Natural Rights and the Social Contract

[konradv]

society as created by the people to give value to their property which is obtained by their rights to own which is natural.

What's natural is, If I'm stronger than you, I can take your property and there's nothing you can do about it. You're confusing "natural" with societal conventions, where the idea of personal property originates. In the natural world such conventions don't exist and your den or your meal is only yours, if you can defend it. Nations often live in such a state of nature. Take for example the Mexican-American War. We took the Southwest because we could, not because we had any natural right to it. Despite the fact that Mexico signed a treaty ceding the territory, in every day life that would be like my coming to your home, overpowering you and making you sign over the deed to your house. When we have government, I'd have no right to do that. Without government such rights don't exist. Might makes right in the "natural" world and the only "right" you have is to fight back.

your little argument there ignores the rule of law, which protects rights and is why government is a necessary evil.

My little argument? What about your little brain? What you said is EXACTLY what I've been saying. I'm not ignoring the rule of law. I'm saying that without it, "natural rights" are a figment of one's imagination.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I challenge the widely held belief that our compendium of rights are granted us by others or the society in which we live.

Widely held?

I challenge the bull crap premise.

Do not pas GO, do not collect...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I challenge the widely held...

define: 'widely held' and try if you can to put forward supporting data or put forth a credible argument.

 

[antagon]

"natural rights". They don't exist. If we had natural rights, no government could take them away.

how do you feel a 'government could take them away'?

Inprisonment comes to mind.

because the government cant intercede our individual determination of our actions - our natural rights -, prison, like your strength hypothetical, must exert physical barriers, coersion and threat of force in order to acheive its goal.

this is not the same as taking away a natural right. natural rights are actions arising from self determination. so far you have only demonstrated that government has accounted for the existence of our natural rights through necessarily forceful reinforcement of rule of law.

 

[antagon]

dante, every discussion of natural rights which i have participated has had parties convinced that without a social contract, that rights dont exist. this one is no exception.

 

[Liberty]

every discussion of natural rights which i have participated has had parties convinced that without a social contract, that rights dont exist.

Which is the political philosophy of Hobbes, which Locke expanded and improved upon.

 

[konradv]

dante, every discussion of natural rights which i have participated has had parties convinced that without a social contract, that rights dont exist. this one is no exception.

Then, tell us what those natural rights are and how they exist in abscence of society or government. What you're calling "natural" is what I'd call "God-given", but that's for a discussion on religion, NOT governments. I realize this is the religion board, but so far this very post is the first time it's been mentioned. Since, apparently, we aren't talking about religion, from where exactly do these "natural rights" come?

 

[Steerpike]

Do they have to come from somewhere? They may be inherent in mankind upon birth; a natural state of existence, as it were.

 

[Liberty]

Do they have to come from somewhere? They may be inherent in mankind upon birth; a natural state of existence, as it were.

 

[konradv]

Do they have to come from somewhere? They may be inherent in mankind upon birth; a natural state of existence, as it were.

That doesn't tell me what they are or how those "rights" even exist, when in abscence of a government to back someone up, I could do whatever I want to you and your stuff with absolutely no repercussions, if I'm stronger than you. If rights are inherent, then they should be standard across most societies, but as we know, rights vary all over the world. I say there's nothing natural about them at all. Rather, they're something we agree upon.

 

[Steerpike]

They wouldn't necessarily be standard across societies, because societies impose their own structures that may or may not recognize man's natural rights. I think if you look at man in a state of nature, you get a starting point for those rights. You see man as he evolved. As societies evolve, constraints have to be put on the natural state of man or else you can't have a society. The question is to what extent those constraints need to be there, and whether they have the proper respect for the natural rights of man - rights of individual autonomy, freedom, and the like.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Do they have to come from somewhere? They may be inherent in mankind upon birth; a natural state of existence, as it were.

of course they do. rights are ideas, social constructs. they do not exist without society.

 

[Liberty]

Do they have to come from somewhere? They may be inherent in mankind upon birth; a natural state of existence, as it were.

of course they do. rights are ideas, social constructs. they do not exist without society.

