WEBVTT NOTE Human Rights 1 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.000 The Question of Human Rights 2 00:00:04.000 --> 00:00:09.000 Today we're hearing a great deal of discussion on the subject of human rights. 3 00:00:09.000 --> 00:00:16.000 And possibly there isn't any other word in the English language that is as grossly overworked as the word rights. 4 00:00:16.000 --> 00:00:20.000 We use it in a number of ways. 5 00:00:20.000 --> 00:00:25.000 In fact, we use it in so many ways that it becomes confusing, 6 00:00:25.000 --> 00:00:55.000 The Theory of Money and Credit 7 00:01:25.000 --> 00:01:32.040 with Human Wrongs. What we're really concerned with here is using the word over against the 8 00:01:32.040 --> 00:01:41.120 concept of privilege. When we have a right, we have something other than a privilege. 9 00:01:41.120 --> 00:01:48.480 Now, this is a very abstract and a very sophisticated concept, so we have to spend a little time 10 00:01:48.480 --> 00:01:53.760 Thinking about it. What we're really trying to say when we use the word right is this. 11 00:01:55.440 --> 00:02:03.280 The individual having a right may do as he pleases within the area of his rights 12 00:02:04.000 --> 00:02:12.880 without asking anyone's permission, and at the same time retain his moral position. 13 00:02:12.880 --> 00:02:21.640 Now, if he has to ask someone's permission in order to maintain his moral position, then 14 00:02:21.640 --> 00:02:28.680 we say he has a privilege. In other words, the word, as we use it in connection with 15 00:02:28.680 --> 00:02:38.240 human rights or natural rights, in a sense exemplifies the fundamental idea that man 16 00:02:38.240 --> 00:02:45.480 Man is a decision-maker and is capable of making independent judgments and of acting 17 00:02:45.480 --> 00:02:52.300 independently without asking permission of anyone and at the same time being above reproach 18 00:02:52.300 --> 00:02:59.080 when he does it. Now all of that is conveyed in the word right. So when a person says, 19 00:02:59.080 --> 00:03:05.760 I have a right to live or I have some other kind of right, whatever it is, what he is 20 00:03:05.760 --> 00:03:11.200 What he is really affirming is that he doesn't have to ask permission of anyone. 21 00:03:11.200 --> 00:03:17.320 This is a place where he can operate, and he can operate morally, that is, he is going 22 00:03:17.320 --> 00:03:24.240 to operate without violating the will of anyone, he is going to operate without molesting anyone, 23 00:03:24.240 --> 00:03:31.680 he is not going to impose his will on anyone else, and at the same time, he can act volitionally 24 00:03:31.680 --> 00:03:37.680 in this area. That is to say, he can make up his own mind, make his own decisions and act upon them 25 00:03:37.680 --> 00:03:44.240 and still retain this moral position that he has. That's what is meant by the concept of right. 26 00:03:44.240 --> 00:03:51.360 Now when we're talking about a privilege, what we mean is that the individual in order to act 27 00:03:51.360 --> 00:03:58.880 morally must first obtain permission from someone else whose position to him in this particular 28 00:03:58.880 --> 00:04:04.880 or Situation is superior, and therefore he goes to this other party to obtain permission 29 00:04:04.880 --> 00:04:09.340 after which then his position would be a moral one. 30 00:04:09.340 --> 00:04:15.920 Now it's very important that we really understand where this word comes from, and let me pinpoint 31 00:04:15.920 --> 00:04:24.160 it directly. The word really denotes a kind of ownership. It always relates to something 32 00:04:54.160 --> 00:05:01.980 say of him, that man has a right to live. We know he's probably not going to make it, 33 00:05:01.980 --> 00:05:08.360 but we would say he has a right to live. That is, he doesn't have to ask anyone's permission. 34 00:05:08.360 --> 00:05:16.120 If somehow he can manage to survive, his moral position is affirmed. That's all that this 35 00:05:16.120 --> 00:05:39.120 This concept relates to a person's moral position as an owner of something. When we say a man has a right to his life, we're saying he owns his life. When we say a man has a right to be free, we mean that he can be free without asking anyone's permission. 