Rights vs Freedom, Liberty

[Odin]

I wanted to make this thread to see what people make of these terms and the differences between them, and to comment myself about "rights."

So first about "rights," I see them mentioned everywhere by people of all political persuasions, but if you haven't already I suggest you strike this disgusting word out of your lexicon. 'Rights' do not equate to freedom, quite the opposite in fact - rights are the basis of one form of tyranny or another.

So lets look at the most famous claim about rights, made in the Declaration of Independence. "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights - that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Before I start bashing the Founding Fathers for their misuse of language, I should point out that I don't think this is what they meant to say, at least in terms of the language we use today. First, 'unalienable' means 'not to be taken away.' So this claim of course breaks down very quickly - If God gave us Rights that are 'not to be taken away,' why are they taken away every single day by the millions, and why is history a story of people who never had these rights, or had them snuffed out at the whims of more powerful humans? Of course it is not true - if God exists he gave us only one right - the right to die. That is the only certainty in the world, and that is the only unalienable right that nature or God can grant us. That is the only 'guarantee'.

So who really is the dispenser of 'rights'? It is, of course, the people who devised them, usually the government. What a "right" is is a little packet of privileges dispensed to the people by the powerful. It is NOT freedom. We do not attain freedom by stacking rights together. We actually create tyranny, because we vest in the government, whether it be democratic or authoritarian, the power to delegate these rights. It does not mean that the government itself has to respect them - the government just has to pass a law which defines the circumstances under which these rights can be taken away.

So the "right to liberty" for instance. Is freedom simply a "right" that is given to us? The 'right to liberty' is certainly not inalienable- ask anyone who refuses to pay their taxes (like Peter Schiff's dad). The government simply has to define under what conditions it can be revoked. By creating a "right to liberty" what you are doing is putting your liberty in the hands of the government, and allowing the government to determine when and how it will be taken away from you. A "Right to Liberty", I'm afraid, is NOT LIBERTY, it is the antithesis of liberty.

The "right to life" then - does this mean the government cannot take our lives? Nope, again the government just has to define under what conditions your right to life can be revoked. It is certainly not a protection for those who have taken the lives of others, and it should not be. Most people, I think, understand that we would lose any 'right to life' upon the instance of taking the life of another human being. So it is 'inalienable' then - no definitely not. And again, this right is antithetical to freedom because it literally puts your life in the government's hands. The "right to life" does not demand that the government, AND the people, act in accordance with any principles, it simply means that they have to figure out how to kill you legally. They write the laws, so it is not too difficult.

We can have no "rights" but still have freedom, and we can have many rights but live under tyranny. Freedom describes a condition of being, and it can be defined by principles. You may think that principles are the same as 'rights', but the difference is that a principle describes in absolute terms the authority that others do not have over us. Let me give you an example - "No person has the authority to compel me to surrender all of part of my property to them, without my consent." Nothing makes that principle "unalienable", but the key point is that if someone does assert such an authority, then that person is assaulting my freedom.

Last point - I was wondering today about the difference between the words "freedom" and "liberty", and which one is more powerful. That is what got me writing this thread actually. So I thought about the first antonyms that came to mind - for 'freedom' it was 'slavery', and for 'liberty' it was 'tyranny.' To me this suggests some difference in meaning between the terms, maybe I'll just leave it there and ask what other people think it is?

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Very simple. I'll use a phrase to get the point across.

"Right's don't exist because you were born with a vagina, instead of a penis. Right's exist because you exist at all . . . because you're human."

[Odin]

Very simple. I'll use a phrase to get the point across.

"Right's don't exist because you were born with a vagina, instead of a penis. Right's exist because you exist at all . . . because you're human."

I don't think you read the whole post haha.

Rights exist because someone said so, and for the most part someone who had intentions to assert authority. Our Founding Fathers devised our rights to try to protect freedom, but because rights are the opposite of freedom, they have been used to subvert it. Like the pigs in Animal Farm, we all have 'rights', but some of us have 'more rights than others,' including the frightening 'right' of being able to revoke any and all rights through legal procedures.

Personally I don't see how others don't see this - "Rights" is such a hideous term, why use it when we have beautiful words like 'freedom' and 'liberty' to describe our philosophy.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

I don't think you read the whole post haha.

Rights exist because someone said so, and for the most part someone who had intentions to assert authority. Our Founding Fathers devised our rights to try to protect freedom, but because rights are the opposite of freedom, they have been used to subvert it. Like the pigs in Animal Farm, we all have 'rights', but some of us have 'more rights than others,' including the frightening 'right' of being able to revoke any and all rights through legal procedures.

