WH prepares for 2 possible SCOTUS vacsFollow

Worst 20k ding ever.

Now you try!

I don't see my conclusions as absurd. You disagree with my premise, but every conclusion from that premise is perfectly consistent and seems fairly reasonable to me.

Also, just for kicks, the original argument with Moebius is not the same as our other argument gbaji. There really isn't a chance to play with semantics. Moebius has stated that inalienable rights can be alienated... which is just simple contradiction.

Edited, Feb 5th 2010 4:13pm by Allegory

To be fair, there was a period of time in Western History where talking about natural and inalienable rights where all men and women, whether Caucasian or African or Asian, whether Protestant or Catholic or not Christian or religious at all, were equal, and had the same starting status, and should have the same freedoms and responsibilities when it came to movement, working, holding land or company titles, and holding votes and government positions, was a very very important idea. It was a necessary idea at the time to overthrow thousands of years where very unequal laws and rights were applied to different types of people, and classes of people, and where the whole community used to think these unequalities, these iniquities, were the natural order of things. Not only useless to fight against, but wrong to fight against.

I think the general lack of understanding of the concept of natural rights, and the frequency with which infringements of natural rights are accepted in the pursuit of exactly the sorts of "unequal laws and rights" you speak of indicates that it is very much still necessary...


When someone argues that it's ok to take away from one group of people to provide benefits for another and argues that the second group has a "right" to those benefits, my point is proven. Isn't it?

Because it dramatically changes your outlook on political actions if you understand that we start with a complete set of "natural rights" which allow us to do anything we want (with only physical limitations restricting us), and from that starting point, our rights are whittled away versus if you believe that we start with no rights at all, and the laws of society grant them to us.

Understanding the former is the key point of western liberalism. It's what allows one to realize that rights aren't given to us and thus anything which is "given to us" is not a right. Seems obvious, but many many people get this wrong. Every single time someone justifies raising taxes to provide free medical care to someone on the grounds that people have a "right to medical care", they are getting it wrong. But if you don't understand the meaning of natural rights, you wont realize it...


That's why it's important.

Nope. It's incredibly relevant. Because when you understand the concept of natural rights existing without anyone having to codify them, and existing regardless of whether the ability to use them exists, you also understand innately that a corporation also has "natural rights". It "may" naturally do whatever it physically can barring social rules (laws) restricting its actions. It starts with the "right" to do whatever it wants and then we pass laws defining and restricting its actions. Just as we do with people.


The concept is a very basic and broad one. And it's absolutely relevant to the topic at hand. It is because most people don't understand this that they assume that corporations only have rights because a law was passed, and that those rights are arbitrarily granted and may be arbitrarily taken away. That is backwards, just as it is backwards when applied to people (or anything else). Let me be clear, this does not mean that infringement of natural rights is always and automatically wrong. However, in order to ensure that we're doing said infringement for the right reasons, it's important that we understand that this is what we're doing.

I didn't notice at the time, but, looking back, it is clear that it was at this point that the thread's retardation hit critical mass.

I got drunk Friday night and lost all interest in this. So did everyone else, apparently.

Not exactly. Natural rights mean that there are no social rules in effect. Anything "may" be done. Obviously, physical limitations restrict physical actions, but it's important to understand that this doesn't actually mean that the "right" to do that thing is gone. The second an organism evolves the ability to speak, they should not have to obtain special laws allowing them to do so. They already have the right, even if they don't possess the physical ability to do so.

A rock has the "right" to write literature. The fact that it can't doesn't remove the right to do so. We start without any limits on what we may do. We then pass laws restricting those things. The classical liberalist ideology says that we should only do this in cases where the restrictions are necessary to preserve other rights (ie: Mostly restrictions on actions which would in turn infringe on other rights).

That's not to say we can't pass other laws, but when doing so we need to be aware of what we're doing. It is wrong to argue (for example) that we should pass health care because people have a "right to health care". It's the argument being used which is wrong. The issue at question may be the right one or the wrong one, but we should be assessing that based on an accurate assessment of the issue and not by applying inaccurate labels.



