News What Are We Entitled To and Why?

[Loren Booda]

To what are we entitled and why?

 

[franznietzsche]

To what are we entitled and why?

Absolutely nothing.

If you don't earn it, you don't deserve it. Period.

Well, i suppose except for your life in the first place.

 

[misskitty]

Do you mean rights or things ingeneral?

 

[misskitty]

Absolutely nothing.

If you don't earn it, you don't deserve it. Period.

Well, i suppose except for your life in the first place.

I can relate to that. However I am an American and I'm used to have rights.

 

[franznietzsche]

I can relate to that. However I am an American and I'm used to have rights.

You are NOT entitled to those rights. You have those rights only because people have fought and died for them. I really hope you don't actually believe that you deserve those rights inherently, independent of the sacrifices of others have made for your sake.

I am an American, and unlike some of the more 'european' members of my country(i mean this in terms of world view) i know that i only have the priveleges i have because of the sacrifices of those who fought and died for them. And that is the only reason. I am not entitled to those rights. We have those privileges only for as long as we are willing to fight and earn them.

 

[Polly]

I had had no idea of the American sense of entitlement until I watched an episode of American Idol. At least one of the contestants seemed to think just because she made it to the semi-final, she would automatically make it to the final. Both she and her mother believe that she is every bit as good as other finalists, IRRESPECTIVE of the judges' verdict. I think the show should actually be called "America's Messed Up People" .

 

[russ_watters]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

franz, rights, by definition are entitlements. That's a little different from the concept that "freedom ain't free."

 

[Moonbear]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

franz, rights, by definition are entitlements. That's a little different from the concept that "freedom ain't free."

I agree. Everyone is entitled to those most basic human rights (yes, by definition...lol).

 

[franznietzsche]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

franz, rights, by definition are entitlements. That's a little different from the concept that "freedom ain't free."

I don't consider them rights, i consider them privileges. Privileges whose only conditions are being alive, and being ready to always defend and fight for them.

To consider them entitlements is to breed the very attitude we don't want to encourage. The attitude that people deserve things from their government just because. Which they don't.

Remember, if you give a mouse a cookie...

The 'American Attitude' of entitlement is absolutely disgusting. Personally, I'm ashamed to be from the same solar system as some people.

 

[misskitty]

You are NOT entitled to those rights. You have those rights only because people have fought and died for them. I really hope you don't actually believe that you deserve those rights inherently, independent of the sacrifices of others have made for your sake.

I am an American, and unlike some of the more 'european' members of my country(i mean this in terms of world view) i know that i only have the priveleges i have because of the sacrifices of those who fought and died for them. And that is the only reason. I am not entitled to those rights. We have those privileges only for as long as we are willing to fight and earn them.

I know why I have those rights! Believe me I know more about the sacrifice that too many soldiers have made to keep those rights intact. I never said I was entitled to those right. I said i was used to having them. Do not put words in my mouth. I never said I was entitled to anything.

I know far too well about the sacrifies made to have them. I have too many people who are near and dear to me fighting to keep them. If I had my way, they wouldn't be. But we need to fight for them. I'm planning on serving time to earn those rights myself.

You don't deserve them more than I do.

 

[misskitty]

I very much agree with Moonbear and Russ. Following your pattern of though Franz, was what my previous post was addressing.

Basic human rights are those listed in the Bill of Rights. No one ever said that rights were going to be free. Everyone has to make sacrifices to earn them.

What have you sacrificed?

 

[Bartholomew]

Everyone deserves things from their government "just because" it's their government. Its sole purpose is to enable its citizens to have what they need.

 

[misskitty]

Hear Hear! I will completely agree with that.

 

[the number 42]

You are entitled to certain human rights, though we can expect to have to fight to get them or preserve them. I don't think your current government is doing much for human rights, to put it mildly.

 

[misskitty]

42, could you expand you idea a little bit more? That way I know exactly what your position is and I don't misintrepret it for something else.

 

[the number 42]

Ones that come to mind immediately are freedom of speech, and torture in Camp Delta.

