The Founding Founders Did Not Believe in Natural Rights....

[jkershner]

That's why I keep asking for someone to show me the list of rights they think they have.

Well, I don't know if I can come up with a whole list of them, but the essential natural right of Man (according to Hobbes in Leviathan) is:

"to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own judgement, and Reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto."

Another way to say it is: It is your right to defend yourself. Or at least attempt to defend yourself.

 

[level.eleven]

I see what you're saying, and I think we agree. Maybe. That's why I keep asking for someone to show me the list of rights they think they have.

Merely saying you have "natural rights" without a standard outside of yourself, is meaningless.

A list of rights is dependent on where you live, or more importantly, what the man standing next to you is willing to afford. Any attempt to ascribe rights outside of man fails. Man invented the idea, man protects the idea, man prosecutes the idea. In no court around the word does "He" made me do it or "He" says so a valid defense of rights. Outside of yourself lies in the development of the human brain, specifically the prefrontal lobe. The realization that societies, for that matter tribes, function best and ensure survival when these rights are followed. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a great axiom invented by man. It also man's responsibility to ensure this axiom for his fellow man. Anything outside of this is, as you say, is meaningless. No one is keeping score except for us.

“Evolution has meant that our prefrontal lobes are too small, our adrenal glands are too big, and our reproductive organs apparently designed by committee; a recipe which, alone or in combination, is very certain to lead to some unhappiness and disorder.”

 

[level.eleven]

Are you even listening to yourself. Fantastic magic? There's no more fantastic magic, in fact it crosses the boundary of impossible, than to believe nobody times nothing equals everything. As I said it takes great faith to believe that. If you're uncomfortable with your faith, read some science books to strengthen it instead of getting angry at others.


Let's test the effects of modern science and see how far people like you have come.

Instead of dying from polio and scurvy, people die from AIDS because we don't want to offend anyone by pointing out the cause. Thousands of people die from malaria each year because environmentalists managed to get DDT banned. people like you, with your political correctness and earth worship have killed far more people than medieval superstitions.

Modern man still believes in witches. He calls them aliens and spends billions of dollars hunting them, produces TV shows about them, and encourages people to share their abduction experiences. If he could find one, instead of burning him at the stake, he'd strap him to an autopsy table and eviscerate him. People like you are the ones promoting superstition, not Christians.

As to barking at the moon, why there again, modern science does exactly that. Because they have pre determined that the solar system is 4.5 billion years old, they have to come up with some way to dismiss the young solar system evidence of comets. What to do? I know, we'll invent a magical Oort cloud that blankets the solar system and is filled with an unlimited supply of comets just waiting to be hurled toward the inner solar system. Magical clouds that can't be seen or observed, but yet somehow "prove" exactly what scientists believe. Sounds a lot like faith to me, but if you can believe in the impossibility of nobody times nothing equals everything, then you'll believe anything, and maybe even bark at magical clouds.

None of this makes any sense.

Predetermined age of 4.55 billion years? What does that mean?

Burning witches and apostates is equivalent to the search for extraterrestrial life? What?

Aids is virus. DDT is still used as a defense against infestation, but not as a pesticide in agriculture.

 

[Lex Concord]

Sooooo....did the founders not believe in natural rights, or just not have a full commitment to them? There is a difference.

 

[kludge]

One of the most intriguing might-have-beens in American History : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History Site

 

[ViperJock]

Exactly. The "Big Bang". Everything came from nothing.

Not at all true. Law of conservation of matter and energy. It was not creation out of nothing it was reorganization of matter and energy. Ad who is to say that it was not directed by a higher power? This argument is pointless anyway as neither theory can be presently proved or disproved. Both require a leap of faith.

This thread reminds me so much of the way the government does things; an argument is presented. Words are minced, context ignored, thesaurus is opened, and voila! A totally irrelevant argument ensues while the original point is ignored, because very few people even know what that point was in the first place. And we wonder why congress can't get anything done....

 

[Liberty1911]

Not at all true. Law of conservation of matter and energy. It was not creation out of nothing it was reorganization of matter and energy. Ad who is to say that it was not directed by a higher power? This argument is pointless anyway as neither theory can be presently proved or disproved. Both require a leap of faith.

This thread reminds me so much of the way the government does things; an argument is presented. Words are minced, context ignored, thesaurus is opened, and voila! A totally irrelevant argument ensues while the original point is ignored, because very few people even know what that point was in the first place. And we wonder why congress can't get anything done....

That was my original point, which you ignored.

 

[Tomfoolery]

Thomas Paine was just a man. So was John Locke. Who are they to know God's will? Who are they to know more than another man about "natural rights?" Certainly they illiterate their argument in a compelling form (and I happen to agree with them) but that doesn't make them correct. The ideas of men cannot be used as proof in a philosophical argument.

Tomfoolery ignores the collected work of Marx? You see my point?

I propose that all this vitriol toward the OP is the result of not understanding what his post was about in the first place. The OP didn't say we don't have natural rights, he stated that the way we interpret the intentions of the FF may not be entirely correct.

