Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. The intention of the Second Amendment is to prevent control. Last Wednesday's post about gun rights being inalienable whether or not they are written, was about what we are born with rather than what we are given. What we are given is called 'positive rights'. What we are born with are called natural rights. What laws are supposed to prevent being taken from us are called 'negative rights', and natural rights are 'negative rights'.
President Obama and others said we must "protect the children", sometimes adding "at all costs" or "at whatever cost". But others in the past have said that we cannot protect one person's rights at the expense of another.
On Saturday at one of the many pro gun-right rallies held across the nation, former Marine Damon Locke said to applause at a Florida rally he had helped
organize, "We are law-abiding citizens, business owners, military, and we are not
going to be responsible for other people's criminal actions."
What lesson does it send to children and to young adults to learn their political leaders have a desire to protect them by diminishing the right of law-abiding citizens? What lesson does it send to demonstrate that when a problem arises, the only means their leaders can think of is to destroy the Constitution?
What lesson, when they are old enough to stop to think that the utilitarian and pragmatic ideas coming out of Washington have gone from the fallacy of the greatest good for the greatest number, to using children as pawns in the fight to control the weapons without which we could not protect our First Amendment?
The right to bear arms does not say which kind of arms. Certainly we do not want live cannons and mortars in our neighbors' back yards, so we ban those things. That isn't about control, it is about immediate safety; in other words, if a cannon shot a round from suburbs of Detroit, where would the round hit, and does anyone have a right to fire a cannon anywhere except on a training field? What if it was not properly maintained and it blew up? We wouldn't let people have tiny nuclear reactors, if they existed, in their homes for their electrical needs, because when those devices have accidents, they are often irreparable.
"The Second Amendment was not written to
protect your right to shoot deer. It was written to protect your right
to shoot tyrants if they take over the government," said Judge Andrew Napolitano.
© Curtis Edward Clark 2012
Showing posts with label natural rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label natural rights. Show all posts
Monday, January 21, 2013
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Gun Control and the Second Amendment
President Obama's stance, indeed the stand of anyone who is against ownership of guns or of specific guns and/or of specific bullets, clips, or other portions of guns, are acting as utilitarians. This is against the concept of natural rights inherent in the Constitution.
Opponents of such restrictions are fighting it on grounds of the Second Amendment. But they are fighting on the grounds that it is that Amendment which gives us the right. It is not. That merely states the right which existed before it was written. Indeed, James Madison and others were fearful that if some of man's natural rights were put into a Bill of Rights, it would seem as if that was the limit of them, that there were no others. But more than that, many members of Congress knew that by listing some of them it would open them to scrutiny 'as written'. In other words, while all natural rights belonged to Man, the way one or another was written could be argued against and altered.
That has happened in the modern case of the Second Amendment. The right does not exist because it is written; it was written because it exists, and because some Congressional leaders believed it necessary to say they existed.
A Bill of Rights was not only unnecessary, but would even be dangerous. James Madison agreed with Alexander Hamilton, who asked, "For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do [by Congress]? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"
The harming of another in his person or property is not a right, natural or otherwise. The restriction of a natural right is the prerogative only of a tyranny.
© Curtis Edward Clark 2012
Opponents of such restrictions are fighting it on grounds of the Second Amendment. But they are fighting on the grounds that it is that Amendment which gives us the right. It is not. That merely states the right which existed before it was written. Indeed, James Madison and others were fearful that if some of man's natural rights were put into a Bill of Rights, it would seem as if that was the limit of them, that there were no others. But more than that, many members of Congress knew that by listing some of them it would open them to scrutiny 'as written'. In other words, while all natural rights belonged to Man, the way one or another was written could be argued against and altered.
That has happened in the modern case of the Second Amendment. The right does not exist because it is written; it was written because it exists, and because some Congressional leaders believed it necessary to say they existed.
A Bill of Rights was not only unnecessary, but would even be dangerous. James Madison agreed with Alexander Hamilton, who asked, "For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do [by Congress]? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"
The harming of another in his person or property is not a right, natural or otherwise. The restriction of a natural right is the prerogative only of a tyranny.
