Natural rights v government granted rights

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You make quantum leaps.

Due process is a process, a right under our contract with ourselves. It is NOT an inherent right in all relationships. It isn't derived from government but by virtue of the contract of our forefathers. Outsiders do not inherit this right.

Privileges are driver's licenses.

Saying it is a "right under our contract with ourselves" is the same thing as saying it is a right that flows from government (which is our contract with ourselves).

I never argued due process was a "right in all relationships." I did argue it was a natural right we have that must be observed before other natural rights (such as life, liberty and property) may be infringed upon. Without due process, the other natural rights are no more than a "privilege." All natural rights are inetricably connected to the natural right of due process. Comparing it to a driver's license is absurd.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Saying it is a "right under our contract with ourselves" is the same thing as saying it is a right that flows from government (which is our contract with ourselves).

I never argued due process was a "right in all relationships." I did argue it was a natural right we have that must be observed before other natural rights (such as life, liberty and property) may be infringed upon. Without due process, the other natural rights are no more than a "privilege." All natural rights are inetricably connected to the natural right of due process. Comparing it to a driver's license is absurd.

If you wish to have a civil discussion, please don't distort what I post.

I do not draw a comparison between a driver's license and due process. They are not the same. My illustration of a driver's license was to describe what a privilege is.

Either I'm unclear or you're purposefully distorting what I'm posting.

Contracts between persons is not tantamount to government. You can say that, but it doesn't make it so.

The converse is how I see it. A government granted right is the concept that God ordained the King and bestowed certain rights upon the King to bestow upon those whom He pleases. That's a government created right.

If a social contract emerges from persons, those are "negotiated rights", not government rights.

And then we have limited natural rights, those emerging from birth.

Due process doesn't exist every where and thus in my book isn't a natural right because unless it exists universal, it's not natural. Due process is a negotiated right. Only those persons who participate in the negotiations, whose parents bestow it, or agree to them by contract, are entitled to them. Interlopers are not entitled to negotiated rights, unless we unilaterally and gratuitiously decide to bestow them. But they are not inherent.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If you wish to have a civil discussion, please don't distort what I post.

I do not draw a comparison between a driver's license and due process. They are not the same. My illustration of a driver's license was to describe what a privilege is.

Either I'm unclear or you're purposefully distorting what I'm posting.

Contracts between persons is not tantamount to government. You can say that, but it doesn't make it so.

The converse is how I see it. A government granted right is the concept that God ordained the King and bestowed certain rights upon the King to bestow upon those whom He pleases. That's a government created right.

If a social contract emerges from persons, those are "negotiated rights", not government rights.

And then we have limited natural rights, those emerging from birth.

Due process doesn't exist every where and thus in my book isn't a natural right because unless it exists universal, it's not natural. Due process is a negotiated right. Only those persons who participate in the negotiations, whose parents bestow it, or agree to them by contract, are entitled to them. Interlopers are not entitled to negotiated rights, unless we unilaterally and gratuitiously decide to bestow them. But they are not inherent.

I misunderstood what you wrote with driver's licenses. A product of reading quickly.

If a natural right isn't a natural right until it is universally accepted, then there are no natural rights. Nothing is universally accepted.

Your version of what constitutes government rights works if the government in question is a monarchy. In a democracy, the social compact IS the government. We agree what government is and what it isn't. That said, our rights do not flow from that compact. They are natural (including our right to rebel and create a new government). We do not "bestow" those rights, to interlopers or anyone else. They are inherent. The fact that much of the world doesn't adhere to that premise doesn't mean the rights are not natural rights, it means much of the world is violating the natural rights of others.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I misunderstood what you wrote with driver's licenses. A product of reading quickly.

If a natural right isn't a natural right until it is universally accepted, then there are no natural rights. Nothing is universally accepted.

Your version of what constitutes government rights works if the government in question is a monarchy. In a democracy, the social compact IS the government. We agree what government is and what it isn't. That said, our rights do not flow from that compact. They are natural (including our right to rebel and create a new government). We do not "bestow" those rights, to interlopers or anyone else. They are inherent. The fact that much of the world doesn't adhere to that premise doesn't mean the rights are not natural rights, it means much of the world is violating the natural rights of others.

I see natural rights as only those rights which you are capable of enforcing yourself. Thus the natural rights are very limited.

Freedom to think. Freedom to believe. And if you're fercious enough, you can protect a small spot of turf. Freedom to the pursuit of happiness. I haven't sat down to catelogue them.

