News Lindsey Graham's Modification of 14th Amendment

[Cyrus]

I have the natural ability to kill another person. Do I have the right to murder?Article 1 section 8 of the United States constitution provides exclusive rights:

Ummmm, that's a power of congress. That's not in the hint: "bill of rights"

 

[apeiron]

Right, you said the US buys oil from Mexico. Your article talks about extreme corruption with drug runners. The fact that drugs are (illegally) smugged into the US boarders, actually makes my argument of strong boarder protection. So I'm curious as to why you would try and argue this position?

Right, you complained about the second link. But the oil one was the first link...LOL.

 

[Cyrus]

Right, you complained about the second link. But the oil one was the first link...LOL.

Yeah, I'm still reading the second one, piece by piece as I do other stuff...

But in any event, the second link certainly does not make a case for you, in no matter how you slice it.

 

[Al68]

Right! Like Hobbes says, I have the natural right to kill you, if I so choose.

You must have misinterpreted my post. Inferring that all natural abilities are natural rights from a statement that all natural rights are natural abilities is logically flawed.

I never said that all natural abilities were rights. And I never said that no entitlements were legitimate. I simply explained that they were two different concepts, and that the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights are a different concept than entitlements resulting from human agreement or contract.

On this topic, I much prefer Jonathan Wallalce:

The natural rights debate leads us down a false road. The energy spent in arguing which rules exist should better be spent deciding which rules we should make. The "perfect freedom" Locke described "to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit... without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man", does not dictate the existence of rights; instead it leaves us perfectly free to legislate them.

I prefer this freedom, which seems to me simple and clear: we are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe.​

Natural rights are not "rules". That was my point. Jonathon Wallace claims that the "natural rights debate leads down a false road", then fails to address them at all. As if he is completely ignorant of natural rights as a concept distinct from the concept of entitlement.

 

[Al68]

I have the natural ability to kill another person. Do I have the right to murder?

No. Inferring that all natural abilities are natural rights from a statement that all natural rights are natural abilities is logically flawed.

 

[apeiron]

No. Inferring that all natural abilities are natural rights from a statement that all natural rights are natural abilities is logically flawed.

What is not clear is what then distinguishes a natural right from a natural ability? Do you have criteria in mind?

I'd go with a different tack. There are natural abilities, but all individual rights are socially constructed. They are community decisions about those natural abilities that may be freely expressed (along with caveats about where constraints on those freedoms start to kick in - so nothing is every totally free in an unlimited sense).

I can't imagine any argument as to why individual humans must automatically enjoy some collection of absolute rights (except for faith-based ones). On the other hand, I completely accept that the best models of human society would find it "natural" to endorse a collection of individual rights.

So this is shift of focus from what is natural to individuals (ie: biological imperatives) to what is natural for societies (cultural imperatives).

A UN level charter on natural rights would thus be what is right for a planetary-level scale of human organisation, a national one would be based on more national interests, etc.

There are still big debates then about what human societies should be striving to achieve - to maximise happiness, to maximise complexity, to maximise entropy? And changing the overall goal would probably change the local view of what natural abilities individuals should be free to express.

 

[SixNein]

Ummmm, that's a power of congress. That's not in the hint: "bill of rights"

The bill of rights is the first 10 amendments of the constitution, and those amendments have to do with the power of congress.

For example, the first amendment of the constitution states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

[Cyrus]

The bill of rights is the first 10 amendments of the constitution, and those amendments have to do with the power of congress.

No, not really. They don't have to do with the powers of congress...

For example, the first amendment of the constitution states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And what you quoted earlier was an article regarding the power of congress - i.e, not relevant to what are 'natural rights'. Do you see the difference? One is in regards to the powers of congress, the other is in regards to the rights of the people. Again, they are not one in the same.

 

[SixNein]

No. Inferring that all natural abilities are natural rights from a statement that all natural rights are natural abilities is logically flawed.

You said:

A right is the result of nature, and is based on what we naturally have the ability to do.

[And you provide an example:] A right to blink, as a non-politicized example.

You are countering your own argument as far as I can tell.

As I said before, the concept of rights are human constructions.

Freedom should be explained in such a way that it has its origin in the nature of the mind, because only minds are free.
-LEIBNIZ

 

[Hurkyl]

You must have misinterpreted my post. Inferring that all natural abilities are natural rights from a statement that all natural rights are natural abilities is logically flawed.