36 00:05:39.120 --> 00:05:46.220 When we say a man has a right to property or to whatever else it is, what we are saying 37 00:05:46.220 --> 00:05:53.700 is he owns this. This is his. He can use it as he wishes without asking anybody else's 38 00:05:53.700 --> 00:06:00.880 permission because he is the owner and not the other party. Now, when he comes up against 39 00:06:00.880 --> 00:06:07.460 another party who is an owner and he wants to use a property belonging to the other party, 40 00:06:07.460 --> 00:06:12.540 At this juncture, he has no rights. So he approaches the other party, who in this case 41 00:06:12.540 --> 00:06:19.440 is the owner, and he says to him, may I? And then if the owner grants permission, then he 42 00:06:19.440 --> 00:06:26.340 has a privilege. For example, let us suppose we're talking about a desk. The desk is mine. 43 00:06:26.340 --> 00:06:31.300 I may do as I please with the desk. I can use it. I can give it away. I can sell it. 44 00:06:31.300 --> 00:06:37.240 I can break it up for kindling. It's up to me. And the question of my moral relationship 45 00:06:37.240 --> 00:06:44.920 with the desk doesn't arise, because the desk is mine, and therefore I have all rights over the desk. 46 00:06:45.560 --> 00:06:52.520 I can do anything I wish with the desk, and I will not be immoral. Now, I might be stupid, 47 00:06:52.520 --> 00:06:59.160 but I won't be immoral. I won't be hurting anybody else, because the desk is mine. Well, 48 00:06:59.160 --> 00:07:05.720 what if it happened that somebody else needed the desk, and I didn't? Would I be immoral if I didn't 49 00:07:05.720 --> 00:07:11.720 take into consideration their need for the desk. No, I wouldn't be immoral. I could 50 00:07:11.720 --> 00:07:17.100 be a little bit stupid, but that doesn't mean that I'm immoral. I have a right not 51 00:07:17.100 --> 00:07:21.880 to take the other fellow's need for a desk into consideration. I can still do as I please 52 00:07:21.880 --> 00:07:27.460 with my desk, providing it is mine. But let's suppose this same desk isn't mine. It belongs 53 00:07:27.460 --> 00:07:32.720 to you. Then what is my relationship with it? My relationship with the desk at this 54 00:07:32.720 --> 00:07:37.640 This point is not one of rights. In fact, I have no relationship to the desk at all. 55 00:07:37.640 --> 00:07:43.640 My relationship now has to be one with you. And before I can even so much as sit at the 56 00:07:43.640 --> 00:07:49.140 desk or make use of it in any way, I must first approach you, the owner, and say, may 57 00:07:49.140 --> 00:07:55.280 I, in respect to the desk. And you don't have to say yes. You can say yes or no, because 58 00:07:55.280 --> 00:08:00.840 it's your desk and you have the rights over it. However, if you decide to, you could say, 59 00:08:00.840 --> 00:08:06.200 Well yes, you may use my desk, or you may do thus and so with it, at which point you 60 00:08:06.200 --> 00:08:13.080 have extended to me a privilege, because you're in a position of extending privilege, at which 61 00:08:13.080 --> 00:08:19.320 point I could retain my moral position with you, because I've gotten your permission. 62 00:08:19.320 --> 00:08:24.120 Now if you're the owner of the desk, and I don't go to you and ask for permission, but 63 00:08:24.120 --> 00:08:30.640 but simply presumed to act as I will with the desk, then my position becomes a possible 64 00:08:30.640 --> 00:08:39.920 molestation. If I violate your will in respect to something that you own, then I have imposed 65 00:08:39.920 --> 00:08:46.560 my will over your will and am engaged in sacrificing you to some degree or molesting you to some 66 00:08:46.560 --> 00:08:51.880 degree. And if I'm going to deal with you on a moral base, I cannot do that. So I have 67 00:08:51.880 --> 00:08:57.880 have to recognize that your rights include your person and all of your property, and 68 00:08:57.880 --> 00:09:02.880 in that area I don't have any rights at all. But my rights include my person and 69 00:09:02.880 --> 00:09:07.660 all of my property, and in that area you don't have any rights. So when we come to deal with 70 00:09:07.660 --> 00:09:14.320 each other, then we deal on the basis of privilege, in which we communicate first as to how far 71 00:09:14.320 --> 00:09:21.080 either of us wishes to go, and then we accept this as an exchange basis, and we exchange 72 00:09:21.080 --> 00:09:26.440 on the basis of the privilege granted, in each case, by the party having the right. 