Right to Life, Liberty and Property Equals Human Being
I believe that rights are not given nor earned. They are inherent in who we are and inseparable from it. If one stomps on the right of another, his humanity is violated because to be is to exercise what makes you human.
And what is it that makes you human? You are alive, self aware, capable of thinking and acting on your thoughts and thus capable of creating and acquiring. All of this together constitutes your being human and to deny you to use your life, self awareness and ability to think, create and acquire would be to deny your humanity, to deny you to BE human. Thus life, liberty and property are one and the same. Without life you perish. Without liberty you cannot exercise abilities that make you human. Without property, the result of these exercises, you have nothing to strive for, nothing to cherish, nothing to call home, nothing to call your own – the fruit of your labor.
No two beings can occupy the same space, digest the same piece of food or breed the same molecules of air, at the same time. That’s the very basis of property ownership, simply the need to occupy and consume a particular piece of the world in order to exist AS whatever you naturally are; a fish, plant, bacterium or.. a human.
Since as a human, you’re in addition to being alive also defined by being self aware and able to think and act human property ownership is expanded to accommodate for the exercise of these traits. So in addition to the food you’re digesting, air you are breeding, space you are occupying (your body) you also own everything else that is created or acquired by the work of your mind and body.
No two persons can own the same thing. If we pretend they do there is a conflict. Which one decides what to do with it? Which one uses it when both want to use it? Which one is responsible for it? Even when two persons agree to share something these impossibilities remain. They can only “time share” the use of a thing and “time share” the responsibility, at one time one can use it and be responsible for it and at another the other can. Effectively, it is never owned by both, never becomes “collective property”, rather ownership merely shifts from one person to the other in time according to their voluntary agreements.
Let’s take a challenging claim; that a given road is a public property. This claims that everyone living in a city where the road is located is the owner of that road at the same time. This also means that everything everyone in that city wants to do on or with that road they can do, all at the same time. So one can decide to drive a car on it as fast as he likes whereas another can decide to walk at the same place where the other guy is speeding a car. It also means that at the same time as those two are doing this, a third person can come and drill a hole in the middle of the road.
This obviously doesn’t fit reality and is in fact impossible. It is thus not surprising that when one claims a particular thing as “public property” it never really means that everyone can do anything they want with it. Instead there is a government which enforces rules of how it is going to be used. This government or moreover the head of the government (its president, for instance) contractually bound to his employers to propose and create the rules, is the actual singular owner of this so called “public property”.
Thus the conception of collective ownership or “public property” is a fallacy. It cannot and does not exist. Property by definition is always private and always belonging to a single individual. It is that person’s very extension, when acquired by voluntary consent of previous owners (through trade or gift etc.) or created by him or those whom agreed to create it for him. In all cases property is the result of thoughts and actions applied without violation of another’s right to think and act by himself.
Without property there can be no liberty. To deny ownership altogether is to deny ownership of self. This implies that someone else owns you and that thus someone else can decide what to do with you or what you should be, instead of you. You therefore have no liberty whatsoever.
If self ownership is admitted, but ownership of everything else is denied then your acts are not for you, but for someone else. What use is the admission of self ownership if nothing you do with yourself results in an enrichment of yourself, if every result you produce is for someone else to take without your consent. You are still a slave.
If self ownership and ownership of only some of the rest is admitted it is still not you who decides which of the results you produce are yours to keep and which are someone elses. Someone else can change the criteria at a whim. Because of this you’re still not in control of that which you yourself produce and remain a slave.
In short, life, liberty and property are human rights indivisible from each other and the process of being human. Violation of those is the violation of someone being human because one can’t be human without exercising that which makes him or her human.