War on Drugs - Gov't Overstepping its Bounds?

1) I have observed that many who object to the legalization of narcotics assume that legalization of private possession and use of narcotics also implies the legalization of criminal activities done under the influence of drugs. I do not understand this leap. In what way does not arresting people who use drugs in the privacy of their home imply that a police officer will just wave to a passing crack head, as he drives by at 80 miles per hour, smoking a crack pipe.

2) I have also observed that many who object to the legalization of narcotics assume that people who support legalization simply wants to use drugs - as if this matters. First off, the motivations of the proponents of legalization do nothing to alter the substance or lack thereof of their argument. But, just to address this wildly popular notion: I, for one, have no desire to use any drug that is currently illegal, nor do I hope to need or desire any drug that is legal for medicinal or recreational purposes. I rarely even drink beer. My objection to the government prohibition on certain drugs is on the grounds that what people do in the privacy of their homes is none of the government’s business, so long as it does not violate the rights of others. Whether you want to possess drugs, weapons, or beanie babies should be no concern of your neighbor, your police department, or any echelon of government, so long as it does not violate the rights of others. If you have 10 pounds of plutonium, for instance, that violates the rights of your neighbors. If you have 10 pounds of cocaine, that does not violate anybody’s rights.

3) Likewise, I do not understand why proponents of legalizing drugs take such weak stances in favor of it, such as “well, alcohol is worse for you than pot, and alcohol is legal.” This assumes that the government's actions can be justified by their probability of positively influencing your health. Evidence exists that smoking is worse for your health than alcohol, as well. Should we ban cigarettes and arrest anyone who purchases, distributes, or smokes them? Since when is it the government’s responsibility to protect a person from himself? The purpose of government is to secure our rights, by protecting private property, and attempting to safeguard us from hurting each other. In other words, government’s role is to stop a man about to commit murder, not to stop a terminally ill cancer patient about to euthanize himself.

The bottom line is that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is none of the government’s business, nor is it the business of you or I, so long as people do not do direct harm to one another, one another’s property, or otherwise violate one another’s rights. Neither I, nor my government, have the right to tell you that you cannot snort cocaine in your home, whether you want to do it or not. The government has the right, and the duty, to arrest you if you attempt to drive on a public road, while under the influence of a drug, while impaired visually or mentally, or even if you have not had sufficient sleep to stay awake, while driving.

I welcome thoughtful responses to this post; particularly those which refute any of the arguments above, or offer suggestions to strengthen the arguments.

"It still sounds like you are saying the government has a right and duty to arrest someone because that someone poses a risk (might cause harm) to another. That's a scary thought as a standalone. And you did add 'unnecessary.'"

No. Government has the right and duty to arrest someone who poses a risk to others, if rules governing the action are agreed upon by the owner(s) of the property and the citizenry tasks the government with objectively enforcing the rules pertaining to the behavior in question. Government does not gain the right because citizens think it should enforce the rule. Citizens must first think that the government should enforce the rule, but this alone is not enough. If government does not have the right to accomodate this wish of the people, then it cannot enforce the rule. Government only has the right to enforce rules that are 1) agreed upon by the owner(s) of the property and 2) the government is tasked by the people to objectively enforce those rules.

To what sentence or paragraph do you refer, when you say that it "sounds like" I am "...saying the government has a right and duty to arrest someone because that someone poses a risk (might cause harm) to another."?

"Consider the meanings and relationships of does, can and should."

To summarize from my previous posts, the government can, does, and should exercise the right and duty in question for the following reasons:

can:

"Because you, I, and all other citizens own public property, we can create a deliberative body to establish ground rules for behavior on our property and a body to objectively enforce those ground rules."

does:

"Our society has found that this activity is likely to impair the driver’s ability to safely operate a vehicle. We see this as an unnecessary risk that is worth banning, because of the likelihood of doing harm to other drivers, causing an accident that disrupts traffic, does harm to property, etc."

should:

"...we should continue to outlaw driving while intoxicated, because of the reasons that I gave for why I believe we do outlaw it now - and because I believe that it would occur in greater frequency, if it was legal, thus resulting in even greater violations to the rights of others."

