Natural rights v government granted rights

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I think I see a point, and I don't even necessarily disagree with it. You appear to be arguing that relying on natural rights is difficult to do. If so, I agree. It is difficult. As I noted earlier, even the mere process of defining what constitutes natural rights is difficult. But, as I also noted, if you accept the premise of natural rights, the first such right must be due process.

I don't have time to answer all of your comments tonight, and I am unlikely to tomorrow, but I do want to ask you why yuo think this is true. The rights that are natural are substantive, not procedural. Life, liberty, property (Jefferson was wrong to screw around with Locke and this is what he should have said) are all things we HAVE. Then we crawl out of our separate tree stumps and caves and decide to live together and so we reach an agreemnt on what that "togetherness" is going to look like. This is when Due Process is created. It FOLLOWS the compact, it is not an antecedent to the compact. Thus, it only has menaing, and indeed only exists, if the compact says it exists. Process has no meaning if you are alone. It only has menaing when you are with others, IOW, after a compact has been created. If, at some point, "we" decide we don't like how the compact is being run, then we throw it away and start over (the tree of liberty . . .blood of martyrs .. .etc.). I do accept the premise of natural rights in a politcal sense, but I do not see how DP is the first among them.

Shifting gears, what if you are dealing with a culture who does not believe in Due Process? What if they deny the existence of such a natural right and want nmothing to do with your system, whether or not they get a trial that you call fair but up[on which they spit? DO we owe them anything then?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

I don't have time to answer all of your comments tonight, and I am unlikely to tomorrow, but I do want to ask you why yuo think this is true. The rights that are natural are substantive, not procedural. Life, liberty, property (Jefferson was wrong to screw around with Locke and this is what he should have said) are all things we HAVE. Then we crawl out of our separate tree stumps and caves and decide to live together and so we reach an agreemnt on what that "togetherness" is going to look like. This is when Due Process is created. It FOLLOWS the compact, it is not an antecedent to the compact. Thus, it only has menaing, and indeed only exists, if the compact says it exists. Process has no meaning if you are alone. It only has menaing when you are with others, IOW, after a compact has been created. If, at some point, "we" decide we don't like how the compact is being run, then we throw it away and start over (the tree of liberty . . .blood of martyrs .. .etc.). I do accept the premise of natural rights in a politcal sense, but I do not see how DP is the first among them.

Shifting gears, what if you are dealing with a culture who does not believe in Due Process? What if they deny the existence of such a natural right and want nmothing to do with your system, whether or not they get a trial that you call fair but up[on which they spit? DO we owe them anything then?

I think I have answered this multiple times already. Life, liberty and property may all be removed at a whim unless you have due process. It is the gatekeeper to all other rights. Without it, no other right is ever secure. Just ask the Guantanamo detainees how they feel about their natural rights right now. I will leave the debate about whether due process is a substantive or procedural right for another day.

As to your second question, a natural right cannot, by its very nature, be alienated. This is part of the basic premise in US law that you cannot waive the right to a criminal proceeding, for example. Whether or not the alleged terrorists hold contempt for due process is immaterial to the fact that they have a natural right to that process.

I do find it ironic that you have so many problems with accepting due process as a natural right (because of its inherent vagueness) but have no problem accepting property as a natural right. Isn't that principle equally vague, if not more so? What property do we have a natural right to? Do I rightfully own all land? Do we all jointly hold all land and all other property? Or is it just a right to be able to hold property? If the latter, are you infringing on that right by placing conditions on my ability to hold property (price, interest, etc)? Given that you don't think due process is a natural right, does that mean I can simply take away your property for whatever reason I find proper? Can I simply take your life because I think you are too short to be useful or because I don't like people named Creekster? Can I remove your liberty because it is convenient for me to do so? If so, your system of natural rights is a system where the strongest prevail and all others be damned. What stands in the way of such hysteria? Due process.

