Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fatal Blindness (FR archives) ^ | 06/14/99 | Fulton Huxtable

Posted on 08/31/2003 9:27:09 AM PDT by NMC EXP

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last
Classic Huxtable from the FR archives.
1 posted on 08/31/2003 9:27:09 AM PDT by NMC EXP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine; LiberationIT
A couple of weeks ago on another thread you were in a discussion re: rights:

To: LiberationIT

Do you have rights? Do I? Of course. Do you have the right to infringe on my rights? Of course not.

You still haven't explained where these rights come from.
Should I believe that I have rights because LiberationIT *says* I do?

If we have rights, they must originate somewhere, and you must be able to defend that source with some logic. If your say so is the source of my rights, then aren't my rights a bit precarious?

I will ask it a different way: what gives you the idea that you have any rights at all? How are you different from, say, a tree, or a deer in the woods? Or do those things have the same rights you do? If so, how? If not, why?
If we can go around declaring, "I have this right and I have that right," without any basis in logic, without any source or rational defense, as you have done here, then who is to say 'my right' is not valid? What if I *say* I have the right to...welfare?

When Hillary says we have a “right” to health care, she is wrong.

Why would that be wrong? Isn't she able to make a declaration of what rights are and expect us to believe it because she says it is so, just as you have done, without any explanation of where that right comes from?

One’s rights cannot impose obligations on others.

Why not?

65 posted on 08/15/2003 6:05 AM CDT by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

This article should answer some questions.


2 posted on 08/31/2003 9:33:09 AM PDT by NMC EXP (Choose one: [a] party [b] principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

3 posted on 08/31/2003 9:42:19 AM PDT by MayDay72 (welfare statism = socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

In many real ways Freedom of Speech is a myth because it has been negated by other laws of the land.

The 1st Amendment right to free speech is a worthy ideal, but it will never catch on and, in fact, it looks like we we are steadily moving further away from that ideal. We now have more of a right to ramain silent then a right to speak out.

Saying what you believe can get you in hot water, can inhibit your career potential, can get you ostracised, can get you fired, can get you sued, can get you labeled as a bigot / hater / intolerant / homophobe / etc, can lose you an election, can scar you for life, can turn you into a "person of interest," can get you dead,......

4 posted on 08/31/2003 9:42:41 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

5 posted on 08/31/2003 9:50:39 AM PDT by StriperSniper (The Federal Register is printed on pulp from The Tree Of Liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

When everyone has "Rights" then nobody has "Rights." "Rights" exist only inter pares.
6 posted on 08/31/2003 9:54:39 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (Further, the statement assumed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

A "right" is whatever an unelected, unaccountable federal judge says it is. The Constitution was supposed to protect certain basic rights but the judges have negated that.
7 posted on 08/31/2003 10:04:13 AM PDT by NoControllingLegalAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men, not just to a few. There is no such thing as a "right" for one man, or a group of men, that is not possessed by all. This means there are no special "rights" unique to women or men, blacks or white, the elderly or the young, homosexuals or heterosexuals, the rich or the poor, doctors or patients or any other group.

Wish someone would 'splain this to all politicians before they run for office.

8 posted on 08/31/2003 10:08:36 AM PDT by varon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Classic indeed. Thanks for bringing this one back.


9 posted on 08/31/2003 10:25:25 AM PDT by Tinman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Rights are only inalienable and inherent if there is a God who grants those rights. Then people have those rights because God granted them. If, however, there is no God then rights are not inherent nor inalienable; and are in fact granted by the State and can be revoked by the State.

Leftists, who are basically relativist existentialist atheists (although some claim they believe in God but note in reality they tend to belong to liberal denominations which pay no attention to Scripture), are perfectly willing to believe that rights come from the State.

Bottom line: no God, no rights -- just revokable privileges that happen to be called rights.

10 posted on 08/31/2003 11:52:36 AM PDT by dark_lord (The Statue of Liberty now holds a baseball bat and she's yelling 'You want a piece of me?')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.

Good enough.  But it falls off after that.

There are various kinds of rights:

        Natural or inalienable rights (Life, liberty, etc.)  These exist even in a state of nature.

        Civil rights (the right to vote, trial by jury, etc)  These exist in a state of society and are dependant upon the society which   has been established.

        Legal rights, established in laws and courts.

