Malevolent
Dec 6 2003, 08:09 PM
Or rather, a Socratic inquirey. To set the context: in the drug war thread, Ed made a remark about rights limiting the government in reply to purvis remarking that rights limit what the people can do. I then asked ed if he believed in natural rights.
| QUOTE |
| You of course know I do and that I believe the Theroy of Government as expressed by John Locke. You know the one that says governments are instituted amonst men to protect thier natural rights. |
*transforms into the visage of a man from 5th century BC*
Tell me, then, that I may be wiser. Before we discuss whether or not governments can be instituted among men to secure their natural rights, we must determine a number of things. First about natural rights themselves.
What, then, is the source of a natural right? Is it something we have by nature, by god, or by some other fashion?
Edward
Dec 7 2003, 08:07 AM
To borrow from Mr. Jefferson the source of our natural rights is the Creator, in my belief the creator is Natures' God.
That also implies that one can only be seperated from ones' natural rights by ones' death.
Malevolent
Dec 7 2003, 11:47 AM
Does this mean, then, that only God or some authority higher than god may declare that some natural right no longer exists?
Edward
Dec 7 2003, 08:24 PM
Adam,
Correct. Or one can only be seperated from thier natural rights by death.
But don't make the mistake and confuse Natural Rights, Civil Rights and/or Political Rights. They are three different things.
Malevolent
Dec 8 2003, 01:08 PM
Do you agree with Thomas Paine, then, that all civil rights have as their basis some natural right?
Edward
Dec 14 2003, 10:29 AM
Adam,
In many instances yes. BTW thanks for the book.
Malevolent
Dec 14 2003, 04:57 PM
Welcome. Let's hope that Nozick proves interesting - by the end of next year, I'll have you reading Rawls.
To turn to Socratic mode - if every civil right has as its basis some natural right, does this mean then that civil rights are also involitale, as one cannot attack a civil right without attacking the natural right upon which it is based?
Edward
Dec 15 2003, 09:59 AM
Adam,
Attack or self limit within the confines of the compact of government?
Malevolent
Dec 20 2003, 06:20 PM
Attack for now; we shall see if the other is a possible action later.
Edward
Dec 21 2003, 10:44 AM
Adam,
Then the so-called attack is self initiated because one must allow limits to ones' natural rights to just live in any human society.
Malevolent
Dec 21 2003, 01:37 PM
Are limits imposed by the nature of the right, or by the person?
That is, there is one school of thought which says that the excersize of a right is not permissible only on condition that it conflicts with some other right. While there is another which holds rights exist by social compact, and may therefore be altered by society.
Edward
Dec 25 2003, 07:12 PM
Adam,
Limits are placed on ones' natural rights by compact or agreement when one chooses to live in any society. That does not imply that ones natural rights cannot be abused, thieves come to mind at the moment so do rapists.
The exersise of a natural right say to extract justice for ones' self disregarding the social and political compact that has the society and the societies' government select some to act as judges? Is that the kind of thing you are talking about?
Malevolent
Dec 27 2003, 06:21 PM
We assume that theives and rapists do indeed violate natural rights.
However, you have now lead to an interesting position. I may certainly, agree with others, to limit my rights. But does it follow from this that others have the authority to limit my rights when I do not consent?
| QUOTE |
| The exersise of a natural right say to extract justice for ones' self disregarding the social and political compact that has the society and the societies' government select some to act as judges? Is that the kind of thing you are talking about? |
I am talking in general terms. Any natural right. However, this does raise a more interesting question.
Why should I think that 'to extract justice' is a right or not? Or even anything else, such as say, property?
Edward
Dec 28 2003, 10:35 AM
Adam,
| QUOTE |
| We assume that theives and rapists do indeed violate natural rights. |
Indeed they do.
| QUOTE |
| But does it follow from this that others have the authority to limit my rights when I do not consent? |
An interesting question awnsered by another question. Do you wish to live in Civil Society? If that awnser is yes then consent to that societys' rules would be a prerequesit would it not? Would that not be consent?
| QUOTE |
| Why should I think that 'to extract justice' is a right or not? Or even anything else, such as say, property? |
My use of the term "property" is in the Lockean sense, which includes your person.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.