• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Natural Rights versus Manmade Rights

Beaudreaux

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In another thread, I was having a discussion with another member regarding natural rights and he stated that natural rights were (and I want to make sure I get this correct):
jet57 said:
Natural right, is purely a legal theory ...
Click to expand...
The remainder of the quote is about the thread it was made in, and the argument of whether the 2nd Amendment's right to keep and bear arms is a natural right or not, is not the subject of this thread and there are numerous threads on that subject already - what exactly a natural right is and how it compares to manmade rights... is the topic.

It is my contention, that Natural Rights are derived from Natural Law (as Locke described) and that Manmade Rights are derived from Positive Law where government posits rights upon a man or group(s) of men (gender neutral use of the term men/man).

In my position, Natural Rights exist independent of Positive (manmade) Law and can therefore inalienable and must not be infringed upon by government. Manmade Rights are alienable and can easily be infringed or revoked by any group or government that maintains power of, and control of, man.
In response to the statement above, I asked the following question:

Here, I'll ask you a couple questions that should be very simple for you so you can demonstrate whether you have any real knowledge of what you're attempting to discuss: What is a natural right, and is it the same thing as a manmade right? What is natural law (from which natural rights are derived), and is it the same as positive law (from which manmade rights are posited upon man).
Click to expand...

What are your views on this subject?
 
Natural rights are social agreements deemed natural by their universality. The whole of society, throughout time and place, supersedes government authority. This is the basis of The Enlightenment and subsequent French and American Revolutions. An understanding this concept is the basis of the Western world as we know it today.

The founders of the US understood this concept. Today, some who fail to grasp it instead substitute the oppressed and even enslaved mindset that governments supersede all of human society.

It's of utmost importance to an understanding of this concept to understand the terms involved:

Inalienable - cannot be separated from human society (of course, can still be violated).

Self evident - ask yourself and everyone you know if they agree to observe rights to life, expression and self defense... the answer will be universal.

Natural - socially natural, coming from nature/God/whatever man has no control over.

So, what are these universal agreements? The rights to life, expression and self defense.



On to man-made rights: these are rights deemed necessary for the exercise of natural rights. They stem from natural rights but are not universally agreed upon and therefore are not socially natural. For example: property. These rights include civil, labor and environmental rights that are deemed to be a extensions of our natural rights to life, expression and self defense.

One could argue that civil, labor and environmental rights are nature/God given, but the lack of universal agreement excludes them from consideration as socially natural.


Regarding the 2nd:

We must understand that this right is not rooted in the right to an object. This right is the physical manifestation of the natural right to self defense. The 2nd is the realization of the natural right to self defense. The 2nd could be renamed: The Right to Self Defense. In differentiating self defense (individual responsibility) from national defense (state responsibility), the founders made clear what weapons were to be considered weapons of self defense as opposed to national defense: arms (not ordnance) of a militia (infantry).
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
rights which would be made by man can violate natural rights

natural rights cannot ever violate another persons natural rights
Click to expand...
In a very dark sense, you are correct!
natural rights do not include the right to continue breathing,
so someone exercising their natural right to kill someone who may have offended them,
would not be violating the second persons natural rights.
Killing offensive people is part of the rights we give up to live in polite society!
 
ecofarm said:
Natural rights are social agreements deemed natural by their universality. The whole of society, throughout time and place, supersedes government authority. This is the basis of The Enlightenment and subsequent French and American Revolutions. An understanding this concept is the basis of the Western world as we know it today.

The founders of the US understood this concept. Today, some who fail to grasp it instead substitute the oppressed and even enslaved mindset that governments supersede all of human society.

It's of utmost importance to an understanding of this concept to understand the terms involved:

Inalienable - cannot be separated from human society (of course, can still be violated).

Self evident - ask yourself and everyone you know if they agree to observe rights to life, expression and self defense... the answer will be universal.

Natural - socially natural, coming from nature/God/whatever man has no control over.

So, what are these universal agreements? The rights to life, expression and self defense.



