The Source of Natural Rights

It's easier take away a bum's life than to protect it.

JK: Not in the aggregate.

So wait, I have a right to do whatever I can get away with?

Nicholas: That's not what MW is advocating at all.

As I read it, it seemed more like an elaboration on the "railcars" that make up his particular train of thought on this subject.

Of course there's a way to define "better" absent natural rights - but that definition flows most easily if you sl ide into utilitarianism and argue that those governments which respect life, liberty, and property produce the greatest utility (or, alternately, the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people). There is some trouble with this as it requires a preconceived assertion that utility, or happiness, are of highest value; and if that value is not determined by the natural order, then it becomes necessary to debate how it is determined, and it becomes possible to end in a cul-de-sac where what the majority wants is by definition the highest value.

But, however distasteful these definitions are to you, they are nonetheless definitions.

For what it's worth, I'm an atheist and a Libertarian (for the most part).

The atheist part is just a disbelief in any sort of God... in the traditional sense. I don't believe there is a God who honestly gives a damn about us or anything we do.

To me, it seems just as likely that "God" is like "Q" from Star Trek... a creature of infinite power and intelligence... who ultimately is bored.... and gets its fingers into the business of various civilizations.

(By the way... did you notice I'm a Star Trek fan? :) )

No, Michael, there are restraints; there are actions that you can't get away with under Natural Law-- actions that the government can't get away with either.

The best definition of Natural Law is in the preamble of the Constitution. It starts off with, "We hold these truths..." and continues for the next six sentences. It's worth your reading.

Another way of looking at Natural Law is in Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address of 1801.

"Still one thing more, fellow citizens -- a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

The point of Natural Law is that the government is not in charge; the people are. Governments are instituted to prevent the people from being harmed from outside through invasion, being harmed inside through one citizen acting against another and being harmed inside through the corruption of its officials.

Natural law says that rights and freedoms belong to the people, as says the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, and that limited powers are delegated to government to safeguard those freedoms.

But, people with power over others tend to accumulate it, so they have spread the idea that power starts in the Government, not the people. They use taxpayer funds to buy the votes of the ignorant. They monopolize the educational establishment so they may indoctrinate falsehoods. They corrupt the Constitution by saying that they have all the powers in it which aren't forbidden, but the Constitution provides them only with specific powers.

They hide from you that you are no less the Government of the United States than they. And that when they have abused their powers, as they have, then it is the duty of the citizenry to rise up and overthrow them.

I always took natural rights to stem from the fact and nature of life and being alive. Perhaps that is most applicable to self-defense though, and the difficulty level involved in taking away a "right" is another factor.

I've always considered the question of such rights to be religiously neutral.

N: No, it's more like rule utilitarianism, if you're familiar with that. Actually, it's a lot like that.

aph: I suppose I should have said "rationally defined".

Mark: Where do you think rights come from, if they exist?

LW: That's not what natural rights are. That's just plain old majoritarianism.

JS: Right, you believe rights derive from the "natural order" of life. It may be axiomatic, but if not, what's the source?

LW: That's not what natural rights are. That's just plain old majoritarianism.

Not so, MW. Our country was founded on John Locke's Natural Law. How do you see "Natural Law" as different from your "Natural Rights"?

Natural Law is not majoritarianism. Our Republic was designed specifically to prevent mob rule (majoritarianism). The separation of powers and the checks and balances worked well, but the Constitution had no remedy for the accumulation of judicial power.

If we are to redeem our republic then we need to recover the distinctions on which it was founded. The preamble of the Constitution says what is important; that each person is granted his or her life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and other rights as a gift from God. Governments are created solely to protect the above freedoms, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. But, even Thomas Jefferson said that we need a revolution every so often to prevent an accumulation of governmental power; our rulers need to be reminded who is really in charge.

Might I suggest some articles on political economy which will help highlight the distinctions?

http://www.friesian.org/fallen.htm
http://www.friesian.org/freestat.htm
http://www.friesian.org/rent.htm

MW said: "Essentially: natural rights are those liberties which are easier to protect than to take away."

Hardly. Freedom must be constantly fought for or it vanishes. "The tree of Liberty is nourished from the blood of patriots."

Perhaps, we need to get into "Positive" and "Negative" rights. Most of freedom is the right to be left alone. Government is necessary to provide us a mechanism so we can protect ourselves through the courts and politics. But, if you want this process to be easy or without cost-- think again.

MW: Where do these rights come from, you ask?

