Natural rights v government granted rights

[Cali Coug]

I don't know why nobody else seems to be talking about this issue in the context of the Guantanamo Bay detainees. I have yet to hear a single person make the argument I am making, even though I find the argument to be an obvious one.

The Constitution was formed to carve out rights of the government and reserve all others to the people. The Constitution does NOT give us rights. The founders would have been deeply offended by such a notion.

The founders strongly believed in natural rights (i.e., we are born with certain inalienable rights given to us by God). They did not believe government granted us rights. While the definition of "natural rights" may be difficult to pinpoint with precision, some rights are clearly natural rights. One such right, that of due process, is perhaps more fundamental than all the rest because without it, every other right may be taken away at a whim.

The founders understood the importance of due process, dedicating multiple amendments in the Bill of Rights to the notion. Today, Bush argues that Guantanamo detainees have no right to a trial because they are illegal combatants. The true danger of that statement is that it suggests the government creates our rights (if true, it has no obligation to grant them to us).

To be sure, our rights may be restricted by the government when we engage in certain improper conduct. However, such restrictions may only come after a fair hearing. Bush would skip the fair hearing and move to immediate elimination of rights. To do so is to abandon the notion of natural rights and destroy the very foundation of the republic.

[Archaea]

Two words: false dichotomy.

I don't accept your premises or conclusions. Yes I'm familiar with the concepts discussed by the Framers. However, it seems more reasonable to believe in multiple concepts, such as inchoate rights, mature rights, privileges of societies, savage animals etc.

An individual only has those right matured which he himself can personally defend. What good is a theoretical right which is unrealizable?

Societies do not grant rights but rather privileges arising by virtue of association for mutual benefit.

Civilized individuals by virtue of action mature inalieanable rights.

An uncivilized, unaligned individual has only those inchoate rights which he personally can defend by his own might.

More later.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Two words: false dichotomy.

I don't accept your premises or conclusions. Yes I'm familiar with the concepts discussed by the Framers. However, it seems more reasonable to believe in multiple concepts, such as inchoate rights, mature rights, privileges of societies, savage animals etc.

An individual only has those right matured which he himself can personally defend. What good is a theoretical right which is unrealizable?

Societies do not grant rights but rather privileges arising by virtue of association for mutual benefit.

Civilized individuals by virtue of action mature inalieanable rights.

An uncivilized, unaligned individual has only those inchoate rights which he personally can defend by his own might.

More later.

When, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation.



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.

[Archaea]

Just parrotting it, doesn't mean I accept it lock, stock and barrel. You'll have to do better than that.

It was a nice argument when the Founders made the argument. But it was incomplete and failed to consider many aspects.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Just parrotting it, doesn't mean I accept it lock, stock and barrel. You'll have to do better than that.

It was a nice argument when the Founders made the argument. But it was incomplete and failed to consider many aspects.

It is the very foundation of our government. "ALL" men are born with certain INALIENABLE rights. Not some, depending on their circumstances.

The difficulty with your approach is that an entity must determine who has rights and who doesn't. That entity almost has to be the government. They make the determination without giving the subject of the inquiry due process. In other words, they decide if they will give someone rights or not (i.e., the rights flow from the government).

It isn't a false dichotomy. No matter how you slice it, those are the options. Our rights have a source. That source is either God or a man-made institution.

[Archaea]

Wrong again.

Men are born into nature. By virtue of nature, men possess certain abilities.

It is my position that mankind has at birth inchoate rights which either mature or whither according to civility or incivility. If one becomes an animal, that person possesses only those rights he or she can protect via the flesh.

Persons developing in a civil manner, can congregate together creating a social contract divesting of mature rights for the augmentation of those rights.

If persons such as detainees remove themselves from society, their rights remain inchoate and societies need not recognize the maturity of something never matured.

As to your incorrect argument that it forces entities to make judgments, all a "fair hearing" is an entity judgment, so your argument is circular.

A false dichotomy was posed by you, not nuanced or recognizing reality.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Wrong again.

Men are born into nature. By virtue of nature, men possess certain abilities.

It is my position that mankind has at birth inchoate rights which either mature or whither according to civility or incivility. If one becomes an animal, that person possesses only those rights he or she can protect via the flesh.

Persons developing in a civil manner, can congregate together creating a social contract divesting of mature rights for the augmentation of those rights.

If persons such as detainees remove themselves from society, their rights remain inchoate and societies need not recognize the maturity of something never matured.

As to your incorrect argument that it forces entities to make judgments, all a "fair hearing" is an entity judgment, so your argument is circular.

A false dichotomy was posed by you, not nuanced or recognizing reality.

You are missing the basic point. Whether or not rights may be restricted later on is not debatable. Of course they can, depending on, as you put it, a person's "incivility." However, the determination of "incivility" must only be made AFTER due process has been given to that person, which is why due process is the linchpin of all natural rights. To remove due process is to concede that our rights flow from government.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

You are missing the basic point. Whether or not rights may be restricted later on is not debatable. Of course they can, depending on, as you put it, a person's "incivility." However, the determination of "incivility" must only be made AFTER due process has been given to that person, which is why due process is the linchpin of all natural rights. To remove due process is to concede that our rights flow from government.

That point of argument doesn't flow for me.

Rights don't flow from government; certain privileges do.

However, recognition by the entity of another's mature rights is simply a group cognitive feature, not a recognition from whence the rights flow.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

That point of argument doesn't flow for me.

Rights don't flow from government; certain privileges do.

However, recognition by the entity of another's mature rights is simply a group cognitive feature, not a recognition from whence the rights flow.

No. The right to due process is not a privilege. It is a right. As a right (and one which is inalienable), the government may not decide if you have forfeited other rights without first going through that step. If they can, then all rights do become privileges (because all "rights" would then flow from the government).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

No. The right to due process is not a privilege. It is a right. As a right (and one which is inalienable), the government may not decide if you have forfeited other rights without first going through that step. If they can, then all rights do become privileges (because all "rights" would then flow from the government).

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.