© Curtis Edward Clark 2012
Friday, July 27, 2012
The Extension and Intension of the Constitution
We must begin this discussion with the definition of the words in the title:
"The intension of a concept consists of the qualities or properties which go to make up the concept. The extension of a concept consists of the things which fall under the concept; or, according to another definition, the extension of a concept consists of the concepts which are subsumed under it (determine subclasses)" source
The intension of the Constitution is, therefore, the qualities or properties which go to make up the concept. What is the concept? It is supremely simple, and in two parts: the first quality is that of a government more able to deal with national problems than the Articles of Confederation allowed for; and the second property was to make a government less able to violate the rights of minorities. The second quality was the biggest intensional concern of James Madison, Patrick Henry and others, and it is the one that has seen its extensions go awry, since the era of the New Deal.
The extensional parts are the subclasses of the intensions; they are the things which 'fall under' the concept(s). Article 1, Section 2 explaining the composition of the Congress, is therefore an extension of Section 1, explaining that there shall be a Senate and a House.
"The Constitution does not give you rights," explains the Constitutionality Crisis. "The founders considered your rights to be 'God-given' or 'natural rights' — you are born with all your rights. The constitution does, however, protect your rights by:
But more than that, our coveted Bill of Rights are the extensions of the entire concept for the limitation of the powers of government, and the empowerment of the individual. "The whole of the Bill is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has the right to deprive them of." –Albert Gallatin, 1789, New York Historical Society
The original statements of the Founders give us their intent for ratifying the words they used. Why did they say this, and say it that way instead of the other way or another way? But epistemological intension is like a definition of a genus, whereas extension is like the definition of a species. The genus of the Constitution is that of a document never seen before then, one that had two part, the way 'man' is defined as 'rational animal'. The two parts are to be an enabler of individualism, and a limiter of government.
Madison warned us of wrongful extensions of the limited powers given to government, and named many that we see today. Congress might, he said, "establish teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union, they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads; in short, every thing from the highest object of state legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress [ ] and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare."
These things are so commonplace that we do not even think about some of them as being usurpations by the nation upon the powers of the States; or worse, usurpations on your individual sovereignty, which was a commonly held extension of the purpose of the limitation on government.
Next Friday I will examine some others in detail.
© Curtis Edward Clark 2012
"The intension of a concept consists of the qualities or properties which go to make up the concept. The extension of a concept consists of the things which fall under the concept; or, according to another definition, the extension of a concept consists of the concepts which are subsumed under it (determine subclasses)" source
The intension of the Constitution is, therefore, the qualities or properties which go to make up the concept. What is the concept? It is supremely simple, and in two parts: the first quality is that of a government more able to deal with national problems than the Articles of Confederation allowed for; and the second property was to make a government less able to violate the rights of minorities. The second quality was the biggest intensional concern of James Madison, Patrick Henry and others, and it is the one that has seen its extensions go awry, since the era of the New Deal.
The extensional parts are the subclasses of the intensions; they are the things which 'fall under' the concept(s). Article 1, Section 2 explaining the composition of the Congress, is therefore an extension of Section 1, explaining that there shall be a Senate and a House.
"The Constitution does not give you rights," explains the Constitutionality Crisis. "The founders considered your rights to be 'God-given' or 'natural rights' — you are born with all your rights. The constitution does, however, protect your rights by:
- Limiting the powers of government by granting to it only those specific powers that are listed in the Constitution; (This has not proven to be effective of late.)
- Enumerating certain, specific rights which you retain. These are listed in the Bill of Rights." [emphasis in original]
But more than that, our coveted Bill of Rights are the extensions of the entire concept for the limitation of the powers of government, and the empowerment of the individual. "The whole of the Bill is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has the right to deprive them of." –Albert Gallatin, 1789, New York Historical Society
The original statements of the Founders give us their intent for ratifying the words they used. Why did they say this, and say it that way instead of the other way or another way? But epistemological intension is like a definition of a genus, whereas extension is like the definition of a species. The genus of the Constitution is that of a document never seen before then, one that had two part, the way 'man' is defined as 'rational animal'. The two parts are to be an enabler of individualism, and a limiter of government.
Madison warned us of wrongful extensions of the limited powers given to government, and named many that we see today. Congress might, he said, "establish teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union, they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads; in short, every thing from the highest object of state legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress [ ] and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare."
These things are so commonplace that we do not even think about some of them as being usurpations by the nation upon the powers of the States; or worse, usurpations on your individual sovereignty, which was a commonly held extension of the purpose of the limitation on government.
Next Friday I will examine some others in detail.
