|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Mar 28, 2014 13:40:13 GMT
I have put forward the proposition that a person cannot "own land or natural resources" based upon their Inalienable Rights in another thread and have been challenged on that. The allegation made was that this proposition appeared to be downright socialistic. It is time for me to explain my logic behind the proposition.
First and foremost let's clear up the issue of whether it's socialistic. Under socialism land and natural resources belong to the "collective" (i.e. all of the people) but under my proposition no one owns the land or natural resources. It is the antithesis of socialistic beliefs.
Our concept of ownership of land and natural resources is based upon the ancient belief in the "Divine Right of Kings" which was established by, who else but, the Kings. Under this belief the Monarch was granted ownership of the land, natural resources, and even the people within their territorial domain. To administer "government" on behalf of the Monarch "Titles of Nobility" was granted by the Monarch to their political supporters and with that "Title of Nobility" came the granting of "Title" to the land, natural resources, and people within that subordinate territorial domain. Of course this "Title" could be revoked by the Monarch at anytime for any reason because the King owned those granted Title.
Our reference today as having "Title to Property" is a direct reference to the "Title of Nobility" granted under the Divine Right of Kings that was created by fiat of the King. It was not based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person and the founders of America rejected government based upon the Divine Right of Kings in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence.
Two major considerations exist when we address the Inalienable Right of Property of the Person.
First and foremost is that the Inalienable Right of Property is established by the labor of the person.
A person cannot "create land" or "create natural resources" with their labor. The cannot create "gold" for example. They can mine it but they can't create it. The same is true for land. They might fence it (and own the fence) and they can even enrich the soil but they don't create the Earth itself. The can use the land but cannot create it.
Next is the fact that an Inalienable Right of the Person cannot conflict with the Inalienable Rights of another Person.
The "nomad" harvesting the natural resources of the land has just as much of a Right to Use the Land and Natural Resources as the settler that would grow crops on it. By growing crops the "settler" is depriving the "nomad" of their natural hunting and harvesting grounds. The "rancher" that raises cattle and posts "no tresspassing" signs is denying other persons the "liberty" to use that land for other purposes such as harvesting herbs or hunting wild game that would not infringe upon the ability of the rancher to raise beef.
Monopoly "ownership" of land and/or natural resources denies other persons the Right of Liberty to the use of the land or natural resources for survival. In theory if land can be "owned" then all land can be owned by a small percentage of the "people" and they could deny the majority even a place to stand on the Earth. The concept of "monopoly control of land and/or natural resources based upon title of ownership" violates the Inalienable Right of Liberty to all persons denied the use of the land and/or natural resources to which "Title" is granted by the Government (in lieu of the King).
The obvious problem is that we need meat, corn, wheat, gold, coal, silver, copper, timber, and many other commodities provided for us by nature and, with most of these we need far more than nature would produce on it's own but we don't have an Inalienable Right to either the Land or the Natural Resources that we, as a society, require.
There is a solution to this problem.
As a society we can authorize a voluntary limited infringement upon our own Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Right of Liberty to use the land and natural resources by granting the authority for use of the land and/or natural resources to a "person" where doing so benefits all of us.
For example, we need beef and a rancher can provide us with far more beef than we could possible hope to provide for ourselves. It would be impossible for someone living in an apartment to raise a steer for example so it makes sense for them to allow a rancher to fence off a section of land to raise beef. The rancher doesn't "own the land" but is authorized to use to raise beef for the benefit of the other people in society based upon their voluntary consent.
Voluntary limitations upon our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights are actually inherent in our Social Contract so long as there are compelling arguments (e.g. speed limits on public roads, prohibitons against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, ect.) but such limitations should always be to the least extent possible to achieved the benefit established by the compelling argument.
Bottom line we can achieve That benefits us as a society by granting "authority" to use the land and/or secure natural resources for use based upon compelling arguments where we limit our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Right of Liberty to use that land or obtain those natural resources for ourselves. The rancher doesn't "own the land" but is authorized to use to raise beef. The mining operation doesn't own the coal, silver, iron ore, or mineraly but is authorized to mine it.
In these cases the rancher and the miner are allowed to "profit" from their labor related to the use of the land or providing the natural resource for use by society but that authority is limited to specific authority granted by voluntary consent of the People based upon the compelling argument. We as people also require "shelter" so an authority is granted to us to use land for a home or for an apartment complex. We "own' the home. the landlord owns the apartment building, the manufacturer that builds a factory owns the factory, but they don't "own the land" but are allowed to use it by society because it benefits society but that "use" authorization is limited. They cannot, for example, contaminate the soil with toxic substances because they don't own the actual land. They only have an authorization to use it for the specific purpose granted by the People based upon voluntary consent where that use benefits the people based upon compelling arguments.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 31, 2014 16:37:08 GMT
I have put forward the proposition that a person cannot "own land or natural resources" based upon their Inalienable Rights in another thread and have been challenged on that. The allegation made was that this proposition appeared to be downright socialistic. It is time for me to explain my logic behind the proposition.
First and foremost let's clear up the issue of whether it's socialistic. Under socialism land and natural resources belong to the "collective" (i.e. all of the people) but under my proposition no one owns the land or natural resources. It is the antithesis of socialistic beliefs.
Our concept of ownership of land and natural resources is based upon the ancient belief in the "Divine Right of Kings" which was established by, who else but, the Kings. Under this belief the Monarch was granted ownership of the land, natural resources, and even the people within their territorial domain. To administer "government" on behalf of the Monarch "Titles of Nobility" was granted by the Monarch to their political supporters and with that "Title of Nobility" came the granting of "Title" to the land, natural resources, and people within that subordinate territorial domain. Of course this "Title" could be revoked by the Monarch at anytime for any reason because the King owned those granted Title.
Our reference today as having "Title to Property" is a direct reference to the "Title of Nobility" granted under the Divine Right of Kings that was created by fiat of the King. It was not based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person and the founders of America rejected government based upon the Divine Right of Kings in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence.
Two major considerations exist when we address the Inalienable Right of Property of the Person.
First and foremost is that the Inalienable Right of Property is established by the labor of the person.
A person cannot "create land" or "create natural resources" with their labor. The cannot create "gold" for example. They can mine it but they can't create it. The same is true for land. They might fence it (and own the fence) and they can even enrich the soil but they don't create the Earth itself. The can use the land but cannot create it.
Next is the fact that an Inalienable Right of the Person cannot conflict with the Inalienable Rights of another Person.
