Nature's Law: Inalienable Rights vs Civil Rights; Constitutional Republic vs Democracy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: J.B. Aloha

I support your right to adhere to whatever definitions you believe in, at the same time that I note that, in my opinion, property is also a mere legal fiction. I wasn't aware that we had "established" that rights are property, although I can see that both share the quality of being conceptual.

If property is a fiction then so is law. More so for law as it only exists in literature.

a reply to: Bluesma

“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are extremely vague notions, as we don’t all see those the same way. That just doesn’t mean jack.

We all may not see them the same way through our individual ideologies, but as a nation of laws [and not a nation of men] how these terms are represented in law, matters heavily.

All pulled from Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition. Page listed after each cite.

'Life' - as protected by the federal constitution includes all personal rights and their enjoyment of the faculties, acquiring useful knowledge, right to marry, establish a home, and bring up children, freedom of worship [liberty of conscience], right to contract [liberty of contract], freedom of occupation, freedom [liberty] of speech, freedom of assembly and press [liberty of the press]. (page 924)

'Liberty' - guaranteed and protected by the constitutional provision denotes not only freedom from unauthorized physical restraint, but embraces also the freedom of an individual to use and enjoy his faculties in all lawful ways [Definition of 'life' referenced], live and work where he choses, engage in any of the common and lawful occupations of life, enter into all contracts, which may be proper and essential to carrying out successfully the foregoing purposes, and generally to enjoy those 'privileges' long recognized at common law as essential to the 'orderly' pursuit of happiness by free people. (page 918, 919)

'Happiness' - the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner, not inconsistent with the equal [inherent] rights of others, which may increase their prosperity, or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment. (page 717) [My interpretation added]

“All men created equal”… pfft… yeah, expect the same of me as of Stephen Hawking, or of my mentally retarded sister- that’s fair. NOT.

No two men are ever created equal in 'ability'. However they are created equal in 'Station' of life [social or political status].

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I like this. Well Stated.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: J.B. Aloha

I support your right to adhere to whatever definitions you believe in, at the same time that I note that, in my opinion, property is also a mere legal fiction. I wasn't aware that we had "established" that rights are property, although I can see that both share the quality of being conceptual.

If property is a fiction then so is law. More so for law as it only exists in literature.

That must be why I said that property is a legal fiction which has a very specific meaning not merely related to the imaginary in literature:

An assumption or supposition of law that something which is or may be false is true, or that a state of facts exists-which has never really taken place. A fiction is a rule of law which assumes as true, and will not allow to be disproved,something which is false, but not impossible. These assumptions are of an innocent or even beneficial character, and are made for the advancement of the ends of justice. They secure this end chiefly by the extension of procedure from cases to which it is applicable to other cases to which it is not strictly applicable, the ground of inapplicability being some difference of an immaterial character.

A legal fiction like say ... corporate personhood:

A rather significant legal fiction that is still in use today is corporate personhood. In the common law tradition, only a person could sue or be sued. This was not a problem in the era before the Industrial Revolution, when the typical business venture was either a sole proprietorship or partnership; the owners were simply liable for the debts of the business. A feature of the corporation, however, is that the owners or shareholders enjoy limited liability: they are not liable for the debts of the company. In early lawsuits for breach of contract, the corporate defendants argued that they could not be sued as they were not persons; if this argument were to be accepted, the plaintiffs would be without recourse, since by statute the shareholders were not liable for the debts of the corporation. To resolve the issue, courts created a useful solution: a corporation is a person, and could therefore sue and be sued, and thus be held accountable for its debts.

In jurisdictions using this fiction, it is important that the legal draftsman distinguishes between a "person" and a "natural person".

Thus the connection.

As well, real property is defined by plats, deeds and titles - simple and notorious recordation. Personal property only exists by possession which as they say "is nine-tenths of the law." Possession though is a dicey matter which may be adjudicated away with ... a court action, a recordation, etc.

Every deed or title at some point was the bequest of a sovereign ... so in that sense, when we speak of most property we speak of "feudal fictions," as it were.

Anything else is mere philosophy.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Might makes right.

Legal words from our Norman Papist Crusading Conquerors.