73 00:09:26.440 --> 00:09:30.520 In other words, the right is always superior to the privilege. 74 00:09:30.520 --> 00:09:40.920 Now, the question is, is it a fact that a human being, having the ability to reason 75 00:09:40.920 --> 00:09:50.760 and to make decisions, is it possible for a person, any human being, to operate morally 76 00:09:50.760 --> 00:09:55.900 without getting permission from anyone. Is that conceivable? Could it be done? Or must 77 00:09:55.900 --> 00:10:03.120 a person always be subordinate to someone else? Must he be subservient? And must he always 78 00:10:03.120 --> 00:10:09.960 be in a position of asking permission? Well, the answer is obvious. Of course a man could 79 00:10:09.960 --> 00:10:17.480 operate on his own cognizance and at the same time retain his moral position. That's really 80 00:10:17.480 --> 00:10:26.840 It is the man who retains his moral position by virtue of the fact that he recognizes the 81 00:10:26.840 --> 00:10:35.720 limits of where his rights extend, and his rights extend totally, only to the extent 82 00:10:35.720 --> 00:10:38.260 of his property, whatever it may be. 83 00:10:38.260 --> 00:10:43.480 That is, he has total right over himself and total right over his property, whatever it 84 00:10:43.480 --> 00:10:46.920 may be, and beyond that he has no rights at all. 85 00:10:46.920 --> 00:10:51.960 He is simply in a state of either an amoral condition where the question of rights has 86 00:10:51.960 --> 00:10:56.880 not been resolved, or he is in a position of privilege where someone else has the rights 87 00:10:56.880 --> 00:11:00.480 and he has to be of necessity subordinate to them. 88 00:11:00.480 --> 00:11:04.520 Now there are other meanings here relating to this word. 89 00:11:04.520 --> 00:11:12.200 If it is true, and it is demonstrably true, that a man, any man, could retain his moral 90 00:11:12.200 --> 00:11:32.780 The concept of rights is also predicated on that idea, to wit, the universality of rights. 91 00:11:32.780 --> 00:11:38.720 If I have rights over my life, then you have rights over yours. If it is possible for me 92 00:11:38.720 --> 00:11:44.720 If you want me to have rights over my property, then it is just as possible for you to have rights over yours. 93 00:11:44.720 --> 00:11:52.720 The difference is simply the boundary line between us. I have no rights over your property. You have no rights over mine. 94 00:11:52.720 --> 00:11:58.720 But over your property, you have total rights over mine. I have total rights. And that's what is meant here. 95 00:11:58.720 --> 00:12:07.720 So when we say that all rights are universal, what we mean is that they would apply to every member of our species, 96 00:12:07.720 --> 00:12:14.800 Irrespective of race or color or condition in life, it doesn't matter, or his age or 97 00:12:14.800 --> 00:12:21.360 his wisdom, none of this has any bearing. All we are saying is that it is possible for 98 00:12:21.360 --> 00:12:30.040 any human being, any member of the genus homo sapien, to operate on the basis of independent 99 00:12:30.040 --> 00:12:35.360 judgment and yet retain his moral position. Now, there is another thought that goes with 100 00:12:35.360 --> 00:12:43.860 If it is true that every human being is capable of having rights—if this is a part of the 101 00:12:43.860 --> 00:12:49.700 real nature of man—then it would follow that no one man has any more rights than any 102 00:12:49.700 --> 00:12:56.700 other man. And therefore we have the concept of equality of rights in addition to the universality 103 00:12:56.700 --> 00:13:03.160 of rights. In other words, if I have a right to my life and to my property, then you have 104 00:13:03.160 --> 00:13:09.640 have a right to your life and your property. Now you may be younger or older than I, and 105 00:13:09.640 --> 00:13:16.560 therefore you could anticipate more or less time in reference to your life than I could. 