© Curtis Edward Clark 2012
Monday, March 21, 2011
The Ninth Amendment, Liberals, and Conservatives
On March 11, I wrote, "if the Ninth Amendment is nothing but an inkblot to the Tea Party, the party will only mire itself deeper into the meaningless conversation about which of the lesser-of-two-evils of progressive argument to accept when those arguments are presented to them."
Robert Bork is the apparent creator of that "inkblot" reference, but Tibor Machan* also said conservatives hate the Ninth Amendment, because, "actually, people have innumerable rights, and to list them all is impossible."
That is where liberals have things in perspective, comparatively, so far as personal rights are concerned; it is why they support gay marriages and gay adoptions, personal drug use, abortion, and other things that conservatives despise and try to eliminate through legislation. But liberals deny such freedom when it comes to "windfall" profits or oil leases or the right to use incandescent light bulbs.
Perhaps Bork meant "inkblot" in the sense that the Ninth Amendment has rarely been utilized in the courts to set precedents; it has actually been almost forgotten, to the delight of the Right.
"The Ninth Amendment," wrote Daniel Farber, "is key to understanding how the Founding Fathers [ ] did not believe that they were creating these liberties in the Bill of Rights. Instead, they were merely acknowledging some of the rights that no government could properly deny."
In the 1972 case of Baker v. Nelson, two gay students who wanted to get married cited the Ninth's protection of their right to marry as "unenumerated right to privacy". In the famous abortion case of Roe v. Wade, Chief Justice Harry Blackmun, rejected the lower court's Ninth Amendment justification, saying instead the right to privacy existed whether it came from the Ninth or the Fourteenth. Justice William O. Douglas Douglas "in his concurring opinion in the companion case Doe v. Bolton, stated more emphatically that, 'The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights.'"
OMG! Of course it creates nothing--except the mandatory defense of it where necessary by the Courts, and the lack of offending legislation by any law-making body in the United States. There are very few other cases regarding the Ninth, but they do exist here and there.
If anything, the Ninth Amendment is the most important one regarding personal rights, taking precedence over the First regarding free speech, peaceable assembly, and the right to practice one's religion; the Second which provides us with our means of self-protection. These rights, and others, could have been considered under the Ninth Amendment if the First and Second (and others) had not been created, though the specifics of the others may not have withstood some arguments had they not been written.
But the fact is, all the arguments made by conservatives against personal liberties, arguments that fly in the face of the Ninth, are based on fallacious arguments, such as that marriage has always been for the lawful protection of children; the National Organization for Marriage calls it "fundamentally redefin[ing] what marriage is."
What is marriage if not "the legal union of two people"? Who says it must be one male and one female, except God and his spokespeople? Citizen Link uses good statistics to show kids in married families, especially those with both biological parents, are better off growing up and do better as adults; but that doesn't say all of them are better off, nor that no children raised by gay or lesbian parents are not as well off. (I'll cite my own two sons as prime examples--they are now in their mid thirties; one is married with children, and one was in the military.)
Instead, Link says, "If we are to concern ourselves with the welfare of children, we have to be concerned with the health of marriage in our culture."
Why should marriage be limited to one man and one woman?
Why do people who deny the Ninth Amendment in today's liberal world think marriage should be between only heterosexuals? "First and foremost," says MInTheGap, "the reason that marriage has been, by definition, and institution between a man and a woman has roots in what the Creator of the World has proclaimed—way back in the book of Genesis."
That reason, while it may be dogmatically religious, is also the reason it abuses the First Amendment prohibition against laws "respecting an establishment of religion."
The Ninth is a protection of almost every action that is physically non-aggressive toward or against another person, which is the idea "that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions." [John Locke, The Second Treatise of Civil Government, §6]"
And that is all that the Ninth Amendment states; and it should read more like this:
© Curtis Edward Clark 2011
Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa
Robert Bork is the apparent creator of that "inkblot" reference, but Tibor Machan* also said conservatives hate the Ninth Amendment, because, "actually, people have innumerable rights, and to list them all is impossible."
That is where liberals have things in perspective, comparatively, so far as personal rights are concerned; it is why they support gay marriages and gay adoptions, personal drug use, abortion, and other things that conservatives despise and try to eliminate through legislation. But liberals deny such freedom when it comes to "windfall" profits or oil leases or the right to use incandescent light bulbs.