The "nomad" harvesting the natural resources of the land has just as much of a Right to Use the Land and Natural Resources as the settler that would grow crops on it. By growing crops the "settler" is depriving the "nomad" of their natural hunting and harvesting grounds. The "rancher" that raises cattle and posts "no tresspassing" signs is denying other persons the "liberty" to use that land for other purposes such as harvesting herbs or hunting wild game that would not infringe upon the ability of the rancher to raise beef.
Monopoly "ownership" of land and/or natural resources denies other persons the Right of Liberty to the use of the land or natural resources for survival. In theory if land can be "owned" then all land can be owned by a small percentage of the "people" and they could deny the majority even a place to stand on the Earth. The concept of "monopoly control of land and/or natural resources based upon title of ownership" violates the Inalienable Right of Liberty to all persons denied the use of the land and/or natural resources to which "Title" is granted by the Government (in lieu of the King).
The obvious problem is that we need meat, corn, wheat, gold, coal, silver, copper, timber, and many other commodities provided for us by nature and, with most of these we need far more than nature would produce on it's own but we don't have an Inalienable Right to either the Land or the Natural Resources that we, as a society, require.
There is a solution to this problem.
As a society we can authorize a voluntary limited infringement upon our own Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Right of Liberty to use the land and natural resources by granting the authority for use of the land and/or natural resources to a "person" where doing so benefits all of us.
For example, we need beef and a rancher can provide us with far more beef than we could possible hope to provide for ourselves. It would be impossible for someone living in an apartment to raise a steer for example so it makes sense for them to allow a rancher to fence off a section of land to raise beef. The rancher doesn't "own the land" but is authorized to use to raise beef for the benefit of the other people in society based upon their voluntary consent.
Voluntary limitations upon our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights are actually inherent in our Social Contract so long as there are compelling arguments (e.g. speed limits on public roads, prohibitons against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, ect.) but such limitations should always be to the least extent possible to achieved the benefit established by the compelling argument.
Bottom line we can achieve That benefits us as a society by granting "authority" to use the land and/or secure natural resources for use based upon compelling arguments where we limit our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Right of Liberty to use that land or obtain those natural resources for ourselves. The rancher doesn't "own the land" but is authorized to use to raise beef. The mining operation doesn't own the coal, silver, iron ore, or mineraly but is authorized to mine it.
In these cases the rancher and the miner are allowed to "profit" from their labor related to the use of the land or providing the natural resource for use by society but that authority is limited to specific authority granted by voluntary consent of the People based upon the compelling argument. We as people also require "shelter" so an authority is granted to us to use land for a home or for an apartment complex. We "own' the home. the landlord owns the apartment building, the manufacturer that builds a factory owns the factory, but they don't "own the land" but are allowed to use it by society because it benefits society but that "use" authorization is limited. They cannot, for example, contaminate the soil with toxic substances because they don't own the actual land. They only have an authorization to use it for the specific purpose granted by the People based upon voluntary consent where that use benefits the people based upon compelling arguments.
First, let me apologize for not having responded to this thread previously. I was not intending to ignore you. I have just been rather busy recently. I would just note that one would probably do well to avoid arguing against something --anything--simply based upon its pedigree. And I am not at all convinced that the collective interests of society should trump the rights of the individual. Not in a truly free society. Moreover, I would be quite reticent to grant government the authority to allow its citizens to "use" the land--or anything else, for that matter--if only they jump through some hoops properly. (Yes, there is currently precedent for that concept; but I still do not like it.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 1, 2014 12:38:30 GMT
First, let me apologize for not having responded to this thread previously. I was not intending to ignore you. I have just been rather busy recently. I would just note that one would probably do well to avoid arguing against something --anything--simply based upon its pedigree. And I am not at all convinced that the collective interests of society should trump the rights of the individual. Not in a truly free society. Moreover, I would be quite reticent to grant government the authority to allow its citizens to "use" the land--or anything else, for that matter--if only they jump through some hoops properly. (Yes, there is currently precedent for that concept; but I still do not like it.)
"Never apologize, it's a sign of weakness." Capt Nathan Brittles (John Wayne in the movie "She wore a yellow ribbon") Just kidding. Life is busy sometimes so no worries.
I merely mention that the term "Land Title" does originate from "Royal Titles" granted to political allies by the monarch based upon the "Divine Right of Kings" (created by the "Kings") that established the monarch owned everything including the people. Of course the issue is much more fundatmental than that. It's a matter of the "government" owning the land regardless of whether it's a king or democratically elected government and the government grants title of the land to the person. An Inalienable Right exists outside of the existance of government and cannot be based upon anything "granted" by government.
Let's simply "go back to nature" to ask how can a person can come to own land?
From a historical perspective, when land was first settled, the ownership of land was based upon a "person" simply staking out a piece of the Earth and declaring "This is my land" and then using force to take it away from anyone else. They didn't have any "right" to that land to begin with and it could have been the prime "hunting grounds" of the nomads. That declaration of "This is my land" was violating the Inalienable Rights of the nomad to use that land for hunting or gathering and the taking of the land was based upon an "act of aggression" by the settler agianst the nomad.
There cannot be an Inalienable Right of the Person if it conflicts with the Inalienable Rights of another Person and the Settler cannot have an Inalienable Right that is in conflict with the Inalienable Rights of the Nomad.
Inalienable Rights are based upon the "natural rights" of man and the "natural right" of all persons is to live off of the land and the surplus of the natural resources. I clarify that with "surplus" because a person that diminished the natural resourses is infringing upon the "natural rights" of another person to use that natural resource.
A person that cuts down the last tree for lumber would prevent anyone else from using lumber as an example.
I understand the objection to the "government" owning and distributing ownership of land (monopoly control) to individuals but that is exactly what existed under the "Divine Right of Kings" and it's exactly what we have under our current government. Any land not previously granted by fiat to a person is owned by the "government" and that is what I specifically object to. Government doesn't have an Inalienable Right of Property and cannot grant "land title" to a person because the government doesn't own the land.
I object to the concept that land can be owned by either an individual or by all individuals collectively. Land cannot be owned because, as noted, "land ownership" is based upon an act of aggression against other persons that is a violation of the Inalienable Rights of those other persons.
With that stated, and restated, we also know that an individual person can increase the bounty of nature by personal interventionism. A farmer can grow more "grain" on a cultivated piece of land than nature would provide. It benefits every person for the more grain to be produced by the land. Logically we would all agree to that and would want to provide some protections to the farmer so that the "fruits of they labor" are not taken from them. Why would a person logically cultivate the land to produce a crop if just anyone could come along and take it away from them?
