Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Freedom of speech? A natural right?

Those that consider themselves to be on the left often clamor to civil rights like freedom of speech. Libertarians alike claim the Constitution guarantees such rights and they can't be impeded on. On a Constitutional claim the 1st Amendment only guarantees such rights to not be infringed upon by the government.

But is there such a thing as a right to speak?

My answer to that is no and by the end of this post I hope my argument gives you reason to believe such a claim.

To start off rights are not something that government can claim to give us. Rights are inherent in us being human beings. Rights are natural things that cannot be granted nor taken, they are inalienable.

The rights WE do have are property rights and only property rights. Property rights also include the right to your own body. No one can steal your property, bring damage upon your property, or destroy your property without first infringing upon your natural rights.

But one could simply assert that your vocal cords are part of your body so being able to speak is simply an extension of your body, which is property, and property rights.

I could just as simply assert that your ability to move your arms would give you the right to hit another person. If this were to be stopped your rights to move your arms, an extension of your body, would be infringed upon.

Although a bit extreme I'll admit but it is the exact same logic used for the "right to speak".

You do have a right to move your body as you wish as long as it does not reach another person and infringes on their rights. So you can't swing at someone and hit them and by the same reasoning the sound your vocal chords make have no right to hit someone else.

So just as you can move your body and not hit someone you can speak but you have no right to be heard unless prior consent is given.

What does this mean though?

It means when not on your own property or another persons property where you have consent to speak you don't have the right to speak. If you say something on someone else's property and they don't want to hear it they can make you leave, if you don't you've infringed on their rights.

It also means as long as you are on your own property or property you have consent to use from another person you can speak as you wish. Anyone within said property can then hear whatever you have to say since they will have been consensually entering that property and can simply leave if they do not wish to hear what you have to way.

This leads to something especially interesting then. You have no "right to speak" unless property rights are recognized 100%. Without these property rights then it simply doesn't exist. If you want to speak freely then you have to respect property rights and all else that are tied to property rights. This means you can only have "freedom of speech" tied with the acceptance that no one can take from yours or anyone else's property. This means you MUST deny the the acceptance of all forms of theft of property which includes all taxes and forced servitude. Essentially you must reject the State if you want to truly speak freely and be a completely free person.

1 comment:

  1. So how do humans interact without first asking for permission which may be a transgression in and of itself? Your analogy and your logic seem to come up short. Physical assault and oral-aural approach are worlds apart, so stop with the sophistry. Your argument is just another proof that philosophy is questionable answers to unanswerable questions. A lot of fun to play at, but, in the end, that is all we are doing: playing.