Out of office notice. Friends, I'm going to be away from the site Friday, Saturday & Sunday. I won't have email access, either. I have a friend looking after the site just in case things get too crazy! But for the time being, you're in charge! -- Michael Nystrom. Please buy a poster and support the site!
Right to one's life vs. "The Constitution"
Posted May 19th, 2008 by rp1
output
Given that the constitution can be amended, why base so many political arguments on following it, rather than following Natural Law?
I mean, the Declaration of Independence is closer to the actual fact of the matter: we each have inalienable rights to life, liberty--and what it doesn't and should say--the rights to keep the fruits of our labor, the right to acquire unowned land through our use of it. No one man has a right to interfere with another's exercise of these rights, nor do a hundred, a million, or a billion. No amount of voting can morally abridge these rights.
These rights are exactly: the right to be left alone, to not be interfered with by other men. The right to act unmolested by others ends only where the rights of others begin.
This is the only moral basis to argue from. So why argue so emphatically from "The Constitution"? It doesn't contain any reference at all to Natural Law. It's totally open to amendment to whatever evil ends the majority wants.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
This may help us all.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
The constitution
Establishes a bill of rights and a system of government. Without a government we wouldn't have a republic or any of our officials. It is the people's duty to stand up to government and take them to task when they do something illegal. Unfortunately today it is not the majority rule, it is the wealthy rule because the wealthy own the media, the banks and the corporations. Wealth is not an evil, the people who use wealth to subvert government are evil and the government that uses this money (corporate welfare) is evil.
Our job as citizens is to point out this incongruity and demand Washington was fired, but more importantly honest politicians are hired.
A voice ot light and reason.
Thanks so much for pointing out the true culprits. The people doing these things don't think of themselves as doing evil or being evil, yet evil is the result of their actions. Most people consider it as simply doing good business. The Constitution is the rule book to keep the game fair for all, not just the ones who think they are better than everyone else.
You decide.
The Declaration of Independence declares and recognises one supreme Judge and Creator who has given us unalienable rights including the right to form a government with a constitution. So in my opinion the Declaration of Independence is supreme to the Constitution. The Constitution establishes government, it does not establish our rights, in fact it has the ability to take away rights if Amendents are pasted stating so. Of course for me I bow to only one King and Judge, and worship no document written by men.
grant
Liberty is Balanced Between Love and War
There is nothing in natural law that prevents or even discourages tyranny -- except the nature of the human being and the expression of that nature in religion and law.
http://www.religioustoler...
"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD." Leviticus 19:18
"But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God". Leviticus 19:34
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31
"What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them." Sextus the Pythagorean
"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." Epictetus
The division of religion and law is relatively new and highly artificial. It is virtually one and the same. In a pluralistic culture like the United States, we avoid placing one religion over another, but make no mistake that the commonality of love for neighbor is the only common foundation for liberty.
Natural law does not prevent you from depriving me of liberty. Only internal restraint or external constraint apply here. Those unable to understand love are doomed to war.
If you push it hard enough, you will have war. By pushing, you tell us that you do not value other people and their liberty since you must be doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. That's all my Savage .30-06, my Sig Sauer P226 9 mm and my outraged neighbors have to say about that :-).
By retaining these values and social agreements and codifying them in written law, there is a more reliable basis for communicating these social agreements to future generations and to avoid or resolve conflicts leading to lawsuit and trial.
Without love first, and constitutional laws second, we too quickly move, in extremis, to force of arms and confusion. If that Constitution should be made to deprive humans of their natural preferences, it likely must be destroyed, but for now it preserves more than it destroys.
Very Simple Answer
The Constitution has the force of law. RP is very shrewd in continually referencing his platform & politics, and his opposition to much of what goes on in Congress, to the Constitution.
When making arguments for/against any particular proposition one can argue endlessly regarding the underlying philosophy. 'Natural Law' falls into this category of debate. Whatever philosophy a politician subscribes to, at the end of the day, the debate in Congress must ultimately meet the test of 'is it Constitutional' - will it pass the litmus test - as this is the law of the land.
