I have clearly and explicitly stated the exact opposite of the belief you attribute to me, which is not implied or necessary as a premise for anything I have said. In the interests of civility, I will refrain from further comment.

The powers of government are written in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, those powers do not include government involvement in healthcare. Article 1 Sec 8 enumerates the limited powers of government.

The rights of the people are partially enumerated in the Bill of Rights. What the 9th Amendment does is make clear that this is not a complete list of rights retained by the people.

Of course there is the general welfare clause...do I need to cite Federalist Paper #41 again.

Federal involvement in healthcare is unconstitutional. Attack the Constitution and you attack what guarantees our rights.

If someone can explain to me why there is a right to health care in the Constitution I would appreciate it greatly. I got a couple bills I could send to Uncle Sam. I hope veterinarian services are also a right, I got a big bill to pay there also.

Nobody's attacking the constitution, Hugo. Some people just interpret it a little differently than you do. Trying to paint anyone who disagrees as anti-American, anti-freedom, etc. just isn't very constructive.

Platypus:

You said the following in response to the remark that healthcare was not an enumerated power in the Constitution:

Given the context, I have to take this to mean that you are arguing that healthcare is a right and as such must be protected by the government. What I meant by what I said is that the idea that healthcare is a right is unfounded as it isn't so much a right as it is an obligation placed upon someone else and as such is rather arbitrary much in the way anyone can claim a right to any thing they want. Just because somebody decided to label healthcare a "right" doesn't make it so and therefore does not bring it under the protection of the 9th Amendment. So by accepting healthcare as a right, you might as well accept any arbitrary claim. If however you have some kind of criteria that leads you to accept healthcare as a right in a non-arbitrary way, then I'd be very interested to hear what it is.



Hugo:

I think I know what Platypus is going to say to this. He's going to say that whether it's an enumerated power or not, the government is obliged to get involved anyway as it is an unenumerated right according to the 9th Amendment.

One way this line of argument can be answered is that first, the Constitution deals with political rights -- not social rights. Second, most of those political rights (and in a way, all of them) are what are called "negative rights". That is, freedom FROM some kind of proactive interference in one's life. A right to healthcare is an "affirmative right" which asserts a right TO something. Sometimes affirmative rights can be worded to sound like negative rights, but when they are, they usually still lack the component of a proactive interference. For example, one could phrase it that healthcare is a right to be free FROM health problems. But health problems aren't a proactive interference in one's life, they are passive and natural. In addition, even with the best healthcare possible, there is no way to guarantee you will be free from problems.

I think this concept of affirmative rights versus negative rights is an important one to master as I think it is usually very correlative to the burdens a rights claim may place on someone else. Negative rights normally place no obligations at all, but affirmative rights, almost by their very nature, place some kind of burden on someone else to provide whatever it is that's being demanded.



Platypus:

I'm not clear on whether you believe this or not, but there is a right way and a wrong way to interpret the Constitution. Original intent, among other things, is one of the vital mechanisms by which we can properly interpret the meaning of the Constitution. You'd be hard pressed to find one of the framers of the Constitution who was in favor of government (much less federal government) funding and control of healthcare and you'll find plenty of statements against such. Therefore there's very little room to argue that the Constitution, as written and intended by its authors, allows for government funding and control of healthcare.

Yes, I did, but I was making a general point in accord with the debate topic. Nothing I said was specific to the health-care issue, which has its own thread.



No, you don't have to at all. You chose to.



Stop guessing, or making stuff up. May I speak for myself? Please?

Edited to retain what little civility is still possible under the circumstances.

You'd be hard pressed to find any of the framers expressing ANY opinion. They've all been dead for a very long time.

But you accidentally make an interesting point. (This is to the subject or RIGHTS, not health-care in particular.) You speak of intent. The second you consider material incidental to the actual text of the constitution you leave it open to translation. How can you accept a literal translation of a document on one hand and at the same time look at vagaries like "intent?" I mentioned this before but you shut me out so let me repeat a scenario for consideration. This is based on the U.S. Supreme Court decisions Olmstead vs. US.

