systems+thinking

A style of thinking that balances rational and intuitive, synthetic and analytic, thinking.

Natural Rights are held by each and every individual. They are set aside [not thrown away] upon entry to the community for communtity rights - which can be considered as rights in common or laws of the state. For efficiency, some individuals, group/s or organs of the community are granted domination rights [right to order or control within the boundaries of the community rights] but these rights are to serve the community as a whole not to benefit the dominating individual, group or organ of community alone. In other words, the community gives the rights of domination over itself for itself. If the individual in a community is to suffer at the hands of the community, more so than he would normally do upon his own efforts, s/he has the natural right to dissolve themselves from the community and return to their natural rights - regardless of what any idiot within the community considers to be right or wrong, good or evil, or in need of discussion. []

John Rawls - [|A Theory of Justice] - Rawls uses a [|'Veil of Ignorance']to discern how redistributive justice should operate. I'd start here if i were you!
 * Further reading:**

Nozcik - Anarchy, State and Utopia - supposedly an argument against redistributive justice by invoking property as a right. However. anyone that concludes their key chapter [7 redistributive justice] by saying that sometimes their writing can be somewhat 'sketchy' and 'hopes that it has been understood'probably should stick to the 'cannabis' that they enjoy so much as an excuse when writing such a work. He does make for an interesting case for state arising from the protection of its individuals and thus growing out of anarchy.

Jean-Jaques Rousseau - A Social Contract - Tacitly, makes the case for the above rights and introduces the role of the legislator. Here are some excerpts:

//'...As soon as men can disobey with impugnity, they may do so legitimately; and since the strongest is always in the right, the only thing is to act in such a way that one may be the strongest. But what sort of a right is it that perishes when force ceases?..'// //'....To find a form of association which may defend and protect with the whole force of the community the person and property of every associate, and by means of which each, coalescing with all, may nevertheless obey only himself, and remain as free as before. Such is the fundamental problem of which the social contract furnishes the solution.// //The clauses of this contract are so determined by the nature of the act that the slightest modification would render them vain and ineffectual; so that, although they have perhaps been formally enunciated, they are everywhere the same, everywhere tacitly admitted and recognised, until, the social pact being violated, each man regains his original rights and recovers his natural liberty, whilst losing the conventional liberty for which he renounced it.// //These clauses, rightly understood, are reducible to only one, viz. the total alienation to the whole communtity of each associate with all his rights; for, in the first place, since each gives himself entirely, the conditions are equal for all; and, the conditions being equal for all, no one has any interest in making them burdensome to others...'// //'...Let us reduce this whole balance o terms easy to compare. What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to anything which tempts him and which he is able to attain; what he gains is civil liberty// [if there is one] //and property in all that he possesses. In order that we may not be mistaken about these compensations, we must clearly distinguish natural liberty, which is limited only by the powers of the individual, from civil liberty, which is nothing but the result of force or the right of first occupancy, from property...'//

//'...it is that instead of destroying natural equality, the fundamental pact, on the contrary, substitutes a moral and lawful equality for the physical inequality which nature imposed upon men, so that, although unequal in strength or intellect, they all become equal by convention and legal right.*// //*Under bad governments [or domination rights therein] this equality is only apparent and illusory; it serves only to keep the poor in their misery and the rich in their usurption. In fact, laws are always useful to those who possess and injurious to those that have nothing; whence it follows that the social state is advantagous to men only so far as they all have something, and none of them has too much..'//