‘Rights’ and Fuzzy Language: You Demand Rights. You Can’t ‘Have’ Them Without an Exchange.

(Contrary to Searle’s nonsense. More in line with Bentham’s nonsense. Minor improvement to Hoppe. )

You DEMAND contractual RIGHTS in EXCHANGE for entering into a CONTRACT with others for some specific terms – and in the libertarian bias we demand absolute private property rights, and the right of first possession by transformation and homesteading.

Other people agree to NONE, SOME or ALL of those demands, in exchange for their specific terms. Non-aggressing on some terms, and preserving the opportunity to aggress on others.

One cannot ‘have rights’ without the presence of others to grant them in exchange.

i ) One can suggest the world will be better for all if we grant each other certain rights. ii ) One can ‘demand rights’ in order for cooperation instead of conflict.

iii ) One can ‘need and require necessary’ rights from others in order to survive.

But without the consent of others, one cannot ‘have or possess’ them.

The majority of the world cultures and subcultures evolved an allocation of each’s portfolio of property rights between the private and the commons on one axis, and between a) normative (habits, manners, ethics and morals), b) real (land, built capital, portable property, and c) artificial (intellectual property, limited monopoly privileges) on the other axis.

Those DEMANDS do you very little good without the ability to enforce your demands. In the case of private property, the coalition of statists is powerful enough to deny you demands, and force you to adhere to THEIR definition of property rights.

Might doesn’t make best.

Might doesn’t make right.

Might makes possible whatever property rights you have demanded.

So you must possess the might to institute the property rights you desire.