Scalia is a piece of crap.

[Ben Kenobi]

Or one can beat the other and take his spot.

True. Does that mean the man no longer has the right to worship?

Or one can kill the other.

Also true. However, does that mean that the man has lost his right to live.

How do your "natural rights" prevent that? If there are only two people than the bully ends up winning since no society can enforce punishment over him.

And how does society stop people from doing that now? It happens all the time. Society can try to enforce things, but it all comes down to the individual. The best restraint is not society, but individual self interest.

Is it in the best interest of the bully to hurt and injure the only other person on the island? What would he have to gain from doing so?

American society as a whole. You do recall in 1965 there were all these states in the West too, right?

Yes, and society in a certain part of the US approved of the Crow laws. Therefore, by your reasoning, Jim Crow, when it was instituted was a moral thing to do. By my standards it is immoral regardless of where and when it is instituted.

The problem with your standard is that it is basically relativism. It cannot provide the moral force to improve society or to restrain anyone. If it is right so long as the collective approves, that can lead to all manner of horrifying things.

How do you arrive at protections for any minority if 'societal approval' is all that counts? What is in it for the majority to restrain themselves when they can count on the support of most people to back them up?

The "natural principle that all men were created equal" was an argument used to try to change society's view on things.

Yes, and the reason why it was so effective, is because it isn't saying these are new rights concocted out of thin air, but that these rights have always existed. Again, to borrow a quote from Rousseau, "man is born free and everywhere is in chains."

Though I can't understand how a 'natural right' wasn't fully realized until very, very recently in Western history.

I would argue that natural rights can never fully be realised here on earth, because for the sole reason that people in themselves are corrupt. You can approach them more closely, but you can never perfectly express them.

How can it be a "natural right" when through most of history that situation never existed.

Good question. It is because human nature exerts itself contrary to these principles. We want all these things for ourselves, but the challenge is to restrain ourselves so that we do not violate the rights of other people.

Even the Bible talks about slaves being good to their masters, for heaven's sake!

Yes, but it also says, if you can obtain your freedom, do so.

Humanity has never existed as simply an individual.

The concept of an individual possessing natural rights is not that old either.

And how are they possessed by every individual? Who gives them out?

Who gives us our minds? Our thoughts?

Why are they are a part of a person from birth when the person is born into a society and is never completely an individual unless he's stranded somewhere?

Why? Good question. Why do we have natural rights? I would say it has something to do with the fact that we can reason and because we have the ability to understand these abstract thoughts. These natural rights are given to us in order that we might have an understanding of how society ought to form.

Now, you are saying that society comes first, but it is a chicken and an egg problem. How can you have a society without people? Where does human society come about and form? Why do people coming from human society devise a set of rules that help them run a society?

It's chicken and the egg. You can't have a human society without already having individuals. This is why you have to go back to the question, what if there is just one person?

[Ben Kenobi]

No, Ben, you're simply assuming "natural rights" in the absence of anything that could contravene those rights.

I'm saying something quite more radical then that. I am saying that individual natural rights are as much a part of you as the hair on your head or the bones in your body.

You no more have a right to life if your the only person on the planet than you have a right to **** wherever you want, dump raw sewage into the ocean or sodomize goats.

Which does nothing to refute the existance of natural rights.

Further, there's nothing stopping some wild animal from killing you, so it's not like your life is that inviolable anyway.

Of course, where does it say that the rights themselves cannot be abrogated? The fact that they must be articulated is an indication of the contrary. Yes, they can be violated, but that does not mean that we do not possess a right to life.

The whole concept of rights is meaningless if no one can infringe upon them.

Not if you understand natural rights to be an intrinsic part of a person. If they are not, as Imran is claiming, then they are in fact meaningless. If 7 men can vote to decide to kill a person, then what sense does it make to say that they are 'natural' rights, that they are 'individual' rights, that they cannot be alienated?

All Imran is saying is so long as the society decides that something is right, that makes it so. Society owns people not the other way around. The collective decides whether someone should live or die.

You then assume that just because another person is introduced into this system there's some reason they should give a damn whether or not you think they shouldn't kill you.