Civil rights and legal rights are not universal. For instance, those who are not citizens may not have the right to vote in national elections.

The author says:

This means you do not have the right to the time in another person’s life. You do not have a right to other people’s money. You do not have the right to another person’s property. If you wish to acquire some moneyfrom another person, you must earn it—then you have a right to it. If you wish to gain some benefit from the time of another person’s life, you must gain it through the voluntary cooperation of that individual—not through coercion. If you wish to possesssome item of property of another individual, you must buy it on terms acceptable to the owner—not gain it through theft.
Perhaps that's a matter of interpretation.  If another person or other people infringe on my rights or fail in any obligation they have to me, I might have a right to their life, money, property or time and I may use coercion in regard to that right.

The author says:

You may swat a fly or mosquito, killing them both. You do not have the right to do the same to another human being, except in self-defense.
Again, perhaps that's a matter of interpretaion. An individual can have the right to kill someone who "needs killing" whether it's a matter of self-defense or not.  (In "civilized" societies, individuals exercise this right through the legal system via the death penalty.)

While it's true that the actual meaning of a right has been corrupted, it is also true that people  may have claims on each others lives by virtue of what for lack of a better term could be called a social contract.  Maybe problems regarding statism arise when people deviate from the original terms of the contract.   Anybody who doesn't feel obligated by the contract is of course free ignore it and do as they wish but they should also be ready to suffer consequences imposed by those who believe they have a property right in the society and do not wish it to be violated.

11 posted on 08/31/2003 11:54:20 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NMC EXP; .30Carbine; LiberationIT; KrisKrinkle
First off, thanks for posting this, NMC. I agree with the conclusions, but would like for someone to assist me with the premises that get us to those conclusions.

"A right defines what you may do without the permission of those other men and it erects a moral and legal barrier across which they may not cross."

Aren't legal barriers due to laws, rather than rights?

"Alone in a wilderness, the concept of a right would never occur to you... Rights only apply to beings capable of thought, capable of defining rights..."

Is this a contradiction? Why or why not?

"Freedom of speech is the right to say anything you wish..."

Does this include lies? Why or why not?

12 posted on 08/31/2003 12:09:46 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dark_lord
"If, however, there is no God then rights are not inherent nor inalienable; and are in fact granted by the State..."

So in circumstances where there is neither a God nor a state, there will be no rights, whether recognized or unrecognized?

13 posted on 08/31/2003 12:11:08 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]



Right, as a substantive (my right, his right), designates the object of justice. When a person declares he has a right to a thing, he means he has a kind of dominion over such thing, which others are obliged to recognize. Right may therefore be defined as a moral or legal authority to possess, claim, and %0m/se a thing as one's own. It is thus essentially distinct from obligation; in virtue of an obligation we should, in virtue of a right, we may do or omit something. Again, right is a moral or legal authority, and, as such, is distinct from merely physical superiority or pre-eminence; the thief who steals something without being detected enjoys the physical control of the object, but no right to it; on the contrary, his act is an injustice:, a violation of right, and he is bound to return the stolen object to its owner. Right is called a moral or legal authority, because it emanates from a law which assigns to one the dominion over the thing and imposes on others the obligation to respect this dominion. To the right of one person corresponds an obligation on the part of others, so that right and obligation condition each other. If I have the right to demand one hundred dollars from a person, he is under the obligation to give them to me; without this obligation, right would be illusory. One may even say that the right of one person consists in the fact that, on his account, others are bound to perform or omit something.