[creekster]

[quote]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I think I have answered this multiple times already. Life, liberty and property may all be removed at a whim unless you have due process. It is the gatekeeper to all other rights. Without it, no other right is ever secure. Just ask the Guantanamo detainees how they feel about their natural rights right now. I will leave the debate about whether due process is a substantive or procedural right for another day.

You have not answered it. Instead, you have repeated your assertion which is most decidely not na answer. I think I have explained why DP is not the first natural right. How on earth can you conlude that it is? How does it exist in a pure state of nature? Gollum in a cave does not have a need for DP, and it has no meaning for him. Thus it is created by the compact. It does nto exist before. Therefore it is what we, the signatories, say it is. Even if I concede arguendo that DP is the key to settling the question of whether a right can fairly be limited or curtailed I do not need to concede that it is a natural right. To the contrary it simply underscores the fact that DP only exists where several of us are pushing against each other. SO go ahead and repeat away. It is certainly making one of us look silly. COuld be me, I suppose.

Btw, I assume the reason you will leave the Substantive/procedural debate for another day is becasue that only has meaning in the context of our constituion and undermines your intial premise.

As to your second question, a natural right cannot, by its very nature, be alienated. This is part of the basic premise in US law that you cannot waive the right to a criminal proceeding, for example. Whether or not the alleged terrorists hold contempt for due process is immaterial to the fact that they have a natural right to that process.

First, I never said it could be alientated. ALthough while I'm chatting with the Gitmo geeks about their natural rights, perhaps you can visit death row in some nearby state and ask those folks how their inalienable rights to life and liberty are doing. IOW, natural rights can certainly be imparied by our compact, becasue we say it can. This process of imapirment is DP, and it only arises after the compact is created. Second, the "basic premise" to which you refer springs not from natural law but from constitutional law. Rules we decided should apply to criminal proceedings. Once those very basic steps have been taken, however, you can certainly waive large portions of proceedings.

I do find it ironic that you have so many problems with accepting due process as a natural right (because of its inherent vagueness) but have no problem accepting property as a natural right. Isn't that principle equally vague, if not more so? What property do we have a natural right to? Do I rightfully own all land? Do we all jointly hold all land and all other property? Or is it just a right to be able to hold property? If the latter, are you infringing on that right by placing conditions on my ability to hold property (price, interest, etc)? Given that you don't think due process is a natural right, does that mean I can simply take away your property for whatever reason I find proper? Can I simply take your life because I think you are too short to be useful or because I don't like people named Creekster? Can I remove your liberty because it is convenient for me to do so? If so, your system of natural rights is a system where the strongest prevail and all others be damned. What stands in the way of such hysteria? Due process.

With all due respect, what are you talking about? The fact that I do not accept DP as the prime natural right, as you repeatedly assert, does not mean I don't value DP or that I don't think it is a good thing to have in our system. Are you actually asserting that ALL rights we have in our society are natural rights? I find that hard to believe. Natrual rights aren;t in a system, they're NATURAL. the system is what srpings up as we try not to let each other's natuiral rights get carreid away when they bump into each other. As to the property question, read John Locke, from where Rousseau and Jeffereson cribbed a bunch of their ideas; he explains better than I can. Btw, how did you know I was short?

[Cali Coug]

[QUOTE=creekster;41618]

You have not answered it. Instead, you have repeated your assertion which is most decidely not na answer. I think I have explained why DP is not the first natural right. How on earth can you conlude that it is? How does it exist in a pure state of nature? Gollum in a cave does not have a need for DP, and it has no meaning for him. Thus it is created by the compact. It does nto exist before. Therefore it is what we, the signatories, say it is. Even if I concede arguendo that DP is the key to settling the question of whether a right can fairly be limited or curtailed I do not need to concede that it is a natural right. To the contrary it simply underscores the fact that DP only exists where several of us are pushing against each other. SO go ahead and repeat away. It is certainly making one of us look silly. COuld be me, I suppose.

