Originally posted by PalynkaExactly, Locke felt that man's property rights superceded the right of government.
Still, I'm arguing for something quite different than Locke. Namely, that government is essential towards the existence (and relevance) of property rights.
Essentially, that man's natural rights created government and not the other way around.
Property, in Locke's thesis, encompasses a wider range of interests than just real property.
Originally posted by Red NightYou'd like no1marauder's opinions about this. I disagree, though.
Exactly, Locke felt that man's property rights superceded the right of government.
Essentially, that man's natural rights created government and not the other way around.
Property, in Locke's thesis, encompasses a wider range of interests than just real property.
On the other hand, I think natural rights only exist insofar as a government supports them. To label them 'natural' is simply a wordplay attempting to give it more legitimacy than they really have.
All 'natural' rights are as human in nature as any other rights, in my opinion. They are still reflections on mankind's condition, that is all.
Originally posted by PalynkaLet's talk about a simple case. Man's natural right to life. Can the government take that away? Arbitrarily?
You'd like no1marauder's opinions about this. I disagree, though.
On the other hand, I think natural rights only exist insofar as a government supports them. To label them 'natural' is simply a wordplay attempting to give it more legitimacy than they really have.
All 'natural' rights are as human in nature as any other rights, in my opinion. They are still reflections on mankind's condition, that is all.
We can debate the first question...some would argue that the answer is yes under certain circumstances.
But almost no reasonable person would argue for the arbitrary right to kill. The holocaust cannot be legitimized by governmental edict.
Originally posted by Red Night"Can" is a very different question than "Should".
Let's talk about a simple case. Man's natural right to life. Can the government take that away? Arbitrarily?
We can debate the first question...some would argue that the answer is yes under certain circumstances.
But almost no reasonable person would argue for the arbitrary right to kill. The holocaust cannot be legitimized by governmental edict.
Governments certainly have the legitimacy to revoke that right on specific conditions. Your own does so. Do I think they should? No. But that's a different question.
My point is that man's natural right to life does not exist in the void. There must be a legal structure that identifies such a right for it to be even recognizable. Without that authority, the right simply doesn't exist. One may argue for the creation of such a right, but it doesn't exist (except as a concept) until there is a legal framework that supports it.
PS: Regarding their existence as concepts, of course they exist (as we are discussing such concepts). However, to transcend from existence as concepts to existence, there is a gigantic step. For example, fairies and dragons exist as concepts, but that doesn't mean these things exist.
Originally posted by PalynkaSo, without government there is no right to life and government can create and rescind that right at will?
"Can" is a very different question than "Should".
Governments certainly have the legitimacy to revoke that right on specific conditions. Your own does so. Do I think they should? No. But that's a different question.
My point is that man's natural right to life does not exist in the void. There must be a legal structure that identifies such a right for ...[text shortened]... ample, fairies and dragons exist as concepts, but that doesn't mean these things exist.
P.S. I understand and appreciate what you are saying and I don't know that I necessarily disagree with you. I'm thinking it out as we go. The concept of fundamental or natural rights is near and dear to my Scottish/American heart.
Originally posted by Red NightLocke believed that the world was given equally for all of mankind, which is also in Scripture. So the question is, can man really claim a part of the earth as his own, and keep everyone alse out of it?
Exactly, Locke felt that man's property rights superceded the right of government.
Essentially, that man's natural rights created government and not the other way around.
Property, in Locke's thesis, encompasses a wider range of interests than just real property.
Originally posted by Red NightYes. Rights have no meaning in anarchy. Can a right meaningfully exist if there is no possible enforcement?
So, without government there is no right to life and government can create and rescind that right at will?
P.S. I understand and appreciate what you are saying and I don't know that I necessarily disagree with you. I'm thinking it out as we go. The concept of fundamental or natural rights is near and dear to my Scottish/American heart.
That doesn't mean that the rights that are considered to be 'natural rights' are not a good basis for the creation of a government, but that they're intertwined. A government can be founded to establish (thus creating) those rights and their establishment is certainly a very good reason to found one.
PS: Rights defined by religion do not need a government, but they still need an authority (God, for example). Natural rights need then to fall back to either government or another form of authority.
Originally posted by PalynkaCan we see the brotherhood of man as an alternate authority to God?
Yes. Rights have no meaning in anarchy. Can a right meaningfully exist if there is no possible enforcement?
That doesn't mean that the rights that are considered to be 'natural rights' are not a good basis for the creation of a government, but that they're intertwined. A government can be founded to establish (thus creating) those rights and their establi ...[text shortened]... e). Natural rights need then to fall back to either government or another form of authority.
Very compelling argument by the way.
An interesting side note to your second point...which was a good one. One of the first things that the various state governments did upon seccession from England was to adopt English Common Law as their own. The theory was that without that act, there would be no laws at all.
Originally posted by PocketKingsLocke's notion of property encompassed more than real propoerty.
Locke believed that the world was given equally for all of mankind, which is also in Scripture. So the question is, can man really claim a part of the earth as his own, and keep everyone alse out of it?
As I understand it he was oppossed to the waste of "property" and not real property ownership.
Originally posted by Palynka(Without writing a dissertation.)
Can you explain a bit further what you mean here?
"If god didn't exist man would be forced to invent him."
First Commandment: Though shall not kill.
Zarathustra: "Do not do unto others that which you would not want them to do unto you." circa 750 B.C.E. (Though probably not original.)
These last two are a sampling of what we westerners think of as "God's" most fundamental laws.
Now, if you don't believe in God, these laws were in fact created by men and ascribed to a god they created.
So, these rules (and others) transcend governments and even pre-date governments. In my mind these are examples of the natural laws that society enforces on itself without government.
Originally posted by PocketKingsmy islands?
Ever hear of a random sample?
Actually, I stated it incorrectly. Its 95 percent of Americans who believe in God. In further research I noticed a BBC report that states 40 percent of people on your islands do not believe in God.
last time i checked ireland was one island
Originally posted by PalynkaThat's not true. Rights are opinions an individual has about a moral issue. One does not need to enforce one's opinion about how things should be in order to hold it.
Yes. Rights have no meaning in anarchy. Can a right meaningfully exist if there is no possible enforcement?
That doesn't mean that the rights that are considered to be 'natural rights' are not a good basis for the creation of a government, but that they're intertwined. A government can be founded to establish (thus creating) those rights and their establi ...[text shortened]... e). Natural rights need then to fall back to either government or another form of authority.