The Origin of the Idea of Natural Rights

nothing in my post was in any way unclear. nature has nothing to do with freedom. freedom is a man made concept, which does not exist in the natural world outside of a human construct.

 

Like your friend you are confused.
Freedom does in fact exist in nature without man.
Man is merely the observer.
Its ridiculous to claim freedom in nature does not exist simply because man observed and documented his observation it.
The observation does not create the action, the action creates the condition man is not party to the action, the lions are.

 

In a rare instance - I agree with Koko - civilian input - "the will of the people" - has been removed from the US political process in areas of significance to those who pull the strings - meaning economic significance.

The public is allowed to have a small say in "Hot button issues" Abortion - Immigration - Gay issues - this keeps the masses fighting among each other - over issues which have no significant impact on the economic bottom line.

Obama stated he wanted to change the international tax rules in the first months of his term - and that is the last we heard of that - someone must of sat him down and had "The Talk" - This is what you are allowed to touch .. and this is what you are best letting be.

We have a pay to play system - everyone who makes it up the ladder has been vetted - and wooed by the Golden Goose - "If you play along with the "Establishment Agenda" you get paid. would you be the one to shoot the golden goose - run against a herd of stampeding bulls ?

If so - good for you but most will do otherwise - and so a few lone voices matter not - and in fact are even helpful in presenting the illusion of choice and dissent ..

Just look at Tulsi Gabbard - thought it was a bad idea to be arming Al Qaeda and ISIS - with sophisticated US military technology .. had 13 bipartisan co-sponsors to the "Stop Arming Terrorist Act" out of 430 in the house When Rand Paul introduced the Bill to the Senate he got a total of ZERO co-sponsors

So the bill did not pass - another example - Drug Price fixing .. lone voices calling that one out for years - part of the 3.5 Trillion dollar (2018 figure) Healthcare Gravy Train .. 3.6 Trillion was the total Federal Revenue for comparison.

Everyone points to that lone voice and says "Look Look - freedom of speech - what a good system we have" - then shortly after that lone voice is drowned out by the cacophony on the take . .. and can you blame them - would you be the one to shoot that lovely goose ?

It is the natural outcropping of self interest and greed - what I refer to as "The Beast" - given a large enough number of people we can predict what will happen - most will succumb .. and decide its not such a bad idea to arm Al Qaeda with Sophisticated US military technology .. far better than the stuff Hamas has .. just to twist the brain a bit further.

We vote for a false choice - A) sodomy with Red phallus B) sodomy with a Blue Phallus .. and there is no C) Hey . can I opt out of this deal ?

It matters not which side wins . the hot button issues will differ .. but the stuff that matters will stay the same - decades of lone voices and we are still paying 5 times more + for the same pill from the same manufacturer as in all the other first world nations - go figure 3.5 Trillion .. double what other nations pay for the same product .. the US being middle of the road in terms of quality of care.

These guys run the US and other parts of the world - Military Industrial Complex - Banks - Healthcare - Insurance Oligopolies, Energy Oligopolies - Media .. and most everything else that is not nailed down.

First thing on Google - "Household wealth has grown at a significant pace this century. Using current USD exchange rates, total household wealth rose from USD 117.9 trillion in 2000 to 399.2 trillion at end- 2019, averaging 6.6% growth per annum"

OK so 400 Trillion - is the estimated entire wealth of the world. I can show you 100 Trillion in 3 banks .. under "Custody and Administration"
This is not "average Joe" .. this is not Bill Gates - Elon Musk who we are told are the richest with roughly 100 Billion each.

Some of these families own Trillions - and we all know their names .. some of which are posted on banks .. like one of the three aforementioned banks "Mellon"

And that is what it is - I guess we could collectively call these families "The Sodomites" - those responsible for our collective buggering.

 

it does not

man created the concept of freedom. it does not exist outside of this construct.

man has not observed freedom in nature, as it does not exist in nature.

the lions have no freedom, as freedom is a manmade construct that does not exist in nature.

 

lions in the jungle have the freedom to kill you unabated LOL
your premise is imaginary as always

 

I hope you are ok, Do you need medical attention? On a scale of one to 10 whats your pain level? LOL

zactly, same thing happens to all of them, reagan comes to mind.
crooks fit right in though.

Great system!

 

We will give it 8.5 out of 10 - and that may be a bit high .. believe it or not - there are some who are even more painful .. not mentioning any Amazing names.