Perhaps Bork meant "inkblot" in the sense that the Ninth Amendment has rarely been utilized in the courts to set precedents; it has actually been almost forgotten, to the delight of the Right.
"The Ninth Amendment," wrote Daniel Farber, "is key to understanding how the Founding Fathers [ ] did not believe that they were creating these liberties in the Bill of Rights. Instead, they were merely acknowledging some of the rights that no government could properly deny."
In the 1972 case of Baker v. Nelson, two gay students who wanted to get married cited the Ninth's protection of their right to marry as "unenumerated right to privacy". In the famous abortion case of Roe v. Wade, Chief Justice Harry Blackmun, rejected the lower court's Ninth Amendment justification, saying instead the right to privacy existed whether it came from the Ninth or the Fourteenth. Justice William O. Douglas Douglas "in his concurring opinion in the companion case Doe v. Bolton, stated more emphatically that, 'The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights.'"
OMG! Of course it creates nothing--except the mandatory defense of it where necessary by the Courts, and the lack of offending legislation by any law-making body in the United States. There are very few other cases regarding the Ninth, but they do exist here and there.
If anything, the Ninth Amendment is the most important one regarding personal rights, taking precedence over the First regarding free speech, peaceable assembly, and the right to practice one's religion; the Second which provides us with our means of self-protection. These rights, and others, could have been considered under the Ninth Amendment if the First and Second (and others) had not been created, though the specifics of the others may not have withstood some arguments had they not been written.
But the fact is, all the arguments made by conservatives against personal liberties, arguments that fly in the face of the Ninth, are based on fallacious arguments, such as that marriage has always been for the lawful protection of children; the National Organization for Marriage calls it "fundamentally redefin[ing] what marriage is."
What is marriage if not "the legal union of two people"? Who says it must be one male and one female, except God and his spokespeople? Citizen Link uses good statistics to show kids in married families, especially those with both biological parents, are better off growing up and do better as adults; but that doesn't say all of them are better off, nor that no children raised by gay or lesbian parents are not as well off. (I'll cite my own two sons as prime examples--they are now in their mid thirties; one is married with children, and one was in the military.)
Instead, Link says, "If we are to concern ourselves with the welfare of children, we have to be concerned with the health of marriage in our culture."
Why should marriage be limited to one man and one woman?
Why do people who deny the Ninth Amendment in today's liberal world think marriage should be between only heterosexuals? "First and foremost," says MInTheGap, "the reason that marriage has been, by definition, and institution between a man and a woman has roots in what the Creator of the World has proclaimed—way back in the book of Genesis."
That reason, while it may be dogmatically religious, is also the reason it abuses the First Amendment prohibition against laws "respecting an establishment of religion."
The Ninth is a protection of almost every action that is physically non-aggressive toward or against another person, which is the idea "that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions." [John Locke, The Second Treatise of Civil Government, §6]"
And that is all that the Ninth Amendment states; and it should read more like this:
"Whosoever shall act in accordance with the principle that no one may initiate aggression against another, shall not be found guilty of illegal acts."*1 2 3 4
© Curtis Edward Clark 2011
Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa
Monday, March 14, 2011
Obama Economics is Artificially Hobbesian
We are not flawed by nature, as Hobbes believed; yet we are not the way nature intended, either. 'Natural law', on which even the UN Charter is partly based, doesn't allow for such things as jihad, no matter what Hobbes may have thought about man being in a constant state of war.
It was Locke whose ideas were on the money, and from which were derived the Bill of Rights, in which the Ninth Amendment states that we still retain those natural rights which are not enumerated in the other Amendments. http://teapartyoriginalism.blogspot.com/…
If you believe in Hobbes, you can accept the idea, if not the form, of jihad. If you believe in Jefferson's version of natural law, jihad is an abomination. When we literally had our gun sights on Osama bin Laden and our men were told to stand down and not take him out, that was an abomination; by the same logic that was used, we would not have killed Hitler in 1939, when he invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland.
The 'command economics' of the Obama Administration and some similar actions in previous administrations are an abomination against the Ninth Amendment. They put Americans in a state of war against other Americans--as all command economics have done. The most famous of them, of course, are Social Security and Medicare; but the Tea Party, nor other conservatives, are calling for their abolition. They merely want to make them smaller, or in the case of S.S., to privatize it. That doesn't remove it from the field of command economics.