The activities that government actually does are limited by what government can do. If government cannot do something (if it does not have the right), then whether or not it should is irrelevant.

Example:

Some people think that government should outlaw my neighbor using cocaine in the privacy of his own home, even if he does no harm to others.

That people think government should outlaw this activity should be irrelevant to whether or not government actually does outlaw and enforce the ban on this activity. Why? Because government cannot rightfully regulate activity of an adult, if the activity occurs on his private property and does not harm others.

Contrast this with driving while intoxicated in public roads. The public roads belong to you, me, the drunk guy, and all other citizens. I, alone, cannot determine rules of behavior on the roads, because the roads are as much yours, the drunk guy's, and everyone else's, as they are mine. Therefore, we must come to a consensus on the rules regarding behavior on the public roads. We use government to this end. When we come up with rules regulating the behavior on our property, we also task government with objectively enforcing these rules.

It is in this way that government gains the right and the duty. It gains the right that we grant it. As our servant, government gains this duty, because we task it with this responsibility. We cannot grant government a right that we do not have. An individual has the right to establish rules of behavior on his own property. We do not have the right to impose rules regulating behavior on property that we do not have full or part ownership in. Therefore, we can be part of the body that determines behavior on property that we collectively own, but not on property of another individual, which we have no ownership in.

To summarize from my previous posts, the government can, does, and should exercise the right and duty in question for the following reasons:

The rest of your post in regard to this matter did not add any clarity. I did figure out on my own that you have been using the phrase "the government can" to "indicate possession of a specified power, right, or privilege" on the part of the government. (That's why you keep writing "the government has the right." You're writing about a different kind of right than is usually written about in the threads I visit on this forum.)

However, I have been interpreting the phrase "the government can" along the lines of indicating a physical or mental ability or possession of a specified capability or skill.

This difference has flowed over into the use of "does" and "should."

But that doesn't really matter now.

To what sentence or paragraph do you refer, when you say that it "sounds like" I am "...saying the government has a right and duty to arrest someone because that someone poses a risk (might cause harm) to another."?

In post 117 you wrote: Our society has found that this activity is likely to impair the driver's ability to safely operate a vehicle. We see this as an unnecessary risk that is worth banning, because of the likelihood of doing harm to other drivers, causing an accident that disrupts traffic, does harm to property, etc.

In post 121 you wrote: Government has the right and duty to arrest someone who poses a risk to others…and qualified it by adding … if rules governing the action are agreed upon by the owner(s) of the property and the citizenry tasks the government with objectively enforcing the rules pertaining to the behavior in question. but that does not change my assertion.

Basically, you seem to be asserting that it's ok for society to use the government to limit people's rights if there is general agreement including yours that they pose a risk of violating the rights of others, even though they have not done so yet.

That would mean you think that it's ok for society to use the government to limit people's rights in regard to drug use if there was general agreement including yours (which you are not providing) that they pose a risk of violating the rights of others, even though they have not done so yet.

And you are witholding agreement because of a property rights concept that is not necessarily an element of all societies, and is certainly not any sort of basic natural right.

A property owner has the right to establish rules for behavior on his property. The only restriction on how an owner can use his property is that he does not have the right to violate the rights of others. Nobody has the right to use property in a way that the owner disapproves of.

Public property is owned by all citizens. Therefore, all citizens have the right to establish rules for behavior on public property. Citizens have the right to use public property in any manner that they see fit, so long as they do not violate the rights of others. Competing interests between property owners are inevitable, as the number of owners increase. But, nobody has the right to use property in a way that an owner disapproves of. Because of multiple owners, and the inevitable competing interests that arise from greater numbers of owner, there are inevitably some conflicts between rights and desires. Because of competing interests from which desires governing the use of property arise, co-owners of land must come to an agreement on how to use their land.

