Political Crossfire Forums

[RueTheDay]

The Impeacher wrote: you guys just don't get it, natural rights ARE a social invention as the key part of the social contract -

"Rights" may be a product of the social contract, but not "natural rights". That term has an entirely different connotation.

Quote:
it is NATURAL LAW that is innate, and its is through the process of REASON that we have designed or claimed to have said specific rights.

Let's here what these "innate natural laws" consist of.

Quote:
if the rights were truly, permanently innate and iron clad, the system would not need be democratic and based upon consent.

Many advocates of natural law oppose the concept of democracy.

Quote:
you only have those "innate" rights as part of the social contract. thus, born into the contract you have those right ennumerated.

no contract, no rights.

you act as if we had natural rights BEFORE we invented the social contract, which is aka the CONSTITUTION.

our rights are inalienable because of the contract... and we can abolish this contract at any time.

Go back an read the Declaration of Independence (which was written BEFORE the Constitution in case you weren't aware):

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.

How can these natural rights be the product of the social contract if men are endowed with them by the creator? This language is similar to that used by Locke and other advocates of natural rights. Locke used the social contract to explain GOVERNMENT not RIGHTS. He assumed rights were prior to the social contract, as I've been saying all along.

[The Impeacher]

RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: you guys just don't get it, natural rights ARE a social invention as the key part of the social contract -

"Rights" may be a product of the social contract, but not "natural rights". That term has an entirely different connotation.

bulls**t. all jefferson did ws replace "property" with happiness, due to his agrarian fantasy aka which nearly came to fruition via the louisianna purchase. you even acknolwedge his borrwing from locke this later in the same post? you have a disturbed mind.

RueTheDay wrote: Quote:
it is NATURAL LAW that is innate, and its is through the process of REASON that we have designed or claimed to have said specific rights.

Let's here what these "innate natural laws" consist of.

does not matter, we are not "born" with the idea of natural law ingrained as an idea in our heads at birth. it is, in your ecnominc speak, an externality that we have come to recognize - this relevation leads to a declaration of rights.

RueTheDay wrote: Quote:
if the rights were truly, permanently innate and iron clad, the system would not need be democratic and based upon consent.

Many advocates of natural law oppose the concept of democracy.

so what? you are now also talking about Hobbesian natural law, not Lockean natural law. they are entirely different conceptions of natural law, and on the nature of men.

hamilton was a hobbesean, jefferson was a lockean.

RueTheDay wrote: Quote:
you only have those "innate" rights as part of the social contract. thus, born into the contract you have those right ennumerated.

no contract, no rights.

you act as if we had natural rights BEFORE we invented the social contract, which is aka the CONSTITUTION.

our rights are inalienable because of the contract... and we can abolish this contract at any time.

Go back an read the Declaration of Independence (which was written BEFORE the Constitution in case you weren't aware):

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.

How can these natural rights be the product of the social contract if men are endowed with them by the creator? This language is similar to that used by Locke and other advocates of natural rights. Locke used the social contract to explain GOVERNMENT not RIGHTS. He assumed rights were prior to the social contract, as I've been saying all along.

psst, did they sign the declaration of rebelion against the King who was vilolating the "natural law," and thus the rights they then claim as a natural extension thereof?

is not "we hold these truths to be self evident" the epitome of an argument of REASON?

they are the claim of rights, they do not garauntee that those rights are protected, those are not RIGHTS YET. they are a claim. are you arguing people have NO RIGHTS in a civil society?

they are the justification for a rebellion against TYRANNY, based upon mutual consent and an argument that the MONARCHY violates the natural law [and by proxy the rights they claimed]. this is the the essence of what Locke talks about in his Second Treatise on Civil Government. ie. the right of rebellion against tyranny as being natural response to oppression.

do note that the title of said Treatise, the natural rights are the rights of a CIVIL SOCIETY. so, when you say "socially derived" i say... well no s**t, sherlock.

and then, hey guess what, they signed it! the CONSENTERS are DISSENTING. gee, and then they signed like it was some form of SOCIAL COMPACT or something... so, like duh man, get a clue.

the rights are then enumerated more speficially in the Constitution - as a creation of CIVIL goverment, in terms of specific rights that are matters of the law of land.

once again, in an argument predicated upon reason and consent, the apriori / ex post facto debate is null and void. it is an argument of REASON, not one of rhetorical LOGIC.

