What exactly are "rights"? Of what do they consist? From where do they originate? Are they inalienable? Are they universal? Who should decide what they are, who has them, etc? Essentially, what do you think rights are?

I've had people tell me that rights are neither universal nor absolute. That it is society that decides what rights are and that rights can change with time. However, something seems wrong to me with this statement. If rights are not universal or absolute, then from where does "society" derive the authority to decide what rights are? There must be some root source of rights.

Also, if rights are not universal nor absolute, then isn't that more appropriately called a privilege? Is it not accurately termed a privilege when something is granted to you by someone else and can be revoked by the same authority? Isn't the very concept of a "right" something that you deserve and to which you are entitled regardless of how others may try to stop you? If enough people wish to deprive you of a right, can that alone cancel that right? Or is a right something that you have no matter what people think?

What do you think?

This is a very important question.

It seems to me that it is impossible to avoid some degree of human judgment on what one's "rights" might or might not be. Even if one believes that such "rights" have been established by a supernatural force which cannot be questioned, it is inevitable that there will be debate about these rights anyway.

To use a concrete example: If one accepts literally the Constitution of the United States that the rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" have been established by a Creator, there will still be very serious debate about these rights. I doubt that very many people think that each person has a right to perfect "liberty" with no restrictions of behavior whatsoever, for example. Some people think the right to "life" makes all forms of war and capital punishment unacceptable, others do not.

To sum up: Even if there are such things as absolute rights, humans are unable to perfectly determine exactly what these are. We are forced, therefore, to treat these rights as if they were established by society, even if they are not.

I would suggest that the difference between a "right" and a "privilege" is this: A "right" is what should be allowed to a human being (or, possibly, other animal); it is a moral judgment. A "privilege" is what is allowed to a human being by an external force. I think most of us would agree that people should have the right to have some sort of say in the form of government that rules over them. In the United States, the government has allowed most adults the privilege of exercising this right by voting (and other ways.)

Interesting views. Thank you for sharing them with us.


I recognize what you mean, though I would probably put it differently myself. I would say that we should assume that rights (whatever they may be) are natural, primeval, universal, and not granted by any authority. But to then proceed to define these, or even to accept a definition, requires that people, individually, accept this concept. It does ultimately boil down to the acceptance of each person.

But philosophically, I think we should try to define rights outside of society. That is, to make rights absolute and not subject to human alteration.

To me, the most natural statement of rights is that each person should be entirely free to act so long as their action does not infringe on another's rights. Of course, this itself requires further qualification. One could say that by me witholding access to my swimming pool that I am infringing upon their right to swim in my pool. Nevertheless, I believe I would have the right to say who swims in my pool and who does not. After all, it is my pool. My view assumes a right to property, but that isn't adequately implied by a statement of freedom to act.

So perhaps a good definition would be freedom to act and to possess property?

Edited to add:
I think it is vitally important that we adequately define rights before we attempt to govern because the only just role of government is to secure one's rights. After all, government is nothing but force and I can think of no other justifiable use of force than in defense of one's rights. But if rights can change with time and can be granted, revoked, and altered by society or some other authority, then no right is truly secure and thus the entire (and sole) purpose of government has been a failure.

Without fully expounding on my view of the nature and source of rights, I wanted to throw this in for the time being.

A good test for whether or not something is a legitimate right is whether or not it places an obligation on someone else. A valid right does not do this. So-called rights like the "right to health care" or the "right to a living wage" or the "right to an education" do place obligations on others. In effect, if I assert a right to health care, I am saying that some other person is obligated to provide that health care. This makes the health care provider my slave. It violates his right to "refrain from providing health care".

I think much of the confusion about rights stems from a failure to apply this simple test.

Legitimate rights exist without imposing on the rights of others.

Good response, PrismPaul.

Let me ask you this: How would you articulate your position with respect to the follwoing claims of rights?:

The right not to be offended (That is, having a right to not be subject to certain types of criticism)?

The right to no be afraid that someone will shoot you (meaning that your neighbor cannot own a gun because of the danger that it could discharge in your direction)?

The right not to breathe someone else's smoke?

The right to peace and quiet (thus keeping one's neighbors from turning the volume up too high, etc)?

And that's exactly what we tried to do with the writing of the Constitution, as well as the state and local costitutions, statement of rights, etc. Unfortunately, the cost of your rights requires time and effort, more time and effort than most are willing to give these days it seems. And you are correct, government's only role should be the defense of one's rights, but even then, a single individual's right may need to subjugated to the greater good.

That's why we have emminent domain laws. Your right to own property may indeed be inalienable. But society's need for a new water treatment plant, electrical substation, or roadway, where your property sits, may supercede your right to that property. Of course, you should be adequately compensated for the taking of your property, so that you can purchase more in another location.

The biggest problem with this, like all things in law, is that man and money can corrupt these ideals. Emminent domain laws are no longer used exclusively for taking private property for the greater good of the society, but have been twisted. Now, these laws are far too often used by larger corporations to usurp land from individual owners, so that they can build their latest SuperShopping center, or a bigger parking lot adjacent to their existing business, etc. Your "inalienable right" has been corrupted into a mere privledge, that can be taken away at any time, necessary or not.

That's why citizens must make sure that they are aware of what's being done in their name, and make sure that the laws and politicians are working for them, and not merely a few someones with deeper pockets, or a better network of connections.

Hmmm... that's a touchy issue for me. While I realize that some things like roads may have never been successfully built without some incroaching on private property, I still have to wonder at the justice of it all. Especially for things that are non-vital. As nice as it may be to have a freeway going here or there, is it really *vital*? I'm not totally sure yet what I think the boundaries should be with regard to emminent domain.

You do, however, make perfectly good and valid points.

Health care is a good example. I understand your position, though I don't really agree with it. However, we have already decided as a society, that everyone does have a basic right to health care. One of the most basic tenets of our health care system is that if someone needs emergent care, they cannot be denied. Whether someone is insured or not, they will receive care, should they be in an accident, or have a heart attack, or what have you.

And yet the cost of doing this places a financial obligation on the society as a whole. The contention of believers in universal preventive health care is this: making sure everyone is insured, and is able to receive not merely emergent care, but preventive (or "wellness") care, will be a smaller financial burden to the rest of society.

It is a fact that people who receive regular wellness care have fewer traumatic medical problems. The cost of regular preventive care is far less than treating catastrophic, yet preventable medical events.

To get rid of any obligation at all, we are saying that my right to not be financially liable for your basic care (at least in small part) trumps your right to basic health care. So an uninsured person gets into an accident - too bad. Don't let them into the ED unless there is clear evidence that they alone can finance the cost of any potential care. Is this the world you see as ideal?