 

No, they have the ability. Freedom is a man made construct that does not exist in nature.

My premise is objective reality.

 

That lion has the freedom in nature to kill and eat you unabated whether its objective or subjective, more backwards logic. Lions do not abide by any law you think you can impose on it, when its hungry you are a 'free' lunch pal!

 

Your question is unclear: we all desire freedom FROM, eg, want and fear (as actually stated in the preamble of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

But nature is not concerned with the freedom of individual creatures (human or animal); nature is concerned with the survival of species, or at least those species who can adapt to the environment into which they are born.

Individuals are equipped - by nature - with survival instincts, not "rights".

 

so then you are upset with the label, that we call those very same instincts 'rights' for people instead of instincts, therefore its a construct?

 

(Forgetting, for the sake of the argument, that "rights" as you name them are in fact desires):

You are still confusing individual "rights" with the "rights" of people (plural).

You have a "right" to freedom......but presumably NOT to security, or freedom from want, because such rights would mean everyone would have a "right" to security and freedom from want; but the theory of 'inherent individual rights' is incompatible such universal rights, because the implementation of such universal "rights" will impinge on individual rights (eg, to believe in - and act on (potentially very dangerously - the Koran), or to seek to maximize your own access to a nation's output, regardless of others' abilities to justly access the same nation's output.
(Homelessness is a supreme example of lack of just access to a nation's output).

 

The question was well phrased. Again, what in nature binds your freedom. Try being specific. So explain how nature imposes tyranny. Don't evade the question.

 

But this is not what Kokomojojo and I are debating; see post #387 above.

Note: "the will of the people" is incompatible with "inherent individual rights". for reasons outlined in #387.

..or the natural outcome of "inherent individual natural rights"? see #387.

That's right, but rule by "inherent individual rights" produces that very outcome, because rights of the individual may conflict with rights of other individuals, or indeed rights of the people (plural). as outlined in #387.

 

Ah...the underlined....

Nature doesn't impose tyranny. Nature equips every creature with survival instincts.

Now, having dealt with your question , perhaps you can address the rest of my post. namely:

"we all desire freedom FROM want and fear (as actually stated in the preamble of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights...though the Declaration lists these freedoms as "Rights",

(To explain: which I claim are - never the less very achievable - human constructs, not "natural rights").

But nature is not concerned with the freedom of individual creatures (human or animal); nature is concerned with the survival of species, or at least those species who can adapt to the environment into which they are born."

 

Read the post and could not make much sense out of it to be honest - Seems like a definition problem - where you both have different definitions for the same word/concept.

First thing in any such conversation is to distinguish between essential liberty and "Freedom" Essential liberty is not the freedom to do what ever one wishes. It is the freedom to do almost anything to oneself .. it is not the freedom to harm others.

Rights are something different yet . such as the right to water or the right to have security - if such rights exist.

"Some rights conflict with other's" See definition - as soon as someone else is harmed by the activity - it is no longer essential liberty.

The are some problems with grey areas in between .. but nothing will be perfect - and many of these concepts manageable.


In the case of the homeless person - folks in poverty - I will address as income inequality in general. What you can have .. via self interest and greed ruling the day is a small number controlling and monopolizing resources and means of production to point where others are harmed - .. for example - The right of ownership of private property is not much good if you have some entity which owns all the property

 

Popping in for a moment...

Last weekend I finally got around to finishing Brian Tierney's The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Church Law, 1150-1625, and I highly recommend the book. Not only is it exceptionally well researched (something requiring fluency in Medieval Latin), Tierney does an outstanding job of communicating exceptionally complex subjects and concepts in a manner that can be easily understood by a general audience (a skill I wish Larry Siedentop exhibited to a greater degree in his sweeping history Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism).

The book can be basically broken down into several sections covering the contributions of the Medieval civil and canon lawyers exploring the Corpus Juris Civilis and Gratian's Decretum, 2) William of Ockham and the Franciscans (and inadvertently yet importantly the Dominican master-general Hervaeus Natalis) , 3) Jean Gerson and the Conciliarists, 4) the School of Salamanca (Vitoria, Las Casas and Suarez) and finally 5) Hugo Grotius. Tierney also finishes with a brief examination of Thomas Hobbes of Leviathan fame, whose fondness for absolutism put him out of step with his predecessors.

For me, the sections on the lawyers, decretists and glossers at the University of Bologna - most notably Huguccio (section 1) - and William of Ockham (section 2) are the most interesting since they are by far the most important figures, while Gerson, the Thomists at Salamanca and Grotius built on their work and transmitted it to the likes of John Locke who in turn informed the American Founders.