[RueTheDay]

The Impeacher wrote: RueTheDay wrote: The Impeacher wrote: you guys just don't get it, natural rights ARE a social invention as the key part of the social contract -

"Rights" may be a product of the social contract, but not "natural rights". That term has an entirely different connotation.

bulls**t. all jefferson did ws replace "property" with happiness, due to his agrarian fantasy aka which nearly came to fruition via the louisianna purchase. you even acknolwedge his borrwing from locke this later in the same post? you have a disturbed mind.

WTF does any of that have to do with what I wrote and why begin by hurling an insult? You are quite possibly one of the least skilled debaters I have encountered on this forum, though Reason sometimes gives you a run for your money.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote: Quote:
it is NATURAL LAW that is innate, and its is through the process of REASON that we have designed or claimed to have said specific rights.

Let's here what these "innate natural laws" consist of.

does not matter, we are not "born" with the idea of natural law ingrained as an idea in our heads at birth. it is, in your ecnominc speak, an externality that we have come to recognize - this relevation leads to a declaration of rights.

Gibberish. How is natural law an "externality"? I doubt you know what either of those two terms means.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote: Quote:
if the rights were truly, permanently innate and iron clad, the system would not need be democratic and based upon consent.

Many advocates of natural law oppose the concept of democracy.

so what? you are now also talking about Hobbesian natural law, not Lockean natural law. they are entirely different conceptions of natural law, and on the nature of men.

Hobbes and Locke did not have different concepts of natural law, they disagreed on what those natural laws were. That's the problem with natural laws, what they are is anyones guess, there's no way to know.

Quote:
hamilton was a hobbesean, jefferson was a lockean.

That's a vast oversimplification.

Quote:
RueTheDay wrote: Quote:
you only have those "innate" rights as part of the social contract. thus, born into the contract you have those right ennumerated.

no contract, no rights.

you act as if we had natural rights BEFORE we invented the social contract, which is aka the CONSTITUTION.

our rights are inalienable because of the contract... and we can abolish this contract at any time.

Go back an read the Declaration of Independence (which was written BEFORE the Constitution in case you weren't aware):

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.

How can these natural rights be the product of the social contract if men are endowed with them by the creator? This language is similar to that used by Locke and other advocates of natural rights. Locke used the social contract to explain GOVERNMENT not RIGHTS. He assumed rights were prior to the social contract, as I've been saying all along.

psst, did they sign the declaration of rebelion against the King who was vilolating the "natural law," and thus the rights they then claim as a natural extension thereof?

is not "we hold these truths to be self evident" the epitome of an argument of REASON?

they are the claim of rights, they do not garauntee that those rights are protected, those are not RIGHTS YET. they are a claim. are you arguing people have NO RIGHTS in a civil society?

they are the justification for a rebellion against TYRANNY, based upon mutual consent and an argument that the MONARCHY violates the natural law [and by proxy the rights they claimed]. this is the the essence of what Locke talks about in his Second Treatise on Civil Government. ie. the right of rebellion against tyranny as being natural response to oppression.

do note that the title of said Treatise, the natural rights are the rights of a CIVIL SOCIETY. so, when you say "socially derived" i say... well no s**t, sherlock.

and then, hey guess what, they signed it! the CONSENTERS are DISSENTING. gee, and then they signed like it was some form of SOCIAL COMPACT or something... so, like duh man, get a clue.

the rights are then enumerated more speficially in the Constitution - as a creation of CIVIL goverment, in terms of specific rights that are matters of the law of land.

once again, in an argument predicated upon reason and consent, the apriori / ex post facto debate is null and void. it is an argument of REASON, not one of rhetorical LOGIC.

All those words and you still failed to answer the question - how can something with which we are endowed by the creator be a product of the social contract.

[Katsumoto]

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

I think there is really only one freeborn right. That is the right to your life, or rather it is the negative right to be "left to live". There are other rights that can be logically derived from the right to life and I would say those are also natural in the sense that without them the right to life is logically violated. Such rights might include rights to own property, rights to bear arms, rights to freedom of thought and speech. Notice that all of these are negative rights in that they do not require any action on the part of another person other than leaving one to do or have what is his right to do or have.

Constructed rights such as the right to an education, or the right to healthcare, or the right to housing, notice that these are all positive rights. They DO require action by others. They are not natural rights and infact they actually REQUIRE the violation of natural rights in order to exist.

But going back for a moment to the right to life as a "natural right" or "freeborn right", many will ask well, what is the source of this right? Where did it come from? For those who are religious (and I would include myself in that group) they would say that the right comes from God, and since it is a matter of faith at that point it is hard to argue against. However I believe also that the natural right to life is distinguishable from other rights in other ways.