Your point about natural rights is a "false road"; legal rights are the ones that are relevant, and clearly what SixNein was talking about.

Natural rights are not the only kind of rights. They are called "natural" because they are elevated to be some sort of principle of nature -- and, IMO, often as a cheap bit of sophistry (unintentional or otherwise) to inflate the seeming importance of one's opinion about what rights one ought to have.

The point of my comment about Hobbes is to remind you that everyone and their brother has their own opinion about what natural rights are. IMO the whole idea is practically meaningless.

 

[Hurkyl]

Jonathon Wallace claims that the "natural rights debate leads down a false road", then fails to address them at all.

The paragraphs I quoted were the last two from the essay. Did you read it?

 

[SixNein]

No, not really. They don't have to do with the powers of congress...

They are both in regards to the power of congress. One gives power, and the other limits power.

 

[Cyrus]

They are both in regards to the power of congress. One gives power, and the other limits power.

One is about the powers of congress, the other is about the protection of the rights of citizens (which, granted, is stated in such a way as a limit on congress).

 

[SixNein]

Your point about natural rights is a "false road"; legal rights are the ones that are relevant, and clearly what SixNein was talking about.

Natural rights are not the only kind of rights. They are called "natural" because they are elevated to be some sort of principle of nature -- and, IMO, often as a cheap bit of sophistry (unintentional or otherwise) to inflate the seeming importance of one's opinion about what rights one ought to have.

The point of my comment about Hobbes is to remind you that everyone and their brother has their own opinion about what natural rights are. IMO the whole idea is practically meaningless.

I agree. Some people consider some rights more important, so they elevate these rights to 'God Given' status.

 

[SixNein]

One is about the powers of congress, the other is about the protection of the rights of citizens (which, granted, is stated in such a way as a limit on congress).

Your close but not quite.

The limitation on congress is what creates those rights. You have the right to free speech because congress has been expressly forbidden from passing laws regarding the expression of speech.

You have the right because there is no law saying otherwise, and your right is protected because congress has been expressly forbidden to write laws regulating speech.

 

[SixNein]

Your close but not quite.

The limitation on congress is what creates those rights. You have the right to free speech because congress has been expressly forbidden from passing laws regarding the expression of speech.

You have the right because there is no law saying otherwise.

I want to build on that for a moment because it brings up something interesting.

In law, there is no right or wrong. There is only breaking the law and not breaking the law. When someone commits a crime, let's say speeding, one does not question if the person did right or wrong; instead, one asks did the person break the law or did the person abide by the law. Now, the person may have had a moral reason to break the law by speeding in his or her car. But the government does not care about moral reasons. The government only cares about the law.

To the point, rights are much the same way. One could think of rights as something a person is able to do without breaking the law. Such a right may be morally wrong, and it could even harm others, but the government does not base its decisions on moral means.

 

[russ_watters]

As is common today, you are using the word "right" as a synonym for "entitlement". Historically, those words were not used interchangeably, as they are based on two completely different concepts.

An entitlement is the result of human agreement or contract, like you were saying. An entitlement to half off my next oil change, as a non-politicized example.

A right is the result of nature, and is based on what we naturally have the ability to do. A right to blink, as a non-politicized example. This is why they are often referred to as "natural" or "God-given" rights. They exist independently of any human agreement or contract.

It's unfortunate that these words are so often used interchangeably, since there is no other synonym for either that effectively differentiates the two different concepts.

The constitution contains no references to entitlements, only rights. And no rights are "granted" by the constitution, only protected from infringement.

That's a good description of the issue. The problem is that recently, as you indicate, the word "rights" is being overused and used arbitrarily. In the past, political science was a serious philosophical pursuit, with papers and books written to develop the concepts logically. Today, people are doing political science arbitrarily, based on little more than what sounds good in their heads.

It's just a word - why is it important to me whether it is a right or an entitlement? Simple: if something is a right, then it is a requirement that a civilized nation protect it. An "entitlement" is a choice.

 

[Hurkyl]

In law, there is no right or wrong.

I want to add an addendum before someone jumps on this (or so Six can correct me of he disagrees).


Issues of right and wrong do enter into the picture indirectly -- there are often existing laws codifying matters of right and wrong so that they may be used in the legal process.


Issues of right and wrong may enter directly as an interpretational issue -- judges are compelled to take into the account not just the letter, but the "spirit" of the law. So, on the assumption that the spirit of the law is Good and Just, issues of what is Right can creep into decisions and even become case law.