Do I have the right to dump toxic waste on my property? You might say no, because elementary environmental science clearly shows that the toxic waste will leach into the groundwater, and essentially place an obligation on my neighbors: they will have to either pay to water from some source other than their well, drink the water and have to pay the increased health care costs from doing so, or have to pay to sue you for damages. And while suing me may recoup their losses from having to both sue me, and get their water from another source, it doesn't address the environmental impact of that toxic sludge in my yard.

But what about less obvious examples? The "obligation" one's actions places on others is not always easily seen. If I own a million acres of mountain forest, what if I cut down all the trees? Aquifers are largely renewed by runoff. When mountains are deforested, there is less runoff, because during the winter months, snow cannot accumulate as well without the trees. When the valley-dwelling farmer's well dries up, haven't I placed an obligation on him?

I used to live on the Navajo nation, and this was precisely the issue. In this real-world case, the depletion of the aquifer is coming from two main sources. One, the deforestation of the Chuksa mountains has led to a huge drop in snowmelt as a source for aquifer renewal (the snow accumulates later in the year, and for a shorter period of time). Two, the Black Mesa mining operation uses millions of gallons of water from the aquifer for "slurry," to transport their coal through the pipelines. The outcome of these actions is that, during drier years, the aquifer cannot renew itself, and massive drought occurs. It is the people who live in this vast area (the northern half of Arizona, basically) who are then "obligated" to deal with the results.

I happen to believe that human beings exist within an extremely complex ecosystem. Not only are we physically connected to the entire world, our social structure is also complex and interconnected. The physics of energy itself leads me to believe that every action has a rippling effect on everything around it. Thus, the question is not as simple as obligation or no obligation. Our very existence is an obligation. Therefor the question of "rights" is more like a measuring and balancing of various types and levels of obligation.

Orat, I would like to address your latest questions in regards to rights:


I do not have the right to not be offended, absolutely. I don't think even the most liberal people in our country would disagree. But the issue is not so clear cut. What about threatening someone? Certainly, most would agree that we live in a country where a person has the "right" to stand in the public park and talk about how they hate hispanic people, or gays, or whomever. But does that right extend to following hispanic people around, saying "you deserve to die, you spic." I would say it does not. Hate crime legislation is not about curtailing someone's right to free speech, it is about protecting someone's right to not be threatened. Of course, the problem is that "threaten" is a subjective term, so we attempt to codify this with specific terminology.



Again, you are presenting this as being black and white, when it is not. I feel I have the right to be reasonably secure inasmuch as knowing that a convicted murderer down the street cannot walk into 7-11 and buy an uzi.



This is a complicated one. I take it that you are saying that my exhaling smoke places an obligation on you, and therefor abrogates your rights. What about the exhaust from my car? What about the air pollution from a factory? Aren't they also placing an obligation on you? Since the effects of second-hand tobacco smoke are not definitively harmful within the body of our medical knowledge, even though common sense tells us that there are harmful effects, it seems you are basing this on the more subtle types of connection, such as I spoke of earlier in this post. If the right to not breathe in smoke trumps the right to smoke, then it must also trump the rights of drivers and of factory owners.

There were certain Southerners at one time who would have argued that, as a society, they'd agreed that everyone has a basic right to own slaves (thereby denying the rights of the otherwise slaves). This is hardly different. You're enslaving those who have the capability of providing care because they are legally compelled, even against their will.


You assume that there is a "right to basic health care". I recognize no such right. It is in the same league as the supposed "right to a job", "right to an education", etc. These are nice things, and even vitally important things. But that does not mean they are rights. Their importance alone does not raise them above the standard of liberty for all. REAL individual rights are far more important.


In an ideal world, nobody would even need care in the first place. In an ideal world, everyone would have HDTVs, the fastest computers, holodecks, on and on... but we don't live in an ideal world and we never will. It is a fatal mistake to attempt to implement the ideal world in reality. Attempting to implement something that is an impossibility requires disaster.


Here you've touched on it. Polluting in such a manner as it will impact the property of others is directly injurious and therefore can be regulated.


Water and mineral rights are a more complex issue but still nonetheless fall under the general philosophy espoused by PrismPaul and myself. No need for drastic socialistic regulations of the rights of property.


First, why would a murderer be living down the street? Shouldn't such people be in prison? Second, I don't think you do have a right to be "reasonably secure" if that means others cannot possess the means of self-defense. But perhaps you were not implying that average people should not be able to possess arms?


Actually, I'm making no claim in the question. Rather, I wanted to see how PrismPaul (or anyone else) would respond to such a claim.

That's simply untrue. You are drawing an arbitrary distinction. If I choose to become a policeman, I cannot refuse to help someone based on their ability to pay me. I cannot become a pilot for American Airlines and then refuse to pilot men over 6 feet tall. I can quit and find another line of work, but that's about all the recourse I have. If we have decided (and we have decided) that hospitals cannot refuse treatment based on ability to pay, then you either treat the patients that come in the door, or you find another line of work. You're not being made a slave, because at any time, you can walk away and do something else.

Interestingly, though most of my aquaintances are doctors, nurses, or otherwise in the medical field, I have never heard a single one of them arguing your position on health care. A doctor who does feel that way is also able to open a private clinic with no emergent care facilities. He can also refuse to treat uninsured patients.



Obviously. Perhaps I should make my question easier for you to understand, then. In the real world, do you think that anyone without insurance or money should be denied basic health care?



So... what's your response? If we do not regulate, how do we ensure that such things do not happen? What will work to stop me from cutting down those trees, besides some sort of law or regulation?



Do you think that we should be able to buy uzis at the 7-11? Should there be no regulation at all on what constitutes "arms?" Should I be able to purchase an RPG at Walmart?

You responded only to a bunch of little parts of my post, but I won't be dissuaded. I feel I have made a fairly strong case for the notion that all of our actions place some sort of direct or indirect obligations upon others. Therefor, the question of rights is not a matter of prismpaul's perhaps overly simplistic test. It's a matter of balancing obligations. Even being born places obligations upon others.

I believe the only fundamental right (for a free society) is the right over oneself. Freedom of action, freedom from coercion, the right over one’s bodily integrity, ect. I would agree with Prismpaul, for the most part, that one's right (over oneself) extends only as far as to not impose on the rights of another. That is a subjective definition based on the moral principles of the individual society, as 'imposition' is a very relative term.

Other things which many consider to be rights I believe are privileges and/or requirements to ensure the one basic ‘right’. Collective defense, for example, is important to promote a free society and ensure its safety, but it is an agreement (probably a requirement), not a right. Healthcare, employment, ect. are the same. Many are necessary for freedom and preservation of the one basic right, but none is a fundamental right in and of itself. So I would also agree with Quarkhead that living in a society is a balance of obligations, but those obligations don't satisfy the definition of 'right'.