That is why today you hear so many relativist politicians trot out the 'living document' rhetoric. This is a clever, but ultimately IMHO flawed, approach to justifying legislation that increases government intervention into our lives. Making such statements allows pols to undermine the libertarian philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution - in other words, a philosophical end run - and thereby essentially claim that Law is whatever they say it is. Few of today's politicians even hold, let alone can articulate and wage well-constructed debate in, an internally consistent philosophy upon which their politics is based. RP knows this; he demolishes such discussion by referencing back all legal discussions to the only standard that we have remaining, the Constitution. It tends to leave all other politicians simply flat footed.
They'll just change it!
So when RP wins the argument, and then the politicians can't get their way by ignoring the constitution, then what stops them from amending it? What will RP (and his supporters) say after that happens and we are even worse off because now THEY will be the ones who can claim they're just following the Constitution?
You make it sound as though
You make it sound as though amending the Constitution is as easy as pie. It isn't. Look into what the requirements are for passing a constitutional amendment. "They" aren't numerous enough to get the states to all ratify an unwanted amendment.
The Constitution has the advantage of being written law. "Natural laws" are nice, as long as we all agree on what they are. Unfortunately, there are those who would argue that you -don't- have a right to the fruits of your labor... so you have to point those people toward written law to win them over.
Greater meaning
...inalienable rights to life, liberty--and what it doesn't and should say--the rights to keep the fruits of our labor, the right to acquire unowned land through our use of it.
Actually, the phrase "and the pursuit of happiness" was originally going to be "and property," (John Locke's ideas) but the present phrase was instead used to apply a wider margin of definition. "The pursuit of happiness" was always intended to include (but not be limited to) the meaning of owning property, and keeping what belongs to you (wages, etc.). Read about the background and construction of the Declaration and the Constitution and you'll find a wealth of information about the intent of these documents.
Property was sacrificed for the Federalists
Jeffersonian Demo-Republicans conceded this point to the Federalists. They wanted to have the trump card of eminent domain to ensure we weren't title holders, just serfs.
They also conceded the word "explicitly" from the enumerated powers clause in the constitution...one of the most costly concessions to absolute freedom in our nation's history.
We have the Federalists to thank for much of this crap...they didn't want freedom, they wanted power. Jefferson was a man of vision, Hamilton was a man who wanted to be king.
Greater Law
I'd agree that an argument can be made that the greater meaning was there, but why is that relevant? We should be making arguments *today* that are explicitly based on Natural Law, a Greater Law that must not be contradicted by any Lesser law.
That is the only answer to those who claim that the Constitution is outdated.
The strong rule the weak
If there's a natural law, it would have to be that. It happens, so it's natural.
ok
So are you the strong?
I'm kind of strong
Some others are stronger than me. Why?
I'm not saying I WANT a world where the strong rule the weak. I'm just saying if there is such a thing as a natural law, then that's what it would be. I prefer a society where that is prevented as much as possible, through law and order so that everyone has equal liberty.
For brute animals, maybe,
For brute animals, maybe, but NOT for intelligent, self-aware beings who live in a mutually interdependent society.
Oh really?
Look around.
Sigh. AGAIN, you are
Sigh. AGAIN, you are conflating the EXERCISE of rights with the EXISTENCE of rights. What more can be said?
You're confused
Rights cannot be exercised unless they exist. I'm saying they don't exist until they're created by man.
And God doesn't create rights. Man does, by drawing up Constitutions and setting up enforcement mechanisms. Rights do not exist until that happens.
Wrong!!
Everyone look at BillyDee and the two days of comments.
Rights don't exist until they're enforced!
You are correct, Billy. The writers of the Declaration seem to have assumed that we received our rights from our "creator". I disagree, but that is what the document says.
More important, IMO, is this passage...."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.
(Emphasis mine).
So, governments are instituted to "secure these rights", and derive their "...powers from the consent of the governed...", and 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...".
So yes, we have no rights unless we are willing to "alter or abolish" our existing government when it becomes "destructive of these ends".
Natural rights
are superstitious in my opinion. We don't have any natural inalienable rights. Rights have to be demanded and created through battles and rule of law, otherwise they cease to exist.
BillyDee, I think YOU are a
BillyDee, I think YOU are a superstition --- and a particularly noxious one, at that. Your attitude and "might makes right" belief system is contemptible.
