2 Comments

You ignore the distinction between natural rights and legal/conventional rights. Everyone concedes that the latter exists. Deniers (those who deny the existence of rights) deny the existence of *natural* rights. People invoke the language of natural rights to appeal to the "law above the law," and overturn existing law/convention. Equating the two types (natural/legal) means that no rights are inalienable or universal. Therefore, no one can complain that law or custom violates their rights because rights are nothing more than law/custom. Furthermore, equating the two means that even the wackiest new rights (say the right of five-year-olds to sex change surgery) exist on a par with every other right, provided an authority like a court signs off on it. In the end, natural rights are the source of judicial power. The dogma of natural rights means that an elite of unelected judges get to decide all the controversial issues of society. Denying natural rights is an effective way to attack that elitist, anti-democratic system.

Expand full comment