The origins of Natural Law?

Discussion in 'Political Science' started by MrConservative, Sep 20, 2011.

  1. unrealist42

    unrealist42 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The primary problem with a universal recognition of rights is caused by the confusion created by the tyrannical imposition of rights that are perceived as grossly unfair to those excluded from their benefit. Consider the Magna Carta, which is considered by many as the original legal document granting private property ownership. Under the threat of death the King transferred ownership of the land to a gang of thugs beholden to no one. Before that document was signed it was generally considered that the land and its people were the property of God, held only in trust by the King, whose trusteeship was responsibility to ensure the welfare of the land and the prosperity of its people.

    Since that day the right of private property has perpetrated a gross unfairness upon those who suddenly find themselves living on land that others claim ownership of. As long ago as The Clearances, where a million were turfed off their ancestral homelands in England in the 1700s, and as recently as the uprising in Chiapas, where the same was attempted by the government granting private ownership of communal lands, private property has maintained its existence only through violence and coercion.

    The entire concept of rights has been co-opted by privilege. The privilege to own slaves was considered a right for centuries but was overthrown by a reconsideration of rights as a human concept rather than a property concept. The argument for private property has never changed. At its heart there is nothing wrong with slavery. Natural Rights advocates are, as you say, very selective in their use of political philosophy, history and science. They use this to generate a train of logic which leads to the inevitable conclusion that a continuation of coercive force to uphold private property is absolutely necessary because all other rights are derived from it.

    What they neglect to say is that Natural Rights do not include people who do not own property. Over 85% of the people on the planet own no property.
     
  2. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I concur. The elements of coercion are not only necessary to fundamental natural rights. They are integral to the emergence of Capitalism. People tend to believe that the economic system does not go hand-and-hand with the state, that it is as Friedrich Hayek termed a spontaneous order.

    The advent of Capitalism in the real world from the theoretical world of Adam Smith and others is a process of coercion. It is the break-up of 'natural' markets, meaning markets bounded by social principles, and the enforcement of deregulated profit-based ones. This is why contemporary IR scholar Tanisha Fazal refers to the necessary components of the modern state as coercion and capital. To elaborate, it is coercion, that legitimate use of force, that initially creates capital.
     
  3. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All this represents is that the understanding of natural (inalienable ) Rights is an evolutionary process based upon acqured knowledge over time. There have been many incorrectly indentified "Rights" that don't meet the criteria of a natural (or inalienable) Rights.

    I could use the example of an infant. That infant, as a person, has a Right to Life and also a Right to Eat but it doesn't have a Right to be Feed. Having someone else provide the food for the infant is something that we require under the law for the voluntary guardian of the child but it is not a Right of the Child as it imposes a obligation on the guardian and a Right cannot impose an obligation upon another person. At best we can impose the legal requirement based upon the voluntary act of an individual that chooses to be the guardian of the child, and provide a means for the individual to end this voluntary obligation (e.g. a mother of a child can leave the child at a hospital and the State will become the legal guardian of the child). That is the correct course of action because the child is helpless to obtain food but it is based upon our social concerns for welfare and life of the child but is not based upon any natural (inalienable) Right of the Child. So we create a legal obligation based upon the voluntary consent of the guardian of the child and not based upon any Right of the Child.
     
  4. unrealist42

    unrealist42 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The confusion created from rights instituted by tyrants is not the result of lack of acquired knowledge or their evolution. Millions of people have become confused about rights because they were turfed off of their ancestral homelands by the tyrannical institution of individual property rights. They become even more confused when the state bans abortion, claiming to uphold the Right to Life for all while letting them and their children starve to death in the streets.

    It is the gross inconsistency of rights granted by tyrants that baffles so many people. What practical use is a Right to Life that does not include any way to actually live?

    If there is no binding individual obligation the state has no binding obligation. Your example relies on a lot of voluntary actions to ensure that the infant be fed. It depends on the state having an interest and exercising that interest through law, which it would not do if the legislators followed your thinking since that would incur obligation to ensure a right and the state would not take on such an obligation or require others to do so. Where your position really leads is to is the right to toss unwanted infants onto trash heaps.
     
  5. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again we need to go back to the very criteria for a natural (unalienable) Right which is that is must be something inherent in the individual not dependent upon another person, that doesn't impose any involuntary obligations upon another person, and that cannot conflict with another person's natural (inalienable) Rights.

