|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 21, 2014 22:09:05 GMT
We tend to be well versed in statutory ownership of property. We have a written title to the car or house that we own and under the law "possession" is a presumption of ownership. Of course statutory ownership can be disputed based upon how someone came into possession of any property. In all of these respects we tend to understand the ownership of property under the law.
We can also note that the laws can also violate the natural (inalienable) rights of the person that are not dependent upon statutory law. With that potential conflict in mind, and not making any presumptions, we need to address the natural right of property and no better explanation of it exists than John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter V. We will note that Locke, in many cases, put forward his arguments with religious text as being a foundation because of the overwhelming belief in Christianity, but the religious arguments are basically irrelevant to the logical arguments.
Insread of trying to deal with all of Chapter V I'd like to break it down to easily understood segments to better understand each proposition as the logical arguments are sequential building from one to the next. I do recommend reading it all first and then we can address it section by section. Here's the link to Locke's logic and reasoning expressed in Chapter V.
www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm
Now we can begin the review of the arguments and we'll start with, and limit ourselves to, just one section at a time beginning with the first one.
Section 25
Section 25 is fundamentally limited to just a few concepts to understand. First and foremost is that we have a Right of Preservation based upon what the lands and natural resources provide. Next is that this is a commonly held right therefore all of nature (land and resources) belongs to all mankind and not to any individual. Finally is the proposition that there has to be a means for an individual to take from the "common" to make something that belongs to everyone their own personal possession without the express consent of all other people in mankind.
I paraphase but want to basically estblish and understand of this section before moving on. If I seem to misrepresent or omit something from Section 25 then now is the time for us to reach a consensus on what Locke is establishing here. It is the foundation for subsequent sections so understanding it is vitally important.
If we wanted an example we could use an island with enough resources for the people (that totals only 10 inhabitants) and all of the people have a natural right to all of the resourses so how does one person take something from the island without stealing from the rest of the people on the island? There has to be a way for one person to take something from nature on the island without the express consent of the other people on the island.
Does this make sense?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 22, 2014 23:30:33 GMT
We tend to be well versed in statutory ownership of property. We have a written title to the car or house that we own and under the law "possession" is a presumption of ownership. Of course statutory ownership can be disputed based upon how someone came into possession of any property. In all of these respects we tend to understand the ownership of property under the law.
We can also note that the laws can also violate the natural (inalienable) rights of the person that are not dependent upon statutory law. With that potential conflict in mind, and not making any presumptions, we need to address the natural right of property and no better explanation of it exists than John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter V. We will note that Locke, in many cases, put forward his arguments with religious text as being a foundation because of the overwhelming belief in Christianity, but the religious arguments are basically irrelevant to the logical arguments.
Insread of trying to deal with all of Chapter V I'd like to break it down to easily understood segments to better understand each proposition as the logical arguments are sequential building from one to the next. I do recommend reading it all first and then we can address it section by section. Here's the link to Locke's logic and reasoning expressed in Chapter V.
www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm
Now we can begin the review of the arguments and we'll start with, and limit ourselves to, just one section at a time beginning with the first one.
Section 25
Section 25 is fundamentally limited to just a few concepts to understand. First and foremost is that we have a Right of Preservation based upon what the lands and natural resources provide. Next is that this is a commonly held right therefore all of nature (land and resources) belongs to all mankind and not to any individual. Finally is the proposition that there has to be a means for an individual to take from the "common" to make something that belongs to everyone their own personal possession without the express consent of all other people in mankind.
I paraphase but want to basically estblish and understand of this section before moving on. If I seem to misrepresent or omit something from Section 25 then now is the time for us to reach a consensus on what Locke is establishing here. It is the foundation for subsequent sections so understanding it is vitally important.
If we wanted an example we could use an island with enough resources for the people (that totals only 10 inhabitants) and all of the people have a natural right to all of the resourses so how does one person take something from the island without stealing from the rest of the people on the island? There has to be a way for one person to take something from nature on the island without the express consent of the other people on the island.
Does this make sense?
I would respond as follows: In a pure state of nature--i.e. without any actual government--your argument may make perfect sense. But in a country that is governed by laws--remember, we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men, as the old saying goes--it makes far less sense. If statutory law (which you disparage) is generally judged, by the American people, to be utterly egregious, it may be resisted; either through a total revolution or through widespread protests that call attention to the cause (as happened as regarding civil rights for African-Americans in the 1950s and '60s). Or it may even take the (relatively mundane) form of a revolution at the ballot box.