In summary, an outstanding work and Tierney deserves all the praise he has received for his groundbreaking research. Of the many histories I've read this ranks right near the top alongside Fustel de Coulanges' The Ancient City: A Study on the Religion, Laws, and Institutions of Greece and Rome.

 

Well, I'll take it step by step to ensure you can make sense of (post #387)...and then maybe you can agree or disagree, with rational argument (something I am waiting for from kokomojojo who has been engaged in this debate from the beginning).

(Definition problem as you see it addressed later).

1. "(Forgetting, for the sake of the argument, that "rights" as you name them are in fact desires):"

This states my contention that "rights" don't exist in nature, but desires do exist in nature - whether instinctive in animals, or instinctive AND the product of conscious thought/awareness in the case of humans (eg, I desire to love my spouse).

2. "You are still confusing individual "rights" with the "rights" of people (plural)."

This is the crux of my argument. The "rights" of the individual MAY BE incompatible with the "rights of the people".

eg, the "right" of an individual "to pursue liberty" may be curtailed by a system of economics and law which is necessary to maximize well-being for all, via government intervention in "free markets".

3. "You have a "right" to freedom......but presumably NOT to security, or freedom from want, because such rights would mean everyone would have a "right" to security and freedom from want"..

In fact there is no problem of definition of terms between myself and kokomojojo, as you suggested: , kokomojojo defines "rights" as inherent in nature, (as does the OP's author), while I say "rights" don't exist in nature, rather they are human constructs.

4. "... but the theory of 'inherent individual rights' is incompatible with such universal rights, because the implementation of such universal "rights" will impinge on individual rights"

Which begs the question: does the "right" of an individual to life (the most basic "right"), and liberty (a slightly less basic "right"? .....or does it have equal force to the first?), surpass the individual's "right" to freedom from fear and want ?

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights says all of these rights have equal force, hence my conclusion in point no.4 above.

Hopefully you can now make sense of my post #387.

Now, to continue my answer to your post:

...which is just another variation on the beloved "individual sovereignty" delusion.

So you are saying individual liberty is absolute (...."almost") but individual freedom is constrained to the extent necessary to avoid harm to others. But recall my point (no.2 above) about systemic macro-economic dysfunction; harm is already being done (by the community which accepts a level of entrenched unemployment) if there are individuals who are less able to successfully compete in the nation's economic life.

The solution requires a macroeconomic system which guarantees above-poverty participation (hence Pavlina Tcherneva's Case for a Job Guarantee.....confirmed in article 23 of the UNUDHR)....straying into politics and economics.

Note: if you harm yourself, you harm the community in terms of the loss to the community's development potential.

The "right" to water can in some circumstances be equivalent the "right" to life.

But note the underlined, which I have addressed above. Be careful: I'm tempted to say your individual sovereignty delusion amounts to a statement of 'the survival of the fittest'.

Indeed, and addressed above. Meanwhile my task is to dispel the delusion of "individual sovereignty" in the context of rule of law, by showing ALL "rights" are constructs not inherent in nature.

Well, we agree in your final paragraph...except I blame the underlined on a dysfunctional macroeconomic system serving powerful vested interests, rather than any one particular group monopolizing resources and means of production. Musk and Bezos aren't responsible for homelessness, and neither are the individuals who are homeless. The system is responsible (since access to housing is as fundamental as access to water, at least in a society with any moral sense).

 

1) there are no natural rights (agreed) - rights begin and end with agreement among people - which is perhaps what you mean by the delusion of individual sovereignty - later on. Let us call this agreement among people the "Social Contract"

2) confusing individual liberty with rights of the collective (the reverse is true earning you a P) - In my previous post I get into this a little describing the difference between essential liberty - and freedom ..(which unfortunately you did not get)

So 2 issues here which will come up later A) collective rights vs essential liberty

This is an excellent distinction "

So how do we deal with this conflict ?

Enter "Utilitarianism" vs Retributive Justification for Law - something I took in a Philosophy of Law Class from this Amazing Prof - and acquaintance - as he would come to the University Chess Club - Was Jewish - Ph.d from Oxford .. smart x 2. ..

You are arguing for Utilitarianism - "what will increase happiness for the collective" - a justification for law where the needs of the collective supersede that of the individual .. so this justification does not take the individual into consideration .. and there is the rub.

