Only One is Needed

[Amianthus]

But these exist only in the here and now. "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." We do? Why? Who died and made John Locke a god?

Many animals also seem to have an inate concept of private ownership. So, it does seem to be "self-evident."

[domer]

In an abstract metaphysical discussion (concerning being and essence) or an abstract epistemological discussion (concerning the nature of truth), inalienable rights might well be posited and successfully defended. On the other hand, in the day-to-day world of life and action, a positivistic approach is much more descriptive, that is, that which can be empirically verified (implicating the philosophy of science) in the stark light of existence (existentialism). As a working lawyer, moreover, I am acutely aware that one's rights extend only so far as inattention or recognition by the law-making branches of government allow. l

[Universe Prince]

I think the nature of rights exists within the minds of man. I don't believe we are endowed with any fundamental or inalienable rights. Nor do I believe that it necessarily depends upon the whims of society (though it could if one's government was set up in such a way).

So, in your opinion, rights are merely abstract concepts? I am curious as to how that does not leave rights as merely what society says they are (which, in my opinion, would mean they are privileges and not rights).

So, for example the idea that the right to one's property is the building block of other rights and is a fundamental right is, to me, just an abstract notion to support one's own political philosophy.

So, the philosophy requires the notion of property rights to prop it up and is not built upon a foundation of property rights? Or am I misunderstanding?

Prime Minister Thatcher was an avid believer in exactly the same thing and once said that any Conservative who didn't believe in the fundamental right to own property should leave the party.

Not that I agree with Thatcher's sentiment, but the idea of property rights as fundamental indicates to me that it was, to Thatcher, a building block and not a prop.

But these exist only in the here and now. "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." We do? Why? Who died and made John Locke a god?

Well you may not hold those truths as self-evident, but the people signed the document apparently did. Though I'm pretty sure the inclusion of the word 'Creator' in that document did not mean John Locke. But you say these rights exist only in the here and now. Why? Recognizing them may be relatively recent in human history, but that doesn't mean they did not exist before John Locke or the seventeenth century or whatever marker you like of the beginning of the ideas of rights and natural law and all that jazz.

Now, as a faithful follower of Christ, the only real "right" I can consider truly inalienable is the right to choose whether or not to accept or deny the Holy Spirit. There are consequences to living with that choice but to my knowledge none of them force me to accept those "truths to be self-evident." 

I would certainly feel more comfortable responding to that if I had some clarification on what you mean. I think you've mentioned being Catholic before, and so I'm thinking this may be a point of semantic or possibly theological difference from what I am used to encountering in the Protestant side of Christianity. I think I know what you mean, but I would like to be sure.

[Universe Prince]

From my perspective, Domer, I would correct you to say that one's liberty extends only so far as inattention or recognition by the law-making branches of government allow. The liberty to exercise one's rights being not the same as the rights themselves.

[_JS]

So, in your opinion, rights are merely abstract concepts? I am curious as to how that does not leave rights as merely what society says they are (which, in my opinion, would mean they are privileges and not rights).

Yes, rights are abstract concepts. That doesn't mean they are unimportant, but I don't see them as fundamental or anything upon which to build a political philosophy. They may be left up to the whims of society (as often happens in a democracy) or left up to a monarch, dictator, oligarchy, corporations, state police, the military (as we see in Iraq).

So, the philosophy requires the notion of property rights to prop it up and is not built upon a foundation of property rights? Or am I misunderstanding?

Some political philosophies require property rights to be their fundamental starting point, but it is (in my opinion) an abstract point of origin.

Not that I agree with Thatcher's sentiment, but the idea of property rights as fundamental indicates to me that it was, to Thatcher, a building block and not a prop.

I'm not saying that it is a "prop," but there is no clear reason for it to be a starting point for one's political philosophy (or any philosophy). In fact the entire concept of rights as inalienable does not necessarily follow as an ideological starting point. To me, and again you asked me what I think, it smacks of utopianism.

Well you may not hold those truths as self-evident, but the people signed the document apparently did.