Personally I don't see how others don't see this - "Rights" is such a hideous term, why use it when we have beautiful words like 'freedom' and 'liberty' to describe our philosophy.

This all comes down to understanding natural rights.

Government is a product of man, therefore, right's are part of man's nature. Government cannot grant rights to those which created it. We all have a "right" to our "liberty." Liberty is our "rights."

[RockEnds]

Rights exist because someone said so, and for the most part someone who had intentions to assert authority. Our Founding Fathers devised our rights to try to protect freedom, but because rights are the opposite of freedom, they have been used to subvert it. Like the pigs in Animal Farm, we all have 'rights', but some of us have 'more rights than others,' including the frightening 'right' of being able to revoke any and all rights through legal procedures.


If you want to understand rights and how they're derived, it's easiest just to read Locke.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

The founding fathers didn't devise our rights. In fact, if SCOTUS was worth its salt, it might have found something in the 9th amendment by now. Our rights are derived from our Creator, or more practically, from the idea of self-ownership. You own your body. I own mine. Unlike the pigs from Animal Farm, no individual has more rights than another. Similarly, no one has the right to revoke the rights of others. Theoretically, governments derive the authority to govern through a transfer of executive power from the individual.

It's sort of necessary to read Locke to really grasp it, however.

[Odin]

This all comes down to understanding natural rights.

Government is a product of man, therefore, right's are part of man's nature. Government cannot grant rights to those which created it. We all have a "right" to our "liberty." Liberty is our "rights."

No we don't, that doesn't even make sense. I don't understand why this is difficult to see, there are no rights except those which are granted by government dictate. That's what a right is, it is not freedom.

[erowe1]

First, 'unalienable' means 'not to be taken away.' So this claim of course breaks down very quickly - If God gave us Rights that are 'not to be taken away,' why are they taken away every single day by the millions, and why is history a story of people who never had these rights, or had them snuffed out at the whims of more powerful humans?

They are not to be taken away in the sense that it is wrong to take them away. When tyrannies take them away, they do what the Creator declares is wrong.

This is why the term "rights" is important. It points to the fact that our positions are not just exercises in pragmatism or personal preferences. They are rooted in an objective absolute moral standard that makes some things right and others wrong.

[jay_dub]

The Founders (and Locke who preceded them) were expressing a radical view for the time. It must be taken into context that those in the colonies were all subjects of the King. Self-ownership to any degree is a radical departure from that.

You do make a good argument that having enumerated rights necessarily limits freedom. Perhaps it is time to take the next step towards unabridged freedom.

Good post!

[RockEnds]

The enumeration of specific rights retained by the people was debated by the Founding Fathers. That's why we have the 9th amendment. Was it a good idea to enumerate some rights while neglecting others? That's certainly debatable, but it's not a new idea. It was an issue that was most certainly being debated before the ratification of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It was never the intention for the government to grant rights. They were enumerated to ensure that there was no misunderstanding that the people had absolutely retained those rights when establishing government.

[brooks009]

Great Odins Raven!

You have hit the nail on its head Odin. I have tried to argue some of your points here but no one gets it.

Our rights are given to us by government(or people) not God.

[erowe1]

Our rights are given to us by government(or people) not God.

Who are these people coming here and saying this kind of stuff? Are these Randians?

[Odin]

If you want to understand rights and how they're derived, it's easiest just to read Locke.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

The founding fathers didn't devise our rights. In fact, if SCOTUS was worth its salt, it might have found something in the 9th amendment by now. Our rights are derived from our Creator, or more practically, from the idea of self-ownership. You own your body. I own mine. Unlike the pigs from Animal Farm, no individual has more rights than another. Similarly, no one has the right to revoke the rights of others. Theoretically, governments derive the authority to govern through a transfer of executive power from the individual.

It's sort of necessary to read Locke to really grasp it, however.

I've read Locke in great detail, his philosophy has been almost completely rejected and you would have to read other philosophers who followed him to understand why (or just listen to the reasons I give you lol).

Maybe you didn't know, but John Locke's patron was the Earl of Shaftesbury, and Locke even lived in his castle. Locke's existence was beholden to the Earl of Shaftesbury. Locke basically was used as a tool to justify how nobles can own property exclusively, but I don't want to reject him just out of ad hominem. Let me explain Locke to you.

