyone why you believe there is nothing wrong with stealing, so long as it's legal.

Going back to my earlier example, lets say I'm granted the legal "Right" to steal all of your property - the house, the furniture, the car, everything you possess. Explain to everyone why you would not see this legalized theft as a violation of your Rights.

Natural Rights are the only kind of Rights that exist. So called "Rights" that are contingent upon government or law of any kind are not rights at all, they are privileges.

If you disagree, then please visit my "What is a Right?" thread and explain to everyone the difference between a Right and a Privilege.

It means they are privileges granted by law and the government that creates them. Once again, Rights cannot be made or destroyed, they simply exist.

Any "Rights" that are created by law can by destroyed by law and therefore are not Rights, they are Privileges.

Property rights also called inalienable are natural righths not subject to law for their existence.

No, it is not irrelevant. People would like to claim they have a "Right" to Health Care, a home, a job, a paycheck, etc. and part of that "Right" requires seizing the products of your labor to pay for it.

I did not take you as someone who didn't believe you had an inherent, self evident, Right to the products of your own labor but I might have been mistaken. Just remember that even if you do not recognize such a Right for yourself, there are no shortage of people right here on this forum who are eager to claim they have a "Right" to the products of your labor.

So if you're going to argue that you have no Right to the products of your own labor, and/or, anything claimed to be a Right can become a Right simply by being codified into law, then please say so in no mistakable terms.

Nature decided only an individual can have Rights. Individual Rights are the only kind of Rights that exist, there is no such thing as Collective Rights, Gay Rights, Womens Rights, Union Rights etc. these are all examples of special privileges that only apply to certain individuals.

Individual Rights are necessary for an individual to survive, through his own efforts, in a society based on volitional consent and mutually beneficial exchange.

It is the Protection of Rights that should be codified into law, not the Rights themselves. Hence the words, "Congress shall make no law..." That is a statement codifying the protection of a Right, not the Right itself.

No different than it is now. I am the one who has argued that ALL our Rights, including the Right to bear arms, have already been reduced to privileges subject to regulation and cessasion at the whim of government.

As stated above, it is the protection of Rights that must be codified into law. Now I ask you, what good are Rights if they can be abrogated, suppressed, regulated, and ignored by the Government who writes these Laws?

No. It is more pertinent here since a definition of property right is inseparable from the definition of theft.

Simple. Because the law defines theft in the same way it defines your right to property. This is so because the right to property is NOT an inalienable right -- it is a statutory right.

Capice?

Legalized theft is a contradiction. Your example is lame.

I can think of only one instance that is remotely similar to your example -- when the government exercises its right to eminent domain. You can argue all you want but it is not theft.

If you feel that civil rights are not rights and are in fact, privileges, then you need to call it the privilege to property. You gain privilege to real property only when there is a legal instrument that transfers ownership of it to you -- either sale, donation, inheritance, accretion or adverse possession. Proof of this ownership resides in a positive title.

All that is dependent on the law.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right to property since property, by its nature, IS ALIENABLE.

That is precisely why the declaration states, "...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." and our Constitution goes on to secure those rights by creating a government in which the, "Congress shall make no law..." which infringes upon or otherwise violates those rights.

To hear Numinus tell it... Rights do not exist in the absence of Laws and the role of government is to create Rights through Law rather than protect Rights through Law.

I'm still waiting for you to adequately define a "Right" and differentiate a Right from a Privilege. Until then, lets look at the definition of "Theft";

Theft: The act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

It would seem to me that even if it were legal for me to deprive you of all your property, it would still be wrongful for me to do so and therefore qualify as theft.

Do you really believe that simply making it legal for me to deprive you of all your property is not wrongful?

I have just shown that wrongfully depriving you of your property could be made legal but it would still qualify as theft.

In cases of eminent domain, the government is required to compensate the property owner. Thieves do not compensate their victims for the property they have stolen.

Actually I believe it is you who should refer to it as the "privilege of property" since you do not believe it to be a self evident, inalienable Right.

And please, avoid further use of the Equivocation fallacy by referring to Land as Land rather than conflating it with all other forms of Property. When I say that man has an inalienable right to property, I'm referring to the products of his labor, not a plot of land.

Does an individual have the Right to keep the products of his labor? If you bother to answer that question please bear in mind that a privilege is contingent on laws while a Right is not.

I said no such thing.

Go back to the social contract.

People give up their perfect liberty and collectively invest it in the state. In return, the state protects those liberties that are necessary for the peaceable existence of the individual with the common force.

Among an individual's perfect liberty are certain inalienable rights that cannot be ceded to any external power -- like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are recognized by the state as something that is inseparable from the human person.