I don't disagree with that. Yet, the phrase "we find these truths to be self-evident" is the intellectual equivalent of "because I said so." There's no more inherent truth to the founding father's statement of these "truths" than to Louis XVI's belief that he inherited a divine right to be King and therefore impose his will upon the people of France. That was just as "self-evident" to the French monarchy and the aristocrats of Europe.

But you say these rights exist only in the here and now. Why? Recognizing them may be relatively recent in human history, but that doesn't mean they did not exist before John Locke or the seventeenth century or whatever marker you like of the beginning of the ideas of rights and natural law and all that jazz.

Because only then did the lower classes begin to fight for these "rights." Only in recent history did these abstract notions become reality through various means of overthrowing existing social order. In Britain it was through Parliament and the development of Trades Unions and the rise of the Liberal and Labour Parties. In the United States it was a long transition of the American Revolution, the Civil War, Civil Rights, etc. France had the French Revolution and numerous subsequent riots and revolutions including 1968. It is an ongoing process that is maleable and ever-changing, but not stale and constant as Locke or Madison insinuated.

I would certainly feel more comfortable responding to that if I had some clarification on what you mean. I think you've mentioned being Catholic before, and so I'm thinking this may be a point of semantic or possibly theological difference from what I am used to encountering in the Protestant side of Christianity. I think I know what you mean, but I would like to be sure.

It is reference to the one unpardonable sin. True, I drifted into theology, but we can be assured that this is constant and never-changing. Christ indicated that this sin is so grave as to be unpardonable, even in His supernatural mercy. Therefore we can assume that here there must be a choice, a "right" to decide whether to accept the Divine Paraclete or not.

[_JS]

Did I answer the question UP?

I had another for you as well.

[Universe Prince]

Did I answer the question UP?

I had another for you as well.

Yes. I apologize for not getting back to this sooner. I've been staying out of conversations here for a few days because I feel like I might say something mean, even though I really am a nice guy. And I had put your post on the back burner so I could let it simmer, so to speak.

Please, by all means, ask another question.

[_JS]

Apologies, I certainly did not respond with any intention of ill-will. I sincerely apologise if that was the result.

My question is what do Libertarians think and what would they do with traditionally nomadic people such as the Roma? These folks are generally not wealthy enough to purchase land, but have a long history of travelling and setting up camps on open land. Would they still have that right? Would a Libertarian government provide some sort of designated sites for them, or would private land-owners be expected to meet that need?

Or, would the Roma be expected to simply acclimate themselves to a modern, capitalist lifestyle?

[Plane]

Apologies, I certainly did not respond with any intention of ill-will. I sincerely apologise if that was the result.

My question is what do Libertarians think and what would they do with traditionally nomadic people such as the Roma? These folks are generally not wealthy enough to purchase land, but have a long history of travelling and setting up camps on open land. Would they still have that right? Would a Libertarian government provide some sort of designated sites for them, or would private land-owners be expected to meet that need?

Or, would the Roma be expected to simply acclimate themselves to a modern, capitalist lifestyle?

As the world continues to grow more crouded , all the worlds nomadic peoples are finding more fenses across their path.

Is there a right to the road or the feild that is needed by nomads?

In the events of the last two centurys one sees that the answer often given is no.

I like this question.

[Universe Prince]

Yes, rights are abstract concepts. That doesn't mean they are unimportant, but I don't see them as fundamental or anything upon which to build a political philosophy.

[...]

I'm not saying that it is a "prop," but there is no clear reason for it to be a starting point for one's political philosophy (or any philosophy). In fact the entire concept of rights as inalienable does not necessarily follow as an ideological starting point. To me, and again you asked me what I think, it smacks of utopianism.

As I try to look at this from your perspective, I think I can see your point, though I don't agree. And I would say that what you are calling utopianism might better be called idealism, which isn't quite the same thing.

Yet, the phrase "we find these truths to be self-evident" is the intellectual equivalent of "because I said so."

That seems unnecessarily harsh. The phrase "we find these truths to be self-evident" seems to me short for "we accept this and we're not going to spend a lot of time and paper writing a philosophical treatise." To equate it to "because I said so" implies that there was something arbitrary to the ideas and complaints in the document. For all of my libertarian cynicism, I don't believe that the Founding Fathers were petulant children. There were serious intellectual reasons behind their decisions, but the Declaration was not the place to explain them all, otherwise it would be a book, and a book is not what was needed.