 

[Moonbear]

I don't consider them rights, i consider them privileges. Privileges whose only conditions are being alive, and being ready to always defend and fight for them.

To consider them entitlements is to breed the very attitude we don't want to encourage. The attitude that people deserve things from their government just because. Which they don't.

That's a really sad attitude franz. There is a big difference between a right and a priviledge. A privilege is something like being given a driver's license after you demonstrate you are safe to handle a motor vehicle, a right is something like not being thrown in prison for the rest of your life when you've done nothing wrong. And yes, I do very much want to encourage the belief that these are entitlements, which they are, lest someone come along and think they can be so easily taken away! It is because of this feeling and knowledge of entitlement that we will fight to maintain these rights. People don't sit back and allow them to be casually taken away, as well they shouldn't. As soon as you say they are a priviledge, it implies it is okay to take them away.

Indeed, the U.S. stands today because people fought to secure these "inalienable rights."

Recall the wording of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

[the number 42]

Indeed, the U.S. stands today because people fought to secure these "inalienable rights."

Recall the wording of the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident...

I agree 100% with the spirit of this, but never trust an argument that starts off with 'self-evident truths' e.g. 'It is self-evident that the sun revolves about the Earth, as it manifestly rises in the east, circles overhead, and descends in the west'.

 

[russ_watters]

To consider them entitlements is to breed the very attitude we don't want to encourage. The attitude that people deserve things from their government just because. Which they don't.

Remember, if you give a mouse a cookie...

The 'American Attitude' of entitlement is absolutely disgusting. Personally, I'm ashamed to be from the same solar system as some people.

I agree that in the US people think they are entitled to things they aren't, but it seems like you're worried about a "slippery slope". Too late for that, though. Its already the modern liberal idea that entitlements are rights.

Anyway, the key difference is rights are not something given, but rather something not taken. That's while the Bill of Rights says things like "shall not be infringed". So, the right to life means no one is allowed to kill you - but it does not mean that the government is required to provide health care for you to keep you alive.

Everyone deserves things from their government "just because" it's their government. Its sole purpose is to enable its citizens to have what they need.

That idea originated (or maybe just got big) with Marx, and it isn't what western democracies are based on. Western democracies are based on protection of you (of your rights), not providing for you. Trying to mix the two (as modern liberals are doing) is extremely dangerous and harmful to a democracy. We are risking going down the path of the USSR - and I don't mean Stalin's murders, I mean the culture of mediocrity that goes hand-in-hand with the culture of entitlement.

I realize that social democracy works reasonably well for Europe, but it will not work for the US. We'll lose what has made us the world's economic superpower: economic freedom. Doubling (tripling?) our taxes, even though you get much of the money back through entitlements , would have an absolutely smothering effect on the US's entrepreneurial spirit.

 

[misskitty]

Very well put point Moonbear.

These rights are something that are guarnteed to you at birth. No one can take them away from you. The fact that people have spilled their blood and lost their lives on foreign and domestic soil falls under Freedom has a high price. You don't need to "earn" those rights. They are something that is endowed upon you. What you do with those rights is your business. Many people have made HUGE differences in the world with those rights...Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks, Jackie Robinson, JFK, the list is highly extensive. You make sacrifices for those rights all the time without realizing it.

 

[Janitor]

The other night on Fox news, Bill O'Reilly was disgusted by a school district's decision that every student was entitled to a minimum test score of 50 percent. If the kid got every answer wrong, the teacher was obligated to mark the score as being 50%.

 

[misskitty]

I agree that in the US people think they are entitled to things they aren't, but it seems like you're worried about a "slippery slope". Too late for that, though. Its already the modern liberal idea that entitlements are rights.

Anyway, the key difference is rights are not something given, but rather something not taken. That's while the Bill of Rights says things like "shall not be infringed". So, the right to life means no one is allowed to kill you - but it does not mean that the government is required to provide health care for you to keep you alive. That idea originated (or maybe just got big) with Marx, and it isn't what western democracies are based on. Western democracies are based on protection of you (of your rights), not providing for you. Trying to mix the two (as modern liberals are doing) is extremely dangerous and harmful to a democracy. We are risking going down the path of the USSR - and I don't mean Stalin's murders, I mean the culture of mediocrity that goes hand-in-hand with the culture of entitlement.