106 00:13:16.560 --> 00:13:23.880 Let us suppose that you are very young and I am very old, or the reverse if you like. 107 00:13:23.880 --> 00:13:30.760 The fact would be that our lives would not be equal, but our rights over our lives would 108 00:13:30.760 --> 00:13:36.920 would be equal. My right over my life, however much of it I have left, is total. And your 109 00:13:36.920 --> 00:13:41.680 right over your life, however much of it you have left, is total. And thus my right over 110 00:13:41.680 --> 00:13:47.400 my talents, such as they may be, large or small, great or indifferent, they would be 111 00:13:47.400 --> 00:13:53.120 total. And your right over your talents, whatever they may be, would be total. You may be a 112 00:13:53.120 --> 00:13:53.520 genius. I may be just a shade better than a moron. But it doesn't make any difference. 113 00:13:53.520 --> 00:14:13.180 In other words, the concept of rights does not mean that all men are equal in talents. 114 00:14:13.180 --> 00:14:17.460 It does not mean that all men are equal and will all live the same number of years and 115 00:14:17.460 --> 00:14:22.180 have the same amount of property or the same amount of ability or anything of the sort. 116 00:14:22.180 --> 00:14:28.960 The concept of equal rights means that every human being will be totally in charge of whatever 117 00:14:28.960 --> 00:14:35.720 he has a right to, and his rights would operate in certain areas. For example, one man might 118 00:14:35.720 --> 00:14:42.060 have a great deal of property. Another man have virtually none. Well, the idea of equal 119 00:14:42.060 --> 00:14:47.100 rights does not mean that everybody has an equal amount of property. It means that whatever 120 00:14:47.100 --> 00:14:52.160 For every property he has, his rights over it are total. 121 00:14:52.160 --> 00:14:58.500 So we have a universality of rights, though we don't have equality insofar as life is 122 00:14:58.500 --> 00:15:04.800 concerned or insofar as property is concerned or anything of this sort. 123 00:15:04.800 --> 00:15:13.580 The concept of right denotes the moral position of authority, the authority of a person over 124 00:15:13.580 --> 00:15:19.180 Whatever what is his and that is always a total concept. Whatever the person has a right 125 00:15:19.180 --> 00:15:28.180 over is total, if he has a right. Very well, that's what that means. Now there is a necessary 126 00:15:28.180 --> 00:15:34.540 corollary here, a necessary inference from the concept deduced from both universality 127 00:15:34.540 --> 00:15:46.540 and Equality. And that is the concept of inalienability. If, in fact, all rights are equal, it follows 128 00:15:46.540 --> 00:15:52.980 that no one could ever lose a right. Because if a person could lose a right, then from 129 00:15:52.980 --> 00:15:57.660 that moment on rights would never be equal again. And that would be to say that one man 130 00:15:57.660 --> 00:16:03.520 has fewer rights than the others and you have to discard the whole concept of equal rights. 131 00:16:03.520 --> 00:16:13.760 So equal rights cannot possibly relate to a situation in which a man could lose a right, 132 00:16:13.760 --> 00:16:20.240 or acquire an additional right, or exchange a right for another right, or accumulate rights, 133 00:16:20.240 --> 00:16:26.340 or anything of the sort. You don't deal in rights. You deal because you have rights. 134 00:16:26.340 --> 00:16:32.680 And your rights are equal, universal, and inalienable. Now, that takes us to a very 135 00:16:32.680 --> 00:16:40.000 Where do rights come from? Obviously, there have been many statements made to the effect 136 00:16:40.000 --> 00:16:46.660 that rights are a special dispensation granted by the Lord to humankind. I would like to 137 00:16:46.660 --> 00:16:52.000 suggest that I simply don't know whether or not that is true, because I wasn't around 138 00:16:52.000 --> 00:16:57.000 at the time that the granting was made, but I would point out that it doesn't really 139 00:16:57.000 --> 00:17:05.600 We matter because whether this is the product of a special dispensation from a divine hierarchy 140 00:17:05.600 --> 00:17:12.920 of some sort, or whether it is something else that has happened some other way, the fact 141 00:17:12.920 --> 00:17:22.200 remains that it is in the nature of man to be able to operate morally by his own decision. 