Political Crossfire Forums

[Kindred]

What are mans ‘freeborn rights’, and how do we distinguish them from rights not ‘freeborn’? Before you answer, I will highlight that simply stating ‘man is born with freeborn rights, the others are privileges’ does not count as an adequate answer as it avoids the question (though it usually is the answer [hopelessly] given). What you need to do is show me the distinguishing facts about certain ‘freebron rights’ which separate them so clearly from other, socially derived rights or privileges.

[Cato]

AD wrote: What are mans ‘freeborn rights’, and how do we distinguish them from rights not ‘freeborn’?

What do you mean by 'freeborn' exactly? What do you mean by 'rights' exactly? Would you unpack these terms for me, if just for the sake of exactitude?

I'm not trying to be obtuse; I'm trying to be careful :}

(That quote directly under your sing. is great by the way)

[The Impeacher]

CHEATER!

this is a subset of the John Locke thread. get back in there and and argue like a man!

:)

anywho, off the cuff, i'd say that whenever i consider the concept of "rights," i always consider obligations.

so, "freeborn rights" are, on the one hand, often over emphasized as our "individual rights." while i don't necessarliy disagree with that, i also can just as easily turn that notion on its head and say "societies obligations."

i think one can see how this point of view somewhat diminsihes the notion of whether they are "innate" or "granted" or "endowed" for that matter, just that they are essential apriori the individual as valid concepts.

also, i can see how we have no rights we cannot conceive of, so we may be "freeborn" with rights we have yet to discover or fully comprehend. or for that matter, rights that we have as of yet to need...

[Kindred]

Cato wrote: AD wrote: What are mans ‘freeborn rights’, and how do we distinguish them from rights not ‘freeborn’?

What do you mean by 'freeborn' exactly? What do you mean by 'rights' exactly? Would you unpack these terms for me, if just for the sake of exactitude?

I'm not trying to be obtuse; I'm trying to be careful :}

(That quote directly under your sing. is great by the way)

By 'freeborn' I mean 'innate'-those which we possess by virtue of our existance alone.

Sorry, outa time right now...back soon

[George W Bush]

live and let live

no one has dominion over you. you are your own. never subject your personal liberty to the dictatorship of another.

you are your own authority.

[RueTheDay]

I was going to start a thread asking for concise, complete, non circular, and non self-referential definitions of rights and freedom, but you beat me to it.

Anyway, IMO, talk of natural (what I assume you mean by "freeborn") rights is, as JS Mill put it, "nonsense upon stilts". Rights are a social construct , born out of experience, that serve as a trump or side constraint upon majoritarian preferences, nothing more.

[mojo]

George W Bush wrote: live and let live

no one has dominion over you. you are your own. never subject your personal liberty to the dictatorship of another.

you are your own authority.

Then you will die alone with that mentality.

Whether or not we are willing to to acknowledge it or not we have a certain obligation to the community as a payment for the services of being raised by the community. Its an illusion to say that you are your own person. Our lives are without consequence unless we contribute something to the community.

By saying that you are your own authority you are saying that the community of people had no rule over your life. To the contrary they have almost everything to do with the way you are as a person. Your every choice and action is affected by the community or affects the community itself.

If you wish to reap the benefits of the society you have to pay your dues to society. If you dont wish to comply with those regulations and terms then you have every right to leave that society.

Objectivist philosophy has been rethunk over the past 30 years and is being turned on its head.

[The Impeacher]

RueTheDay wrote: I was going to start a thread asking for concise, complete, non circular, and non self-referential definitions of rights and freedom, but you beat me to it.