I fail to understand how so many folks claim to understand Locke and Paine, but can't tease out the point of this OP.

I get it but all knowledge is a process of building on what was and what is. Locke, Paine, Bastiat. We derive many of the principles of natural rights from them. They themselves were not (consciously) natural rights advocates but if we draw every argument they make to it's logical conclusion then they don't disagree with us. I could write a 10,000 essay on the subjet of natural rights and Bastiat wouldn't want me to edit one word of it. Paine himself makes the claim you also just made in The Rights of Man that "who are we to question divinity?". His argument is that since we are incapable of doing so we must draw what we must from the "natural order". He agrees with you. The Marx comment is just a straw man.

Our idea of government has changed to now hasn't it? Does anyone believe that Jefferson or Madison would've consented to the Constitution if they knew how it could be sidestepped? Jefferson himself wrote that the Supreme Court was a huge failure on his part and that would inevitably lead to the destruction of the balance of power. This can be viewed in the Spencer -Roane letters.

Politics change, principles do not. If the argument is laid out that "were the founders men of principle" then we (NA advocates) have much in common. If the question is interpreted belief then we will vary differently. I have the ability to stand on their shoulders. They however are footnotes in history and cannot stand on mine.

 

[T.Lex]

Does anyone believe that Jefferson or Madison would've consented to the Constitution if they knew how it could be sidestepped? Jefferson himself wrote that the Supreme Court was a huge failure on his part and that would inevitably lead to the destruction of the balance of power. This can be viewed in the Spencer -Roane letters.

Yes, but I don't think Jefferson's concern is what came to pass. He was more concerned that the judiciary would take over too much power, acting as the ultimate "check" on the other two.

Instead, post-New Deal, the legislative and executive joined together to form the "4th branch" of administrative agencies charged with both rule-making and enforcement. IMHO, that has become the real issue. (Although, in fairness, the courts first rejected this structure, but eventually accepted it.)

Also, with a quick search, I think I found the letter to which you refer (or one of them at least) and it has another interesting quote:

No, dear Sir, I withdraw from all contest of opinion, and resign everything cheerfully to the generation now in place. They are wiser than we were, and their successors will be wiser than they, from the progressive advance of science.

Clearly, Jefferson thought it made the most sense to let later generations re-formulate the application of the Constitution.



ETA: also, I think Jefferson and Madison "consented" to the constitution KNOWING that attempts would be made to sidestep it. In fact, they expected it. But, they also allowed that later generations would have to deal with that. They couldn't predict every angle of attack on the Constitution. We still can't, either.

 

[ViperJock]

That was my original point, which you ignored.

Did not ignore it.

 

[Expat]

Fair enough, I quoted you wrong. However, science does NOT say "something come from nothing," and you be hard pressed to illustrate that is the believe held.
The Universe, as we understand it, started with the Big Bang. However science traditional makes no claims about what took place prior, other than a series of theories, which can never be substantiated.

You throw a fit about CarmelHP's accurate quoting of you because parts of it got italicized by the system...

 

[Bummer]

First, we’ll start with the most obvious infringement on therights of others, slavery. If one holds that blacks were men, then placing themin bondage for monetary gain, is one of the most egregious violations ofnatural rights man or government can have against another. If one holds thatthe Founders did not understand this, and did not believe blacks were “men,”this one must question their understanding of natural rights.
However, at the very least, the Founders believed thatslaves/free blacks were, at least, 3/5 “men,” as cited by the 3/5 Compromise,in the original Constitution stating:

Article 1, Section 2,Paragraph 3
Representatives and direct Taxes shall beapportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union,according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding tothe whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Termof Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all otherPersons.

Why do you think the 3/5 rule came into existence? Can you explain its purpose?

Thank you.

 

[Tomfoolery]

Yes, but I don't think Jefferson's concern is what came to pass. He was more concerned that the judiciary would take over too much power, acting as the ultimate "check" on the other two.

Instead, post-New Deal, the legislative and executive joined together to form the "4th branch" of administrative agencies charged with both rule-making and enforcement. IMHO, that has become the real issue. (Although, in fairness, the courts first rejected this structure, but eventually accepted it.)

Also, with a quick search, I think I found the letter to which you refer (or one of them at least) and it has another interesting quote:
Clearly, Jefferson thought it made the most sense to let later generations re-formulate the application of the Constitution.



ETA: also, I think Jefferson and Madison "consented" to the constitution KNOWING that attempts would be made to sidestep it. In fact, they expected it. But, they also allowed that later generations would have to deal with that. They couldn't predict every angle of attack on the Constitution. We still can't, either.

Well Jeffersons two biggest regrets about the Constitution was making the Supreme Court a branch of the federal government and not helping to clearly define the the interstate commerce clause (which even at the time was causing problems), a sentiment he shared with Madison. It makes little difference now of course. We've come a long way since the Constitution and the BoR. I say we draw these rights whether you believe they are ordained by god or drawn from the natural universe to their optimum potential. To do this of course everyone would have to become comfortable living in a voluntary society... I'm not sure everyone is ready for that. I know I am.

edit - You may be right about them having the foresight of the disaster that is the greatest form of government on the planet (and teh document it derives power from). Jeffersons personal writings always remind me of someone who is pushing on Voluntaryism but draws back at that last possible second. It's a good thing to get our hands dirty from time to time.

