Thanks June, but I think that's kind of simplistic. Just look at the history of the US. All of the “rights” that we believe we have today have been contested throughout US history. If we were truly born with those rights, we would not have had to contest for them. We justify the fight for those rights by saying that we are somehow naturally born with them. But in actual fact, the truth is far different. The only thing we are truly born with is what we are privileged to have, based on our race, gender, class, tribe and family positioning at birth and throughout our lives. The battle for rights has always been about political power. I see no point in justifying it over some Lockean notion of “naturally born” rights. We have no right to anything, really, instead we hope that a critical mass of people share a crucial understanding that if not enough people feel they have a stake in society – based on their own personal sense that they can do well in this world, earn a living, enjoy their life, respecting each other’s ability to do the same – society will fall apart amidst unceasing conflict and civil strife.
So the struggle is whether we as individuals and whether the different tribes can come to an agreement over a system of reciprocity, a personal value of reciprocal altruism, in which I can see you and you can see me as part of a consensus World in which we all can be allowed to find our way. Joe Biden is right about one thing – there is a lot at stake in this election because the Trump-MAGA movement has decided who is in and who is out of their World. They have narrowly drawn lines of inclusion, and their movement can only lead to never ending conflict among the different tribes of America. What comes next could be frightening indeed.
You are probably not going to like this but I stand by what I said because the only right(s) we are actually born with is the right to be free from the aggression of others. I am a libertarian. I do not believe in posative rights like the "right" to food, or housing or any other valuable commodity that someone else must be forced to supply. True rights are always negative. The right to be free "from" something which is actually aggression in some form. It is our job as caring individuals to see that those born without the assets that some people are born with are able to get those things though voluntary action.
What does a "right" to education mean if you are stranded on an island with no one else to provide that education? You are, of course, fee to educate yourself through any peacefull means available. If you happen to have a few books that washed up there wth you no one has a right to come along and take them from you. But neither is anyone required to arrive with a shipload of books to save the day. Nor is anyone allowed to stop such a ship from coming to your rescue.
Many years ago David Boaz (RIP) wrote in "Libertarianism: A Primer" that community is the antidote to coercion. I believe that profoundly and glad he put the issue so simply.
It seems to me that your second comment contradicts your first. You have quickly travelled from "equal in our rights" -- rights broadly defined -- to a single right: to be free of aggression from others. But we are not even born with a "right" to be free from aggression from others. Is a child free from the aggression of her/his parents? Certainly not. If the child has a right to this, if a child is "born" with this right, as you say, then why are so many children subject to aggression? We are "born" with things like eyes, arms, legs, a hunger for food, a need for shelter from inclement weather, a need to cooperate with others to survive in a harsh world. Those are all things we are born with, we cannot escape them. But no human is born with a right to be free of aggression, if we were that right would not be breached so regularly.
Our discussion of these matters has been colored by very 18th century conceptions of "rights," "natural born," "born with" that don't hold up to scrutiny. Just as the motto "all men are created equal" does not hold up to scrutiny, as the character in my short essay points out. Those were part of the framing in the 18th century to try and foster a world view that could could counter the "divine rights" of a king. Locke, Rousseau and others countered divine right with a claim for "natural rights," natural rights appealing to a higher order, i.e. Nature, much like divine rights appealed to the higher order of a god.
But natural rights has no firmer grounding than does a divine right. Both are "imagined realities" from the 18th century. In the modern day, the idea of "divine right" has pretty much lost all currency. But natural rights still has retained some proponents, such as Libertarians -- still fond for the 18th century, eh? LOL
Having a right means you are entitled to it. A child has a right to be free from the aggression of its parents. That does not imply that the parent will necessarily honor that right any more than a burglar will honor your right not to be shot. The Constitution obligates the government to honor and protect our rights, and yes it really is only one right - to be free from aggression. Once again that doesn't mean that the government will honor that obligation. That is why we have a Bill of Rights and a court system to defend it.
Being born with a need doesn't necessarily obligate anyone to fulfill it. One could say that having brought a child into the world parents have an obligation to see that those needs are met at least until the child is emancipated or the obligation transferred to a new set of parents. You could also say that if someone accidentally places someone at risk they have an obligation to remedy that situation as best they can. Those are about the only obligations I can come up with at the moment.
And yes I am very fond of the 18th century, or at least of its great thinkers. I do believe in natural rights. Our rights are a product of our nature as humans. What would you have us substitute? Whatever the majority decides is a right? Whatever the government decides is a right? Any society must have a base principle that is broadly accepted to build on. A minimal morality if you will. For libertarians that minimal morality is the Non Aggression Principle which has been more friendly paraphrased as "Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff". That's really all we need. The rest shoul be guided by your personal moral principles.
Libertarianism makes no claim to be a complete philosophy of life. It is just a political philosophy which defines the proper manor for adult humans to interact. The rest of your guiding prindiples you have to find elsewhere be it religion, your favorite guru or something else.
They both missed the boat. We are born unequal in our abilities but equal in our rights.
