Lindsey Graham's Modification of 14th Amendment

[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.

 

[Al68]

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.

The "circularity" you refer to is an intentional avoidance of defining which actions are natural rights instead of just the concept. That definition was for what the term "natural right" means, not to define which actions are natural rights. None of my posts in this thread were intended to make any claims about which actions are or aren't natural rights, except the right to blink. And I used that one specifically to avoid a sidetrack into the issue of which actions are natural rights.

 

[Al68]

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

Maybe so, but that has nothing to do with the huge conceptual difference between an action that is a "right", and an entitlement to some material good or service from another as a result of a contract or agreement between people. The difference has nothing to do with "divinity".

 

[CRGreathouse]

The "circularity" you refer to is an intentional avoidance of defining which actions are natural rights instead of just the concept.

Let me put it this way. I consider myself a libertarian, and this argument has caused a minor 'crisis of faith' for me. It seemed at first like this would be an easy thing to correct -- maybe an inductive definition, adding actions as rights for all parties under conditions that don't allow for existing rights to be infringed -- but I wasn't able to succeed. I have -- or had -- a good idea of what is meant by "rights" (I've always called them "negative rights", freedoms from rather than freedoms to), but now I'm not sure that I have a coherent definition in mind rather than a vague bundle of platitudes.

 

[Hurkyl]

Maybe so, but that has nothing to do with the huge conceptual difference between an action that is a "right", and an entitlement to some material good or service from another as a result of a contract or agreement between people. The difference has nothing to do with "divinity".

I think the conceptual difference only really exists if you don't analyze much.

It may be due to a lack of imagination, but I cannot come up with a way that you could have a government-granted right without at least being entitled to a service that protects it.

 

[apeiron]

Again, the answer seems simple enough. If the goal is to maximise individual freedom (the libertarian position) then individuals should be free to take any action that does not reduce the freedoms of others.

This is a self-referential definition, but not a circular one, as it models an interaction between the global whole (a community of free actors) and its local parts (the free actors).

If you wanted to then name particular rights, this is because you want to protect them explicitly via community institutions.

It is not because they are absolute self-evident truths, god-given mandates or even biological necessities. It is just naming the free actions which are either socially desired or socially inconsequential (but personally, biologically, satisfying) so they can be actively recognised and protected (and limited).

 

[Evo]

Can we please get back to the topic?

Congressmen Lindsey Graham is trying to modify the 14th Amendment so as to not include children born of illegal parents in this country. Sounds like a good, reasonable idea to me. We don't reward illegal behavior.

 

[lisab]

I think this whole 'anchor baby' issue is another red herring, something that comes up about this time every election cycle. Like I mentioned before: flag burning, sanctity of marriage, prayer in school, anything to do with gays. Blah blah blah, it's all fluff.

But this issue is tricky. I don't think it's a stretch to say it focuses on Hispanics. Look at the demographic shift in coming in the US over the next several decades: Hispanics will be a formidable portion of the population in several states. Are the Republicans sure they want to use this as their rallying call?

 

[SixNein]

I think this whole 'anchor baby' issue is another red herring, something that comes up about this time every election cycle. Like I mentioned before: flag burning, sanctity of marriage, prayer in school, anything to do with gays. Blah blah blah, it's all fluff.

But this issue is tricky. I don't think it's a stretch to say it focuses on Hispanics. Look at the demographic shift in coming in the US over the next several decades: Hispanics will be a formidable portion of the population in several states. Are the Republicans sure they want to use this as their rallying call?

The republicans have a very serious problem on their hands. I don't think republicans are very popular with any minority, and the nation is quickly becoming a majority of minorities. As such, the republicans may lose even the light of power.

I personally think power is the motivation behind this issue.

 

[edward]

I think this whole 'anchor baby' issue is another red herring, something that comes up about this time every election cycle. Like I mentioned before: flag burning, sanctity of marriage, prayer in school, anything to do with gays. Blah blah blah, it's all fluff.

But this issue is tricky. I don't think it's a stretch to say it focuses on Hispanics. Look at the demographic shift in coming in the US over the next several decades: Hispanics will be a formidable portion of the population in several states. Are the Republicans sure they want to use this as their rallying call?

The demographics will be shifting rapidly.

(CNN) -- One of about every 12 babies born in the United States in 2008 was the offspring of unauthorized immigrants, a Pew Hispanic Center study released Wednesday concluded.

According to the study, an estimated 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in this country that year had parents who were in the United States without legal documentation.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/11/hispanic.study/?hpt=T2

That is a national average. Arizona has been invaded.

It amazes me how the politicians have handled this. It is as if they never saw it coming and all of a sudden it is an emergency. McCain has an ad running on television 17 times a day that promises 3,000 troops on the border. Three months ago he didn't care.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The republicans have a very serious problem on their hands. I don't think republicans are very popular with any minority, and the nation is quickly becoming a majority of minorities. As such, the republicans may lose even the light of power.

My analysis matches yours.

I personally think power is the motivation behind this issue.

A secret Republican plot to lose power over the next few decades?