I agree with this and what Moonbear said. This is what I was failing to articulate clearly.

 

[misskitty]

The other night on Fox news, Bill O'Reilly was disgusted by a school district's decision that every student was entitled to a minimum test score of 50 percent. If the kid got every answer wrong, the teacher was obligated to mark the score as being 50%.

Its still failing, but so the children who fail still fail. Its just doesn't kill them as badly.

 

[misskitty]

*so its not as bad and it doesn't kill their grade as much

 

[the number 42]

The other night on Fox news, Bill O'Reilly was disgusted by a school district's decision that every student was entitled to a minimum test score of 50 percent. If the kid got every answer wrong, the teacher was obligated to mark the score as being 50%.

This devalues everyone else's grades e.g. a pupil from last year who worked hard and got 50% will now be considered an idiot.

I hope this sort of thing isn't widespread. Is it?

 

[russ_watters]

I agree 100% with the spirit of this, but never trust an argument that starts off with 'self-evident truths' e.g. 'It is self-evident that the sun revolves about the Earth, as it manifestly rises in the east, circles overhead, and descends in the west'.

Every theory, whether its in physics or politics, starts with postulates. Frankly, I think that's one of the greatest things about our government - before our founders wrote the Constitution, they wrote a political theory to base it on. Agree with these postulates or not, its a wonderful thing that they were so direct in describing them. No room for confusion or interpretation.

 

[misskitty]

People need to stop trying to talk to me while I'm in the middle of a discussion!

When I was watching the news the other day, I learned of a teacher in Boston who wanted to remain in the United States because his country is in absolute turmoil. His visa ran out so he was going to be deported. His students then exercised their right to protest to keep him in the country. The man attempted to apply for political assylum but was denied. After further protesting by his pupils, I'm pretty sure his request for assylum was granted.

Is attempting to pursue a better life a right too?

 

[misskitty]

"I hope this sort of thing isn't widespread. Is it?"- the number 42

Not yet it isn't. I hope it won't be either.

 

[franznietzsche]

That's a really sad attitude franz. There is a big difference between a right and a priviledge. A privilege is something like being given a driver's license after you demonstrate you are safe to handle a motor vehicle, a right is something like not being thrown in prison for the rest of your life when you've done nothing wrong.

You misunderstand me completely.

And yes, I do very much want to encourage the belief that these are entitlements, which they are, lest someone come along and think they can be so easily taken away! It is because of this feeling and knowledge of entitlement that we will fight to maintain these rights.

No, a sense of entitlement just makes people whine like 3 year olds.

People don't sit back and allow them to be casually taken away, as well they shouldn't. As soon as you say they are a priviledge, it implies it is okay to take them away.[?QUOTE]

No it doesn't.

I agree that in the US people think they are entitled to things they aren't, but it seems like you're worried about a "slippery slope". Too late for that, though. Its already the modern liberal idea that entitlements are rights.

That is exactly what I'm worried about.

That idea originated (or maybe just got big) with Marx, and it isn't what western democracies are based on. Western democracies are based on protection of you (of your rights), not providing for you.[?QUOTE]

I hope you don't expect him to actually know that. Its been well established that certain liberal members here have no understanding of history whatsoever, and spew all kinds of garbage, without knowing anything about historical context.

Trying to mix the two (as modern liberals are doing) is extremely dangerous and harmful to a democracy. We are risking going down the path of the USSR - and I don't mean Stalin's murders, I mean the culture of mediocrity that goes hand-in-hand with the culture of entitlement.

Which is exactly why i refuse to ever consider anything an entitlement. It is a privilege to have those 'rights', and one that was attained with blood. And to breed the idea of entitlement will breed complacency.