 

[Hurkyl]

Simple: if something is a right, then it is a requirement that a civilized nation protect it. An "entitlement" is a choice.

So what makes it a right (by your meaning) in the first place? That civilized nations decreed it should be protected, of course.

 

[apeiron]

Simple: if something is a right, then it is a requirement that a civilized nation protect it. An "entitlement" is a choice.

So same question, what would be a candidate right in your view? Is there anything that a human should be able to do without social restriction for some absolute reason?

I note you mention "civilised nation", which seems tacit acceptance that rights are granted for organisational and functional reasons rather than for moral absolute reasons. Is this what you meant? Otherwise you would have said "any moral nation"?

 

[SixNein]

I want to add an addendum before someone jumps on this (or so Six can correct me of he disagrees).Issues of right and wrong do enter into the picture indirectly -- there are often existing laws codifying matters of right and wrong so that they may be used in the legal process.Issues of right and wrong may enter directly as an interpretational issue -- judges are compelled to take into the account not just the letter, but the "spirit" of the law. So, on the assumption that the spirit of the law is Good and Just, issues of what is Right can creep into decisions and even become case law.

Ugh, I accidentally opened up an old and nasty can of worms.

You may or may not be correct depending on who you ask. Because the constitution is silent on how it should be interpreted, there is wide disagreement on the issue that really separates conservative and liberal judges. The issue your speaking of is also called "The living Constitution", and it basically says that the constitution should be interpreted dynamically. Judges should interpret the law based upon its spirit and intent relative to today's society. Hence the idea of a living document.

Conservative critics of the living interpretation argue that the constitution provides a mechanism to change the Constitution, and the constitution should be changed through the amendment process instead of by the whims of judges. They have a more 'by the letter' interpretation of the law.

And this argument goes back to the beginning of the United States, and it is still argued today.

On a side note:
I think the real difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer is his ability to get you out of a violation of the spirt of the law by arguing the law by the letter.

So I would say that the law is somewhere in-between by the letter and by the spirit, and I think it depends mostly on who you get for a judge, and it also may depend on the conservative vs liberal balance of the supreme court.

 

[russ_watters]

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would appear to state otherwise.

Already mostly addressed, but there is a lot of silliness on that declaration, not to mention simple wishful thinking. It is counterproductive to put such things on the list when the real human rights are being abused by a number of countries.

Reading the list, I see a bunch of things that are more wishes than rights, reading more like a statement of development goals. Examples...

#15 doesn't make logical sense: how is the right to change a nationality something even desirable? Every country has immigration/naturalization law - the declaration implies that there shoule be no restrictions on picking you nationality. Silly/unworkable.

#22 doesn't make any sense.

#24: right to rest and liesure? C'mon. That's a personal choice, not something the government needs anything to do with.

#25 is what we're discussing and more - a right to a standard of living? Unworkable/unenforceable, and also undefined. What is the level of care? It does not say that socialized medicine is a requirement and the US is not completely devoid of free healthcare (an ambulance cannot refuse to pick you up, for example). The US Declaration of Independence had it right: the right is to the pursuit of happiness. The government can't make it for you, but it also shouldn't stand in the way.

#26 - as noted, making something compusory (education) is the antithesis of a right, but in this case that doesn't mean it is a bad thing. Other parts have words like "accessible" and "available". That's not the language of a right.

#27 - the first part is meaningless. The second is copyright protection, which is fine.

#28 is meaningless.

#29 - duties are not rights and have no place in that document unless it is not meant to simply be a declaration of rights. And the proclamation seems to imply it is meant to be more than just a list of rights:

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

A criticism that I've stated before:

The UD's distinctive "rights" are incompatible with that doctrine [of natural rights]. Enforcement of one person's economic, social, or cultural rights necessarily involves forcing others to relinquish their property, or to use it in a way prescribed by the enforcers. It would, therefore, constitute a clear violation of their natural right to manage and dispose of their lawful possessions without coercive or aggressive interference by others. It would also deny a person the right to improve his condition by accepting work for what he (but perhaps no one else) considers an adequate wage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
Or more succinctly: the DHR is not internally consistent - it contains self-contradictions.

 

[SixNein]

It is counterproductive to put such things on the list when the real human rights are being abused by a number of countries.