142 00:17:22.200 --> 00:17:26.960 And therefore we have the concept of rights. Whether we have a God or whether we do not, 143 00:17:26.960 --> 00:17:32.400 doesn't matter. We have a concept of rights because this is in the nature of man. I would 144 00:17:32.400 --> 00:17:38.920 even go so far as to specify that within any given species we could have a concept of rights. 145 00:17:38.920 --> 00:17:47.160 For instance, I would contend that although probably such things as lions are not capable 146 00:17:47.160 --> 00:17:54.280 of reasoning this one through, I would say that lions could act and often do act as though 147 00:17:54.280 --> 00:18:00.720 So they recognize the rights of other lions, because the whole concept of rights is within 148 00:18:00.720 --> 00:18:08.800 a special framework. In other words, if a lion attacked a man, I doubt very much if 149 00:18:08.800 --> 00:18:15.040 we would say or think, or if lions would say or think, well, that lion has violated the 150 00:18:15.040 --> 00:18:21.560 rights of the man. Because between lions and men, there is a natural enmity. We're a different 151 00:18:21.560 --> 00:18:33.240 I don't think of a lion's rights as being opposed to my rights. If I have to deal with 152 00:18:33.240 --> 00:18:38.200 a lion, I would like to deal with him as a piece of property either belonging to me or 153 00:18:38.200 --> 00:18:45.040 belonging to someone else. I want to deal equitably with any other person of my species. 154 00:18:45.040 --> 00:18:49.840 When it comes to the lion, well, I would like to be kind to him because I like animals, 155 00:18:49.840 --> 00:18:55.800 But I'm not going to try to deal equitably with him because I don't think I have to. 156 00:18:55.800 --> 00:18:57.760 I think he's something else again. 157 00:18:57.760 --> 00:19:01.920 And I venture to say, if we could ask the lions about it, they'd agree. 158 00:19:01.920 --> 00:19:05.920 And they would say, well, we don't have to deal equitably with men. 159 00:19:05.920 --> 00:19:11.920 As long as we deal on a fair basis with one another as fellow lions, we are recognizing 160 00:19:11.920 --> 00:19:15.240 our rights, and as far as men are concerned, to heck with them. 161 00:19:15.240 --> 00:19:17.960 They're fair game and we can eat them if we can catch them. 162 00:19:17.960 --> 00:19:22.680 And I would have to agree with the lion because that's the nature of their species, just 163 00:19:22.680 --> 00:19:29.840 as rights are a part of the nature of any species, including man. So what I'm trying 164 00:19:29.840 --> 00:19:34.720 to say, what I'm getting at is that the concept of rights does not have to be viewed 165 00:19:34.720 --> 00:19:42.880 as a theological concept. It derives from the nature of things as they are. Every living 166 00:19:42.880 --> 00:19:50.680 Any entity capable of acting morally with its own species on the basis of independent 167 00:19:50.680 --> 00:19:56.340 judgment—and I'm not sure lions have independent judgment, but let's assume that they have 168 00:19:56.340 --> 00:20:02.640 for the moment to make the point—would be capable of having and acting in terms of a 169 00:20:02.640 --> 00:20:11.280 concept of rights. And that's where we can correctly see ourselves. Men have rights only 170 00:20:11.280 --> 00:20:17.080 Money when they recognize this and deal with one another in recognition of the rights that 171 00:20:17.080 --> 00:20:24.800 the other party has. Remember all that a right does. It gives you a moral guarantee. That's 172 00:20:24.800 --> 00:20:31.760 all. It doesn't guarantee anything else. It simply says that where you have a right, 173 00:20:31.760 --> 00:20:39.400 then