Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.  

- Romans 2:14 & 2:15

My recent essay “On Natural Rights, the Egoists Have Nothing” has generated a few thoughtful responses. Most notably, Trevor Blake, the egoist extraordinaire whom I challenge by name, took my argument to task in a piece he calls “Tu Ne Cede Malis.” The phrase is, of course, a tribute to Ludwig von Mises, who Blake is kind enough to praise in his article. I thank Mr. Blake for his response, and will do my best to refute his refutation – as is the job of any decent writer or thinker.The theory of natural rights (and it’s corollary natural law) isn’t an easy thing to defend. Much of the precepts come off as common sense, but they can easily be denied with a simple “no, that’s not right and you can’t prove it.” Natural rights theorists are stuck using demonstrative examples to make their case. It’s an uphill battle, and the side of denial is always equipped with an easy out. The egoist critique is especially potent because it denies everything but self. But even when put to the test, natural rights still exist, even if others claim otherwise.To begin his critique, Blake says my claim that natural rights don’t dictate you put an “inordinate amount of interest in the desires of others” is illogical. If someone believes in universal goodness, it follows that they help other people achieve that same goodness. Now, that’s true for some good-hearted folks trying to live in a more loving society, but living within the realm of natural rights doesn’t necessitate being a Good Samaritan. As Blake himself writes, “advocates of natural rights only sometimes have an interest in the desires of others.” That’s true; but it doesn’t affirm that anyone acting within the framework of natural law must knock on doors to convince others of the same belief system. The ultimate natural right – the right of self-ownership – can be acted upon and projected onto others without obscene badgering.The critique moves on to terminology. Blake claims that my careful choosing of “right” and “desire” is revealing of a consciously picked divide to make my case stronger. I claim the “right” of self-defense against a bum who “desires” to do me bodily harm. Why this is suspicious, I don’t know. I make it perfectly clear that there is no right to mug innocent people. If Blake is claiming that the bum could say it’s his “right” to pilfer through my pockets, that’s fine. But then we are back to the “he said, she said” dilemma that prevents universal, natural rights from being accepted by everyone.Blake’s skeptical attitude toward natural rights is most evident when he writes,

Mr. Miller wrote the strongest defense of natural rights that he could write, the strongest defense that has ever been written, and the strongest defense that could ever be written…

That may come off as a compliment, but it’s not. Blake correctly identifies my case for natural rights as being irrefutable. I say natural rights exist, no matter what. To his credit, my argument does come off cheap if I offer nothing in terms of evidence to back it up. So what proof do I have of natural rights? If the burden of proof is so steep, is there any way to comprehensively climb the mountain, place my flag, and declare victory?I can only say: maybe.My case for natural rights and natural law isn’t point-blank, sound, or easily stated; rather, it’s inferred from a number of observances, logical conclusions, and the willingness to see what’s below the surface. Essentially, it’s derived from an understanding that a moral order exists within all things as the result of a Creator (though a Creator is not necessary). Everything has a specific “nature” to it, or a calling to behave in a certain manner. A chair, formed out of inanimate wood, is used for sitting, while bees create honey. Light shining through a prism splits into multiple colors. Condensed water in the atmosphere precipitates. To each is their nature. Can I prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my belief is objectively correct? No; but I can come pretty damn close.It’s easy to state that animals have natures and act on them in such a way that is satisfactory to a larger order. The lion kills the gazelle and birds fly in groups. We see or read about these things and don’t think of them as out of the ordinary. The question remains: what of man? Thanks to the blessing of free will and rationality, man is easy to separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. As Chesterton put it in his masterful Orthodoxy,

[C]ertain modern dreamers say that ants and bees have a society superior to ours. They have, indeed, a civilization; but that very truth only reminds us that it is an inferior civilization. Who ever found an ant-hill decorated with the statues of celebrated ants? Who has seen a bee-hive carved with the images of gorgeous queens of old? No; the chasm between man and other creatures may have a natural explanation, but it is a chasm.

