Natural Rights vs Natural Law

"Meg's gravy is famous. It's practically a food group."
--Dustin 'Dusty' Davis (Twister)

The idea that individuals arrive on this planet with with a set of 'natural rights,' including freedom to pursue their own destinies, is a compelling one that has marshalled considerable advancement in human thought and action over the past 300+ years. Jefferson, for example, evoked these 'unalienable rights' in documenting America's rationale for seeking its independence.

While many (myself included) indeed view these natural rights as true and self-evident, there are those who disagree. Any debate on the issue inevitably boils down to one's philosophical and religious viewpoints. Such viewpoints will always be contestable, leaving issues grounded in them unresolved by reasoned thought.

To obtain better resolution, I prefer to think things thru using a 'natural law' rather than natural rights perspective. Nature grants no rights. Instead, it grants scant means of substinence while people's wants are practically unlimited (Mises, 1951). In their efforts to survive and prosper, people must cope with a set of natural laws that axiomatically govern economic behavior.

While this approach is not without weaknesses (e.g., ignorance of some natural laws, potential for laws to evolve over time), it helps me come to more reasonable conclusions when engaging in critical thought.

Reference

Mises, L. 1951. Socialism: An economic and socialogical analysis. New Haven: Yale University Press.