The Myth of the Social Contract

[Geo Patric]

Why is it good and proper if it comes out of nature? There are plenty of abhorrent things that come out of nature. Ebola for example.

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good" - Genesis 1:31

geo.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Personally, I am of the opinion that people tend to be attracted to various philosophies because of the emotional satisfaction they can give, the reasoning comes later as often times reason can be adapted to any conclusion, given enough time and emotional pressure.

Myself, I make no bones about that. I support the cause of human rights first and foremost, and work backwards from there. Fortunately, history and positive law both happen on my side in this one.

When history is against me I acknowledge it; for example the original intent of the second amendment conflicts with my view on universal gun rights, but I am the first to acknowledge it.

The history and positive law of natural rights, however, is very clear; and there is a movement to undermine it and replace it with a false history that supports national sovereignty unchecked by rights. I am opposed to this.

 

[Guy Incognito]

minds polluted by religion, usually. ironically, my next comment was to be that the irrational intellect, is one of those things that we are born with and that religion should be considered one of the natural rights.

I agree with you there, too (though I suspect we are broaching on a disagreement). Freedom of conscience is widely recognized by the international community as a human right, as it should be. I am very wary of governments trying to tell people what is truth and what is false. That's a job for scientists, and for the individual conscience.

 

[Guy Incognito]

This is actually the first time I've had this particular debate so it's very interesting to me that they can come to the conclusion that I'm "anti-human rights" because I don't subscribe to their way of thinking. It's pretty bizarre to me.

Personally, I don't think you're anti-human rights, I think you have no idea what you're talking about but insist on arguing a position anyway. But if you insist on being taken at face value, then what your argument amounts to is an antagonism to universal human rights.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Personally, I don't think you're anti-human rights, I think you have no idea what you're talking about but insist on arguing a position anyway. But if you insist to be taken at face value, then what it adds up to is an antagonism to human rights.

I have no problem with socially constructing human rights. I have a problem with people inaccurately stating that said rights are "natural" and not man-made.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I have no problem with socially constructing human rights. I have a problem with people inaccurately stating that said rights are "natural" and not man-made.

Let's parse what you're saying:

I have no problem with socially constructing human rights.

Socially constructing? You mean "positive law."

I have a problem with people inaccurately stating that said rights are "natural" and not man-made.

It is inaccurate to deny that they have been called "natural rights" since the seventeenth century. You might not like the name, but there it is. Natural rights exist at positive law. This means exactly what you said in your first sentence, that natural rights are man-made, not given from a divine source. They are constructs of positive law, and have been since the Enlightenment jurists at least. This fact is what provides a solid legal foundation for the law of human rights.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Let's parse what you're saying:

Socially constructing? You mean "positive law."

It is inaccurate to deny that they have been called "natural rights" since the seventeenth century. You might not like the name, but there it is. Natural rights exist at positive law. This means exactly what you said in your first sentence, that natural rights are man-made, not given from a divine source. They are constructs of positive law, and have been since the Enlightenment jurists at least. This fact is what provides a solid legal foundation for the law of human rights.

Right, people had ideas about what "natural rights" were and so they put those ideas into law making them "legal rights" or "human rights", the latter of which is not honored by half the world. The problem is just because someone says something is natural, it doesn't make them natural. I stick to the definition of natural - nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Geo Patric]

I have no problem with socially constructing human rights. I have a problem with people inaccurately stating that said rights are "natural" and not man-made.

based on nothing but a personal preference and a fear of or disinclination to reason.

you fail to even attempt to demonstrate that 'right' has a meaning or what justifies it. why are MY 'rights' legitimate when so much of the world fails to recognize them? what is it about democratic rights that qualifies them?

what made it 'just' for the people of the 18th century to dismantle the political structure of England, depriving the historical aristocracy of THEIR rights which they had formulated and maintained for thousands of years? that YOU don't like that way of doing things is enough, you think?

see... some of us like to find MORE than just a personal like or dislike in determining what is right and what is not right.

you see.... there were those who could look at the oppression of the aristocracy and KNOW intuitively that it was wrong, but... intuition is not enough for rational people. our decisions are founded on reason. not myth, not self serving fabrications. Religion, for instance, fully supported the aristocracy - THEY WERE the aristocracy.

because, as important as securing their own rightful liberty, justice demanded that the retain the rightful liberty of their former oppressors as well.

call it a quirk.

geo

 

[Slartibartfast]

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good" - Genesis 1:31

geo.