    We can, for example, look at the natural (inalienable) Right of Citizenship based upon Jus Soli (Latin for "right of soil").[. The child is born in the territory and is a natural born citizen of that territory. It has nothing to do with the parents but instead is solely dependent upon where the child is born. A perfect example of this could the an unknown woman entering a hospital and giving the birth to a child. She then leaves the hospital before her identity is ever known. The child, regardless of who the child's mother is, is a natural born citizen based upon the natural (inalienable) Right of Citizenship established by birth. This is juxtaposed to citizenship based upon Jus Sanguinis (Latin for "right of blood") that is exclusively related to the parents of the child and does not represent natural born citizenship as a natural (inalienable) Right cannot be dependent upon another person(s). Natural born citizenship is citizenship established by birth based upon the natural (inalienable) Right of Citizenship based upon Jus Soli. Citizenship established by Jus Sanguinis is citizenship established under statutory law at birth unrelated to a natural (inalienable) Right of the Person. In the 2008 presidential election Obama was a natural born citizen based upon jus soli but John McCain was a native born citizen based upon jus sanguinis.

    Of course not all laws are based solely upon our natural (inalienable) Rights but the founding ideal behind our laws is that they shouldn't violate our natural (inalienable) Rights. We have compassion for the infant and child that cannot provide their own means for taking care of themself whether this relates to food, shelter, or whatever so we've created laws that don't violate anyone's natural (inalienable) Rights to ensure the child is provided for. The obligation is voluntary as even the parents are allowed to remove themselves voluntarily from the role of guardian of the child without punishment. We allow the parents to turn custody over to the State which, in turn, finds voluntary guardians for the child that are required by law to provide for the necessities of the child. Ultimately the care of the child is a voluntary obligation so that no one's natural (inalienable) Rights are violated and that is how the laws should work. There is nothing wrong with laws that impose an obligation based upon the voluntary commitment of the individual.
     
  6. unrealist42

    unrealist42 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is no need for an individual to have rights except when engaged in interpersonal interaction. In other words, outside the social context criteria for individual rights are arbitrary. That is where your position stands, on a mountain of arbitrary criteria without context.

    The argument for your unfortunate position on individual rights begins with axioms rooted in the primitive individual alone, autonomous. This is a huge mistake since there is no individual divorced from social interaction and never has been since long before the ancestors of Humans climbed down from the trees. All primates are tribal and familial, social context is everything with them. Even if you do not believe in evolution there is nothing in the Book about the autonomous individual. It is all about families and tribes.

    This mistaken presumption proceeds to the position that because the individual is inherently autonomous, individual rights outside the social context must exist. The result is a criteria for inalienable rights that obligates everyone to accommodate the whims of each individual as long as they do not cross some arbitrary line. A line without context, or reason.

    Personally, I have found it difficult to believe that this pseudo-solipsism has such a strong following. It is quite alarming that their candidates get so many votes since it will all end in tears if they actually manage to get their way and the people find out how arbitrary their rights really are.
     
  7. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obviously outside of the social context there is no necessity for even considering natural (inalienable) Rights because they would have no functionality but that doesn't make them arbitrary. It is the social context that provides the necessity for identifying what our natural (inalienable) Rights are and in identifying them they cannot be arbitrary but instead the must be based upon the explicit criteria previously provided.

    What must be noted is that as social being not all of our interactions, and not even most of our interactions, are based upon our natural (inalienable) Rights. What is important though is that in all of our numerous interactions that we don't violate the few natural (inalienable) Rights as there is no necessity to do so. As was noted one of the critieria of a natural (inalienable) Right is that it cannot infringe upon the natural (inalienable) Rights of another person. If another person's actions don't infringe upon my Rights then I have no logical reason to prohibit them from exercising that Right. In the "social" context we are concerned about the protecting Freedom to exercise our natural (inalienable) Rights and to do so the natural (inalienable) Right must be identified.