Not going to try to debate this, not even sure it can be debated, since we're talking premises here. Just going to give my opinion so you all know where I stand.

I'm with Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, etc.

For me, as a Christian, rights come from God. But if you want to say the Tao or the Force, or just Natural Law a la John Locke, that works just as well. You could also get there as an atheist by reasoning from human nature, and you could even deduce an ethics of rational self-interest from it, as Ayn Rand did.

As for the content of those rights, I'd have to agree with Prismpaul and Mrs. Pigpen, and even Aleister Crowley: "An ye harm none, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

Let me pose a question here that goes to the root of this argument (I think).

Let's say that the Founders of America had enumerated in the Constitution that the federal government had no right to forbid the eating of fish on Friday. The Chistians among the founders were expressing their beliefs. The agnostics and atheists were happy to go along with it and saw other benefits (health, supporting the fishing industry, what have you). This might even have been contextually important at the time, if the notional British government had (say) made eating fish illegal on Fridays.

So, let's imagine that the Declaration of Independence recognises the inalienable rights to "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the consumption of fish on Fridays". And that there is an enumerated amendment to the constitution, put their by the Framers, that prevents the government from interfering in that right.

Let's also imagine that eating fish was an issue that exercised many of the libertarian philosophers that influenced the Framers, leaving a body of well-though-out justification as to why eating fish on Fridays is an inalienable right, rather than just a cultural convention.

What would that mean for modern day America? No doubt there would be a well-funded lobby group determined to make sure that right would never be infringed. Many would take the freedom to choose to eat fish on Fridays as an injuction to do so. Some would see it as their duty as freeborn Americans to eat as much fish as possible at the end of the working week. Others would be lobbying hard to define all marine creatures, including whales, lobsters, albatrosses and surfers as "fish" for the purposes of the exercising of their God-given right.

Would that mean eating fish a fundamental and inalienable really IS a right?

All of this thread seems to be geared around the assumption that the framers managed to capture all the really fundamental rights that there are, and that they neither missed any nor included some that were important at the time but have since become less meaningful or even meaningless.

Whic leads me to conclude that these truly fundamental rights aren't intrinsically there, but are only there because somebody somewhere has said they should be there.

That somebody, even if they got the idea from their god, was human. For example, someone somewhere decided that Biblical injunctions that the eating of shellfish or the wearing of mixed fibre fabrics are as reprehensible as homosexuality, or that witches shouldn't be killed as soon as they are detected, are not of paramount importance.

Therefore ALL rights are defined by humans. There is no absolute right to life, or else why permit war, execution or killing in self defence?. There is no absolute right to liberty - or else why have prisons? In short, the only rights we have are the ones we find most useful at a particular time, or haven't got around to updating yet.

So ALL rights are social constructs. It may be true that they work better when they are not solely defined by transient governments from day to day. That they require have wide popular support, a basis in history and philosophy, and in some elusive way that they need to "make sense". But they have no existance until somebody defines them and can get enough other people to agree with them that they can be codified. They are not like a chemical element, waiting for the right method of extraction from formless dirt.

quarkhead:

Right, because you're ALREADY getting paid to do it. It's your JOB. By accepting the job you've already voluntarily accepted these responsibilities.


But you are a slave insofar as while you are there, you must, BY FORCE OF LAW, render a service without compensation. By the way, you so casually say "we have decided" something. You say it as though that, by itself, means that it is 100% right. So does might make right? Is the majority always right? Is it not possible for the majority to commit injustice? Again, I turn you to an example in the American South where the majority was certainly of a particular view, but that did not make it right. They could just as easily have proclaimed "we have decided". But is that sufficient? No, it's not.


That isn't the point. We're talking political philosophy and principles here. It is the principle of the matter.


This is more of an ethical question. Ethically, I am pursuaded that caring from my fellow man is a priority. However, the priority of keeping oppressive government at bay is a higher priority. We should not accept the latter in an attempt satisfy the former. Especially when there are alternative means to satisfy it.


As I said, it's a more complex issue. Regulation of some sort may be necessary, but it should only be in furtherance of individual rights.


I'll say this, I don't think people should have nuclear weapons in their homes. But there is a fine line you must walk. I don't have a problem with Uzis being readily available provided violent fellons do not have immediate access to them. Note that I'm not for anarchy, I'm just for strictly limited government the only purpose of which is to secure individual rights.


This is is somewhat a nebulous concept. Abiguity of this sort is very dangerous to put into law. Law should only deal with definite, quantifiable cases and at that only cases where it is a matter of individual rights. If it is a matter of privilege or fringe benefit, government should abstain.


Edited to add:
Julian:

Actually, I don't think I really addressed this at all in the context of the framers of the Constitution. But if you've read many of my other posts, you'd know that it is well known that the framers did not get them all. In fact, there were some among them who did not want an enumeration of rights for fear that some would interpret any enumeration as exhaustive and therefore, by implication, any unenumerated right did not exist and was not protected. That is the purpose of the 9th Amendment.


These rights are absolute in that they cannot be violated. Once someone violates them, murders, steals, etc, then they have no rightful claim to them either. If I steal, I have forfeited my own rights to property. If I kidnap, I've forfeited my own rights to freedom. If I kill, I've forfeited my own right to life.


Of course. They're a philosophical construct, not a physical element. But the philosophical nature of rights should in no way be construed to deny their validity. As I stated before, the purpose of government is to secure rights. If rights can be voted away or legislated away, they are never secure and therefore the entire object of government has been lost while we spiral down into tyranny.

The analogy of the policeman is perhaps most pertinent. The victim of a crime does not compensate the policeman for arresting the criminal. The state compensates. The doctor in a public hospital is still paid a salary. The homeless person who is brought into the ED does not pay for treatment, but the doctor is still compensated.

I agree with you that "we have decided" is not the best term to use - particularly as it keeps encouraging you to compare this to slavery! However, even if you would wish to pursue some semantic difference between a "right" and, say, a moral obligation, or ethical obligation, if we agree that no one should be denied care based on their ability to pay, then that distinction is meaningless in its real-world application.

Unless you are willing to actually say that people who can't pay should be turned away from hospitals...



It's more important that your tax money not be used to keep sick people from dying, than it is to actually keep people from dying? We must have different concepts of the word "oppressive." I do not think it means what you think it means.



Please, then give me an example. What regulation would you suggest? The difference between obvious impact and subtle impact is only a difference in obviousness and subtlety, not a qualitative difference. Just because the effects of one's actions are convoluted, does not make them any less causal, nor the obligation which they impose on others any less.

I agree with the basic tenet that we have individual rights. We should have the freedom to do what we want as long as we don't infringe on the rights of others. But in your enumeration of what those actions are, you are being too simplistic, and this is the problem I have with libertarianism. Everything we do effects everything else.