Wrong.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They wouldn't necessarily be standard across societies, because societies impose their own structures that may or may not recognize man's natural rights. I think if you look at man in a state of nature, you get a starting point for those rights. You see man as he evolved. As societies evolve, constraints have to be put on the natural state of man or else you can't have a society. The question is to what extent those constraints need to be there, and whether they have the proper respect for the natural rights of man - rights of individual autonomy, freedom, and the like.

this argument holds...
only if -- if natural rights are a given, which they are not.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Do they have to come from somewhere? They may be inherent in mankind upon birth; a natural state of existence, as it were.

of course they do. rights are ideas, social constructs. they do not exist without society.

Wrong.

If 'rights' are not ideas what are they?

Do animals recognize rights? Only humans do. Society. Social construct.

 

[antagon]

dante, every discussion of natural rights which i have participated has had parties convinced that without a social contract, that rights dont exist. this one is no exception.

Then, tell us what those natural rights are and how they exist in abscence of society or government. What you're calling "natural" is what I'd call "God-given", but that's for a discussion on religion, NOT governments. I realize this is the religion board, but so far this very post is the first time it's been mentioned. Since, apparently, we aren't talking about religion, from where exactly do these "natural rights" come?

i precluded any necessity for god and by extension religion in the OP:

Firstly, I challenge the necessary association with God or supernatural altogether as it is proposed in the Declaration of Independence, for example. I attribute these rights to the nature of free will itself. Should the faithful attribute the facts of our existence to God, my argument doesn't obstruct that, however, my contention is that these rights are natural rather than supernatural.

this is not a religious issue or supernatural whatsoever...

the right to determine and undertake actions of free will is possessed of the actor alone. unlike actions of instinct or autonymous actions, actions of free will cannot be intercepted as you propose governments can. you cant make someone till a field in the same way one can elicit instinctive action by tapping their knee with a hammer. you cant support compliance with the rule of law with a machine the way a life support machine could support the the compliance of the heart and lungs in their autonomous function.

natural rights, then, are these rights exercised by way of taking self-determined action - any action of free will. of course natural rights exist outside the social contract. outside society, there is no pressure to limit the exercise of these rights. our societies arise from their exercise in the first place. rather than endowing us with anything, society does the exact opposite.

social contracts function to corral natural rights to a set which serves the function of the society. they employ threat of force, coercion via entitlement and moral education to bring this about. they offer protections for more complex rights (entitlements) than those which we are naturally at our disposal (see Liberty's property ownership).

because government cant intercept or take possession of our natural rights, thinkers in the enlightenment, to include the framers of US govt, noted that the most stable and sustainable governments were those which availed their constituents the most freedom, noting that countermanding natural rights comes at the cost of instability and unrest.

 

[antagon]

Do they have to come from somewhere? They may be inherent in mankind upon birth; a natural state of existence, as it were.

of course they do. rights are ideas, social constructs. they do not exist without society.

i dont see how natural rights could be social constructs when their existence precedes social interaction. we are discussing natural rights like the thread title says, not social rights or legal rights like a 'right' to an attorney. this is essentially an entitlement.

a natural right is something which cant be taken away. it is the right which we possess to take an action of our free will.

for the avoidance of the obvious but underconsidered rebuttal, i remind that taking an action does not necessitate success in obtaining a goal. in this way, those hoping to infringe on natural rights can cast the actor into bondage. the cost of countermanding the actor's will is the lesson which theses on natural rights availed policymakers in government. casting people into bondage, because they still possess free will no matter how captive you render them, will always come at a cost commensurate with the strength of the people's resolve and their wherewithal to act.

as to natural rights being ideas, i accept that fact because of their intangibility. this does not preclude their existence without being conceived, however. like gravity and electromagnetic force, natural rights are intangibles which take on real world impact when a subject or subjects are applied to their framework.

 

[Liberty]

of course they do. rights are ideas, social constructs. they do not exist without society.

Wrong.

If 'rights' are not ideas what are they?

Do animals recognize rights? Only humans do. Society. Social construct.

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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

1776 TDOI

 

[Greenbeard]

Carlin Interlude.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F1Lq1uFcAE]Rights[/ame]

 

[american chaos]

I have a troubling question


Do "Rights" even exist? If so, how do they differ from "abilities"?


I am of the mind that "rights" are a political idea used to seperate what government/people would allow in society and what government/people should not allow. Therefore, a right is a political invention created to form "contractually restricted" governments,i.e. A right is an action or practice that the government is not allowed to ban.

Rights are not natural, because government is not natural.