Basically each and every one of us agrees that the "farmer" can use the land that none of us own and protect their Inalienable Right to that which they produce with their labor.
On the flip side of this we can also point out cases where the "person" had caused all of us harm by over-exploiting nature. The stocks of consumable fish in the ocean has been reduced by 80% which means less fish is available for everyone. Fewer fish in the ocean harms all of the individuals and is a violation of their Inalienable Rights to obtain fish for their survival. The "fisherman" that over-fishes is violating the Inalienable Rights of all other persons to survive off of the bounty of nature. Think about this from a fundamental standpoint. As I noted there is no way to establish "ownership of land or natural resources" by the person based upon an Inalienable Right as all person's have the identical Inalienable Rights related to the use of the land and natural resources.
Then deal with the fact that in many cases (not all) it benefits all persons if a one person uses a small piece of land or harvests the bounty of nature for use by all persons. The person that does so is doing all persons a favor by their expenditure of labor.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 1, 2014 16:37:47 GMT
First, let me apologize for not having responded to this thread previously. I was not intending to ignore you. I have just been rather busy recently. I would just note that one would probably do well to avoid arguing against something --anything--simply based upon its pedigree. And I am not at all convinced that the collective interests of society should trump the rights of the individual. Not in a truly free society. Moreover, I would be quite reticent to grant government the authority to allow its citizens to "use" the land--or anything else, for that matter--if only they jump through some hoops properly. (Yes, there is currently precedent for that concept; but I still do not like it.)
"Never apologize, it's a sign of weakness." Capt Nathan Brittles (John Wayne in the movie "She wore a yellow ribbon") Just kidding. Life is busy sometimes so no worries.
I merely mention that the term "Land Title" does originate from "Royal Titles" granted to political allies by the monarch based upon the "Divine Right of Kings" (created by the "Kings") that established the monarch owned everything including the people. Of course the issue is much more fundatmental than that. It's a matter of the "government" owning the land regardless of whether it's a king or democratically elected government and the government grants title of the land to the person. An Inalienable Right exists outside of the existance of government and cannot be based upon anything "granted" by government.
Let's simply "go back to nature" to ask how can a person can come to own land?
From a historical perspective, when land was first settled, the ownership of land was based upon a "person" simply staking out a piece of the Earth and declaring "This is my land" and then using force to take it away from anyone else. They didn't have any "right" to that land to begin with and it could have been the prime "hunting grounds" of the nomads. That declaration of "This is my land" was violating the Inalienable Rights of the nomad to use that land for hunting or gathering and the taking of the land was based upon an "act of aggression" by the settler agianst the nomad.
There cannot be an Inalienable Right of the Person if it conflicts with the Inalienable Rights of another Person and the Settler cannot have an Inalienable Right that is in conflict with the Inalienable Rights of the Nomad.
Inalienable Rights are based upon the "natural rights" of man and the "natural right" of all persons is to live off of the land and the surplus of the natural resources. I clarify that with "surplus" because a person that diminished the natural resourses is infringing upon the "natural rights" of another person to use that natural resource.
A person that cuts down the last tree for lumber would prevent anyone else from using lumber as an example.
I understand the objection to the "government" owning and distributing ownership of land (monopoly control) to individuals but that is exactly what existed under the "Divine Right of Kings" and it's exactly what we have under our current government. Any land not previously granted by fiat to a person is owned by the "government" and that is what I specifically object to. Government doesn't have an Inalienable Right of Property and cannot grant "land title" to a person because the government doesn't own the land.
I object to the concept that land can be owned by either an individual or by all individuals collectively. Land cannot be owned because, as noted, "land ownership" is based upon an act of aggression against other persons that is a violation of the Inalienable Rights of those other persons.
With that stated, and restated, we also know that an individual person can increase the bounty of nature by personal interventionism. A farmer can grow more "grain" on a cultivated piece of land than nature would provide. It benefits every person for the more grain to be produced by the land. Logically we would all agree to that and would want to provide some protections to the farmer so that the "fruits of they labor" are not taken from them. Why would a person logically cultivate the land to produce a crop if just anyone could come along and take it away from them?
Basically each and every one of us agrees that the "farmer" can use the land that none of us own and protect their Inalienable Right to that which they produce with their labor.
On the flip side of this we can also point out cases where the "person" had caused all of us harm by over-exploiting nature. The stocks of consumable fish in the ocean has been reduced by 80% which means less fish is available for everyone. Fewer fish in the ocean harms all of the individuals and is a violation of their Inalienable Rights to obtain fish for their survival. The "fisherman" that over-fishes is violating the Inalienable Rights of all other persons to survive off of the bounty of nature. Think about this from a fundamental standpoint. As I noted there is no way to establish "ownership of land or natural resources" by the person based upon an Inalienable Right as all person's have the identical Inalienable Rights related to the use of the land and natural resources.
Then deal with the fact that in many cases (not all) it benefits all persons if a one person uses a small piece of land or harvests the bounty of nature for use by all persons. The person that does so is doing all persons a favor by their expenditure of labor.
I fully agree that the overharvesting of anything that is finite--whether fish or something else--is enormously troubling. However, I certainly would not wish to categorize it as a violation of "Inalienable Rights." And I am aware of no evidence that Jefferson, Madison, Jay, or any of the other Founders saw it that way, either. And I really do not care for the doctrine of eminent domain. (Yes, it is written into the US Constitution; but on this point, I tend to agree more closely with Jefferson--who sought to abolish the practice entirely--than I do with Madison; and that is a bit unusual for me.) Of course, the practice of eminent domain reached its very apotheosis--or perhaps, more accurately, its nadir-- with Kelo v. City of New London [Connecticut] in 2005. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 3, 2014 13:25:54 GMT
I fully agree that the overharvesting of anything that is finite--whether fish or something else--is enormously troubling. However, I certainly would not wish to categorize it as a violation of "Inalienable Rights." And I am aware of no evidence that Jefferson, Madison, Jay, or any of the other Founders saw it that way, either. And I really do not care for the doctrine of eminent domain. (Yes, it is written into the US Constitution; but on this point, I tend to agree more closely with Jefferson--who sought to abolish the practice entirely--than I do with Madison; and that is a bit unusual for me.) Of course, the practice of eminent domain reached its very apotheosis--or perhaps, more accurately, its nadir-- with Kelo v. City of New London [Connecticut] in 2005.
