Before I progress much further, I should probably state the foundation of my politics: a belief in unlimited human rights. Each man has a right to his health, liberty, and property, so long as he does not use his liberty to impair the rights of others. I believe this out of simple logical necessity: it is impossible to admit the existence of rights without also admitting their indivisibility, unless one permits a glaring contradiction.
Let us say that I possess the right of property over a certain possession of mine. If my right to it is absolute, I may do with it whatever I want. If my right to it is not absolute, then in certain circumstances another person possesses the right of property. But who determines the lawful owner under a given set of circumstances? Someone must have the right to determine whose property it is at any given time. But then that person becomes the sole owner of the property, for he has the right to determine the use of the property. Hence, if I can determine the lawful controller of the property, then my right over it is absolute, for I could judge it to always be under my control. Similarly, if the right of arbitration belonged to another, then he could judge it to be under his control, and my right would not be limited, but nonexistent. Thus, I conclude that for a right to exist at all, it must be absolute.
I do not deny the possibility of group rights, such as democratic control (such as a joint-stock corporation). But in this instance, the right is not a partial right belonging to each shareholder, but an absolute right belonging to the shareholders as a body, voting in proportion to their holdings. The indivisibility of rights persists, as at all times. The only alternative to indivisible individual rights is the absence of rights entirely. No stance between the absence of individual rights and their indivisibility is logically consistent.