The clause, "to possess, claim, and use, anything as one's own", defines more closely the object of right. Justice assigns to each person his own (suum cuique). When anyone asserts that a thing is his own, is his private property, or belongs to him, he means that this object stands in a special relation to him, that it is in the first place destined for his use, and that he can dispose of it according to his will, regardless of others. By a thing is here meant not merely a material object, but everything that can be useful to man, including actions, omissions, etc. The connexion of a certain thing with a certain person, in virtue of which the person may declare the thing his own, can originate only on the basis of concrete facts. It is an evident demand of human reason in general that one may give or leave one's own to anyone; but what constitutes one's own is determined by facts. Many things are physically connected with the human per-son by conception or birth--his limbs, bodily and mental qualities, health, etc. From the order imposed by the Creator of Nature, we recognize that, from the first moment of his being, his faculties and members are granted a person primarily for his own use, and so that they may enable him to support himself and develop and fulfil the tasks appointed by the Creator for this life. These things (i.e., his qualities, etc.) are his own from the first moment of his existence, and whoever injures them or deprives him of them violates his right. However, many other things are connected with the human person, not physically, but only morally. In other words, in virtue of a certain fact, everyone recognizes that certain things are specially destined for thc use of one person, and must be recognized as such by all. Persons who build a house for themselves, make an implement, catch game in the unreserved forest, or fish in the open sea, become the owners of these things in virtue of occupation of their labour; they can claim these things as their own, and no one can forcibly appropriate or injure these things without a violation of their rights. Whoever has lawfully purchased a thing, or been presented with it by another, may regard such thing as his own, since by the purchase or presentation he succeeds to the place of the other person and possesses his rights. As a right gives rise to a certain connection between person and person with respect to a thing, we may distinguish in right four elements: the holder, the object, the title, and the terminus of the right. The holder of the right is the person who possesses the right, the terminus is the person who has the obligation corresponding to the right, the object is the thing to which the right refers, and the title is the fact on the ground of which a person may regard and claim the thing as his own. Strictly speaking, this fact alone is not the title of thc right, which originates, indeed, in the fact, but taken in connection with thc: principle that one must assign to each his own property; however, since this principle may be presupposed as self-evident, it is customary to regard the simple fact as the title of the right.

The right of which we have hitherto been speaking is individual right, to which the obligation of commutative justice corresponds. Commutative justice regulates the relations of the members of human society to one another, and aims at securing that each member renders to his fellow-members what is equally theirs. In addition to this commutative justice, there is also a legal and distributive justice; these virtues regulate the relations between the complete societies (State and Church) and their members. From the propensities and needs of human nature we recognize the State as resting on a Divine ordinance; only in the State can man support himself and develop according to his nature. But, if the Divine Creator of Nature has willed the existence of the State, He must also will the means necessary for its maintenance and the attainment of its objects. This will can be found only in the right of the State to demand from its members what is necessary for the general good. It must be authorized to make laws, to punish violations of such, and in general to arrange everything for the public welfare, while, on their side, the members must be under the obligation corresponding to this right. The virtue which makes all members of society contribute what is necessary for its maintenance is called legal justice, because the law has to determine in individual cases what burdens are to be borne by the members. According to Catholic teaching, the Church is, like the State, a complete and independent society, wherefore it also must be justified in demanding from its members whatever is necessary for its welfare and the attainment of its object. But the members of the State have not only obligations towards the general body; they have likewise rights. The State is bound to distribute public burdens (e.g. taxation) according to the powers and capability of the members, and is also under the obligation of distributing public goods (offices and honours) according to the degree of worthiness and services. To these duties of the general body or its leaders corresponds a right of the members; they can demand that the leaders observe the claims of distributive justice, and failure to do this on the part of the authorities is a violation of the right of the members.

On the basis of the above notions of right, its object can be more exactly determined. Three species of right and justice have been distinguished. The object of the right, corresponding to even-handed justice, has as its object the securing for the members of human society in their intercourse with one another freedom and independence in the use of their own possessions. For the object of right can only be the good for the attainment of which we recognize right as necessary, and which it effects of its very nature, and this good is the freedom and independence of every member of society in the use of his own. If man is to fulfil freely the tasks imposed upon him by God, he must possess the means necessary for this purpose, and be at liberty to utilize such independently of others. He must have a sphere of free activity, in which he is secure from the interference of others; this object is attained by the right which protects each in the free use of his own from the encroachments of others. Hence the proverbs: "A willing person suffers no injustice" and "No one is compelled to make use of his rights". For the object of the right which corresponds to commutative justice is the liberty of the possessor of the right in the use of his own, and this right is not attained if each is bound always to make use of and insist upon his rights. The object of the right which corresponds to legal justice is the good of the community; of this right we may not say that "no one is bound to make use of his right", since the community---or, more correctly, its leaders--must make use of public rights, whenever and wherever the good of the community requires it. Finally, the right corresponding to the object of distributive justice is the defence of the members against the community or its leaders; they must not be laden with public burdens beyond their powers, and must receive as much of the public goods as becomes the condition of their meritoriousness arid services. Although, in accordance with the above, each of the three kinds of rights has its own immediate object, all three tend in common towards one remote object, which, according to St. Thomas (Cont. Gent., III, xxxiv), is nothing else than to secure that peace be maintained among men by procuring for each the peaceful possession of his own.