In coming to an agreement, the owners willingly surrender some or all conflicting freedoms that they desire to exercise – in other words, they choose to restrain themselves from certain behaviors on, or uses of, the property. Public property owners do the same. Because public property is owned by a large group of people, it is convenient to have elected representatives to decide upon uses of our property, on the behalf of the people that they represent, so as to facilitate manageable discussion. It is in this way that we do not violate the rule that nobody has the right to use property in a way that an owner disapproves of. We express our disapproval of certain uses of our property through the the votes of our legislators or referendums, whose outcomes we accept as our collective approval.

When the people agree upon appointment of certain elected officials, those officials are empowered by the consent of the people from which they were chosen, with the right to debate and cast votes on their behalf. When an issue is of sufficient importance or urgency that we do not wish to empower an official with the right or power to speak for us, we have a referendum. Like with legislation, in a referendum the citizens agree upon a new law and agree to willingly surrender any freedoms that conflict with the majority opinion expressed in the vote or to repeal an old law.

Referendums and legislation derived from elected officials are the means by which citizens agree upon uses of public property. For the same reason that we use elected officials to debate and cast votes on our behalf, we also establish a body to objectively enforce the rules that we agree upon. Likewise, for those rules that are of sufficient importance or urgency, we allow individuals to enforce laws. Such laws are those regarding self-defense – you do not need to wait around for a police officer, if someone is trying to kill you.

Because there is no safeguard from tyranny of the majority, with the principles outlined above, another guiding principle must also apply. All laws regarding the use of property must apply equally to all owners. In other words, if persons A, B, and C own a piece of property, they cannot come to an agreement whereby C is denied use of his property. On a larger scale, we cannot pass a law that restricts the pool of applicants to the FBI to a certain ethnic group. C can voluntarily choose to not use his property. Other ethnic groups can choose not to apply to the FBI. But, we do not have the right through cooperation, legislation, or referendum, to unequally prohibit use of property by one or more of its owners. So long as we have a body that objectively enforces the laws that we agree upon, a law in word is the same as the law in force, and to enforce a law pertaining to public property that does not apply equally to all citizens violates the principle stated in the second sentence of this paragraph.

Specific application to the question:
In reponse to my assertion: “The government has the right, and the duty, to arrest you if you attempt to drive on a public road, while under the influence of a drug, while impaired visually or mentally, or even if you have not had sufficient sleep to stay awake, while driving.”

you wrote:
“Why does the government have this right and duty if there is no direct harm or violation of rights? If one drives while impaired, but makes it from the point of departure to the point of arrival without causing any harm, what is the rationale for the government's ‘right and duty’?”

The owners of the public property – the citizens – have established a rule that forbids driving while intoxicated on public property. This rule is legitimate, because it applies equally to all owners of the property, and because it does not violate the rights of the individual. The right to use the property of others in a way that they do not approve of does not exist. Furthermore, if the driver is a citizen, then he has already agreed to such action to be taken against him, by way of agreeing to the equal application of this law that does not violate any citizen’s rights.

If the driver is not a citizen, then his agreement with the law is of no significance, because he does not have any right to use our property, but by our good graces and benevolence as generous hosts. Even then, driving drunk is among the behavior that we have already deemed to be off-limits to non-citizens, as well.

The body that the citizens create to objectively enforce legitimate laws is our government. The government (specifically, the police) has a right to enforce the law in question, because we grant the government the right to exercise our collective right to stop misuse of our property, on our behalf. Government has the duty to arrest the drunk driver, because government is our servant and that is one of the duties that we task government with doing.

In your last post, you wrote:
“Basically, you seem to be asserting that it's ok for society to use the government to limit people's rights if there is general agreement including yours that they pose a risk of violating the rights of others, even though they have not done so yet.
That would mean you think that it's ok for society to use the government to limit people's rights in regard to drug use if there was general agreement including yours (which you are not providing) that they pose a risk of violating the rights of others, even though they have not done so yet.”

According to my statements above, I assert that it is ok for society to use the government to limit use of public property, if there is general agreement on the use or lack thereof, so long as rights are not violated and the law applies equally to all owners of the property in question. Whether or not the action poses a risk to violating the rights of others and whether or not the offending individual has done so yet may be the motivation behind the decision of the voters or representatives, but this is not the principle(s) from which they derive the right to impose or remove any limits on use of the public property.

Likewise, I do not think it is ok to use the government to limit people’s rights in regard to private drug use on one’s own property, regardless of potential risk to violating rights of others.

I am open to the notion of clear and present danger for justification of certain prohibitions, but I have yet to ever hear of sufficient reasoning along these lines to justify a government enforced prohibition on an adult using heroin, marijuana, or crack on his private property.

Whether or not the action poses a risk to violating the rights of others and whether or not the offending individual has done so yet may be the motivation behind the decision of the voters or representatives, but this is not the principle(s) from which they derive the right to impose or remove any limits on use of the public property.

But it's the motivation (and rationale) I am asking about.

All laws regarding the use of property must apply equally to all owners. In other words, if persons A, B, and C own a piece of property, they cannot come to an agreement whereby C is denied the same use of the property that A and B enjoy. On a larger scale, we cannot pass a law that restricts the pool of applicants to the FBI to a certain ethnic group. C can voluntarily choose to not use his property. Other ethnic groups can choose not to apply to the FBI. But, we do not have the right through cooperation, legislation, or referendum, to unequally prohibit use of property by one or more of its owners.

OK, if persons A, B, and C own a piece of property, they cannot come to an agreement whereby C is denied the same use of the property that A and B enjoy.

On the other hand, apparently they could come to an agreement that does not prohibit smoking on the property whereby according to the agreement C is not denied the same use of the property A and B enjoy but C is in reality denied the same use because A and B smoke while C does not, and C is in fact allergic to the smoke.

This seems excessively arbitrary.

Because there is no safeguard from tyranny of the majority if the majority is allowed to act in such a manner, at least one other guiding principle must apply. Something on the order of: Laws regarding the use of property must not apply arbitrarily to the determent or benefit of any owner. A way to ensure this is to look at the motive behind the law. (There are instances where motive won't matter, I am not going into that because that is not what I am asking about.)

So let me rephrase my questions and then offer a conclusion.

I believe the original was:

"Why does the government have this right and duty if there is no direct harm or violation of rights? If one drives while impaired, but makes it from the point of departure to the point of arrival without causing any harm, what is the rationale for the government's 'right and duty'?"

I will rephrase that to the following (it's kind of long because I've tried to use your words and concepts):

Given that the government has this right and duty, … if rules governing the action are agreed upon by the owner(s) of the property and the citizenry tasks the government with objectively enforcing the rules pertaining to the behavior in question. and given that The owners of the public property - the citizens - have established a rule that forbids driving while intoxicated on public property but that Citizens have the right to use public property in any manner that they see fit, so long as they do not violate the rights of others by what right do the citizens who comprise the group of owners of public property make rules and task the government to enforce them on other citizens who are a subset of the group of owners of public property, when those rules deny these other citizens the right to use public property in any manner that they see fit, so long as they do not violate the rights of others thereby denying these other citizens their rights even though they have not violated the rights of others because if a citizen drives while impaired, but makes it from the point of departure to the point of arrival without causing any harm, that citizen has not violated anyone's rights, therefore that citizen has not already agreed to such action to be taken against him, by way of agreeing to the equal application of this law that does not violate any citizen's rights because it is a law that violates the rights of that citizen?

What is the rationale or motivation that serves as a basis for the owners of the property to agree upon the rules pertaining to the behavior in question and to then task the government with objectively enforcing the rule?