Universal health care is not a primary right, but it could be put into place as an adjunct to primary rights. If we can show that the cost would be less, and that as a result, no person would be denied medical care based on their ability to survive in a market economy, we would be protecting everyone, not just those who happen to thrive. Rights are supremely important, but only if they are applied universally, and without qualification.

It would be helpful to me if you were to enumerate exactly and specifically what rights you believe are absolute.

What alternative means do you have in mind, Orat?

Without government regulation, the number of people insured under group policies at work, for example, would be far less than they are now. It was those regulations that forced group policies to insure every eligible employee, regardless of pre-existing conditions (with time restrictions, of course). Without these kinds of rules, insurers could force applicants to take twice a year physicals, and only insure those with no health problems.

Ignoring even that, however, you say there are alternate means of dealing with health care for indigents. I had a heart attack and quadruple bypass surgery in February of this year. Even with regular exercise and watching what I eat. Insurance covered most of it, and I could pay the rest on my own, without too much trouble.

Let's say, though, that I had no insurance, and worked at a job that pays only $7.00 an hour, so I have almost nothing in savings. If caring for me is ethically correct, but the hospital could refuse to work on me until I can prove that I can pay for the services rendered, what do you suppose would happen to me? I could always look to my relatives, or even my church, maybe, but they may be already overloaded with requests form other relatives and/or paritioners.

So what happens? Do they leave me at the doorstep until I come up with $80,000? Do they let me die? Or do they treat me and make me an indentured servant to their bill for the rest of my (probably shortened) life? And do they then attach my wife's wages, or my daughter's until the bill is satisfied?

So, again, I ask, what alternatives, specifically are there for these people, that haven't already been tried, and found lacking?

quarkhead:

This is the purpose of government, to secure one's rights, to secure justice, to punish crime. Police are the epitome of the proper role of government. It is not, however, the role of government to provide healthcare, nor food, nor water, nor a job, etc. These are all important parts of life, but it is not the government's job to provide these.


Here's what I think. Ethically, it is incumbant on the individual to help out his fellow man where he can. But I am not willing to force my ethics on someone else by threat of force. That is the issue.


Likewise. I think in the end, handing government the power to arbitrarily and compulsively burden people is far too dangerous a power to give government. In the end, government is one of the most dangerous things known to man. It is like fire, yea even more dangerous! What you are suggesting is that we unleash an unrestrained virulent pleague known as government upon the populace. I think we can do with out that and instead handle social problems through private means.


I can't give you an example as, first, I'm not an expert in the technical fields involved, and 2, I imagine proper regulation would depend quite heavily on the particulars of the situation and could vary quite a bit from scenario to scenario. As to the convolution, I realize this. I didn't qualify it to say that convolution was less causal than a more direct relationship. What I meant was that law should not become involved if the thing cannot be clearly demonstrated and quantified. In fact, that's essentially what I said. We cannot and should not legislate on ambiguities or speculation.


This is where your understanding of rights becomes confused. You are essentially assuming healthcare to be a right despite the attempt to say otherwise. I say this because of your statement that "Rights are supremely important, but only if they are applied universally...". This implies that somehow we are discriminating by virtue of the fact that some can afford more that another. But the government has not made any such distinction. Healthcare can be free for all the government (should) care. That's something that it set in the free market - where the prices of products and services (including necessities such as food and healthcare) find their natural equilibrium. Also, if healthcare could be more cost effective with such a plan, then by all means, implement it in the private sector! Or do you need coercive force to make it work? If so, then you're saying that a primary right (that of the right to property and corrolary rights) is trumped by what you would term a secondary right (I would not call it a right at all).


Like the founding fathers, I think this is impossible. In their words, the rights of the individual are innumerable and indefinite. Were it a trivial matter to enumerate all the fundamental rights of Man, the Founders would have been more than happy to do so in the Bill of Rights. But it is not a trivial matter and that's why they included the 9th Amendment. I do not fancy myself more capable of ths feat than the founders themselves, so I'm afriad I will have to decline.


Edited to add:
NiteGuy:

Well obviously the answer is to take the property of others by force, isn't it? JohnQ anyone?


You mentioned some of them yourself already. Private charities, etc. Which, BTW, would be much more able to help people were it not for all the taxation people already undergo and the resultant perception that the care of those in need is the government's responsibility. We've essentially abdicated our responsibility to help one another to the government. The more responsibilities that are ours alone that we abdicate to the government, the more liberty we shall lose in proportion. And there will also be an attendant decrease in the effectiveness of our dollars as well. Look no further than Canada to see that principle in action. I've heard personal stories telling of people who've died in queues because their government-assigned hospital either didn't have the equipment needed, or it was in such short supply that they were on a 1 year waiting list. Is this the alternative you want?

Private charities aren't the only solution either. There are all kinds of possible free-market solutions. Some of which could simply involve people with similar interests banding together to form the kind of insurer they need. Non-profit organizations could fill alot of these needs. But again, we've become a society that looks to the government for these things as our first and last resort that many of the possible private solutions are simply not being tried. If you feel that strongly about it, go found a private institution to take care of the problem rather than insisting that the government use its threat of force to facilitate your ends for you.

Exactly, those touting the right right to health care and prescriptions, affordable housing, a living wage, education and even internet access are mixing two types of rights together and are effectively diluting and debasing the principles of true rights.

There exist nowadays two generations of rights --

The first generation, embodied in the American Revolution and the U.S. Constitution, led to restrictions on the state's interference in the lives of citizens and having their natural, civil and political rights respected by law. The second generation began in 1917, with the revolution in Russia. As a result of that revolution, economic, social, and cultural rights emerged. By nature, these two generations of rights assume very different roles for the state.  

Much of the modern left's agenda consists of "second generation rights."

Those "rights" convey a romantic idea of how the state should take care of us, about how we, as an organized state can somehow provide human dignity and "help" citizens live a decent and happy life.

The purpose of this Orwellian new-speak is to redefine rights into a fuzzy, moldable menu of services, privileges and entitlements.  Upon our display of various ID cards, filling out the proper forms and payment of license fees, a bureaucrat can stamp “APPROVED” and our benevolent government will bestow our rights upon us. Unfortunately, with that mindset comes the acceptance of the situational denial or outright removal of those "rights" if necessary, for our own good of course.

Our rights are NOT a list of services that government provides for us. Nor are they tangible commodities that the government compels others to provide to us.

Government's duty regarding rights, is not to "give" them to us; only to never make or enforce any law violating them.  

My duty regarding rights, is to be vigilant that government does not violate them.
 
Perhaps there is a place in America for help for the disadvantaged and those with poor decision making skills. The proper descriptive term for these handouts is "entitlements," not "rights."

So, you are saying that under your perfect world, I'm going to die, and you are not, simply because you can cough up 80k, and I cannot. Gee, how generous and compassionate of you.