Definition of Fiction

fic·tion noun \ˈfikshən\

plural -s

1: the act of creating something imaginary : a fabrication of the mind


2a : an intentional fabrication : a convenient assumption that overlooks known facts in order to achieve an immediate goal

b : an unfounded, invented, or deceitful statement



Sense 4 (Legal Fiction)

an assumption of a possible thing as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth; specifically : an allegation or supposition in law of a state of facts assumed to exist which the practice of the courts allows to be made in pleading and refuses to allow the adverse party to disprove — distinguished from presumption

Origin of FICTION (not legal fiction)

Middle English ficcioun, from Middle French fiction, from Latin fiction-, fictio, from fictus + -ion-, -io -ion

First Known Use: 14th century (sense 1)
unabridged.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of Presumption

1: presumptuous attitude or conduct : the taking of too much on oneself : the overstepping of limits of propriety, courtesy, or morality : audacity, effrontery





2a : an attitude or belief dictated by probability : assumption



b : the ground, reason, or evidence lending probability to a belief

Sense 3

law : an inference as to the existence of the fact not certainly known from the known or proved existence of some other fact, sometimes operating as evidence, sometimes as a rule of procedure as to who must proceed with evidence on the main issue, or as to who has the burden of proof and sometimes having no effect as evidence, once evidence on the issue is in — distinguished from fiction

Origin of PRESUMPTION

Middle English presumpcioun presumptuous attitude or conduct, assumption, from Old French presumption, from Late Latin praesumption-, praesumptio presumptuous attitude or conduct (from Latin) & Latin praesumption-, praesumptio assumption, from Latin praesumptus (past participle of praesumere to anticipate, suppose, take in advance) + -ion-, -io -ion — more at presume

First Known Use: 13th century (sense 1)
unabridged.merriam-webster.com...

Murray Rothbard wrote that the history of Man is the history of the struggle between Liberty and Power.

My own basic perspective on the history of man, and a fortiori on the history of the United States, is to place central importance on the great conflict which is eternally waged between Liberty and Power, a conflict, by the way, which was seen with crystal clarity by the American revolutionaries of the eighteenth century. I see the liberty of the individual not only as a great moral good in itself (or, with Lord Acton, as the highest political good), but also as the necessary condition for the flowering of all the other goods that mankind cherishes: moral virtue, civilization, the arts and sciences, economic prosperity. Out of liberty, then, stem the glories of civilized life. But liberty has always been threatened by the encroachments of power, power which seeks to suppress, control, cripple, tax, and exploit the fruits of liberty and production. Power, then, the enemy of liberty, is consequently the enemy of all the other goods and fruits of civilization that mankind holds dear.

Rothbard, Murray N. (2011-01-25). Conceived in Liberty (LvMI) (Kindle Locations 387-394). Ludwig von Mises Institute. Kindle Edition.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Thank you for your definitions; always good to have one's understanding backed up.

And, I must say, congratulations ... I can't think of the last time I've seen the word "Papist" actually used in modern writing.

"Might makes right"? I suppose that is a crude and simple way of speaking of one mode of feudal jurisprudence.

I'm reading Mr. Rothbard's book that was linked earlier. He seems obsessed with presenting Americans in the last years of the 18th century as libertarians. I understand his desire to do so, and I can see some similarities but, I must say, that seems like a simplistic one-dimensional way of looking at it, no disrespect meant to someone you obviously admire.

Marx claimed that history was basically a recording of the "class struggle" between the propertied classes and the workers. Rothbard claims that the real answer is an even greater abstraction. Both would agree that the State can be the intermediary of repression.

Both are idealist and seem to be presenting utopian ideologies. The real world always seems ... grittier.

Wow! I am in such awe of this discussion... you all rocked this!!!

I've read all your posts and I'm loving it, but so much of this is so far over my head that I'm going to have to read through again... and maybe again! No complaints though. This is great.

I will respond as I can though. I didn't mean to be away so long. Things escalated and snowballed and basically overwhelmed me for a bit there. My apologies!

a reply to: Annee

I was speaking more in terms of "positive" rights, as in something that the government must do for you... i.e., we have a natural right to a place to live... but must the government provide that for us? I tend to say no, but I'm open to hearing other perspectives.

However, as you point out, there are other considerations as well... just how much control do we have over our property??? How much control should we have over our property.

Much to think about.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

Okay, how about the political meme "You didn't build that."

[snip]

Basically the idea that I take away from the importance of the discussion is that in 2015 in America none of us have created what we have (our property) in a vacuum. We are each of us embedded in an economic system and an infrastructure that has been created not by individual enterprise alone, but by cooperative actions over two hundred years directed by local, State and the Federal Government.

So, long story short (fail) how can we change our current system to be more ... appreciative ... of individual rights (natural, civic, etc.) while still maintaining the infrastructure (social, physical, economic) that we have all grown up in and from which we have all created our own personal "wealth."

Very good question... one I've thought about many times regarding various issues... most recently, regarding public accommodation laws and discrimination against the gay community. I don't have "thee" answer. I can only share my thoughts... for what they're worth.