 

[russ_watters]

This devalues everyone else's grades e.g. a pupil from last year who worked hard and got 50% will now be considered an idiot.

I hope this sort of thing isn't widespread. Is it?

Not that specifically, but grade inflation, points for trying, "participation trophies," etc., are very widespread and they are a huge problem. The pendulum may be starting to swing back, but there is a whole generation of school-aged Americans who have quite literally *never* experienced failure. When they get to college, they are utterly unprepared for the blunt reality that they aren't perfect, and in a lot of cases, fail pretty severely.

This is a manifestation of the culture of mediocrity bred by our culture of entitlement.

 

[franznietzsche]

Very well put point Moonbear.

These rights are something that are guarnteed to you at birth. No one can take them away from you. The fact that people have spilled their blood and lost their lives on foreign and domestic soil falls under Freedom has a high price. You don't need to "earn" those rights. They are something that is endowed upon you. What you do with those rights is your business. Many people have made HUGE differences in the world with those rights...Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks, Jackie Robinson, JFK, the list is highly extensive. You make sacrifices for those rights all the time without realizing it.

Those rights can be very easily taken away from you, and you are a fool to think otherwise. How many people in the world do not have those rights? They are wnything but unalienable, and are very easily taken away.

 

[Bartholomew]

Russ, you are mistaken about Karl Marx having popularized the idea of government as a servant to the public. Marx favored an uprising by the proletariat, an overthrow of existing government and a state based on cooperation. He did not espouse any idea of a contract between the people and the government.

I don't remember exactly who came up with the idea--possibly John Locke--but the basis is that people create government to serve them. Even when the government protects your rights, it _provides_ this protection for you. You agree to be governed by the government in exchange for the government agreeing to provide services for you.

If you think this state of affairs is somehow dysfunctional, check out countries like Finland. They have a huge rate of taxation, which they use to provide things like free health care and free higher education, which enable them to develop highly successful technological economies.

 

[misskitty]

I know. We fight so that we can keep these rights and not have them taken away. There are millions upon millions of people who don't have these rights...but imagine what the world would be like if they did.

 

[russ_watters]

Those rights can be very easily taken away from you, and you are a fool to think otherwise. How many people in the world do not have those rights? They are wnything but unalienable, and are very easily taken away.

I think you misunderstand: the phrase "unalienable rights" doesn't mean they are physically incapable of being taken away, since obviously, they can and have been taken away by everyone from tryannical kings to a guy with a gun who robbed the local liquer store. What it means is that these are rights that shouldn't be taken away. As such, they were built into our Constitution in a way that makes them extremely difficult to revoke.

 

[misskitty]

"Indeed, the U.S. stands today because people fought to secure these "inalienable rights."

Recall the wording of the Declaration of Independence:

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

__________________" -Moonbear


The men that founded this great country were very brillent people. They had a dream and they fought for it so others can enjoy the liberties they had.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, you are mistaken about Karl Marx having popularized the idea of government as a servant to the public. Marx favored an uprising by the proletariat, an overthrow of existing government and a state based on cooperation. He did not espouse any idea of a contract between the people and the government.

Well, this may be another one of those conflicts between Marx's theory and its implimentation. I mean - if there is no such thing as private property, then government must provide you with a place to live. Marx may well have envisioned a utopian anarchy - cooperation but with no actual government.

I don't remember exactly who came up with the idea--possibly John Locke--but the basis is that people create government to serve them. Even when the government protects your rights, it _provides_ this protection for you. You agree to be governed by the government in exchange for the government agreeing to provide services for you.

The "social contract" is, indeed, Locke - I did not mean to imply that Marxism had a "social contract".

If you think this state of affairs is somehow dysfunctional, check out countries like Finland. They have a huge rate of taxation, which they use to provide things like free health care and free higher education, which enable them to develop highly successful technological economies.

Like I said, it works for Europe because they don't have the same "burden" of freedom that we do. Embracing social democracy means abandoning the "American Dream".

 

[franznietzsche]

Its still failing, but so the children who fail still fail. Its just doesn't kill them as badly.

