|
I've read Locke and I really don't care what he has to say about natural rights (I don't like his camera obscura theory of mind either). I've also read Rousseau's theories on the social contract. I don't find that convincing... though it's a neat story. I do think humans at one time did bind together for what seemed like a benefit, but turned out to be somewhat of a mixed blessing, though I doubt this was a very organized or well-defined event. Ultimately, the state has pros and cons like most everything else on this ball of magma. People "in a state of nature" (loaded phrase, I know, but meant here approximately as people living without an organized state) have no rights. The entire idea of "rights" in such a context is misleading. Rights come from laws. Laws come from collections of people. Such "naturals" aren't "free" either, because what defines freedom in a state of nature? The only sense in which a person without a government is "free" is that they are binded to no laws. Is that true freedom? I don't know. But without an enforcing governmental body the terms "rights" and "laws," in the political sense, have no meaning. We're on our own to deliver rights to people. Nature will not do this for us. The concept of a "natural right" is as much a human construction as a societal law.
So I guess my answer is "no."
|