In Conclusion: The property rights argument is not sufficient.

This property rights argument centers on "real property" or real estate. Such rights are established in law, by people organized into a particular society. As such, they are legal or contract rights. These laws and legal or contract rights may vary from society to society, and they may vary over time within a society. Not all societies have the concept of real estate as private property. Not everyone has their own piece of private property, so the private property argument is limited to the benefit of the few and may be elitist.

You wrote Public property is owned by all citizens. Therefore, all citizens have the right to establish rules for behavior on public property. A similar argument is that a society belongs to all the people in it. Therefore, they have the right to establish rules for behavior in that society. Further, if people organized into a particular society can agree on "legal rights to real property" as a basic part of their society, which rights would not exist unless they had done so, they can agree about legal rights or the lack of them in other matters-such as certain substances. Our society came to such an agreement in the past, though the agreement is wearing thin in places.

At least some of your arguments would be applicable in countering the present agreement if you centered them on "society" and drew the difference between unalienable (or natural) rights and other kinds of rights such as legal and contract.

>>>Somebody GET those tapes... or get the transcripts "out there...
94 posted on 8/31/02 10:05 PM Mountain by Robert_Paulson2

A blast from the past! I finally got around to transcribing what Reagan said about marijuana, from Reagan In His Own Words. Reagan was vehemently opposed to drug legalization and his words prove that.

****************************************Marijuana
August 1979

There is more evidence in on marijuana and it should ring an alarm bell particularly for parents.
I'll be right back.

From time to time I've used these commentaries to report an update on the continued research into marijuana. Medical Science has come a long waysince the 1972 report by the Nat.Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse which gave the weed a relatively clean bill of health.

Everyone who had the urge to light up a joint somehow became aware of the report and could recite it as a litany ---exhaling smoke on every line. Strange to say however (or may be not so strange) the confident & happy pot smokers overlooked a follow up report by members of the same commission which in effect said "Oops we overlooked a few things in the 1st report".

Further research has continued to repudiate that first report, research by increasing numbers of scientists here and abroad. And yet none of these subsequent findings seem to have caught the attention of the estimated 16 mil. regular users in our land ---4 mil. of whom are between the ages of 12 and 17.

Those who have no axe to grind except to report the scientific facts they have uncovered say that marijuana has a far greater potential for harm then was previously believed.

The toxic ingredident which provides the effects pot smokers want has a jawbreaker name which I may not pronounce correctly --- Tetrahydrocannabinol which I will henceforth refer to as T.H.C. This THC lodges in the bodoes fatty tissues and that includes the brain & the reproductive organs. Now for those hard to sell souls who liken a joint to a martini the difference is our body eliminates the martini in 24 hours. THC satys in the body for amonth. A person who only lights up a couple of times a week is keeping his most essential bodily organs permanently soaked in this toxic drug.

Does this have an effect? You can bet on it. Science now knows that it reduces the ability of the brain to transfer information from short term to long term memory in adition to other adverse & irreversible effects on the mental processes.

It slows the bodys production of white blood cells which play a major role in fighting infection. And it lowers the male hormone & pserm count in men which if I may be blunt leads to sterility.

But there is another effect, which in this day & age of warnings on cigarette packages about the danger of cancer from smoking tobacco, should give any pot smoker pause to think. The smoke from burning marijuana contains many more cancer causing substances then tobacco. And if that isn't enough it leads to bronchitis & emphysema.

If adults want to take such chances that is their business. But surely the communications media and public figures whose words get some attention should let 4 mil.youngsters know what they are risking when they light up a "joint" and pass it around because they think its the in thing to do.

This is RR. Thanks for listening.

________________________________________________________

If you have anything constructive to say on Reagan's remarks, please feel free. Just stop taking Reagan's words out of context and using them for your own personal agenda.