Thanks June, but I think that's kind of simplistic. Just look at the history of the US. All of the “rights” that we believe we have today have been contested throughout US history. If we were truly born with those rights, we would not have had to contest for them. We justify the fight for those rights by saying that we are somehow naturally born with them. But in actual fact, the truth is far different. The only thing we are truly born with is what we are privileged to have, based on our race, gender, class, tribe and family positioning at birth and throughout our lives. The battle for rights has always been about political power. I see no point in justifying it over some Lockean notion of “naturally born” rights. We have no right to anything, really, instead we hope that a critical mass of people share a crucial understanding that if not enough people feel they have a stake in society – based on their own personal sense that they can do well in this world, earn a living, enjoy their life, respecting each other’s ability to do the same – society will fall apart amidst unceasing conflict and civil strife.
So the struggle is whether we as individuals and whether the different tribes can come to an agreement over a system of reciprocity, a personal value of reciprocal altruism, in which I can see you and you can see me as part of a consensus World in which we all can be allowed to find our way. Joe Biden is right about one thing – there is a lot at stake in this election because the Trump-MAGA movement has decided who is in and who is out of their World. They have narrowly drawn lines of inclusion, and their movement can only lead to never ending conflict among the different tribes of America. What comes next could be frightening indeed.
You are probably not going to like this but I stand by what I said because the only right(s) we are actually born with is the right to be free from the aggression of others. I am a libertarian. I do not believe in posative rights like the "right" to food, or housing or any other valuable commodity that someone else must be forced to supply. True rights are always negative. The right to be free "from" something which is actually aggression in some form. It is our job as caring individuals to see that those born without the assets that some people are born with are able to get those things though voluntary action.
What does a "right" to education mean if you are stranded on an island with no one else to provide that education? You are, of course, fee to educate yourself through any peacefull means available. If you happen to have a few books that washed up there wth you no one has a right to come along and take them from you. But neither is anyone required to arrive with a shipload of books to save the day. Nor is anyone allowed to stop such a ship from coming to your rescue.
Many years ago David Boaz (RIP) wrote in "Libertarianism: A Primer" that community is the antidote to coercion. I believe that profoundly and glad he put the issue so simply.
It seems to me that your second comment contradicts your first. You have quickly travelled from "equal in our rights" -- rights broadly defined -- to a single right: to be free of aggression from others. But we are not even born with a "right" to be free from aggression from others. Is a child free from the aggression of her/his parents? Certainly not. If the child has a right to this, if a child is "born" with this right, as you say, then why are so many children subject to aggression? We are "born" with things like eyes, arms, legs, a hunger for food, a need for shelter from inclement weather, a need to cooperate with others to survive in a harsh world. Those are all things we are born with, we cannot escape them. But no human is born with a right to be free of aggression, if we were that right would not be breached so regularly.
Our discussion of these matters has been colored by very 18th century conceptions of "rights," "natural born," "born with" that don't hold up to scrutiny. Just as the motto "all men are created equal" does not hold up to scrutiny, as the character in my short essay points out. Those were part of the framing in the 18th century to try and foster a world view that could could counter the "divine rights" of a king. Locke, Rousseau and others countered divine right with a claim for "natural rights," natural rights appealing to a higher order, i.e. Nature, much like divine rights appealed to the higher order of a god.
But natural rights has no firmer grounding than does a divine right. Both are "imagined realities" from the 18th century. In the modern day, the idea of "divine right" has pretty much lost all currency. But natural rights still has retained some proponents, such as Libertarians -- still fond for the 18th century, eh? LOL
Having a right means you are entitled to it. A child has a right to be free from the aggression of its parents. That does not imply that the parent will necessarily honor that right any more than a burglar will honor your right not to be shot. The Constitution obligates the government to honor and protect our rights, and yes it really is only one right - to be free from aggression. Once again that doesn't mean that the government will honor that obligation. That is why we have a Bill of Rights and a court system to defend it.
Being born with a need doesn't necessarily obligate anyone to fulfill it. One could say that having brought a child into the world parents have an obligation to see that those needs are met at least until the child is emancipated or the obligation transferred to a new set of parents. You could also say that if someone accidentally places someone at risk they have an obligation to remedy that situation as best they can. Those are about the only obligations I can come up with at the moment.
And yes I am very fond of the 18th century, or at least of its great thinkers. I do believe in natural rights. Our rights are a product of our nature as humans. What would you have us substitute? Whatever the majority decides is a right? Whatever the government decides is a right? Any society must have a base principle that is broadly accepted to build on. A minimal morality if you will. For libertarians that minimal morality is the Non Aggression Principle which has been more friendly paraphrased as "Don't hurt people and don't take their stuff". That's really all we need. The rest shoul be guided by your personal moral principles.
Libertarianism makes no claim to be a complete philosophy of life. It is just a political philosophy which defines the proper manor for adult humans to interact. The rest of your guiding prindiples you have to find elsewhere be it religion, your favorite guru or something else.
L over this Steven I can see a musical!
That's funny. You're right, the subway scene has a lot of potential, doesn't it? Over to you, Lin-Manuel Miranda!
Yes I think Orwell might have a high voice. Hola Lin!