There's no more inherent truth to the founding father's statement of these "truths" than to Louis XVI's belief that he inherited a divine right to be King and therefore impose his will upon the people of France. That was just as "self-evident" to the French monarchy and the aristocrats of Europe.

That the divine right of kings probably was considered self-evident to some. Lots of things with which we don't agree are considered self-evident, like the supposed need to close the border or the supposed inferiority of non-white races, or other nonsense like that. This does not mean that nothing should be considered self-evident or that saying something is self-evident is necessarily an intellectual crutch.

It is reference to the one unpardonable sin. True, I drifted into theology, but we can be assured that this is constant and never-changing. Christ indicated that this sin is so grave as to be unpardonable, even in His supernatural mercy. Therefore we can assume that here there must be a choice, a "right" to decide whether to accept the Divine Paraclete or not.

I do not see the logic of that at all. But that is a theological discussion that perhaps we can have another time.

[Plane]

"..........We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ..........."

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

"Self evident" is language suggested by Benjaman Franklin , a scientist.

To a scientist "self evident" has specific meaning , that is , that no proof is needed.

This is the status of statements known as axioms, such things as; a=a or that a number is equal to itself.

Such axioms are starting points to proofs  of ideas that are more complex and do require proofs .

To prove a mathmatical idea it true one might show in argument that the idea is true because an accepted axiom is violated if the idea in question is not applied.


As an instance , it is proved that one may not divide by zero by showing that if one does devide by zero one can with no other mistake create an equasion in which a=a is violated.


That some rights are unalienable seems self evident to me , short this idea and you come to the rediculous notion that no abridgement of rights by law coould be wrong.

[Universe Prince]

Apologies, I certainly did not respond with any intention of ill-will. I sincerely apologise if that was the result.

When I said I've been staying out of conversations here for a few days because I feel like I might say something mean, I did not mean to you. I meant I've been staying away from conversations here in general. Sometimes I get into a mood for ranting and railing, and I just have to cool it for a while. By putting your post on the back burner to simmer, I just meant that I wanted to think about it for a while. We're cool, JS. We're frosty.

My question is what do Libertarians think and what would they do with traditionally nomadic people such as the Roma? These folks are generally not wealthy enough to purchase land, but have a long history of travelling and setting up camps on open land. Would they still have that right? Would a Libertarian government provide some sort of designated sites for them, or would private land-owners be expected to meet that need?

Or, would the Roma be expected to simply acclimate themselves to a modern, capitalist lifestyle?

Well, some minarchist libertarians might have a government solution, but anarchist libertarians would probably say that it would be left up to private land owners. No one would force the Roma to stop traveling, but private land owners would be the ones deciding whether to allow Roma or other migratory folks to stop and camp on privately owned land. Probably there the situation in that case would that some land owners would allow it and some would not, and there would be land marks or signs of some sort that would let people know about this. Many minarchist libertarians would probably also go along with leaving it up to private land owners, but some would possibly also go along with government setting land aside, if it became a real issue in terms of protecting people's rights. Your question is really a question with different answers depending on which libertarian you ask.

I suppose I should also add that with roads probably being privately owned in a libertarian anarchist society, how and where the Roma travel could and probably would be affected if for some reason their travel became a real issue, though I'm not sure it would do so. There would likely have to be some sort of reason for an anti-Roma sentiment in society, but I don't know why that would occur in a generally libertarian society.

[_JS]

That seems unnecessarily harsh. The phrase "we find these truths to be self-evident" seems to me short for "we accept this and we're not going to spend a lot of time and paper writing a philosophical treatise." To equate it to "because I said so" implies that there was something arbitrary to the ideas and complaints in the document. For all of my libertarian cynicism, I don't believe that the Founding Fathers were petulant children. There were serious intellectual reasons behind their decisions, but the Declaration was not the place to explain them all, otherwise it would be a book, and a book is not what was needed.