1. How exactly do you find it to be counter-productive?
2. What is your criteria for real human rights?

#15 doesn't make logical sense: how is the right to change a nationality something even desirable? Every country has immigration/naturalization law - the declaration implies that there shoule be no restrictions on picking you nationality. Silly/unworkable.

In some Arab nations, a woman who gives birth to her child of a foreign father cannot transfer her nationality to her child. The clause seems to be focused on dealing with conflicts of this type.

#22 doesn't make any sense.

I agree with you, the language is not very good in this article. I'm guessing this article is especially targeting conflicts. Let us assume that some portion of the population of an enemy nation is under control, for example, a city. The controlling nation should provide adequate services to support the population with such things as food, medication, and education.

#24: right to rest and liesure? C'mon. That's a personal choice, not something the government needs anything to do with.

This article is targeting employment. For example, a company tells its workers that they must work 14 hours per day, 7 days per week, without any breaks for meals or rest.

25 is what we're discussing and more - a right to a standard of living?
Unworkable/unenforceable, and also undefined. What is the level of care? It does not say that socialized medicine is a requirement and the US is not completely devoid of free healthcare (an ambulance cannot refuse to pick you up, for example). The US Declaration of Independence had it right: the right is to the pursuit of happiness. The government can't make it for you, but it also shouldn't stand in the way.

I have heard similar arguments from those who have right-wing political philosophies. One thing I never did understand about the right-wing with all its preachings of conservatism is how it can view an artificial creation of the law (a company) to be equal to that of a person. I would argue that the purpose of corporations is for the benefit of the community. And this clause seems to argue for a minimum standard of benefit.

#26 - as noted, making something compusory (education) is the antithesis of a right, but in this case that doesn't mean it is a bad thing. Other parts have words like "accessible" and "available". That's not the language of a right.

I think education is the bedrock of freedom. If a group is denied education for whatever reason, I believe the group is not participating in freedom.

#27 - the first part is meaningless. The second is copyright protection, which is fine.

Have you ever heard of the untouchables from India?

#28 is meaningless.

I think the clause is political.

#29 - duties are not rights and have no place in that document unless it is not meant to simply be a declaration of rights. And the proclamation seems to imply it is meant to be more than just a list of rights:
A criticism that I've stated before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
Or more succinctly: the DHR is not internally consistent - it contains self-contradictions.

I think this article is too complicated, and it may also be open to abuses. The idea is that since people are providing these rights and services to you, you have the obligation to return the favor. In a basic nutshell, it is being used to provide a collectivist principle.

 

[SixNein]

The US Declaration of Independence had it right: the right is to the pursuit of happiness.

But how do you define happiness?

Are you using a Locke interpretation of happiness, or are you perhaps using a Leibniz interpretation of happiness?

http://www.leibniz-translations.com/happiness.htm

 

[cristo]

#15 doesn't make logical sense: how is the right to change a nationality something even desirable? Every country has immigration/naturalization law - the declaration implies that there shoule be no restrictions on picking you nationality. Silly/unworkable.

The clause does not state that there should be no restrictions on choosing your nationality. It says that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality (i.e. if one adheres to other nationality criteria they cannot be randomly deprived of it because someone in power says so) and that he should not be denied the right to change his nationality (i.e. that, should he choose, he can give up his nationality). The poster above also makes a good point on a situation this clause covers.

The US Declaration of Independence had it right: the right is to the pursuit of happiness.

That's just a phrase that sounds fancy but doesn't really mean anything.

 

[Char. Limit]

The clause does not state that there should be no restrictions on choosing your nationality. It says that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality (i.e. if one adheres to other nationality criteria they cannot be randomly deprived of it because someone in power says so) and that he should not be denied the right to change his nationality (i.e. that, should he choose, he can give up his nationality). The poster above also makes a good point on a situation this clause covers.




That's just a phrase that sounds fancy but doesn't really mean anything.

It doesn't in the modern meaning of pursuit, but in 1700's America, "pursuit" had another meaning. I can't remember what, though. I'm looking it up after this post is finished.

 

[mheslep]

Right! Like Hobbes says, I have the natural right to kill you, if I so choose.


On this topic, I much prefer Jonathan Wallace:

The natural rights debate leads us down a false road. The energy spent in arguing which rules exist should better be spent deciding which rules we should make. The "perfect freedom" Locke described "to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit... without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man", does not dictate the existence of rights; instead it leaves us perfectly free to legislate them.