No, we are are not acting in the way nature intended, so we are not the way nature intended us to be. We are fulfilling in many ways the wrongful description of being a species always at war with itself, because we are not listening to John Locke who told us "...that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions."
"...command economies are unable to efficiently allocate goods because of the knowledge problem - the central planner's inability to discern how much of a good should be produced. Shortages and surpluses are a common consequence of command economies." Investopedia
Yet, our government under President Obama is now telling us how much coal, versus how much oil, versus how much nuclear, versus how much "green" electricity we are to produce. It has (as of this writing) approved only one permit for oil drilling in the Gulf since the BP spill. Obama hates coal and says there is no such thing as 'clean' burning of it; nuclear reactors are off the table; and yet this Administration has given hundreds of millions to certain cities to build "recharching" stations for the coming of the electric car--which the government is "commanding" be built.
This administration is even mandating the demise of the incandescent light bulb so that America doesn't have to produce any new electricity--even when they are pebble bed modular reactors, very safe and extremely cheap.
The idea is to maintain the current levels of electric usage, even while consumers know of much less expensive ways to run an economy:
1>produce more electricity, thereby putting more people to work and lowering the cost of power;
2>quit telling us how to use our capital, which only creates an artificial but untrue proof of Hobbe's war among men. Or perhaps it isn't true that men such as Obama, Harding, FDR, and Hillary Clinton (Clinton-care) are not true Hobbesians. Maybe they think Hobbes was correct and simply "work" his system as if no systems with built-in justice existed:
"Locke's state of nature, however, does contain right and wrong, and so natural rights. Thus, 'to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men.'". Joseph J. Ellis
Governments ought not be 'secured' in order to institute intellectual and economic wars among men, but to prevent them with open markets of ideas and goods. If we continue on the Obama Road to ruin, our great-grandchildren will be burning candles and wondering why the word "I" has been banned.
© Curtis Edward Clark 2011
Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa
It was Locke whose ideas were on the money, and from which were derived the Bill of Rights, in which the Ninth Amendment states that we still retain those natural rights which are not enumerated in the other Amendments. http://teapartyoriginalism.blogspot.com/…
If you believe in Hobbes, you can accept the idea, if not the form, of jihad. If you believe in Jefferson's version of natural law, jihad is an abomination. When we literally had our gun sights on Osama bin Laden and our men were told to stand down and not take him out, that was an abomination; by the same logic that was used, we would not have killed Hitler in 1939, when he invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland.
The 'command economics' of the Obama Administration and some similar actions in previous administrations are an abomination against the Ninth Amendment. They put Americans in a state of war against other Americans--as all command economics have done. The most famous of them, of course, are Social Security and Medicare; but the Tea Party, nor other conservatives, are calling for their abolition. They merely want to make them smaller, or in the case of S.S., to privatize it. That doesn't remove it from the field of command economics.
No, we are are not acting in the way nature intended, so we are not the way nature intended us to be. We are fulfilling in many ways the wrongful description of being a species always at war with itself, because we are not listening to John Locke who told us "...that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions."
"...command economies are unable to efficiently allocate goods because of the knowledge problem - the central planner's inability to discern how much of a good should be produced. Shortages and surpluses are a common consequence of command economies." Investopedia
Yet, our government under President Obama is now telling us how much coal, versus how much oil, versus how much nuclear, versus how much "green" electricity we are to produce. It has (as of this writing) approved only one permit for oil drilling in the Gulf since the BP spill. Obama hates coal and says there is no such thing as 'clean' burning of it; nuclear reactors are off the table; and yet this Administration has given hundreds of millions to certain cities to build "recharching" stations for the coming of the electric car--which the government is "commanding" be built.
This administration is even mandating the demise of the incandescent light bulb so that America doesn't have to produce any new electricity--even when they are pebble bed modular reactors, very safe and extremely cheap.
The idea is to maintain the current levels of electric usage, even while consumers know of much less expensive ways to run an economy:
1>produce more electricity, thereby putting more people to work and lowering the cost of power;
2>quit telling us how to use our capital, which only creates an artificial but untrue proof of Hobbe's war among men. Or perhaps it isn't true that men such as Obama, Harding, FDR, and Hillary Clinton (Clinton-care) are not true Hobbesians. Maybe they think Hobbes was correct and simply "work" his system as if no systems with built-in justice existed:
"Locke's state of nature, however, does contain right and wrong, and so natural rights. Thus, 'to secure these Rights, governments are instituted among men.'". Joseph J. Ellis
Governments ought not be 'secured' in order to institute intellectual and economic wars among men, but to prevent them with open markets of ideas and goods. If we continue on the Obama Road to ruin, our great-grandchildren will be burning candles and wondering why the word "I" has been banned.