But as long as none of these things happens, statutory law should be observed--punctiliously--and not simply ignored or vitiated by an (elitist) executive branch. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 23, 2014 9:55:04 GMT
I would respond as follows: In a pure state of nature--i.e. without any actual government--your argument may make perfect sense. But in a country that is governed by laws--remember, we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men, as the old saying goes--it makes far less sense. If statutory law (which you disparage) is generally judged, by the American people, to be utterly egregious, it may be resisted; either through a total revolution or through widespread protests that call attention to the cause (as happened as regarding civil rights for African-Americans in the 1950s and '60s). Or it may even take the (relatively mundane) form of a revolution at the ballot box.
But as long as none of these things happens, statutory law should be observed--punctiliously--and not simply ignored or vitiated by an (elitist) executive branch.
This thread is about comparing Statutory Law and Natural (Law) Rights so pointing out there is a difference merely repeats the purpose of the thread. We understand statutory law fairly well so we need to explore natural law in order to compare. This is disparaging of nothing and is an intellectual exercise to achieve mutual understanding.
So I've started with Section 25 Locke's arguments on the Natural Right of Property, which I assume you read, and merely want to establish that we both understand what is says and that there is no disagreement between us on this single section before moving on to the next. So would you agree that, in a paraphased summary, that Section 25 states:
First and foremost is that we have a Right of Preservation based upon what the lands and natural resources provide. Next is that this is a commonly held right therefore all of nature (land and resources) belongs to all mankind and not to any individual. Finally is the proposition that there has to be a means for an individual to take from the "common" to make something that belongs to everyone their own personal possession without the express consent of all other people in mankind.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 23, 2014 17:56:15 GMT
I would respond as follows: In a pure state of nature--i.e. without any actual government--your argument may make perfect sense. But in a country that is governed by laws--remember, we are a nation of laws, not a nation of men, as the old saying goes--it makes far less sense. If statutory law (which you disparage) is generally judged, by the American people, to be utterly egregious, it may be resisted; either through a total revolution or through widespread protests that call attention to the cause (as happened as regarding civil rights for African-Americans in the 1950s and '60s). Or it may even take the (relatively mundane) form of a revolution at the ballot box.
But as long as none of these things happens, statutory law should be observed--punctiliously--and not simply ignored or vitiated by an (elitist) executive branch.
This thread is about comparing Statutory Law and Natural (Law) Rights so pointing out there is a difference merely repeats the purpose of the thread. We understand statutory law fairly well so we need to explore natural law in order to compare. This is disparaging of nothing and is an intellectual exercise to achieve mutual understanding.
So I've started with Section 25 Locke's arguments on the Natural Right of Property, which I assume you read, and merely want to establish that we both understand what is says and that there is no disagreement between us on this single section before moving on to the next. So would you agree that, in a paraphased summary, that Section 25 states:
First and foremost is that we have a Right of Preservation based upon what the lands and natural resources provide. Next is that this is a commonly held right therefore all of nature (land and resources) belongs to all mankind and not to any individual. Finally is the proposition that there has to be a means for an individual to take from the "common" to make something that belongs to everyone their own personal possession without the express consent of all other people in mankind.
No. I do not agree that "all" land belongs to "all mankind." In a state of nature, that might be true. But not in civil society. In this regard, I do not agree with the American Indian (a.k.a. "Native American") concept at all. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 24, 2014 16:19:02 GMT
No. I do not agree that "all" land belongs to "all mankind." In a state of nature, that might be true. But not in civil society. In this regard, I do not agree with the American Indian (a.k.a. "Native American") concept at all.
Eventually we'll address the differnce between living in a natural state based upon natural law and living in civil society based upon statutory law. That's what this thread is about. That is what we seek to discover. Here we're first addressing "natural law" and not "statutory laws" of a civil society. Once we understand "natural law" then we can compare it to "statutory law" so please be patient. We'll got to where you want to go with the discussion in due course.
So, I provided a paraphrased summary. Do you agree or disagree with my paraphrased summary? If you disagree then what would you say Locke is attempting to state in Section 25 (and only Section 25). We can't debate the merits of what Locke says unless we understand what he says.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Aug 25, 2014 1:08:06 GMT
No. I do not agree that "all" land belongs to "all mankind." In a state of nature, that might be true. But not in civil society. In this regard, I do not agree with the American Indian (a.k.a. "Native American") concept at all.