Negotiated rights are not government rights, as contracts can disappear with residual rights to revert back to the beneficiaries of said contract.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I see natural rights as only those rights which you are capable of enforcing yourself. Thus the natural rights are very limited.

Freedom to think. Freedom to believe. And if you're fercious enough, you can protect a small spot of turf. Freedom to the pursuit of happiness. I haven't sat down to catelogue them.

Negotiated rights are not government rights, as contracts can disappear with residual rights to revert back to the beneficiaries of said contract.

So the extent and number of natural rights depends upon the size of your biceps and your hand eye coordination? That's a rather unpleasant view of nature and not the one that spawned our nation's founding principles.

WHere in the delcaration of Independence does it say that due process is a natural right? I have the right to be alive, to have liberty and to pursue, but not necessarily be, happy. Of course these may be limited by social compact until we can't stand it anymore and we have a Rousseau-esque revoultion. Where does due process fit in to this?

Moreover, aren't the terrorists in Gitmo outside of our social compact? what standing do they have, in a government as social compact, of complaining about due process?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

So the extent and number of natural rights depends upon the size of your biceps and your hand eye coordination? That's a rather unpleasant view of nature and not the one that spawned our nation's founding principles.

WHere in the delcaration of Independence does it say that due process is a natural right? I have the right to be alive, to have liberty and to pursue, but not necessarily be, happy. Of course these may be limited by social compact until we can't stand it anymore and we have a Rousseau-esque revoultion. Where does due process fit in to this?

Moreover, aren't the terrorists in Gitmo outside of our social compact? what standing do they have, in a government as social compact, of complaining about due process?

As I have stated, due process is the linchpin of all of the other natural rights. It is the gatekeeper. If it goes, so too go the others since they may all be taken away without a fair hearing.

Because due process is a natural right, people do not need to be a part of our social contract to receive it. As the champion of natural rights, we, of all countries, should be happy to afford them due process.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not all of our natural rights. The founders knew this as well, noting that those rights were "among" other natural rights.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

As I have stated, due process is the linchpin of all of the other natural rights. It is the gatekeeper. If it goes, so too go the others since they may all be taken away without a fair hearing.

Because due process is a natural right, people do not need to be a part of our social contract to receive it. As the champion of natural rights, we, of all countries, should be happy to afford them due process.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not all of our natural rights. The founders knew this as well, noting that those rights were "among" other natural rights.

WHat process is due, from a natural rights perspective? This sounds circular to me.

Do you not agree that members of a social contract may agree to limit one or more natural rights? If so, then are you saying that we are required to grant natural rights to those not part of our social contract even if we have agreed to a limit on those same rights?

I gather your assertion of the founder's commitment to DP as a natural right is supported by certain of the bill of rights? You may tell me that this is obvious, but help an old guy out; where is this obvious fact set forth?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

So the extent and number of natural rights depends upon the size of your biceps and your hand eye coordination? That's a rather unpleasant view of nature and not the one that spawned our nation's founding principles.

WHere in the delcaration of Independence does it say that due process is a natural right? I have the right to be alive, to have liberty and to pursue, but not necessarily be, happy. Of course these may be limited by social compact until we can't stand it anymore and we have a Rousseau-esque revoultion. Where does due process fit in to this?

Moreover, aren't the terrorists in Gitmo outside of our social compact? what standing do they have, in a government as social compact, of complaining about due process?

The terroists have no standing to object as non-participants in our social contract and if one wanted to create some sort of international compact, they are even outside that loose coalition, thus they possess no standing.

Due process is not a natural right but a right of contract in order to agree to mediate the conflicts of rights.

[non sequitur]

When, exactly, did the Creator specify what those inalienable were? Did God have a private conversation with Thomas Jefferson and lay down those inalienable rights, or did Jefferson just presume to know God's will? For all practical purposes, rights are only inalienable because people agree that they should be preserved.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

When, exactly, did the Creator specify what those inalienable were? Did God have a private conversation with Thomas Jefferson and lay down those inalienable rights, or did Jefferson just presume to know God's will? For all practical purposes, rights are only inalienable because people agree that they should be preserved.

He did not. And, of course, the entire discussion is based on theory. You are correct that the definition of natural rights is imprecise. Of course, so is the source of any other right. Both sides of the argument deal in abstraction here.

My point, however, is that if there is any right which is natural, and our society holds that there is, it must be due process. Without that right, all other natural rights would be forfeit at the whim of the government.

The premise of natural rights is the foundation of our government and society. The founders did their best to set forth natural rights as they saw fit (and did a remarkable job, I might add). The direction of our government today appears headed down the opposite path.