Brian Blackwell
Senior Member
- Mar 10, 2018
- 994
- 129
- 45
- Banned
- #481
So you completely dismiss everything the Founding Fathers believed - unalienable rights and so forth - but have total respect for the document expressly born of those beliefs?
Please support your assertion of natural law being a fantasy construct with some rational argumentation, if you would. To make that determination, you must have a great understanding of the principles of natural law and reasons for thinking it’s all bunk, so please explain how you came to this conclusion.
You think you know everything the Founding Fathers believed or that they all believed the same things? I believe they put their beliefs into the Constitution and the Constitution does not contain unalienable rights. A person can be deprived of any and all rights under certain circumstances such as conviction of a crime insanity age etc. Nor were all men created equal in our new Country. Some were still born slaves and women were little better than property and only property owners had a vote in some places.
Why would you think I could or should know the properties of somebody else's fantasy? At one time people believed that it was natural law that the world was flat and the sun circled the earth. In case you're wondering they were wrong. Given the examples you've given as being natural law (which is all I know about how you define the term) I have to think your thinking is very nearly as skewed.
My point is that, in general, the people who wrote the Constitution believed in unalienable natural law rights, as stated in the Declaration. So the Constitution was purported as a means of protecting those rights. It does not do this (for many of the reasons you mentioned) and it can never do this (because external authority is inherently a violation of rights), and so the document is invalid on that account, but if you believe it’s valid, you must either accept the basis of its claim to validity - natural law rights, including the necessity for consent of the governed - or believe that anything written down on parchment, no matter how arbitrary, is valid “just because”.
In other words, why do you believe the Constitution is valid?
And if you believe my view of natural law is skewed, please explain what you believe natural law is.
Again. I believe that the FF wrote what they considered to be "unalienable rights" into the Constitution but that they did not subscribe to the same definition as you.
Nature is not especially fond of people and certainly does not confer rights on them. People fought and gave us our rights and people are required to maintain or lose them. I think you do our ancestors a grave discredit to consider anything other than them as the origin of our rights.
I don't believe that there is anything invalid about our Constitution. it is misinterpreted often and is by no means perfect but overall it functions quite well as intended.
External authority is not a violation of rights. Authority is an necessary and integral part of human culture. Parents are an authority to their children.
People consent to be governed by living under that government authority. Otherwise you can always move to a place that has a different government, change your current government, or overthrow it and found one you like better. Of course there is a certain amount of risk that may be involved with any option.
Are you saying it’s literally might makes right? Rights are made up by whoever has the muscle to establish themselves in a seat of power and defend against attackers?
Didn't say or mean that. Maybe you should read a little more closely.
Here’s what I read, correct me if I’m wrong:
- Nature does not confer rights (I take this to mean nature is not their source)
- People gave us our rights, and are required to maintain or lose them (people can grant rights and take them away; they are the origin of rights).
- External authority is not a violation of rights (making demands which others must obey or be violently punished is moral).
- People consent to be governed by living under that governmental authority (government’s claim to authority over people is validated by itself: “We claim it the moment you’re born; you must leave our claimed territory, or we’ll consider that inaction as consent”).
Considering all this, what would make it “wrong” for anyone to grab power, make any laws they want, and grant or deny any “rights” they want? People are the source of rights, and people may maintain them or take them away. There is no higher standard to appeal to.
What about my reading of your comments do you take exception with? Imho, I believe it’s that you don’t like the way your ideas sound when rephrased in a de-euphemized way. But I could be wrong. Please explain.