I often cite both Jefferson and Madison in my arguments but there is one thing we know about both. Neither believed that they were the final authority when it came to Inalienable Rights. They learned from the teachings of John Locke that addressed the "natural Rights of man" and built upon that with an understanding of the "Inalienable Rights of Men" but remember that this pragmatically only applied to (WASP) male property owners at the time. In the centuries since the original writing of the Declaration of Independence we have expanded our understanding of "the Inalienable Rights of all Men" to the "Inalienable Rights of all Persons" with amendments to the US Constitution that enumerated those Rights or protections of those Rights for minorities and women.
It is our responsibility to build upon what Jefferson and Madison wrote and understood when the United States was founded and not to be regressive in believing that they "knew it all" because they basically stated they didn't by including the 9th Amendment in the US Constitution. They knew, and Jefferson argued, that it would be impossible for them to list all of the inalienable rights because that would be an ever developing list over time.
In addressing natural resources we must go back to the basics. Mankind developed as a nomadic people that lived off of the surpluse of the land be it game or plants. Every person had an equal inalienable right to this natural bounty but if one person "consumed it all" or diminished the amount of that resource to the point that it would deny others equal use of the natural resource they were infringing upon the "rights" of those being denied the resource. As an example I mentioned the depletion of the edible fish in the sea where, for example, the tuna supply has been reduced by 80%. That means if I go fishing for tuna today to live on I only have 1/5th the likelihood of survival based upon the depleted tuna stocks of the ocean. The over-fishing has created a threat to my survival based upon my natural (Inalienable) right to live off the bounty of the ocean. The over-fishing represents an "act of aggression" against my Right to Life based upon a natural right to harvest the bounty of the Earth for the purpose of survival.
I'm glad that you understand the doctrine of eminent domain and object to it. A problem that we face is that the term "eminent domain" is used in the context of "government" but it actually applies in any case where land is confiscated by either government or the person. The settler that stakes out a parcel of land is exercising "eminent domain" over that land by denying access to other persons that have an equal "right" to that parcel of land. The government doesn't have a "right of eminent domain" because the person doesn't have a "right of eminent domain" that they can delegate to government. To put this in mathmatical terms if one person has "0" right then one million people still have "0" rights. Zero times 100 million still results in zero. Simple math.
It is the invalidation of the princple of "eminent domain" upon which I base my argument against any Inalienable Right of Property related to land and/or natural resources. Both land and natural resources can be shared but not actually owned.
Now, I do have an Inalienable Right to not "Exercise" my Inalienable Rights. I can voluntarily agree to not trespass on land if it is beneficial to me to not tresspass. Every one of us has the Inalienable Right to voluntarily not "Exercise" an Inalienable Right but would arguabley only do so if it was beneficial to us. Using this by applying it mathmatically every person as an Inalienable Right of "1" to voluntarily not exercise an inalienable right they possess and they would logically do so if it was beneficial to them. Now we have "1" multipled by "one million" and the result is 1,000,000. We can voluntarily authorize the use of the land we don't own to be used exclusively by one person (or many persons) if it is beneficial for us to do so based upon a compelling argment. We simply agree to not "Exercise" our Right of Liberty related to the land based upon the benefit we receive estabished by compelling argument.
The final note is that we would logically only voluntarily limit our freedom to "exercise our inalienable right" in order to achieve the benefit established by the compelling argument but no more than that.
By way of example there is the compelling argument to allow a rancher to fence a parcel of land to raise cattle for protection and management of the cattle so that I can purchase a steak to eat at the local market. I benefit from allowing the rancher to fence the land for the purpose of raising cattle. Here's the caveat though. In raising the been rabbits will also use that same parcel of land. What if I want to hunt those rabbits without harming the ranchers beef? Wouldn't it be logical to allow me to hunt the rabbits so long as I don't damage the fence or harm the cattle? Why would I logically give up my Right of Liberty to hunt rabbits on that land that has absolutely nothing to do with the rancher raising cattle to supply the steaks I buy at the market that benefits me?
I also lose the benefit of the rancher raising beef so I can buy a steak if that rancher "sells the land" that they don't actually own so someone else can build condos. Not saying there isn't a compelling argument for the use of land for condos but why should the rancher benefit financially from a transaction related to something the rancher can't actually own?
A lot to think about isn't there? The understanding of the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" remains only a partially finished work of art and it is the responsibility of each generation to add to that painting and the founders of the United States such as Jefferson and Madison would agree with this completely. Sometimes we even have to repaint that which was painted before us just like Michelangelo was required to do when painting the Sistine Chapel.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 3, 2014 23:22:35 GMT
I fully agree that the overharvesting of anything that is finite--whether fish or something else--is enormously troubling. However, I certainly would not wish to categorize it as a violation of "Inalienable Rights." And I am aware of no evidence that Jefferson, Madison, Jay, or any of the other Founders saw it that way, either. And I really do not care for the doctrine of eminent domain. (Yes, it is written into the US Constitution; but on this point, I tend to agree more closely with Jefferson--who sought to abolish the practice entirely--than I do with Madison; and that is a bit unusual for me.) Of course, the practice of eminent domain reached its very apotheosis--or perhaps, more accurately, its nadir-- with Kelo v. City of New London [Connecticut] in 2005.
I often cite both Jefferson and Madison in my arguments but there is one thing we know about both. Neither believed that they were the final authority when it came to Inalienable Rights. They learned from the teachings of John Locke that addressed the "natural Rights of man" and built upon that with an understanding of the "Inalienable Rights of Men" but remember that this pragmatically only applied to (WASP) male property owners at the time. In the centuries since the original writing of the Declaration of Independence we have expanded our understanding of "the Inalienable Rights of all Men" to the "Inalienable Rights of all Persons" with amendments to the US Constitution that enumerated those Rights or protections of those Rights for minorities and women.
It is our responsibility to build upon what Jefferson and Madison wrote and understood when the United States was founded and not to be regressive in believing that they "knew it all" because they basically stated they didn't by including the 9th Amendment in the US Constitution. They knew, and Jefferson argued, that it would be impossible for them to list all of the inalienable rights because that would be an ever developing list over time.
In addressing natural resources we must go back to the basics. Mankind developed as a nomadic people that lived off of the surpluse of the land be it game or plants. Every person had an equal inalienable right to this natural bounty but if one person "consumed it all" or diminished the amount of that resource to the point that it would deny others equal use of the natural resource they were infringing upon the "rights" of those being denied the resource. As an example I mentioned the depletion of the edible fish in the sea where, for example, the tuna supply has been reduced by 80%. That means if I go fishing for tuna today to live on I only have 1/5th the likelihood of survival based upon the depleted tuna stocks of the ocean. The over-fishing has created a threat to my survival based upon my natural (Inalienable) right to live off the bounty of the ocean. The over-fishing represents an "act of aggression" against my Right to Life based upon a natural right to harvest the bounty of the Earth for the purpose of survival.
