Nostr fixes this. https://twitter.com/tapbots/status/1615428584767733760

You're referring to the concept of negative versus positive rights. Usually the thought experiment used to demonstrate negative rights, are things you can do "do alone on an island". However, I've dealt with why I think this is problematic and why this doesn't invalidate the reality that rights are social constructs, elsewhere in this thread, and I won't repeat those arguments here.

Rights and capacity are not the same thing. That's like saying "how did I murder your children, if I didn't have a right to do it in the first place?"

The Founding Fathers of the United States clearly socially-constructed their notions of an independent state, and through collective action within those social constructs, mounted their rebellion against the British. I don't think this is a very good example of a unitary individual proving their right to self-defense. At best, this is an example of *collective* defense of a community. In this case, the colonies.

You're getting perilously close to the insights of David Hume and his epistemology.

Like I said: a romantic notion.

This is where I'd argue your notion of "right" is purely romantic. I happen to believe you ought to have a right to defend yourself, and I think the vast majority of people agree. But that only gets you so far if the community around you doesn't agree with that. Waxing poetic is great, and can serve the purpose of persuading people to agree with you. But one should be careful to acknowledge that's all it is.

You certainly can try! But there's a lot of people living in pretty repressive situations on this planet that would not be impressed by the casual notion that they have a universal right to defend themselves, as they get shot dead on the street trying to do so.

Sorry for embarrassing spelling mistakes and grammar there. *you *there (not "their")

The right for your to defend yourself is definitely a social construct. Because, if you live in a society that denies you the right to defend yourself, and imposes punishment on you for doing so, then it would seem you lack that right? Your right to defend yourself, and for their to be community moral approbation to you doing so, seems like something that requires social construction, ipso facto. By definition, any "right" you think you have that requires action or restraint by any other human, requires that other humans socially agree with you. If they do not, then you can pound sand about your rights, while you're jailed or executed.

Here's my question: if self-ownership is the *basis* for all property rights, then why did it take until the 20th century, for some guy named Murray Rothbard to realize that was the underlying truth of property?

No. I meant Humean, which refers to the epistemology and philosophy of David Hume.

That's what philosophers call a teleological argument. As a Humean, I do not agree with *any* teleological arguments.

One of the most amusing things to watch over the past few months, has been watching some individuals who were stalwartly pro-crypto and anti-bitcoin maximalism, surreptitiously rebrand themselves as bitcoiners without even acknowledging it.

Yeah. I just strongly disagree with the distinction you're making here. My contention is that *all* forms of rights are social constructions.

But the fact we are also aware of cultures that didn't proves it's not "inherent" and part of some natural law and/or moral truths about the universe.

But that's not what we generally mean by "rights". I could just as soon say "you have a right to your life as long as someone doesn't kill you" to follow the same pattern of reasoning. Rights are social rules we expect other people to respect, and are generally enforced through legitimated consequences for their violation.

But where does that inherent right come from? You tried to establish that right from capacity. Why isn't kidnapping a right from capacity? Why isn't this principle generally applicable?

The fact you're adding the modifier of "civilized society" here is the rub. This is why I am insisting you're not using a stable definition across domains of applicability, and why I am arguing you are making a category error in your reasoning. You're flip flopping between the categories and then having to add constraints and/or affordances in a context-dependent way. To my mind, you're literally describing different categories of things, and your use of the word "right" has *completely* different connotations within your state of nature reasoning, than it does in your "civilized society" reasoning. From a moral philosophical point of view, I'm struggling to extract anything resembling a transcendent principle, here.

If I have the capacity to capture you and imprison you in my basement, do I have a "right" to do that?