Anyway, IMO, talk of natural (what I assume you mean by "freeborn") rights is, as JS Mill put it, "nonsense upon stilts". Rights are a social construct , born out of experience, that serve as a trump or side constraint upon majoritarian preferences, nothing more.

i would remind both you and dear JS Mill that a witty saying proves nothing, and reutes even less.

that you said "born of experience" and think you somehow disagree with Locke is most odd. Mill would argue and likely claim that those rights are the product of intellect, not experience. please correct me if you can. Locke argues we have experienced them in nature, as they are a part of nature, and that is how we have come to know them.

i ask anyone to demonstrate how natural rights, that is rights found to be innate or revealed to us naturally in the course of events of living life - does not include the notion of rights as a "social construct?" you'd have to argue that our social constructs are unnatural.

the argument to me, clearly, is that our social constructs develop the way they have naturally.

would not nature eventually eventually eliminate an unnatural right?

the "innateness" of them is just to explain them causally, it does not serve as proof that those specific rights that locke has argued for are, in fact, those rights.

however, i think if you read locke carefully, he's hard to dispute, imho.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm

soemone feel free to point out where he got it wrong?

[RueTheDay]

The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: I was going to start a thread asking for concise, complete, non circular, and non self-referential definitions of rights and freedom, but you beat me to it.

Anyway, IMO, talk of natural (what I assume you mean by "freeborn") rights is, as JS Mill put it, "nonsense upon stilts". Rights are a social construct , born out of experience, that serve as a trump or side constraint upon majoritarian preferences, nothing more.

i would remind both you and dear JS Mill that a witty saying proves nothing, and reutes even less.

that you said "born of experience" and think you somehow disagree with Locke is most odd. Mill would argue and likely claim that those rights are the product of intellect, not experience. please correct me if you can. Locke argues we have experienced them in nature, as they are a part of nature, and that is how we have come to know them.

By "born of experience" I mean that people have learned that when certain individual powers are not protected that very bad things tend to happen, thus we enshrine those powers as rights and exempt them from being infringed by the will of the majority. They are subject to change over time. They are not, however, innate, inalienable, or "natural" in the sense of somehow deriving from some sort of immutable laws of nature.

Quote:
i ask anyone to demonstrate how natural rights, that is rights found to be innate or revealed to us naturally in the course of events of living life - does not include the notion of rights as a "social construct?" you'd have to argue that our social constructs are unnatural.

Do you believe that conceptions of rights can change over time?

Quote:
the argument to me, clearly, is that our social constructs develop the way they have naturally.

would not nature eventually eventually eliminate an unnatural right?

Who or what is "nature"?

Quote:
the "innateness" of them is just to explain them causally, it does not serve as proof that those specific rights that locke has argued for are, in fact, those rights.

It is this sort of talk that caused Mill to brand them as nonsense.

Quote:
however, i think if you read locke carefully, he's hard to dispute, imho.


http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm

soemone feel free to point out where he got it wrong?

Locke grounded much of what he wrote on the will of God. I don't accept that as a legitimate foundation.

[The Impeacher]

RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: I was going to start a thread asking for concise, complete, non circular, and non self-referential definitions of rights and freedom, but you beat me to it.

Anyway, IMO, talk of natural (what I assume you mean by "freeborn") rights is, as JS Mill put it, "nonsense upon stilts". Rights are a social construct , born out of experience, that serve as a trump or side constraint upon majoritarian preferences, nothing more.

i would remind both you and dear JS Mill that a witty saying proves nothing, and reutes even less.

that you said "born of experience" and think you somehow disagree with Locke is most odd. Mill would argue and likely claim that those rights are the product of intellect, not experience. please correct me if you can. Locke argues we have experienced them in nature, as they are a part of nature, and that is how we have come to know them.

By "born of experience" I mean that people have learned that when certain individual powers are not protected that very bad things tend to happen, thus we enshrine those powers as rights and exempt them from being infringed by the will of the majority. They are subject to change over time. They are not, however, innate, inalienable, or "natural" in the sense of somehow deriving from some sort of immutable laws of nature.

you are overthinking this, and missing the point. its an attempt at providing a REASON for rights, not "proof." keep in mind, the dominant paradigm of this time was Divine Rights.

how or why are they NOT innate, inalienable, or natural?

it reads almost like Darwin, imho. the relation of our rights to society and the commons.


RueTheDay wrote: Quote:
i ask anyone to demonstrate how natural rights, that is rights found to be innate or revealed to us naturally in the course of events of living life - does not include the notion of rights as a "social construct?" you'd have to argue that our social constructs are unnatural.

