Natural Rights: Why do they matter?
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 6 months ago to Philosophy
Natural Rights: Why do they matter?
Natural rights are corollary to your existence, requisite for protecting existence, and the foundation upon which all other rights are derived.
These rights are expressed in 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 unalienable 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, …”
Rand wrote in “The Virtue of Selfishness” that this “...laid down the principle in the words ‘…to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...’ (That)This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined its only proper purpose; to protect man’s rights by protecting him from physical violence. Thus the government’s function was changed from the role of ruler to the role of servant. The government was to protect man from criminals---and the Constitution was written to protect man from government.” She also wrote, “The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.” “Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.” Moral law is all that entails man’s right to exist.
John Locke wrote of the fundamental principle of natural rights. Life, liberty and property were rights inherent in your being. These rights are universal and no one has the right to take them. You have a right to exist and the corollary is so do others. You have the right to defend yourself, to the fruits of your labor, to liberty and must grant the same to others. No one has the right to deny your liberty or property without reprisal. Only you can forfeit these rights by an act which violates another. William Blackstone wrote, “... no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to forfeiture.”
Locke asserted that governments were instituted by man for a primary purpose; that it was morally obligated to serve people, by protecting life, liberty and property, for without these protections man was no better off than he was in a state of nature. Man would be at the mercy of every brute. This is the impetus for communities; for the mutual benefit of numbers, for defending natural rights, corollary to your right to exist.
The basic premise precedes Locke. He expanded the archaic notions of a “state of nature” and a tradition among the ancient civilizations that rulers can’t legitimately do whatever they want, as basic moral laws apply to all. He proclaimed that “Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.” And, man should “have a standing Rule to live by, common to every one of that Society, and made by the Legislative Power erected in it; A Liberty to follow my own Will in all things, where the Rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, Arbitrary Will of another Man.” As for property he said, “every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” In another passage he wrote, “The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.” Private property is essential for life and Liberty. People in nature were there own rulers and held individual sovereignty. Thus legitimate Government “can never have a Power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the Subjects Property, without their own consent. For this would be in effect to leave them no Property at all.” He also wrote, rulers “must not raise Taxes on the Property of the People, without the Consent of the People, given by themselves, or their Deputies.” To do otherwise was to render man no better off than he was when in a state of nature. Man should not enter into or create a government that reduces rights more than absolutely necessary or it would be a diminution of the rights retained by man in his natural state. The only legitimate occasion where man should relinquish his rights should be voluntarily, in pursuit of justice; namely the independent execution of justice so as to avoid unusual cruelty and avoid mistaken, unjust and biased, partial judgment. This should be granted to an impartial arbiter.
Locke expressed the view that if government did not fulfill these obligations then people would be living under tyranny and they would have the legitimate right to rebel. Although in Locke’s day he was dealing with monarchies he expressed these premises universally saying “Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.” This was so dangerous in his time, authorship for his Second Treatise was revealed till his death.
His words along with those of Algernon Sidney greatly influenced America’s founding fathers; Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Madison, Adams, Mason, etc. were among them.
“Natural rights are those which always appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the rights of others.” In correlation and distinction to this he said, “Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.”- Paine
“Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their powers; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”- Jefferson
James Madison, attempted to protect all natural rights not enumerated in primary authorship of the Ninth amendment.
It has been said that “you have the natural right to be eaten by a savage beast.” You also have the natural right to use your superior intelligence, defend yourself, fashion a weapon, kill and eat the beast for supper. Whether you call them Natural, Unalienable, or God given is inconsequential, at least in relation to how rights are mutually respected, so long as you recognize and respect them.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Natural rights are corollary to your existence, requisite for protecting existence, and the foundation upon which all other rights are derived.
These rights are expressed in 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 unalienable 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, …”
Rand wrote in “The Virtue of Selfishness” that this “...laid down the principle in the words ‘…to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...’ (That)This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined its only proper purpose; to protect man’s rights by protecting him from physical violence. Thus the government’s function was changed from the role of ruler to the role of servant. The government was to protect man from criminals---and the Constitution was written to protect man from government.” She also wrote, “The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.” “Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.” Moral law is all that entails man’s right to exist.
