Re-reading Bassani’s great article on Jefferson, about which I recently blogged, I note an interesting quote by Jefferson, from one of his letters. In the letter Jefferson speaks about the self-evident status of certain truths (such as those mentioned in the Declaration of Independence):

These axioms are so self-evident that no explanation can make them plainer; for he is not to be reasoned with who says that non-existence can control existence, or that nothing can move something.

Now what I find interesting is that it is clear that a criminal determined to attack a peaceful man’s body or property is also “not to be reasoned with”. It simply is pointless to try to rationally dissuade someone who does not care about justifying his actions or about the victim’s life. Therefore, it would seem to follow that, since criminals (aggressors) are “not to be reasoned with,” then the rights which the criminal is invading are by this token “self-evident”.

Put it this way: if I claim I have a right to be secure in my person and possessions, why do I need to prove it? To whom do I need to prove it? Either to fellow civilized men, or to those determined to invade these supposed rights. but if the former, no proof is necessary, since these fellow men share my belief in individual rights; and if the latter, any proof is pointless since they are directed, as it were, at the equivalent of animals. One does not talk a tiger out of attacking him.

The Best of Stephan Kinsella