Our Rights from God?

[Throckmorton]

Hi All,

It may be that our rights are from God as President Bush and others assert. In order to show this one would need to provide evidence that there is a God and then show that God bestows rights on us.

Our rights clearly do not come from the God of the Bible. The Bible mandates the death penalty for blasphemy, idolatry, worshiping the "wrong god(s), Sabbath violations, and behaviors we have the right to engage in.

Thomas Jefferson said that are rights are "endowed by the creator" but he was speaking of the deist god.

Unfortunately the sort of idiotic notions our laws coming from God and whatnot is quite prevalent among people who should be smart enough to know better......Supreme Court justices and whatnot.

 

[Tiassa]

So where do our rights come from?

 

[Throckmorton]

Hi Tiassa,

That's a good question. According to Jefferson they are secured by government. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."-Declaration of Independence

Based on available evidence governments have the power to bestow and or deprive people of rights.

 

[talk2farley]

Hi All,

It may be that our rights are from God as President Bush and others assert. In order to show this one would need to provide evidence that there is a God and then show that God bestows rights on us.

Our rights clearly do not come from the God of the Bible. The Bible mandates the death penalty for blasphemy, idolatry, worshiping the "wrong god(s), Sabbath violations, and behaviors we have the right to engage in.

Thomas Jefferson said that are rights are "endowed by the creator" but he was speaking of the deist god.

Unfortunately the sort of idiotic notions our laws coming from God and whatnot is quite prevalent among people who should be smart enough to know better......Supreme Court justices and whatnot.

When Jefferson wrote that our rights were "endowed by our creator," he was speaking in the Lockeian sense. That is, he did not presuppose the necessity of a divine being who had life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in mind when molding us from clay. Such a position would be pointless in its inherent absurdity.

Jefferson and Locke meant that men were entitled to their rights by virtue of the nature of man (nature being our creator, irregardless of its divinity or lack thereof). That is, we were all born (speaking more figuratively than literally, see the State of Nature) with certain freedoms or rights (life, liberty, and the freedom to choose our course), therefore, no state may may impress upon those freedoms without at the minimum some form of due process and rational individual choice or consent (see the Social Contract). Jefferson and the other founders took it a step further, holding that some rights could NEVER be surrendered to the state, even voluntarily and justly.

 

[talk2farley]

Hi Tiassa,

That's a good question. According to Jefferson they are secured by government. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."-Declaration of Independence

Based on available evidence governments have the power to bestow and or deprive people of rights.

When Jefferson wrote that Governments secure these rights, he did not mean that the state created or bestowed them (on the contrary, Jefferson and Locke, his philosophical patron, held that the state was solely capable of usurping, not granting, rights). He meant only that the State was forged and given the sole authority to use force such that individual right may be retained (which presupposes that it has already been given), namely from other men.

 

[Throckmorton]

Hi Talk2farely,

"he was speaking in the Lockeian sense."

That's what I thought. "Natures God" was sort of like the Buddhist notion of a generalized "imminent" god rather then the sort that Christian fundamentalists are inclined to grovel over.

"The revolutionaries who got this country started were not, as Robertson would have us believe, a bunch of wig-headed-'jeezo grovelers."-Frank Zappa

 

[§outh§tar]

So where do our rights come from?

The ruling class of course. Thomas Locke and his theories can go to hell. What animal, having not earned the right to live, deserves rights at all?

 

[talk2farley]

The ruling class of course. Thomas Locke and his theories can go to hell. What animal, having not earned the right to live, deserves rights at all?

What animal, having been born into its state of nature, is immediately subject to the whims of some ruling class? There must be some aquiescence to governorship at a point post-existence (ala, the state did not precede the species). If the government is to be called just, that surrender must be voluntary. If it is to have value under basic economic tenets (individuals would not enter a service contract, specifically consent to be governed, voluntarily without deriving some benefit) then the state must serve some practical purpose. And finally, I am born with the right to speak, by virtue of having a mouth. With the right to claim property, by virtue of having the tools and ability to reap it. With the right to live, by virtue of having life. With the right to think, by virtue of having a mind. These are all elementary deductions.

Given that the state is, by definition, handed a monopoly on the use of force to usurp the freedoms of its subjects, we infer that governments exist (your "ruling class," I suppose) to secure those most sacred of natural rights of man from other men. In exchange for this service, certain rights and priveleges are surrendered to that state (men have no other currency with which to bargain save their rights, given that taxation is a form of property-right obstruction).

 

[Tiassa]

According to Jefferson they are secured by government .... Based on available evidence governments have the power to bestow and or deprive people of rights. (Throckmorton)

• • •​

The ruling class of course. (§outh§tar)

I'll counter both those and go with Lysander Spooner:

(I)t is impossible that a government should have any rights, except such as the individuals composing it had previously had, as individuals. They could not delegate to a government any rights which they did not themselves possess. They could not contribute to the government any rights, except such as they themselves possessed as individuals.​

That's actually the standard I go by. And to think it comes from a tantrum about alcohol prohibitions ....