I prefer this freedom, which seems to me simple and clear: we are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe.​

And I prefer Edmund Burke. That second paragraph is exactly the kind of thing for which Burke attacked the French Jacobins. The Jacobins sat at the table and decided, 'together', that it was right and proper to lop off a few thousand heads, including Lavoisier's. We are not free to discard the institutions of the past (all at once) either practically or morally.

 

[Hurkyl]

And I prefer Edmund Burke. That second paragraph is exactly the kind of thing for which Burke attacked the French Jacobins. The Jacobins sat at the table and decided, 'together', that it was right and proper to lop off a few thousand heads, including Lavoisier's. We are not free to discard the institutions of the past (all at once) either practically or morally.

I confess that I can't figure out your reasoning at all. (at least, without assuming you have set up a strawman to attack)

I'm not familiar with Burke, but a brief search does not obviously show him as holding an opposing opinion. "Let this position be analyzed, for analysis is the deadly enemy of all declamation." I could easily hear this stated in opposition to a rousing speech proclaiming some natural right which we must therefore insist be protected by all civilized nations.

 

[Cyrus]

That's just a phrase that sounds fancy but doesn't really mean anything.

Why does it matter? It's not a part of the bill of rights, or even the constitution.

 

[mheslep]

I confess that I can't figure out your reasoning at all. (at least, without assuming you have set up a strawman to attack)

To avoid any sense of a strawman let me restate your bit of Wallace:

I prefer this freedom, which seems to me simple and clear: we are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature.​

I suggest the early days of the French Revolution were an example of these idea put into play, encouraged by the philosophy of Rousseau. In addition to executing the monarchs they saw fit to eliminate nearly all parts of the previous society - legal and societal. If, by suggesting a strawman in my earlier post, you believe that I'm comparing Wallace's 'free from contraints' statement to the mobs in the street (?), no I'm not. I'm comparing Wallace's gathering at a table to the 1789 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Constituent_Assembly" who, after deliberation, slaughtered thousands.

In referring to Burke I mean specifically his 1789 http://www.bartleby.com/24/3/" in which he details several hundred pages of his objections. Burke scholar JGA Pocock has this summary in the introduction to my copy of Reflections:

[Burke] claim[ed] that human beings acting in politics always start from within a historically determined context, and that it is morally as well as practically important to remember that they are not absolutely free to wipe away this context and reconstruct human society as they wish.​

I'm not familiar with Burke, but a brief search does not obviously show him as holding an opposing opinion. "Let this position be analyzed, for analysis is the deadly enemy of all declamation." I could easily hear this stated in opposition to a rousing speech proclaiming some natural right which we must therefore insist be protected by all civilized nations.

Agreed, but the fact there will always be some demagogue declaiming on natural rights without understanding seems to me a tangential issue at best, certainly separate from Wallace's suggestion that we ignore all past entanglements.

 

[Hurkyl]

To avoid any sense of a strawman let me restate your bit of Wallace:

I prefer this freedom, which seems to me simple and clear: we are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature.​

Okay. I cede this point for the sake of discussion because it is irrelevant to anything I wanted to say, and I think mostly inconsequential to Wallace's essay as well -- I think it was more of a playful jab at Locke than anything else.


The point is that if we are discussing issues like "what rights should a government grant?", we should focus our discussion on trying to answer what rights a government should grant, based on the pros and cons of being a right granted by a government. This is not a time to be philosophizing about murky concepts of nature, nor about hopping on bandwagons.

"Historically determined context" is, of course, relevant -- not only it a source of experience and empirical evidence, but it tells us about the people who would be governed, which is important in evaluating the utility of government policy.

Agreed, but the fact there will always be some demagogue declaiming on natural rights without understanding seems to me a tangential issue at best, certainly separate from Wallace's suggestion that we ignore all past entanglements.

Al68 was aiming in that direction; his proclamation that all rights are natural and lament that people have confused the idea with entitlement is what prompted me to respond.

 

[drankin]

I think there is some disagreement as to whether a right is granted or simply respected by a government. It is believed by many conservative Americans that our rights are not granted but respected and protected by our government. It's more of a philosophical stance I suppose.

 

[Al68]

They are community decisions about those natural abilities that may be freely expressed (along with caveats about where constraints on those freedoms start to kick in - so nothing is every totally free in an unlimited sense).

This is obviously true, but the distinction I was making was that whatever actions are determined to be natural "rights" are performed by the person having the right. The actions required by "entitlements" are performed by other people.