Do you believe that conceptions of rights can change over time?

yes, how could they not? is nature static or dynamic? why would our natural rights be any different.

as they are dependent upon reason, they may be wrong and/or modified. they are not eternally immutable...

RueTheDay wrote: Quote:
the argument to me, clearly, is that our social constructs develop the way they have naturally.

would not nature eventually eventually eliminate an unnatural right?

Who or what is "nature"?

oh please.

RueTheDay wrote: Quote:
the "innateness" of them is just to explain them causally, it does not serve as proof that those specific rights that locke has argued for are, in fact, those rights.

It is this sort of talk that caused Mill to brand them as nonsense.

why is proof the only measure? proof is overrated.

most of Mills ideas are predicated on humans being rational... talk about nonsense! dont get me wrong, i like mill... but his notions of liberty seem mostly derivative of locke.

how does he improve / disprove upon locke? other thatn you repeating that empty assertion of nonsense...?

can you show me "the sense" of Mill on rights?

RueTheDay wrote: Quote:
however, i think if you read locke carefully, he's hard to dispute, imho.


http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm

soemone feel free to point out where he got it wrong?

Locke grounded much of what he wrote on the will of God. I don't accept that as a legitimate foundation.

this is clear sign to me you have little understanding of Locke, as i have supposed. Locke was well known as one of the early Deists wrtiers of the Scottish Enlightenment, and "God's will" is exactly what he would NOT be arguing about.

and, again, consider the times and audience before you get all wrapped up in the appearance of the term God.

so i ask, what is the origin of our rights? and why do you think pointing out that they are "socially derived" contradicts Locke? it does not contradict him... you just MIGHT want to familiarize yourself with the most significant contribution of locke - the SOCIAL COMPACT or CONTRACT.

here is some good overviews, with links to the sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

[RueTheDay]

The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: I was going to start a thread asking for concise, complete, non circular, and non self-referential definitions of rights and freedom, but you beat me to it.

Anyway, IMO, talk of natural (what I assume you mean by "freeborn") rights is, as JS Mill put it, "nonsense upon stilts". Rights are a social construct , born out of experience, that serve as a trump or side constraint upon majoritarian preferences, nothing more.

i would remind both you and dear JS Mill that a witty saying proves nothing, and reutes even less.

that you said "born of experience" and think you somehow disagree with Locke is most odd. Mill would argue and likely claim that those rights are the product of intellect, not experience. please correct me if you can. Locke argues we have experienced them in nature, as they are a part of nature, and that is how we have come to know them.

By "born of experience" I mean that people have learned that when certain individual powers are not protected that very bad things tend to happen, thus we enshrine those powers as rights and exempt them from being infringed by the will of the majority. They are subject to change over time. They are not, however, innate, inalienable, or "natural" in the sense of somehow deriving from some sort of immutable laws of nature.

you are overthinking this, and missing the point.

No, you are underthinking it and simply accepting what others who share similar beliefs have told you without question.

Quote:
its an attempt at providing a REASON for rights, not "proof." keep in mind, the dominant paradigm of this time was Divine Rights.

It was the dominant paradigm during Locke's time. It no longer is the dominant paradigm. Therefore, I'm not sure how someone can today accept Locke's conclusions while ignoring his premises.

Quote: how or why are they NOT innate, inalienable, or natural?

Peoples' rights are violated every day. The laws of nature are not. That fact alone should cast suspicion on the concept of natural rights.

Quote:
it reads almost like Darwin, imho. the relation of our rights to society and the commons.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean or what Darwin could possibly have to do with this conversation.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote: Quote:
i ask anyone to demonstrate how natural rights, that is rights found to be innate or revealed to us naturally in the course of events of living life - does not include the notion of rights as a "social construct?" you'd have to argue that our social constructs are unnatural.

Do you believe that conceptions of rights can change over time?

yes, how could they not? is nature static or dynamic? why would our natural rights be any different.

What causes them to change over time? How do we become aware of these changes?

Quote:
as they are dependent upon reason, they may be wrong and/or modified. they are not eternally immutable...