I'm glad that you understand the doctrine of eminent domain and object to it. A problem that we face is that the term "eminent domain" is used in the context of "government" but it actually applies in any case where land is confiscated by either government or the person. The settler that stakes out a parcel of land is exercising "eminent domain" over that land by denying access to other persons that have an equal "right" to that parcel of land. The government doesn't have a "right of eminent domain" because the person doesn't have a "right of eminent domain" that they can delegate to government. To put this in mathmatical terms if one person has "0" right then one million people still have "0" rights. Zero times 100 million still results in zero. Simple math.
It is the invalidation of the princple of "eminent domain" upon which I base my argument against any Inalienable Right of Property related to land and/or natural resources. Both land and natural resources can be shared but not actually owned.
Now, I do have an Inalienable Right to not "Exercise" my Inalienable Rights. I can voluntarily agree to not trespass on land if it is beneficial to me to not tresspass. Every one of us has the Inalienable Right to voluntarily not "Exercise" an Inalienable Right but would arguabley only do so if it was beneficial to us. Using this by applying it mathmatically every person as an Inalienable Right of "1" to voluntarily not exercise an inalienable right they possess and they would logically do so if it was beneficial to them. Now we have "1" multipled by "one million" and the result is 1,000,000. We can voluntarily authorize the use of the land we don't own to be used exclusively by one person (or many persons) if it is beneficial for us to do so based upon a compelling argment. We simply agree to not "Exercise" our Right of Liberty related to the land based upon the benefit we receive estabished by compelling argument.
The final note is that we would logically only voluntarily limit our freedom to "exercise our inalienable right" in order to achieve the benefit established by the compelling argument but no more than that.
By way of example there is the compelling argument to allow a rancher to fence a parcel of land to raise cattle for protection and management of the cattle so that I can purchase a steak to eat at the local market. I benefit from allowing the rancher to fence the land for the purpose of raising cattle. Here's the caveat though. In raising the been rabbits will also use that same parcel of land. What if I want to hunt those rabbits without harming the ranchers beef? Wouldn't it be logical to allow me to hunt the rabbits so long as I don't damage the fence or harm the cattle? Why would I logically give up my Right of Liberty to hunt rabbits on that land that has absolutely nothing to do with the rancher raising cattle to supply the steaks I buy at the market that benefits me?
I also lose the benefit of the rancher raising beef so I can buy a steak if that rancher "sells the land" that they don't actually own so someone else can build condos. Not saying there isn't a compelling argument for the use of land for condos but why should the rancher benefit financially from a transaction related to something the rancher can't actually own?
A lot to think about isn't there? The understanding of the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" remains only a partially finished work of art and it is the responsibility of each generation to add to that painting and the founders of the United States such as Jefferson and Madison would agree with this completely. Sometimes we even have to repaint that which was painted before us just like Michelangelo was required to do when painting the Sistine Chapel.
First, let me say that I agree that the US Constitution, as originally penned--even with the first 10 amendmenst (i.e. the Bill of Rights)--was not The Perfect Document. If it had been, there would have been no need for subsequent amendments (including 17 since the Bill of Rights). Nonetheless, I would not wish to embrace an infinitely expansive view of the inalienable rights of man--or, to phrase it in a more gender-neutral manner, the inalienable rights of the person--simply predicated upon the vague language of the Ninth Amendment. And to refer to property rights, dismissively, as mere "confiscat[ion]" by the individual, is surely to beg the question at hand, and thereby prejudice it. Oh, and I should probably note that I am not especially concerned about protecting the interests--not "rights"--of some theoretical, nomadic non-Americans. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 4, 2014 12:28:52 GMT
First, let me say that I agree that the US Constitution, as originally penned--even with the first 10 amendmenst (i.e. the Bill of Rights)--was not The Perfect Document. If it had been, there would have been no need for subsequent amendments (including 17 since the Bill of Rights). Nonetheless, I would not wish to embrace an infinitely expansive view of the inalienable rights of man--or, to phrase it in a more gender-neutral manner, the inalienable rights of the person--simply predicated upon the vague language of the Ninth Amendment. And to refer to property rights, dismissively, as mere "confiscat[ion]" by the individual, is surely to beg the question at hand, and thereby prejudice it. Oh, and I should probably note that I am not especially concerned about protecting the interests--not "rights"--of some theoretical, nomadic non-Americans.
Actually I would state that the original US Constitution, when it came to the People, was perfect when penned because of a single Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights.
The only problem was that we didn't understand the Inalienable Rights of the Person because if we did then the subsequent Amendments that were ratified to enumerate and/or protect those Rights would have been unnecessary. For example we really shouldn't have required the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery because slavery violated the unenumerated Rights of the People.
Of course the Inalienable Rights of the Person are not established by whim or political opinion. There are established based upon specific criteria that I have shared before.
An Inalienable Right is inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person, cannot violate the Inalienable Rights of another person, nor can it impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.
It is really a simple matter of applying this criteria to determine if something is an Inalienable Right of the Person as it must meet this criteria. If it does then it's an Inalienable Right and if it doesn't then it is not.
I totally agree that the "interests" of the person are not the same as the "rights" of the person. In truth a person only has the "power to act" based upon their "Inalienable Rights" as a person.
We have an Inalienable Right of Liberty (mentioned in the Declaration of Independence) and with that comes the "power to act" upon it by walking over the land. Our Right of Liberty being exercised by walking across the land is not dependent upon any other person, we do not violate anyone elses Inalienable Rights, nor do we create any involuntary obligations upon another person by walking across the land. Now a person might have an "interest" in claiming "eminent domain" (establishing monopoly control) by homesteading a piece of land but they do not have a Inalienable Right to do so because that would violate the Inalienable Right of Liberty of another person to walk across it. The "interest" is in conflict with the "Inalienable Rights" of the person.
As I've noted though there is an "interest" for us all in allowing a person to use a piece of land where it benefits us and we do have the Inalienable Right to voluntarily limit our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Right of Liberty. With the creation of government based upon the Social Contract we establish the criteria for this "voluntary consent" through the democratic/legislative process.