Think about it for a moment. If you leave them alone won't they leave you alone? If you are both self-interested, then it is to your advantage to co-operate with one another.

The whole notion that everyone should be treated equally is one of society and agreed upon rules, or at least rules imposed by an authority with the ability to enforce them.

But the rights do not require a society to decide upon them. What is to stop that same society from deciding not to enforce the rules, to stop them from enacting Jim Crow laws onces again?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Does that mean the man no longer has the right to worship?

In that society (of two), yes.

And how does society stop people from doing that now?

They attempt to do it through laws and public indoctrination into certain values.

The problem with your standard is that it is basically relativism.

Um... it IS relativism .

No basically about it.

How do you arrive at protections for any minority if 'societal approval' is all that counts? What is in it for the majority to restrain themselves when they can count on the support of most people to back them up?

You have to convince the majority that it is in their interest or their own moral codes would support it or whatever. The ONLY way you arrive at those protections is to appeal to the majority. That has how it has always been.

It is because human nature exerts itself contrary to these principles.

How can anyone be sure of "human nature" when humanity acts in so many different ways? After all, I've heard "human nature" used to justify both communism AND capitalism.

Who gives us our minds? Our thoughts?

The evolutionary process. I don't think we've evolved rights . Though we have evolved the minds to come up with such ideals.

Now, you are saying that society comes first, but it is a chicken and an egg problem. How can you have a society without people?

No. I'm saying that society and people come together. Neither comes "first". People have to come up with ways to deal with each other... hence society.

If there are no other people (in that thought experiment), what use are rules and rights? The wild creatures aren't going to accept them. Rights only come into play when there are more than one person and when there is more than one person a society has developed and rights are negotiated between the two (whether by force or argument).

[Ben Kenobi]

If there are no other people (in that thought experiment), what use are rules and rights? The wild creatures aren't going to accept them. Rights only come into play when there are more than one person and when there is more than one person a society has developed and rights are negotiated between the two (whether by force or argument).

What use is it to free the slaves?

Utilitarianism doesn't help you here Imran.

I'm saying they are there, regardless of whether we want them to be, and that if they are 'individual' rights they would exist just as much with one person as they would with two.

[Berzerker]

TY Spencer

and

Excellent explanation of natural rights, Ben. The obtuseness of your critics cannot tarnish the shine of your illuminating presentation of the obvious Well, obvious to us anyway.

Imran

I'd think the most powerful military force in the world (by a good deal) is what defends this country from invasion (well that and invasion of big countries isn't in vogue in this era). Not 100 or so million citizens who actually own guns.

We didn't always have an enormous military (play a WWII civ scenario ). Remove most of it today and who would invade a country of 300 million armed people with nukes (alright, 150 million)? I'd say our geography is worth more than our military if someone tried to invade us.

Agreed. Humans do not live in solitude, so the "rights" that arise out of that is nonsense. Humans have always lived in society and have decided what is ok within that society, so rights arise from agreements between people.

And if somebody didn't want to live in that society, they went their way - because they're inherently free. Can that "society" keep 'em prisoner? According to you the only rights they have are the rights society gives 'em, so... The fact most people are willing to give up some freedoms to be part of society is irrelevant to the existence of natural rights.

Or one can take the other's liberty.

How do your "natural rights" prevent that? If there are only two people than the bully ends up winning since no society can enforce punishment over him.

They dont prevent anything, a "right" is a claim of moral authority. C'mon Imran, you've read the Declaration of Independence. Governments are created to protect the rights given us by the Creator, ie the moral authority to act under certain circumstances - like self defense. I dont need your permission or moral approval to defend myself from somebody trying to murder me. Why? Because I have the moral authority to exist and defend myself from attack.

chegitz

And you think Brown v Board of Education had nothing to do with that? If segregation was still legal, a lot of folks would still support it.

You didn't answer my question. I dont know what effect it had, not much given the 2 decades of struggle that followed. That was the fight that won the end of Jim Crow...

Wezil

Two people can't be "equally free" in the same way as one person can if they wish to peacefully co-exist. They must establish rules.