John Locke wrote of the fundamental principle of natural rights. Life, liberty and property were rights inherent in your being. These rights are universal and no one has the right to take them. You have a right to exist and the corollary is so do others. You have the right to defend yourself, to the fruits of your labor, to liberty and must grant the same to others. No one has the right to deny your liberty or property without reprisal. Only you can forfeit these rights by an act which violates another. William Blackstone wrote, “... no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to forfeiture.”
Locke asserted that governments were instituted by man for a primary purpose; that it was morally obligated to serve people, by protecting life, liberty and property, for without these protections man was no better off than he was in a state of nature. Man would be at the mercy of every brute. This is the impetus for communities; for the mutual benefit of numbers, for defending natural rights, corollary to your right to exist.
The basic premise precedes Locke. He expanded the archaic notions of a “state of nature” and a tradition among the ancient civilizations that rulers can’t legitimately do whatever they want, as basic moral laws apply to all. He proclaimed that “Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.” And, man should “have a standing Rule to live by, common to every one of that Society, and made by the Legislative Power erected in it; A Liberty to follow my own Will in all things, where the Rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, Arbitrary Will of another Man.” As for property he said, “every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” In another passage he wrote, “The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.” Private property is essential for life and Liberty. People in nature were there own rulers and held individual sovereignty. Thus legitimate Government “can never have a Power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the Subjects Property, without their own consent. For this would be in effect to leave them no Property at all.” He also wrote, rulers “must not raise Taxes on the Property of the People, without the Consent of the People, given by themselves, or their Deputies.” To do otherwise was to render man no better off than he was when in a state of nature. Man should not enter into or create a government that reduces rights more than absolutely necessary or it would be a diminution of the rights retained by man in his natural state. The only legitimate occasion where man should relinquish his rights should be voluntarily, in pursuit of justice; namely the independent execution of justice so as to avoid unusual cruelty and avoid mistaken, unjust and biased, partial judgment. This should be granted to an impartial arbiter.
Locke expressed the view that if government did not fulfill these obligations then people would be living under tyranny and they would have the legitimate right to rebel. Although in Locke’s day he was dealing with monarchies he expressed these premises universally saying “Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.” This was so dangerous in his time, authorship for his Second Treatise was revealed till his death.
His words along with those of Algernon Sidney greatly influenced America’s founding fathers; Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Madison, Adams, Mason, etc. were among them.
“Natural rights are those which always appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the rights of others.” In correlation and distinction to this he said, “Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.”- Paine
“Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their powers; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”- Jefferson
James Madison, attempted to protect all natural rights not enumerated in primary authorship of the Ninth amendment.
It has been said that “you have the natural right to be eaten by a savage beast.” You also have the natural right to use your superior intelligence, defend yourself, fashion a weapon, kill and eat the beast for supper. Whether you call them Natural, Unalienable, or God given is inconsequential, at least in relation to how rights are mutually respected, so long as you recognize and respect them.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Recently, I posted a pro-firearm sentiment by Maya Angelou on FB. A friend responded that my right to own firearms violated her right to feel safe.
This is part of how the progs win a propaganda war; for instance charity is now "give-back." Even Marx stole much of the language of Locke with no intention of maintaining the reasoning. In fact, Rousseau is often taught alongside Locke as if they are similar in their philosophy. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Rights are rights to action for your own personal benefit not at the expense of another PHYSICALLY SPEAKING.
The "right to feel" isn't a right. It's non-objective and can't be protected under the law.
I quite agree. Thank you for addressing that angle and adding to the commentary.
Your contributions are appreciated. :)
Regards,
O.A.
Now, how do we get the masses to give a shit about the importance of natural rights....? :(
When "American Idol" or "Dancing with the Stars" is the most watched show in prime time, you know we are in deep trouble.
Next step - pry the smart phone from their hands and hand them The Rights of Man from Paine. Tell them they can have the phone back when they give their summary.
Regards,
O.A.
Since people now seem to only have the attention span of a crack addled gnat we need to edit books into easily digestible chunks.
We use two highlighters of different colors and alternate every 140 characters.
Then they wont think its a big scary book, but instead a tweet thread.....
We can call it "John's Jottings" or JJs for short in keeping with the needed brevity.
Sarcasm or serious?