© Curtis Edward Clark 2011
Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group
http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa
Monday, March 7, 2011
Congress and Absolutes
I answer questions in philosophy and in history in Yahoo's Q&A forum called Yahoo! Answers. Recently, someone asked how "the good" should be defined in terms of "context". Here is my answer:
Yet, Rand was a vocal, ardent, and radical advocate for the sanctity of human life. "Individualism," she wrote, echoing Locke and Jefferson and Madison and others, "regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being." But, to keep this situation of "what is the good" in context, she also wrote this:
If individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law, then it was moral to kill the soldier who couldn't make a soldierly decision, in order to save the hero who wanted the evil government to be subordinate to moral law--which they were not.
Now, that is a long example. But it is one that is rarely understood about that novel. And since it was written by an advocate of absolute human rights, it puts "absolute rights" into context--save the hero, or let the villains have their way.
This concept of "absolutism" is something the Tea Party as a whole doesn't comprehend any better than a Progressive, whether a Republican, or a Democrat. There are no absolutists in Congress, save a few who are absolute only on one or two specific issues, but not broadly and fully, and in context of what "absolute Originalist reading of the Constitution" means.
While there is room for debate even in an Originalist reading, there is no debate that it is a document of negative liberty, not of positive liberty. If there is any member of Congress who you can envision as a hero in an Ayn Rand novel, he or she may be one of those who holds to an absolute idea here and there--but I'll bet s/he couldn't explain why s/he believes it to be an 'absolute'.
© Curtis Edward Clark 2011 Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa
A good example is in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, in which a hero point-blank shoots to death a military soldier--because he can't make the decision to let her have the prisoner (even though the soldier knows she is trusted by the government)--or adhere to the orders he was given to keep the prisoner, who he, the soldier, knows absolutely is being tortured in secret.The man being tortured is also one of the heroes and is being rescued. The soldier doesn't even say "Yes" or "No"; he is confused, unfocused, hoping for, you might say, a sign from the heavens about what to do--and the hero had a gun pointed right at him, but he can't make up his mind. So she shoots him dead.
Yet, Rand was a vocal, ardent, and radical advocate for the sanctity of human life. "Individualism," she wrote, echoing Locke and Jefferson and Madison and others, "regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being." But, to keep this situation of "what is the good" in context, she also wrote this:
"Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics.The soldier could not decide which action to take, and while the gun was obviously a coercion, so was his gun, which if he had time he would have pointed at the hero. The soldier was violating the first paragraph, about individual sovereignty, by keeping the prisoner who was being tortured. You might ask, why was he being tortured? Because he was the good guy, and the bad guys (the government in this novel) wanted the tortured hero to work for them. The soldier had to have known this.
If individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law, then it was moral to kill the soldier who couldn't make a soldierly decision, in order to save the hero who wanted the evil government to be subordinate to moral law--which they were not.
Now, that is a long example. But it is one that is rarely understood about that novel. And since it was written by an advocate of absolute human rights, it puts "absolute rights" into context--save the hero, or let the villains have their way.
This concept of "absolutism" is something the Tea Party as a whole doesn't comprehend any better than a Progressive, whether a Republican, or a Democrat. There are no absolutists in Congress, save a few who are absolute only on one or two specific issues, but not broadly and fully, and in context of what "absolute Originalist reading of the Constitution" means.
While there is room for debate even in an Originalist reading, there is no debate that it is a document of negative liberty, not of positive liberty. If there is any member of Congress who you can envision as a hero in an Ayn Rand novel, he or she may be one of those who holds to an absolute idea here and there--but I'll bet s/he couldn't explain why s/he believes it to be an 'absolute'.
© Curtis Edward Clark 2011 Visit the Atheist-AA Google Group http://groups.google.com/group/atheist-aa
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Originalism vs. Cultural Relativity
Cultural relativism is the view that all beliefs, customs, and ethics are relative to the individual within his own social context. In other words, “right” and “wrong” are culture-specific; what is considered moral in one society may be considered immoral in another, and, since no universal standard of morality exists, no one has the right to judge another society’s customs. http://www.gotquestions.org/cultural-rel…
This has led to the Progressive idea of the Constitution as a "living document" that can be "interpreted" to include the current morally relativist positions of our political leaders and/or those who's political action committees support the campaigns of our leaders.
