(Click here to continue on the main path)

I'm perfectly willing to talk about a hypothetical social contract as the basis of rights. I know of two writers who have argued for libertarianism on a contractarian basis -- Jan Narveson and Loren Lomasky. They begin with self-interest and then, on that basis, argue for moral rules. Here's Narveson's description of how a contract fits into that argument:

Morals are rules or requirements, presuming authority over us all: they are rules that all are supposed to obey. To show that a proposed morality is reasonable, then, we need to show that everyone – those being the people who are asked to comply with them – has a reason to comply. And that reason must already exist. Making reasons out of thin air doesn’t cut it. The contractarian view enters the picture by proposing that the right set of principles to play this role is the set such that everyone, looking at those proposed principles from his or her point of view ex ante, can see that he or she will do better if everyone, including himself or herself complies with those principles than if there are none or some other set. [See Narveson's FAQ on The Contractarian Theory of Morals.]

Now let me bring in another libertarian -- Loren Lomasky. I strongly recommend that you take a look at his book Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community. His arguments may make more sense to you. I'm going to try to summarize his view, but obviously his argument is more complicated than what I can lay out here.

Lomasky argues first for basic individual rights. To begin with, he thinks of people as what he calls "project pursuers." Projects can vary greatly. Your project might be raising children, becoming an athlete, or writing a book. In any case, projects have the function of giving direction, purpose, and coherence to our lives.

Because projects are very important to us, we value the means necessary to carry them out, and we value our ability to pursue them. This implies that each project pursuer must value having "moral space" to carry out his or her projects. Our rights define that moral space. If we value our projects, we must value living in a world where we have such rights.

Because we each want rights for ourselves, we have a reason to follow a strategy that would bring about a world in which we have such rights. Taking a leaf from modern game theory, Lomasky concludes that a cooperative strategy is best for each of us and is possible because we are not by nature entirely egoistic. It is therefore possible to gradually develop a stable system of rights for all project pursuers. This situation can develop without explicit bargaining and eventually be ratified by explicit agreements. In other words, eventually a contract would emerge, and it would be a libertarian contract.

Lomasky's argument also leads to a libertarian system of rights. A libertarian system is best because it will be the most stable system. It is most stable because it requires the least compromise or deference from all those involved. Systems that require more deference will encourage more individuals to withdraw from or overthrow the system. In short, in Lomasky's view, a combination of prudence and the requirements of stability lead to the establishment of a libertarian system of individual rights.