Rules that make them unequally free? Or rules that make them equally free? Dont kill each other, dont steal from each other, dont enslave each other...

[Berzerker]

Imran

If there are no other people (in that thought experiment), what use are rules and rights? The wild creatures aren't going to accept them. Rights only come into play when there are more than one person and when there is more than one person a society has developed and rights are negotiated between the two (whether by force or argument).

Wild creatures aren't moral agents and we dont accuse them of immorality when they kill us. So what are these negotiations based on? Is there a starting point? Why yes according to the Framers, our rights came from the Creator. If you and me were alone in the world and started negotiating, would we demand the "right" to decide what the other person gets to do all day? Of course not, we aint slaves. Those are natural rights preceding any negotiations. They are the starting point...

[Wezil]

But they aren't self-evident Berz.

If they were they would be common across all cultures and all times.

Find me a "right" that has been self-evident to all cultures at all times please.

Proponents of natural rights usually appeal to a higher power as justification but we know where that argument leads.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What use is it to free the slaves?

Utilitarianism doesn't help you here Imran.

I'm saying they are there, regardless of whether we want them to be, and that if they are 'individual' rights they would exist just as much with one person as they would with two.

I'm not a utilitarian, so tarring them won't do anything for you here .

The use to free the slaves is an appeal to some conscience or moral beliefs of those people. Especially if it turns out that they are acting counter to their own professed moral beliefs. You change the dominent morality.

And yes, If there are natural rights, then, they'd exist with one person. I just don't believe there to be.

We didn't always have an enormous military

Neither did our neighbors .

Governments are created to protect the rights given us by the Creator

And that be the difference. If you don't believe in a Creator, well, then rights cannot be given by it. I don't necessarily think that rights have been given by evolution .

[Kontiki]

I can't keep arguing with Ben - it makes my brain hurt.

I will add that the thought that individually armed Americans is what prevents the US from being invaded to be among the top 5 most ridiculous things I've ever read on this board, though. Seriously, what kind of logic is this?

We didn't always have an enormous military (play a WWII civ scenario ). Remove most of it today and who would invade a country of 300 million armed people with nukes (alright, 150 million)?

Remove all the private firearms but keep the military and who would invade? In fact, remove all the private firearms, all the nukes and cut the military down to 1/3 of what it is now and who is going to invade?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What use is it to free the slaves?

Utilitarianism doesn't help you here Imran.

Actually, slavery sucks overall in a modern economy.

The industrial revolution provided new ways to have workers work, which are much more efficient, and don't require to whip the workers. The Marxists call it "wage-slavery" or "alienation", which was aptly described by Marx himself. Wage-slaves have the extra benefit that they reproduce sufficiently, unlike slaves.

As modern economies evolved toward intensive production rather than extensive (during the 20th century), worker motivation became central, and slavery is extremely bad in this regard. There's a reason why slavery is becoming restricted to domestic activities and only a few productive areas, even in countries such as Saudi Arabia.

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I will add that the thought that individually armed Americans is what prevents the US from being invaded to be among the top 5 most ridiculous things I've ever read on this board, though. Seriously, what kind of logic is this?

Well, it probably had much more traction during the War of Independence against Britain, when the colonies needed every able bodied man (and woman) they could get.

Today I'm not so sure it has as much importance concerning national defense.

There's an argument that it's still important for personal defense, and that might have some traction to it. Currently if you don't own a weapon, then the main recourse you have is for the police to impose peace, and that is inherently reactive, not proactive. (i.e. the police system largely functions by reacting to a crime and then trying and convicting the criminal, then throwing them in jail for correction and to make an example of them. This is a much more long-winded way of providing a deterrent for a given individual or family when compared to that individual simply going out and getting a weapon for self defense.)

Personally I'm in mixed minds about this. I think there's definitely an element of "cat out of the bag" as far as gun proliferation is concerned, and if you pass a law that restricts gun ownership, then you essentially punish the law-abiders because the lawless elements won't give theirs up. However as an aspirational goal, I think a society where there are no guns is better than one where people own them, no matter how justified for self defense. How you'd get there is a big problem: it would take decades of enforcement by police and better background checks on purchases of firearms. Not to mention the immense lobbying backlash you'd have from interest groups and the firearms industry.