As a denial of "universal" human rights as protected specifically by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and by the Constitutional provision that Amendments must be enacted to change what is concretized in the Constitution, it is a denial that men have "unalienable" rights. Those unalienable rights are defined in natural law, and they vary somewhat between philosophers, but essentially they are a refutation of relativism.
President Obama's ideal of six years of national service to the United States government in return for school loans, which were made forbidden by lending institutions specifically so that this six year committment could be instituted, is one such case of relativism.
The first known case of relativism was the statement by Protagoras: "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not".
But if you believe that governments are constituted by the consent of the people, rather than coming from the blunt force of powerful people or from one faction or tribe being bigger and more terrifying than another, than you must believe relativism is wrong.
Consent of the governed is terminology of "popular sovereignty" as defined by Locke and Rousseau, whereby each individual gives up a bit of his freedom to a common government. Jefferson deduced that before any individual could give up such freedom to the "common sovereignty" that he himself must have "individual sovereignty". One cannot give up what one does not have to give.
"Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/indivi…
That statement is the direct denial of cultural relativism. So is the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights.
Cultural relativism taken to an extreme means a tribe still has the right to throw virgins into volcanoes, or to eat other men who happen to be in the way when the tribe is hunting for food, or to rape virgins in order to prevent getting HIV/AIDS when screwing other women who already have it. (This is a true scenario in some parts of Africa.)
"Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.
"An individualist is a man who says: “I will not run anyone’s life—nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule nor be ruled. I will not be a master nor a slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone—nor sacrifice anyone to myself.” http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/indivi…
Do not make the mistake of believing that I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense, as a statement of moral relativism by a person, tribe, city, or nation, is superior to objective standards of ethics.
© 2010 FAMN LLC (MI)
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Individual Sovereignty and Ayn Rand
America's Founding Fathers challenged the institution of the state as the ruler of the individual. Man’s right to exist for his own sake, wrote philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand, was their guiding principle, and they were "determined to establish on earth the conditions required for man’s proper existence, by the 'unaided' power of their intellect."
Those Founders, she wrote, knew man as "an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life." From the Lockean concept of "popular sovereignty," differing from both Hobbes and Rousseau, where he laid the premise that the legislature was only empowered to legislate for the general welfare, the Founders discovered a political axiom.
Whether Locke meant to imply that sovereign power was only in the legislature or in the people, Jefferson and others concluded it was in the individual, the only political entity capable of thought, and the one ultimately responsible for his own welfare, and each must be the one in whom the primary authority rests. Without his consent, there can be no legislative body.
Black's Law Dictionary says sovereignty is "The state of condition of being free from dependence, subjection, or control." But under the U.S. Constitution, the people create a deliberate dependence on their governments to protect the rights they also claim to be able to recover when and if they should so decided to change their form of government. This implies directly that they freely submit some of their sovereignty to their government. That which is freely submitted is the power Locke called "popular sovereignty".
References from the Ayn Rand Lexicon:
Those Founders, she wrote, knew man as "an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life." From the Lockean concept of "popular sovereignty," differing from both Hobbes and Rousseau, where he laid the premise that the legislature was only empowered to legislate for the general welfare, the Founders discovered a political axiom.
Whether Locke meant to imply that sovereign power was only in the legislature or in the people, Jefferson and others concluded it was in the individual, the only political entity capable of thought, and the one ultimately responsible for his own welfare, and each must be the one in whom the primary authority rests. Without his consent, there can be no legislative body.
Black's Law Dictionary says sovereignty is "The state of condition of being free from dependence, subjection, or control." But under the U.S. Constitution, the people create a deliberate dependence on their governments to protect the rights they also claim to be able to recover when and if they should so decided to change their form of government. This implies directly that they freely submit some of their sovereignty to their government. That which is freely submitted is the power Locke called "popular sovereignty".
References from the Ayn Rand Lexicon:
- For the New Intellectual
- The Virtue of Selfishness
© 2010 FAMN LLC (MI)
Monday, February 22, 2010
What is "Individual Sovereignty"?