    Let's take a simple example of Freedom of Speech which is the protection of the Right to exercise expression of my Individual Thoughts. What I think doesn't affect anyone in any manner. A Freedom is the protection of the ability to exercise a natural (Inalienable) Right and is not a Right in and of itself. A Freedom merely allows a person to exercise a natural (inalienable) Right. Under the protection of Freedom of Speech I'm not prohibited from expressing my thoughts but, at the sametime, it doesn't require anyone to listen to me. I can stand on a soapbox in the middle of Central Park and say whatever I want but I can't force anyone to stand there and listen to me. I can make a painting that expresses my thoughts but I can't force anyone to look at it. I have the Freedom to express my thoughts but don't have any authority to require anyone to listen or pay attention to them. My Right is that I can think and form opinions on my own and the Freedom allows me to express them to others that will voluntarily listen to me.

    Obviously even outside of any social context I would have the Right to Think but the protection of that Right only becomes a necessity in the social context. I believe there is confusion between the actual Right and the protection of the Freedom to exercise that Right in society. The Right exists but the person only requires the protection (Freedom) to exercise Right in a social context.
     
  8. unrealist42

    unrealist42 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Arbitrary criteria leads to arbitrary conceptions of rights and their implementation.

    In the social context what we are concerned with is that rights are applied equally to everyone. Some Freedoms must necessarily be curtailed to ensure that the rights of others are not infringed. Your position is to conflate freedom into a right, despite your declaimer below, and not just any right but the primary right. This is all well and good for people who live alone under rocks and whose interactions with others are brief and full of mistrust. Unfortunately for your position those who choose to live among others must necessarily refrain from the exercise of some of their personal freedoms if the society, and their part in it, is to continue without undue distress.

    You certainly have the right to say what you want and the freedom to do so but that does not also leave you free from the consequences of such actions. For example, shouting fire in a crowded theatre is subject to severe consequences. Your freedom to express your right to free speech is necessarily constrained by practical social considerations.

    It is much the same with the freedom to exercise all of your so-called individual rights. Society defines what freedoms an individual may exercise. It does this to ensure a continuation of social harmony. Tyrants often operate under the guise of insuring social harmony while undermining it through their imposition of freedoms that undermine social cohesion, thereby endangering any existing social harmony.

    I disagree. Rights do not exist except within the social context. Freedom, or more precisely limits on the individual exercise of freedom imposed by society define rights.

    Rights are not static but a part of the dynamic of social advance. Over the ages there have been many attempts to set rights outside of society, mostly to set in stone some established gross inequity. The Natural Rights movement is just the latest in a long line of specious arguments that seek to set rights outside of the social context, thereby imposing particularly selfish hallucinations from without, which makes them immutable laws imposed by nature, thus mooting any argument against them. The only real difference is that Natural Rights are uncovered by logical thinking instead of handed down by God. This does not make Natural Rights and the faulty train of logic used to uncover them any less arbitrary or more believable than divine rights.
     
  9. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Once again, I concur. Rights are highly normative, and their ultimate and fundamental purpose is to constrain the ability of humans to act in the world, also known as freedom, in order to provide social cohesion. Henceforth, and objectively so, rights are to be for promoting greater stability, unity, harmony, peacefulness, etc. between humans. Any other purpose is inappropriate deviation and misuse of the social construct.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Once again, I concur. Rights are highly normative, and their ultimate and fundamental purpose is to constrain the ability of humans to act in the world, also known as freedom, in order to provide social cohesion. Henceforth, and objectively so, rights are to be for promoting greater stability, unity, harmony, peacefulness, etc. between humans. Any other purpose is inappropriate deviation and misuse of the social construct.
     
  10. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't disagree with this. When, for example, tyrants granted "property Rights' related to real estate they ignored the fact that they had acquired this "property" by violation of the "natural" (inalienable) Rights related to land. The "King" didn't own the land based upon a natural Right but instead gained ownership by acts of tyranny.

    Many also misunderstand that the Right of Property (real estate) is estabished by the labor invested in the land. The US government has no Right of Property (land) and therefore cannot logically grant "ownership" to individuals based upon "natural" (inalienable) Rights to Property. Additionally the Right of Property related to land reflects the Right of Use of the Land established by labor and does not reflect the actual owning of the Earth. No one owns the Earth but, though labor, can claim the Right to Use Land.

    What we end up with are many "claims" of Rights of Property related to land that are fundamentally invalid as the initial claim was not established based upon the criteira necessary to establish the Right. Additonally there are those that believe individuals can literally "own the Earth" but that claim is false as, at best, we can only claim ownership of the Use of the Earth based upon our labor.
     