We can voluntarily, as a society, authorize a person to "use the land" but we cannot sell it or grant it to them because we don't own the land based upon our Inalienable Rights. As I've also noted our voluntary agreement to limit our freedom to exercise our Inalienable Right of Liberty needs to be established by compelling arguments and the limitation imposed on our freedom to exercise our Inalienable Right of liberty needs to be to the least extent possible to achieve the purpose established by the compelling argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 4, 2014 17:47:20 GMT
First, let me say that I agree that the US Constitution, as originally penned--even with the first 10 amendmenst (i.e. the Bill of Rights)--was not The Perfect Document. If it had been, there would have been no need for subsequent amendments (including 17 since the Bill of Rights). Nonetheless, I would not wish to embrace an infinitely expansive view of the inalienable rights of man--or, to phrase it in a more gender-neutral manner, the inalienable rights of the person--simply predicated upon the vague language of the Ninth Amendment. And to refer to property rights, dismissively, as mere "confiscat[ion]" by the individual, is surely to beg the question at hand, and thereby prejudice it. Oh, and I should probably note that I am not especially concerned about protecting the interests--not "rights"--of some theoretical, nomadic non-Americans.
Actually I would state that the original US Constitution, when it came to the People, was perfect when penned because of a single Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights.
The only problem was that we didn't understand the Inalienable Rights of the Person because if we did then the subsequent Amendments that were ratified to enumerate and/or protect those Rights would have been unnecessary. For example we really shouldn't have required the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery because slavery violated the unenumerated Rights of the People.
Of course the Inalienable Rights of the Person are not established by whim or political opinion. There are established based upon specific criteria that I have shared before.
An Inalienable Right is inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person, cannot violate the Inalienable Rights of another person, nor can it impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.
It is really a simple matter of applying this criteria to determine if something is an Inalienable Right of the Person as it must meet this criteria. If it does then it's an Inalienable Right and if it doesn't then it is not.
I totally agree that the "interests" of the person are not the same as the "rights" of the person. In truth a person only has the "power to act" based upon their "Inalienable Rights" as a person.
We have an Inalienable Right of Liberty (mentioned in the Declaration of Independence) and with that comes the "power to act" upon it by walking over the land. Our Right of Liberty being exercised by walking across the land is not dependent upon any other person, we do not violate anyone elses Inalienable Rights, nor do we create any involuntary obligations upon another person by walking across the land. Now a person might have an "interest" in claiming "eminent domain" (establishing monopoly control) by homesteading a piece of land but they do not have a Inalienable Right to do so because that would violate the Inalienable Right of Liberty of another person to walk across it. The "interest" is in conflict with the "Inalienable Rights" of the person.
As I've noted though there is an "interest" for us all in allowing a person to use a piece of land where it benefits us and we do have the Inalienable Right to voluntarily limit our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Right of Liberty. With the creation of government based upon the Social Contract we establish the criteria for this "voluntary consent" through the democratic/legislative process.
We can voluntarily, as a society, authorize a person to "use the land" but we cannot sell it or grant it to them because we don't own the land based upon our Inalienable Rights. As I've also noted our voluntary agreement to limit our freedom to exercise our Inalienable Right of Liberty needs to be established by compelling arguments and the limitation imposed on our freedom to exercise our Inalienable Right of liberty needs to be to the least extent possible to achieve the purpose established by the compelling argument.
As you have previously noted, only certain Americans--specifically, white males--were originally considered "people." (In fact, for tax purposes, a slave was considered only only three-fifths of a "person.") To most of us nowadays--except, perhaps, some unreconstructed Ku Kluxers--this seems utterly repellent! Still, it is the way things once were. That does not make it good. History simply is what it is. So the Ninth Amendment really did not apply to such "non-persons" (as they were once viewed) as black people and women. The social contract simply did not include them. Therefore, subsequent (corrective) amendments were very much needed, it seems to me. To declare that we may act, "as a society," to grant use of the land to some (for a compelling societal interest), but that government may not act in such a manner, is downright self-contradictory, to my way of thinking. The actions of government are, effectively, the enforcement of the collective will of society. (Whenever this is not the case--as, for instance, with ObamaCare--there is a severe problem.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 5, 2014 11:40:30 GMT
As you have previously noted, only certain Americans--specifically, white males--were originally considered "people." (In fact, for tax purposes, a slave was considered only only three-fifths of a "person.") To most of us nowadays--except, perhaps, some unreconstructed Ku Kluxers--this seems utterly repellent! Still, it is the way things once were. That does not make it good. History simply is what it is. So the Ninth Amendment really did not apply to such "non-persons" (as they were once viewed) as black people and women. The social contract simply did not include them. Therefore, subsequent (corrective) amendments were very much needed, it seems to me. To declare that we may act, "as a society," to grant use of the land to some (for a compelling societal interest), but that government may not act in such a manner, is downright self-contradictory, to my way of thinking. The actions of government are, effectively, the enforcement of the collective will of society. (Whenever this is not the case--as, for instance, with ObamaCare--there is a severe problem.)
The "Inalienable Right" exists regardless of whether we know it exists or not. The 13th Amendment was merely the acknowledgement that the Inalienable Right of Liberty applied to black slaves as well as for WASP's in America. The black slave always had the Inalienable Right of Liberty that was being violated but the government was allowing their Inalienable Rights to be violated under the US Constitution. As noted, the Inalienable Right always existed, and was protected as an unenumerated Right under the 9th Amendment, but the 9th Amendment failed to protect that Right as it wasn't being recognized by our government. The government was wrong by allowing the violation of the 9th Amendment and that is what the 13th Amendment addressed.
BTW we knew and acknowledged that "blacks" were persons under the US Constitution prior to the 13th Amendment as "free blacks" were being protected by the Constitution through the US Supreme Court. The United States v. The Amistad (1841) decision rested on the fact that the "blacks" onboard were kidnapped "persons" as opposed to being "property" and therefore were granted the protections of the US Constitution. Not a single "black" slave ever became "property" voluntarily and, of course by definition, a person cannot give up their "Inalienable Rights" so a person cannot become "property" as opposed to being a person.
The "granting of authority to use the land" is based upon a voluntary willingness of Society to limit it's own "Freedom to Exercise" an Inalienable Right and is identicaly to our willingness to limit our Freedom to Express our Inalienable Right of Thought by prohbiting the yelling of "fire" in a crowded theater because it would cause panic, injury, and possible death. It is identical to our limitations on speed (i.e. speed limits) on the public roads and numcerous other cases of law. Many of our laws are based solely upon the willingness of society to limit our "Freedom to Exercise" an Inalienable Right based upon a logical and compelling argument that it benefits us to do so.