That's not my position
My position is not that might makes moral right. My position is that might makes neither moral right nor moral wrong. But, might establishes POLITICAL rights. Without the American Revolution, we would have not had as much liberty. Liberty doesn't come from God. It comes from battles and agreements.
You are confusing inherent
You are confusing inherent rights with the exercise of rights. ALL humans have the right to freedom of religion, for example ---- they always have and always will. But only SOME humans have had the ability to EXERCISE those rights. But the rights are always there.
There is no such thing as
inherent rights. It's an empty concept. Prove that you have inherent rights.
Your sophomoric
Your sophomoric, anti-freedom sophistry is unworthy of comment.
I suspect you are just SteveU/Betterhalf/OneVoice/L.G. back again, trolling for your cheap divisive thrills. Piss off.
It's not anti-freedom
I support individual rights. I just don't justify them on God or nature. Those justifications are inadequate. The idea that rights exist before man creates them is absurd.
Well, if you are agnostic
Well, if you are agnostic then it is so. The 10 commandments basically give us a few our "inalienable rights" the right to life being the most important.
Then Why Support Liberty?
If rights are demanded and won by force, then they have no moral foundation, and would be based on the whim of whoever exerts the most force. If this is the case, you should consider trying to gather up enough force to impose your own whimsical ideas of rights. If you don't support the idea of creator endowed liberty and rights, or some foundational baseline of what is right, I'm not sure what you're doing here besides learning. And that my friend, requires a little humility.
But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. - James 1:25
Property Ownership Is the Foundation of RIghts
Rights come from property ownership. You own your body and therefore you have the right to do with it as you see fit. If you own land, that's your property and there are rights associated with that ownership. This is was the revolutionary thinking our Founding Fathers used. Prior to the American revolution, lords owned all the property and therefore common people had no rights. We changed this.
So you're rights don't come from the government, and they don't even come from the Constitution - they come from God in the form of your ownership of yourself. As your property ownership grows, so do your rights.
If you're a contemplative person, you can contemplate the issues of personal sovereignty, national sovereignty, and divine sovereignty as they relate to property ownership. God created and "owns" the universe, therefore God is the ultimate sovereign. That sovereignty flows from there down to you.
Look up Michael Bednarik's video for an in depth explanation of this. It's a day long seminar, but absolutely worth the time. It's on YouTube.
But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. - James 1:25
I agree, but whose body is....
a preborn child ( I have a vested intrest in this- I'm carrying one right now). I personally think, because of Psalms 139, the preborn is not my (or a part of my ) body. He (or she) is his (or her) own person. And why should attemped suicide be considered a crime, then? I will grant that usually it is really not treated as a real crime-often psychiatric care is the only "punishment"-but why call it a crime?.
Libera me, let the truth break, what my fears make--Leslie Phillips
disclaimer: I really am curious and open to any explanation, especially to the 2nd Question.
I'm an atheist
You're telling me that God gives me rights? That's meaningless. You're just asserting it but not proving it. You're not proving that God gives rights, much less proving that God exists.
I am all for individual rights but I disagree with the old superstitions of the Founders, regarding God and natural rights.
Irrelevant
I'm telling you that your rights as a human being are endowed upon you at birth, and your rights are based on your sovereignty as the owner of your body and yourself. If your issue is that I used the word God, then substitute the word nature. It will still factor out the same. Ultimately what I'm trying to explain is the concept of sovereignty and property rights. You may disagree with the use of the word God, but that doesn't change the fact that you are indeed created. Whether by God or Nature, the principle is still the same. Virtually all of the Constitution and Bill of Rights flow from this principle. Whether you believe it's rooted in superstition or virtue is meaningless.
I'm glad you're all for individual rights, but you should at least know the philosophy behind why we value them. If you disagree with the Founder's "superstitions", that's entirely up to you. They fought, sacrificed and died to protect your rights and your personal sovereignty - the rights that belong to you as the owner of your body and your mind. If you truly value the contribution these men made to you personally, and the human race in general, you might be wise to not refer to them as superstitious fools. Personally, I have more gratitude.