you can act any way you like, and your moral position is still uncontaminated. If 174 00:20:39.400 --> 00:20:47.640 If you don't have a right, well, that's another matter. So, if a right then is what 175 00:20:47.640 --> 00:20:55.340 we have said it is to it, it is universal, all human beings have them, it is equal, all 176 00:20:55.340 --> 00:21:01.920 human beings have them equally in equal amounts, and it is unalienable, and cannot be lost, 177 00:21:01.920 --> 00:21:07.860 it follows then that rights are a product of the nature of man as they are, and they 178 00:21:07.860 --> 00:21:15.620 They Cannot Be Lost. Very well. Then rights do not derive from human conduct. It doesn't 179 00:21:15.620 --> 00:21:21.740 make any difference what a person does. He does not lose a right as a result of how he 180 00:21:21.740 --> 00:21:31.780 behaves because the right inheres in him anyway. Now think what that means. If you cannot lose 181 00:21:31.780 --> 00:21:48.780 There is a right. That means that if I were to take your life, I would be wrong. That means that it wouldn't make any difference whether other people thought I ought to take your life or not. 182 00:21:48.780 --> 00:21:59.780 The taking of your life would be a wrong in itself because there is no way, no possible way, where I could get a right over your life. 183 00:21:59.780 --> 00:22:09.780 This would also mean that if you own a piece of property, there is no way that I could take that property away from you against your will rightfully. 184 00:22:09.780 --> 00:22:19.780 Now, it is obviously true that any time a person owns something, he is vulnerable insofar as the ownership is concerned. 185 00:22:19.780 --> 00:22:24.780 I may own a piece of property. That is no guarantee that it won't be stolen from me. 186 00:22:24.780 --> 00:22:30.220 I may own my life, but that is no guarantee that I might not be killed, or that ultimately 187 00:22:30.220 --> 00:22:36.260 I won't die. Obviously I will die at one time, and obviously anything that I own can 188 00:22:36.260 --> 00:22:41.660 be taken from me. What we are saying here, insofar as rights are concerned, is that where 189 00:22:41.660 --> 00:22:48.580 the right exists, although you may be vulnerable, your morality isn't vulnerable. Your morality 190 00:22:48.580 --> 00:22:56.980 is nailed down. There's a guarantee that if you have a right, then you can't lose it. 191 00:22:56.980 --> 00:23:03.620 And that's what he's meant. Therefore, any time the life of another party is taken from 192 00:23:03.620 --> 00:23:11.260 him against his will, we have a wrongful and not a rightful act. It doesn't make any difference 193 00:23:11.260 --> 00:23:16.200 whether a court of law has made this decision, whether the decision has been reached on the 194 00:23:16.200 --> 00:23:22.640 in the battlefield or wherever it has been reached, the decision is a wrong in itself. 195 00:23:22.640 --> 00:23:30.400 There is no way where you can obtain a right over another party for any reason, irrespective 196 00:23:30.400 --> 00:23:37.340 of his conduct. If his conduct has been wrong, then it has been wrong. If you now impose on 197 00:23:37.340 --> 00:23:43.840 him, that's a second wrong. One-on-one makes two. One doesn't eliminate the other. You 198 00:23:43.840 --> 00:23:55.840 So, this is a very important thing to keep in mind when we're talking in terms of human rights. 199 00:23:55.840 --> 00:24:12.840 Now, in this area of rights, we've had a great many arguments and discussions. I'm going to just build a kind of an extensive syllogism here to see if this sort of makes sense to you. 200 00:24:12.840 --> 00:24:24.920 Let me begin by the proposition that each man has a right to his life. Either that is true 201 00:24:24.920 --> 00:24:32.800 or it is false. Now let's consider whether or not it is true. If it is true, it would 202 00:24:32.800 --> 00:24:42.360 have to apply to all men universally, and it would indicate that all men could survive, 203 00:24:42.360 --> 00:24:48.400 it would be possible for them to survive without asking anyone's permission and make the kind 204 00:24:48.400 --> 00:24:54.880 of decision