-TUBE- Revolution is Duty of the People

[qwerty]

YouTube - Judge Napolitano : Revolution is Duty of the People (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b3Q89FZoY0)

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/9h9nf/revolution_is_duty_of_the_people/

[qwerty]

Vote it up on REDDIT! :)

[InterestedParticipant]

Revolution is Duty of the People
I find it interesting that he used the term "Natural Right" in this clip and not "Unalienable Rights". First, there is a difference between the two. Second, no where in the the Declaration of Independence does the term "natural rights" appear, however, the term "Unalienable Rights" appears once, in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph.


Natural rights: These are rights that are supposedly universal in scope and binding on human behavior, much like the physical laws of nature. One of the most famous expositions of this belief came from the 17th century philosopher John Locke. According to Locke, natural rights were those rights enjoyed by prehistoric humans in their original "state of nature," before humans began forming complex societies. This was an idyllic world of freedom, equality and consideration of other people's rights. He wrote that the "state of nature" is governed by a "law of nature," which humans can discover through reason. Through his own reasoning, Locke concluded that humans were "by nature free, equal and independent." Furthermore, natural law obligated that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions."

Unalienable rights: These are God given rights that cannot be taken or given away.

While I'm sure we can engage in a lengthy debate on the particulars of Natural Rights, I'm more interested in your thoughts on his choice to use the term Natural over Unalienable rights in this video clip, especially while specifically discussion paragraph two of the Declaration of Independence.

[qwerty]

Bump! :)

[Pericles]

The first draft of the Declaration of Independence used the phrase "inherent and inalienable" which would be a more direct expression of natural rights theory articulated by Locke. Obviously, Locke is a major influence on the founders, as contrasted to the board's anarchists, which take to the Rousseau theory of natural man.

And the actual quote of the text is "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

[qwerty]

Bump!

[InterestedParticipant]

The first draft of the Declaration of Independence used the phrase "inherent and inalienable" which would be a more direct expression of natural rights theory articulated by Locke. Obviously, Locke is a major influence on the founders, as contrasted to the board's anarchists, which take to the Rousseau theory of natural man.

And the actual quote of the text is "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
How would you describe the difference between Natural & Inalienable/Unalienable rights? Would there have been a semantic reason for Napolitano to use one term over the other in this presentation?

[qwerty]

bump

[Pericles]

How would you describe the difference between Natural & Inalienable/Unalienable rights? Would there have been a semantic reason for Napolitano to use one term over the other in this presentation?

Can't speak for the Judge, and it has been a while since really reading Locke.

A natural right exists independent of any other circumstance - i. e. present at birth and not dependent on any form of society.

Unalienable right is a restriction on another entity - can not inhibit the exercise of the right.

If we view Hobbes on one extreme (the natural state of man is one of war against all), society exists in order restrain this violence with some set of rules, and Rousseau at the other - society is a cooperative effort to accomplish more than individuals can, Locke is slightly more inclined toward Hobbes.

In the Hobbes view, individuals cede part of their sovereignty to a central authority as the price of a peaceful society in which individuals may attain more than they would otherwise, and the possible abuse of authority is a reasonable price for the individual to pay for the benefit of protection by society.

Locke has a society in which it is the role of the society to protect the natural rights of individuals. Failure to do so, is grounds for leaving that society, or correcting the fault.

Rousseau is the voluntary association concept of society for making progress by voluntary association. In this theory, the rights of individuals are the rights of the society decided by the members themselves. As happened in the French Revolution, this abstract concept of rights led to the loss of individual rights weighed against the rights of the people as a group.

Why I place the anarchists in with Rousseau is because of the idea of voluntary association, but the consequence is that the politically or economically powerful exercise control because there is insufficient restraint on their actions vis a vis other individuals. It requires the notion of a general will - everybody observes the rights of others, which becomes perverted in practice.

[qwerty]

Bump! :)