But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. - James 1:25
Meaningless
You're just asserting natural rights without proving them.
I certainly have gratitude for the Founders. But, they didn't need to justify liberty by God. That's not an adequate justification. God can be used to justify any attrocity. The same goes for nature. If you look at nature, the law of nature is that the strong dominate the weak.
I disagree
I'm no believer in any superstition besides the laws of physics and nature.
Think of it this way...the natural state of being is free, the only way to lose this freedom is to be forced. Power over another is something which must be forced, through actual physical force or implied force. I can go as fast as my car will take me, but through the implied force of traffic cops, I am controlled to go 70 mph (or 85ish).
Rights didn't have to be earned originally...people had to be herded into cities and kingdoms, and force had to be used to obtain power. The only reason rights must be re-earned is because someone didn't excercise his natural right to be free from the king.
We told the king to shove it 200+ years ago, and decided that WE would decide what rights we would grant our rulers. We have forgotten this, and our rulers are beginning to enslave us.
"the natural state of being is free"
is your assertion. Can you prove that? Why is being free any less natural than being unfree? If lack of freedom exists, then obviously that's natural too. Everything that happens is natural.
It's just the way things are
Animals are free...therefore, when humans began to get intelligent, they were originally free. It wasn't until one of those humans decided that he should have power over another that freedom was truly lost.
As far as natural, show me another example of an animal who is not free to do as he likes. In nature, all animals are born free, therefore the natural state of a creature is freedom. Only through force can anyone be made not free.
What do you mean animals are free?
Animals in the wild kill and rip each other apart all the time, and are always on the run trying to avoid being captured. That's not freedom. A free society for animals would be one where they're protected from harming each other.
Early humans were most likely the same way. A relatively free society is a invention that came later through human ingenuity, as they began to develop the ability for rational thought. And they still haven't developed a truly free society, in the full libertarian sense.
Freedom is for everyone
Yes...the gazelle has complete freedom to do as he wishes from birth. The lion also has free will, and he chooses to eat gazelles. You have complete freedom across the board.
The law of the jungle is complete freedom, but as humans organized, they were compelled to create new laws. The freedom to kill as you wish was curtailed, but only through force.
Freedom in this sense doesn't mean you are free from any danger, but it means you are free to do as you wish, and so are your predators.
An animal is not free
if it's being restrained by another animal and/or mauled. A free society is not one where the strong are stealing from or killing the weak.
A free society is one where EVERY individual allows EVERY OTHER individual liberty. That's NOT the original state of affairs, neither for animals or humans. Liberty, i.e. a free society, is a new idea, relatively speaking. And it didn't come from God. It came from man's ingenuity.
Animals don't write laws
Animals don't write corrupt laws and then apply them to the whole planet Earth. They don't attempt to defang each other at birth and then parasitically live off the broken animal.
I ask you what justifies the Law. You essentially say: Nothing but the force that backs it up. If that were true, then any sane person would look at the Law--any law--as illegitimate power over him. He would flout it whenever possible, seek its abolishon, seek anarchy. Are you an anarchist? If not, why not?
There are many
parasitical animals and insects.
You ask what justifies the law. What justifies the law is that it works for what I want. It's as simple as that. A society where law and order exists to protect a large amount of individual and economic liberty allows individuals to release their creative energies producing a society of happiness and prosperity. A society of happiness and prosperity is what I want. If you do too, then join me in supporting a society where individual liberty is protected.
I'm not an anarchist because I don't think that anarchy could adequately protect individual liberty.
"Rights didn't have to be
"Rights didn't have to be earned originally...people had to be herded into cities and kingdoms, and force had to be used to obtain power. The only reason rights must be re-earned is because someone didn't excercise his natural right to be free from the king."
Rights have never been earned. They are granted by God in the form of giving you your life. Force had to be used to acquire property ownership which is where the rights and sovereignty of the king/lords come from. But like any other God given gift, rights are prized by thieves and must be protected to avoid them being stolen. Once lost they must be regained. Not re-earned, but regained. Thus ... the tree of liberty must periodically be sprinkled with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
"We told the king to shove it 200+ years ago, and decided that WE would decide what rights we would grant our rulers. We have forgotten this, and our rulers are beginning to enslave us."
