Philosophy of fundamental rights

Is property a creation of the state: yes

Who disagrees: Locke

Who: agrees: Hobbes, Rousseau

The believe of fundamental rights comes from the believe systems of individuals

Are there fundamental property rights and if there are, were do they come from?

The Philosopher Locke believes that there are

If there were a god handing out fundamental rights, who hands out fundamental rights for that god, his god? If there is a keeper who hands out fundamental rights there are really no fundamental rights but the rights that are to the greatest advantage of the keeper to give out. But as these authors offer no compelling evidence that there is a keeper one cannot suppose that we have any rights handed down from one. If there were rights one would suppose that they would be enforced by this keeper or that this keeper would offer solid proof of what it wants. As countries do not seem to be punished or communicated to by a keeper for having the different believes and property distributions we can determine that property rights are created by the countries and not by a keeper. As there is no evidence provided of a keeper these arguments can be discarded as lacking validity.

Now supposing our current world situation where there is not a keeper enforcing any property rights we can determine that there is either, no keeper, a keeper who is not concerned with our property rights or a keeper who is powerless to enforce property rights and thereby has no authority or influence on property rights. This leaves the only grounds for arguments based on a particular god- believe based on faith.

Faith based argument: Any argument where one supposes the premisses to be true without compelling evidence.

Example from a conversation in a bar: “My demon-god made my friend decide to buy me a beer when I was broke. The demons are visible when you are not sober, therefore there are demons and they are what my demon-god uses to control my friend to get him to buy me beer when I pray.”

An argument without supporting evidence is not an argument, it is an appeal to faith. An appeal to faith without proof cannot be a valid reason to believing something without giving reason why that faith is anymore valid than any other competing faith based belief system. Proving a faith based believe system is better than any other competing system would require proof and thereby would not be based on faith. So arguments based on faith cannot be shone to be valid or are not arguments based on faith. The arguments provided by Locke for his basis of the right to property are based on faith. This makes it not possible to show that Locke’s argument is based on any solid real world evidence and is thereby invalid.

Rousseau uses invalid faith based argument

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>