Locke said that we are all free in a state of nature, and individual consent is the mechanism through which we form political societies. So far so good I would say - essentially in nature we are free, and in order to protect that freedom we consent to authorize some sort of government to protect it. The problem is where he says that consent comes from. "For when any number of men have, by the consent of every individual, made a community, they have thereby made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only the will and determination of the majority. So Locke throws the individual out of the "community" pretty quickly - rather the community becomes the "body" which acts according to its own motives, which are determined by the majority (or rather voting majority). The minority, though, lose their freedom pretty quickly. Locke essentially sees the minority as a cancer within the 'body'. "It is necessary the body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority...and so everyone is bound by that consent to be concluded by the majority.

Because the state of nature is so unsafe, man consents to "give up the equality, liberty, and executive power he had in the state of nature, into the hands of society. Locke has no answer for what we do when the majority decides to take away these precious rights (life, liberty, and especially property, the one Locke was most concerned with - the Earl of Shaftesbury didn't want the people to take away his land!). "What if the government believes that it has a right to make such laws, and that they are for the public good, and its subjects believe the contrary? Who shall judge between them? Locke doesn't have an answer, in fact he says "God alone" can judge. Well clearly God does not intervene against those who subvert our freedom, so we do not have a recourse against the oppression of the majority. Locke's blueprint is the basis of most modern day democracies, and we see that it always turns into tyranny. Why? Because the "right" of the "majority" to govern trumps all other "rights." The right of power is the right that wins the game, the right to life, liberty, and property stand no chance.

So if you believe that is freedom, I'm afraid we are in fundamental disagreement. I know by reading and studying Locke that his philosophy is fundamentally detestable.

[Odin]

The Founders (and Locke who preceded them) were expressing a radical view for the time. It must be taken into context that those in the colonies were all subjects of the King. Self-ownership to any degree is a radical departure from that.

You do make a good argument that having enumerated rights necessarily limits freedom. Perhaps it is time to take the next step towards unabridged freedom.

Good post!

The Founders, yes imo. Thomas Jefferson though was born something like 40 years after Locke died, and Locke was writing basically a century before the revolution. Locke's philosophy was not revolutionary at all - imho I think it was an attempt to protect the Feudal system - nobles owning vast reaches of land which the peasants and serfs toiled on. He was literally employed by one of the richest men in England as his personal secretary, and taught his children. So I really think we should distance ourselves from Locke, his philosophy has done nothing but damage to the cause of freedom imo, besides maybe having some influence on our Founding Fathers.

[Odin]

They are not to be taken away in the sense that it is wrong to take them away. When tyrannies take them away, they do what the Creator declares is wrong.

This is why the term "rights" is important. It points to the fact that our positions are not just exercises in pragmatism or personal preferences. They are rooted in an objective absolute moral standard that makes some things right and others wrong.

Let's say the Creator exists, a claim I'm not sure there is evidence of. But let's say he does - where does he SAY we have these 'rights'? I've read the Bible and saw no mention of rights in the Bible, in fact I saw a list of obligations (the ten commandments). "Though shalt."

Interestingly, God sought the consent of the people to obey these commandments - not through voting and tabulating the results, but the people consented because every person consented - "The people all responded together, “We will do everything the Lord has said.” "

If you examine it closely and think about it, the first 4 commandments are what guarantee the people their freedom.

[jay_dub]

I've read Locke in great detail, his philosophy has been almost completely rejected and you would have to read other philosophers who followed him to understand why (or just listen to the reasons I give you lol).

Maybe you didn't know, but John Locke's patron was the Earl of Shaftesbury, and Locke even lived in his castle. Locke's existence was beholden to the Earl of Shaftesbury. Locke basically was used as a tool to justify how nobles can own property exclusively, but I don't want to reject him just out of ad hominem. Let me explain Locke to you.

Locke said that we are all free in a state of nature, and individual consent is the mechanism through which we form political societies. So far so good I would say - essentially in nature we are free, and in order to protect that freedom we consent to authorize some sort of government to protect it. The problem is where he says that consent comes from. "For when any number of men have, by the consent of every individual, made a community, they have thereby made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only the will and determination of the majority. So Locke throws the individual out of the "community" pretty quickly - rather the community becomes the "body" which acts according to its own motives, which are determined by the majority (or rather voting majority). The minority, though, lose their freedom pretty quickly. Locke essentially sees the minority as a cancer within the 'body'. "It is necessary the body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority...and so everyone is bound by that consent to be concluded by the majority.