that would not entail molestation of anyone. Is that possible? Obviously, it's 205 00:24:54.880 --> 00:24:57.920 possible. Therefore, that statement could be true. 206 00:24:57.920 --> 00:25:05.200 But let's consider alternates. If we could say, each man has a right to his life, we 207 00:25:05.200 --> 00:25:12.320 could also say, no man has a right to his life. Is such a statement possible? No, that 208 00:25:12.320 --> 00:25:20.680 That statement would be a denial of the nature of man. It is clearly possible for a man to 209 00:25:20.680 --> 00:25:28.300 operate morally without molesting anyone and be on absolutely moral sound ground in spite 210 00:25:28.300 --> 00:25:34.220 of the fact that he is making his own decisions. So clearly the statement that no man has a 211 00:25:34.220 --> 00:25:42.240 right is a false statement. It can't be true because it is contrary to the nature of man. 212 00:25:42.240 --> 00:25:50.140 Now if we were to say, some men have rights and others don't, then it would follow that 213 00:25:50.140 --> 00:25:56.280 we have confused our terms because we are talking of rights as something that applies 214 00:25:56.280 --> 00:26:01.580 to all men equally and now when we say, well, some men have it and some men don't, we are 215 00:26:01.580 --> 00:26:06.880 in effect saying all we're dealing with is privilege because some men have it and that's 216 00:26:06.880 --> 00:26:09.760 a privilege and others don't and they don't have the privilege. 217 00:26:09.760 --> 00:26:15.840 So we've moved out of the context of rights. The whole concept here deals with a universality 218 00:26:15.840 --> 00:26:26.080 idea. So the concept that each man has a right to his life is potentially valid. Let's see 219 00:26:26.080 --> 00:26:34.520 where it takes us. Assuming this is a given, that each man has a right to his life, if 220 00:26:34.520 --> 00:26:41.960 If that is true, then it follows that since each man has a right to his life, each man 221 00:26:41.960 --> 00:26:45.600 has a right to sustain his life. 222 00:26:45.600 --> 00:26:49.040 Because if he has a right to live for one instant, certainly he would have a right to 223 00:26:49.040 --> 00:26:56.800 live for two instances and so on indefinitely as long as he could do it morally. 224 00:26:56.800 --> 00:27:02.040 If a man could live at a given instant morally, then all he has to do is continue to live 225 00:27:02.040 --> 00:27:08.120 Morally, tomorrow and the day after and the day after, and he is engaged in sustaining his life. 226 00:27:08.120 --> 00:27:12.920 If he has a right to do it once, he has a right to do it twice, and so on indefinitely, 227 00:27:12.920 --> 00:27:19.000 so long as he continues to operate within this moral context. So if a man has a right to live 228 00:27:19.000 --> 00:27:24.760 at all, he has a right to sustain his life. Now that means, of course, that he does not have a 229 00:27:24.760 --> 00:27:50.620 If this is true, then it follows that if a man has a right to sustain his life, that 230 00:27:50.620 --> 00:27:58.920 that he also has a right to own the necessary things that make it possible for him to sustain 231 00:27:58.920 --> 00:28:04.600 his life, and that would relate to food, clothing, shelter, the things that are necessary in 232 00:28:04.600 --> 00:28:10.400 order to sustain his life. If that is true, then it would follow that if a man has a right 233 00:28:10.400 --> 00:28:16.320 to his life and to sustain it and to own the things that are necessary, then he would have 234 00:28:16.320 --> 00:28:22.720 have a right to consume what he owns, he would have a right not to consume or to save what 235 00:28:22.720 --> 00:28:30.520 he owns, or he would have a right to invest what he owns, because he could do as he pleases 236 00:28:30.520 --> 00:28:35.800 with what he owns because that is a prerequisite to sustaining his life and he has a right 237 00:28:35.800 --> 00:28:43.480 to life. All I've said there is that a man has a right to be a property owner, and we'll 238 00:28:43.480 --> 00:28:46.240 We'll take up that a little later. 239 00:28:46.240 --> 00:28:46.880 Thanks very much.