  11. unrealist42

    unrealist42 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interestingly, it was the Homestead Act, passed by the US government, that established the prospect of gaining land ownership through occupation and improvement. The lands in question were considered unoccupied because the indigenous inhabitants had been devastated by introduced disease, mass murder and genocidal military campaigns with the few survivors rounded up and forced into concentrated areas.

    This taints any subsequent ownership of the land regardless of the intent or practice of its subsequent occupiers. This was not a circumstance unique to the US since a similar circumstance prevailed in southern Africa, which allowed the establishment of white settlers throughout southern Africa.

    There are essentially no inhabitable places on Earth that have not been permanently occupied by human beings for thousands of years. Local populations fluctuate enormously due to disease war and natural catastrophes but always recover over the long term. The idea of individual property rights was a distinctly European invention, incomprehensible to most people.

    A flood of Europeans with their peculiar concept of individual property ownership coincided with a severe decline in indigenous populations and a collapse of social order. The result was Europeans usurping ownership of the land and criteria for control over its use. While US indigenous populations never recovered, they did across Africa and South and Central America. These growing populations are becoming increasingly aware that the lands their tribes occupied for time out of mind are owned by others, who have made improvements like cutting down the forest, damming the rivers, and pushing them off their ancestral lands to create vast plantations.

    Your criteria seems to argue that semi-deliberate acts of depopulation that preceded homesteaders are irrelevant, that only the actual act of homesteading counts. I consider this the selfish argument of opportunistic advantage, that those who gain huge benefit from their position to profit from the disadvantage of others should be allowed to continue in their advantage.

    If, as you assert, one can only claim ownership of the use of the Earth based upon their labour, one implication is that ownership of land is not necessarily a right of inheritance. I have a question.

    If an inheritor leaves land idle and unimproved beyond the efforts of the original homesteader how long is their claim to ownership valid?
     
  12. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obviously there are historical conflicts that are beyond the scope of anyone to sort out but that does not invalidate the concept of the Natural Right of Property as it relates to land. There is also the conflict between the nomad that harvests the fruits of the land but does not invest labor into that land with those that invest labor into the land. The natural Rights of each must be pragmatically separated as the natural Right of one individual cannot infringe upon a natural Right of another individual. Where that line is to be drawn is beyond my individual wisdom to establish but I know it must exist.

    The question of whether inheretance rights exist related to land and, so long as the heirs assume the possession and use of the land, then I would say that they do. At the sametime if that land is abandoned then the Right of Adverse Possession would be applicable. I believe that the adverse possession laws that we have make sense from a natural Rights perspective although the legal criteria used may not. Merely holding legal title to a piece of land does not establish ligitimate ownership IMHO even if that title was obtained initially based upon a natural Right established by labor. Once again though this is an issue requiring pragmatic considerations as there has to be a line drawn between the natural Rights of one individual and the natural Rights of another because there can be no conflict. The line must be drawn based upon who has the greater claim.

    By analogy we can compare a married couple where the wife gives birth to a child and the husband hand builds a boat. Both have claims to each but the woman created the child even though the man contributed to it and the man created the boat although funding was based upon the financial resources of both (community property). The woman has the greater claim to the child and the man has a greater claim to the boat in the case of dissolution of the personal/financial partnership of the marriage. It is a pragmatic division based upon the natural Right of Property where the person with the greater claim has the natural Right. Of course the "perfect" solution is that the man would have limited custody Rights of the child and the woman would get to use the boat once in awhile. LOL

    All of this brings us to a point where we can say that the foundation for natural (inalienable) Rights is valid but history cannot be changed and not all of the issues have been pragmatically addressed and resolved but the understanding of natural (inalienable) Rights gives us the foundation for addressing the issues related to conflicts where we can reach pragmatic resolutions to those issues. Natural Rights are not without any limitations as they cannot infringe upon another individual's natural Rights so a dividing line must be drawn between the Rights of each. The problem for us all is in defining the limitations based upon discussion and reasoning.
     
  13. unrealist42

    unrealist42 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, it appears that either your knowledge is incomplete, or the theory of Natural Rights itself does not address this issue. If it is the latter, Natural Rights theorists have some serious thinking to do to make their theory a little more conclusive.

    It seems to me that the concept of adverse possession is what gives Natural Right its foundation concerning the ownership and possession of land.
    Nomads invest heavily in the land they traverse. Their herds regularly graze the pasture lands, fertilizing the soil and keeping trees and brush down, which would otherwise revert into far less useful scrub. They maintain watering places, often digging wells and building and maintaining catchment systems. They protect and encourage the growth of nut orchards, berry patches and places where tubers and other foodstuffs can be gathered in their seasons. They negotiate with other tribes so that resources are not overstretched and can be shared in times of distress. Their wanderings are by no means random. Their footprints may be light but they exhibit a deep understanding of the land and the stewardship it demands.

    Your blithe dismissal of these people's centuries long efforts shows a serious problem with the criteria of investment. Apparently, the criteria for land ownership in Natural Right is quite narrow. Perhaps it is defined to purposely exclude those who do not exhibit sufficient ruthlessness in exploitation of natural resources over the short term, thereby granting others their Natural Right to run roughshod over those who prefer to live with nature.

    What if the man took care of the child and educated it while the woman went to work every day, bringing home all the income while the man took care of the child and built the boat?
    The woman might have greater claim to the boat and the child by your assumptions, with the man having some claim to the boat but none to the child. The practical reality is that no assumption of previously defined rights can be made but each situation must be parsed on its particular circumstances.

    I am encouraged that you have come such a long way to agreeing with me. The issue of rights is really, and only, about finding a foundation of thought and reason that can resolve conflicts and reduce social dissonance. As far as rights are concerned, you have recognized that they are not absolute, that dividing lines and limits are necessary and that these can only be found through discussion and reasoning. In other words, rights are something that is decided by society, my position all along.

    Personally, I think the logical structure of Natural Rights is purposely incomplete to disguise its suspect reasoning and goals This makes its message somewhat incoherent but, simply enough, allows it to skew its messages so they are appealing to the discontented. The big problem is that the increasing popularity of Natural Rights is exacerbating social dissonance. It has attracted a lot of people prone to fanaticism. Natural Rights has become a crusade. Its most rabid proponents are preparing for civil war.

    If you would do anything good, you would work to convince your fellow travellers of the truth in last sentence of your post.
     
  14. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once agian the criteria for natural (inalienable) Rights is very explicit and simple. It is that which is inherent in the person (i.e. not dependent upon any other person) or which the person can do for themself, it cannot create an obligation of others, nor can it infringe upon or conflict with the natural (inalienable) Rights of another person. This is a very simple criteria to apply.

    The problems arise when addressing historical violations of natural (inalienable) Rights. How do we resolve the problem of a lumber and paper company that was given thousands of acres of forest by the government when the government didn't own that land?

    Of course I did address nomadic people and they do have natural (inalienable) Rights related to land. If, as in the example provided, they dig a well they own the Proptery Rights to that well. Simply walking across the land or harvesting the natural produce of the land does not establish a property Right because generally no labor is invested in creating that production. I could offer a counterpoint though. What about the nomadic hunter of deer that takes the males but not the females. This is game management that results in more deer so they are expending labor and have a natural (inalienable) Right related to the deer harvest.

    Each situation may present different issues and concerns to be addressed and there is no "High God Lord of Natural Rights" that can rule with absolute wisdom and perfection which is why we address them based upon compelling arguments and consensus. We're not perfect in defining them but the criteria used to build compelling arguments to obtain consensus is simple.
     
  15. unrealist42

    unrealist42 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, it is a very simplistic principle that is extremely problematic in its application. Its seeming simplicity disguises its sophistication and the reality that what it appears to offer is not at all what it delivers.

    You did not at all address the rights of nomadic people and in fact seek to impose some arbitrary and extremely finite limits on them based on a criteria that is blind to the reality of the environment they inhabit. This is not at all a reasonable position since there are vast areas of the planet where the environment dictates that human habitation is far better served by the nomadic lifestyle. It is not about one well, or one forest, it is about the entirety of the space they traverse. To break it up into parcels that conveniently deny them claim to the entire scope of the wanderings necessary for their survival, is an act of genocide.

    Your position is extremely biased towards settlement, approaching hysteria in its rationalizations to justify the theft of land from its historical owners. If its reality was not so horrific it would be pathetic.