Right (or more precisely speaking, the obligation corresponding to right) is enforceable at least in general--that is, whoever has a right with respect to some other person is authorized to employ physical force to secure the fulfilment of this obligation, if the other person will not voluntarily fulfil it. This enforceable character of the obligation arises necessarily from the object of right. As already said, this object is to secure for every member of society a sphere of free activity and for society the means necessary for its development, and the attainment of this object is evidently indispensable for social life; but it would not be sufficiently attained if it were left to each one's discretion whether he should fulfil his obligations or not. In a large community there are always many who would allow themselves to be guided, not by right or justice, but by their own selfish inclinations, and would disregard the rights of their fellowmen, if they were not forcibly confined to their proper sphere of right; consequently, the obligation corresponding to a right must be enforceable in favour of the possessor of the right. But in a regulated community the power of compulsion must be vested in the public authority, since, if each might employ force against his fellowmen whenever his right was infringed, there would soon arise a general conflict of all against all, and order and safety would be entirely subverted. Only in cases of necessity, where an unjust attack on one's life or property has to be warded off and recourse to the authorities is impossible, has the individual the right of meeting violence with violence.

While right or the obligation corresponding to it is enforceable, we must beware of referring the essence of right to this enforcibility or even to the authority to enforce it, as is done by many jurists since the time of Kant. For enforcibility is only a secondary characteristic of right and does not pertain to all rights; although, for example, under a real monarchy the subjects possess some rights with respect to the ruler, they can usually exercise no compulsion towards him, since he is irresponsible, and is subject to no higher authority which can employ forcible measures against him. Rights are divided, according to the title on which they rest, into natural and positive rights, and the latter are subdivided into Divine and human rights. By natural rights are meant all those which we acquire by our very birth, e.g. the right to live, to integrity of limbs, to freedom, to acquire property, etc.; all other rights are called acquired rights, although many of them are acquired, independently of any positive law, in virtue of free acts, e.g. the right of the husband and wife in virtue of the marriage contract, the right to ownerless goods through occupation, the right to a house through purchase or hire, etc. On the other hand, other rights may be given by positive law; according as the law is Divine or human, and the latter civil or ecclesiastical, we distinguish between Divine or human, civil or ecclesiastical rights. To civil rights belong citizenship in a state, active or passive franchise, etc.

Transcribed by Charlie Martin

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIII
Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor
Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York


14 posted on 08/31/2003 12:15:09 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
"Civil rights (the right to vote, trial by jury, etc) These exist in a state of society and are dependant upon the society which has been established."

Aren't civil rights an extension of property rights, in that the government is an entity in which we all have joint ownership, and thus property rights to, because the "...right to property is the right to take the action needed to create and/or earn the material means needed for living. Once you have earned it, then that particular property is yours—which means: you have the right to control the use and disposal of that property."

15 posted on 08/31/2003 12:17:16 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

16 posted on 08/31/2003 12:20:10 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

"Fatal Blindness" -- an apt name.
17 posted on 08/31/2003 12:25:38 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Hi, nice to see you. Good article. IMO, when "rights" are provided by the state, they are not really rights, but chains.

True rights protect us *from* the state.
18 posted on 08/31/2003 12:30:15 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
LiteKeeper, it is a little spooky how you wander around the site posting "intelligence reports" on other posters, if that's what you are doing?
19 posted on 08/31/2003 12:31:30 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

In the absence of damage to somebody else, the only party capable of diminishing your natural rights is a thug or a govt. That being the case, what is missing here is the concept of principal and agent.

Govt is the agent of the individual natural person (see applicable state constitution). When it comes to natural rights, no agent can have any authority that the *individual* didn't have to grant in the first place.

With the exception of the formation of courts and armies, the concept that when a group of individuals band together and shake chicken bones around a fire reciting the incantation - "Compelling State Interest!" - that they magically become possessed of more authority than any single individual had in the first place, is simply a manifestation of socialism.


If I, as an individual natural person, have no inherent authority to compel another individual natural person to pay me in order to travel by car, how is it my agent in govt. can have that authority?

Oh, wait a minute. Everybody knows driving is a privilege. Nevermind...

baaaaaaaaa baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
20 posted on 08/31/2003 12:33:45 PM PDT by agitator (Ok, mic check...line one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson