Conscentia wrote:Minzerland II wrote:I think you've misunderstood. My argument isn't that they have these natural rights before (they do, btw) someone, by various means, attempt to take it from them. Therefore natural rights. No. Rather I'm arguing that: 'Man has a property within itself, which none can take from it. Therefore natural rights.' of course there are exceptions to that, but I will elaborate upon that later.
Can you clarify "man has a property within itself, which none can take from it"?
Man having ownership over itself, every person being sovereign and individual, also has possession over the labour of its body, and the work of its hands. Being both individual and sovereign, Man is not subjected to the predations or will of others: This is an explanation for Life, Liberty and Property.
Minzerland II wrote:I guess so. If someone, for instance, wars upon their neighbour they enter the 'State of War'. When they enter the 'State of War' they forfeit their right to Life and Liberty, not their possessions mind you.
Natural rights are inalienable. They cannot be forfeited.
Not insofar as the State of War. Man not being subject to the predations of others has, by the Law of Nature, the right to defend itself: therefore, the transgressor forfeits its life by entering that State of War.
Minzerland II wrote:Here's your post. I'll try to answer the best I can:
Well, yes, to a degree. 'Labour', and 'use' for that matter, are very broad concepts. For instance, if you gather an acorn from the ground it is yours, because you had gathered it, which is labour.
Of course, this ignores exchange and whatnot too.
I had already anticipated that you'd say that. It's why my example was that of underground raw mineral resources. You haven't gathered them. You haven't touched them. You haven't even seen them. You have not used or 'mixed' them with your labour in anyway at all.
Then that resource isn't yours, it is rather the common property of nature.
Minzerland II wrote:Those resources are part of the property however. If I weren't to use a single grain of dirt from my property, would that mean it isn't mine? No. It is still mine regardless. Land is considered a whole, not a collection of parts.
The law defines property, but ultimately it is derived from labour.
The answer is only no because property does not derive from labour.
Why not?
Otherwise you would first have to apply work to the grain of dirt before you could claim it. However, you clearly do not have to do that before you lay claim.
Wrong. We don't consider a grain of dirt individual, and therefore being seperate from the land around it: We consider it as part of the land, and therefore the land is what we exert labour upon.
The extent of one's ownership is not limited just to what has been 'mixed' with labour. Therefore to say that property derives from labour cannot be true - such an explanation is insufficient for describing the reality of property.
Of course. We are excluding exchanged and whatnot however.
