Ragnar-it is hard to be as eloquent as the father of anarchism himself, Proudhon, and that famous quote would just not be the same without the word "right" in it. One of my favorites.
My argument is really no different than Lysander Spooners, and I consider myself somewhat of a student of his. I find his argument presented in No Treason
to be a useful tool in turning even the most rabid Statists over to the truth.
I said-Natural rights exist as agreements between rational humans. The second they violate my self-ownership they do not exist. That's it.
The government is not rational, therefore it could never even recognize my rights let alone protect them. I have a question; if give up our rights, what excuse could the government use to maintain it's existence? Even if we gave up our rights, wouldnt we still retain the action in back of our rights?
I believe in natural rights only as an agreement between rational individuals. With the premise always being self-ownership. Self-ownership above all, that means I keep all of my property that is justly acquired by me. Not even having any of it stolen for "justice" or "security". Self-ownership means not being forced to fund the incarceration of criminals. How does everyone feel about that?
I wrote this for a website called zerogov-http://zerogov.com/?p=1867