Had a little conversation with someone on the anarchy101 subreddit about human/natural rights, and I had the feeling that it wasn't gonna get anywhere. So now I wonder how other people think about this stuff. Maybe there's some crucial aspect to this that neither of us acknowledged?
Basically, in a Stirner-esque moment I insisted that rights (as something inherent to every human) don't exist, and that they're not a particularly useful tool for anarchists. I pointed out that regardless of what rights we supposedly have or don't have, we already can do whatever we want, and we already are inescapably responsible for everything we do. I can't help but feel that "rights" are inherently tied to morality, and only really make sense in a severely haunted worldview.
In response, the other user pointed out that 1) Plenty of anarchists (Kropotkin, Goldman, Michel,...) used rights as an ethical framework and that 2) most people do not think that they can do whatever they want and do not feel responsible for everything they do. They have been living in a mind prison for their entire lives. That's why talking about and expanding the concept human rights is important.
Am I wrong in dismissing rights in an anarchy101 forum that easily? Am I carelessly mis-using Stirner so I don't have to think about this stuff?
existential1 wrote
Rights are simply ideas that are used to modify or codify preferred behavior. I think your critique of rights is more suited to a conversation about how the rights were agreed upon and enforced moreso than if they are necessary at all.
Nothing is necessary unless you want a specific outcome. Eating isnt necessary, unless i want to live. Being monogamous isn't necessary, unless I want to be with someone who believes that it is and won't be with someone who isn't.
In that vein, rights are just a tool for a group of people to observe collectively accepted behaviors. Again, they can be poor tools if the rights are defined and reaffirmed infrequently or people are subjected to them who never had ample opportunity to meaningfully voice concerns about them. But there's nothing inherently good or bad about them. They are just tools.