Eventually we'll address the differnce between living in a natural state based upon natural law and living in civil society based upon statutory law. That's what this thread is about. That is what we seek to discover. Here we're first addressing "natural law" and not "statutory laws" of a civil society. Once we understand "natural law" then we can compare it to "statutory law" so please be patient. We'll got to where you want to go with the discussion in due course.
So, I provided a paraphrased summary. Do you agree or disagree with my paraphrased summary? If you disagree then what would you say Locke is attempting to state in Section 25 (and only Section 25). We can't debate the merits of what Locke says unless we understand what he says.
I agree that your summary is pretty accurate. But that is far different from one's agreeing with John Locke's observations in this regard. To use, as a foundation for one's reasoning, the oral traditions of the ancient Hebrew people as concerning "Adam" and "Noah"--whom many of us do not regard as literal, historical figures--is a bit like building a house on a foundation of sand. Ever since America became a unified country--not merely a collection of warring tribes--we have had individual property ownership. In fact, even before America was a country--when it was merely 13 colonies--this was the case. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 25, 2014 4:25:39 GMT
Eventually we'll address the differnce between living in a natural state based upon natural law and living in civil society based upon statutory law. That's what this thread is about. That is what we seek to discover. Here we're first addressing "natural law" and not "statutory laws" of a civil society. Once we understand "natural law" then we can compare it to "statutory law" so please be patient. We'll got to where you want to go with the discussion in due course.
So, I provided a paraphrased summary. Do you agree or disagree with my paraphrased summary? If you disagree then what would you say Locke is attempting to state in Section 25 (and only Section 25). We can't debate the merits of what Locke says unless we understand what he says.
I agree that your summary is pretty accurate. But that is far different from one's agreeing with John Locke's observations in this regard. To use, as a foundation for one's reasoning, the oral traditions of the ancient Hebrew people as concerning "Adam" and "Noah"--whom many of us do not regard as literal, historical figures--is a bit like building a house on a foundation of sand. Ever since America became a unified country--not merely a collection of warring tribes--we have had individual property ownership. In fact, even before America was a country--when it was merely 13 colonies--this was the case.
Not to worry as the "god factor" is soon irrelevant to Locke's arguments.
Yes, we've had individual property ownership since the days of early European immigration to the Americas but we should also remember that this ownership was based upon the ideology of the Divine Right of Kings that existed in Europe. I don't want to side-track the conversation though because that's not what we're addressing. I will get to Section 26 in the morning and we'll look at what it says.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 25, 2014 13:29:32 GMT
Moving forward in our review to Section 26:
Sec. 26. God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being. And tho' all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of nature; and no body has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state: yet being given for the use of men, there must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other, before they can be of any use, or at all beneficial to any particular man. The fruit, or venison, which nourishes the wild Indian, who knows no enclosure, and is still a tenant in common, must be his, and so his, i.e. a part of him, that another can no longer have any right to it, before it can do him any good for the support of his life.
Once again we'll ignore the "god argument" that was contemporary to the 17th Century (1690's) and we'll address what Locke is really saying.
We can actually look at one point in two different ways. Under Biblical arguments God gave all of the Earth (land, animals, plants, and other natural resources) to all mankind in "common" which is what Locke refers to or we can look at it from a more "natural" perspective that all of mankind has an equal right to use the land, animals, plants and other natural resources equally. Basically this is what the first two sentences establish if I can paraphrase Locke once again.
The earth. and all that is therein, is shared by all of mankind so that they can provide for their support and comfort.
In the following statement Locke establishes the following, again paraphrased.
While all of the earth, and all that is therein, exists for our support and comfort none of us inherently have a claim exclusive to all others.
By way of analogy no person has an inherent claim to all of the gold in the world just because they were born. All of the gold in the world inherently belongs to "all people" for their use and no one has an inherent claim to any natural resourse or to any land just because they're a person. No one is special having "rights" that others do not.
Finally, in Section 26, Locke once again restates that there must be a means for a person to take that which belongs to, or that which everyone has an equal right to, and make it their own unique possession so that they can use the bounty of the earth for their support and comfort.
Section 26 is really a rehashing of Section 25 providing an expansion upon it. Section 25 is basically a "preamble" so it is returned to in Locke's later arguments and that is basically what Section 26 is doing. In short Locke is establishing the foundation for his later arguments on how a person can establish a personal Right of Property in taking from the earth and the natural resources for their support and comfort without violating the rights of other people.
Do we agree with this as being what Locke is attempting to say and establish?
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 28, 2014 11:53:42 GMT
Re-inviting you to participate in this discussion as we need to move forward.
|
|