 

[Markedup]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a great axiom invented by man. It also man's responsibility to ensure this axiom for his fellow man. Anything outside of this is, as you say, is meaningless. No one is keeping score except for us.

Our scorekeeping is incomplete and fragmented.
I think our country is the most forgiving large nation
that ever existed.

Thanks

Mark

 

[Project972]

george did pretty good with only 25% OF THE COUNTRY. THE OTHERS WERE WAR PROTESTORS.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You throw a fit about CarmelHP's accurate quoting of you because parts of it got italicized by the system...

Riiiiiiight, quoting a post italicizes it all, does it not? If a part become "un" italicized, then that's by design. So why the mix-match text???

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why do you think the 3/5 rule came into existence? Can you explain its purpose?

Thank you.

The "bare bones" reason for the 3/5 Compromise was to satisfy southern interests involving representation while coming to an agreement about the end of the importation of slaves. I never argued that.
However, anyway you look at it, slaves AND freedmen weren't accurately represented as the persons they were, nor allowed to participate in the system which they were subject to, ie less than a person at the 3/5 ratio. One may argue the point about slaves, not being consideredc "persons," which in itself is an affront to natural rights, but even if one would allow for that, it still justify the hundreds of thousand freedmen who also fell into the 3/5 category.
I'm not debating the "reasonings" of the compromise, but rather what it actually meant to those which it applied to.

Simply put, if someone came to your household of 5 persons, and told you that 3 of you would be counted for representation in to government, and you would have no say, in this government that you were subjected to, would you consider you natural rights violated; especially if said government actively had a role in your "life, LIBERTY, and pursuit of happiness?"

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sooooo....did the founders not believe in natural rights, or just not have a full commitment to them? There is a difference.

...Did not have a full commitment to them.

 

[CarmelHP]

Riiiiiiight, quoting a post italicizes it all, does it not? If a part become "un" italicized, then that's by design. So why the mix-match text???

Yes, all italicized, just as IT IS in post 35. Stop talking out your hat.

Originally Posted by Kutnupe14
….And now to the juicy stuff.

We are all in agreement that registration is a bad thing right? I sharethat sentiment, what I’m not exactly sure about, is whether this opinion was sharedby our founding fathers. For instance, in order to make sure that citizenry was abiding by the Militia Act of 1792, door to door surveys were conducted of andarms cataloged and documented.

Militia regulations were the most common form of laws pertaining to firearms. Such laws could be quite intrusive, allowinggovernment not only to keep track of who had firearms, but requiring them toreport for a muster or face stiff penalties. Regulations governing the storageof gun powder were also common." States prohibited the use of firearms oncertain occasions and in certain locations.

(FordhamLaw Review pg 505 Vol 73, Issue 2:3)

Yes,you read that right, early American law allowed for the government to come toyour home, and compel a resident to “declare” the firearms they had in their possession.This was occurring prior to 1792, but was enacted into law that year. 1787,that’s when the Constitution was written, 1792, 5 years later. Are we to believe that the noble ideas set forth in “most” of the Constitution, were disregarded a paltry 5 years later? Or are we to believe that our, still living, founders had no issue with suchpractices? And what of these “new” Americans, after fighting a war against tyranny does one believe that they would allow themselves to have their “natural rights” infringed upon again? Or perhaps, maybe they did not believe that thiswas tyranny, at all, nor that their rights were being infringed upon.

The funny thing is that “I” would view ANY of these actions as an infringement. Iwould not allow the government to catalog my firearms. I would not allow them to conscript me into an army. I would not allow them take my possessions, as atax in lieu of military service. I have always been part of the so called “gun culture,” and am not old enough to have seen America in any different way. However, the more I research about the laws our Founding Father’s set forth, and how they we’re observed, in practice, the more I am inclined to believe that the “rights” we call “natural” haven’t always been considered as such.

Anyone else can try quoting the same post of yours to see if it formats any different. This is not rocket science. Even IF something had been changed, which it was not, how would that have made your assertions more true? You now claim that you didn't base it on the Fordham article and the Militia Act certainly doesn't support it, so where did the assertion that government agents came to everyone's houses to enforce gun registration come from?

 

[mikedippert]

I subscribe to the belief that no living thing anywhere has a right to anything. Existing is not the sole requirement for entitlement. Rights are a man-made concept. Man, and man alone determines who has what rights or entitlements.
If they were a fact of life (like the speed of light), they couldn't be denied. The USA, N. Korea, and ancient Egypt would have the same basic rights for 100% of its people.

I know my belief is extreme, but it is just another unprovable opinion.

To keep with the original topic, I think the FF made sacrafices for the greater good. Leaving future generations to figure out (or screw up) the rest.