Lysander Spooner, "Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication of Moral Liberty". See http://lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm​

• • •​

To look at Throckmorton's point from the Declaration of Independence, I would suggest that we take a slightly longer excerpt:

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.

It has a little more punch to it that way, but he definitely had the vital point (marked in boldface above).

However, let's try a seriously large edit: "We hold to be self evident that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."

And that's essentially why I like the Spooner quote: it makes essentially the same point in a different context, according to different demands.

• • •​

Thus I would assert that the rights of human beings originate within human beings. Governments may appear to dispense and withhold rights, but it is only because the people have endowed it to do so. We can take that power back any time we feel like it. By and large, though, it's such a heavy burden to be without that security that we would most likely simply forfeit it back to a new government. Meet the new boss ....

 

[Throckmorton]

Hi tiassa,

"(I)t is impossible that a government should have any rights, except such as the individuals composing it had previously had, as individuals."

I had meant to say that governments, in many cases, have the power to withold or bestow rights.

I'm not really sure what rights a government has. The Spooner quote may well be right.

"Thus I would assert that the rights of human beings originate within human beings."

Governments are, obviously, made up of human beings so that gets a bit circular.

"We can take that power back any time we feel like it."

I don't think that's always true. I think in many cases governments can keep their power even if they have no ultimate right to do so.

 

[§outh§tar]

What animal, having been born into its state of nature, is immediately subject to the whims of some ruling class? There must be some aquiescence to governorship at a point post-existence (ala, the state did not precede the species). If the government is to be called just, that surrender must be voluntary. If it is to have value under basic economic tenets (individuals would not enter a service contract, specifically consent to be governed, voluntarily without deriving some benefit) then the state must serve some practical purpose. And finally, I am born with the right to speak, by virtue of having a mouth. With the right to claim property, by virtue of having the tools and ability to reap it. With the right to live, by virtue of having life. With the right to think, by virtue of having a mind. These are all elementary deductions.

Given that the state is, by definition, handed a monopoly on the use of force to usurp the freedoms of its subjects, we infer that governments exist (your "ruling class," I suppose) to secure those most sacred of natural rights of man from other men. In exchange for this service, certain rights and priveleges are surrendered to that state (men have no other currency with which to bargain save their rights, given that taxation is a form of property-right obstruction).

You are right about my use of "ruling class". It means government (not necessarily state). All principalities, be they monarchs, clergy, employers, can then be classified under this 'ruling class'. Unfortunately, your explanation of the origin of rights is not only blasphemous (a little Devil's Advocate), but also contrary to the sense of society. If we are to arbitrarily insist one has the right to live simply by living or one has the right to speak simply by having a mouth, then we cripple morality, for it too is absurdly arbitrary.

What man, desiring to use his hands to steal and plunder, does not then have a right to steal and plunder? Or will you presume to arbitrarily (again) limit his rights for your comfort? What man, having not earned the life he calls his own, has a right then to do with it what he will? Or will you again arbitrarily assume what rights he does and does not have? For man to surrender his rights to the state, why, he must first have rights to surrender. Are you suggesting that man assumes (by whim) what rights he does and does not have? If so, surely all men would have different rights according to their own whims, and these too would change like the wind according to their need for comfort.

Instead, we must say the 'ruling class' is the giver of rights; the ruling class determines what can and cannot be done by masterful sleights. In a democracy for example, who protects these "natural rights"? Not our ruling class? Tell me this then. Did you 'voluntarily' surrender your rights to the state? And if so, when? If you again maintain that by being born, one surrenders one's rights to the state, then it is by no means voluntary. If you claim one is free to leave the confines of the state, then your 'surrender' is still by no means voluntary for the mantra remains: When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When in the state, surrender your rights voluntarily (what imperative!)

The ruling class makes no distinguishment among the plebeians. "All men are created equal". In the event that there is outcry for change from society, the ruling class will bend and make amendments to these 'immutable' rights. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." And so Terri Schiavo becomes exalted while the destitute man continues to sleep under the bridge, unnoticed. And so Camila gets the Constitution changed and celebrities become "more equal than others". You might then infer that the hoi polloi are in charge, a claim for 'voluntary surrender' is still in order. But the state too, like society, is an organism. And an organism changes, adapts. An organism will protect itself. Just as a king will sometimes listen to his subjects and sometimes not, the government will sometimes listen and sometimes not. President Bush's administration is good example of this. So is any regime in the Middle East or Asia.

But of course in the ME we see that the people have different "natural rights". The question now becomes, whose rights are more 'natural', and who is qualified to make that distinguishment?

The answer is timeless: the state.

***
You might object that there is a loop at play here and the state and the people are symbiotic, but we return to our original dilemma. All cycles begin where they end. This might be helpful: without a ruling class, there is no society. But a ruling class, a strong leadership, will make (or break) society. And so we know where this loop begins.

 

[§outh§tar]

Thus I would assert that the rights of human beings originate within human beings. Governments may appear to dispense and withhold rights, but it is only because the people have endowed it to do so. We can take that power back any time we feel like it. By and large, though, it's such a heavy burden to be without that security that we would most likely simply forfeit it back to a new government. Meet the new boss ....