Now ignoring for a moment (and please actually do this so we can continue the discussion productively) whether or not you feel the government has the authority to conduct wire taps for the moment. During the height of prohibition and the emergence of Organized Crime the government frequently engaged in wiretaps that originated from public phone lines (not in the home targetted) and didn't require warrants. A conviction based on evidence from these taps was brought to the Supreme Court has a 4th amendment violation. In the eventual ruling Chief Justice Taft (the rotund ex-President) ruled that the wiretaps were not unconstitutional because there was no TRESPASS involved in acquiring the evidence. For those not familiar with the 4th amendment:



Now since the FBI hadn't violated the home of the individual, nor their person or any property, Taft ruled that there was no violation of the individuals rights. In essence, the technology of the 1920's had overcome the protections that were INTENDED by the framers. Now you say that Intent is important. It is for this very reason that Olmstead was overturned in Katz vs. US decades later. Do you see my point?

Of course he does. However, he shouldn't be surprised if the others do force him to do it.

On the larger scale, this point is moot, because no one is forced to be an educator or a doctor. Just like no one is forced to be a police officer.

I object to having my tax money spent on such a huge military. Now hold on - I know what you're going to say. Hear me out. To me, it is a stretch to conclude that the mandate of defense includes nuclear missiles, laser shields, B2 bombers, et cetera. Yet I am forced to accept that particular interpretation of our rights. I don't think the extension of self-defense to include SWAT teams and officers with uzis is the way I would interpret it. Yet that's too bad. I don't spend a lot of "sour grapes" energy on it.

The other side of that coin is closer to your position. You are being forced to accept other people's interpretations of how our individual rights get extended into the societal realm.

So we both pay taxes, and we disagree with how certain of that tax money is spent. OK. The problem I'm seeing most in this thread, and perhaps it is unintentional, is this:

On the "libertarian" side I'm hearing an awful lot of very narrow black/white thinking, which is getting people pretty riled up. Phrases which are condescending, and which don't respect the possibility that other people, just as smart as you, have thought deeply and come to different conclusions. Phrases like "where you're confused is..." "you are incorrect..." "you don't understand...". Because we are debating general principles, we do have different, and yet equally valid positions. No one is "incorrect." There is not some book of rights written in the stars to which we can refer. This issue has been hotly debated by philosophers for centuries. Instead of being so contentious, this thread could be really good. Because we could be searching together for answers and ideas. Instead, I feel like some people in this debate have come with certain ideas etched in stone, and seek only to edify the rest of us, god forbid we get it "wrong." So this turns into stone-throwing, and it doesn't make the debate as interesting to me. So I guess I'm just making a plea that all of us remember that we are debating an issue about which there is no correct answer. We are not referring to a source which is definitive and unquestionably authoritative. We don't have to agree, but I also don't think that all of our positions are as far apart as this debate is making it seem.

And what happens when not enough people want to be police officers?


No it can't. At least not in today's society, by your standards. If tomorrow, every member of the police force quit, and went to work at McDonald's because they got paid better, what happens to their rights to satisfy your claimed right?


Orat, now who is determining what a right is? You say that the majority will is insufficient to determine the rights of individuals, and then you proclaim the right of a police force all by yourself, a fiat of one.....

If self defense is an inalienable right, I have the right to defend myself and my property. I also have the right to hire others to provide that defense for me, if I can convince them to work for what I am willing to pay. I do not have the right to compel others to pay for my security, even if they get the same benefits, at the same cost. And I do not get to compel others to work without compensation. All of these are your assertions.

So, why again, a police department? If you want your stuff protected why you're off to work or whatever, hire your own, private security, and quit stealing from me. I'll protect my own, thanks.

Let me give my quote with the qualifying sentence before it.



People are claiming that healthcare is a right despite it not being a power designated to the government. If they are claiming everyone has a right to seek out healthcare they are correct. If they are claiming that the federal government must supply everyone with healthcare they are attempting to expand the powers of the federal government beyond what was constitutional. I do use the past tense was. The Constitution has been under attack for a long time. The purposeful misconstruing of the general welfare clause is an attack on the Constitution. Let me add, in the spirit of civility,IMO.