    Consensus is not so simple. The attempt to establish particular criteria before discussion opens is most certainly the first thing that will be questioned in any popular discussion. Expectations that people will blindly accept the criteria of Natural Rights without voluminous public discussion and debate that brings to light, and into question, every nuance of the position are overblown, and somewhat hallucinatory.

    So, we will begin the real discourse on Natural Rights, if you are still willing.
    Please explain to me, in as much detail as possible and in your own words, the train of logic and reason that establishes the criteria for Natural Rights.
     
  16. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've shortened this to cut to the chase once again. Yes, the criteria and principles are very simply but obtaining consensus is not so easy and can be problematic. It requires compelling arguments to obtain consensus and it's not always easy to establish compelling arguments.

    Witness the issue of the Rights of the nomad as compelling arguments can be made but that compelling arguments can also be made for Rights of the farmer. There has to be a pragmatic division between the two but perhaps that solution is found where the Right of Use of the Land is balanced by the Right to Trespass across the Land. We can present compelling arguments that a person has the Right of Trespass so long as they don't destroy the efforts of another person related to the Right of Use. It is a complex issue that is not easily resolved but that doesn't imply it can't be resolved and a consensus decision reached.

    The foundation, and the most simplistic of natural (inalienable) Rights, is not in dispute to my knowledge. There are those things that I can do exclusively for myself that without question do not conflict with anyone else. My ability to think is inherent within myself and what I think has no impact on anyone else. For the most part "expressing" what I think does not in anyway infringe upon anyone else but here we go from the natural Right to Think to the Freedom to Exercise that Right. The Freedom is the ability to exercise a natural Right but is not the Right itself and the Freedom can be limited.

    I believe that the problem is not with the Right but instead that people confuse the Right with the Freedom to Exercise that Right.

    Once again we can go back to the conflict between the Right of Use of the Land where we have nomadic people and farmers. It isn't the Right that is really in question but the pragmatic limitations upon the Freedom to Exercise that Right where the dividing line between the two must be established. The farmer can Use the Land but to what extent and how do we protect their Right while also addressing the the Right of Trespass and the Right of Use for the nomad. The limitations relate to the Freedom and not to the Right per se.
     
  17. unrealist42

    unrealist42 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I do not consider the Right, and the Freedom to Exercise that Right to be separable. There is no right without its free exercise. If the ability to exercise a right is constrained, that limit is what defines the right.

    You consider only the nomad as a trespasser, not the farmer who has carved his farm out of land which has been long occupied in uses that were long ago decided. Only the application of some arbitrary criteria, like your Right of Use of the Land could justify the dispossession of people from their ancestral lands. You posit that the farmer has some right to the land that is greater than the nomads since it puts the nomad into the position where he is obliged to bargain with the farmer over use, or even passage over lands that have been long used for these endeavours.

    The farmer is the obvious trespasser. His short term efforts do not negate the long term occupation of the land by the nomads. He can exist there only at their forbearance.
     
  18. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I believe this reflects confusion between "inalienable" Rights and "inviolable" Rights which is really quite common.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inalienable+right

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inviolable

    An natural (inalienable) Right exists whether it is violated or not and whether it is protected or not. It can arguably be stated that nothing is inviolable as even laws protecting natural (inalienable) Rights can be and are violated. Natural (inalienable) Rights are completely unrelated to statutory laws.

    I have no such bias when it comes to the natural (inalienable) Rights of the "farmer" and "nomad" so I don't know where that belief originates. While there have been many arguments put forward for both the issue remains unresolved as a consensus has never been obtained. We do know that the laws currently favor the "farmer" over the "nomad" but that doesn't imply the laws are right and I would uncategorically say that they are not.

    There has to be a division between the natural Rights of the nomad and the natural Rights of the farmer as their Rights cannot conflict with each other. The belief that all Rights related to the use of the land belong to the nomad are false though. A single farmer cultivating a section of land does not in anyway infringed upon the Rights of the nomad that is using thousands of square miles for foraging purposes. At the sametime the "farmer" doesn't have the Right of Use of all the land that would deny the "nomad" the use of the land either. There must be a logical division established between the Rights of each as natural Rights cannot conflict with each other. That division between the Rights of Use for the nomad and the Rights of Use by the farmer have never been established but I certainly believe that the laws that favor the farmer over the nomad aren't correct today.

    It is a very good subhect for discussion though because it has never been adequately addressed historically. As I've noted the identification of all of the specific natural (inalienable) Rights and creation of laws that protect the Freedom to Exercise those Rights is an evolutionary process where compelling arguments that create consensus must be achieved.

    For example we cculd start with a fundamental natural (inalienable) Right of Thought and from that evolved Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Feedon of Religion, etc. that are all based upon the same natural (inalienable) Right of Thought.

    When we address the natural (inalienable) Right of Property, which is addresed by laws allowing the Freedom to Exercise that Right by Use of the Land then we need to go back to the basics. I person walking through the forest could pick up a stick and from it create a "walking stick" and I don't believe there is any dispute that they own that stick. At the same time if they walk through a "farmer's" land where the farmer has specifically grown that stick for a purpose (e,g, making walking sticks) and they take that stick then they are stealing from the farmer and don't have a Property Right related to the stick. there is a specific division between the Property Rights of each individual.

    Now, make arguments that are compelling related to the Right of Use of the Land by a Farmer and the Right of Use of the Land by the Nomad. Once again one farmer using a few hundred acres out of thousands of square miles of land used by the nomad does not in anyway infringed upon the Rights of the nomad. At the same time if all of the lands is taken over by farmers then there is an obvious infringement upon the Rights to Use the Land by the nomads. Where is the dividing line between the two?
     
  19. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BTW The Nomad and the Farmer may have an identical Natural (inalienable) Right to the Use of the same piece of land. The issue then becomes one of defining the Freedom to Exercise that Right for each under statutory laws.
     
  20. unrealist42

    unrealist42 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Only if the land was entirely unoccupied would the idea that the Nomad and the Farmer have identical rights be valid, and that is not the case at all. If there is any Right to Use of the Land it must be in favour the Nomads, who have a long established history of use.

    While the Farmer may seek to occupy only some small space within the Nomads purview, it would most likely be a place that is critical to the Nomads existence, likely a fertile valley that the Nomads reserve so they have someplace to go when all other places are exhausted, their refuge when all else fails. This is a common historical practice in areas that nomadic people inhabit since periodically, though not quite regularly enough to be predictable, the climate turns dry, drought stalks the land and the Nomads need a place of refuge. Increasingly they find these places occupied by Farmers, who claim the land for themselves, as a right.

    It is important to understand how Nomads and Farmers intersect . Their historical relationship is very symbiotic. The settled farmers trade grain, forest products and other things for livestock, hides and trade goods like salt and iron that the local Nomads accumulate in their wanderings. Boundaries may appear nebulous but they are not, having been fought over through centuries until a peace was established that, if not exactly guaranteeing the survival of both, minimized conflict between them.

    There is much conflict these days at the boundary of Nomad and Farmer. Its cause could easily be laid at the feet of those who claim that the farmer has the same right to use the land as the nomad.
     
  21. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet the first farmers were nomads that simply stopped wandering and settled into a part of their nomadic land. They already had the Right of Use of the Land and were merely exercising it.

    Remember that all inalienable Rights relate to a Person and not a Group. There can be a nomad (singular) and a farmer (singular) and the identical inalienable Rights must be established for both and not for "farmers" and "nomads" in general. There is no difference between them as a person.

    Once again I don't believe that the issue of the Right of Use of the Land by the individual has been fully explored. All individual Persons, regardless of whether they happen to be a nomad or a farmer have the identical Right of Use of the Land. How they choose to exercise that Right is limited by the fact that they cannot infringe upon the Right of Use of the Land by another regardless of whether they are a nomad or a farmer. Where the issue arises relates to the Freedom to Exercise the Right and is unrelated to the actual inalienable Right which is identical for both.

    So the challenge is in defining what is the identical Right of Use of the Land that applies to a person regardless of whether they're a nomad or a farmer?
     
  22. unrealist42

    unrealist42 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Perhaps at sometime in the distant past, but that is not the situation we were discussing.

    There is no way to relate rights except within the Group. The concept of individual rights, applied from without the group, is inherently illogical for social beings.

    Rights are Group endeavours, which is the only way they can be defined and upheld. To suppose that rights can be arbitrarily defined outside the group makes the entire concept of human rights into a system for oppression, one that can be easily used to bend the inherently cooperative nature of humanity to its particular ends. This is extremely dangerous thinking, no different than that of religious fanatics.
     