Because the state of nature is so unsafe, man consents to "give up the equality, liberty, and executive power he had in the state of nature, into the hands of society. Locke has no answer for what we do when the majority decides to take away these precious rights (life, liberty, and especially property, the one Locke was most concerned with - the Earl of Shaftesbury didn't want the people to take away his land!). "What if the government believes that it has a right to make such laws, and that they are for the public good, and its subjects believe the contrary? Who shall judge between them? Locke doesn't have an answer, in fact he says "God alone" can judge. Well clearly God does not intervene against those who subvert our freedom, so we do not have a recourse against the oppression of the majority. Locke's blueprint is the basis of most modern day democracies, and we see that it always turns into tyranny. Why? Because the "right" of the "majority" to govern trumps all other "rights." The right of power is the right that wins the game, the right to life, liberty, and property stand no chance.

So if you believe that is freedom, I'm afraid we are in fundamental disagreement. I know by reading and studying Locke that his philosophy is fundamentally detestable.

Making a community is quite different from making a nation. If everyone, as an individual, first consents to the governance of that community, then the individual has not been ignored.

Our 9th and 10th amendments give most of the power to the states or the individual. If that premise were to be truly honored, that's about as good as it gets in individual liberty within any group context. Even the family unit must move as a body at times, so individuals can not be primary in all causes.

Maybe I'm mis-construing what you are saying. Personally, I feel that the leap from unabridged liberty to anarchy is a short one. I'm no anarchist.

I agree with both Locke and the Founders in concept, but do acknowledge the context of the times from which they gained their perspective. There may be some room for fine tuning their concepts, but I don't view 17th and 18th century men through a 21st century lens.

[erowe1]

I've read the Bible and saw no mention of rights in the Bible, in fact I saw a list of obligations (the ten commandments). "Though shalt."

Saying "Thou shalt not steal," is the same as saying that others have a right not to be robbed.

If obligations exist, then so do rights. If either of those does not exist, then neither does the other.

You can't see one without seeing the other. That would be like looking at a map of the earth and claiming you see continents but no oceans.

The Bible is the most important source for this moral law. But it's not the only one, and we wouldn't be helpless to know right from wrong without it.

I do agree with something I think you're implying, though, which is that if no creator existed, then absolute morality would not exist either. If such were the case, then we would have no basis for saying that our position was right. One correlary to this is that, since we know our position is right, we therefore know that absolute morality does exist, and thus, so does a creator.

[Odin]

Making a community is quite different from making a nation. If everyone, as an individual, first consents to the governance of that community, then the individual has not been ignored.

Our 9th and 10th amendments give most of the power to the states or the individual. If that premise were to be truly honored, that's about as good as it gets in individual liberty within any group context. Even the family unit must move as a body at times, so individuals can not be primary in all causes.

Maybe I'm mis-construing what you are saying. Personally, I feel that the leap from unabridged liberty to anarchy is a short one. I'm no anarchist.

I agree with both Locke and the Founders in concept, but do acknowledge the context of the times from which they gained their perspective. There may be some room for fine tuning their concepts, but I don't view 17th and 18th century men through a 21st century lens.

It is how the individual consents that is the point of consideration. Read the rest of what Locke says - the individual does not consent rationally to principles of governance, but simply consents to be governed by the majority. That is not freedom.

[RockEnds]

I've read Locke in great detail....

Okay, so you've read natural law theory. Presuming that you've also read at least some of the writings of the FFs, I guess I'm not understanding your point. Are you trying to say that we've strayed from our founding principles? If so, I doubt you would get much disagreement from anyone here. Or are you saying that...well, what? Your government may grant your rights, but my rights are mine. I have the choice to roll over and surrender them or to stand up for them as best I can.

I have disagreements with Locke. For starters, I'm not into the whole Adam and Eve scenario. I'm quite sure that my personal view of my Creator is quite different from Locke's view of his Creator. Yet somehow, I'm able to read past that and still get the basic point. I can easily see how the pigs in Animal Farm are doing quite well in my country today. Yet, I still don't believe that my rights are granted by government. The government may give that a good try, and in fact, they have, but I'm not falling for it.

[Odin]

Saying "Thou shalt not steal," is the same as saying that others have a right not to be robbed.

If obligations exist, then so do rights. If either of those does not exist, then neither does the other.

You can't see one without seeing the other. That would be like looking at a map of the earth and claiming you see continents but no oceans.

The Bible is the most important source for this moral law. But it's not the only one, and we wouldn't be helpless to know right from wrong without it.