What a great non-answer answer, just like a politician who doesn't want to alienate constituents.


And all this time I thought that the government programs were originally instituted because private charities and the like were no longer capable of helping most of the people in need. Do you really believe that private organizations and charities will be able to cover as much of the needs as the government does, if we were to eliminate these programs and the resulting tax base? Because I don't. I don't believe that most people would willingly give up that kind of money.


That's called group insurance. Now, go take a look at how many in this country have insurance through group policies, and how many have no insurance at all. Big difference isn't there? Most people in this country simply can't afford health insurance on their own. Even under group rates.

Look, I'm not arguing that all the entitlements out there are valid. They aren't. Affordable housing, welfare programs that do nothing to get people back to work and keep perpetuating welfare families, etc.

But if we do have a right to life in this country, don't we have an obligation to see that everybody has a fair chance at that life, and not one based on their ability to pay for it? This is not, after all, a plutocracy. Having money is not supposed to grant you more rights than someone without.

And I'm not saying that family, churches, and charities shouldn't be the first places you look to for assistance. But when all else fails, we need to be able to help our fellow citizens, through government programs if necessary.

You mentioned the movie John Q in your post. He tried charities and his church, and family and friends first, remember? It wasn't enough. As our disparity in insurance gets wider and wider, things like this may no longer take place in the realms of fiction. Do you really want that to be the norm in this country, or would you rather give up a few dollars each month to keep it from happening to you?
I'd rather not see this kind of insurrection on my streets, thanks.

You say the government is taking property (your money) from you by force. No they aren't. That's what you have representatives for. If you don't like the job they are doing in your name, elect someone else. If you think that they are violating the constitution, challenge it in court. We all have options.

Orat, Mike Raffone:

I've been thinking about this for the last few days. It's not that I'm "confused," as Orat so kindly put it . I do understand the argument you are putting out. It's just that I disagree with you about the importance (and the rightness) of those "second generation" rights. I view them differently than you do. I agree with much of what you are both saying. However, I see those second generation rights as part of a political and conscious evolution.

I do not think it is wrong for us to view a government of, by, and for the people in part as an extension of our personal ideas of benevolence. I think it would be great if the government did not have to define any "entitlements." It would be wonderful if our personal charity and generosity were capable of handling those in our society who without assistance would go hungry, naked, homeless. In a real sense, I share your ideals.

The problem is, we don't live in that world. That world does not exist. Before those second generational rights were taken (and they were taken, not granted), the plight of the poor in America was abysmal. There was not nearly enough charity to go around. When left to their own devices, and we can look through history to see this, those with money and/or power only tolerated the poor inasmuch as they were essential in providing the basic structures of labor for the good of the wealthy. And because there were so many of them, whether they starved to death or not was irrelevant. There would always be more.

In those years from the end of the Civil War until World War Two, when capitalism (and no, I don't think it's a dirty word) was almost completely unfettered, our society was more stratified than ever before (or since).

Indeed, a good argument can be made that until those "second generation" rights were fought for, many citizens of this country were deliberately excluded from exercising even the "basic" rights which you rightly espouse as fundamental.

The thing is, it's not that I disagree with your fundamental argument - it's just that I think the real world is more flawed and complex than that.

Indeed, the "real world" wouldn't make a good bumper sticker slogan or talk radio chant. It's so much easier to talk about "welfare cheats" or "class warfare" or "governments taking my money at the point of a gun to finance someone else's fourth child".

It's hard to reconcile those simplistic and unrealistic views with the people I see downtown who are dumpster diving and eating maggot-infested food because that's the extent of the "charity" they receive.

But I also agree that some of the entitlement programs have gone too far. We're spending a lot of money keeping people alive who should be allowed to die. We've strayed too far to "save a life at all costs" and our medical community helps perpetuate that, although many doctors now realize the futility of it. Are we happier because people regularly live to be 100 now, even if their bodies weren't really designed to handle gravity for that long? Or is this a different topic of discussion?

First, I'd like to say to Mike Raffone that you did a great job explaning these differing versions of "rights". I agree with you 100% that these things have no business bearing the name "rights". Bravo.

NiteGuy:
[quote]So, you are saying that under your perfect world, I'm going to die, and you are not, simply because you can cough up 80k, and I cannot. Gee, how generous and compassionate of you.[/quote]
I never said it was a perfect world, it never will be. I also didn't say you were going to die or that people shouldn't have compassion. But how compassionate is it to compell people by threat of force to yield up their property or to be compelled by force to work in servitude to someone else?

[quote]What a great non-answer answer, just like a politician who doesn't want to alienate constituents.[/quote]
Actually, I think I gave a fully relevant answer. Encouraging and pursuading people to be generous and benevolent is not a non-answer. Coercing people by threat of force, however, is NOT the answer. These aren't empty words I'm saying, I work full-time at a Christian non-profit organization that does all kinds of charity and disaster-relief work, feeding the needy around the world. So I don't appreciate that kind of judgemental response.

[quote]Do you really believe that private organizations and charities will be able to cover as much of the needs as the government does, if we were to eliminate these programs and the resulting tax base?[/quote]
Yes. In fact, I think they would even moreso. As it is now, people have an "I gave at the office" mentality towards private charity because they view it as the government's job. The mindset isn't there, so people don't give nearly as much as they would otherwise. I know, I work in this field. And when you compare the effectiveness per-dollar of government programs versus private charities, there's no comparison. $10 goes many times further in the private sector than it does when passed through the bureaucratic channels of government.

[quote]This is not, after all, a plutocracy. Having money is not supposed to grant you more rights than someone without.[/quote]
You're suggesting that it presently does? How so? Does a wealthy person's vote count more than a poor one's? No. Does a wealthy person enjoy more freedom of speech, expression, religion, etc before the law? No. I think, as described by Mr. Raffone, you are mis-defining rights.

[quote]Do you really want that to be the norm in this country, or would you rather give up a few dollars each month to keep it from happening to you?[/quote]
The real question is, "would you rather extort a few dollars each month from someone else to keep it from happening to you?" After all, we're not just talking about giving our own money -- something I will gladly give to help someone else. We're talking about using the threat of force (by law) to coerce OTHER people to give their dollars.

[quote]You say the government is taking property (your money) from you by force. No they aren't. That's what you have representatives for.[/quote]
Yes, they are. If you refuse to "contribute", you will feel the forceful iron fist of government.