.


But they deserved a zero.

Its a damned handout that they don't deserve.

If you get zero, you get zero. Period.

 

[franznietzsche]

I think you misunderstand: the phrase "unalienable rights" doesn't mean they are physically incapable of being taken away, since obviously, they can and have been taken away by everyone from tryannical kings to a guy with a gun who robbed the local liquer store. What it means is that these are rights that shouldn't be taken away. As such, they were built into our Constitution in a way that makes them extremely difficult to revoke.

Of course they shouldn't be taken away, but the attitude of entitlement implies that they can't, that we're free to sit on our arses and not doo anything, because damn it, we're entitled.

 

[franznietzsche]

If you think this state of affairs is somehow dysfunctional, check out countries like Finland. They have a huge rate of taxation, which they use to provide things like free health care and free higher education, which enable them to develop highly successful technological economies.

I know a guy from sweden who lives back in my home town. KNow why he left sweden? High taxes make it impossible to make any money, personal wealth becomes very difficult. In his words "its a great place to be young, its a great place to be old, but its not a good place to be middle-aged".

 

[misskitty]

.


But they deserved a zero.

Its a damned handout that they don't deserve.

If you get zero, you get zero. Period.

I never said I agreed with the policy...in fact quite the opposite. I too think if they get a zero, then they deserve a zero.

One can not appreciate victory without experiencing defeat.

 

[Bartholomew]

Russ, should I take it then that you are diametrically opposed to Bush's "war on terror"?

 

[misskitty]

Is everyone here completely 100% opposed to the war?

 

[Moonbear]

Of course they shouldn't be taken away, but the attitude of entitlement implies that they can't, that we're free to sit on our arses and not doo anything, because damn it, we're entitled.

That's not what entitlement means.
The following definitions all courtesy of http://www.wordreference.com

entitlement

1*right granted by law or contract (especially a right to benefits); "entitlements make up the major part of the federal budget"

entitled:

1 qualified for by right according to law; "we are all entitled to equal protection under the law"

The definition of a right:

1*an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature; "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"; "Certain rights can never be granted to the government but must be kept in the hands of the people"- Eleanor Roosevelt; "a right is not something that somebody gives you; it is something that nobody can take away"

For comparison, the meaning of a privilege:

1*a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all

2*a right reserved exclusively by a particular person or group (especially a hereditary or official right)

To consider them privileges is to say it is acceptable for some people to be denied access to them. There are indeed privileges that people consider entitlements, which they are not, but the most basic rights "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are entitlements. Note, that doesn't say you need to achieve happiness, just that nobody should stop you from pursuing it. If you want to sit on your butt and remain miserable, you can; nobody needs to do anything to make you happy.

 

[Moonbear]

I think you misunderstand: the phrase "unalienable rights" doesn't mean they are physically incapable of being taken away, since obviously, they can and have been taken away by everyone from tryannical kings to a guy with a gun who robbed the local liquer store. What it means is that these are rights that shouldn't be taken away. As such, they were built into our Constitution in a way that makes them extremely difficult to revoke.

I'm going to quibble a bit of semantics here. "Unalienable" (or "inalienable"; both are used interchangeably with reference to the Declaration of Independence) does mean the right can't be taken away. Even when someone commits an act that infringes upon your right, you still have that right intact. If when someone robbed the local liquor store and shot the clerk that took away their right to life, then there would be no way to hold the robber accountable because the right would no longer exist that made it wrong. Instead, it is because you have and retain that right that action can be taken to hold someone else accountable if they interfere with your rights.

 

[loseyourname]

The "social contract" is, indeed, Locke - I did not mean to imply that Marxism had a "social contract".

It was actually Thomas Hobbes that first clearly articulated the idea of a social contract, though I don't think he used that terminology. I believe the phrase itself is owed to Rousseau.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, should I take it then that you are diametrically opposed to Bush's "war on terror"?

No, why would you think that?