The precedent exists and is in general practice and, in truth, is a fundamental necessity for the Social Contract to exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 5, 2014 19:37:51 GMT
As you have previously noted, only certain Americans--specifically, white males--were originally considered "people." (In fact, for tax purposes, a slave was considered only only three-fifths of a "person.") To most of us nowadays--except, perhaps, some unreconstructed Ku Kluxers--this seems utterly repellent! Still, it is the way things once were. That does not make it good. History simply is what it is. So the Ninth Amendment really did not apply to such "non-persons" (as they were once viewed) as black people and women. The social contract simply did not include them. Therefore, subsequent (corrective) amendments were very much needed, it seems to me. To declare that we may act, "as a society," to grant use of the land to some (for a compelling societal interest), but that government may not act in such a manner, is downright self-contradictory, to my way of thinking. The actions of government are, effectively, the enforcement of the collective will of society. (Whenever this is not the case--as, for instance, with ObamaCare--there is a severe problem.)
The "Inalienable Right" exists regardless of whether we know it exists or not. The 13th Amendment was merely the acknowledgement that the Inalienable Right of Liberty applied to black slaves as well as for WASP's in America. The black slave always had the Inalienable Right of Liberty that was being violated but the government was allowing their Inalienable Rights to be violated under the US Constitution. As noted, the Inalienable Right always existed, and was protected as an unenumerated Right under the 9th Amendment, but the 9th Amendment failed to protect that Right as it wasn't being recognized by our government. The government was wrong by allowing the violation of the 9th Amendment and that is what the 13th Amendment addressed.
BTW we knew and acknowledged that "blacks" were persons under the US Constitution prior to the 13th Amendment as "free blacks" were being protected by the Constitution through the US Supreme Court. The United States v. The Amistad (1841) decision rested on the fact that the "blacks" onboard were kidnapped "persons" as opposed to being "property" and therefore were granted the protections of the US Constitution. Not a single "black" slave ever became "property" voluntarily and, of course by definition, a person cannot give up their "Inalienable Rights" so a person cannot become "property" as opposed to being a person.
The "granting of authority to use the land" is based upon a voluntary willingness of Society to limit it's own "Freedom to Exercise" an Inalienable Right and is identicaly to our willingness to limit our Freedom to Express our Inalienable Right of Thought by prohbiting the yelling of "fire" in a crowded theater because it would cause panic, injury, and possible death. It is identical to our limitations on speed (i.e. speed limits) on the public roads and numcerous other cases of law. Many of our laws are based solely upon the willingness of society to limit our "Freedom to Exercise" an Inalienable Right based upon a logical and compelling argument that it benefits us to do so.
The precedent exists and is in general practice and, in truth, is a fundamental necessity for the Social Contract to exist.
As usual, your response is very well reasoned. I just remain unconvinced. The Ninth Amendment is succinct enough. All it says is this: But if blacks and women were not considered "people" by the Framers (in any meaningful sense of the word)--and they really were not--to claim that they were protected by the Ninth Amendment is to superimpose our current mindset upon eighteenth-century Americans, who viewed the matter very differently. So, yes, I feel undiluted joy at the fact that blacks and women are no longer treated as if they were (somehow) almost subhuman! But I believe that constitutional amendments were the proper way to go here--not a reinterpretation of the Framers' actual intent. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 6, 2014 10:38:05 GMT
As usual, your response is very well reasoned. I just remain unconvinced. The Ninth Amendment is succinct enough. All it says is this: But if blacks and women were not considered "people" by the Framers (in any meaningful sense of the word)--and they really were not--to claim that they were protected by the Ninth Amendment is to superimpose our current mindset upon eighteenth-century Americans, who viewed the matter very differently. So, yes, I feel undiluted joy at the fact that blacks and women are no longer treated as if they were (somehow) almost subhuman! But I believe that constitutional amendments were the proper way to go here--not a reinterpretation of the Framers' actual intent.
In truth the legal recognition that Blacks and Women were Persons entitling them to the protections of their Inalienable Rights based upon the 9th Amendment, just like the wealthy WASP property owners, would merely be an admission of the fact that the American people are capable of learning and applying that knowledge.
The founding fathers of America expected us to learn and to apply that knowledge to our government just as they had learned from the past and created our government. The last thing any of them would have advocated is for mankind to not learn and apply that knowledge in the future. The founders of America were "progressives" and not "conservatives" by any sense of the word. They revolutionized our understanding of government with the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and if anything is "progressive" it's exactly what they did.
That is a fundamental problem with the "social-conservative" political ideology. The Founders of America would have rebelled at such a thought because they were the most progressive people politically in the history of mankind (IMHO). They would be the foremost "progressives" in political thinking today - not implying "progressive-liberal" definition but just the true definition of "progressive" as in "moving forward" as opposed to living in the past.
No, the founders were not "conservatives" politically nor would they have advocated being conservative politically
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 6, 2014 19:51:23 GMT
As usual, your response is very well reasoned. I just remain unconvinced. The Ninth Amendment is succinct enough. All it says is this: But if blacks and women were not considered "people" by the Framers (in any meaningful sense of the word)--and they really were not--to claim that they were protected by the Ninth Amendment is to superimpose our current mindset upon eighteenth-century Americans, who viewed the matter very differently. So, yes, I feel undiluted joy at the fact that blacks and women are no longer treated as if they were (somehow) almost subhuman! But I believe that constitutional amendments were the proper way to go here--not a reinterpretation of the Framers' actual intent.
In truth the legal recognition that Blacks and Women were Persons entitling them to the protections of their Inalienable Rights based upon the 9th Amendment, just like the wealthy WASP property owners, would merely be an admission of the fact that the American people are capable of learning and applying that knowledge.
The founding fathers of America expected us to learn and to apply that knowledge to our government just as they had learned from the past and created our government. The last thing any of them would have advocated is for mankind to not learn and apply that knowledge in the future. The founders of America were "progressives" and not "conservatives" by any sense of the word. They revolutionized our understanding of government with the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and if anything is "progressive" it's exactly what they did.
That is a fundamental problem with the "social-conservative" political ideology. The Founders of America would have rebelled at such a thought because they were the most progressive people politically in the history of mankind (IMHO). They would be the foremost "progressives" in political thinking today - not implying "progressive-liberal" definition but just the true definition of "progressive" as in "moving forward" as opposed to living in the past.
