Justice‎ > ‎


Since anything can be made the subject of a claim, a fortiori, anything can potentially be the subject of a right.

   --  Randy Barnett

A right is a claim to something.
This claim imposes a duty on others.

There are two levels of rights
Take the "Right to life" when people talk about this, they can refer to two different things.
  1. Others have a duty not to interfere or take your life. (You have freedom with your life)
  2. Others have a duty to help you maintain your life. (You can demand others keep you alive)

An alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is and cannot be a right

   --  Ayn Rand

The more rights we recognize the more violence we legitimate. Exercise of violence imposes serious enforcement costs on the innocent. Therefore, far from being unmitigated goods, rights are a necessary evil. Therefore what are defined as rights must be kept at a minimum.

Origins of the word right

It is no accident that the words "right" as in a liberty and "right" as in correct or the opposite of wrong are one and the same word. It is because you have the responsibility to defend yourself that it is only "right" that you should have the "liberty" to keep and bear arms.
It is because you have the responsibility to feed, clothe, and shelter yourself and those in your charge (children, dependents, spouse) that it is only "right" that you should have the "liberty" to acquire, own, use, and dispose of the fruits of your labor. (aka property)
It is "right" that you have these "liberties" among others precisely because of your responsibilities, otherwise it would be impossible for you to fulfill them. Your "rights" exist because of your very nature which creates responsibilities for you. If they aren't YOUR responsibilities, then they must fall to someone else, and thus it would only be "right" for that individual to have whatever sovereignty necessary to carry out the responsibility to care for and defend you.

What are we talking about when we talk about rights?

When we talk about rights, we are talking about ownership.  If nothing was owned, then there would be no rights.
All things owned are property, therefore all rights are property rights. (Note that you own yourself).

If there was no government, there would be no legal rights, just unofficial property rights. Since there are governments, there is a framework for making these rights official.  The governments role is to enforce these rights, so they legalise them. These are legal rights. For all intensive purposes as a political site we are referring to what rights get the backing legally. 

You are comprised of two interdependent elements. Your body and your mind. Your body belongs to your mind, bodies cannot own things, just as rocks and other inanimate objects cannot own. Putting this another way , you own you. Someone may be able to control you, kidnap you, drug you,force you to do something, but that is control, not ownership.The thing about ownership is you have the right of control. You must give consent for another to have access to the item owned.If someone uses force to get control of the item owned, then consent has not been given, otherwise force will not have been necessary.We consider in society that forcing people to do things without their consent is wrong. Examples of this are what we call crimes, Rape, mutilation, murder, theft, slavery. All the worst aspects of society come from violation of consent.

Who has what legal rights?

Note: In the case where there is no rights above, the custodian owns those rights.
We are talking legal rights, and not natural rights

Defence of rights

"If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men have the right to combine together, to extend, to organize a common force, to provide regularly for this defense."

   --  Frédéric Bastiat

"Thus, as the force of an individual cannot lawfully touch the person, the liberty, or the property of another individual--for the same reason, the common force cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, the liberty, or the property of individuals or of classes."

   --  Frédéric Bastiat

The strongest argument for why rights are needed, rights defend against utilitarianism.

Does reasons of insanity negate the use of self defense and legal sanction?

Must you desist from self-defense if your attacker is mentally incompetent? Hardly. If a person is so incompetent as to be unable to control his conduct, he becomes a greater threat, not a lesser threat, and therefore even more the appropriate object of criminal law.

What are not rights

There is no such thing as "a right to enslave".

   --  Ayn Rand

Quote 774

Reducing rights to mere “interests” which must then be balanced against other “competing” social goals, enables those wielding power to conceal their partiality with the veneer of the highly indeterminate “greater” good.

   --  Randy Barnett

Weaknesses of rights

  • Weakness of rights is they are up to interpretation. Rights in the past have been interpreted in may ways by lawmakers and judges.
  • When there are more rights that life,liberty and property, there are really no rights at all. Because the rights conflict resolution becomes arbitrary, and not rights at all.
Sometimes people are defining these rights away when they seem to be inconvenient - like cutting the wires to a fire alarm when the noise proves to be annoying.