Really? I'm quite sure I've quoted Locke in at least a few threads you've participated in Ash. Where do you think our concept of "natural rights" came from?



I didn't define it. The guy who wrote a definition of "rights" and "liberties" did. And then some other guys took his ideas and founded a nation on them. They wrote this thing called the Constitution. Ergo, when we talk about rights and liberties within the context of the US system of government, we are talking about the definitions Locke created and used.

If that's not the same definition you are using then that's because whoever taught you what rights are made up their own definition. You accuse me of doing this, but I'm using the correct meaning in the correct context. Why not examine why *you* think rights should work differently?



And that's a wonderful argument to make. Sadly, that's not the argument being used to sway most people on this issue. It's nearly impossible to read or hear a single argument for government provided health care without at some point being hit with the "right to health care" bit. When those of us arguing against said health care system are constantly accused of "taking health care away from people" and "infringing the people's right to medical care", it's a bit hard to get around.


I'll stop making this point the second the argument for said changes to our health care system cease to revolve around the incorrect assumption that the people have a right to have health care provided to them. They don't. And that's not a disagreement over the issue over whether we should or should not provide said care anyway. It's a disagreement over whether failing to do so infringes a right. I'm looking at *why* we do something. Because to me, that's the most important thing. If we decide as a society that it's worth it to infringe on people's rights by taking away the fruits of their labors in order to provide other people with health care, then that's a decision we can make as a society. That position and argument makes it clear that we've decided that the cost in liberty is worth paying in order to provide the benefit of health care to more people. This is relevant because it prevents the next step in a slippery slope which erodes our rights. If we accept that health care is a "right", then it becomes easier for the next benefit to be argued as a right as well. For someone like myself, who believes that individual liberty is very important for a society to have, this is kinda important...



Just explained it above. Why we do something is just as important (arguably more important) than what we do. You may not see it, but some of us do.

Edited, Feb 8th 2010 6:51pm by gbaji

I hate being wrong.

One of the problems I have with Gbaji's view of rights, is that the reason I support freedom of speech, has nothing to do with the fact that it's a natural state. For me rights are something that we as a society hold as very dear and enshrine into law. Usually a sort of law that is very hard to get around, hence constitutions etc. I get that there is more then one kind of right, and sure, separate them into natural rights and otherwise, but to me the other rights are much more important. Societies can define rights.

The other problem as has been illustrated in this and other threads is that Gbaji has a very specific and relatively obscure understanding of rights and liberties that does not necessarily sync with most of American society. As societal norms change, so do values and what we assign importance to. I think to refer to Locke's definition of "rights" as the only correct definition is quite Naive and demonstrates a lack of understanding about how people actually think about life.

Edited, Feb 8th 2010 9:00pm by Xsarus

Yes. There are two broad meanings for the word "rights" (in this context anyway):

1. Synonymous with liberties. Also known as "natural rights". Those things for which we do not have to ask permission.

2. A codified set of the above rights which we have decided need special mention in order to really really ensure they should not be infringed.


We should not take the set of rights under definition 2 as a full enumeration of all "rights" (definition 1). What's interesting about your post is that when the Bill of Rights was proposed, some of the founders opposed it precisely because they were afraid that if they wrote some rights down, that at some point in the future someone might think those were the only rights the constitution protected.



It's only obscure because for some bizarre reason almost no one is taught this at any point in their education. The meaning and importance of the concept of rights and liberties hasn't changed. If we taught every student this during their education then it wouldn't be "obscure" and there'd be a whole lot less confusion about what our Constitution really means.



Or how people have been taught. People think those words have certain meanings because they go to schools where they are never taught why rights are important and how they are derived, but rather simply given a list of them and told that they are very important. Why then be surprised when most of them conclude that their importance is purely because they were written down, so therefore rights are malleable and can be changed over time if society just decides to change its mind about what is important?

It's not surprising at all. Heck. I'd suggest that this is deliberate...