On to man-made rights: these are rights deemed necessary for the exercise of natural rights. They stem from natural rights but are not universally agreed upon and therefore are not socially natural. For example: property. These rights include civil, labor and environmental rights that are deemed to be a extensions of our natural rights to life, expression and self defense.

One could argue that civil, labor and environmental rights are nature/God given, but the lack of universal agreement excludes them from consideration as socially natural.


Regarding the 2nd:

We must understand that this right is not rooted in the right to an object. This right is the physical manifestation of the natural right to self defense. The 2nd is the realization of the natural right to self defense. The 2nd could be renamed: The Right to Self Defense. In differentiating self defense (individual responsibility) from national defense (state responsibility), the founders made clear what weapons were to be considered weapons of self defense as opposed to national defense: arms (not ordnance) of a militia (infantry).
Click to expand...

Property is a natural right. Ownership of your own body, ownership of the fruits of your labor, etc. Locke defined natural rights as Life, Liberty, and Property.
 
longview said:
In a very dark sense, you are correct!
natural rights do not include the right to continue breathing,
so someone exercising their natural right to kill someone who may have offended them,
would not be violating the second persons natural rights.
Killing offensive people is part of the rights we give up to live in polite society!
Click to expand...

well to put it into words, no natural right lays a cost or burden on another citizen

a right which would be made by man, can do that very thing.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well to put it into words, no natural right lays a cost or burden on another citizen

a right which would be made by man, can do that very thing.
Click to expand...
The only thing I can disagree with, would be that something granted by man,
would not be a right as defined here, but a privilege.
 
Beaudreaux said:
In another thread, I was having a discussion with another member regarding natural rights and he stated that natural rights were (and I want to make sure I get this correct): The remainder of the quote is about the thread it was made in, and the argument of whether the 2nd Amendment's right to keep and bear arms is a natural right or not, is not the subject of this thread and there are numerous threads on that subject already - what exactly a natural right is and how it compares to manmade rights... is the topic.

It is my contention, that Natural Rights are derived from Natural Law (as Locke described) and that Manmade Rights are derived from Positive Law where government posits rights upon a man or group(s) of men (gender neutral use of the term men/man).

In my position, Natural Rights exist independent of Positive (manmade) Law and can therefore inalienable and must not be infringed upon by government. Manmade Rights are alienable and can easily be infringed or revoked by any group or government that maintains power of, and control of, man.
In response to the statement above, I asked the following question:



What are your views on this subject?
Click to expand...

Locke's understanding of natural law was DOA, because it was not based on the reality of human nature, but on a phantasy world of his own creation.

While perhaps not inherently problematic, I find rights language unnecessarily burdensome when discussing natural law.
 
longview said:
The only thing I can disagree with, would be that something granted by man,
would not be a right as defined here, but a privilege.
Click to expand...

you are correct, i only stated right in relationship to creation by man, because some think man creates rights.

constitutional law only deals in natural rights and privileges
 
ecofarm said:
Obviously I don't agree. If you'd like to narrowly define natural rights according to Locke, for the purpose of discussion, I'll leave our disagreement aside.
Click to expand...

No need, and that was not my intent. My consideration of property as a right engulfs the right to defend that property as well. It begins with the person having sole control (ownership) of their own body (life and liberty), as opposed to being owned by a monarch, any other form of government, or even God. This control extends to ownership of the fruits of one's labor (home, land, money earned, intellectual products, and so on) and subsequent tertiary products that which may flow (royalties on intellectual property, appreciation in exchange values, windfalls, capital gains, etc.) and the inherent needs to defend and protect property that is owned (secure by title or deed, insure from loss, defend from harm, secure in life, to defend against tyranny's grasp upon liberty, etc.). This includes the right to keep and bear arms as a natural right that flows tertiary from the right of property - to protect one's self from harm or death and to defend one's liberty.
 
ecofarm said:
Natural rights are social agreements deemed natural by their universality. The whole of society, throughout time and place, supersedes government authority. This is the basis of The Enlightenment and subsequent French and American Revolutions. An understanding this concept is the basis of the Western world as we know it today.

The founders of the US understood this concept. Today, some who fail to grasp it instead substitute the oppressed and even enslaved mindset that governments supersede all of human society.

