Natural rights v government granted rights

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

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.


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

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).

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

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.



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

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?"

[UtahDan]

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.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

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.

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.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

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.

We just have to agree to disagree on this one, because it's not clear to me, or apparently to UtahDan that the preamble means that.

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.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

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.

Well I think you really have to pull the Declaration out of its historical context as well as its intended context to believe that it is not primarily about rights within the context of the government/governed relationship.

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.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Well I think you really have to pull the Declaration out of its historical context as well as its intended context to believe that it is not primarily about rights within the context of the government/governed relationship.

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.

I think you missed his point (and the other Framers' point) entirely. They were arguing not that "all men born in the geographic confines of the current colonial boundaries" are entitled to certain freedoms. They were arguing that "all men" are entitled to certain natural rights (and then they enumerated some such rights).

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.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I think you missed his point (and the other Framers' point) entirely. They were arguing not that "all men born in the geographic confines of the current colonial boundaries" are entitled to certain freedoms. They were arguing that "all men" are entitled to certain natural rights (and then they enumerated some such rights).

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.

ANd the right you leaned on as being primary in nature was Due Proicess and that brings us back to where I entered.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I think you missed his point (and the other Framers' point) entirely. They were arguing not that "all men born in the geographic confines of the current colonial boundaries" are entitled to certain freedoms. They were arguing that "all men" are entitled to certain natural rights (and then they enumerated some such rights).

No, I haven't missed the point. Maybe the argument I am making is too subtle. Let me be more explicit. There is no question that Jefferson and others believed that every individual had rights that were independent of any government. Furthermore, governments are formed to secure those rights. The leap you are making, which is frankly nonsensical, is that every government is formed to secure the rights not just of the governed, but of all.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

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).

This is clearly true. We should expect our government to secure those rights. But should you and I expect the Chilean government to secure those rights for us or our own?

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

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.

This is where you are derailing. If you are really saying that the US government owes it to all persons (from a natural rights context, that is all we are discussing here) to extend them due process, then when would a US soldier ever be justified in killing a non-citizen? This is the ultimate loss of rights and happens completely without due process. Is this really what you think the Declaration means? That no government can ever derprive any person of any natural right without due process? That can't be what you think, it is just the corner you have painted yourself into.

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.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

No, I haven't missed the point. Maybe the argument I am making is too subtle. Let me be more explicit. There is no question that Jefferson and others believed that every individual had rights that were independent of any government. Furthermore, governments are formed to secure those rights. The leap you are making, which is frankly nonsensical, is that every government is formed to secure the rights not just of the governed, but of all.

I have never said that every government is formed to secure the rights of not just the governed, but of all. That would be nonsensical, and, frankly, I have no idea how you got that from my post. Every goverment is SUPPOSED to be formed to secure the rights of its people (no, not of everyone). Clearly they do not all do that (or the Declaration of Independence would have been nonsensical too).

This is clearly true. We should expect our government to secure those rights. But should you and I expect the Chilean government to secure those rights for us or our own?

We should expect that all good governments will secure the rights of anyone who comes within their grasp. That is the definition of a natural right. We recognize that people have rights whether or not their government grants them rights. It doesn't mean we have a responsibility to liberate everyone, but it does mean if one of their governed comes within our grasp, we should extend to them the very same rights we extend to our own governed because we recognize it is not our government charter that is the fountain of their rights but rather their mere existence.

So, for those Iraqis we capture (or any other nationality), yes, we have a responsibility to ensure that their basic rights are not violated.

This is where you are derailing. If you are really saying that the US government owes it to all persons (from a natural rights context, that is all we are discussing here) to extend them due process, then when would a US soldier ever be justified in killing a non-citizen? This is the ultimate loss of rights and happens completely without due process. Is this really what you think the Declaration means? That no government can ever derprive any person of any natural right without due process? That can't be what you think, it is just the corner you have painted yourself into.

I am not derailing here, you are simply reading more into this than you should. The same question could be asked of you: when would the killing of another in a civil war be justified? What about in a revolutionary war? The answer is the same: when the war is in pursuit of securing the rights of its people. Before you get too excited about that statement, I don't know that there has ever been a war where two sides were actually fighting to secure the rights of their people (kind of like the theory that no two democracies have ever gone to war).

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.

It is hardly an impossible position. In fact, I think it is a relatively accepted position in terms of what the Declaration of Independence meant and was trying to accomplish. And yes, I did notice you agree with the underlying premise that due process should be afforded to those captured in this war. I agree on that point (obviously).

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.

See above. We aren't trying to secure the rights of all. We are responsible for securing the rights of those who come within our grasp (such as prisoners of war).

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

ANd the right you leaned on as being primary in nature was Due Proicess and that brings us back to where I entered.

Yep.