Actually, it IS an answer, you simply don't accept it. Getting pretty testy here! It is the same as my rejection of your "explanation" as to why DP is not the first natural right. Your analysis assumes that because DP requires multiple people, it cannot be a natural right. The problem with your analysis, however, is that other natural rights also require other people in order to be given any meaning at all. What is the natural right of liberty if there is only Gollum in a cave? Liberty from what? From oppression? Of whom? What is the natural right of property for Gollum in a cave? Are you suggesting he simply owns the cave? Who cares if there is nobody else around? What possible meaning does property have if there is only one single person alive? What would the natural right to life mean with nobody else out there? Does it mean mother nature can't kill Gollum? Isn't it more properly understood that it means others can't take away your right to life without just cause? Your right to own property? Your right to liberty? Of course that is what it means. We know each of those rights MAY be taken away WITH just cause. So how do we determine what is just cause and what isn't? Through the exercise of the natural right to due process. DP is nothing more than a standard of fairness (which is why it is a substantive right, not a procedural right). We have a right to be treated fairly. In the context of others wanting to remove our natural right to life, liberty and property, we must give fair opportunity for the person to be heard and we must be impartial in deciding if their conduct merits restricting certain rights (for the protection of the natural rights of the rest of us). This right exists regardless of the form of social compact entered into. It is an inalienable right. It is a natural right. It is unseparable from the others.

Originally Posted by creekster

Btw, I assume the reason you will leave the Substantive/procedural debate for another day is becasue that only has meaning in the context of our constituion and undermines your intial premise.

You assume poorly. See above. FWIW, the Constitution considers DP a substantive right precisely because the Constitution was founded on the doctrine of natural rights. The premise of fairness does not define a specific procedure. It defines a specific substantive right that may be satisfied through a number of separate procedures (as long as they are fair).

Originally Posted by creekster

First, I never said it could be alientated. ALthough while I'm chatting with the Gitmo geeks about their natural rights, perhaps you can visit death row in some nearby state and ask those folks how their inalienable rights to life and liberty are doing. IOW, natural rights can certainly be imparied by our compact, becasue we say it can. This process of imapirment is DP, and it only arises after the compact is created. Second, the "basic premise" to which you refer springs not from natural law but from constitutional law. Rules we decided should apply to criminal proceedings. Once those very basic steps have been taken, however, you can certainly waive large portions of proceedings.

Rights CAN be impaired, but only AFTER we have given fair hearing to the affected party (DP) if we are to honor their natural rights. You have perfectly demonstrated my point about the importance of DP here, btw. People on death row had DP and were given their fair chance to preserve their life and liberty. The principle of inalienability comes with the caveat that certain conduct, if sufficiently egregious, may warrant removal of certain natural rights (i.e., the exception to the rule). However, there is one, and only one, right that may never be alienated- DP (which is another reason why it is first among natural rights). DP is the sole mechanism through which other natural rights may rightly be removed. If DP could be removed, all other rights would fall (as we have seen in Guantanamo). So, in answer to your question, "how would death row inmates feel?" I am sure they wish they weren't on death row. But they can say they at least had a chance to obtain their freedom.

Originally Posted by creekster

With all due respect, what are you talking about? The fact that I do not accept DP as the prime natural right, as you repeatedly assert, does not mean I don't value DP or that I don't think it is a good thing to have in our system. Are you actually asserting that ALL rights we have in our society are natural rights? I find that hard to believe. Natrual rights aren;t in a system, they're NATURAL. the system is what srpings up as we try not to let each other's natuiral rights get carreid away when they bump into each other. As to the property question, read John Locke, from where Rousseau and Jeffereson cribbed a bunch of their ideas; he explains better than I can. Btw, how did you know I was short?

When did I ever say all rights we have in society are natural rights? I have said exactly the opposite. I find it hard to believe that you are being honest in your arguments here. I also don't know why you think I have a problem with John Locke and property as a natural right. I don't. I do have a problem with your faulty analysis of natural rights. You argued that DP is not a natural right in part because we can't define what DP is. I retorted that other natural rights suffer from the same problem, specifically mentioning property (though I could also pick on liberty and life if you want). It isn't to say I don't believe in natural rights (it should be quite obvious I do). It is to say all natural rights suffer from ambiguity (including DP). Ambiguity is an unfortuante characteristic of natural rights. Your contention that something may not be a natural right because of ambiguity argues against the principle of natural rights in general and does nothing to undermine DP as a natural right specifically. (I have read Locke, Jefferson and Rosseau; again, why do you think I am disagreeing with them?)