I do agree with something I think you're implying, though, which is that if no creator exists, then absolute morality does not exist either. If such were the case, then we would have no basis for saying that our position is ever right. One correlary to this is that, since we know our position is right, we therefore know that absolute morality does exist, and thus, so does a creator.

I think the difference between a right not to be robbed, and the obligation not to steal, is a subtle but real one. 'Rights' imply some sort of protection - especially when they are 'inalienable' rights. Obligations do not - if you break God's covenant then you lose the "right" for others to be subject to its obligations. It's like a contract - and if you break the contract you lose its protections. That's why it was important for God to seek the consent of those who entered the covenant. Moses brought the words of the 10 commandments to the people and every individual agreed to follow them.

The principles of freedom must be the same way - that is we must agree to follow them by rational consent. And it is easy to see how that works - if you do not agree to the covenant - for instance 'thou shalt not steal' - then your relationship with other people reverts back to the state of nature. If you enter someone's house and try to rob them - they are free to respond however they want, and to assume your worst intentions. There are no "rights" in this situation. Those who do not choose to live by the principles which define individual and collective freedom, do not have 'inalienable' rights to be protected should one of us free men and women act in defense of our freedom.

I hope the difference is now becoming clear.

[jay_dub]

The Founders, yes imo. Thomas Jefferson though was born something like 40 years after Locke died, and Locke was writing basically a century before the revolution. Locke's philosophy was not revolutionary at all - imho I think it was an attempt to protect the Feudal system - nobles owning vast reaches of land which the peasants and serfs toiled on. He was literally employed by one of the richest men in England as his personal secretary, and taught his children. So I really think we should distance ourselves from Locke, his philosophy has done nothing but damage to the cause of freedom imo, besides maybe having some influence on our Founding Fathers.

Locke was a product of his time, as was Jefferson. Locke promoted life, liberty and property and said the only reason for government to exist was to protect property. Jefferson's 'pursuit of happiness' also came from Locke, though from different writings of his. Locke himself derived this from others. Jefferson linked life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but all these ideas were espoused by Locke before him.

Regardless of Locke's personal situation, it can't be denied that he was a major influence on many of our founders. I don't see how you can discard Locke without discarding the founders.

Details aside, I still fundamentally agree with your OP.

[erowe1]

I think the difference between a right not to be robbed, and the obligation not to steal, is a subtle but real one. 'Rights' imply some sort of protection - especially when they are 'inalienable' rights.

No, "rights" does not imply some sort of protection, especially not unalienable ones. I think that's one place your OP went off.

It's utterly implausible that when the DOI refers to "unalienable rights" that it's implying the impossibility of anyone ever violating those rights. The whole point of the document is to put an end to the violations of those rights that were already occurring. The point was that those violations are wrong, according to a law that comes from the Creator himself.

[erowe1]

Obligations do not - if you break God's covenant then you lose the "right" for others to be subject to its obligations. It's like a contract - and if you break the contract you lose its protections. That's why it was important for God to seek the consent of those who entered the covenant. Moses brought the words of the 10 commandments to the people and every individual agreed to follow them.

This is a true statement with regard to the Torah in the Bible. But this claim only applies to that particular set of commandments taken in its entirety. The same Torah implies at multiple points that some of the laws within it (though not all of them) are absolute universal ones that governed all humanity even before that covenant was made. It is these absolute universal moral laws that we refer to when we talk about rights endowed by our creator.



I hope the difference is now becoming clear.

Yes. I don't think the difference was ever not clear. But your thesis is unacceptable. My advocacy of freedom, to the extent that I advocate it, is based on principles of right and wrong that exist whether I consent to them or not. When my wife and I had children, we took on a moral obligation to care for those children. This moral obligation would be there even if there were no government or anyone else around threatening us with some punishment if we failed to do that. At the same time, we have a natural moral obligation not to abuse our children, which means the same thing as our children having a right not to be abused by us.

[Odin]

Okay, so you've read natural law theory. Presuming that you've also read at least some of the writings of the FFs, I guess I'm not understanding your point. Are you trying to say that we've strayed from our founding principles? If so, I doubt you would get much disagreement from anyone here. Or are you saying that...well, what? Your government may grant your rights, but my rights are mine. I have the choice to roll over and surrender them or to stand up for them as best I can.

I have disagreements with Locke. For starters, I'm not into the whole Adam and Eve scenario. I'm quite sure that my personal view of my Creator is quite different from Locke's view of his Creator. Yet somehow, I'm able to read past that and still get the basic point. I can easily see how the pigs in Animal Farm are doing quite well in my country today. Yet, I still don't believe that my rights are granted by government. The government may give that a good try, and in fact, they have, but I'm not falling for it.