Jefferson and his cronies were rebelling against the oppression of (what they believed to be) tyrannous Parliament. These are extreme examples, but government is often more crafty than this.

Government is able to supress and release, to control knowledge and quell suspicion. Maybe I'm being a little Orwellian here but the state is well endowed to give the impression that the people are in charge. Remember, when we speak of the state, we do not mean every federal employee, but rather the 'ruling class', the decision makers behind the decision makers. Idi Amin too convinced his people of the goodness of his government. He was obviously a little less subtle about his agenda as time progressed but the point is the same. A more trite example is to be found in Adolf Hitler, who was elected. He was obviously clever when it came to public relations and that's the problem. The impression that the people are governed voluntarily is not the same as the people being governed voluntarily.

Maybe I read too much Animal Farm.

EDIT: We are getting too much of the subject here. We first need to determine who is qualified to determine what rights the individual has. I say if at all, it is the individual's prerogative. If on the other hand, we admit that justice is not blind in nature, that 'justice' is merely a flash word for "social justice", then we admit that our supposed rights are given by culture, by the social organism.

 

[talk2farley]

You are right about my use of "ruling class". It means government (not necessarily state). All principalities, be they monarchs, clergy, employers, can then be classified under this 'ruling class'. Unfortunately, your explanation of the origin of rights is not only blasphemous (a little Devil's Advocate), but also contrary to the sense of society. If we are to arbitrarily insist one has the right to live simply by living or one has the right to speak simply by having a mouth, then we cripple morality, for it too is absurdly arbitrary.

What man, desiring to use his hands to steal and plunder, does not then have a right to steal and plunder? Or will you presume to arbitrarily (again) limit his rights for your comfort? What man, having not earned the life he calls his own, has a right then to do with it what he will? Or will you again arbitrarily assume what rights he does and does not have? For man to surrender his rights to the state, why, he must first have rights to surrender. Are you suggesting that man assumes (by whim) what rights he does and does not have? If so, surely all men would have different rights according to their own whims, and these too would change like the wind according to their need for comfort.

Instead, we must say the 'ruling class' is the giver of rights; the ruling class determines what can and cannot be done by masterful sleights. In a democracy for example, who protects these "natural rights"? Not our ruling class? Tell me this then. Did you 'voluntarily' surrender your rights to the state? And if so, when? If you again maintain that by being born, one surrenders one's rights to the state, then it is by no means voluntary. If you claim one is free to leave the confines of the state, then your 'surrender' is still by no means voluntary for the mantra remains: When in Rome, do as the Romans do. When in the state, surrender your rights voluntarily (what imperative!)

The ruling class makes no distinguishment among the plebeians. "All men are created equal". In the event that there is outcry for change from society, the ruling class will bend and make amendments to these 'immutable' rights. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." And so Terri Schiavo becomes exalted while the destitute man continues to sleep under the bridge, unnoticed. And so Camila gets the Constitution changed and celebrities become "more equal than others". You might then infer that the hoi polloi are in charge, a claim for 'voluntary surrender' is still in order. But the state too, like society, is an organism. And an organism changes, adapts. An organism will protect itself. Just as a king will sometimes listen to his subjects and sometimes not, the government will sometimes listen and sometimes not. President Bush's administration is good example of this. So is any regime in the Middle East or Asia.

But of course in the ME we see that the people have different "natural rights". The question now becomes, whose rights are more 'natural', and who is qualified to make that distinguishment?

The answer is timeless: the state.

***
You might object that there is a loop at play here and the state and the people are symbiotic, but we return to our original dilemma. All cycles begin where they end. This might be helpful: without a ruling class, there is no society. But a ruling class, a strong leadership, will make (or break) society. And so we know where this loop begins.

SouthStar, the boundary is so obvious. Should one man use his hands to plunder another mans property, he has unjustly usurped that second mans rights. If one man should uses his mouth to silence another, he has unjustly usurped anothers rights. One does not have the right to strip another of his rights, by virtue of having the right to retain his own. If I have the right to live, so do you.

The voluntary surrender occured at some point in the past, and you are corerct that I as an individual had no voice in the matter. But if a state should fail in its contractual obligations, I do retain the right to break that contract and dismantle that state.

I have held from the start that the state is the protector of rights. I contest the notion that the state is the giver of rights. Without the presence of some state, would I somehow be less capable of speaking, thinking, or living? Your presumptions are absurd. When you speak of the state telling us what we can and cannot do, you are confusing prescriptions with natural rights. A prescription, or law, is a governor on human behavior, or a restrictor on the means by which I may execute my natural rights (which AGAIN presumes the existence of said rights before they became governed, by elementary deduction). The state may restrict to its hearts content, but those restrictions are only just insofar as the govened consent to them. In exchange for bearing those restrictions, we the governed retain some more basic and valuable guarantee. A guarantee that we won't be killed, in exchange for a prohibition on the right to keep and bear arms (a restriction of property rights), for example.