How are rights "depenedent upon reason"?

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote: Quote:
the argument to me, clearly, is that our social constructs develop the way they have naturally.

would not nature eventually eventually eliminate an unnatural right?

Who or what is "nature"?

oh please.

Answer the question. Or admit that rights are just something that people agree upon as part of the social contract and have nothing to do with "nature".

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote: Quote:
the "innateness" of them is just to explain them causally, it does not serve as proof that those specific rights that locke has argued for are, in fact, those rights.

It is this sort of talk that caused Mill to brand them as nonsense.

why is proof the only measure? proof is overrated.

???????? The only person who keeps talking about "proof" in this thread is YOU.

Quote: most of Mills ideas are predicated on humans being rational... talk about nonsense! dont get me wrong, i like mill... but his notions of liberty seem mostly derivative of locke.

how does he improve / disprove upon locke? other thatn you repeating that empty assertion of nonsense...?

can you show me "the sense" of Mill on rights?

Mill's point was that outcomes matter. I disagree with him on utilitarianism, because I do not believe it possible to aggregate utilities across individuals. However, I do find consequentialism as an approach to morals far more compelling than a priori deontological approaches.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote: Quote:
however, i think if you read locke carefully, he's hard to dispute, imho.


http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm

soemone feel free to point out where he got it wrong?

Locke grounded much of what he wrote on the will of God. I don't accept that as a legitimate foundation.

this is clear sign to me you have little understanding of Locke, as i have supposed. Locke was well known as one of the early Deists wrtiers of the Scottish Enlightenment, and "God's will" is exactly what he would NOT be arguing about.

Perhaps "will" was not the right term, but the fact remains that much of the thought coming out of that time period involved a search for natural laws that governed human social interaction in the same way that laws governed the physical universe.

Quote:
and, again, consider the times and audience before you get all wrapped up in the appearance of the term God.

so i ask, what is the origin of our rights? and why do you think pointing out that they are "socially derived" contradicts Locke? it does not contradict him... you just MIGHT want to familiarize yourself with the most significant contribution of locke - the SOCIAL COMPACT or CONTRACT.

here is some good overviews, with links to the sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

Umm, I'm the one arguing in favor of rights being part of the social contract. The difference being that I don't believe that rights exist in the original state of nature. In other words, rights are endogenous to the social contract, not exogenous.

[The Impeacher]

Quote: In other words, rights are endogenous to the social contract, not exogenous.

natural rights are endogenous, they are a part of nature - we only reason that they are also in our nature - as we are also natural creatures. you have much to learn.

for the last time, don't confuse the concept with our ability to reason and express it.

you have a lack of understanding of Locke, and it shows.

that Locke wrote about the social contract, and for you point out that rights are "socially derived" and think you are arguing against the central concept of Locken natural rights argument is sophism of the weakest sort.

go learn about his An Essay on Human Understanding and the application of the tabula rasa - and rethink what you claim to know about Locke and what we are "born" with.

you are actually making a parallel argument to Locke's argument, due to what seems to be your complete ignorance of Locke's argument.

[RueTheDay]

The Impeacher wrote: Quote: In other words, rights are endogenous to the social contract, not exogenous.

natural rights are endogenous, they are a part of nature - we only reason that they are also in our nature - as we are also natural creatures. you have much to learn.

They can't be part of nature and simultaneously be the product of human agreement. It's one or the other.

If they are innate, then they weren't reached through contract. If they are inalienable, then they can't be changed through mutual agreement.

Quote: for the last time, don't confuse the concept with our ability to reason and express it.

The only confused one here is you.

Quote: you have lack understanding of Locke, and it shows.

that Locke wrote about the social contract, and for you point out that rights are "socially derrived" and think you are arguing against the concept of Locken rights is sophism of the weakest sort.

You really have no idea what you are talking about, and I doubt you're ever read Locke.

Locke's concept of the social contract assumes a natural law outside of that contract and that individuals have natural rights deriving from that natural law that they bring with them into a state of nature. The social contract then comes after that and is based upon mutual agreement subject to that natural law and those natural rights. Locke does not place the social contract prior to those rights, he places those rights prior to the development of the social contract. That is the position that I am arguing against.