The right to life is basically the first requirement in the formation of any kind of society. In that sense it can be seen as socially constructed, but it also constructs society itself. It is society. With out a respect for the right of others to be left to live, a society could not function at all. The death of one person or another would be the result of most encounters between men. Thus you find in the most basic teachings of all religions (where like it or not all modern law is based) variations on the right to life. Often we call this the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Live and let live.

[Eternal]

The Impeacher wrote: you guys just don't get it, natural rights ARE a social invention as the key part of the social contract - it is NATURAL LAW that is innate, and its is through the process of REASON that we have designed or claimed to have said specific rights.

if the rights were truly, permanently innate and iron clad, the system would not need be democratic and based upon consent.

you only have those "innate" rights as part of the social contract. thus, born into the contract you have those right ennumerated.

no contract, no rights.

you act as if we had natural rights BEFORE we invented the social contract, which is aka the CONSTITUTION.

our rights are inalienable because of the contract... and we can abolish this contract at any time.

I think you'll find we do get it. Unless we had an innate desire for certain rights to come to the forefront then they wouldn't exist. It is not that difficult to see that the right to life and property rights stem from humanities natural desire to survive and our territorial nature.

However humans also have other traits that are innate such as the desire to love and be loved, as well as a sense of compassion to those less fortunate than ourselves. Yet these innate human qualities rarely if ever become expressed as legal rights.

Therefore there needs to be a qualifier that distinguishes between those innate human qualities that eventually become expressed as legal rights and those that don't. That qualifier is human experience which has, and still is, informing us that certain innate human desires need greater protection if our society is to remain stable and prosperous. This protection is not natural as it doesn't exist in nature, and it is this protection that ultimately allows these rights to operate - regardless of their origin.

The concepts of rights are therefore social constructs, not natural, because their existence is not guaranteed in nature. Their protection must be artificially maintained. It also needs to be noted that what we define as rights are nothing more than our best attempts to capture the essence of our innate desires, and are not necessarily a perfect reflection of them.


Cheers, Eternal

[The Impeacher]

Eternal wrote: The Impeacher wrote: you guys just don't get it, natural rights ARE a social invention as the key part of the social contract - it is NATURAL LAW that is innate, and its is through the process of REASON that we have designed or claimed to have said specific rights.

if the rights were truly, permanently innate and iron clad, the system would not need be democratic and based upon consent.

you only have those "innate" rights as part of the social contract. thus, born into the contract you have those right ennumerated.

no contract, no rights.

you act as if we had natural rights BEFORE we invented the social contract, which is aka the CONSTITUTION.

our rights are inalienable because of the contract... and we can abolish this contract at any time.

I think you'll find we do get it. Unless we had an innate desire for certain rights to come to the forefront then they wouldn't exist. It is not that difficult to see that the right to life and property rights stem from humanities natural desire to survive and our territorial nature.

However humans also have other traits that are innate such as the desire to love and be loved, as well as a sense of compassion to those less fortunate than ourselves. Yet these innate human qualities rarely if ever become expressed as legal rights.

Therefore there needs to be a qualifier that distinguishes between those innate human qualities that eventually become expressed as legal rights and those that don't. That qualifier is human experience which has, and still is, informing us that certain innate human desires need greater protection if our society is to remain stable and prosperous. This protection is not natural as it doesn't exist in nature, and it is this protection that ultimately allows these rights to operate - regardless of their origin.

The concepts of rights are therefore social constructs, not natural, because their existence is not guaranteed in nature. Their protection must be artificially maintained. It also needs to be noted that what we define as rights are nothing more than our best attempts to capture the essence of our innate desires, and are not necessarily a perfect reflection of them.


Cheers, Eternal

why do you insist on framing civil society as being outside of nature?

and of course nothing is gauranteed, i already acknolwedged rights are only a claim, the CONTRACT is the attempt to guarantee the claim. i also acknolwedge much earlier in this thread that these specific enumerated rights are for that reason debatable.

the claim of rights being innate is that they are considerd by default to be possesed - in other words - they are the natural laws of a civil society.

it is the concept of rights held by people [not aristocrats or Kings] that are unalienable to CIVIL society, not necessarily those SPECIFIC rights. you can quibble with Locke's rights if you want, and i will attempt to explain the logic behind them.

anyways, that is why the system is democratic, and predicated upon consent and contract and not the unquestionable authority of Divine Right.

[The Impeacher]

i also pose an alternate question[s] to illustrate my point....

if you argue that we have no natural, innate, or free-born rights... just what is the foundation for a civil society?