It should be obvious why that distinction is important to libertarians.

 

[Al68]

Natural rights are not the only kind of rights. They are called "natural" because they are elevated to be some sort of principle of nature -- and, IMO, often as a cheap bit of sophistry (unintentional or otherwise) to inflate the seeming importance of one's opinion about what rights one ought to have.

That's not why they are called "natural rights". They are called natural rights because the actions a person has the right to perform are actions he has the ability to perform by nature. (But not necessarily the other way around, just in case that's still not as obvious as I think it is).

The point of my comment about Hobbes is to remind you that everyone and their brother has their own opinion about what natural rights are. IMO the whole idea is practically meaningless.

The idea you seem to think it refers to is meaningless, even to a libertarian. The distinction is that natural rights refer to actions a person may engage in, while an entitlement refers to obligatory actions performed by other people. One allows actions while the other requires actions. That distinction is obviously important to libertarians.

Al68 was aiming in that direction; his proclamation that all rights are natural and lament that people have confused the idea with entitlement is what prompted me to respond.

I didn't proclaim that, I said that the word "right" is used in the Bill of Rights to refer to natural rights, not entitlements.

Here's a further illustration of the distinction:

"John has a natural right to ______". An action that John may perform goes in the blank.
"John has an entitlement to ______". A material good or service provided by another person goes in the blank.

Remember that my posts in this thread were in the context of a "right to health care" being compared to rights in the Bill of Rights. I'm assuming that the right referred to in "right to health care" does not refer to the actual act of receiving health care, but refers to an entitlement to be provided health care services by other people.

 

[Al68]

I agree. Some people consider some rights more important, so they elevate these rights to 'God Given' status.

"God given", or "natural", does not refer to being more important, it refers to the source of the ability to perform the action.

A "right" or entitlement to health care doesn't even refer to a right to perform any action. It refers to services being performed by other people.

 

[Hurkyl]

A bit of amusement: Wikipedia defines:

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement​

And Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions or be in certain states, or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or be in certain states.​

 

[Evo]

Related article in today's news.

Study: 8 Percent of U.S. Births to Illegal Immigrants

Critics of birthright citizenship have expressed concern over the burgeoning size of America's illegal immigrant population, estimated at 10.8 million and whose offspring in the U.S. would be able to sponsor their parents and relatives for legal residency. The children are sometimes referred to as anchor babies.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/birt...hildren/story?id=11376791&cid=yahoo_pitchlist

 

[Al68]

And Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions or be in certain states, or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or be in certain states.​

Sure, but those two definitions are two different concepts. The first refers to actions/inaction of the person with the right (personal liberty), while the second refers to actions/inaction required of other people (obligation of others).

The word "right" used in the Bill of Rights refers to the first definition, not the second.

The word "right" used in "right to health care" in the post I responded to refers to the second definition, not the first.

My objection wasn't just to the semantical issue of using the word "right" to mean either of those two different things, it was to using it in a "bait-and-switch" between the two different concepts.

And I never said either was more or less important or valid than the other. Comparing an example of one to an example of the other is like comparing quark strangeness to vanilla because they are both "flavors".

 

[mheslep]

Related article in today's news.

Study: 8 Percent of U.S. Births to Illegal Immigrants



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/birt...hildren/story?id=11376791&cid=yahoo_pitchlist

One in every twelve births to illegals? If true that warrants more drastic action.

 

[Al68]

Jonathon Wallace claims that the "natural rights debate leads down a false road", then fails to address them at all.

The paragraphs I quoted were the last two from the essay. Did you read it?

I have now. Wallace is very confused about what is being referred to by Locke, Hobbes, and Jefferson when they use the word "right" or "natural right". He never even addresses what they are referring to. He also misrepresents their writings in other ways. That article is complete nonsense.

But there are too many misrepresentations and logical flaws in it to address it fully in this thread, so I'll just address a couple:

Had Jefferson written, "We want the following rights," he would have been making a simple, clear statement easy to understand.

Sure, but such a statement would not represent what he was saying.

Langauge allows us to construct phrases which are grammatically correct but which do not mean anything (or do not mean what they appear to).

They mean exactly what they appear to mean to me, but not what they appear to mean to Wallace.

Does the statement "We hold these rights to be self-evident" in fact mean anything more profound than "we want them?"

Yes. Wallace obviously does not compehend basic libertarian principles.

His article reflects a lack of comprehension of, not disagreement with, the writings he refers to.