Yeah and then the fall of man screwed all that up.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I'm open to other suggestions. But leaving human rights to the consent of the sovereign is not one of them.

Ultimately though, its the only thing that truly matters. People will always choose their actions and which philosophies they want to follow, regardless of what logic people construct around these philosophies.

What is important is that a critical mass of people choose philosophies which seek to promote humanity and decrease harm.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Right, people had ideas about what "natural rights" were and so they put those ideas into law making them "legal rights" or "human rights", the latter of which is not honored by half the world. The problem is just because someone says something is natural, it doesn't make them natural. I stick to the definition of natural - nothing more, nothing less.

Legal rights and human rights are not synonymous; natural rights and human rights are synonymous.

Human/natural rights are a subset of legal rights. "Legal rights" are very broad an encompass all rights at law, including rights superfluous to the bare minimum standard of human/natural rights.

You are evincing yet again that you do not understand the subject you are arguing about. If you are as concerned with "sticking to definitions" as you claim to be, then try learning the damn definitions first.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

based on nothing but a personal preference and a fear of or disinclination to reason.

you fail to even attempt to demonstrate that 'right' has a meaning or what justifies it. why are MY 'rights' legitimate when so much of the world fails to recognize them? what is it about democratic rights that qualifies them?

what made it 'just' for the people of the 18th century to dismantle the political structure of England, depriving the historical aristocracy of THEIR rights which they had formulated and maintained for thousands of years? that YOU don't like that way of doing things is enough, you think?

see... some of us like to find MORE than just a personal like or dislike in determining what is right and what is not right.

you see.... there were those who could look at the oppression of the aristocracy and KNOW intuitively that it was wrong, but... intuition is not enough for rational people. our decisions are founded on reason. not myth, not self serving fabrications. Religion, for instance, fully supported the aristocracy - THEY WERE the aristocracy.

because, as important as securing their own rightful liberty, justice demanded that the retain the rightful liberty of their former oppressors as well.

call it a quirk.

geo

Nothing you said reflects anything I have said or believe - just more personal attacks based in nonsensical, emotion-based assumptions.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Legal rights and human rights are not synonymous;

never said they were.

natural rights and human rights are synonymous.

No, they're not actually.

Human/natural rights are a subset of legal rights. "Legal rights" are very broad an encompass all rights at law, including rights superfluous to the bare minimum standard of human/natural rights.

You are evincing yet again that you do not understand the subject you are arguing about.

I know you're trying to educate me, but I would prefer it if you did that after you educated yourself. Like I said, "natural" has a definition, I stick to it.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Ultimately though, its the only thing that truly matters. People will always choose their actions and which philosophies they want to follow, regardless of what logic people construct around these philosophies.

What is important is that a critical mass of people choose philosophies which seek to promote humanity and decrease harm.

I don't follow. What is the only thing that truly matters?

 

[Geo Patric]

Yeah and then the fall of man screwed all that up.

not this man...

and adam took a good world constructed by a a good god and created evil.

so, adam was more powerful than god?

sorry... i do not want to debate the merits of your mythology. why do you bother to engage in a matter of reason we you are unwilling to consider the value of reason in that pursuit?

sure, you feel you have a responsibility to proselytize... but you also have a responsibility to respect others... and your are failing in that.

geo.

 

[Guy Incognito]

never said they were.

Yeah you did:

they put those ideas into law making them "legal rights" or "human rights"

It's a shame your ignorance is coming back to bite you.

No, they're not actually.

Have you got some sort of argument to the contrary? Nothing to counter my argument that human rights follow from the positive law of natural rights since the time of Grotius? Nothing to counter the precedent of positive natural rights at the Nuremberg trials? No? I thought not.

I know you're trying to educate me, but I would prefer it if you did that after you educated yourself. Like I said, "natural" has a definition, I stick to it.

You've been equivocating as to the definition of natural since the very first. I would try to educate you, but your stubbornness makes it a lost cause. As it stands, I am merely trying to correct your direct challenges to my argument for the sake of anybody reading this thread. I'm no longer attempting to persuade you of anything, since I can tell you have no interest in understanding human rights law.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I don't follow. What is the only thing that truly matters?