 

[Bartholomew]

I would tend to think that because death to terrorism is incredibly unlikely for any given person, so government cannot be seen to be protecting any of your "fundamental rights" as seen by you by going after terrorists. So according to you the "war on terror" has no reasonable motivation.

Anyway, when you have people in a society together, nearly all damage done to anyone's life, liberty, or property can be seen as a result of other people. i.e., if someone loses his property in the stock market, this is because of the actions of other people in not wanting to buy the stocks the person invested in. Or if someone dies of hunger and exposure on the street, this is because other people built cities where you need money for food and shelter--if the city grounds still were forest, the dead man could have lived as a hunter-gatherer. Or if someone is stuck in a tread-water job in the city because she can't afford to move, her liberty is constrained by economic systems set up by other people. Your rights are constantly infringed upon, by other people; it is crazy idealism to believe that the government could fully protect your basic rights. Social programs are just making up for the damage societal systems have caused to some people.

 

[russ_watters]

I would tend to think that because death to terrorism is incredibly unlikely for any given person, so government cannot be seen to be protecting any of your "fundamental rights" as seen by you by going after terrorists. So according to you the "war on terror" has no reasonable motivation.

Your premise is flawed, and that makes your conclusion flawed. In the US, individual right to life is of utmost importance and national security/integrity follows it (is directly related to it). Therefore, whether its 3,000 deaths or 50 (from the first WTC bombing), the threat of terrorism is not something that can be ignored.

The uitilitarian concept that 3,000 is not a lot of deaths quite simply doesn't apply here.

Anyway, when you have people in a society together, nearly all damage done to anyone's life, liberty, or property can be seen as a result of other people. i.e., if someone loses his property in the stock market, this is because of the actions of other people in not wanting to buy the stocks the person invested in. Or if someone dies of hunger and exposure on the street, this is because other people built cities where you need money for food and shelter--if the city grounds still were forest, the dead man could have lived as a hunter-gatherer. Or if someone is stuck in a tread-water job in the city because she can't afford to move, her liberty is constrained by economic systems set up by other people. Your rights are constantly infringed upon, by other people; it is crazy idealism to believe that the government could fully protect your basic rights. Social programs are just making up for the damage societal systems have caused to some people.

That quite simply is not what rights are or how they work. Nor should/can it be.

 

[Bartholomew]

Why should national security be important when the nature is secure enough so that no particular citizen's life is reasonably endangered, if the only purpose of government is to protect citizens' basic rights?

And, you say that's not what rights are or how they work, but why don't you provide any argument in support of that? What is the essential difference--with respect to RIGHTS--between causing harm to someone by robbing them, and causing financial harm to the same person through, say, a price war?

 

[russ_watters]

It was actually Thomas Hobbes that first clearly articulated the idea of a social contract, though I don't think he used that terminology. I believe the phrase itself is owed to Rousseau.

Well, since I'm interested in the subject and neither of us is quite right, let's just beat it to death: http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/soc-cont.htm

I had forgotten that Hobbes discussed the concept, and it is a concept that goes back much further than those big 3.

The reason I always cite Locke is I think his is what our system is most based on (though it has elements of Rousseau as well). Our "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a paraphrase/modification of Locke's "life, liberty, and property", as is the concept of inalienable rights.

According to Locke, the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind, is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others. This does not mean, however, that it is a state of license: one is not free to do anything at all one pleases, or even anything that one judges to be in one’s interest. The State of Nature, although a state wherein there is no civil authority or government to punish people for transgressions against laws, is not a state without morality. The State of Nature is pre-political, but it is not pre-moral. Persons are assumed to be equal to one another in such a state, and therefore equally capable of discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature, which is on Locke’s view the basis of all morality, and given to us by God, commands that we not harm others with regards to their "life, health, liberty, or possessions" (par. 6). Because we all belong equally to God, and because we cannot take away that which is rightfully His, we are prohibited from harming one another. So, the State of Nature is a state of liberty where persons are free to pursue their own interests and plans, free from interference, and, because of the Law of Nature and the restrictions that it imposes upon persons, it is relatively peaceful.