If you see my response to Erowe I think my point may become more clear. It is both that we strayed from our founding principles, and that the founding principles themselves are flawed in the sense that they can be strayed from. The language of 'rights' is something that enables tyranny and suppresses freedom. It may not have been intended that way, and the Rights to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" have done more to protect our freedom than the hundreds of rights listed in the European Convention of Human Rights, which have taken away from the people so much of their freedom.

I think our founders had every intention to create a vehicle for man's freedom, and it worked with obvious exceptions for a while but was then subverted. Now we are a long way from the society that Jefferson would have envisioned, and I think if he were here today he might say that he helped to build the foundations but the building is still far from complete.

[Occam's Banana]

I don't think it's quite what you're talking about here, but I am reminded of the difference between (so-called) "negative" and "positive" rights. "Positive rights" are entitlements. "Negative rights" are liberties. A very great deal of (often deliberate) mischief has been done by conflating or confusing the two. In fact, I agree with Anthony de Jasay: we should eschew the use of the word "rights" altogether when we wish to speak of "positive rights." That is, rather than speaking of a "right of free speech" or a "right to keep and bear arms" we should instead speak of the "freedom of speech" or the "liberty of keeping and bearing arms."

[Aeroneous]

'Rights' do not equate to freedom, quite the opposite in fact - rights are the basis of one form of tyranny or another.

...

Last point - I was wondering today about the difference between the words "freedom" and "liberty", and which one is more powerful. That is what got me writing this thread actually. So I thought about the first antonyms that came to mind - for 'freedom' it was 'slavery', and for 'liberty' it was 'tyranny.' To me this suggests some difference in meaning between the terms, maybe I'll just leave it there and ask what other people think it is?

You make a lot of great points. Thanks for giving us a good philosophical argument to ponder on. I especially like your point about rights being part of tyranny. Any time rights are specifically listed in government, it often means that there are freedoms/liberties not listed which aren't rights.

With regard to liberty vs. freedom, I'd like to think liberty is more powerful. Using your argument of slavery being the antonym of freedom, slavery has existed within liberty. I think a lack of tyranny is necessary to allow freedom. At the same time, I'm sure we could easily argue things the other way around (especially since I'm providing a very simplified argument).

[RockEnds]

If you see my response to Erowe I think my point may become more clear. It is both that we strayed from our founding principles, and that the founding principles themselves are flawed in the sense that they can be strayed from. The language of 'rights' is something that enables tyranny and suppresses freedom. It may not have been intended that way, and the Rights to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" have done more to protect our freedom than the hundreds of rights listed in the European Convention of Human Rights, which have taken away from the people so much of their freedom.

I think our founders had every intention to create a vehicle for man's freedom, and it worked with obvious exceptions for a while but was then subverted. Now we are a long way from the society that Jefferson would have envisioned, and I think if he were here today he might say that he helped to build the foundations but the building is still far from complete.

Gotcha. I see it in a little different way, but it's to a similar point. I'll have to come back to the thread.

[Odin]

This is a true statement with regard to the Torah in the Bible. But this claim only applies to that particular set of commandments taken in its entirety. The same Torah implies at multiple points that some of the laws within it (though not all of them) are absolute universal ones that governed all humanity even before that covenant was made. It is these absolute universal moral laws that we refer to when we talk about rights endowed by our creator.

There's no doubt about that, and I never said otherwise. As it turns out the covenant of the 10 commandments comes from the universal morals (or maybe just moral), and that is why the people consent to it. This goes back to Genesis 1, God created man and said "Be fruitful and multiply." And God created us in his likeness. In other words, God said our purpose here is to reproduce, and from that purpose is derived our morality, emotions, obligations, etc. That is why the deepest possible love is for our children. That is also why having children and raising them is our most sacred obligation. Like God created man and woman in his likeness, man and woman create children in their likeness.

Let me just say I'm not trying to be super spiritual or anything, I'm not someone who takes the Bible literally - but I do think that a lot of the Bible, especially the old Testament, is filled with great and beautiful knowledge. Especially the parts we have been discussing.

Anyway - this is reflected in the 5th commandment, which establishes the concept of family. "Respect thy mother and father" goes so much deeper than most people realize. We know that respect has to be earned though - and so this means that a mother and father performing their obligations to their children deserve respect. But today the freedom of parents to educate their children and provide for them as they see fit is being deprived, but I don't want to get into that.

Anyway we could write whole books about this, but I do think it is important to distinguish between these sort of obligations and "rights".

No, "rights" does not imply some sort of protection, especially not unalienable ones. I think that's one place your OP went off.

It's utterly implausible that when the DOI refers to "unalienable rights" that it's implying the impossibility of anyone ever violating those rights. The whole point of the document is to put an end to the violations of those rights that were already occurring. The point was that those violations are wrong, according to a law that comes from the Creator himself.
Maybe so, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what the founders thought they meant when they used the term "unalienable rights", but I do object to its usage today and I think it is a very dangerous way of thinking.

Just look at almost any 'leftist' protest and you are likely to see hundreds of signs petitioning for "rights" - to education, birth control, healthcare, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. The right to life has been used to suggest that the most vile murderers have an inherent dignity, and protection of their own life. It has even been used to sue people protecting their own homes and families for killing a person who breaks into their home at night. It is language that puts one in the frame of mind of 'what do I deserve from others,' not 'what are my obligations to others.' "Though shalt not kill I would suggest is very different from Right to Life, for that reason. The first is a declaration of what I must not do, the second is a declaration of what I am entitled to. The first is a thousand times more powerful.

[Odin]

I don't think it's quite what you're talking about here, but I am reminded of the difference between (so-called) "negative" and "positive" rights. "Positive rights" are entitlements. "Negative rights" are liberties. A very great deal of (often deliberate) mischief has been done by conflating or confusing the two. In fact, I agree with Anthony de Jasay: we should eschew the use of the word "rights" altogether when we wish to speak of "positive rights." That is, rather than speaking of a "right of free speech" or a "right to keep and bear arms" we should instead speak of the "freedom of speech" or the "liberty of keeping and bearing arms."

That's an interesting distinction. Focusing on the 'right to free speech' - no one actually thinks we have a right to completely free speech. In fact we have a moral obligation not to lie to and deceive others when it comes to finances, contracts, libel, fraud, etc, and the government rightly protects the freedom of people who have been deceived by others. I would say a better way of putting it is that I have complete freedom to say whatever I want, outside my obligation not to make false accusations against others, or deceive others, either to gain financial advantage, avoid obligations, or deprive another person of his or her freedom in any way. This is just common sense, or else the right to free speech would translate to the 'right' to deceive and falsely accuse others, and commit fraud against others.

The problem I would have with substituting the word 'freedom' or 'liberty' for rights would be that people would start speaking about their freedoms and liberties (plural), instead of Freedom and Liberty (singular). Basically, they would become synonyms for rights. I think it is easier just to scrap 'rights' from our vocabulary, and speak of Freedom and obligations. I have complete freedom, apart from the obligations I have toward others. Simple. Then we just have to define which obligations we rationally consent to.

You make a lot of great points. Thanks for giving us a good philosophical argument to ponder on. I especially like your point about rights being part of tyranny. Any time rights are specifically listed in government, it often means that there are freedoms/liberties not listed which aren't rights.

With regard to liberty vs. freedom, I'd like to think liberty is more powerful. Using your argument of slavery being the antonym of freedom, slavery has existed within liberty. I think a lack of tyranny is necessary to allow freedom. At the same time, I'm sure we could easily argue things the other way around (especially since I'm providing a very simplified argument).

Thanks! The distinction you make is interesting and I was thinking something similar myself. It seems like Liberty refers more to the government or society, and freedom refers more to the individual.

[RockEnds]

I think it is easier just to scrap 'rights' from our vocabulary, and speak of Freedom and obligations. I have complete freedom, apart from the obligations I have toward others. Simple. Then we just have to define which obligations we rationally consent to.



That pretty much sums it up.

It is true that in order to engage in a conversation concerning "rights" one must first establish the meaning of the word. That's a major inconvenience as well as a major failure of that federal department that claims to educate the public. I don't know that I see the need to give up the word, but I most definitely agree that some of the things labeled "rights" nowadays are anything but. Many of them are indeed privileges granted by government to a select class of people.

[Odin]

With regard to liberty vs. freedom, I'd like to think liberty is more powerful. Using your argument of slavery being the antonym of freedom, slavery has existed within liberty. I think a lack of tyranny is necessary to allow freedom. At the same time, I'm sure we could easily argue things the other way around (especially since I'm providing a very simplified argument).

Thanks again for providing this insight, it made me think for the last few days, and I think I found a way of describing the difference I was picking up on.