[other than the natural possession of rights at birth?]

why are the rights you are arguing for either "not natural" or "not innate"?

good luck with that one, fellas... ;)




as is stated earlier, i think you guys have just not thought through Locke's argument - or have not ever read it.

[The Impeacher]

Katsumoto wrote:
The right to life is basically the first requirement in the formation of any kind of society. In that sense it can be seen as socially constructed, but it also constructs society itself. It is society. With out a respect for the right of others to be left to live, a society could not function at all.

this section is the highlight of your well reasoned and expressed post.

i concur.

:clap:

[Eternal]

The Impeacher wrote: Eternal wrote: I think you'll find we do get it. Unless we had an innate desire for certain rights to come to the forefront then they wouldn't exist. It is not that difficult to see that the right to life and property rights stem from humanities natural desire to survive and our territorial nature.

However humans also have other traits that are innate such as the desire to love and be loved, as well as a sense of compassion to those less fortunate than ourselves. Yet these innate human qualities rarely if ever become expressed as legal rights.

Therefore there needs to be a qualifier that distinguishes between those innate human qualities that eventually become expressed as legal rights and those that don't. That qualifier is human experience which has, and still is, informing us that certain innate human desires need greater protection if our society is to remain stable and prosperous. This protection is not natural as it doesn't exist in nature, and it is this protection that ultimately allows these rights to operate - regardless of their origin.

The concepts of rights are therefore social constructs, not natural, because their existence is not guaranteed in nature. Their protection must be artificially maintained. It also needs to be noted that what we define as rights are nothing more than our best attempts to capture the essence of our innate desires, and are not necessarily a perfect reflection of them.


Cheers, Eternal

why do you insist on framing civil society as being outside of nature?

and of course nothing is gauranteed, i already acknolwedged rights are only a claim, the CONTRACT is the attempt to guarantee the claim. i also acknolwedge much earlier in this thread that these specific enumerated rights are for that reason debatable.

the claim of rights being innate is that they are considerd by default to be possesed - in other words - they are the natural laws of a civil society.

it is the concept of rights held by people [not aristocrats or Kings] that are unalienable to CIVIL society, not necessarily those SPECIFIC rights. you can quibble with Locke's rights if you want, and i will attempt to explain the logic behind them.

anyways, that is why the system is democratic, and predicated upon consent and contract and not the unquestionable authority of Divine Right.

and…

The Impeacher wrote: i also pose an alternate question[s] to illustrate my point....

if you argue that we have no natural, innate, or free-born rights... just what is the foundation for a civil society?

[other than the natural possession of rights at birth?]

why are the rights you are arguing for either "not natural" or "not innate"?

good luck with that one, fellas... ;)




as is stated earlier, i think you guys have just not thought through Locke's argument - or have not ever read it.

I’m not denying that certain rights must be upheld if a society is to remain stable and that those rights must have some meaning to said societies citizens. Where we differ is in the universal existence of such rights because surely if the ingredients of a civil society are based upon innate human rights, these rights would be universally acknowledged.

Throughout human history civil societies, such as indigenous Australians, have been able to maintain social cohesion and survive without resorting to slavery and the divide and conquer mentality of European society. Indeed Aboriginal society has remained stable for over 30,000 years, far longer than any European society.

Yet when the two cultures collided, indigenous society faired poorly. How could such an outcome occur, considering indigenous Australians never embraced the extremes such as slavery and large scale warfare that their Colonial masters did? Well part of the answer lies in the rights each society held sacrosanct, and the differences between these rights.

Whilst both communities shared a common respect for life, the attitude towards property rights differed completely. Indigenous Australians didn’t believe that they owned the land they roamed. To them they were simply custodians, caretakers of the land. This differed completely with the attitude of the colonialists, who believed individuals could legally own the land and decide who could and couldn’t enter it. Aboriginals simply didn’t understand why they were being punished for killing a sheep on a colonialist’s property; how could they when their society didn’t accept individual property rights.

The other difference, although not unique to indigenous Australians, is in the area of accidental death. During the industrial revolution in Europe people died in industrial accidents all the time. Although successful prosecutions against such incidents did occur, they were rare. Indeed western society has often held the notion that accidental deaths do occur and sometimes no one is to blame.

Indigenous society rarely held such views. Regardless of whether a death was accidental or not, the perpetrator must be brought to justice. Given such a sharp difference in attitudes towards accidental death, it was inevitable that conflicts would rise between indigenous and colonial society.