In terms of "I built that," if "you" hired anyone to work for you... if you contracted any part of "your" operations out... if you had any help (paid or not), then no, "you" did not build that alone. Likewise, let any transportation industry -- trucking, shipping, trains -- go on strike, and all businesses suffer. It seems to me that those who claim such believe that because they "bought" the labor/service, they therefore "own" the labor/service, and therefore "built that." And then treat their employees and providers accordingly -- like capital that they own.

It's the same with our infrastructure -- roads, highways, bridges, law enforcement, and on and on. All built with the blood sweat and tears of real men and women -- sometimes at the cost of their lives -- for the benefit of everyone, and yet there are those who seem to think the pretty little pieces of paper printed by the Fed that they contributed somehow is more valuable than the lives of those who did the actual work. To the extent that we now have folks demanding that only taxpayers may benefit from the fruits of the government... or have any representation at all in government.

There is strength in numbers. Many people working together can often achieve far more than one person working for one's own self, especially in terms of common needs and the common good. Like roads and bridges and street lighting, etc. And that's all in accordance with the Social Contract.

I would say that we first need to stop thinking of money as our master, and remember that it is simply a tool. Money did not come from nature or Nature's God after all... we created it all on our own. We make the rules. And when those rules violate the laws of nature, it easily becomes a weapon. Which is pretty much where we are now. But since we make the rules, we can change the rules.

I would also draw a line between essential services and non-essential services, or to put it another way, want vs. need. When the issue is something we all need, or we all can benefit from and perhaps even grow with, then the government should play a part in making sure everyone has access to such services, equally and without discrimination. I would say that corporations -- again, a fictional legal entity that came from government, not nature -- should be required to play by the same rules that government must. If they want special privileges from government, then they must operate under the same rules, and provide special accommodations.

I think it's also important to note, at least in the context of this discussion, that neither government nor corporations have "rights." They have authorized powers and/or privileges created by men -- NOT nature.

originally posted by: stormson
a reply to: Boadicea

Natures law is might makes right. Wolves routinely steal from bears. Bears have been documented stealing from humans.

Biggest wolf rules the pack, there is no vote.

Well, yes, this is true to a certain extent. However, we have to consider that these animals are acting according to their survival instinct. We can do better. We can communicate, organize and work together for everyone's common good and best interests. They cannot. But put animals together in a situation where their needs are filled and they have no need to attack others, and even "natural" enemies can live peacefully together.

If your rights come from a creator, why didn't they exist before 1776?

They did exist before 1776, and always have been part of our creation. They were recognized and acknowledged at least 2500 years ago by Plato. Tom didn't make them up out of thin air.

Your rights are based on the gov you live under. Go to the middle east and use your "right" to free speech and see what happens.

And as I tried to establish and document in the OP, these are indeed our rights and are guaranteed and protected under our founding documents, and under our government. If I went to the middle east, I would still have the same rights, they just wouldn't be protected under that government. I can still say what I please, and would have to do so knowing the consequences.

a reply to: On the Edge

First, my apologies for not replying sooner. Things came up and I had to go play in the real world for a while!

To answer your question, no, I have never heard of "Noahide" laws... but I'm sure intrigued now! Thank you!!! Give me just a little time to read up on it and I'll be back to reply specifically. I promise!

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Whatever the Founding Fathers understood "God" or "the Creator" to be, what they did not only believe was that what we have been calling here "natural rights" were somehow deposed from on-high from some otherworldly version of a feudal lord, but were, instead, an inherent, innate, essential condition of birth as a human being (or, I would normally say as "a human being and natural person," but that would surely only lead to conflict).

I will be among those who would fight to the death to preserve this concept as a primary Truth of what it means to be an American.

However.

We must admit that at the time that these words were written, "all men" was NOT equivalent to "all people" or "all human beings." Women were not legally equal to men. Slaves were not legally equal to free men (which basically means that Blacks were not legally equal to Whites) and so forth.

There has been discussion here of repealing certain Amendments, or, more subtle references to the idea that a "restoration" of the American Constitutional Republic would begin and end with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the repeal of Amendments 11 - 27: I wonder if any of you would be willing to make your positions more clear in regard to reversals of what I consider to be vital corrections to real errors made by the Founders.

Thanks for any answers.

I'm very happy you brought this up -- thank you! As much as I respect and appreciate the thought and care the founding fathers put into our founding documents, they are clearly and unarguably flawed, as you point out. I wonder if they understood this even at the time, but perhaps knew they could not get the support necessary if they, for example, gave women equal rights and/or freed the slaves... were they hoping or expecting that future generations would correct that, as we grew and evolved into our liberty and freedom?