I think it all goes back to when mankind first learned to communicate. Communication is essential in a world of individuals with different ideas, views, and ways of thinking. Communication connects us to other people... making us feel less alone and more like a part of a larger group. This need to connect to other people is where I think these "rights" come from. The right to life is an extension of our need for companionship, for example.

This sense of companionship and community creates a vested interest in making the community succeed. The sense of individuality we all possess is balanced by our need for companionship. In order to have companions, we have to either be understanding of the differences between each other (so as not to turn people away.. the "old coot" factor) or we have to communicate and find those with whom we agree. A lot of people do both.. a lot of people respect differences and diversity but also seek out like-minded people.

That's where I think any sort of "natural rights" come from.

LW: I don't think you get my point at all, but that's ok. Your original comment, like the Constitution itself, was rather majoritarian. The Constitution is not a libertarian document. Although it was written with an eye towards limiting government power, natural rights do not reside with "the people", but rather with each person individually. The BoR goes a long way towards recognizing some of those rights. Locke was one source of inspiration for our founders, but hardly the only one.

Plus, of course, in nature, mobs do indeed rule.

Anyway, I think you miss the distinction between "easy" and "easier", which was really the crux of my point.

Mark: That's a sort of "social contract" argument that really doesn't go anywhere. You're saying that something is a "right" because everyone agrees to it -- classic majoritarianism. I don't see how our "needs" for anything lead to our possession of rights. I need health care, but do I have a right to force you to pay for my health care? I don't think so. I need companionship (as you say), but do I have a right to companionship? Certainly not.

Sure you have a "right" to companionship. The government cannot easily take it away.. so it's what would be defined as a "natural right" under the premise of your original article.

You have a "right" to health care... not a right on who should have to pay for it in whatever degree. That's a specific detail about health care... not a determination about whether you have a right to it or not.

What I was saying earlier is not just "classic majoritarianism". It speaks of needs.. and the rights that stem from those needs. The most basic things that people need are not examples of yet another majority/minority dichotomy. They're common to everyone. Everyone needs food. Everyone needs companionship. Everyone needs to communicate.

Cool topic. Gotta weigh in on this one. I'm constantly amazed at the number of people (not refering to anyone here) who think that "the Constitution gives us our rights", or that "government gives us our rights", and on and on.

To me, it's very simple. God gives us those rights. Period. End of chart.

Unbelief, disbelief, or less-than-solid belief in God, and who He really is, leaves people generally looking for a new answer to questions such as this.

I would attempt to describe our rights kinda like this:

Our rights are part of us, like our thoughts. They can't be separated from us, no matter how hard we, or someone else, tries. Even if someone is preventing me from excersizing (did I spell that wrong?) my rights, they still haven't "taken away" my rights.

This problem of rights infringing on other rights, I believe, stems from the fall of Adam and Eve. Armed with the dangerous knowledge from the tree of good and evil now makes it routine for me to want to act in ways that infringe on others' rights.

Prior to the fall in the garden, infringing on another's rights did not happen, because Adam walked with God, and his actions were motivated out of love, devotion to his Creator, and purity of mind.

Now, present-day, we have quite a mess on our hands, with "my rights" constantly pushing against "their rights".

Sorry if the "Bible thumping" made anyone sick. Please vomit at your own convenience.

Mark: "Companionship" isn't a right in any sort of normal sense, and I'm not even sure how you think it could be. Companionship requires another person, right? (So does health care, generally.) So if I have a right to companionship, then someone else must have an obligation to be my companion, right? Which is absurd.

"Needs" have, in general, absolutely nothing to do with rights.

JP: In ideal Christianity, discussion of "rights" is pointless -- but the same goes for ideal socialism. Unfortunately, no such ideal exists. So Christians must consider the question of rights and how we relate to other flawed humans.

Companionship is a right. You're entitled to companionship. No one is talking about forcing people to be your companion, as it's an inherently mutual thing between people, but you have the right to companionship when you find it.

To clarify: You're entitled to companionship. No one is required to be your companion, but you are entitled to HAVE companions in the first place.

Mark: That's not how people normally use the word "right". Rights are a claim of obligation on someone else. For example, my right to my own life obligates you not to kill me. My right to own private property obligates you not to steal it.

Maybe similarly to what you're saying, my right to freely associate prevents you from deciding who I must and cannot spend my time with. But no one is obligated to decide to spend time with me or be my "companion".

MW: Your quote: "Maybe similarly to what you're saying, my right to freely associate prevents you from deciding who I must and cannot spend my time with. But no one is obligated to decide to spend time with me or be my "companion"."

That's exactly what I was saying.

MW - majoritarian or utilitarian definitions of rights are not per se irrational; there's a significant body of rational thought that has gone into those frameworks.