It's of utmost importance to an understanding of this concept to understand the terms involved:

Inalienable - cannot be separated from human society (of course, can still be violated).

Self evident - ask yourself and everyone you know if they agree to observe rights to life, expression and self defense... the answer will be universal.

Natural - socially natural, coming from nature/God/whatever man has no control over.

So, what are these universal agreements? The rights to life, expression and self defense.

On to man-made rights: these are rights deemed necessary for the exercise of natural rights. They stem from natural rights but are not universally agreed upon and therefore are not socially natural. For example: property. These rights include civil, labor and environmental rights that are deemed to be a extensions of our natural rights to life, expression and self defense.

One could argue that civil, labor and environmental rights are nature/God given, but the lack of universal agreement excludes them from consideration as socially natural.

Regarding the 2nd:

We must understand that this right is not rooted in the right to an object. This right is the physical manifestation of the natural right to self defense. The 2nd is the realization of the natural right to self defense. The 2nd could be renamed: The Right to Self Defense.
Click to expand...

Do you consider natural rights to be objective and timeless?

I don't have an objection to the notion of rights that are considered a naturally emergent property of society.

I do have a problem with the idea of some intangible list of rights that exist in the aether that we pluck from and codify as being natural, that seemingly transcend human input. I think rights can arise from our nature but not from 'god'. The two are entirely different.
 
Beaudreaux said:
It begins with the person having sole control (ownership) of their own body (life and liberty), as opposed to being owned by . . . even God.
Click to expand...

This is actually a rather succinct statement of the Lockean heresy.
 
Paleocon said:
Locke's understanding of natural law was DOA, because it was not based on the reality of human nature, but on a phantasy world of his own creation.

While perhaps not inherently problematic, I find rights language unnecessarily burdensome when discussing natural law.
Click to expand...

Locke is not the primary subject of this thread, and I used him and his theory as an example only. Rights (specifically Natural Rights) are inseparable from Natural Law, unless one limits Natural Law to that of a theistic nature rather than a holistic in human nature.
 
Beaudreaux said:
No need, and that was not my intent. My consideration of property as a right engulfs the right to defend that property as well. It begins with the person having sole control (ownership) of their own body (life and liberty), as opposed to being owned by a monarch, any other form of government, or even God. This control extends to ownership of the fruits of one's labor (home, land, money earned, intellectual products, and so on) and subsequent tertiary products that which may flow (royalties on intellectual property, appreciation in exchange values, windfalls, capital gains, etc.) and the inherent needs to defend and protect property that is owned (secure by title or deed, insure from loss, defend from harm, secure in life, to defend against tyranny's grasp upon liberty, etc.). This includes the right to keep and bear arms as a natural right that flows tertiary from the right of property - to protect one's self from harm or death and to defend one's liberty.
Click to expand...

I agree, however...

The rights deemed necessary for the exercise of natural rights (life, expression and self defense), are not universally agreed upon. Just as civil, labor and environmental rights are deemed necessary for the exercise of natural rights, so is property. Property, however, is not a universally agreed upon necessity for the exercise of those rights. In this regard, I place property as a human, civil and/or labor right.

The right to bear arms is the only way to realize the right to self defense for the masses. In this, it becomes a natural right. I derive the natural right to arms from self defense, not property.
 
declaration of independence states natural law.

declaration of independence part of u.s. statutes at large

federal government recognizes natural law via federal law

constitution has natural rights, life liberty and property..twice

constitution dictates the federal government has no authority over natural rights

constitution dictates federal courts can adjudicate law using natural law.

a lot of natural law connections there
 
Paleocon said:
This is actually a rather succinct statement of the Lockean heresy.
Click to expand...

And, there it is... heresy. Natural Law is not God's Law, nor is God's Law that which is considered Natural Law, outside of a theistic realm. Theists conflate one with the other. This thread is not a religious thread, but rather a thread where we discuss Natural Law as it pertains to human nature.
 
ecofarm said:
I agree, however...