[The Impeacher]

RueTheDay wrote:
The only confused one here is you.

[...]


that individuals have natural rights deriving from that natural law that they bring with them into a state of nature.


so, we bring that natural law into nature? please, i am done with you.

[RueTheDay]

The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
The only confused one here is you.

[...]


that individuals have natural rights deriving from that natural law that they bring with them into a state of nature.


so, we bring that natural law into nature? please, i am done with you.

Put a comma after the word "rights" and "law" and it should be a little more clear. In other words, per Locke, individuals have rights, in a state of nature, prior to any social contract.

Now stop dodging and respond to my points.

[The Impeacher]

i am not dodging, you are uniformed and are a poor rhetoritican.

case in point, you have called out Locke, who is well known as being an Empircist, as for being a form of utilitarian.

that's just nuts. i am done with you.

[RueTheDay]

The Impeacher wrote: case in point, you have called out Locke, who is well known as being an Empircist, as for being a form of utilitarian.

Please point out where I claimed that Locke was a utilitarian or admit that you are a LIAR.

BTW, since it's apparent that you are not aware, empiricist is not the opposite of utilitarian, it is the opposite of rationalist. Empiricism and rationalism are approaches to epistemology; deontology and consequentialism (of which utilitarianism is a form) are approaches to ethics.

Quote:
that's just nuts. i am done with you.

That's the second time you have falsely made that claim.

[The Impeacher]

RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: case in point, you have called out Locke, who is well known as being an Empircist, as for being a form of utilitarian.

Please point out where I claimed that Locke was a utilitarian or admit that you are a LIAR.

BTW, since it's apparent that you are not aware, empiricist is not the opposite of utilitarian, it is the opposite of rationalist. Empiricism and rationalism are approaches to epistemology; deontology and consequentialism (of which utilitarianism is a form) are approaches to ethics.

Quote:
that's just nuts. i am done with you.

That's the second time you have falsely made that claim.

but you are the one who brought up mill when i was talking about locke, thus the obvious logical fallacy you are introducing, aka apples and oranges.

and again, i am done with you. i am not, however, finished arguing with you.

[Cato]

TI wrote: i am not dodging, you are uniformed and are a poor rhetoritican.

I wouldn't say he's uninformed... However, I think we agree he's a poor rhetorician: he's a good philosopher (I don't care what Cicero says).

At any rate, I have very little experience with Locke, and this conversation has sparked my curiosity. Any introductory sources you can recommend?

[The Impeacher]

Cato wrote: TI wrote: i am not dodging, you are uniformed and are a poor rhetoritican.

I wouldn't say he's uninformed... However, I think we agree he's a poor rhetorician: he's a good philosopher (I don't care what Cicero says).

At any rate, I have very little experience with Locke, and this conversation has sparked my curiosity. Any introductory sources you can recommend?

i'd say the informed are good at rhetoric, but i follow your gist... ;)

i really like wiki to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

the important thing is to review Empircists/ism real quick, which is easy to do their with the embedded links.

to really appreciate the argument, you should be sure to contrast it with Hobbes, and that perspective of the state of nature - which preceded Locke. for comparison, read the Rousseau article, and then his take on the social contract - AFTER you get the gist of Locke. [this would also give you the proper timeline of these arguments]

if you are still hungry, go get some Baron de Montesquieu for desert, or some Hume.

however, the real meat is at the bottom of these pages - as they link to free text versions of the documents - the gutenburg resource[s] is the best, imho.

Locke's writings have the advantage of being short - you could read them all in a day. understanding and appreciating them though, may take awhile. it is, however very rewarding, imho.

if you scroll up, you can find a link to the relevant sections Second Treatise of Civil Government, but it's still a good idea to read the overview article on wiki [probaly both beofre and after you breeze the actual document] :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Treatises_of_Government

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

or

http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm

same with tehe overview on An Essay if Human Understanding.

this would them illuminate the differnce between an innate right and an innate idea. the catalyst being reason and the social contract.