Are you short? I picked an arbitrary characteristic that would never be a good premise for denying natural rights.

[Colly Wolly]

Good to see Hoya is up to his typical bullshit.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Stick It In Him

Good to see Hoya is up to his typical bullshit.

The irony here is that what I am posting is a typically conservative position. I guess it goes to show you tend to react to the poster rather than to the content.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

The irony here is that what I am posting is a typically conservative position. I guess it goes to show you tend to react to the poster rather than to the content.

It has nothing to do with your position.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Stick It In Him

It has nothing to do with your position.

In other words, you really don't have anything of value to add here, you just want to cast aspersions.

[Archaea]

[quote=hoyacoug;41722]

Originally Posted by creekster

I find it hard to believe that you are being honest in your arguments here. I also don't know why you think I have a problem with John Locke and property as a natural right. I don't. I do have a problem with your faulty analysis of natural rights. You argued that DP is not a natural right in part because we can't define what DP is. I retorted that other natural rights suffer from the same problem, specifically mentioning property (though I could also pick on liberty and life if you want). It isn't to say I don't believe in natural rights (it should be quite obvious I do). It is to say all natural rights suffer from ambiguity (including DP). Ambiguity is an unfortuante characteristic of natural rights. Your contention that something may not be a natural right because of ambiguity argues against the principle of natural rights in general and does nothing to undermine DP as a natural right specifically. (I have read Locke, Jefferson and Rosseau; again, why do you think I am disagreeing with them?)

Locke would never assert that Due Process is a natural right. Jefferson might and I'm unsure about Rousseau.

Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness can be had in a cave, but due process requires collective agreement. It is a negotiated right, not a natural one, despite what Jefferson may have written or believed. And rights can be curtailed by action or agreement.

Non-resident aliens combatting our forces curtail any claim they might have to due process.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Actually, it IS an answer, you simply don't accept it. Getting pretty testy here! It is the same as my rejection of your "explanation" as to why DP is not the first natural right. Your analysis assumes that because DP requires multiple people, it cannot be a natural right. The problem with your analysis, however, is that other natural rights also require other people in order to be given any meaning at all. What is the natural right of liberty if there is only Gollum in a cave? Liberty from what? From oppression? Of whom? What is the natural right of property for Gollum in a cave? Are you suggesting he simply owns the cave? Who cares if there is nobody else around? What possible meaning does property have if there is only one single person alive? What would the natural right to life mean with nobody else out there? Does it mean mother nature can't kill Gollum? Isn't it more properly understood that it means others can't take away your right to life without just cause? Your right to own property? Your right to liberty? Of course that is what it means. We know each of those rights MAY be taken away WITH just cause. So how do we determine what is just cause and what isn't? Through the exercise of the natural right to due process. DP is nothing more than a standard of fairness (which is why it is a substantive right, not a procedural right). We have a right to be treated fairly. In the context of others wanting to remove our natural right to life, liberty and property, we must give fair opportunity for the person to be heard and we must be impartial in deciding if their conduct merits restricting certain rights (for the protection of the natural rights of the rest of us). This right exists regardless of the form of social compact entered into. It is an inalienable right. It is a natural right. It is unseparable from the others.

Other rights do exist in a state of nature. Gollum is inherently free when alone, hence a natural right. IT is this fact that makes it natural in the first place. Simialry, he exists as a conscious being while alone, hence the right of life. Locke, as you must know if you have read him, argues that the right to property exists to the extent we use property and make it productive for our needs. This right exists when we are alone in nature hence it is also a natural right. DP only has meaning in the context of a community where the natural rights or other privlieges might be impaired or eliminated. ALone in nature no one has the need to determine what is just. If you alone choose to tkae your life, any process is fine, becasue you alone do it. DP only has meaning when you seek to impair the rights of others. Fairness only has menaing in the context of a social compact. I suppose I could excoriate you for causing me to repeat this position, (as you have frequently excoriated me in the past), but I'm not sure that doing so ever helps.