Human action and the beliefs that drive it. In my view something like natural rights is one of many possible beliefs that can result in a positive influence towards behavior. However, it is through behavior that human promotion or harm can occur. Given that behavior is where the rubber meets the road so to speak, probably any philosophy that results in a good influence will do in that respect, even though I have my personal preferences.

 

[sangha]

Oh congratulations I already linked to that in post 205:

You sound confused. I acknowledged that your enlistment contract was both written and signed.

According to the definitions provided in heymarket's post #252, a social contract is:

• An enlistment contract is not the fundamental basis for government.
  
  
• An enlistment contract is not the fundamental basis for law.
  
  
• An enlistment contract does not create any society.
  
  
• An enlistment contract does involve the retaining of certain natural rights. In fact, you give up several rights by signing an enlistment contract.
  
  
• The military does not govern it's subordinates only through their consent. Your commanding officer issues you a legal order, and you execute. There is no debate, no vote, or dicent; you obey.

You don't even know how to argue your own side.

Another straw man. No one has said your enlistment contract = the social contract

You should be arguing that the Constitution is a social contract, because according to the sources provided, it is.

That's exactly what I did argue, here:

Congratulations! You consented to submit the social contract in exchange for the benefits.

 

[Geo Patric]

Nothing you said reflects anything I have said or believe - just more personal attacks based in nonsensical, emotion-based assumptions.

because you have offered nothing in support of your objections to reason. you have not even offered a alternative to the rational process that delivered you from oppression. you prefer the willful ignorance of 'beliefs'. you don't need no stinking justifications!

and i have not 'attacked' you. you are preternaturally fearful of reason and you 'believe' the use of reason is a personal attack.

geo.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Human action and the beliefs that drive it. In my view something like natural rights is one of many possible beliefs that can result in a positive influence towards behavior. However, it is through behavior that human promotion or harm can occur. Given that behavior is where the rubber meets the road so to speak, probably any philosophy that results in a good influence will do in that respect, even though I have my personal preferences.

So you're talking about the praxis of human rights?

 

[Guy Incognito]

Another straw man. No one has said your enlistment contract = the social contract

Haymarket said exactly that earlier in the thread.

 

[sangha]

Haymarket said exactly that earlier in the thread.

IIRC, he said that the enlistment contract was evidence that he had accepted the social contract, not that it *was* the social contract.

 

[Guy Incognito]

IIRC, he said that the enlistment contract was evidence that he had accepted the social contract, not that it *was* the social contract.

That amounts to the same thing for Jerry's purposes.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Yeah you did:

It's a shame your ignorance is coming back to bite you.

Have you got some sort of argument to the contrary? Nothing to counter my argument that human rights follow from the positive law of natural rights since the time of Grotius? Nothing to counter the precedent of positive natural rights at the Nuremberg trials? No? I thought not.

You've been equivocating as to the definition of natural since the very first. I would try to educate you, but your stubbornness makes it a lost cause. As it stands, I am merely trying to correct you direct challenges to my argument for the sake of anybody reading this thread. I can tell you have no interest in understanding human rights law.

Considering that this response is really one big personal attack, I'm just going to write one thing:

 
natural right 
–noun
any right that exists by virtue of natural law.
Natural right | Define Natural right at Dictionary.com

natural law 
–noun
a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature, right reason, or religion and as ethically binding in human society.
Natural law | Define Natural law at Dictionary.com

objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
Objective | Define Objective at Dictionary.com

Unless you can prove that there is a right based in a "body of laws that are derived from nature, right reason or religion" that was derived without "influence from personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice" - then I have nothing more to discuss with you.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

because you ave offered nothing in support of your objections to reason. you have not even offered a alternative to the rational process that delivered you from oppression. you prefer the willful ignorance of 'beliefs'. you don't need no stinking justifications!

and i have not 'attacked' you. you are preternaturally fearful of reason and you 'believe' the use of reason is a personal attack.

geo.

Considering that this response is really one big personal attack, I'm just going to write one thing:

 
natural right 
–noun
any right that exists by virtue of natural law.
Natural right | Define Natural right at Dictionary.com

natural law 
–noun
a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature, right reason, or religion and as ethically binding in human society.
Natural law | Define Natural law at Dictionary.com

objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
Objective | Define Objective at Dictionary.com

Unless you can prove that there is a right based in a "body of laws that are derived from nature, right reason or religion" that was derived without "influence from personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice" - then I have nothing more to discuss with you.