A couple of times I have been verbally assaulted in emails by people who claimed that only nations had "sovereignty". Apparently they have never heard of "popular sovereignty", a concept dating back to the middle of the 17th century, formulated as part of social contracts. "Popular" sovereignty is no more of a nation than "individual" sovereignty is.
John Locke, as Hobbes before him, claimed that social contracts were unbreakable. He stipulated however that if the legislatures did not work for the good of the citizens, they could replace the legislature.
"Popular sovereignty," therefore, becomes "the notion that no law or rule is legitimate unless it rests directly or indirectly on the consent of the individuals concerned."
http://www.basiclaw.net/Principles/Popular%20sovereignty.htm
Thomas Jefferson and others wondered how individuals could consent to give to a social contract powers they themselves did not have to begin with. We cannot give bread to a food bank if we don't have bread; how can we give consent to others to make rules for us if we don't have the original power to make rules for ourselves? They therefore concluded that individuals did, indeed, have such natural rights that only individual sovereignty could morally defend.
""Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, 1791
But, "Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." Joseph J. Ellis
"And thus, [ascertained to him by natural and eternal equity,] every man is sole lord and arbiter of his own private actions and property--a character of which no man living can divest him but by usurpation, or his own consent. -John Trenchard, January 20,1721 The Freeman
"The relationships between federalist political structure and the sovereignty of the individual must be carefully examined..." James M. Buchanan
In contrast to the Articles of Confederation, in which the sovereignty of the States, not all of which followed the rule of "natural rights", formed the United States, it was the sovereign people who created the United States under the Constitution. And the people were sovereign in their individual, not collective, capacities. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments saw to that.
"Legislation for communities, as contradistinguished from individuals," Hamilton wrote with Madison in Federalist No. 20, "is subversive of the order and ends of civil polity."
It even comes to us from the Czeck Republic's first President, Václav Havel: ""The sovereignty of the community, the region, the nation, the state--any higher sovereignty, in fact--makes sense only if it is derived from the one genuine sovereignty, that is, from human sovereignty, which finds its political expression in civic sovereignty." Cato Journal
Elizabeth Price Foley, wrote that the U.S. was created on two “foundational principles”, limited government and individual sovereignty.
No individual can willingly give to the "common sovereignty" what he himself does not already possess. This brings many questions to mind concerning taxation, the use of military and police force, etc. But those belong in another debate, and they can be rectified where they are wrong, to respect common or popular sovereignty, and often individual sovereignty.
http://www.basiclaw.net/Principles/Popular%20sovereignty.htm
Thomas Jefferson and others wondered how individuals could consent to give to a social contract powers they themselves did not have to begin with. We cannot give bread to a food bank if we don't have bread; how can we give consent to others to make rules for us if we don't have the original power to make rules for ourselves? They therefore concluded that individuals did, indeed, have such natural rights that only individual sovereignty could morally defend.
""Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, 1791
But, "Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." Joseph J. Ellis
"And thus, [ascertained to him by natural and eternal equity,] every man is sole lord and arbiter of his own private actions and property--a character of which no man living can divest him but by usurpation, or his own consent. -John Trenchard, January 20,1721 The Freeman
"The relationships between federalist political structure and the sovereignty of the individual must be carefully examined..." James M. Buchanan
In contrast to the Articles of Confederation, in which the sovereignty of the States, not all of which followed the rule of "natural rights", formed the United States, it was the sovereign people who created the United States under the Constitution. And the people were sovereign in their individual, not collective, capacities. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments saw to that.
"Legislation for communities, as contradistinguished from individuals," Hamilton wrote with Madison in Federalist No. 20, "is subversive of the order and ends of civil polity."
It even comes to us from the Czeck Republic's first President, Václav Havel: ""The sovereignty of the community, the region, the nation, the state--any higher sovereignty, in fact--makes sense only if it is derived from the one genuine sovereignty, that is, from human sovereignty, which finds its political expression in civic sovereignty." Cato Journal
Elizabeth Price Foley, wrote that the U.S. was created on two “foundational principles”, limited government and individual sovereignty.
No individual can willingly give to the "common sovereignty" what he himself does not already possess. This brings many questions to mind concerning taxation, the use of military and police force, etc. But those belong in another debate, and they can be rectified where they are wrong, to respect common or popular sovereignty, and often individual sovereignty.
© FAMN LLC (MI)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)