You're probably right. I certainly consider the founding fathers to be exceptionally intelligent individuals, especially Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and Hamilton. They drew a great deal of their philosophical background for this document from John Locke and a few of the French philosophers of the day. Even in 1776 that section of the Declaration of Independence was challenged by those who could see that slavery nullified this notion. The entire text was printed in several British newspapers (despite the alleged tyranny of Britain).

Back to the point though, I tend to look at it for what it was - a call to arms. It was basically a philisophical underpinning to the American Revolution. It was the Communist Manifesto to the 1848 and later Revolutions in Europe. Succesful revolutions often have these philisophical foundations, even when they may not literally be carried out.

Jefferson needed a reason to convince people who had strong ties to Britain, who spoke English, and who were white to separate from the Crown.

This does not mean that nothing should be considered self-evident or that saying something is self-evident is necessarily an intellectual crutch.

No. As Plane stated, A=A is self evident. In linguistics and epistemology there are self-evident truths. Yet, what we have here is a moral argument.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

It is a moral argument, but by no means are the "truths self-evident." Think of it this way. If a propisition is "self-evident" then any reasonable individual should understand it and be unable to offer a legitimate reason to disagree. I think you'll find a great deal of reasonable people who will offer logical reasons why this argument is not self-evident.

That some rights are unalienable seems self evident to me , short this idea and you come to the rediculous notion that no abridgement of rights by law coould be wrong.

That's not true. Your leaping to a conclusion Plane. The members of a democracy could certainly find themselves disagreeing with the morality of violating what they perceive to be someone's personal liberties without those liberties being unalienable rights.

[_JS]

There would likely have to be some sort of reason for an anti-Roma sentiment in society, but I don't know why that would occur in a generally libertarian society.

I guess I'm thinking more of a libertarian society in Britain or Europe, though there are Roma here as well. Generally the Roma are disliked for a variety of reasons by mainstream society. Persecution of the Roma (called Antiziganism for anyone who cares to know) is as old as the persecution of the Jews. We find some of it in our modern day lexicon (i.e. to be "gypped" is to be "ripped off." referencing the stereotype of Gypsies as peddlers and con-artists).

The plight of the Roma has been a major ordeal in Europe. If you think Hitler found a lot of willing participants in helping to round up Jews for the death camps (and he did) he very likely found many more willing to hunt down the Roma. Stalin chose to simply force them to assimilate into the sedentary industrial life of the Soviet state. Those who did not were ruthlessly suppressed. Today many people dislike the Roma because they are afforded a protected status as a minority group.

In Britain they tend to illegally camp on private land. There are designated camps provided by local councils, but many avoid designated camps because if you think about it, a designated campsite is a way of containing them and giving bigots a place on a map to go demonstrate their outrage.

On the other hand the Roma do sometimes leave trash and sewage on the private land. They do commit petty theft and run con games (there are parts of Majorca where having your wallet lifted is part of the "tourist" experience). As a general rule in many parts of Europe, if you're in a large crowd be very cautious of little girls selling flowers or other such things.

They also buck traditional society. Their children are often undereducated and sometimes malnourished. They sometimes refuse to go to clinics or seek medical attention even if it is free. They distrust society and society distrusts them.

I guess from my view, I'd not expect much of that to change in a libertarian society. The Roma certainly won't change their views that have lasted for centuries. They don't really see land as something to be owned privately. They would still desire to live their nomadic lifestyle. If anything, I would expect Libertarians to hold private property rights more dear and be more likely to oppose people who did not respect such institutions.

Though I freely admit that I am making that assumption without full knowledge (which is why I asked you). As Plane stated, there may not be a very good solution as nomadic cultures have been forced to leave their lifestyles over the last few centuries.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is not self-evident that all men are equal. I seriouwsly doubt if any two men have EVER been equal.

If it were true, then any one of us could replace any player in the NBA, the NFL, or any other sporting league. We could all be Lance Armstrong, or Barry Bonds, or Donald Trump.

Any woman could be Oprah, or Hillary, or Paris Hilton.

=================================================
The idea that all are equal before the law (as opposed to kings, nobility or clergy having special privileges is not self-ev8ident, either, but it is a good start for a fair society.