You are not allowed to make law in a "Constitutional Republic" solely on this basis - Full Stop.
This justification for law allows for an end run around the safeguards put in place - as per the "Social Contract" - which protect essential liberty - things that do not do "Direct Harm" to others

Which brings us to B) Essential liberty is anything that does not involve "Direct Harm' Murder, rape, theft, and so on
your "indirect harm" argument is thus at an end.. except in cases of extreme negligence and so on .. meaning .. You can not use general "Indirect harm" as the sole justification to over-ride essential liberty in a constitutional republic.

Problems other than mentioned above is that you are giving the State near unlimited power by allowing such justification for law
Then there is the problem of "Who gets to decide" - one woman's trash is another mans treasure ..

No - something is out of whack here .. - likely due to B) and other definition problem.

What are "Universal Rights" ? 2) What do we say they are under our system of Gov't.
Under the US system - we say they are "Essential Liberty" .. so of course they are very compatible .. and in fact the same.

The rights of one can impinge on the rights of another tis true - Smoking for example according to the current kangarooland clown show.

This is a violation of essential liberty - on the basis of "Indirect Harm" - das ist verboten - "Sans" demonstrable extreme harm"

So then .. what constitutes demonstrable extreme harm ? where is the bar .. is there one that has been set and if so where is it ... and yes I know the answer but need to leave something for you to ponder.

 

Note my underlined: I would say "rights" are defined by rule of law. Your statement (underlined) is the basis of Libertarianism, which requires voluntary agreement among rational people, I see this as only possible in a brave new world where all individuals and nations have equal access to knowledge and prosperous development, in a world free from (the threat of) war.

Meantime, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is beloved by many, but indefensible in law.....because Libertarians insist their individual sovereignty takes precedence over any such declaration of universal human rights which after all is a form of a GLOBAL social contract, guaranteeing freedom from systemic want, or systemic oppression.

Eg some people insist that a state based on OT mythology re "The Promised Land" and "The Chosen People" has a right to overrule people who do not accept that mythology, and hence they refuse to negotiate over East Jerusalem, despite the fact the Dome of the Rock is the most iconic building in Jerusalem's skyline...

So how can you dispute my claim you are complicit in the murder of children in Israel-Palestine, given that you insist on the out-dated concept of absolute national sovereignty ...which is as delusional as the concept of individual sovereignty, IF we want peace and security for all.

You end up saying Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem - based on OT mythology - is more important than a settlement of the dispute under the auspices of international law in order to save the lives of children in an otherwise never-ending conflict. (The Muslim faith will last as long as the Christian/Jewish faith, no doubt about it. They are all based on a misreading of the divine principle, by "sovereign" individuals in "sovereign" states).

Trust a Jewish professor (though by no means all Jews) to adopt a Libertarian stance based on the universal application of the 10 Commandments....

Forget escape routes like "utilitarianism" and "collectivism", you either want to end the occupation to save lives from a never ending conflict, or you don't.

So back to the OP: we agree "inherent natural rights" don't exist, but you propose individual sovereignty as the only possible basis for "freedom". Kokomojojo agrees with you, though he DOES think inherent natural rights exist in nature...he mistakenly equates the survival instinct with the "right" to life.

 

I haven't read all of your opening post just yet but I wanted to toss in the idea that maybe..... just maybe.....
the idea of humans having some sort of natural rights goes all the way back to Genesis chapter one where it was
explained that we humans were somehow made "in the image of God!"


One near death experiencer reported being shown that the Seven Spirits of God that are mentioned several times in the Bible = the fourteen Elohim of Genesis chapter one. She said that each of the seven spirits of God are twins.... .one male and one female.

The Book of Adam and Eve that was preserved into our time period only in the Coptic Ethiopian language writes about Cain having a beautiful twin sister named Luluwa that was supposed to become the wife of Abel.

Abel had a not so beautiful twin sister named Aklia who was supposed to become the wife of Cain.... but that led to trouble later on when Abel was fifteen and Cain was seventeen.

Anyway..... that near death experiencer reported that each human receives a tiny clone like person of one of the fourteen Elohim at the time of conception!

 

On that note I would like to state that the management of politicalforum gives me personally a high level of freedom of thought and expression that is very different than, for example, Facebook, that deleted me on April 19, 2021. I no longer exist on Facebook!

You might be able to find some of what I wrote back in 2014 or earlier... but more recent messages by me on Facebook are gone.