You raise salaries until supply equals demand.

In the spirit of compromise, Article 1 sec 10

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.


No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.


No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
(end of Article 1 Sec 10)

There is nothing in the Constitution preventing states and localities from initiating healthcare, education, etc. In fact education has been a function of local government since pre-colonial times. The federal government is limited to the powers in Article 1 Sec 8. Also the reason men leave the state of nature and enter into a social contract is to protect themselves from internal and external aggressors. A rampant contagious disease, such as cholera, typhoid, Aids, etc. can be looked upon as an aggressive enemy that government has, not just a right, but a duty, to defend against

Quarkhead, I am sympathetic to your call for civility in this debate. I do want to point out that often opposing views come across as "condescending" just because they are indeed opposing.

I actually think we are engaged in a pursuit of the "right answer", at least I can say that I am personally. It makes sense for those of us with strong views to assert them confidently. I think this is happening on all sides in this thread.

Here's some stuff that was said by the "non-libertarians" that could easily be construed as, in your words: "Phrases which are condescending, and which don't respect the possibility that other people, just as smart as you, have thought deeply and come to different conclusions. "



My point is that, in my humble opinion, anyone who is getting riled up should chill out and realize that this is simply the nature of debate. There is no reason to get upset if someone says something you don't agree with, regardless of whether you sense a condescending tone. Just come back with your argument. That's why we're here, right?

Getting back to the content, I want to make a couple of points...

1: I suggest that all the talk about the Constitution is out of place in this debate, unless you believe that the constitution grants us our rights or defines our rights. I believe that our rights exist whether or not we have a constitution. They exist anywhere and everywhere for all people at all times. (of course through most of history, for most people, they have been continously violated by others, but they were still "rights"). I'd be interested to hear if others agree with this.

2: I suggest that all the talk about what powers government should or should not have is off topic for the same reason. Any power we give to government is an infringement of our rights.

I'm guessing that Orat and Hugo would disagree with me here, but I think that the "non-libertarians" are pointing out a valid contradiction in the argument that public healthcare is "rights-violating" but public policing is not. Both of these require taking from group A to benefit group B. That is the nature of everything government does. Someone has to pay for anything government does, and theoretically at least, someone benefits. In my opinion, the better job we do of making A and B overlap, the better off we are, but regardless, there will always be those who pay for more than they benefit from and those who benefit more than they pay for. Government is basically a big contract we make with each other that we will pool our resources for some common goals. But we don't get to individually sign up or opt out of that contract, at least not if we choose to live in this country. So it is to some extent an involuntary contract, with the terms decided by a political process.

To illustrate my point, public policing can be attacked with exactly the same line of reasoning that is used to attack public healthcare: I do not have a right to take your money to pay for my protection, so I can not delegate that power to the government.

I don't think that libertarians can "have their cake and eat it too" by stating that some redistribution is "rights-violating" while other forms aren't. Unless we are given the option to opt out as individuals, then everything the government does violates the rights of everyone who contributes. This is not to say that everyone objects to this violation of their rights. I, for one, am okay with the fact that government violates my rights by compelling me to contribute to the defense of this country from foreign invaders. Like quarkhead, I object to the specific way in which this is carried out. The fact that my money (which I am compelled to pay) is being spent in ways that I disapprove of, even under the auspices of national defense, is indeed a violation of my rights.

This is at the root of why some of us refer to government as a "necessary evil". It is why I favor several things:

First, keep government on a very short leash - that is limit it's power to things that can only really be done by government, and things for which group A (the payers) overlap very nearly with group B (the beneficiaries). And second, handle anything government does at as local a level as possible.

So, some of you might find this a refeshing statement, but I decidedly do not see what is "legitimate" or "illegitimate" for government to do as a black and white issue at all.

But none of this really has to do with the thread topic of what is and is not a right.

