10-20-2006, 06:49 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
I think our main point of disagreement lies in how we view natural rights. Natural rights have no real purpose unless viewed in the context of society (one with or without law). Just as DP may be defined in multiple different ways, so too may property, life and liberty. All of your criticisms of DP are equally applicable to the others. As to my statement that natural rights may not be alienated, it is a statement with an exception that only applies through another natural right- DP. Do you believe a person being executed is only having their natural right "inhibited?" |
|
10-23-2006, 07:18 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Disclaimer: I have not read the whole thread.
I did however read the part of the Declaration of Independence, which I reproduce in part here: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." I have two thoughts: This is a statement about what government is and from where its power is derived, that is, the consent of the governed. It is also a statment about what a government must not do to the governed. One obvious problem with applying these particular notions to enemy combatants is that a great many of them are not among the governed, so the government that results form the social compact derives no power from them and owes them nothing. This is nowhere more true than on the battlefield where a soldier on behalf of the government (that is on behalf of us all) has the authority to take away the most precious right of an enemy without any due process. So from a natural rights perspective, that enemy on the battlefield is not entitled to anything from the enemy government. The more tricky part, of course, is when the person is not captured on the battlefield but nevertheless is captured during the course of an act hostile to the government or the governed, trickier still if that happens on US soil, trickier still if that person is a citizen of this country. I personally would err on the side of giving due process to every US citizen unless they are on a foreign battlefield (I read the Constitution to require this) and would additionally give it to any person apprehended on US soil. Any foreign person taking hostile action against the US anywhere else in the world, IMO, is entitled to zero from the US government from a natural rights perspective. There may be other reasons to accord him due process or other rights, but nartural law is not one, IMO.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
10-24-2006, 03:42 AM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
I think you misread the Declaration of Independence. It is saying that ALL men are granted certain inalienable rights (the debate in the thread you did not read deals with what rights are inalienable rights). Government is formed to SECURE those rights. Securing those rights is not the same as saying people are not entitled to the rights unless they are part of the governed. It means they ARE entitled to those rights, and a good government will ensure they receive the rights to which they are entitled. The preamble does not distinguish between governed and non-governed. It quite clearly applies to everyone by virtue of their mere existence. |
|
10-24-2006, 03:28 PM | #44 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
I agree with UtahDan's interpretation that it applies only to the contracting parties and that persons found in nature not part of our society are not entitled to its benefits.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
10-26-2006, 02:43 AM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Quote:
You aren't arguing, are you, that the United States federal government is formed to secure the rights of Iraqis? If so, then I'm surprised that you didn't support the war on a human rights basis. I think it is important to recall that the Declaration was written in response to the oppression not of the government of some other country, but the oppression of the writer's own government. Does the French government owe it to me to secure my liberties? Why would they owe me that? I get your point that it would be nice if all governments everywhere tried to secure the rights of all human beings, but this eutopian desire is not the practical desire expressed by Jefferson that HIS government not oppress HIM.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
|
10-26-2006, 02:48 AM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
They then argued that, given our natural right to certain freedoms, we should expect our government to secure those rights. When it did not secure those rights, men have a right to overthrow their government and start over (which is what the Declaration of Independence then did). The irony, as applied to this situation, is that we believe in natural rights and we believe that government is instituted to protect those rights. Therefore, when it comes to the protection of those rights (i.e., securing those rights) we should have no problem extending those rights to others. Iraq has not secured the rights of its people. It doesn't mean we fail to recognize that they have rights which SHOULD HAVE BEEN secured but were not by their government. For us to then ignore certain rights based on the lack of a government compact is appalling. |
|
10-26-2006, 03:01 AM | #47 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
10-26-2006, 03:17 AM | #48 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The fact that you are stubbornly maintaining this impossible position is preventing you from seeing that in my original post I staked out what I think is a great deal of common ground with you. That is, I would apply a very broad definition of who gets due process whether we actually owe it to them or not. I think at the end of the day we would both say that we ought to err on the side of giving more due process to more people that giving less. My bottom line however, which I can't so far get you to acknowledge, is the simple premise that if we are sometimes justified in killing a non-citizen, then it must be true that not every person everywhere is entitled to the rights from OUR government that you and I get by virtue of membership. You may believe that we (our government) SHOULD secure the rights of all (from which it naturally and inescapably follows that shooting someone on a battlefield would never be permissible), but as I said before, this utopian desire is not desire Jefferson had in mind as he penned that famous missive to King George.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo Last edited by UtahDan; 10-26-2006 at 03:20 AM. |
|||
10-26-2006, 03:55 AM | #49 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Quote:
So, for those Iraqis we capture (or any other nationality), yes, we have a responsibility to ensure that their basic rights are not violated. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
10-26-2006, 03:56 AM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|