Rights are a tricky concept. They are debated about by everyone from every ideology. Most seem to explain them as a thing themselves, but yet they aren't tangible. Some think they are privileges granted by a higher power and others view them as some how existing before any government document was conceived let alone written or signed. So, what are "Rights"? I'll give it my best attempt at explaining.
A Right is not a something it's a description of the rightness(as opposed to wrongness/morality) of an action. If an action is right to take by moral standards, not ethics or preferences, then what we are saying is one has the right to do so and no one should stop or interfere with that action.
Actions are either right or wrong to take. However, two different scenarios can make the same action right or wrong. A punch can be wrong when performed as solely an attack. Yet a punch can be used defensively as well. This makes it difficult to create a list of rights being that to be all inclusive the list would be longer then the Obamacare Bill and need qualifiers for when every action is right or wrong.
Yes humans have the capacity to violate each other. If rights were simply things that couldn't be taken away(unalienable) we would have to say violating each other is a natural right because you can't take away my ability to violate others. The state has proven it true for centuries that we can not take away someone's ability to violate others. So the fact that "something" or an ability of a human can't be taken away alone is not a good enough definition or defining line as to what a right is.
All rights spawn from self-ownership. Similarly stated, the only right is self-ownership. Why is that? In a previous essay I explained why self ownership is real. No matter how violated a human is it is still their conscious(self) that maintains exclusive control(ownership) of the body(self). So not only is self-ownership a right it's a fact. From that fact we can extrapolate right and wrong action.
We all have a right to peacefully(no violation of right involved) acquired property(because of self-ownership we own our actions and the product of them), but people might violate that right. It's not that the right to own property was taken its that it was violated by the theft of a specific piece of property. In other words it is always a right to own peacefully acquired property and one always has that right. Any action taken against that is an act of theft either by claiming ownership/control of another property or person(also property through self ownership). The fact that peacefully owning property is a right action does not change because some have violated that fact.
So in closing, rights can't be taken away, but the concept is more then that. It's defining lines lay within an understanding of self-ownership. As long as one is not violating another's self-ownership they are acting within a right... "Their rights". This is the most basic explanation of a compass to allow one to understand rights. As I said before it's a bit easier to explain this way then an all inclusive list, but this also allows those receiving this info to fully grasp and apply the thought process themselves.
By: Neil Sollenberger
Host of An Anarchist Conversation
Libsyn iTunes FaceBook YouTube