No, the founders were not "conservatives" politically nor would they have advocated being conservative politically
I believe it is fair (and accurate) to say that the Founders were stong believers in liberal democracy, as the term was then understood. ("Liberal," nowadays, has a much different meaning than it did more than 200 years ago--or even 100 years ago, for that matter.) I thoroughly agree that the Founders, were they around today, would wish for us to "apply...[newly acquired] knowledge in the future." But they gave us a way to do precisely that: viz., the amendment process. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 8, 2014 11:24:35 GMT
I believe it is fair (and accurate) to say that the Founders were stong believers in liberal democracy, as the term was then understood. ("Liberal," nowadays, has a much different meaning than it did more than 200 years ago--or even 100 years ago, for that matter.) I thoroughly agree that the Founders, were they around today, would wish for us to "apply...[newly acquired] knowledge in the future." But they gave us a way to do precisely that: viz., the amendment process.
The term that was 'coined' for the founders political ideology was "classic liberalism" and that later spawned "neo-classic liberalism" that distorted their original beliefs but as I mentioned they were unquestionably "progressives" but not in the same sense of the use of the term when used to describe "progressive liberal" today. Even the term "conservative" today has no relationship to the use of the term "conservative" from the 1960's. Barry Goldwater, an ultra-rightwing conservative in the early 1960's, had more in common with President Obama today than he would have with Paul Ryan and Rand Paul.
The founders did not believe that all Inalienable Rights needed to be enumerated and opposed any attempt to do that and yet that is what you're proposing. Based upon your argument an Inalienable Right does not exist unless it's established by Constitutional Amendment and that is backwards thinking. That establishes the criteria that an Inalienable Right is established by "government fiat" as opposed to being inherent in the person. The founders clearly opposed this way of thinking. Had that been the case then the 9th Amendment would not exist.
The Federalists originally argued against the Bill of Rights believing it was completely unnecessary while the Anti-Federalists argued that some of the basic Inalienable Rights required enumerated protections and all Inalienable Rights required protection. The Anti-Federalists won the argument and later Madison, a leading Federalist, was the author of all ten of the Bill of Rights including the 9th Amendment that established that unenumerated Inalienable Rights did not require special enumeration by Constitutional Amendment.
Your argument that Amendments are required goes against both the beliefs of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. I don't believe you can find any arguments by the founders that claim an Inalienable Right requires enumeration by a Constitutional Amendment for it to exist and be protected.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 8, 2014 18:25:56 GMT
I believe it is fair (and accurate) to say that the Founders were stong believers in liberal democracy, as the term was then understood. ("Liberal," nowadays, has a much different meaning than it did more than 200 years ago--or even 100 years ago, for that matter.) I thoroughly agree that the Founders, were they around today, would wish for us to "apply...[newly acquired] knowledge in the future." But they gave us a way to do precisely that: viz., the amendment process.
The term that was 'coined' for the founders political ideology was "classic liberalism" and that later spawned "neo-classic liberalism" that distorted their original beliefs but as I mentioned they were unquestionably "progressives" but not in the same sense of the use of the term when used to describe "progressive liberal" today. Even the term "conservative" today has no relationship to the use of the term "conservative" from the 1960's. Barry Goldwater, an ultra-rightwing conservative in the early 1960's, had more in common with President Obama today than he would have with Paul Ryan and Rand Paul.
The founders did not believe that all Inalienable Rights needed to be enumerated and opposed any attempt to do that and yet that is what you're proposing. Based upon your argument an Inalienable Right does not exist unless it's established by Constitutional Amendment and that is backwards thinking. That establishes the criteria that an Inalienable Right is established by "government fiat" as opposed to being inherent in the person. The founders clearly opposed this way of thinking. Had that been the case then the 9th Amendment would not exist.
The Federalists originally argued against the Bill of Rights believing it was completely unnecessary while the Anti-Federalists argued that some of the basic Inalienable Rights required enumerated protections and all Inalienable Rights required protection. The Anti-Federalists won the argument and later Madison, a leading Federalist, was the author of all ten of the Bill of Rights including the 9th Amendment that established that unenumerated Inalienable Rights did not require special enumeration by Constitutional Amendment.
Your argument that Amendments are required goes against both the beliefs of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. I don't believe you can find any arguments by the founders that claim an Inalienable Right requires enumeration by a Constitutional Amendment for it to exist and be protected.
Frankly, I find it quite difficult to imagine that the late Barry Goldwater might have held much in common with Barack Obama--or that he was insufficiently libertarian when compared with Rand Paul. (Actually, he was somewhere to the right of Rand Paul--and to the right of me, also--as regarding some matters: i.e. his candid desire to abolish Social Security.) I agree that government cannot confer upon its citizens "rights"; not in a free society, anyway. (In an authoritarian or totalitarian society, government may, indeed, dole out certain"rights" to a subjugated populace; but that is just now how it works in a free society.) Nonetheless, I believe that the social contract (as codified in our Constitution) was formulated by people who considered only white males to be true "people"; so this serious flaw needed to be corrected by subsequent amendments. You are quite correct about the argument between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists; and that the Bill of Rights was, essentially, a means by which to placate the latter. (Nonetheless, I believe it was a very good idea.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 9, 2014 14:09:22 GMT
Frankly, I find it quite difficult to imagine that the late Barry Goldwater might have held much in common with Barack Obama--or that he was insufficiently libertarian when compared with Rand Paul. (Actually, he was somewhere to the right of Rand Paul--and to the right of me, also--as regarding some matters: i.e. his candid desire to abolish Social Security.)
Barry Goldwater opposed the influence of evangelical Christians that were first showing their influence in the Republican Party. He believed in a strict separation of Church and State and opposed laws based upon religious beliefs. Goldwater also opposed denial of equality for gays and lesbians which President Obama also opposes. The Republican Party, highly influenced by evangelical Christians, opposes same-sex marriage which is expressly about equality of marriage. Rand Paul, Ryan Paul,Ted Cruz and the Republican Party all oppose equality of marriage for same-sex couples in the United State. Goldwater was "Pro-Choice" as is President Obama while Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, and the Republican Party oppose "Pro-Choice."
Let's look at couple of statements made by the late Sen Barry Goldwater and you tell me if they are closer to President Obama or the Republican Party of today:
"You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."
"I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."
"If everybody in this town connected with politics had to leave town because of chasing women and drinking, you would have no government."
“Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism”
“It's wonderful that we have so many religious people in our party, ... They need to leave their theologies in their churches.”
“The rights that we have under the Constitution covers anything we want to do, as long as its not harmful. I can't see any way in the world that being a gay can cause damage to somebody else,”
"No longer can we spend money on legislation and executive orders that promote future political ambitions and produce nothing for the citizens.."
Obviously there were many ultra rightwing statements by Goldwater as well but I would suggest that those I've provided here are far closer to the political positions on the issues that President Obama holds than anything in the Republican Party Platform or rhetoric especially that coming from the fringe Tea Party Republicans.
|
|