So given that both indigenous and colonial societies could both be deemed civil societies, according to the logic of The Impeacher the rights that they uphold must be similar in nature as such rights would have had an innate origin within humanity. As such both these civilized societies should, at some level, have been able to co-exist peacefully. Sadly however, that was not the case.

It was not the case because the expression of these rights, whilst both ensuring the outcome of a civilized society, were incompatible with each other when brought head on. This fact alone indicates that whilst the recognition of rights is necessary for a civil society to emerge, any notion that these rights have universal appeal and hence innate in their origin is folly.


Cheers, Eternal

[The Impeacher]

That is such a good and thoughful post, Eternal, I shall use a word processor and punctuation as a way of compliment!


Let me first return to the concept of Lockean Natural Rights and there innateness. First off, I maintain that if you were familiar with the actual writing of Locke – you would agree intuitively that observing that rights are “socially derived” is clearly obvious. These rights, such as respect for commons and others “property,” [property being the labor in the use of a natural resource – not “ownership” as it were] are argued by Locke to have been the natural result of the evolution of civil society. Now, he does not use the term evolution per se, but that is the essence of his argument and why I stated on page 1 that find his argument almost Darwinian, and logical in the sense of an appeal to reason.

So your objection to the innate qualities of these “civil rights” are based upon a relativist comparison of two unique and differing societies – two species of civil natures, as it were. I find this failure of comparative analysis most intriguing, as I know of another man from Oz who was wont to this fallacy earlier. So, I consider it a logical fallacy in terms of these innate natures being derived from only one view of nature, when in fact the point about innate natures is that they are innate to the development civil societies. Again, neither myself, nor would I venture would Locke, argue that the rights claimed would be specifically the same. However, I submit that many in Locke’s time would have called these people backwards savages, and they would have been wrong for committing the same relativist failure. However, unless you can find evidence of Locke legitimizing cultural Imperialism, or doctrines of Pax Britannia or Pax Americana for that matter, I find your point specious, if not blatantly slanderous.

By default, have not those who claim to respect the “natural rights” of property or liberty not violated these same rights held by “savages,” regardless of whether or not they were by any measure less civilized? I would maintain that in your example, the Natural Rights were not followed, and the Natural Law of living together and preserving the commons were concepts that were blatantly violated. So your example Eternal, in fact, fails to adhere to the standards of civil society that Locke has put forth. So, in the sense that is the valid concern in your point, I submit to you that in your example, in the example of the enslavement of the people of Africa, and the treatment of the indigenous peoples of the “America’s,” that the Natural Law was violated, and Natural Rights were in fact violated. Recent attempts at reprobations of prior actions and of legal settlements in favor of these communities would seem to acknowledge this as a fact.

The question is, why would you blame Locke, or how could you blame his argument?

The recognition of the concept of Natural Law, and of Natural Rights, and the appreciation of the blessing of “the Commons” is in no way to blame for the hypocrisy of the West, nor the darkness and greed that lies in the hearts of many – and in particular the rulers – of the Western powers.

I believe you may be literally, or by proxy of sound reasoning, familiar with the arguments of Jared Diamond? Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Immanuel Wallerstein and the essence of what is called the World Systems Analysis [perspective]…

I can then ask my next, and more pertinent question, is capitalism – particularly in its modern form - a doctrine compatible with the argument of Locke? Relatedly, be sure to read the short section “On Property,” and tell me what you think wealth really is, according to Locke? I assume you know the LTV of Locke [its in this section on property], if not ask and we should discuss it – for it lies at the heart of a very pertinent point to make with regards to Mr. Locke.

[Cato]

Quote: if you argue that we have no natural, innate, or free-born rights... just what is the foundation for a civil society?

Consider these points:

A) Society is not natural, it is an artifice, a tool. This is to say, our institutions and values do not sprout from the ground like plants, but are constructed like buildings.

B) Tools are built to solve problems. A bow gives me an advantage in an environment with game, and so I build it. The bow is not a natural advantage, but an artificial one. I have built it, it is not innate within me, and it is therefore artificial.

C) The usefulness of a tool depends on the environment. I have, with my bow, killed all of the game in my environment. There are no animals left, and my bow is no longer of use to me. My environment has changed, and thereby so has the usefulness of my tool. The bow is now useless; I throw it away.

D) I must now, in order to survive, build a new tool. I build a hoe, and sow seeds in the ground. My tool has changed because my environment has changed. The tools I create and discard reflect the changes of my environment. The artificial follows the natural, but is not the natural. This is to say, what is natural will not fail to change, but I can certainly fail to adapt.