But, apparently they could come to an agreement that prohibits smoking (tobacco or whatever you please) on the property whereby C is denied the use of the property when C is smoking but since A and B don't smoke they are not denying C the same use of the property A and B enjoy.

On the other hand, apparently they could come to an agreement that does not prohibit smoking on the property whereby according to the agreement C is not denied the same use of the property A and B enjoy but C is in reality denied the same use because A and B smoke while C does not, and C is in fact allergic to the smoke.

Both examples that you cited apply equally to each member, and are thus acceptable. Whether or not the prohibited activity is one that a co-owner enjoys is of no significance in the matter of whether or not the prohibition applies equally to all. If smoking is not allowed, then no owner of the property can smoke on it. Whether or not one of the owners enjoys this activity and wants to engage in it more than the others does not alter the degree to which the law applies to him.

“…by what right do the citizens who comprise the group of owners of public property make rules and task the government to enforce them on other citizens who are a subset of the group of owners of public property, when those rules deny these other citizens the right to use public property in any manner that they see fit, so long as they do not violate the rights of others thereby denying these other citizens their rights even though they have not violated the rights of others because if a citizen drives while impaired, but makes it from the point of departure to the point of arrival without causing any harm, that citizen has not violated anyone's rights, therefore that citizen has not already agreed to such action to be taken against him, by way of agreeing to the equal application of this law that does not violate any citizen's rights because it is a law that violates the rights of that citizen?”

Government is an institution of the people, to which the people can grant certain rights to be exercised on their behalf. Citizens have a right to make rules pertaining to use of, and behavior on, their property. Therefore, citizens may grant this right to the government.
We vest, in our legislators, the right and power to decide, on our behalf, what behaviors on, and use of, public property we approve of. Therefore, we cannot, as individuals, arbitrarily decide what behaviors on, or uses of, public property are acceptable, because we have given that right to the legislature, to exercise on our behalf.
When laws pertaining to behavior on, or use of, public property are set forth by a legislature, in whom the right and power to do so has been vested by the citizenry, there is, by definition, no denial of the peoples’ rights to use public property in any manner that they see fit. All manners of property use that the citizens see fit are defined by the laws pertaining to the property.
The owners’ approval and disapproval of uses of property are expressed through laws governing use of, and behavior on, public property, as created by our legislators, in whom we vest the right and power to agree upon such laws, on our behalf. The legislators are bound within the confines of the same rights that we have, since we cannot grant the legislators rights that we do not have. Therefore, the legislators cannot make laws that do not apply equally to all, nor can they make laws that violate the rights of the citizens.
A property owner has the right to establish rules for behavior on his property. The only restriction on how an owner can use his property is that he does not have the right to violate the rights of others. Nobody has the right to use property in a way that the owner disapproves of.
But, we define approval and disapproval of behavior on, and uses of, public property by way of our laws governing that property. Those laws are agreed upon by legislators, in whom we grant the right and power to make such decisions on our behalf. Just like the rights pertaining to use of property that two people own are defined by those uses that each owner agrees upon, our rights on public property are defined by laws pertaining to use of, and behavior on, public property, because those laws are an expression of our agreements, as co-owners.
It is by this reasoning that the citizen being arrested for driving while intoxicated has agreed to his own arrest, if he violates the laws governing driving while intoxicated. He agreed to this law. His agreement is expressed by the law governing public roadways, which was formulated by the legislature, in whom he vested his right to determine acceptable behavior on his jointly owned property.
The right to use other people’s property does not exist. The right to use your own property in any manner that you see fit does exist. When you own property with other people, a compromise must be made. The compromises pertaining to public property are made on our behalf by the legislature in whom we vest the right and power to make such compromises. The decision of the legislature, to enact laws within the bounds of its rights to decide on, is the equivalent of each individual agreeing upon such laws, because the legislature acts on behalf of all citizens, by whom it has been given the right and power to do so.
As co-owners of public property, we vest in the legislators the right to agree upon rules pertaining to our jointly owned property. As a citizenry, we cannot grant legislators the right to regulate behavior on, and use of, privately owned property, for the same reasons that I do not have the right to regulate behavior on, and use of, your property. It is in this regard that the legislature can rightly make a law banning driving while intoxicated on public property, but not on private property.

