(Image obtained from: link)
The notion that a criterion of what could be called an “existing law” independent of the subjects that know iy, I consider it false. The actions justified in such criteria have no justification in reality ultimately. It can be called “a right” to many things, but objectivity in the sense of independent existence of what a subject thinks at a given time, would be in what we associate the term “right”, but not the criterion itself. This is due to the nature of the meaning and our associative capacity (see this topic in my work “Propositions-see publications menu).
I have thought about the notion of rights, and different positions are problematic given the high reward states notion (see the concept of high reward states in my work “Propositions), and certain rights can be reduced to others. I do not reject the manifestation in the political context of what has been considered the “right to life”, “freedom” and “the pursuit of happiness”, I would simply argue that these so-called rights are a manifestation of the same thing. I consider “right” as “possibility”. The main right or rather the only (the others are reduced to this), is the right to use spaces and objects for ones own purposes, which can be understood as the “property right” (I consider this is the most meaningful and apropiate use of the term property in a moral an political context). Although property is not completely eliminated as I clarify in the notes below, one can deny it to another, where one would present property, the one who denies it (that is why I say that it is not completely denied), this is the case if one person uses spaces and objects of another for his or her own ends,. This is the right that should be considered in the political context and has its limit to the extent that denies the high reward states, this limit would be given in the exceptions to the defense given a conflict as a function of the State of which I have spoken in my aforementioned work “Propositions”.
Is there such a right? Well, if by right we understand “possibility”, and if the human being has the possibility of using objects and spaces for his purposes, then that right exists. Others may raise other criteria of what one calls right. But as they refer to a criterion, one has no justification in reality ultimately to impose it on others who are guided by other ends, otherwise there is a conflict. The notion of rights that does not lead to the initiation of a conflict primarily, is that which arises from the very notion of high reward states. Then the defense given the conflict implies to defend the possibility of one to act as one wishes, to use spaces and objects for ones purposes, given an imposition of another, and not having initiated a conflict previously. I also add, as I indicated in propositions (this following a trasnlation from spanish): “When I talk about objects, we must understand the role that information plays with respect to this, what can be done with the information referring to a person, I mean the personal information of a subject, such as the name of the subject, where he lives, what he does, etc, information that is used, in the daily life of the subject, first of all, by the subject, but above all, emanates from the property of the subject, or of the tutors, in the case of a minor, it is based on making a specific use of the property of the subject and therefore, that information of the person present in the property of others, where the purposes are contrary to those of the person referred to that information, this would suppose a violation of that person’s property. This question of personal information can then be considered in the event that someone commits defamation, for example. I believe that one could use the personal information of someone as someone who establishes a conflict to defend someone from a previous conflict, initially established by that person whose property the information emanates, even if the person in question does not agree to the use of the same information and an attack on the property is ultimately seeked, that is, to use the personal information of an aggressor and accomplices for the defense.”