[quote]If you don't like the job they are doing in your name, elect someone else. If you think that they are violating the constitution, challenge it in court.[/quote]
This is where you're wrong. Even in a democracy where everyone directly participates in the decision makeing process, it is still unjust for the majority to take by force against the will of the minority. Rights are rights. Rights do not evaporate at the edict of the majority nor that of the legislator. A right to property is a natural right that shall not be violated. Your property should only be taken from you by your OWN consent -- not just the consent of the majority or the consent of the legislator. The key here is the term INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Not social rights, not collective rights, INDIVIDUAL rights.



quarkhead:
[quote]I do not think it is wrong for us to view a government of, by, and for the people in part as an extension of our personal ideas of benevolence.[/quote]
You're close here. Actually, the government's power is nothing more than an extension of our individual rights. Each of us possesses the right of self-defense, so it is legitimate for government to serve the function of punishing and preventing theft, assault, murder, etc. But none of us possesses the individual right to take from our neighbor by threat of force. Therefore, the government, being the sum of our individual rights (and no greater) has no more a right to do this than we each do individually.

If it is wrong and unjust for you to take from your neighbor against his will, how many people must band together with you before it becomes just? 10? 100? 1,000? The answer is that no matter how many may support your act of force, it is never justified.

[quote]In those years from the end of the Civil War until World War Two, when capitalism (and no, I don't think it's a dirty word) was almost completely unfettered, our society was more stratified than ever before (or since).[/quote]
I don't view that as the result of Capitalism. I think it was the result of natural and unfortunate circumstance, not the least of which was the Civil War. The impact of the Civil War cannot be underestimated. Nor can it be written off that this was the closing period of the Industrial Revolution. The economy is a very differnet place today. We are well beyond the Industrial Revolution now, our economies are mature, and we do not presently suffer from the crushing effects of a massive Civil War. I truly don't think it is so simple to summarily assign blame for post-Civil War and mid-Industrial Revolution dynamics on Capitalism itself. It's much more complex a situation than that.

[quote]Indeed, a good argument can be made that until those "second generation" rights were fought for, many citizens of this country were deliberately excluded from exercising even the "basic" rights which you rightly espouse as fundamental.[/quote]
Unless you're refering to blacks, I don't think this is an accurate statement. And even if you are refering to blacks, I don't think that has anything to do with the Capitalism.



amf:
[quote]It's hard to reconcile those simplistic and unrealistic views with the people I see downtown who are dumpster diving and eating maggot-infested food because that's the extent of the "charity" they receive.
[/quote]
I'm not sure why this is, because I know of several charity centers where there's always food, clothing, etc, available. They even have huge boxes (bigger than refrigerator boxes) full to the brim with NICE clothes, just waiting for people to come try them on and take them. Perhaps some of these people are mentally distrubed to the point they don't even know where to go to get the charity? I don't know, but I really don't think there's a lack of opportunity out there.

...and therein lies the crux of the disagreement. Here's what you asked at the beginning of the thread:



And yet, here, you assume very particular answers to those same questions, and seem to take offense when someone does not share your assumptions. You think property rights are "natural" and that any abridgement is a "violation". Others disagree. I, for example, believe that property rights are part of, and inseparable from, a more general social contract. Am I "wrong" for believing that, as you told NiteGuy he was? Can we have an actual debate about that, or may we only discuss secondary matters based on definitions you provide?

I was going to cite the Declaration of Independence which states:

When I was studying this in American History in High School some four decades ago, we were taught that that statement of "rights" had been developed out of thin air by the drafters of the declaration, and that no comparable statement existed in any philosophy elsewhere at the time.

A search of Yahoo turned up a couple of Yahoo! Reference: Columbia Encyclopedia citations, an article on the Declaration of Independence, and a link to an article on natural law which the first article said was used in drafting those rights.

I used to work with an electrician who had left his native Hungary when the revolution failed. (He had been a Freedom Fighter.) If you tried to criticize Communism, he would defend it very vocally, and point out that everyone inside the Iron Curtain had a "right" to a job (but not unemployment), a "right" to health care (but not a choice of doctor - kind of like an HMO), and a "right" to a place to live (although no right to own a home!) He was particularly adamant about the point that the price of a loaf of bread, a quart of milk, or a dozen eggs in the grocery store had never increased under communist rule. As his blood pressure would start to rise, as his volume increased, we would stop him with a question or two, and he would remind himself that here; he had a right to buy a fishing license and keep what he caught, he had a right to not only own a home, but to own rental properties, and that here, he had the right to become a millionaire, a citizen, and the right to visit Hungary occasionally as an American Citizen with all the protection that implied.

To reiterate, our founding fathers stated:

Their is an interesting "Third Generation of Rights" based on that principle outlined in Cyberspace Declaration of Independence by John Perry Barlow which states in part:

I am left to conclude that "rights" are assigned by law or by society, and to point out the obvious fact that they are not in fact universal. When a neighbor was mowing his lawn at 3:00 AM, we had no problem convincing the police of our right to a night's sleep. (The police department was on other side of the neighbor's property, and they opened a window and told them to turn off the lawn mower.) When I was working the midnight shift, and they were mowing their lawn at 3:00 pm, I had no comparable "right" to a good day's sleep! They did have a right after all, to mow their lawn at some point; especially since weed ordinances stated that they had no right to not mow their lawn!

Not really on topic... but care to prove this? I don't know if it's true or not but it demands some sort of verification does it not?

Under a Socialist form of government, perhaps you are correct. You seem to keep forgetting however, that here, we, society, are the boss of government.
No single government entity just decided that they were going to start offering welfare (for instance), and what the requirements and paperwork will be. We did not just wait for the government to (as you say) "bestow" these rights upon us. They were discussed, debated, argued and fought over, usually for years, if not decades, before it was decided one way or the other. What exactly was to be provided? What were the rules going to be? Were we sure that other means were not adequately, effectively or equitably dealing with the problem? All of this was hashed out, both nationally, and locally before these programs were put into place. Removal of them will only come after the same kind of discussion, and not nearly so arbitrarily as you suggest.


You're right. It's our duty as a free society to decide what an individuals rights are, to convey these decisions to the government apparatus, and to see that they then do not make or enforce any law violating them.





Might I suggest a new dictionary for you, gentlemen? For example, from the Encarta World English Dictionary: "Entitlement"
1. right to something: the right somebody has to do or receive something
2. something you have a right to: a thing to which somebody is entitled

Or perhaps from the Merriam-Webster Online: "Entitlement"
1 a : the state or condition of being entitled : RIGHT
b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

Now, instead of "entitlement", I have seen the term "privilege" used. Again, from Merriam's:
A right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor

And from Encarta:
1. restricted right or benefit: an advantage, right, or benefit that is not available to everyone
2. rights and advantages enjoyed by elite: the rights and advantages enjoyed by a relatively small group of people, usually as a result of wealth or social status

So, we may be granting these folks some privileges, but as wealthier individuals we have some privileges of our own, it seems.


