The Definition and Universal Applicability of Natural Right

[jordan179]

The historical record of the claim to superiority, either as regards untested materials for bridges or untested orders for society, is not a good one. Almost the only successful revolutions in post-medieval times -- "successful" in that they not merely brought down corrupt or unjust regimes but then built something better in their places which

Comments

[melvin_udall]

It could be that I'm paranoid and cynical, but it seems as if you've narrowed the criteria of acceptable examples to such a degree to deliberately exclude France, and entirely in an effort to head off the well known argument dealing with France that undermines your point.

Am I missing something?

[jordan179]

I wouldn't say that the French Revolution was a success, if that is to which you refer. Because it almost immediately went radical and began eating its children (and anyone else unfortunate enough to be in the reach of French arms), it corrupted its own legacy. Its failure to protect the rights of its citizens led directly to extreme French political instablity which lasted over a century and a half. It's true that modern France (from the end of World War II to the present) has done a bit better (though even then with one signficant regime change), but the experience cost France dearly: in fact, it cost France the cultural leadership of Europe.

Of course I could be missing your point -- were you talking about something else than the French Revolution, in connection with France?

[melvin_udall]

Many argue the big difference between the French Revolution and the American Revolution, leading the former to mob mass murder and chaos, was that the French based their rights on what are essentially your arguments as opposed to something external and above. What men create other men can take away.

[jordan179]

But men did not create human nature -- it was created for us (regardless of by what process). Indeed, the logic of Natural Right goes beyond merely "human" nature -- it could be applied to any conceivable sapient beings, with the appropriate modifications.

Furthermore, my point is precisely that Natural Right may be violated, but that to the extent it is violated, the society which violates it will pay a price in inefficiency and suffering. I think the fate of France over the period from 1789-1815, or more generally from 1789-1945, rather well illustrates my argument!

[kitten_goddess]

"Suppose that I claim that I have the (positive) right to, oh, a typical suburban house of my own. This sounds very good and fine for me, but reflect that to get this house (assuming that I lack the ability or will to gain enough resources to trade for it myself) either someone must build it for me, or I must take it from someone else. In either case, someone else is being deprived of his natural right to the secure enjoyment of his own property

[irked_indeed]

Mm. Who provides the materials for them to build their own home? The know-how? Who pays the government to hire the unemployed?

In your former example, the answers are, "The people who donated to HfH," I suppose, and well and good- but in that case there's no real claim that you have a right. Habitat (and its sponsors) has basically given you an unearned opportunity.

In the latter example, people are being forcibly deprived of the resources in use to build the home: the money to hire the unemployed, the goods to refurbish it- and either the money to buy the property or, simply, the property itself.

The costs in your example are a bit hidden, but they're there.

[jordan179]

Right. The program may still be justifiable, especially if the cost be low and the reduction in negative externalities high, but we are fooling ourselves if we think that the tax dollars were obtained cost-free to the members of the rest of society, or their rights to property.

[jordan179]

"Suppose that I claim that I have the (positive) right to, oh, a typical suburban house of my own. This sounds very good and fine for me, but reflect that to get this house (assuming that I lack the ability or will to gain enough resources to trade for it myself) either someone must build it for me, or I must take it from someone else. In either case, someone else is being deprived of his natural right to the secure enjoyment of his own property.

Not necessarily. Suppose a homeless family builds a new home for themselves through Habitat for Humanity. The family would get housing without anyone else being deprived of property. In short, positive rights do not necessarily have to be a zero-sum game.

This is an expression of their negative right to liberty, since they are free to employ their labor in the construction of the house. To the extent that Habitat for Humanity is supported by voluntary contribution, it is also an expression of the negative right to the enjoyment of property (which may be "enjoyed" by contributing to worthy

[pathia]

This is one of those things, where I understand the logic, theory and practice of what folks believe.

Then I sit back and examine my life, how it would have been potentially over at several points WITHOUT positive rights. (Namely government provided shelter/medicine/opportunities/etc).

[irked_indeed]

From what I understand, private charitable giving decreases with increased taxation- at a rate greater than taxation. So it's possible your needs would have been met by volunteers, rather than tax payments.

Or it's possible they wouldn't- I obviously don't know. But I'd hesitate to conclude that a philosophy of positive rights is necessary to caring for those who need support of one kind or another.

[pathia]

I was turned away from private/religious homeless shelters due to my 'lifestyle', the government run ones let me stay the night and shower.

[carbonelle]

To what extent did your "lifestyle" leave you at the mercy of other people's charity?

Or, to put it another way, everyone has to the right to go to hell in a handbasket on his own dime.

Even so, the available charitable resources has been shrinking dramatically, year by year, as people expect "the goverment" i.e. "not me or mine" to step up and help those who find themselves riding their own particular handbaskets. The only people who are still compelled, despite both financial and social incentives to get down in the gutter will be those whose religious fervor is sufficient to overcome these barriers.

As you have discovered, this doesn't always work as well as it might.