Hi. Welcome to the site. Please check out the About Us, and if you have a question about crime and/or punishment, perhaps look at some previous questions along those lines first.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

How do anarchists view rights?

+1 vote
Are rights, such as human, civil or natural artificial? Only created by the state to ensure revolt wouldn't happened( by which I mean here in the first world)?
asked Apr 19, 2014 by unp89 (380 points)
(as someone who's been known to post a list of links in response to a common question), i hope that people who are responded to thusly understand that the point is not to cut off the conversation, but to inform it.

ie "here are the other times this issue has arisen, how does that change your question, or allow you to make it more specific?"
Humans exist before a government enters the equation and imposes itself.  Therefore the argument lies with Statists to prove government, not us to prove no government.  When people exist, they have the best claim to their body; as they bear costs such as feeding it goes and upholding its health and existence, they have a better claim to its ownership than another thing or person.  Therefore we have to autonomously act without opposition.  If I initiate a violation of the rights of another, I may respond with sufficient force to claim my property back (keep myself alive). Ownership implies the right to exclude others. If I find unowned resources, I may mix my labor to then own it, seeing as how I have a better claim to its ownership than any late comer.  If I use this body to work for a wage and work under conditions an employer provides; I may do so.  

This is the best I have come up with in having taken some Locke, Rawls, Nozick, and Hoppe studying.  It claims self ownership, no rulers to initiate force, lets murderers justly pay, and the ability to settle property disputes when the owner is likely more so than any other.
" When people exist, they have the best claim to their body; as they bear costs such as feeding it goes and upholding its health and existence, they have a better claim to its ownership than another thing or person."

So infants don't exist?
I believe they do.  When we say we don't want rulers, we don't mean parents are wrong to feed their infants food without them consenting, or changing their diaper, we are talking generally about consenting adults.  Infants can not consent, so parental decision making is just; in most areas.  They are not justly property as in I believe it is immoral to kill your two year old if they misbehave, because that negatively infringes on their existence as a person who owns themselves.

So yes infants exist, elderly people who are fed and assisted by a care taker exist, quadriplegics exist, mentally retarded adults, and all other persons who can not maintain their well being.  It is still immoral to enslave them because they still have a greater claim to their bodies than anyone else who may take a claim literally in an attempt to question their existence.

1 Answer

–3 votes
depends on the anarchists.
answered Nov 2, 2015 by einstein (140 points)
this is a meaningless answer, without substantial elaboration.
einstein's answer is true, even though it was voted down. Historically, some anarchists have made arguments based on rights, but many (including this one) find such claims at odds with anarchism - rights imply some kind of authority, whether social, legal, divine, or moral.
hi bellamy. this site is confusing re: whether something should be a comment or an answer. your post, for example, should be a comment (because it is not answering the question). changing a post from an answer to a comment is very easy -- just click on "edit" and then on "change to comment"...

as for the content of your post, for anyone who has read much on this site, the point you and einstein are making is done to death (even just by me alone). einstein's half-answer is being voted down because it doesn't explain itself (ie it's a bad answer) not because people disagree with it.
...