 

That's worth tossing out there, Dennis.

It's notable that many of the arguments and questions surrounding natural rights, whether they were between William of Ockham and Pope John XXII in the 14th Century or John Locke and Sir Robert Filmer in the 17th Century, referred back to Genesis and the concepts of rights in the context of Man's emergence from the state of nature to civilization (and in between). In the case of the Franciscan poverty controversy the questions of when and where rights emerged from was central to the debate and its outcome. Furthermore, how William of Ockham prevailed in this debate is not only remarkable in itself, but testimony to his status as one of the greatest logicians of all time.

 

No - you have got it all wrong - at least with respect to some things . and you are confusing Classical Liberalism with Libertarianism .. painting a black vs white paradigm when that is not what classical liberalism is about.

We can debate some kind of test required for voting if you like - but as far as having a process which involves some consent of the governed - if you say - Not this - then you are talking totalitarianism.

So the point of this game is how to we devise a system whereby we have at least some hope public input and 2)protection for essential liberty . - which again you still seem confused on what this is.

No idea why you brought in the blood feud into the discussion and all that other stuff.

Theocracy you brought up - OK .. but clearly that is not your suggestion for a system - albeit that would fit into your general idea - a system where the people have no say..

You made some good points in relation to the failure of the world to uphold rights . and hypocrisy therein . but .. this does not help with the question of how a system "should" function. .

 

Classical Liberalism is based on a theory of "inherent natural rights**" is it not ("rights" which we agree are human constructs, not objective reality in the natural world)?

As in:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights**, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

.......compared with Libertarianism which is based on a theory of voluntary agreement by rational individuals.

..or a one-party meritocracy...the label itself is immaterial, the outcome IS very material.

People in China who don't concern themselves with labels (eg "authoritarianism"), and delusions about individual "freedom" and "inalienable rights" as the necessary basis for good governance, are increasingly satisfied with their one-party government, for the obvious differences in outcome with the US "democratic" government...and then we have debates the US is not a "democracy" but a "republic".....geez.....we still see the same inability to repair a bridge or two in the US.

(Biden is already being forced to downgrade his infrastructure package, while China is transforming its physical infrastructure at the fastest rate of any nation in history (backed by AI and IT not available before in history, but also by an effective system of government, namely, one party meritocracy. The US will really have to find a way to fund high speed rail sooner or later..and co-operate with reform of multilateral institutions like the IMF and WTO , to oversee prosperous development in all nations. Competition among individuals, alone, will not achieve it. Now I know you would love to see DoD expenditures drastically reduced......).

I'm not confused at all, whereas - once again - your above sentence identifies the source of your confusion , namely,
the tension between "public input" (which you equate with the "consent of the governed") on the one hand, and protection for "essential liberty" which you have previously defined as relating to individuals on the other, and most certainly is NOT equivalent to the "public interest" of the community of individuals, all of whom have their own self-interests paramount.

Understand now? It's not that hard to grasp, surely.

But I have to say - once gain - "essential liberty" relating to individuals is incompatible with liberty relating to ALL individuals in the community, UNLESS all have guaranteed access by law to basic security and economic well-being. Stop dodging this reality.

To show that your "essential liberty" theory (for individuals) has negative implications in the global sphere, especially as the planet's ecological and bio-diversity limits are being reached (or exceeded) by human behaviors, eg who will bear the funding costs of the necessary transition from "invisible hand" (purely profit seeking) capitalist economies that take no account of waste disposal costs? And to the "blood feud": who is going to pay for the ongoing costs of Gaza's repeated reconstructions whenever Israeli police clamp down on Palestinians rights of access to East Jerusalem's holy sites?

And of course you didn't even begin to explain why you are not complicit in the ongoing slaughter of children in a "blood feud" or any other international conflict, through your rejection of the required UN machinery to defend the UH UNDHR, namely a UNSC without veto.

Once again, your "essential liberties" are more important to you than the lives of children in Palestine, because your outdated classical liberal theories demand it.

Yet I have exposed your "essential liberty" theory to be a fraud (as it is indeed delusional), unless you can address these points directly,

Well we can see the disastrous results of your "essential (individual) rights/liberty" theory, around the globe.

Whereas after the experience of Cold War, the failed "planned economy" of the USSR, AND in the midst of the amazing rise of China which has high satisfaction among mainland Chinese themselves, a system of governance - in both the national and international sphere - "should" provide security and rising living standards for all, as envisioned in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.