What is the rationale or motivation that serves as a basis for the owners of the property to agree upon the rules pertaining to the behavior in question and to then task the government with objectively enforcing the rule?

The motivation that serves as a basis for the owners of the property to agree upon the rules pertaining to the behavior in question is to accommodate a compromise between conflicting rights of co-owners. The rationale is that such conflicting rights are inevitable, and a greater number of conflicts will arise, as the number of co-owners increases. Thus, a compromise must be agreed upon. The co-owners compromise by yielding rights that conflict.
On the larger scale of public property, we are motivated to task government with enforcement of laws that we establish on our public property. The motivation for this is to ensure objective enforcement of the laws. The rationale for tasking government with objective enforcement, rather than relying on individuals to solve their own problems, is that the inherent self-interest of man will cloud his judgment and men of weaker character may even knowingly violate laws in pursuit of self-interest. We find it logical and convenient to task government with ensuring that laws are applied even-handedly, because we can use government to choose individuals of sound character and skill to act as third parties overseeing objective enforcement of the laws. The rationale for this is that a third party lacking self-interest in a matter will be more capable of determining and exercising objective enforcement.

“This property rights argument centers on "real property" or real estate.”

I apply this argument to all property, whether it is your real estate, your body, or your groceries.

“Such rights are established in law, by people organized into a particular society. As such, they are legal or contract rights.”

I disagree with this premise. All natural rights spring forth from property rights. The bounds of an individual’s natural rights are that he may not initiate coercion or fraud against any individual's property. The only exception to this being that he may initiate coercion in self-defense against those who initiate coercion or fraud against his property. Your body, your real estate, your possessions, etc. are your property.

“Not everyone has their own piece of private property, so the private property argument is limited to the benefit of the few and may be elitist.”

Based on the premise that your body is your property, and everybody has a body, the derivation of natural rights from property rights does not deny the blessings of freedom to anyone.

“A similar argument is that a society belongs to all the people in it. Therefore, they have the right to establish rules for behavior in that society. Further, if people organized into a particular society can agree on "legal rights to real property" as a basic part of their society, which rights would not exist unless they had done so, they can agree about legal rights or the lack of them in other matters-such as certain substances.”

This argument is contradictory to the premise that natural rights are derived from property rights. Rather than recognizing property rights as inalienable, this argument seems to view property rights as an arbitrary legal concept, derived from law. If that is the case, then I think that we have a fundamental disagreement in this respect.

This argument is contradictory to the premise that natural rights are derived from property rights. Rather than recognizing property rights as inalienable, this argument seems to view property rights as an arbitrary legal concept, derived from law. If that is the case, then I think that we have a fundamental disagreement in this respect.

You've got that right.

I have not seen "the premise that your body is your property" substantiated nor have I seen a case made to take it as a first principle.

That being the case, I can only maintain that one is not born into the natural state possessing property and that property rights are not natural or unalienable.

Property rights are contingent upon the ability (in terms of sentience, resource availability, etc.) to take possession of something as property.

Think in terms of prehistory and people living in the forest or jungle to get the picture. You pick up a stone, you put out some effort and sharpen it against another stone, and it's your tool, your property by the sweat of your effort.

In regard to real property, which I believe generally means land: Having land as property is initially achieved by staking off the piece of it you want and keeping others off of it by use of force, or losing it to them through their use of force.

Again, think in terms of prehistory and people living in the forest or jungle to get the picture. Somebody clears off a piece of land that everyone had or could have had the use of, declares it to be his property, and keeps the others off by force or loses it to superior force. Laws regarding land as property are a product of organized societies. Differently organized societies have different laws in this regard.