You tell me
Maybe a Thomas Paine app . . . :-)
How about a Thomas Paine virus that forces one to read a chapter before accessing facebook?!?! ... :)
I do not know how much more we can take. I have had my fill. For far too many, it seems the "good life" is now nothing more than is required to buy your vote with bread and circuses...
I keep thinking about how our own revolution began and how it was only a small percentage of patriots fed up with tyranny that brought about the birth of a new nation... So far our government has been subdividing us and using divide and conquer in a way that only offends a small minority at a time, thus smartly avoiding mass rebellion. How long this strategy will continue to work I cannot say.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I think the better approach is to recraft the way that we choose our representatives. We need to have a system whereby the electorate has a direct stake in the system. The ability to vote should be earned, not merely bestowed.
At the rate we are going that doesn't seem that far off...
Respectfully,
O.A.
"In order to fulfill their agenda, the political elites must repeat the mantras of needs and public duty, hence exacerbate the dichotomy between the businessmen and public domain. The success of such a vision relied on the looters' ability to breed more intellectually lazy masses to provide them more unearned rewards and privileges. Naturally the failures of the system, according to the anti-business herd, are always due to the heretic greed of the industrialists, who are exploiting the underprivileged."
Strangely this tactic always seems to work, which is why we always get bigger, more anti-individual government after every major crises.
Indeed. I find it pleasantly coincidental that you reference Cicero since I am reading a book about him presently. :) If when finished (soon) it seems a worthy choice for posting a review on this forum I shall.
Regards,
O.A.
I think you hit on the core of the lefts attack here. 'God-given,and 'Inalienable' are the key words, not so much the Natural.
I contend, that the Framers specifically wrote 'Creator' and 'inalienable' deliberatly to protect those rights from the regulation, tinkering and revocation of man. Respect is the point of attack for leftists and liberals. To discredit God would make the significance of the words 'Creator' and 'inalienable' moot. To negate those words mean these rights come from our Founders minds. As men of that time their ideas can then be deemed obsolete and dated and are therefore can be subject to modification. Natural rights, while I understand what is meant by the term, also removes the focus from their elevated origin.
Right or wrong: My history backed 2 bits :)
Good points. It is also quite true that in their time they could never have gained necessary support if they had not appealed to the religious.
There is also something to be said for the benefit of religion, at least Judeo-Christian to society, particularly one established by a majority of believers and especially in a time such as that of our founding. It is a way to inculcate a set of tolerable morals to an otherwise unschooled populace. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams. From his perspective and many of his time it could not be otherwise.
Regards,
O.A.
So hard to tell... so many Utopian, idealist, progressives along the way...
“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”
― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law
Regards,
O.A.
In this age of the internet, we really don't need deputies (politicians) or an artificial construct of "consent" anymore. I think all government programs should be funded through a mechanism like Kickstarter. People could actually and meaningfully consent (if they choose) by contributing funds to the projects they support, and the unpopular ones won't be funded or enacted.
Wouldn't that be grand... a world where we paid for what we needed or wanted. Fair exchange without coercion.
O.A.
Sad. Today few politicians are civil servants they believe themselves to be our masters empowered with omniscience and the right to social engineer the minutia of our lives.
Regards,
O.A.
No, Jefferson got it right when he identified that these were bestowed on humanity by our Creator. And that does matter. There is nothing "natural" in these rights. We delude ourselves in thinking otherwise - to our demise.
You make a strong argument. All I can suggest is that the norm is the yearning of the majority, but it is always a majority that is oppressed by a minority. It is the epic struggle of good and evil. Occasionally the tables turn. Hence the founding of America. If they did not, the evil being the norm, would have annihilated all by now. If it were not the norm, wouldn't primitive man having a norm of oppression, prevented any positive progress? No? Just a thought... a dream that once upon a time seemed plausible... that freedom and liberty would spread/flow from the fountainhead...
Regards,
O.A.
I do believe that the masses are fat, lazy, and ignorant - much like the masses of the Romans who clamored for entertainment even while their mighty civilization collapsed around their ears.
That being said, I do believe that the tendencies/proclivities of man that you have enumerated are separate and independent from their rights. One would be wise to recognize, however, that rights are positive in one respect: one must take active steps to protect and act on them or one will passively forfeit them. It is an alternate method of looking at our existence: those who actively pursue their rights (by inheritance for you, Rob) are those who will keep them, while those who do not will be imprisoned by their own failures.