  23. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We cannot change the criteria for what a natural (inalienable) Right is: "That which is inherent in the individual or that the individual can do for themself without infringing on the natural (inalienable) Rights of another person or impose an obligation on another person."

    The "group" represents all other individuals each with their own identical natural (inalienable) Rights and the judgement must be made based upon "actions" as to whether one individual's Rights are being violated by another individual but the Rights are identical for all individuals. So both the "nomad" and the "farmer" as individuals have a Right of Use of the Land but the Freedom to Exercise that Right is what imposes the limitation as to when the "actions" of one would violate the Right of the other Individual.

    Let's see if I can provide a comparative example. I have a Right of Self-Defense but my Freedom to Exercise that Right is limited. I can, based upon this Right, use lethal force if necessary which would violate the Right to Life of another person. The key word though is "necessary" as I cannot use lethal force if my "person" is not being threatened. A kid could, using this example, enter into my yard and be stealing my bicycle violating my Right of Property, in this example, does not require me to defend myself from an attack that would potentially threaten my life so I don't have the Freedom to Exercise my Right of Self-Defense by using lethal force. The "kid" would have to be threatening my Right to Life before I could use lethal force but the simple theft of the bicycle doesn't represent a potential threat to my Right to Life. Now, if I confronted the kid stealing the bicycle and that kid responded by threatening my life then I do have the Right of Self-Defense in using lethal force (i.e. the situation has changed) but the theft itself does not potentially threaten my life so the use of lethal force is unnecessary.

    Once again, back to the nomad and farmer, we must address the issue from the standpoint that both have identical natural (inalienable) Rights and there have been historical violations of these Rights. We do need to address the historical violations of the Rights of the Individual because it is important but we cannot magically make the violations of the Right disappear but the natural (inalienable) Rights also provide the foundation for pragmatically addressing the violations.

    A perfect example is the issue of the Black Hills where the land was wrongfully taken from the Sioux Indians. Yes, we could simply say that all of this land needed to be returned but what about the property Rights of the residents of Deadwood or the other "land owners" currently occupying the Black Hills? They also have established a conflicting Right of Property by living on the land so a pragmatic resolution must reached which is fair for all of the individuals involved. The fact that the initial occupation of the Black Hills which violated the Right of Use of the Land by the Sioux (individually) does not change the fact that the Right of the Use of the Land was also subsequently established by those individuals living on it and using it. There is an established "conflict" that must be resolved pragmatically related to those that have a direct claim related to the land.

    We can also note that this relates to the individuals and not to the group although numerous individuals are involved in the issue and are referred to as a group. The Sioux Indian with a direct Right of Use of the Land based upon inheritance is in conflict with the current individual "owners" of that land whether through inheritance or by purchase. Another group of Native-Americans that might have occupied the Black Hills 1000 years ago would not have a claim unless the "individual" could establish a direct claim based upon their inherited Right of the Use of the Land. If an individual could establish that their "great-great-great-great-grandfather" had their Right of the Use of the Land violated then they would also have a claim but if they cannot establish this personal linkage then they have no claim. The claim must be based upon the violation of the Rights of the Indivudual and the Individual must have "standing" in the complaint where they can establish that their individual Rights have been violated.
     
  24. David Merrill

    David Merrill New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2012
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have always considered Abel's blood crying out in accusation from the soil to be the literal origins of natural law. There was no biblical passages of law in place yet (except maybe the Apple thing) yet Cain killing his brother Abel was obviously a violation of law.
     
  25. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This was written at the same time as numerous violations of natural Rights by the ancient Hebrews were also documented. The attack on the City of Jerico and the conquest of the Land of Canaan both represented violations of the natural (inalienable) Rights of the People. Later, when the New Testament was written it, includes the story of Jesus attacking the "money-changers" at the temple which was also an act of aggression that violated the natural (inalienable) Rights of individuals involved in a voluntary exchange of commerce.

    I would not cite the Bible as being the origin of natural (inalienable) Rights because so many violations are rationalized in it. If "our natural" Rights originated from our "creator" it wasn't from the God of Abraham based upon the Bible that avocated and rationalized the violations of our natural Rights.
     

Share This Page