To finally get back to that topic, I want to ask Quarkhead a follow-up question, which I hope you accept in the spirit of honest debate. I asked, and you answered:





My followup question is:

Do the others have a right to force him to do it?

Platypus:
[quote]Yes, I did, but I was making a general point in accord with the debate topic. Nothing I said was specific to the health-care issue, which has its own thread.
[/quote]
You can say that all you want, but your statement in question was directed at a statement by Hugo about healthcare not being an enumerated power. Given the context it is an obvious conclusion to accept that your statement was directed toward that subject since that was the statement to which you were responding. If you had wanted your statement to appear more general in nature, you should have made that more clear.



Ultimatejoe:
[quote]You'd be hard pressed to find any of the framers expressing ANY opinion. They've all been dead for a very long time.[/quote]
Surely this is not a serious reply?

[quote]In essence, the technology of the 1920's had overcome the protections that were INTENDED by the framers. Now you say that Intent is important. It is for this very reason that Olmstead was overturned in Katz vs. US decades later. Do you see my point?[/quote]
Yes, I see your point. And this is with regard to situations of a nature that could not have been anticipated by the framers. In such cases we are forced to discern the original intent of the writers of the law. In other cases, sometimes words have lost their meaning over the last 225 years and again the original intent of the words must be applied. For instance, "militia" means something very different today than it did when the Constitution was written. So I do accept literal translations of the Constitution where such translations are possible. Where the meaning is less specific and more ambiguous, or where the words' meanings have been altered by time, or where the circumstances could not have been anticipated, original intent must be taken into account when applying the law. I don't think we disagree here.



quarkhead:
[quote]Of course he does. However, he shouldn't be surprised if the others do force him to do it.
[/quote]
I'm getting mixed signals here. Does that mean that it is "okay" if they force him? Or would you agree that they're violating his rights if they do?

[quote]I object to having my tax money spent on such a huge military.[/quote]
While I don't think it's practical to do without a decent standing military today, honesty compells me to point out that the Founders did not regard a standing army to be a healthy thing for liberty. Even Madison, an advocate of a standing army, admitted as much. That's why appropriations for the army were limited by the Constitution to not have effect for no more than 2 years.

[quote]Because we are debating general principles, we do have different, and yet equally valid positions. No one is "incorrect."
...
So I guess I'm just making a plea that all of us remember that we are debating an issue about which there is no correct answer.[/quote]
Sorry, but I have to respectfully dissagree as I do not accept this kind of thinking. At LEAST one of us has to be incorrect. Possibly all of us. But it is impossible for people with opposite positions to both be correct and for both positions to be "valid". (By "valid" I assume you mean accurate and/or correct.) To say that both can be correct implies that there is not truth or no correct position. If there is no correct answer, then why debate? Why even care?



NiteGuy:
[quote]And what happens when not enough people want to be police officers?
[/quote]
Then we're left to defend ourselves (thank goodness we have a right to keep and bear arms ).

[quote]No it can't. At least not in today's society, by your standards. If tomorrow, every member of the police force quit, and went to work at McDonald's because they got paid better, what happens to their rights to satisfy your claimed right?[/quote]
Nothing.

[quote]I do not have the right to compel others to pay for my security, even if they get the same benefits, at the same cost. And I do not get to compel others to work without compensation. All of these are your assertions.[/quote]
Actually, they are not. While I have not delved into the details of my personal political philosophy, I will reveal here that I do think that citizenship, and all the duties that title carries with it (such as paying for police and military), should be a voluntary status accepted by each individual. While I don't agree 100% with him, you can find a very detailed description of a close approximation to what I'm describing at www.joelskousen.com.



Hugo:
[quote]The purposeful misconstruing of the general welfare clause is an attack on the Constitution. Let me add, in the spirit of civility,IMO.
[/quote]
First let me add that the Interstate Commerce clause is yet another tool used to pry the Constitution from its original intent. Second, let me say that it is not just your opinion as you politely state. It was also the opinion of Madison as he clearly stated in The Federalist. And similar opinions can be seen in the writings of other framers. So don't be afraid to be honest, Hugo, it's not just your opinion, it is historical fact. Don't let them intimidate you with relativism, stand by what you know to be true.