People can make lists of natural gem stones, natural animals, natural foods, natural senses, but have BIG trouble agreeing when using the term natural rights.
It seems to me the natural rights are biased to humans, not nature. Not that that is bad. But, I prefer the alternate term individual rights since the idea is all about the rights of the individual. The individual is part of nature but so is the parasite. Focus these rights to where they belong.
This could be quite an interesting exercise, but it may also quite exhaustive. As It relates to natural rights, human rights, unalienable, individual rights, God given, whatever you wish to call them and they have a conceptual character that encompass' a vast array. This is why it is easier to write a ninth amendment and leave them un-enumerated. They are fundamental and encompass the right to life, liberty, freedom of thought, expression, association, the right to work, property, etc. All that is prerequisite for these things to exist...
Give it a shot. I would like to see what you come up with.
Regards,
O.A.
1) Does that first child have a natural right to life?
2) If more women become pregnant and have their own children, do they have a natural right to life?
3) Are these natural rights dependent upon the ability of the community to generate resources for all to survive?
If you'd like, make it a spaceship so that no possibility of rescue or generation of additional resources is possible.
Interesting questions. I know others may not agree with my answers, but I do have some.
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) No.
The parent/parents are responsible for providing the resources or sacrificing their own since they were responsible for bringing into the world those lives knowing they would be dependent. This is how the population naturally grew in the first place. If the parents cannot provide they must rely upon the generosity of others. They have no moral right to make demands upon others. If they must sacrifice, gather, hunt, or grow more and work harder so be it. In space, more consideration for unplanned pregnancy and its relation to resources may be required, but I must point out that space is not a natural place for man and therefore "natural rights' may be found wanting...
Regards,
O.A.
I don't have any perfect answers, but in a closed system where your decisions have a direct impact on my survival, I think that the concepts of natural rights would need to be amended. Thus, can they really be considered "natural?"
Excellent exchange. We live in an imperfect world. Perhaps there is no perfect answer; only the best choice among many bad options...
Carpe diem!
O.A.
She was so sure of herself.
So now America has the mandated right to Obamacare and not heath care of our own individual choosing. :(
I don't see how/why natural rights matter from this. What other rights are you referencing?
I believe the distinction between natural and civil as Paine has defined them is the answer. For example, Miranda rights and voting rights are not needed in a state of nature, but are in a civil society.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I do not call my self an "objectivist" though I have found no superior single philosophy. I am a student of Objectivism. I have studied much philosophy and glean from each all that is pleasing and reason permits.
Regards,
O.A.
Then the right to life - really, under Obamacare. That one may be starting to sink in with the masses, but too slowly.
Liberty, where did that go? Look how many liberties have been breached since Obama took office. You can own property, if the government allows it - for now. You can own a gun, unless you are a "religious fanatic" or "veteran", the the government says you are to unstable. The list of exceptions to our liberties grows by the day.
Even property ownership is on shaky ground. As long as one must pay property taxes, then one is merely renting it from the government. They have the power to confiscate it at the first default. There is only one thing you can truly own, that they cannot take... and it is your mind.
Regards,
O.A.
What objectively is a planet right?.
Anyway, this could be some helpful tool for personal reference.
I don't see how/why natural rights matter from this. What other rights are you referencing?
I believe they are all rights necessary for the continuation of your existence so long as they do not interfere with the same rights of another. Thus no conflict. Do you have an example of conflict, keeping in mind what I have suggested?
Regards,
O.A.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by harmony. I meant that rights don't contradict and step on eachother. This kind of harmony is not only possible, but it's actual according to the Objectivist theory. If you mean, however, that people can still violate rights and disrupt the harmony (I.e., what results from a non-initiated force environment) in any system, then this is certainly true.
(sarcasm)
If this is what you believe, it should be quite easy to provide an example. If while exercising one's rights it violates another's then it cannot be a right within the constraints I have described. If I violate another's rights such as polluting upstream from them, then they have legal recourse against me for violating their rights, but I have not been constrained by my own definition.
Regards,
O.A.