What's wrong with stealing?

[Dr.Who]

How silly of me. One need only look at the definition of 'inalienable' to see that property rights are not inalienable.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inalienable

in·al·ien·a·ble   
[in-eyl-yuh-nuh-buhl, -ey-lee-uh-] Show IPA
–adjective
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.

and in the context of political philosophy:

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

In the German Enlightenment, Hegel gave a highly developed treatment of this inalienability argument. Like Hutcheson, Hegel based the theory of inalienable rights on the de facto inalienability of those aspects of personhood that distinguish persons from things. A thing, like a piece of property, can in fact be transferred from one person to another. But the same would not apply to those aspects that make one a person, wrote Hegel:

“The right to what is in essence inalienable is imprescriptible, since the act whereby I take possession of my personality, of my substantive essence, and make myself a responsible being, capable of possessing rights and with a moral and religious life, takes away from these characteristics of mine just that externality which alone made them capable of passing into the possession of someone else. When I have thus annulled their externality, I cannot lose them through lapse of time or from any other reason drawn from my prior consent or willingness to alienate them."

Property rights cannot be construed as inalienable.

It is true that the property can be transferred.

But the right stays with the person even if they have been deprived of all their property.

 

[GenSeneca]

Property rights cannot be construed as inalienable.

Lets presume that you have property, a parcel of land with a furnished house and a car in the driveway - all of which is considered property. Now I'm going to take all of it from you, the land, the house, the furniture, the car, I will seize all your property and leave you with nothing. If I understand your argument, you would not consider me to have violated any of your rights.

Is this your argument?

Additionally, you claimed elsewhere that our rights were won through "struggle" and only exist as government edict. Please reconcile this apparent claim that anything can be construed as a "right" with your claim that rights are "internalized" and pertain only to the intangable.

Lastly, you fallaciously claim that since property can be transferred there can be no right to property. This is fallacious because it is only the property which is being transferred and not the right of property. Each individual has a right to property and without the right to property an individual would have no right to the product of his labor.

As I've outlined above, if you do not believe we have a right to property then anyone could be deprived of their property and you would not consider it a violation of their rights.

 

[BigRob]

The founders claimed governments were instituted among men to secure our rights. You have claimed that rights are a product of government and won through struggle. It is that issue I was addressing.

As for our right to property, in the original drafts it read "Life, liberty and property", the founders did recognize an individuals right to property but changed it to "Pursuit of happiness" because of slavery. Additionally, you seem to confuse the word "Property" with "Land" or real estate and further seem to think that a "Right" is something that must be provided to an individual when that is not the case.

The Declaration of Independence is not law, and does not codify rights. If you are going to argue in support of property rights, the 5th amendment is the place that codifies such a right...and we cannot be deprived of such a right without due process of law...

Which of course raises the question, if our rights are subject to the due process of law, are they really inalienable rights?

 

[steveox]

Taxing is stealing the government does it. And Police Officers do it too

 

[numinus]

It is true that the property can be transferred.

But the right stays with the person even if they have been deprived of all their property.

Excuse me?

If you may be legally deprived of all property, it only means its ALIENABLE.

 

[numinus]

Lets presume that you have property, a parcel of land with a furnished house and a car in the driveway - all of which is considered property. Now I'm going to take all of it from you, the land, the house, the furniture, the car, I will seize all your property and leave you with nothing. If I understand your argument, you would not consider me to have violated any of your rights.

Is this your argument?

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.

Additionally, you claimed elsewhere that our rights were won through "struggle" and only exist as government edict. Please reconcile this apparent claim that anything can be construed as a "right" with your claim that rights are "internalized" and pertain only to the intangable.

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.

Lastly, you fallaciously claim that since property can be transferred there can be no right to property. This is fallacious because it is only the property which is being transferred and not the right of property. Each individual has a right to property and without the right to property an individual would have no right to the product of his labor.

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.

As I've outlined above, if you do not believe we have a right to property then anyone could be deprived of their property and you would not consider it a violation of their rights.

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.

 

[numinus]

The Declaration of Independence is not law, and does not codify rights. If you are going to argue in support of property rights, the 5th amendment is the place that codifies such a right...and we cannot be deprived of such a right without due process of law...

Which of course raises the question, if our rights are subject to the due process of law, are they really inalienable rights?

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.

 

[GenSeneca]

The Declaration of Independence is not law, and does not codify rights.

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

If you are going to argue in support of property rights, the 5th amendment is the place that codifies such a right...

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.

we cannot be deprived of such a right without due process of law...

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.

Which of course raises the question, if our rights are subject to the due process of law, are they really inalienable rights?

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

 

[GenSeneca]

You're rights were violated -- according to the law.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[numinus]

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?

 

[numinus]

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

That is correct.

Natural rights derive from natural law.

Civil rights derive from the political association and its laws.

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.

Please, do not imply such nonsense with what I'm saying.

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.

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?

 

[GenSeneca]

You are seriously misunderstanding what I'm saying.

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.

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

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.

 

[GenSeneca]

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.

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.

 

[Dr.Who]

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

 

[BigRob]

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

Rights are codified in law...whether they are "created" by law or not is seemingly irrelevant. We can argue back and forth about natural rights, but in our society, you are entitled to rights that are codified within the law, and nothing more.

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.

Whether rights only exist by law or not, the only way they are going to be enforced in this country is through the law. If you have a right that is not enforceable, does it really mean anything?

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.

Government has the ability to enforce rights through law. If the right of free speech was not included in the Bill of Rights, and nowhere else was it codified in law, would we retain such a right? Maybe we would, but if it was unenforceable, would it really matter?

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.

Who decided what rights exist, and how did they do so? Government should codify rights within the law and protect them...

If the government amended the Constitution (in theory) and legally abolished the 2nd amendment...what your response to such an action be?

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

Society has to operate in some framework..what good are rights if not codified in law?