PrismPaul:
[quote]They exist anywhere and everywhere for all people at all times. (of course through most of history, for most people, they have been continously violated by others, but they were still "rights"). I'd be interested to hear if others agree with this.[/quote]
Count me in.

[quote]2: I suggest that all the talk about what powers government should or should not have is off topic for the same reason. Any power we give to government is an infringement of our rights.

I'm guessing that Orat and Hugo would disagree with me here, but I think that the "non-libertarians" are pointing out a valid contradiction in the argument that public healthcare is "rights-violating" but public policing is not.[/quote]
Actually, see my above reply to NiteGuy.

Of course the idea that there may be no natural rights has not been hashed out. From Bentham's Anarchical Fallacies:

1. That there are such things as rights anterior to the establishment of governments: for natural, as applied to rights, if it mean anything, is meant to stand in opposition to legal -- to such rights as are acknowledged to owe their existence to government, and are consequently posterior in their date to the establishment of government.

2. That these rights can not be abrogated by government: for can not is implied in the form of the word imprescriptible, and the sense it wears when so applied, is the cut-throat sense above explained.

3. That the governments that exist derive their origin from formal associations or what are now called conventions: associations entered into by a partnership contract, with all the members for partners, -- entered into at a day prefixed, for a predetermined purpose, the formation of a new government where there was none before (for as to formal meetings holden under the controul of an existing government, they are evidently out of question here) in which it seems again to be implied in the way of inference, though a necessary and an unavoidable inference, that all governments (that is, self-called governments, knots of persons exercising the powers of government) that have had any other origin than an association of the above description, are illegal, that is, no governments at all; resistance to them and subversion of them, lawful and commendable; and so on.
Such are the notions implied in this first part of the article. How stands the truth of things? That there are no such things as natural rights -- no such things as rights anterior to the establishment of government -- no such things as natural rights opposed to, in contradistinction to, legal: that the expression is merely figurative; that when used, in the moment you attempt to give it a literal meaning it leads to error, and to that sort of error that leads to mischief -- to the extremity of mischief.

We know what it is for men to live without government -- and living without government, to live without rights: we know what it is for men to live without government, for we see instances of such a way of life -- we see it in many savage nations, or rather races of mankind; for instance, among the savages of New South Wales, whose way of living is so well known to us: no habit of obedience, and thence no government -- no government, and thence no laws -- no laws, and thence no such things as rights -- no security -- no property: --liberty, as against regular controul, the controul of laws and government --perfect; but as against all irregular controul, the mandates of stronger individuals, none. In this state, at a time earlier than the commencement of historv -- in this same state, judging from analogy, we the inhabitants of the part of the globe we call Europe, were; -- no government, consequently no rights: no rights, consequently no property -- no legal security -- no legal liberty: security not more than belongs to beasts -- forecast and sense of insecurity keener -- consequently in point of happiness below the level of the brutal race.

In proportion to the want of happiness resulting from the want of rights, a reason exists for wishing that there were such things as rights. But reasons for wishing there were such things as rights, are not rights; -- a reason for wishing that a certain right were established, is not that right -- want is not supply -- hunger is not bread.

That which has no existence cannot be destroyed -- that which cannot be destroyed cannot require anything to preserve it from destruction. Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonscnse, -- nonsense upon stilts. But this rhetorical nonsense ends in the old strain of mischievous nonsense for immediately a list of these pretended natural rights is given, and those are so expressed as to present to view legal rights. And of these rights, whatever they are, there is not, it seems, any one of which any government can, upon any occasion whatever, abrogate the smallest particle. (end of quote)

You can only argue the Constitution is irrelevant to this debate if you accept that there are natural rights. If there are no natural rights than the Constitution is the supreme law. Our founding father's were highly influenced by Locke and his theories. They did attempt to establish the protection of what they saw as natural rights in our Constitution. They were severely hampered by the issue of slavery.