Leaving theoretical extremes aside, I think there is a definite balancing test between the possible protections for yourself, vs. the potential harm to others and yourself. Having a firearm for protection if you're living in a high-crime area may be the only recourse you have for defense, especially if the police force itself is ineffective. Conversely, if you're living in a peaceful suburb and the risks of a firearm accident outweigh the benefits of having it in the house, then to me there's no much justification for having it around.

Another thing is the issue of an actor acting out of irrationality or passion. My brother owns a firearm and he's a very level headed person. I've never seen him lose his cool entirely, and although I and our parents are somewhat skeptical about gun ownership, I recognize that my brother's married and he wants to be able to defend his home, and moreover he's probably not going to lose his cool and unintentionally or hot-headedly injure somebody.

On the other hand, I inherited most of the "feisty" genes from my parents and this has resulted in a trail of badly damaged computer equipment and smashed Game Boys. I'm the first to admit I should not be allowed anywhere near a firearm when I'm mad or angry. The chances of me facing a life-or-death situation where I'd need a pistol to protect me are pretty slim. The chances of me getting really, really pissed off with the noisy neighbors next door and possibly doing something regrettable are much higher.

But this is personally-elected exclusion from gun ownership. I may have a Second Amendment right - I merely choose not to exercise it. (Rather like voter turnout generally is 50% at best - people for whatever reason can't find time or interest to vote. And I know this because I'm one of them.) I've personally said "the risks outweigh the benefits" and removed myself from consideration for owning or using guns.

How do you move that sort of personal judgment onto a public scale? Can a city, or a state, or a national government, effectively make that sort of call for you? Is it something that you really have no choice but to leave up to individuals, given this country's history and the fact that firearms are so prevalent now that they can and do end up in unsavory peoples' hands?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Think about it for a moment. If you leave them alone won't they leave you alone? If you are both self-interested, then it is to your advantage to co-operate with one another.

An example I heard from withness

A very self-interested guy (my withness was friend with him) is idling on the street with he's friends; he's feeling hungry. A mother and daughter just get out of the nearby McDonald's, with a bag full of food. The guy takes his tear-gas bomb, gasses the mother and daughter, and takes their food.

The mother and daughter were minding their own business. Strangely enough, it didn't prevent the guy from gassing them and taking their food, go figure

Now, if the guy had been a little bit less self-centered, maybe he'd have considered his victims as human deserving dignity, maybe he could have just as well bought the sandwich if he accepted the minor extra inconvenience of waiting in line and shelling out the money he did have.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Personally I'm in mixed minds about this. I think there's definitely an element of "cat out of the bag" as far as motorway speeding is concerned, and if you pass a law that restricts maximum speed, then you essentially punish the law-abiders because the lawless elements won't give theirs up. However as an aspirational goal, I think a society where there are no speeding cars is better than one where people drive as fast as they wish, no matter how justified for transportation. How you'd get there is a big problem: it would take decades of enforcement by police. Not to mention the immense lobbying backlash you'd have from interest groups and the car industry.

But you did it for cars looong ago...


In Germany you have no speed limit on motorways, in US you can have a bazooka for personal protection if necessary...

the question is - which right is more important to you? I - I'd rather drive fast without the fear of a police prosecution than own a gun but in UK you cant drvie faster than 70mph and you can't own a bazooka, you you get fined and lose a licence quickly if you are caught doing more than a 100... and have to use a knife to get rid of annoying people waiting in the row with you to buy GTA, using a handgun would be so much safer (than having to use a knife), but if the person who was attached had a bazooka with him, I am sure there would be no accident at all (MAD).

UK

[OneFootInTheGrave]

to continue

USA (Idaho)



Germany

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1083047978206711520&q=zx12r

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So is the counter: There are no natural rights, only those that society wishes to bestow.

That's a dubious argument. I agree that there are no natural rights, but that doesn't mean that any rights you might derive from moral principles are bestowed by society. Ethics is largely tied to the kind of beings we are, not what we or anyone else chooses.