Society, as has been shown, is a tool, an artifice. When the circumstances (environment) change, so does society perforce. Society would otherwise become ineffective, and eventually collapse. Such has been the fate of many great societies. You know what characteristic each of these societies had in common? Conservative institutions and values. They weren't able to change with their environment, so they are in rubble. We can choose to learn from their example, or we can choose to meet the same fate.

[Kindred]

Hmmmm, interesting.

I can only offer the ponderings of my own mind, after reading some Locke and assorted other philosophers.

The difference between a ‘freeborn’ right, and a contractual right, to me, is that a freeborn right is not granted (by government or law), nor theorised, but are rights that all humans are born with. I don’t hold the view that people can be born with something contractual in nature; and rights, I believe are soley contractual.

In other words, I believe rights are the product of tradtion and culture, and as such can not possibley be inalienable (unless through tight contractual agreements) or innate (period).

Cerainly, the most concentious of Locke’s propositions is the right to property, as it seem logically debunked. The ‘mixing labour with nature’ argument makes no sense to me; it’s a fallacy.

Furthermore (Katsmandu), the idea that other rights ‘flow’ from an innate right to life is the precise type of cop-out I reffered to in the opening of this thread.

What you must define (and what no one has yet done) is the diffrence between a supposedley innate or inaliebalnle right, and one which is not innate or inalienable: What are the characteristics which so greatly dichotomise these two types of rights (or ‘rights’ vs. ‘privleges’ if need-be), and why are those particualr characteristics of such profound importance.

[Katsumoto]

A.D wrote:
Furthermore (Katsmandu), the idea that other rights ‘flow’ from an innate right to life is the precise type of cop-out I reffered to in the opening of this thread.

Is that directed at me? I will assume it is. I fail to see how that is a cop-out. First though I would like to know specifically whether you are objecting to my reasoning behind the right to life (which I did explain if you read the entire post), or to the rights which I claim logically follow from it, or both.

[Kindred]

Katsmandu wrote: A.D wrote:
Furthermore (Katsmandu), the idea that other rights ‘flow’ from an innate right to life is the precise type of cop-out I reffered to in the opening of this thread.

Is that directed at me? I will assume it is. I fail to see how that is a cop-out. First though I would like to know specifically whether you are objecting to my reasoning behind the right to life (which I did explain if you read the entire post), or to the rights which I claim logically follow from it, or both.

The right to life is also contractual, but I'm reffering to all rights which you suppose to be 'natural' or innate. How do you differentiate between natural and contractual rights.

[Katsumoto]

A.D wrote: Katsmandu wrote: A.D wrote:
Furthermore (Katsmandu), the idea that other rights ‘flow’ from an innate right to life is the precise type of cop-out I reffered to in the opening of this thread.

Is that directed at me? I will assume it is. I fail to see how that is a cop-out. First though I would like to know specifically whether you are objecting to my reasoning behind the right to life (which I did explain if you read the entire post), or to the rights which I claim logically follow from it, or both.

The right to life is also contractual, but I'm reffering to all rights which you suppose to be 'natural' or innate. How do you differentiate between natural and contractual rights.

Contractual? I am not understanding your meaning. Is this some sort of allusion to a social contract? If so you should know that I find social contract theory extremely lacking and logically fallacious.

To me a right is either natural or it is not a right. I differentiate between rights and false-rights by whether or not they logically follow from the right to life. As I explained earlier, the question as to the origin of the natural right to life is somewhat of a paradox. If man were not a social animal the right would not exist (the tool would have no use as Cato might put it), so you could claim correctly that the right to life is a creation of society. Yet without the right to life societies would themselves be impossible to form in the first place. Thus we come to a chicken or egg paradox.

[WorldCitizenMovement]

A.D wrote: 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.

The only freeborn right we have is to fight and defend freeborn rights.

[Kindred]

Katsumoto wrote: A.D wrote: Katsmandu wrote: A.D wrote:
Furthermore (Katsmandu), the idea that other rights ‘flow’ from an innate right to life is the precise type of cop-out I reffered to in the opening of this thread.

Is that directed at me? I will assume it is. I fail to see how that is a cop-out. First though I would like to know specifically whether you are objecting to my reasoning behind the right to life (which I did explain if you read the entire post), or to the rights which I claim logically follow from it, or both.

The right to life is also contractual, but I'm reffering to all rights which you suppose to be 'natural' or innate. How do you differentiate between natural and contractual rights.