Ok, Orat, IMO it is a fact. Unfortunately, since FDR's attempt at packing the court, a majority of the USSC has consistently not recognized this fact.

I think what Bentham observes in an anarchic state as being the absence of rights coincident with the absence of government is actually merely the de facto absence of rights. Or rather, an insecurity of rights. I think here lies a difference in understanding of the term "rights".

In one way of thinking, a "right" is, for all intents and purposes, synonymous with a "privilege". Therefore, a statement of such a "right" is in no way absolute and has been granted by some external source. Therefore, in principle, even slavery can be thought to be acceptable provided criteria are met to qualify or disqualify the necessary "privileges" or "rights". Under such a definition, nothing, in principle, can be thought to be absolutely "wrong" and nobody can be thought to absolutely "deserve" anything - neither material, nor treatment, nor liberty. It is in a passive mode, an answer to the question of “what is?” Indeed, if this is all we had to go on, “rights” would never even be “granted” by anyone as the only concern is for “what is” and never “what ought to be”.

Another concept of a "right" is that which one deserves REGARDLESS of any contrary view. An example would be the belief that slavery, regardless of popular opinion, legislation, or any other thing, is absolutely wrong and impermissible. It is the ethical notion that some things are absolutely “wrong” and that some things (not necessarily material things) are inherently “deserved” by someone. It is in an active mode and serves as the answer to the question “what ought to be?”

I prefer the latter definition as it distinguishes “rights” from “privileges”. With only the first definition, a right is not an answer to what ought to be. But to me, the notion of a right is the most natural way to address the question of what out to be.

Given these two definitions for “rights”, we can clearly see that Bentham’s anarchic illustration only serves to probe the question answered by the first definition: “what is?” It does not, however, address the question of what ought to be. And here is where this approach to an ethical issue fails. Perhaps its failure is due to a failure to recognize it as an ethical issue in the first place? Or perhaps no ethical questions are asked because those asking the questions in this case are nihilists and see no relevance to the field of ethics?

It therefore seems natural to me that if one accepts the notion of ethics, they must also accept the possibility of, if not the need for, natural rights. Becuase the very nature of ethics is the question of what ought to be.

I'd like to reintroduce part of Orat's original question that I don't think has been touched on in this thread and get his input and others...

What is the origin of rights?

I tend to agree with Orat's "what ought to be" vs. "what is" analysis. I think it is a very useful way to think about how the term "rights" is used.

If you go with the "what is" version, then the answer of where rights originate is pretty simple, isn't it? They originate with whoever has the power to enforce them. If the King of Pretendland declares that all men with blond hair and big noses have a right to enslave anyone with red hair and small ears, then "boom!" there's a new right, and it's origin is the King.

Likewise, if the US government decides, through the political process that all people have a right to free health care, then the origin of that right is obvious as well.

But when you start talking about rights in the "what ought to be" context, the question "where do those rights come from?" is far less obvious.

I'll begin by saying I have no idea where they come from, but nevertheless I believe in them. For me, I am willing to accept it as axiomatic that we have natural rights. I guess you could say that I hold them as self-evident truths, to paraphrase the DOI, but I know that sounds pretty weak to someone that doubts their existence in the first place...

I've heard the "they come from God" argument. I agree that this makes sense if you hold to a philosophy that we live in God's creation. But I am troubled by the idea that you have to believe in God to believe in natural rights.

I've heard the non-religious libertarian angle that basically says we have rights because we are able to think and act as individuals. I've never been able to grasp the logical connection there, if there is one.

So, if you believe as I do that we have natural rights as human beings, I'd love to know your thoughts on where they come from.

In response to PrismPaul's re-posing of my initial question regarding the origin of rights, I think that, like the name implies, our rights are a natural result of our existence. Consider:

There are essentially two possible, contradictory assumptions you can make initially:

1 - Humans are free to act as human life consists of action and inaction begets death.

2 - Humans are not free to act.

