(Click here to continue on the main path)

Libertarians are always talking about individual rights -- and they often refer to them as "natural rights." That can mean many things, but it means at least that the rights involved are not created by the state or by contracts between individuals. They exist somehow prior to government.

I don't know whether people have natural rights in what some people call the "state of nature" (i.e., a situation with no government). Frankly, I doubt it. I'm not even sure what it means to say that they do. But I wonder whether those rights, if they exist, survive the transition to a society with government. This is especially important for property rights. 

Is property a natural right we bring into society? Or is it the creation of a particular political order?

If we look back at Locke, I think we see that he allows for property rights in the state of nature, but that these are not the same as property rights within political society. The latter are the product of government.

I think that libertarians place far too much emphasis on natural rights. I believe in rights, but the rights I believe in are the creations of government. They don't exist until governments create them.

Of course, even if a government has not created a certain right, I can still say that I think it ought to do so, and offer reasons why I think it should.