Property, on the other hand, is not such a right. It is legally sold, transfered, donated and adversely claimed one against another. That is the purpose of property -- a means to one's pursuit of happiness. No constitutional analyst worth his or her law degree would agree with your nonsense.

I gave you the wiki definition, did I not? The distinction between natural rights and civil rights (which you wrongly claimed as privileges) is very clear.

Nonsense.

'Wrongful taking' as opposed to 'legally taking'. If you do not pay your taxes, your property will be seized by the government and the government will be correct in doing so. If you incur civil damages against another individual, your property will be seized (with the help of a court order and a sheriff) as compensation -- whether actual or punitive and it would be legal and correct.

You do not have an inalienable right to your property. Your ownership of it is dependent on the law.

That is correct -- no one may be deprived of property without due process of law.

Remember the old lady who accidentally scalded herself with coffee by mcdonald's and later sued the latter for millions of dollars in punitive damages?

Personally, I think it was wrong but I couldn't possibly claim it was theft on the part of the old lady, can I?

No, it would not. If it were legal, then it wouldn't be theft.

What nonsense.

The government tells you exactly how much your property is and the mode of payment advantageous to the government. That's what 'just compensation' amounts to. Where is your alleged 'inalienable' right to property now against eminent domain, eh?

No. You are the one denying civil rights -- claiming that such a thing is a privilege.

Privileges are licenses -- entirely different from natural rights and civil rights.

LOL.

Now you are talking about personal properties. Real properties couldn't possibly be a 'product of his labor', now, could it?

Either way, private property, whether real or personal, is ALIENABLE for the simple reason that it can be exchanged.

Your ideas are scattered all over the place.

Of course -- except those that are illegal.

That is how locke defined private property -- that which you take from nature and imbue with your own labor.

However, if you direct your labor to producing, say dangerous drugs or management of an illegal gambling operation, or prostitution, then clearly, you are not entitled to the products of your labor.

Again, what the law defines.

Get this through your thick skull -- there are two distinct kinds of rights -- NATURAL AND STATUTORY.

A statutory right -- like the right to suffrage -- is different from a privilege -- like a driving or business license.

The premise of your entire argument is WRONG.

You are patently wrong.

Private property, as defined by locke, is what you TAKE FROM NATURE and imbue with your labor.

You have an inalienable right to your own labor (that being intrinsic to the pursuit of happiness) but you do not have an inalienable right to the products thereof, merely a statutory right.

What you take from nature is owned by the state -- being the sovereign power over its territorial boundaries. You need the operation of law to claim parts of that territory (and the resources therein) as your own. That is why a positive title is said to be an ADVERSE CLAIM AGAINST THE REST OF THE WORLD.

And even if, for arguments sake, that it is entirely your labor that is the subject of private property, the remuneration for services rendered (the product of your own labor) is still subject to statutory law. If you were engaged in an illegal trade, then the fruits of that trade is subject to seizure by the government.

CLEARLY, YOU DO NOT HAVE AN INALIENABLE RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Nonsense. The rights of women, children and the elderly are explicitly defined in the universal declaration of human rights. They are special rights, clearly, but inalienable rights none the less.

Correct. No one is arguing otherwise.

What you got altogether wrong is your absurd idea that private property is an inalienable right.

Remember, an inalienable right is something that an individual cannot rationally cede to a power outside himself. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are such rights.

Ownership of property, on the other hand, is ceded from one person to another everyday in the course of economic activity. That, in itself, PROVES THAT YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY IS ALIENABLE.

Correct, as far as inalienable rights are concerned. The state may not alienate these rights simply because they are INALIENABLE to begin with.

I have already mentioned numerous instances when the law may prohibit you of certain acts and seize the products thereof.

Nonsense. States may promulgate statutes as long as they do not deprive anyone of the inalienable rights already mentioned.

Sigh.

This is an extreme view. The purpose of the political association and its laws is to strike a balance between an individual's liberties and the practical necessities of the common good.

If it is only the individual's right that is at stake here, then that individual might as well live in the mountains of equatorial congo or some such place where he may indulge his personal liberties to his heart's content. There would be no room for the political association in such a case.

[A] man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

- James Madison, 1792

Vanhorne’s Lessee v. Dorrance
US Supreme Court 1795

Opinion of the Court by Justice William Paterson.

[After quoting the 1st, 8th, and 11th articles of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, and the 9th and 46th section of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Paterson writes:]

From these passages it is evident; that the right of acquiring…property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor and industry. The preservation of property then is a primary object of the social compact, and, by the late constitution of Pennsylvania, was made a fundamental law.

You're adorable.