Edit: I think the word "unenlightened" is especially apt for Wallace's article, since the concepts he doesn't understand are core concepts of The Enlightenment. Locke, especially, was perhaps the single most influential leader of the Enlightenment movement.

 

[mheslep]

Also the Declaration does not just reflect Jefferson's phrasing. The term 'self-evident' is Franklin's; both Adams and Franklin reviewed Jefferson's draft carefully, then a larger body of the assembly hacked on the document, obliterating several paragraphs though the rights clause stayed, and all eventually signed it. With Wallace's viewpoint one need not be bothered with these "half-remembered", "patriarchal", and "murky" histories.

 

[Gokul43201]

Does the statement "We hold these rights to be self-evident" in fact mean anything more profound than "we want them?"

Yes. Wallace obviously does not compehend basic libertarian principles.

Some folks have asked this of you before, and if you have already answered it, then a link to the relevant post is appreciated; but if not, can you explain what determines that a specific natural ability is to be considered a natural right?

 

[Al68]

Some folks have asked this of you before, and if you have already answered it, then a link to the relevant post is appreciated; but if not, can you explain what determines that a specific natural ability is to be considered a natural right?

I don't remember being asked this before, but the simple answer for a libertarian is whether or not an action harms another or infringes on another's rights.

A more complete complicated answer is beyond the scope of this thread, but there are many websites devoted to it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Thanks for the response. For a previous request of essentially the same thing, see the beginning of post #156 .

I don't remember being asked this before, but the simple answer for a libertarian is whether or not an action harms another or infringes on another's rights.

To paraphrase you (I hope accurately): a right is a natural ability that does not infringe upon another's rights.

That definition (one I have come across most often) seems to be recursive, and therefore not terribly easy to work with. I was hoping you might provide a different one. =(

 

[apeiron]

I don't remember being asked this before, but the simple answer for a libertarian is whether or not an action harms another or infringes on another's rights.

I agree this sound self-referential, but I also - from a systems science perspective - think it is essentially correct.

However a better way of phrasing it, rather than talking about either harm or rights, might be to say that you should be free to take any action that does not reduce the freedoms of others.

So local freedoms become a global system-defined property - a maximisation of collective freedom.

And this would be a natural justification as in nature, it is natural for systems to settle into equilibrium states.

To call local freedoms "rights" is misleading I would say because it suggest there is some absolute reason for having a freedom - one that has nothing to do with societies or systems, but which somehow inhere in individuals as a moral property.

But it is easy to make the argument that a healthy system is one with local degrees of freedom (Ashby's requisite variety in the old cybernetics lingo). This allows a system to adapt and learn.

 

[Al68]

Thanks for the response. For a previous request of essentially the same thing, see the beginning of post #156 .

Oops. I try to offer some response to questions asked of me, but I missed that one completely.

To paraphrase you (I hope accurately): a right is a natural ability that does not infringe upon another's rights.

Yes, that's a fair paraphrase.

That definition (one I have come across most often) seems to be recursive, and therefore not terribly easy to work with. I was hoping you might provide a different one. =(

Yeah, it's a pretty complicated issue. That's why I think it's unfortunate that it's further complicated by the common use of the word "right" to refer to contractual entitlements as well as natural rights.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The more I look at it, the more I'm convinced by Gokul43201's simple argument. That standard libertarian definition says what rights aren't, but it doesn't say what rights are.

 

[Al68]

The more I look at it, the more I'm convinced by Gokul43201's simple argument. That standard libertarian definition says what rights aren't, but it doesn't say what rights are.

Well, if we establish which actions are not rights, and define rights to include all other actions, we would know which actions are rights.

A simpler definition might be that a natural right is any action that isn't "wrong" (infringes on others' rights).

 

[CRGreathouse]

A simpler definition might be that a natural right is any action that isn't "wrong" (infringes on others' rights).

This doesn't remove the circularity.

This seems to be a serious, rather than superficial, problem with the definition.

 

[SixNein]

This doesn't remove the circularity.

This seems to be a serious, rather than superficial, problem with the definition.

I think people try to turn rights into something divine instead of human constructions created in the mind.

But if people are looking for help, I would suggest borrowing from René Descartes:

I think; therefore, I am.

So one could argue that thinking is a natural right. But I do not know how much further one could run with this argument.

At such point, one could define all other rights as relative rights. IE: Rights that appeal to thinking.