Men have the ability to build societies based on common characteristics and the division of labor. They have the ability to remember and incorporate the past. They have the temperance to get along enough so that wealth increases in a way that benefits all. Most of all, they have the capacity to love one another. Why is it then, men can perform genocide? If peace is a choice, why is war sometimes chosen instead? If it’s natural and goodly for men and women to love one another as they love themselves, why are theft and violence still around?There is no easy answer to this question other than man sometimes chooses to act out of his moral boundaries. We can use reason to deduce good versus bad, but that doesn’t always act as a bulwark against evil. Free will can be both a curse and a blessing, depending on its use.The ability to rationally make choices is a defining feature of man. Not only does it give us a means to act and coordinate with one another, making a choice also demonstrates the concept of self-ownership. For men, the idea of self-ownership seems relatively apparent. We own ourselves, and not anyone else. Humans have the cognitive capacity to not only understand “ownership” but also to establish contracts. That seems like proof enough that man’s nature is built for property ownership. If Blake wants a more solid case, there is always the Hoppean theory of argumentation ethics that holds discussion itself is evidence of self-ownership. If neither Blake nor I owned ourselves, we wouldn’t engage in an intellectual back and forth. Denying self-ownership ends up being a contradiction.Is Mr. Blake looking for more concrete proof of natural rights? If so, I don’t have it; and I doubt any man will one day obtain it. At the same time, there is no irrefutable evidence of egoism as the one, true governing theory of life. Blake describes egoism as the “philosophy of the self.” To that I say: so what? Egoism isn’t the only theory that says the self exists. Acknowledging one’s own existence is the first step in thinking about reality as a whole anyway.Interestingly, Blake speaks highly of Ludwig von Mises’s theory on the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism. I agree with his assessment; Mises’s trenchant observance that economic calculation can’t be done in absence of private property is an incredible work of genius. It’s also not an accident of nature. Whether created on purpose or happenstance, the inability of efficient economic coordination under socialist regimes is, in fact, a law. It exists, no matter what dictators promise the plebes.Blake says that natural rights really amount to nothing if they are based on self-ownership. But saying that a right “does nothing” denies all meaning behind the concept to begin with. If my version of “rights” amount to nothing, that begs the question of why they are even worth discussing. The right to self-ownership isn’t a static, do-nothing thought construct. It provides meaningful understanding on how to behave in society. It also helps in defining the concept of “self,” which can be useful in understanding metaphysical truths.In closing, Blake writes, “[I]f Mr. Miller thinks civil agreements among well-informed free agents can resolve all conflicts, I suggest he needs to get out more often.” I’ll answer by saying: I get out enough. In fact, I get out enough to know that “well-informed free agents” are not always capable of reaching amicable solutions. I never claimed man was perfect. I never claimed he was of truly upright character as long as he understands what’s really expected of him. In other words, I’m not a utopian. If Mr. Blake and I can agree on one thing, I hope it’s the inability of any man to act as the steward over all humanity.Though it may be true that history’s dictators held theories on why they possessed a metaphysical reason for their rule, they were mistaken. Any kind of moral theory outside pure authoritarianism would be illogical. If one man can claim ownership over things, then other men have the same ability. No one ever said natural rights couldn’t be abused if they were misunderstood.I’m glad to see Mr. Blake doesn’t fully endorse the “might makes right” attitude. At the beginning of the critique, he writes “Tu ne cede malis, indeed.” I actually prefer Matthew 5:10, but the sentiment is very much the same. Still, Blake endorses the idea of making evil “earn your company.” All I can say is co-opting evil for your own gain is still evil. Faustian bargains destroy your legitimacy as a moral compass. I may not be able to conclusively prove the existence of metaphysical order, but at least I can refuse to hold hands with the Devil.At its core, natural law is supposed to be an intuitive understanding of ethics and morals built within. It’s the discoverable truth present in all things. In his 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor, the late pontiff John Paul II wrote of Romans 2:14,

In the depths of his own conscience man detects a law which he does not impose on himself, but which holds him to obedience…For man has in his heart a law written by God.

The theory of natural law and rights may not be correct, but I have a sneaking suspicion it is. All I can say is that the knowledge exists inside me. It exists inside Trevor Blake as well, if only he chooses to see it.

James E. Miller is editor-in-chief of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada, where this article was originally published.

Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!