I think I disagree with the statement in bold. The first example I thought of is the Scotsmen who resisted King Edward's tyranny and met his army on the battlefield. They were not people who had liberty, but to me they were free men. Free people living under tyranny leads to conflict, but they are not mutually exclusive. So freedom to me seems more like an individual condition of living. If you are a free person you should feel it inside yourself.

Similarly, liberty does not guarantee freedom. A person can still be bonded or enslaved by their own fears, addictions, and reservations. A government based on liberty then, does not completely advance the cause of freedom on its own. It makes me think that giving liberty to an enslaved mindset will not do that person much good. Maybe the point of our cause is to change the consciousness of the people, which will then lead to political victory. But what I do believe is that political victory on its own will not get us the society we seek. Even if we have a government that upholds liberty, that will not be our job done - there will still be many people who need our help, or the help of their friends and family, to free them from themselves, and from the toxic dialectic instilled by a toxic society.

I'm 100% Scottish myself, I was born there to two Scottish parents (although I was born a US citizen and came here at 3 years old) and that is why William Wallace came into my mind as an example of a free man living under tyranny. I would like to romantically think that the same spirit of resistance and freedom courses through my veins, but unfortunately whenever I have gone back to visit family in Scotland and England I have felt a foul sense there - and I think your post helped me realize what it is - and that is that the people gave up their freedom before it was even taken from them. You can feel that the spirit of people to have their freedom is almost completely extinguished, and it is very sad. I hope that is not the way we go.

And one last point - whenever you tell the typical person that we no longer have freedom in this country - the response they always come up with is 'well tell me something you cannot do?' And though we can easily answer this question, and answer how our nation's liberty has been deprived by the government, that is a secondary point. What has already started happening, and what we can see the final result of in other countries, is the whittling away of a spirit that used to exist in the American people. The two are certainly related imo, and I will keep thinking about this point and trying to refine it, but I think something lamentable is that the nation seems to be losing our free spirit.

[Cabal]

A right is a moral claim. Given that ethics tends to be a significant factor in the philosophy of liberty (at least outside of the purely utilitarian view), then the idea of rights is just as important. Though, really, there is only one right--the right to non-aggression, to put it briefly. And I would argue this is synonymous with liberty.

[Travlyr]

Unalienable means that rights can not be taken away. They can be violated but not alienated. The 'rights' to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness exist even if one is dead, enslaved, or propertyless. The 'pursuit of happiness' comes from the right to own property.

The duty of the legitimate state is to protect those rights with law and a system of justice. The government's job is to enforce the laws and administer justice.

Locke made the difference between legitimate and illegitimate government clear.

4.4 The Function Of Civil Government (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/#SecTreGov)

Locke is now in a position to explain the function of a legitimate government and distinguish it from illegitimate government. The aim of such a legitimate government is to preserve, so far as possible, the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its citizens, and to prosecute and punish those of its citizens who violate the rights of others and to pursue the public good even where this may conflict with the rights of individuals. In doing this it provides something unavailable in the state of nature, an impartial judge to determine the severity of the crime, and to set a punishment proportionate to the crime. This is one of the main reasons why civil society is an improvement on the state of nature. An illegitimate government will fail to protect the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its subjects, and in the worst cases, such an illegitimate government will claim to be able to violate the rights of its subjects, that is it will claim to have despotic power over its subjects.

Liberty vs. Freedom. Liberty is the idea of freedom. Freedom is the practice of liberty.

[Odin]

A right is a moral claim. Given that ethics tends to be a significant factor in the philosophy of liberty (at least outside of the purely utilitarian view), then the idea of rights is just as important. Though, really, there is only one right--the right to non-aggression, to put it briefly. And I would argue this is synonymous with liberty.

That is closer to a sensible description, but there is no 'right' to non-aggression. If someone uses violence against me, I will in turn use violence against them.

A far more accurate way of making your point is to say that we each have an obligation not to use violence against others, and similarly others have an obligation not to use violence against us. If someone does use violence against us, we are free to defend our freedom and assume the worst intentions of those attacking it.

[Cabal]

That is closer to a sensible description, but there is no 'right' to non-aggression. If someone uses violence against me, I will in turn use violence against them.

A far more accurate way of making your point is to say that we each have an obligation not to use violence against others, and similarly others have an obligation not to use violence against us. If someone does use violence against us, we are free to defend our freedom and assume the worst intentions of those attacking it.

I was more speaking about having property 'rights', beginning with self-ownership. I also didn't say non-violence. I said non-aggression (the initiation of violence).