MW wrote, "LW: I don't think you get my point at all, but that's ok. "

Sorry, I made a mistake, MW. My original comment was not addressed to you, but to Nicholas who said,

"So wait, I have a right to do whatever I can get away with?"

He said that Natural Rights allowed him to get away with anything. I said not so. Sorry for the confusion.

"Your original comment, like the Constitution itself, was rather majoritarian. The Constitution is not a libertarian document."

How can it not be when it is based on libertarian principles? True, those principles had to be applied to an existing power structure-- the original 13 colonies. I consider the Constitution to be a good first step-- a work-in-progress. Thomas Jefferson's Ward System might have been better, but we won't know until someone tries it.

"Although it was written with an eye towards limiting government power, natural rights do not reside with "the people", but rather with each person individually."

Agreed. There are no collective rights-- all are individual. Governmental powers are on loan from the citizenry.

The problem is not in the words "the people" themselves, but how socialists in the 19th century redefined the words in a collective sense. The 9th and 10th amendments are individual, not collective rights. Here is another article that comes closer to your contentions.

http://www.friesian.org/rights.htm

"Locke was one source of inspiration for our founders, but hardly the only one."

True, His ideas were just the foundation. The problem our founders had was in creating a governmental organization that was long lasting. Monarchy, if you look at European history, is quite unstable. Thomas Jefferson took ideas from Rome, Venice and the Muslims. The structure of the Constitution retarded the growth of government for quite some time, but we need to get back to our roots. Those roots were not majoritarian. The Constitution's enemies had to use mob rule in order to attack the Rule of Law.

"Anyway, I think you miss the distinction between "easy" and "easier", which was really the crux of my point."

No, I ignored it, because it seemed unreasonable. Power seekers don't care about easy; they are quite willing to make everything not compulsory to be forbidden. The question was what they could get away with. They couldn't get Americans interested in a revolution. They were forced to use the circuitous routes of peculation, vote buying and indoctrination through the state run schools. Even so, Most Democrats would oppose the imposition of European style Social Democracy or communism in America. The vast proportion of Americans (38%) are Live-and-let-Live style Libertarians, but they don't even know that is what they are. The problem is that the Left will control the means of communication in America for the next 15 or so years, so how do we get the ideas out?

That is why I suggested those articles at Friesian.org. It is Libertarian Economics and Philosophy, but it is not antagonistic toward religion. It shows how Philosophy took a wrong turn toward authoritarianism with G.W.F. Hegel, and tries to return to reasonable path through Kant, Popper and Hayek.

Foundations are important, MW. The Left and the power-seekers were able to suborn the Constitution, in part, because we had no clear understanding of its principles.

LW: The Constitution is definitely not libertarian, although it offers a great deal of protection for libertarians. The Constitution is federal, more than anything; don't forget that state governments were intended to be awfully powerful, even to the extent of establishing state religions and so forth.

Yes, the Constitution set up a federal republic, but Federal was not the name of the ideology and political party that created it--Whig was. And Whig ideas are quite similar to Libertarian ones; we've just learned more of what works and doesn't since then. The founders knew exactly what ideas drove them to create the Constitution because they were part of the same political changes going on in England. The most important was that of representative self-government.

Compromises were regrettably made for the sake of unity (slavery being one). A federal republic was the only form of government that would have been ratified by the 13 states.

MW, I don't know exactly what you mean by Libertarian; would I recognize your definition? Your usage of majoritarianism was so at odds with mine that I am unsure.

I would define a Libertarian as individualist or a freedom seeker-- the opposite of an authoritarian. A few libertarians are attracted to anarchy; they think that the market place could substitute for the state, but most would simply prefer the minimal state necessary to protect its citizens from coercion from within and without. That was close to what was created with the Constitution.

MW, who do you think created the Constitution? It was not the Conservatives; they didn’t exist yet.

LW: My usage of majoritarian was pretty much standard.

I don't think that the founders of our country fit into any modern political archetypes. They were not, however, libertarians -- they were in favor of all sorts of state-based laws (like sodomy prohibitions) that evne modern statists don't like. Their approach to the federal government was very limited, but they weren't in favor of universal suffrage, or all sorts of other things that modern libertarians take as axioms (or nearly so).

"LW: My usage of majoritarian was pretty much standard."

May I have a definition to make sure?

"I don't think that the founders of our country fit into any modern political archetypes. They were not, however, libertarians -- they were in favor of all sorts of state-based laws (like sodomy prohibitions) that even modern statists don't like. Their approach to the federal government was very limited, but they weren't in favor of universal suffrage, or all sorts of other things that modern libertarians take as axioms (or nearly so)."

MW, you are confusing political ideas with the institutions that derive from them. Ideas do not appear full blown; they must start from somewhere. Often, they appear in the very institutions that they intend to erase. People justify their freedoms and then find that they must extend those freedoms to others (Slavery and suffrage). Simply, because the American government started in rights of monarchs did not mean that it could not move toward the rights of the common man. That movement would be freedom seeking. Liberal would be the best word to express that idea, but the Progressive Statists of the Democratic party have purloined that word. So, the word Individualist or Libertarian would be a close second.

MW, If you have a better word to express the ideas our Republic was founded then spit it out. You last attempt with "Federal" was descriptive, but covered only the mechanics of the government, not the ideas that underlie it.

I don't consider the American Revolution to be over yet. We, and the world, have taken a detour toward Socialism and Authoritarianism. Both have serious moral, economic and political flaws from their denial of individual rights. The immediate struggle now is to replace the institutions and expectations that the Socialists have erected. The reconstitution of Liberty is the goal, but we may get there on many paths, and always someone will be standing on the sidelines screaming “foul.”

We may fail to live up to our ideals from error, the necessities of politics or from our human flaws. But, to reach our goal then we need a star to guide us. My star is individual Liberty. I don’t believe that you have stated yours.

LW: I mentioned both policy (sodomy prohibitions) and structural (suffrage) difference that our founders would have had with modern libertarians.

"Federal" pretty much sums it up. The prime conflict of the era wasn't over individual rights, it was over whether our nation would have a strong or weak federal government, and the federalists won.

I don't need a "star", I'm just trying to properly characterize the founders of the country. You want to discuss the lofty ideals some of our founders may have had, but that's not really what I'm talking about. Our Constitution takes no position on many of the ideas libertarians hold dear, and that's for very good reason: it's not a libertarian document. Were our founders libertarianish? Sure, in some ways, but not in others. Why get hung up on it?

"Were our founders libertarianish? Sure, in some ways, but not in others. Why get hung up on it?"

Our country is in many ways a mess, MW; Authoritarianism and Socialism are wreaking it. How do we move forward without identifying what worked in the past and reclaiming that? But, we need wisdom to discriminate between what was essential and what was not. Fixating on the irrelevant helps no one.

Contradictions are common in life, MW, in people and in countries. Most countries were founded on nothing but abuse by the power hungry. America was founded on ideas, but it grew out the morass of paternalistic Europe.

Learning the principles one builds a life on, as an individual or a country, helps us shed the contradictions and the irrelevant. The principles are what matters not the name you label it with. America's expression of individual liberty (Natural Law) was often confused and contradictory, but why fixate on the expression rather than the ideal? The expression can be changed; the mistakes of the past can be corrected, but only if you know what you are aiming for.

LW: Fine and good, but that's quite a divergence from what we were originally talking about, which was whether or not the Constitution is a libertarian document.

MW, You don't seem to understand the grand flow of history-- of how seemingly random events and ideas can combine to create something new.

Since the enlightenment, when the divine rights of kings were debunked, there have been only two great political theories: individualism and collectivism. Either rights and powers are originated in individuals or in groups.

The latter were essentially tribal rights. Most of European history after Rome fell in the West is about various clans and tribes overrunning more settled and civilized ones. As technology and commerce increased this merely allowed ever greater wars.

The rebirth of knowledge in the Renaissance (mostly from Byzantine and Moorish sources) got people asking questions. The Protestant Reformation broke down religious orthodoxy and belief in authority. This had political ramifications. The Kings of England started off ruling dictatorially, but had their power whittled away. The Magna Carta took power from the king and gave it to the nobles, but those rights were slowly extended to all British subjects.

The Protestant Reformation eventually lead to the English Civil War, the long and short Parliaments and the rise of Oliver Cromwell. John Locke merely tried to make sense of the political chaos of fifty years before and developed ideas that lead to Natural Law and Natural rights. He threw away tribalism and the divine rights of kings and said that governmental power and authority were derived from the people-- thus, was individualism begun. Few people in England paid much attention to this idea because the monarchy was being reestablished, and reactionary forces were at work gathering centralized power.

The American colonies had been benignly neglected during the troubles in England, since the British Crown had little time for it. American society was diverging from Britain's; self government had been established as a byproduct of the election of ministers to churches. George III could not easily centralize authority in England against the power of parliament, but he could do so in the crown colonies since they were a personal possession. The Colonials had a higher standard of living than did British subjects from a vigorous economy and lower taxes. It seemed only natural to the British Crown that America existed for England's benefit, not for its own.

It is possible that if the Crown had acted slowly then there would have been no American Revolution. But, the Colonials could see the handwriting on the wall; the Crown intended to tax them as heavily as were British subjects and to disempower their assemblies and houses of Burgesses. The Colonials attempted to justify their self government by taking John Locke's idea that the people were the source of political power and extending it far beyond Locke's original intent.

True, the Founders hung on to many British institutions, but the basis on which the United States was established had changed. It was now, however incompletely, based on individualism-- the rights of the common man. The set of current political ideas that most closely resembles the intent of the founders is Libertarianism. But, they are different for many reasons.

The original Liberalism which the country was founded on died out in the New Deal, but echoes of it still resonated in the American people. After the american Revolution a reaction to Individualism had started in Europe which had the surface appearance of Individualism with an Authoritarian core: Collectivism. Collectivism fractured into many parts and eventually leading to Militant Nationalism, Socialism, Fascism, Environmentalism, Feminism and Social Democracy. The huge influx of immigrants from middle Europe after the Civil War brought Authoritarian ideas to America. The immigrant vote combined with native Authoritarians to corrupt the government.

Libertarianism got its start after World War Two in the writings of two women: Rose Wilder Lane and Ayn Rand; Libertarianism took the best ideas from the Constitution and constructed an ideology on it. It would be fair to say that the Constitution was not built on Libertarian ideas only because Libertarian ideas were built on Constitutional ones. Since the intent is the same, to establish Individual Liberty, what does it matter?

I couldn't help noticing the positions you assign to anti-war apologists:

+ pro-torture
+ pro-...etc. etc.

Let's look at it another way:

--- pro-war ---
+ pro-civilian slaughter
+ pro-fuelling terrorism and human rights abuses
+ pro-curtailing human rights
+ pro-US imperialism

Not really fair to say that you're pro-civilian slaughter is it? Try not to do a similar thing to the anti-war people.

Seems someone already made this point on the 'About Michael Williams' page. Apologies.

The quote I always love from David Hume is recommending 'carelessness and inattention' to morality issues after accepting his philosophy on life. 'Carelessness and inattention' since otherwise you will not give a damn about doing good - it wouldn't make sense to. Another famous atheist Bertrand Russell states that 'I am unsure if there is a difference between right and wrong'. Nor can he show that 'good' is better than 'bad'. This from one of the most intelligent people to have lived.

Trep: Are you always so condescending, or do you not realize that a protest sign is the equivalent of a sound-bite, not an essay?

As for BR, his inability to discern right from wrong is strong evidence against your assertion that he's one of the most intelligent people to have lived.

Heh! Now you misunderstand me! As regards Bertrand Russell I was in agreement with your post about atheists who rave about rights, morality etc. Their most intelligent guys cannot construct a decent moral system (or any moral system for that matter). Sorry, the other post did sound condescending, I just thought it was a bit unfair to assign to people views which they don't hold. I think even in a protest that this is unfair. A banner reading 'Pro-War - end the torture' would have been better, perhaps. It's a small change of emphasis but I feel an important one. Anti-war folks aren't pro-torture, they just think there is a different way to stop it other than war.

'As for BR, his inability to discern right from wrong is strong evidence against your assertion that he's one of the most intelligent people to have lived.'


You could only say that he is morally redundant, not stupid (unless of course you expanded on why moral redundancy precludes being one of the foremost pure mathematicians of the twentieth century). As an atheist, he was just being intellectually honest. That was all I meant.

Trep: But part of the point of banners is to piss people off, and by doing so reveal their true motivations. Anyone who was against the war was effectively arguing that the torture of Iraqi citizens should continue, so I think the sign was accurate, just as the anti-war signs about oil were generally accurate.

Regarding intelligence, well, we could argue forever about the definition.

If U believe in natural law how can U be

a libertarian beholden only to oneself.

Oh U are the one who is to determine

what those natural laws are.

Who is to be the enforcment .

Wasn't Caesar the natural emperor.

Natural Law is the collection of rights/laws proceeding directly from the nature of man. I.e., because humans have a specific identity and properties, as opposed to staplers and rocks for instance, there must be certain rights/conditions necessary for their ability to reach their fullest flowering.

Two examples of how this analysis may be performed to reach a system of Human Rights are Ayn Rand's Objectivism and the Cathecism of the Catholic Church, which both identify their conceptions of man's nature and build foundations of moral and legal systems from them. Their results are, existence of God issues aside, really quite similar. Both end up at the Life/Liberty/Property point.