As to the rest of your post, I have first impressions, but I'll think about your words for awhile and not respond based on those first impresssions, which could change.

The comments I have made here I have already thought about in the context of other things.

“I have not seen ‘the premise that your body is your property’ substantiated nor have I seen a case made to take it as a first principle.

That being the case, I can only maintain that one is not born into the natural state possessing property and that property rights are not natural or unalienable.”

I believe that all people are born in the natural state possessing property. Furthermore, by definition, a person’s property rights are natural and inalienable. Below is my rationale:

A person is a human body with the capacity to have consciousness. A human body without the capacity to have consciousness is not a person. A person who loses the capacity to have consciousness becomes a human body and ceases to be a person. Therefore, a person’s body is an object that he or she has an inalienable right to. For a person to exist without both consciousness and a human body is impossible. To separate the consciousness from the body would be for the person to cease to exist, thus so long as a person exists, that person has a right to own his or her body.

All people have natural rights. Human bodies lacking the capacity for consciousness do not have natural rights. Because a person cannot exist without a human body or without the capacity for consciousness, a person’s natural rights are contingent upon possession of his body and the capacity to have consciousness.

A person has rightful possession of his or her body. It is by this inalienable right to possession of one’s body that people have natural rights. Our natural rights include the exercise of all activities except those that initiate coercion or fraud against any individual's property. The only exception to this being that coercion may be initiated in self-defense against those who initiate coercion or fraud against one’s property.

If property is defined by what objects are inalienable, then your body is your property. If property is only defined by law, then your body is only your property if the law deems it to be. Furthermore, if the law deems other things to be property, then it is so. If we define property as what is inalienable and as what law defines it as, in addition to this, then a person can rightfully claim his body, and whatever other objects are deemed by law to be his property.

This brings forth the need to define what property is. If property is defined as objects that we have a rightful claim to, through law, then you are correct. If property is defined by what objects are inalienable, then I am correct. If both are considered property, then we may both be correct. I see the definition of property as one of the fundamental principles upon which a society is founded. Whether or not it chooses to clearly state those principles or not is secondary to whether or not it abides by them.

A society can define property as objects that are inalienable. It can define property as object(s) in addition to what is/are inalienable. It cannot define property in a way that excludes object(s) that is/are inalienable, because this would, by definition, make the society cease to exist, in principle. Why? If people do not have ownership of their body, then they are not people, and thus do not have natural rights, and thus do not have the right to enter into the society. Rather, what would exist would be a collective of functioning human bodies that toil for the benefit of some other entity.

Likewise, the society cannot abide by any principle that includes denying self-ownership of one’s body. Such ownership is an inalienable right. The only way to truly destroy the natural rights of the people is to kill them, but this nullifies the ability of the people to form the society, in which case the society cannot exist.

“Property rights are contingent upon the ability (in terms of sentience, resource availability, etc.) to take possession of something as property.”

“Having land as property is initially achieved by staking off the piece of it you want and keeping others off of it by use of force, or losing it to them through their use of force.”

That is likely how it was first determined who owned what land, since a big chunk of land did not accompany us out of the birth canal. I agree that, more or less, we obtain land as property by what you typed above. I retract my earlier statement regarding what you typed in response to an earlier post as“…contradictory to the premise that natural rights are derived from property rights.” It is an alternative, but not mutually exclusive.

However, do we not have the ability to maintain possession of our person?
Do we not achieve the sovereignty of our individuality by way of defending ourselves against aggression from other individuals?

If your body is your property, then the following applies to your body and your land, among other things:

The bounds of an individual’s natural rights are that he may not initiate coercion or fraud against any individual's property. The only exception to this being that he may initiate coercion in self-defense against those who initiate coercion or fraud against his property.

This does not necessarily apply to your body, if your body is not your property. What, in that case, would be the justification for self-defense? Is this description of natural rights inadequate and/or incorrect?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.