Contractual? I am not understanding your meaning. Is this some sort of allusion to a social contract? If so you should know that I find social contract theory extremely lacking and logically fallacious.

To me a right is either natural or it is not a right. I differentiate between rights and false-rights by whether or not they logically follow from the right to life. As I explained earlier, the question as to the origin of the natural right to life is somewhat of a paradox. If man were not a social animal the right would not exist (the tool would have no use as Cato might put it), so you could claim correctly that the right to life is a creation of society. Yet without the right to life societies would themselves be impossible to form in the first place. Thus we come to a chicken or egg paradox.

Arg, you've avoided the point yet again. This is excactly what happens everytime I bring this issue up.

Quote: I differentiate between rights and false-rights by whether or not they logically follow from the right to life

Simply explain this logic (it's apparently self-evident, so do it in as-concise a-manner as possible), and hence what 'rights' are included and why others are excluded. Surely you can simply name the rights we possess innately, and why they are characterised as such.


Quote: If man were not a social animal the right would not exist (the tool would have no use as Cato might put it), so you could claim correctly that the right to life is a creation of society. Yet without the right to life societies would themselves be impossible to form in the first place. Thus we come to a chicken or egg paradox.

That's absolute nonsense. The fact that society exists is an 'is', but it says nothing about what 'ought' to occur. You're trying to remove your deontological theory from deontology!

[The Impeacher]

Cato wrote: Quote: if you argue that we have no natural, innate, or free-born rights... just what is the foundation for a civil society?

Consider these points:

A) Society is not natural, it is an artifice, a tool. This is to say, our institutions and values do not sprout from the ground like plants, but are constructed like buildings.

B) Tools are built to solve problems. A bow gives me an advantage in an environment with game, and so I build it. The bow is not a natural advantage, but an artificial one. I have built it, it is not innate within me, and it is therefore artificial.

C) The usefulness of a tool depends on the environment. I have, with my bow, killed all of the game in my environment. There are no animals left, and my bow is no longer of use to me. My environment has changed, and thereby so has the usefulness of my tool. The bow is now useless; I throw it away.

D) I must now, in order to survive, build a new tool. I build a hoe, and sow seeds in the ground. My tool has changed because my environment has changed. The tools I create and discard reflect the changes of my environment. The artificial follows the natural, but is not the natural. This is to say, what is natural will not fail to change, but I can certainly fail to adapt.

Society, as has been shown, is a tool, an artifice. When the circumstances (environment) change, so does society perforce. Society would otherwise become ineffective, and eventually collapse. Such has been the fate of many great societies. You know what characteristic each of these societies had in common? Conservative institutions and values. They weren't able to change with their environment, so they are in rubble. We can choose to learn from their example, or we can choose to meet the same fate.

For the benefit of both yourself, and the posts above, I find it now necessary to post this:

Quote: innate
One entry found for innate.


Main Entry: in•nate

Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English innat, from Latin innatus, past participle of innasci to be born in, from in- + nasci to be born -- more at NATION
1 : existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth : NATIVE, INBORN <innate behavior>
2 : belonging to the essential nature of something : INHERENT
3 : originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience
- in•nate•ly adverb
- in•nate•ness noun

synonyms INNATE, INBORN, INBRED, CONGENITAL, HEREDITARY mean not acquired after birth. INNATE applies to qualities or characteristics that are part of one's inner essential nature <an innate sense of fair play>. INBORN suggests a quality or tendency either actually present at birth or so marked and deep-seated as to seem so <her inborn love of nature>. INBRED suggests something either acquired from parents by heredity or so deeply rooted and ingrained as to seem acquired in that way <inbred political loyalties>. CONGENITAL and HEREDITARY refer to what is acquired before or at birth, the former to things acquired during fetal development and the latter to things transmitted from one's ancestors <a congenital heart murmur> <eye color is hereditary>.
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=innate


And, again, I am noticing a strong tendency in this thread to swap from criticizing "a right" versus the conception of "inborn rights." This is not the case where a problem of Locke's REASON of a specific right, can be placed versus the conception of the Natural Rights as a whole. You need to differentiate these arguments. IT's literally throwing the baby out witht he bathwater, and I also feel very strongly that Locke's argument on property is poorly understood in this forum.