The rights deemed necessary for the exercise of natural rights (life, expression and self defense), are not universally agreed upon. Just as civil, labor and environmental rights are deemed necessary for the exercise of natural rights, so is property. Property, however, is not a universally agreed upon necessity for the exercise of those rights. In this regard, I place property as a human, civil and/or labor right.

The right to bear arms is the only way to realize the right to self defense for the masses. In this, it becomes a natural right.
Click to expand...

I see your point, and did before, I just wanted to state my position as my opinion, not as a counter to anything you had said. Plus... Nothing is universally agreed upon. Nothing at all.
 
Beaudreaux said:
In another thread, I was having a discussion with another member regarding natural rights and he stated that natural rights were (and I want to make sure I get this correct): The remainder of the quote is about the thread it was made in, and the argument of whether the 2nd Amendment's right to keep and bear arms is a natural right or not, is not the subject of this thread and there are numerous threads on that subject already - what exactly a natural right is and how it compares to manmade rights... is the topic.

It is my contention, that Natural Rights are derived from Natural Law (as Locke described) and that Manmade Rights are derived from Positive Law where government posits rights upon a man or group(s) of men (gender neutral use of the term men/man).

In my position, Natural Rights exist independent of Positive (manmade) Law and can therefore inalienable and must not be infringed upon by government. Manmade Rights are alienable and can easily be infringed or revoked by any group or government that maintains power of, and control of, man.
In response to the statement above, I asked the following question:



What are your views on this subject?
Click to expand...

Where did this natural law come from? Did it come from Aslan the lion in the Chronicles of Narnia?
 
ernst barkmann said:
declaration of independence states natural law.

declaration of independence part of u.s. statutes at large
Click to expand...
What laws or statutues are based on the DoI?

federal government recognizes natural law via federal law

constitution has natural rights, life liberty and property..twice

constitution dictates the federal government has no authority over natural rights
Click to expand...
Freedom is a natural right and yet the government has authority to take someone's freedom away if they break the law or violate the rights of others.

constitution dictates federal courts can adjudicate law using natural law.

a lot of natural law connections there
Click to expand...

The people gave up certain natural rights in order to form a government to secure all their other natural rights. What natural rights did the people give up?
 
distraff said:
Where did this natural law come from? Did it come from Aslan the lion in the Chronicles of Narnia?
Click to expand...

It is so in nature, therefore it exists.

One has the right to live free to pursue happiness under your own terms and not under slavery to others. That is a natural right.

Some say society gives us these rights, or that God gives us these rights. I disagree with that. Something that is given can be taken away from you by the same person(s) that gave it to you. That is why Natural rights are inalienable - they cannot be separated (alienated) from the person because they are a natural part of the person, and cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws.
 
Nilly said:
Do you consider natural rights to be objective and timeless?
Click to expand...

Go anywhere in the world, at any time in history, and you will find people (in the absence of tyranny or insanity) making the same agreements: to respect each other's rights to life, expression and self defense.

Note: we must exclude tyranny on the grounds that inalienable does not mean inviolable, and we must exclude the insane on the grounds that this is a sociological concept.

I don't have an objection to the notion of rights that are considered a naturally emergent property of society.
Click to expand...

As a result of the need for self preservation.

I do have a problem with the idea of some intangible list of rights that exist in the aether that we pluck from and codify as being natural, that seemingly transcend human input. I think rights can arise from our nature but not from 'god'. The two are entirely different.
Click to expand...

The idea is that these rights emerge as universal agreements in human society as a result of the need for self preservation of our species. When the founders wrote "endowed by their Creator" the point was not to qualify their existence on that of a deity but to qualify their existence on mankind.

As rights are a social construct, they can only be understood through a sociological perspective. The concept of rights to an individual in isolation, acting according only to their own whim, is meaningless.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I see your point, and did before, I just wanted to state my position as my opinion, not as a counter to anything you had said. Plus... Nothing is universally agreed upon. Nothing at all.
Click to expand...

The observance of rights to life, expression and self is universally agreed upon, given the exclusion of tyranny and the insane.

Our disagreement:

You derive the natural right to arms from the supposed natural right to property.

I derive the natural right to arms from the unquestionably natural right to self defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom