It means that people have the natural rights of survival, freedom, pursuit of happiness and property. It was put forward by Grotius and Spinoza in the Netherlands, Hobbes and Locke in Britain, Voltaire, Diderot and Rousseau in France in 17 and 18 centuries.

It is believed that in the natural state before the formation of the country, people are free and equal, and life and free pursuit of happiness and property are inherent qualities and rights of people. This right is guided and stipulated by natural law (human reason).

Grotius believes that because natural law enables people to have something special or do something properly, people have the right to freedom, property and repayment of debts. Locke believes that natural laws stipulate the rights of life, freedom and property, and guide people not to infringe on the natural rights of others.

Extended data

Natural human rights are also inviolable. In order to protect this right, Grotius, Hobbes, Spinoza and Rousseau advocated giving up all rights; Locke advocates giving up some rights, such as punishing others; Jefferson advocated reserving all rights, concluding contracts, establishing a country, and using political power and legal power to protect individual freedom, equality, property or the right to pursue happiness.

Even if there are some restrictions on individual rights, it only makes everyone's individual rights protected by common forces; If the government violates this right, people have the right to take back their natural rights and overthrow their rule, or individuals have the right to resist the monarch.

Natural human rights guided the democratic revolution of modern bourgeoisie against feudal absolutism and laid the ideological foundation for the establishment of modern bourgeois political and economic system. His theoretical views were also included in the American Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the French Declaration of Human Rights in 1789.

/kloc-since the 20th century, bourgeois thinkers such as constance, Austin, Main, Bentham, Mill, and Dickey have denied the theory of natural human rights from the standpoint of idealism.

Marx, the revolutionary tutor, affirmed the positive role of the theory of natural human rights from the viewpoint of historical materialism, and clearly pointed out that the relationship between rights and obligations is a legal relationship, so it is a unique product of a certain society and is restricted by certain economic relations and class relations. It is unscientific to talk about the so-called "natural" and "inherent" rights without certain economic and class relations, which does not conform to the objective facts.