Actually, we declared ourselves sovereign people. We laid claim to the rights endowed upon us by our creator. These rights are derived from property ownership and sovereignty. Our government's rights do not come from us any more than our rights come from government. The Constitution grants sovereignty to the US government based on the property of the public - that which does not have a claim from a State or an individual ... like the roads and the seas. These things didn't get into the Constitution because one forceful person had an opinion and pushed it through. They got there because reasoned men reckoned them calculating the sovereignty and property ownership in question. Example, the government has the right/authority to coin money because the treasury is the property of the people. For every clause in the Constitution, there is a trail of logic that follows who owns the property and therefore who is sovereign. Public property is government sovereignty. It's not earned, it's not granted. They are endowed naturally.
When you mention "natural law", you are actually citing these very principles I am espousing. Otherwise, you are referring to more of an evolutionary Law of the Jungle - kill or be killed, might makes right. In which case, what we've got is okay. Obviously it's not.
But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. - James 1:25
Oh, Contraire Mon Faire!
"Think of it this way...the natural state of being is free, the only way to lose this freedom is to be forced. Power over another is something which must be forced, through actual physical force or implied force. I can go as fast as my car will take me, but through the implied force of traffic cops, I am controlled to go 70 mph (or 85ish)."
Thanks for helping me prove my point. It's your car - your property. Therefore you can paint it, install a stereo, hang dingle balls, you can even set fire to it. It's yours to do with as you please. You have rights relating to the car because it's your property and you have sovereignty. Once you wheel it out onto a public road, you are no longer solely within your sovereignty. The public road is the property of the public, therefore the local government has sovereignty and rights. They have a right to post a speed limit, and a right to pass laws of conduct for people using the public road.
If you want to build a race track on your property, yolu can go as fast as you want and the government can't stop you. It's your property therefore you have sovereignty and rights.
But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. - James 1:25
Superstitious?
What on your view gives the rule of law any validity? What makes any particular law valid in your opinion?
Because logically, what you are claiming is that no laws are valid or invalid, that only might makes right, and even then you won't use the word "right".
Supposing you act on your beliefs, how would you expect other men, those who do recognize the rights of other men, to deal with you?
Validity?
What do you mean by "validity?" Laws either exist or they don't. Laws that are useful to my life I am in favor of, and those that aren't I'm against.
Rational people agree to create laws that serve their mutual self-interest. They don't pull laws out of the sky at random and say God created them.
By what right
By what right do you inflict the laws you are in favor of upon those who aren't in favor of them?
By no right
I don't need a natural right to justify my doing it. I just do it. I favor a law that forbids people from stealing. I don't need to justify that by claiming natural rights. I just get together with other people who also want to live in a world where we are allowed to own property, and make laws that support that.
One can claim a "natural right" to anything. One person can claim a natural right to enslave blacks and another person can claim a natural right to liberty for blacks. So there would be conflicting natural rights. Unless someone is able to prove natural rights, there is no reason to take it seriously. And even then, there has to be a rational reason to obey natural law. I might find it advantageous to violate what you call natural law. If it gets to that point, then natural law is simply law that works to my advantage. And that's essentially what my position is. I support laws that are good for me and oppose laws that are bad for me. That's the only rational position.
If you're going to tell me God gives you that right to do such and such, that's meaningless to me. Prove that God exists, then prove that he has the rightful authority to grant you rights. Then prove it's in my self-interest to allow you some particular right. If it's in my self-interest to allow you some particular right, then I'll allow it. But I won't allow it simply because you say you have a "natural right" or God says so.
Rational self-interest
Rational self-interest and Natural Law are equivalent. It has nothing to do with a belief in God.
You claim to believe in your own rational self-interest, you would probably claim that you approve of others doing the same, yet you repudiate this pattern as being in any way rationally justified.
This is absurd on its face. How did you come to such a bizarre position?
I was responding to arguments
above that rights come from God.
And rational self-interest is not typically what is meant by natural rights. People coming together to create laws that are in their mutual self-interest is not the same thing as the concept of natural rights. Natural rights theory says that they already have those rights before they're ever codified, which is absurd in my opinion.