The Definition and Universal Applicability of Natural Right
The historical record of the claim to superiority, either as regards untested materials for bridges or untested orders for society, is not a good one. Almost the only successful revolutions in post-medieval times -- "successful" in that they not merely brought down corrupt or unjust regimes but then built something better in their places which those carrying out the revolution survived to see -- were the English Glorious Revolution of 1688-89, and the American Revolution of 1775-1783, and I don't think that it's a coincidence that both of them were Anglospheric, and aimed at restoring what was seen as traditional rights which had been violated by the regimes against which they were revolting.
Now, both revolutions were to different degrees informed by the concept of "natural right" developed in the Enlightenment. This concept was well conceived and thoroughly argued, and represents the minimum civil rights on which all might agree cannot be denied (without due process of law) if one is to enjoy a happy and productive life. To wit and in order ...
Life - If someone deprives you of life, you cannot enjoy or do anything thereafter. Were I a theist, I would append "in this life" to that statement, but actually it would logically apply to an afterlife as well, could you be deprived of that.
Liberty - If you are not free to do those things which do not harm other people, at your own discretion, then you are not master of your own fate, have only those enjoyments that whoever is your master permits you, and can only do those acts which your master commands or permits you to perform. This is not completely destructive of either happiness or efficiency, but is greatly liable to reduce them.
Property - (aka "The Pursuit of Happiness," because it may involve more than just tangible assets). If you are not permitted to freely enjoy and use your own property, then whoever controls that property instead of you is your master: he may, for instance, deprive you of life by refusing you all food, or of liberty by refusing to allow you to live anywhere but his jail.
Note that these are negative rights: they define what others are not allowed to deprive you of, rather than what you are entitled to possess. However, save for the most profoundly crippled, they are adequate to secure all positive rights: for instance, a normal human being is able to trade his goods and services to obtain a full complement of those goods and services necessary to support his life, etc.
This negativity is an important guarantee of liberty. Suppose that I claim that I have the (positive) right to, oh, a typical suburban house of my own. This sounds very good and fine for me, but reflect that to get this house (assuming that I lack the ability or will to gain enough resources to trade for it myself) either someone must build it for me, or I must take it from someone else. In either case, someone else is being deprived of his natural right to the secure enjoyment of his own property. Natural Right is not such a zero-sum game.
Natural Rights are the same regardless of whether you are living in caves or flying in spacecraft. Your right to "life" equally prevents others from depriving you of it with club or atom bomb; to "liberty" from being tied up in a hut or nerve-stapled within your own brain; to "property" from the theft of your Neolithic farm steading or of your supercomputer. By being general, they are universally applicable.
If someone have discovered some new Natural Rights, which can be formulated as negative rights, and do not involve depriving others of their Natural Rights, please do explain it further. But be aware that, historically, most such attempts have ended in heaps of corpses.
Now, both revolutions were to different degrees informed by the concept of "natural right" developed in the Enlightenment. This concept was well conceived and thoroughly argued, and represents the minimum civil rights on which all might agree cannot be denied (without due process of law) if one is to enjoy a happy and productive life. To wit and in order ...
Life - If someone deprives you of life, you cannot enjoy or do anything thereafter. Were I a theist, I would append "in this life" to that statement, but actually it would logically apply to an afterlife as well, could you be deprived of that.
Liberty - If you are not free to do those things which do not harm other people, at your own discretion, then you are not master of your own fate, have only those enjoyments that whoever is your master permits you, and can only do those acts which your master commands or permits you to perform. This is not completely destructive of either happiness or efficiency, but is greatly liable to reduce them.
Property - (aka "The Pursuit of Happiness," because it may involve more than just tangible assets). If you are not permitted to freely enjoy and use your own property, then whoever controls that property instead of you is your master: he may, for instance, deprive you of life by refusing you all food, or of liberty by refusing to allow you to live anywhere but his jail.
Note that these are negative rights: they define what others are not allowed to deprive you of, rather than what you are entitled to possess. However, save for the most profoundly crippled, they are adequate to secure all positive rights: for instance, a normal human being is able to trade his goods and services to obtain a full complement of those goods and services necessary to support his life, etc.
This negativity is an important guarantee of liberty. Suppose that I claim that I have the (positive) right to, oh, a typical suburban house of my own. This sounds very good and fine for me, but reflect that to get this house (assuming that I lack the ability or will to gain enough resources to trade for it myself) either someone must build it for me, or I must take it from someone else. In either case, someone else is being deprived of his natural right to the secure enjoyment of his own property. Natural Right is not such a zero-sum game.
Natural Rights are the same regardless of whether you are living in caves or flying in spacecraft. Your right to "life" equally prevents others from depriving you of it with club or atom bomb; to "liberty" from being tied up in a hut or nerve-stapled within your own brain; to "property" from the theft of your Neolithic farm steading or of your supercomputer. By being general, they are universally applicable.
If someone have discovered some new Natural Rights, which can be formulated as negative rights, and do not involve depriving others of their Natural Rights, please do explain it further. But be aware that, historically, most such attempts have ended in heaps of corpses.