I accept the first assumption as the alternative makes no sense. If humans are not free to act, then if you accept the premise that humans ought to live, you must accept that there is some external authority that metes out what human action can take place and what action cannot. If no such non-human authority can be found, humans "ought" then to die in inaction and become extinct. If the authority is not found external to the human race, but rather is found to reside in a subset of the human race, such a determination must be completely arbitrary and therefore I would reject it for lack of rational support.

So the only sensible and default position would seem to be to assume that humans are free to act.

From this we must then realize that humanity is comprised of individuals. We can visualize these individuals as bubbles (picture an inflated, spherical balloon) containing a fluid (or air) of a certain pressure representing the power each individual enjoys over his external environment (natural rights, whatever they may be). The pressure in and volume of each individual (bubble) is equal as there can be no rational basis to assume one individual has more rightful power over things than another.

Now if these bubbles are suspended in the open air (ignore gravity for purposes of illustration), they will form a symmetrical sphere extending in all directions. This is their "sphere of power" so to speak. Now if you place a large number of these bubbles in a container together such that they all touch and rest against each other, they will all reach equilibrium so that they all have exactly the same distance from their centers (selves) to the centers of the bubbles adjacent to them. There may be some minor compressions where the bubbles contact one another, but the equality of internal pressures keeps all bubbles equidistant. The compressions represent those places where individual power must mutually yield to the same power of another individual so that neither extends across the border of the other.

This is how I visualize the interactions of individual rights when individuals exist together in a society – rights are only “compressed” where absolutely and naturally necessary to recognize the same rights of others.

Now of course this analogy is not comprehensive and therefore only serves the purpose of a visual aid to me.

So now that we have visualized these individuals, bearing in mind that the bubbles represent each individual’s “ought to be” natural rights, we see that their native state by themselves is modified only by the equal pressures (rights) of the others surrounding it. No part of the individual’s “bubble” must be surrendered to another bubble thus adding to it, etc. So if their native state when apart from others is freedom to act, then that initial state is only modified by the same freedoms of others to act. It is the natural process whereby the “pressure” of freedom inherent in each unit (individual) reaches equilibrium with the others surrounding it. In this model, no bubble can expand at the expense of other bubbles. No part of one bubble’s volume can be reallocated to another bubble. Note I am not using the volume of a bubble to represent wealth, influence, or any such thing, but merely rights to act and to not be acted upon.

Now to deny the inherent freedom of each unit is to refute the initial assumption that humans are free to act, which conversely asserts the second assumption that humans are not free to act.

Whether you like or dislike the bubble visualization, given the initial assumption that humans are free to act, the reduction of this assumption is a natural progression of logic. Any other, more asymmetrical, model of the distribution of rights seems to me to be arbitrary on its face.

Orat: I understand your bubble analogy, and it seems like a reasonable and useful way to illustrate how natural rights must be the same for everyone.

But regarding your construction of why we have rights in the first place, let me modify your reasoning, then tell me what's wrong with this.



So would you say that chipmunks have the same natural rights that humans do?

Among chipmonks, yes. The reason your alteration of the axiom does not negate its relevance to humans and does not elevate a chipmonk to a point of sharing "right space" with humans is that chipmonks are on a different level than humans and do not occupy or share the same "right space".

Okay, I've just made a statement that I have not yet endeavored to qualify or support, so I shall do this now:

I believe that chipmonks do not share the same "right space" because of two reasons:

1 - Chipmonks lack the same reasoning faculties possessed by humans and have demonstrated no desire to pursue the fields of ethics and therefore have no competing claims with Man as to the prerogative of establishing moral equivelancy with Man.

2 - We are all humans and so far as we can discern, we are the only species yet to have developed a capacity for ethical and moral thought. It cannot be objectively stated that morality exists apart from Mankind since nature in its normal state exhibits no propensity towards anything Mankind can recognize as morality. Therefore, as far as Mankind is able to determine objectively, Mankind is left to be the sole judge of what is moral, just as it is left to Mankind to judge what is beautiful. Morality, just like beauty, is something that, as far as we can tell, only has meaning to Mankind.

Given the two points above, I must conclude that it is the prerogative of Man to determine that chipmonks do not exist on the same political plane as Man.