It's as simple as this, do people possess as innate desire and ability to communicate? Is it by some accident of nature that we have eyes, ears, and vocal chords? A brain and a conscious? Just pure probability? Before you say otherwise, I suggest you familiarize Chomsky's conception and argument of the LAD...

and since I get the impression that the familiarity with Locke is lacking in this thread:

John Locke wrote:
But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions:

Sec. 6: http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm

So, in short, my response to you Cato and others is that society is the tool of the collective. Societies are perfectly natural, as are our use of tools.

That you suggest that our use of tools separates from nature is most disturbing - for as Locke, Jefferson, Paine, and later Karl Marx would argue was the the alienating factor of the King's tyranny, and then later capitalism and the industrial revolutions land encosure movement - was the separating us from our natural agrarian past, from the commons, from NATURE...

Marx agreed with Locke, why do you mention "conservative institutions and values"? Locke was complete fricking RADICAL in his time, and in fact was wanted for sedition against the state! Paine was, in fact, JAILED.

And need I mention how the Crown treated my countries forefathers?

How are rights unnatural? RIGHTS ARE NATURAL.

Are yo upeople arguing that the individual has no purpose, no motivation, no sovereignty, or no will? How can any of those be meaningful if they are not found to be inherent qualites, and worthy of protection upon their recognition?

[Katsumoto]

A.D wrote: Arg, you've avoided the point yet again. This is excactly what happens everytime I bring this issue up.

:? I'm really not trying to...

Quote: Quote: I differentiate between rights and false-rights by whether or not they logically follow from the right to life

Simply explain this logic (it's apparently self-evident, so do it in as-concise a-manner as possible), and hence what 'rights' are included and why others are excluded. Surely you can simply name the rights we possess innately, and why they are characterised as such.

Sorry, Its just that I've explained it to you before in other threads. So I assumed you remembered what I was referring to. Also I thought it of little importance only because the only natural right that really matters in terms of your question is the right to life. All you have to do to determine which other rights are also natural is to determine whether or not they logically follow from the right to life. IOW, is the right necessary for you to realize your right to life.

I would argue that rights to property, as well as free speech and religion, rights of free association, and the right to freely enter contracts are all necessary to realize your right to life. Would you like me to explain my reasoning behind each one?

Quote: Quote: If man were not a social animal the right would not exist (the tool would have no use as Cato might put it), so you could claim correctly that the right to life is a creation of society. Yet without the right to life societies would themselves be impossible to form in the first place. Thus we come to a chicken or egg paradox.

That's absolute nonsense. The fact that society exists is an 'is', but it says nothing about what 'ought' to occur. You're trying to remove your deontological theory from deontology!

Can you explain that further please?

[The Impeacher]

A.D wrote: The fact that society exists is an 'is', but it says nothing about what 'ought' to occur. You're trying to remove your deontological theory from deontology!

you confuse "any society" from the argument of what the form of this civil society is. this is the argument for a civil society in the tradition of western liberalism, relative to its unique experience. why do you continue to assume this argument is NECESSARILY universal? it is only at best a sufficent argument is an much as it's one of consent....

secondarily, it is really both deductive AND an inductive argument, though primarily deductive afaik - why do you think pointing how the argument is partly inductive is a meangful, useful, or even a relevant objection? this is the second time the apples and oranges fallacy has been employed by those "claiming" to be arguing for logic. it is quite literally unreasanable of you....

this is not LOGICAL POSITIVISM, this is a normative and primarily deductive argument based upon REASON and EXPERIENCE [in this case, history of civil societies]. you are famiar with the concept of scope in arguments [spatial, temporal etc], so apply the proper tools of analysis to the argument. that criticism of induction - a priori / or circular logic - in an argument is a criticsm predicated on proof for scientific arguments. why is a self-evident argument subjected to this supposed fallacy of prrof when the argument admits up fron it is normative, and is one of REASON and not "pure logic?"

nor is this argument Moses coming down with Ten Commandmants...

nor do i understand how you think a society of humans will have a perfectly rational, logical, justification!? that is insane, lest you yourself have succumbed to believe that homo sapien is homo rationalis?

is all of NATURE explained away by a description of its PERFECT ORDER?

looking for logical proofs in this argument is like looking for the empathetic heart of the modern corporation... it's a failed expedition and an irrelevant objection. the problem with the modern corporation is its designed to not have a heart, and the "problem" of society is that people are not perfectly rational and omnicient. thus, we make laws for a civil society that benefit our REASON and our past EXPERIENCE.

only as long as both REASON and EXPERIENCE agree with each other, is there a natural state of consent....

...

and
A.D wrote: The right to life is also contractual.

i beg your pardon, and ask you to explain how one does not inherently posses a desire to live?

does this make vegans unreasonable?