Here's where you and I largely disagree. Unfortunately, here is where you also disagree with the one document that establishes our rights. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you have a right to property, "natural" or otherwise. At least not explicitly. For a listing of different countries constitutions (including the US) and rights granted under them, see here.

And if we did all have a "natural right" to property, why aren't we all granted a particular amount of property at birth, or at the age of majority? Because the constitution grants you the right to pursue the ownership of property, without undue hinderance from government, but it does not grant you property, per se.

Even the Ninth amendment says that just because there are certain rights listed in the constitution, they shall not be construed to deny or disparage any other rights retained by the people. In other words, the people have the ability to grant themselves additional rights, and the government cannot stop this. But property is not one of those rights listed. Don't dispair, however. You can always petition your congressman, just like the rest of us.

From the Bill of Rights:



That sounds like property rights to me.



Nope. New rights can be created through the amendment process, which is an example of the people acting through the government, but people can't just grant themselves additional rights.

Platypus:

Okay then, your own statement assumes that either individuals, or in some abstract sense, society itself, naturally possesses the right to contract.

But to address your contention with what I've said, are you arguing that mere numbers make something right? If you do not think the individual naturally possess a right to property (despite the concept of property being essentially hard-wired into the human psyche), then do you think it is permissible for you to decide to take your neighbor's house/car/etc by force? This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one.

If not, why? Because of some "societal contract"? So if "society" (which I take to probably mean the majority) deicdes one day that it is permissible, then do you believe that would make it right? Or is it still wrong? If so, why? If not, why?


Forgive me, I assumed you'd have already thought through this as that was the purpose of my illustration to quarkhead.



Curmudgeon:

In a sense you are correct. In a very pragmatic sense, I could correctly state that nobody has any righst whatsoever other than what rights are afforded to you by whatever force you have at your disposal or what force is excersized on your behalf. That would be a pragmatically true statement, essentially ammounting to "might makes right". But philosophically and ethically, I don't want to live that way, and I don't want to think that way. That sort of thinking will inevitably lead to tyranny and suffering. As you rightly point out, we do enjoy many valuable freedoms here in this country, and it is largely due to what remnants remain of the result of our Founder's rejection of the very sort of pragmatic thinking that undergirds your conclusion. Our Constitution and the freedoms we enjoy as a result of it derive not from pragmatism, but from principles.

Let us not abandon principles simply because we see that the world is often an unfair and confusing place. We've only enjoyed the kinds of freedoms we have thus far as a result of our principled foundation. Had we had a purely pragmatic foundation, I shudder to think where we would be today.



Ultimatejoe:

I had a hard time finding an officially authoritative source, however there seems to be a pretty wide consensus that about 70 cents of every dollar spent on welfare actually makes it into the hands of the welfare recipients. A private charity would be investigated and likely shut down for this kind of rate. Sorry I couldn't provide you with an authoritative source, but I don't have time at the moment to continue searching. I can say, however, from my own personal experience (which I realize is not authoritative) that private charity is quite efficient (naturally, there are always exceptions). And government waste and inefficeincy is notorious.


Edited to add:
NiteGuy:

But how do we convey these decision to the government? By majority vote? So that means that rights derive from the will of the majority? So quite literally, "might makes rights"? What happens when the majority want to enslave the minority? This isn't a hypothetical scenario, it happened in our nation's past. So do you think if the majority really believes the minority should be enslaved and that they have a RIGHT to do so, and conversely, that the minority does not have a right to be free, that this should be granted by mere virtue of the fact that the majority is, err, in the majority? Regardless of any dictionary definitions, this would seem to run contrary to very meaning of "rights" as used in a political context.


Read the 9th Amendment. There is no need for an explicit enumeration of the right to property. Rather, the federal government is only granted those powers explicitly enumerated to it (10th Amendment). Everything outside that explicitly granted to the government is reserved to the people and to the states. Indeed, the Constitution could lack a Bill of Rights entirely (save the 10th amendment) and we, in principle, would still have all the same rights we have today.


I never said you were granted property. In fact, the Constitution doesn't GRANT anything except power to the government. Our rights are not GRANTED to us, we have them by default, and rather power is GRANTED to the government (and can therefore also be revoked). What I said was that we have the right to possess property. If I happen to have some property, I have a right to keep it and not have it taken away by force. That's not the same as having a right for property to be given to me. If anything, that is what YOU are arguing.


Nope, that's not what it means. It means that the enumeration of rights in the Bill of Rights is not meant to imply that rights that are NOT enumerated are not also retained. That is, it is impossible to exhaustively enumerate ALL rights, and so the Bill of Rights is only intended to be a thumbnail sketch of the "high points" but not intended to be the exhaustive list. In other words, you can't claim a right does not exist simply because it does not appear in the Bill of Rights. If you study the debate between the Founders (especially between Jefferson and Madison) with regard to the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, you'd understand this.

That would not be addressing my contention with what you've said. I believe my reference to a social contract is quite distinct from a "might makes right" argument, and I don't appreciate the strawman.



To the extent that such seizure might be part of a social contract I still considered legitimate, I believe it would be right. That doesn't mean any old reason would do, least of all "because we can", but there are many circumstances in which I would accept such an action as an exercise of eminent domain.



Really, this attribution of beliefs to others is quite offensive and tiresome. Please debate what people actually say, not what you make up on their behalf.



You said "many times further". Perhaps you can explain the mathematical theory under which "many times" 70% efficiency is possible.

I get your drift here, Platy. I believe what we have been talking about is taxation of property and income. Orat and Mike believe that even with representative government in place, they are entitled to what they make, unless they specifically consent to give it up, even if it has been voted on by them, and the vote goes against them. I don't see that as an unreasonable seizure, because I had the chance to debate the issue, make my case, and vote according to the law.


That's actually what I meant, it just didn't come out right, I guess. The People, as a whole, have the ability do define new rights, through the constitutional process.


Not at all. It happens, as noted above, through the Constitutional amendment. The discussion at this level then requires a super-majority of votes in each state, to place it on the ballot and even then, a super-majority of states must agree to pass it. This is by no means a simple majority rule. I think you'd be hard pressed to find enough people willing to vote to put slavery back on the ballot of their state, and then have a super-majority of states to vote it into law.

And we've already done this with regard to the governments (our) ability to relieve each of ourselves of a little property (money) and apply it towards the greater welfare of society. The sixteenth amendment, which authorizes the collection and distribution of corporate and personal income taxes.


Edited to add:
All I could find on charitable giving on the internet, short of going to each organizations website, were the following recommended items to look for when donating, courtesy of the Better Business Bureau:

Assuming that they think 50% of the total income is "reasonable" to spend on expenses, and only 50% on actual charitable works, leads me to believe that while there may be some groups that do better, there are also a lot out there that do worse as well. Even if the average is higher, say at 70% or 75%, that's not any better than Government, and in a lot of cases a lot worse.

