Originally Posted by
Hal Jordan
I apologize for my delay in answering. It has been a busy few days, and I wanted to have proper time to respond.
1. I hold that the rights come from God, as I am a Christian. As to how the rights can be unalienable and by rightfully restricted by government, I hold that they are not rightfully restricted. They end up being restricted by the people as a whole giving them up. That doesn't make it right. As for things such as death threats, they can fall under different situations, for example, the example of committing murder in your heart. The problem is that there is a great deal of subjectivity in our understanding of natural law. We have learned more about natural law as a whole, which explains how things such as slavery, where once seen as a common thing, has since become generally understood to be wrong.
2. Again, the non-aggression principle is subject to subjectivity, and thus, our understanding. Regarding property, there are a number of libertarians that don't see land ownership as a right. I admit that I'm on the fence about that. I can see both sides of it. As property rights have been understood throughout history, though, land ownership tends to fall to the discoverer of the land. Therefore, according to history, he would be within his rights to put a fence around it. To some libertarians, he would be in the wrong for doing that, though. I believe all can agree that he has a right to the fruit of his labors, but there is disagreement beyond that. As I said, I am undecided regarding the right to the possession of the tree. This is really an issue that would differ depending on who you speak to.
3. Again, regarding speech, that can be affected by other factors. Our understanding of natural law is hampered by a variety of factors. Basically, it boils down to the fact that we have flaws. Anyway, regarding the question of governance and rights, while the people must consent to governance, rights are rights regardless of our understanding. It's similar to truth. If we understand something to be false, but it is true, does it become less true? If the people decide that all that should be permitted is that which all agree on, that falls under their consent of governance. If people disagree on the governance, that should be worked out through discussion until agreement can be reached. People can, and have surrendered rights. That doesn't make it a proper thing, and doesn't make it right for them to be taken. I don't deny that those right's haven't been taken at times, but that is through people allowing it to happen, and it has been wrong. I believe, in the end, that it has been allowed through our fallen nature.
I would like to add that I fall under the minarchist classification. In other words, I feel the power should be weakest at the federal level, and strongest at the local level, comparitively. If this opens up additional questions for you, feel free to submit them.