Lately, we’ve heard a lot about the right to keep and bear arms.
You probably also have heard about the right to free speech or the right to a fair trial.
Some use the word “right” as an argument for things like health care, education or a living wage.
But how do we determine whether something is a right?
We can derive a theory of rights using three very important principles: the self-ownership principle, the homesteading principle and the nonaggression principle.
First, the principle of self-ownership, contends that man is a rational being who has no instinctual or innate knowledge about how to survive, and therefore must actively rely on his mind and reason to live.
Through reason, man exerts full control of his actions and thus has full ownership of his body.
This principle is axiomatic.
To argue that one does not have ownership of his body is an immediate contradiction, because one must use and control his body (his mouth, his mind, his tongue) to argue otherwise.
In denying self-ownership you affirm it.
Second, the homesteading principle states that because man has ownership of his body, if he uses his labor to produce something from land that was previously unowned (i.e., no one has a claim or title to that land), then, as John Locke argued, he mixes his labor with the land and thus extends ownership to the it and what he produces from it.
He can use this land and its fruits as he sees fit and can dispose of everything he produces, because no one else has a just claim.
But to arrive at a principle of rights, one must recognize that man is also a social being.
While it is possible for man to survive using only the resources on his land, it would be extremely difficult and likely an impoverished and short life.
For man to thrive, he must interact with others.
A right, therefore, is an ethical concept that relates to how men engage and interact with each other.
By establishing rights, we can easily distinguish what each member of society owns and facilitate the means for voluntary trade and commerce.
Without clear property rights, everyone can lay claim to everything, which leads to turmoil, strife and war.
Let us imagine a society with two people: A and B.
Let us say A asserts that he owns B’s property.
For an ethical principle that relates to man’s nature to be valid, it must be true for all individuals.
In this scenario, A’s assertion that he owns the property of B is not universal, because A claims the existence of property rights for himself while denying B the same rights, ultimately making B a slave to A.
As Murray Rothbard argues, this leaves B in a category of sub-humanity and makes the principle invalid.
Thus, we finally arrive at the principle of nonaggression: that no man may initiate force against the property or person of another.
Aggression against another individual violates his or her nature as a free, productive being who must pursue certain ends to live.
Any aggression against a man’s property constitutes an aggression against his person.
Therefore, any initiation of aggression against man’s life, liberty or property is ethically unjust.
From these principles, we can understand how we derive man’s right to his life, his liberty and his property.
In next week’s column, I will apply these ideas to show how one determines whether something constitutes a right or is simply a misuse of the term.
Justin Hayes is pursuing a master’s degree in Political Communication. His column appears on Wednesdays. You can contact him via opinions@alligator.org.