Thomas Jefferson,excerpt from letter to James Madison dated 28 Oct 1785



Obviously, Jefferson was not completely sold on an individuals right to use his property as he sees fit. Jefferson also authored a Virginia law punishing sodomy. Of course slavery and the inequality of women needs not be commented on.

I think deep down Jefferson understood that all men and women were entitled to natural rights that could not be denied. A quote:



This law of nature trumps property rights. At least property rights in land.

Ok, Orat, I'll concede this point, to an extent. I'll also point out, however, that they do not say that any of the other rights retained by the people are any less valid than those that are enumerated. In other words, it cannot be said that there are "first tier" rights, "second tier" rights, and so on. A right of the people, is a right. Period. And when that right is strictly enumerated, as through the amendment process, or through the courts, It then becomes governments duty to defend that right, just as stringently as they do all the others.

Platypus:
[quote]That would not be addressing my contention with what you've said. I believe my reference to a social contract is quite distinct from a "might makes right" argument, and I don't appreciate the strawman.[/quote]
I provided a scenario where people often say that "might makes right" by asserting that the will of the majority is all that matters and can justify ANYTHING. You then stepped forward in a manner that appeared to me to be defending that position. So I asked the question which you took to be an assertion.

[quote]To the extent that such seizure might be part of a social contract I still considered legitimate, I believe it would be right.[/quote]
But what is the basis for this contract? Majority opinion?

[quote]That doesn't mean any old reason would do, least of all "because we can"...[/quote]
Who decides which reasons are good and which are not? The majority?

[quote]Really, this attribution of beliefs to others is quite offensive and tiresome. Please debate what people actually say, not what you make up on their behalf.[/quote]
Come on, Platypus, my statment is perfectly valid. The founders clearly did not accept the idea that our rights are whatever the majority decides them to be nor did they think they were non-universal. Just read the Declaration of Independence to verify this:
[quote]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.[/quote]
I am not making this stuff up and I don't appreciate the constant accusations.

[quote]You said "many times further". Perhaps you can explain the mathematical theory under which "many times" 70% efficiency is possible.
[/quote]
Oops, sorry. I meant to say 70 cents of every dollar is absorbed by the bureaucracy, only 30 cents makes it to the recipients. I misspoke. I found this figure on many, many sites and it seems to be a pretty widely accepted one. Nevertheless, I'm making no express claim as to its veracity since I was unable to find an official source for this.



NiteGuy:
[quote]I believe what we have been talking about is taxation of property and income.[/quote]
Just to be clear, I'm talking about taxation for certain purposes. Taxation to pay for a police force, courts, etc are perfectly legitimate as those are services being rendered to all equally and that are based on the rights of each individual (like the right to self-defense). What I'm against is confiscation of wealth for redistribution to others. It is not within the rights of the individual to perform such confiscation by force, and it is therefore not rightly the role of government and is theft.

[quote]The discussion at this level then requires a super-majority of votes in each state, to place it on the ballot and even then, a super-majority of states must agree to pass it. This is by no means a simple majority rule.[/quote]
Whether it is a simple majority or a super-majority, it is still tyranny of the majority if it violates one's rights. I think, and hope, we all agree that slavery violates one's natural rights and that no societal decision can justify it. So if we can accept the idea that some things are always wrong, and that we have certain rights naturally (such as a right not to be a slave), then why is it hard to accept that there may be other such natural rights? Given that, I don't think even a super-majority can justify a violation of someone's natural rights. Therefore the debate comes back to the topic of this thread, what rights are natural, if any? I should hope that if we can agree that some natural rights do exist, such as with regard to slavery, that we can also agree that these rights should be held inviolate regardless of the will of the majority (or super majority).

[quote]Even if the average is higher, say at 70% or 75%, that's not any better than Government, and in a lot of cases a lot worse.[/quote]
Sorry, again I meant to say 70 cents are absorbed meaning that only 30 cents reach the recipients. Sorry for the mistake.

[quote]I'll also point out, however, that they do not say that any of the other rights retained by the people are any less valid than those that are enumerated. In other words, it cannot be said that there are "first tier" rights, "second tier" rights, and so on.[/quote]
I can agree with this 100% with one caveat: not everything one may claim as a right truly is a right. I get the feeling that by mentioning "first tier" and "second tier" that you are attempting to claim that rights such as a right to a job or a right to healthcare are also unenumerated rights. If so, I must disagree. The unenumerated rights to which the 9th Amendment refers were understood to consist of those rights that exist as part of the founder's prevailing concept of "natural rights". To put this concept into context, let's see what Jefferson had to say about it:
[quote]"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany[/quote]
So we can rightly do anything that can be done without infringing on the same rights of others. Therefore, a right to healthcare cannot be claimed simultaneously with a right to be free to act or not to act or to a right of property. A right to a job cannot be claimed simultaneously with a right to freely dispose of one's property as one sees fit.

[quote]Obviously, Jefferson was not completely sold on an individuals right to use his property as he sees fit.[/quote]
I think this comment was made more in reference to the uncultivated lands still existing at the time in North America, the spurious land claims that existed at the time, and monopoly of vital resources. Jefferson was against the granting of monopolies for long periods (he usually used the term "monopolies" to refer to patents and copyrights). And with regard to uncultivated land, you must remember that at the time land claims had to be limited because otherwise nothing would stop one from arbitrarily claiming the remainder of the North American continent. I don't think Jefferson meant that the confiscation of property was acceptable to establish supposed economic equality, and my belief is grounded in other statements by Jefferson:
[quote]"Our wish... is that... equality of rights [be] maintained, and that state of property, equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'" --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy's "Political Economy," [/quote]

[quote]This law of nature trumps property rights. At least property rights in land.[/quote]
I don't think it can be stated quite as simply as that. Your statement juxtaposed with the quote you provided could be taken to meant that there is, or should be, no such thing as trespassing, etc. If you intended this quote of Jefferson's to be illustrative of those natural rights that supposedly trump property rights, I think it is a misapplication of Jefferson's statements. The quote you supplied was about a slave's (Samuel Howell) right to be free. So in a sense it dealt with property rights but only insofar as Jefferson was arguing against the notion of people as property. It would be extending his statements out of this context to apply them to land rights, etc.

If you read the complete letter to Madison, you will see that Jefferson clearly was against individuals owning vast tracks of land, not in production, while others went without work. It is also quite clear that rights to land are a right supplied by government. Let me requote.



Having said that, the reason men form governments is to protect life, liberty and property. When property can be taken at the whim of a majority, life and liberty are also at risk. It is no coincidence that nations that have severely limited property rights have also severely restricted other freedoms.

Yes, Jefferson's primary concern was that a fuedalistic system might take hold in America. He was opposed to gove