You assume poorly. See above. FWIW, the Constitution considers DP a substantive right precisely because the Constitution was founded on the doctrine of natural rights. The premise of fairness does not define a specific procedure. It defines a specific substantive right that may be satisfied through a number of separate procedures (as long as they are fair).

But the fairness is a standard by consent, not one that springs forth by our actual but singular existence as individuals.

Rights CAN be impaired, but only AFTER we have given fair hearing to the affected party (DP) if we are to honor their natural rights. You have perfectly demonstrated my point about the importance of DP here, btw. People on death row had DP and were given their fair chance to preserve their life and liberty. The principle of inalienability comes with the caveat that certain conduct, if sufficiently egregious, may warrant removal of certain natural rights (i.e., the exception to the rule). However, there is one, and only one, right that may never be alienated- DP (which is another reason why it is first among natural rights). DP is the sole mechanism through which other natural rights may rightly be removed. If DP could be removed, all other rights would fall (as we have seen in Guantanamo). So, in answer to your question, "how would death row inmates feel?" I am sure they wish they weren't on death row. But they can say they at least had a chance to obtain their freedom.

SO now you are saying that ONLY DP can't be alientaed? A few posts ago you said " . . . a natural right cannot, by its very nature, be alienated." So which is it? My reference to the death row was rhetorical, suggested by your refernce to Gitmo, pointing out that lots of rights are impaired without being alienated. Of course, if you believe that only DP can not be alientated, then you must believe that the preamble to the delacartion of Ind is either a lie or simply wrong, with which I get to welcome Thomas Jefferson to my club (see below).

When did I ever say all rights we have in society are natural rights? I have said exactly the opposite.

THe opposite? So no rights are natural? I don't think that's what you meant, is it?

I find it hard to believe that you are being honest in your arguments here. I also don't know why you think I have a problem with John Locke and property as a natural right. I don't. I do have a problem with your faulty analysis of natural rights. You argued that DP is not a natural right in part because we can't define what DP is. I retorted that other natural rights suffer from the same problem, specifically mentioning property (though I could also pick on liberty and life if you want). It isn't to say I don't believe in natural rights (it should be quite obvious I do). It is to say all natural rights suffer from ambiguity (including DP). Ambiguity is an unfortuante characteristic of natural rights. Your contention that something may not be a natural right because of ambiguity argues against the principle of natural rights in general and does nothing to undermine DP as a natural right specifically. (I have read Locke, Jefferson and Rosseau; again, why do you think I am disagreeing with them?)

SO you think i am either lying or am stupid? Join the club, buddy.

Property does not suffer from the same ambiguity problem as DP. You can have and hold property. You are also reversing the argument. The fact that DP is hard to define doens't mean it isn't a natuiral right; the fact that it is defined in various ways supports that it arises from agreement, not from nature. Life and Liberty are not ambiguous concepts, even when cast in Marxist terms (such as you did in discussing Gollum's liberty in a cave). DP, OTOH, must be discussed and analyzed by the social compact to decide what steps must be taken to be fair. It has no natural definiton. It can only exist, meaning it does nto exist before, under the collective decision of a group.

I realize we are all blowing smoke, and I typically find demands that other people produce evidence to support their arguments to be a bit much, becasue who does that on this type of board? However, I would be curious if you can actually point to somethign by Locke, Jefferson (who I truly admire but find in this area to be derivative) or Rousseau that supports your position. No big deal, really, just an earnest question. I have been too lazy to drag out my old books on this stuff, but maybe you have a better memory than me.

Are you short? I picked an arbitrary characteristic that would never be a good premise for denying natural rights.

not excesswively. It was just a little joke. Sorry to throw you like that.