Civil rights v. 'natural' rights.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

My thanks to all who took part in the last discussion. One of the points made was that some countries granted its citizens 'civil rights'.

When you think I think about it, one of the things I learned long ago in school was that manking started to settle in cities way back when in Mesopotamia. However, the Greeks developed the city State to a fine art. When we say today that someone is 'polite', we simply mean they know how to get along in the city, as opposed to out in the wild where they were on their own. Such a person is also said to be 'civil', from the latin word for 'city' - the Greek word was 'polis' - hence 'polite', and also 'politics', for there is indeed an art to getting along with ones neigbours.

The point was also raised that it's quite ok to ban people doing obnoxious things like polluting the air with smoke in your own premises, but to stop them lighting up in a public place - well, your rights there do not trump their rights to light up!

Oh, yeah?
Now, in England , we still have a Queen. Sneaky, huh? Because she owns the place. It is her government, acting in her name, that makes the rules, and we choose them by voting for them. in a sense, the British people decide how old you can be before you have a beer, or drive a car. So, if we say that, as a body, we won't tolerate smoking in premises outside people's own homes - that is how it is.

How things work out in the states, I dunno, but it does pose an interesting question. If the State grants the right to drink beer or drive a car to someone over a certain age, is this accepted as a 'civil right', or would a Libertarian of a certain age argue that if Brits can drink beer at 18, then 19 yr old US citizens are having their 'natural rights' infringed by the government of the United States? Hey, If I was 18, know I would! :)

torpidai also reminds us that these 'civil rights' are merely 'privileges' that 'they' can take away if they want to - we used to have the 'right' to open a bottle of beaujolias and enjoy it in St James's Park, once. but not any more alas. certain of my compatriots made a nuisance of themselves by getting steaming drunk, and the 'right' to drink alcohol was taken away from us like sweeties taken from naughty children. C'est la vie.

But let's be honest - a democratic state, like the USA or UK, does cut it's citizens a fair bit of slack. I mean, you can vote, you can join a Union, you can own and run a business. We have loads of stuff granted to us through Magna Carta, and you chaps have got yourself a pretty good deal with much the same sort of thing through your Written Constitution- the right to remain silent, to be tried by jury, to be allowed legal representation, etc. democracy isn't that bad, then , is it?

Even so, there are times when my right to do what I like, even on my own property, may cause other people a certain amout of grief. Say, for instance that I get myself a stereo system with 4 x 500 watt speakers and really mean bass capability. Then I decide to play it at full power, on a warm summers night at about 2 am, with my windows wide open.

I wouldn't do such a thing myself, of course, but I really have had to go tell some idiots in the past that their all night party is keeping the whole street up, and I can't see anyone listening to any arguments about 'natural rights' if a Libertarian answered the door and started going on about how it was all on his property, so that was tough on anyone who didn't like it. Most likely the cops would get called and the 'repressive force of the state' would cart them off, assuming they never got lynched first.

But that's what I make of it at the moment. Doubtless, Libertarians and maybe other right wingers here have met with this problem, thought it through, and developed a suitable response. So, I put it to you -

The guy next door is burning old fashioned coal in his grate, and you live in a smokeless zone.
He plays his stereo way too loud, and doesn't seem to have any consideration for anyone else when it comes to what he does in his own back yard, even though what he does causes a real nuisance to the res t of the folks around him.

In a democratic State, we call the cops. And because we get these problems, the cops have already got a list of by laws, regulations, etc, that they can throw at the offender to sort them out. If not, we soon pass a couple that will do the trick. But how would Libertarians and other 'free market' enthusiasts tackle the problem?

Isn't this case where the best solution is to hand out 'civil rights' to everyone and make sure that yours include a bit of peace and quiet after a certain time, the right to breath clean air, and the legal right to brutally repress anyone who can't seem fit into our Democratic way of life?

Comments

[torpidai.livejournal.com]

One of the points made was that some countries granted its citizens 'civil rights'.

I maintain it'd have to be one huge superpower to do that, can you name the countries?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

In this instance, the UK and USA, plusmany others allow the citizen to vote- it's a civil right. I dunno where you are going with this, but still...

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

"Now, in England , we still have a Queen. Sneaky, huh? Because she owns the place."

Not really.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

The concept of the Crown took form under the feudal system. Though not used this way in all countries that had this system, in England and (separately) Scotland, all rights and privileges were ultimately bestowed by the ruler. Land, for instance, was granted by the Crown to lords in exchange for feudal services and they, in turn, granted the land to lesser lords. One exception to this was common socage — owners of land held as socage held it subject only to the Crown. The Crown as ultimate owner of all property also owns any property which has become bona vacantia. -
from the entry in Wiki...

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

To quote James Madison's speech (http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html) introducing the bill of rights, Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature. Besides the civil rights he mentions such as freedom of speech, press, and assembly, every other right, including life, liberty, and property in the fifth, and those rights in the ninth amendment, were considered natural rights. The best solution is what Randy Barnett calls the Presumption of Liberty where our rights are merely limited by the just and equal rights of our neighbors.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

So, are you saying that ,if someone can infringe upon our rights while in their own back yard, then they can do the same on common ground, and therefore it is ok to toss a bucket of water over anyone smoking in an English bar , or not ? :)

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Nobody has any right to blow smoke around, or make a racket that keeps everyone awake, even if they happen to be on their own land when doing it.

[torpidai.livejournal.com]

Odd you should mention Anarchy, because from all the meetings I've been to, the Anarchists were 1) the best organised (oddly) 2) the most polite and 3) those I'd gladly spend a week away with.

Rights that are most important:

Life, Liberty, Property

When I was Dragged up, It was suggested to me that the only rights humans had was to Food, Warmth and Shelter, though having seen the reality of that situation....

[headhouse.livejournal.com]

Almost completely "this".

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Thank you. Natural rights are a fallacy and in fact in a true state of nature without any sense of legal and social organization this entire species of slow-moving ground apes would have become a lion's dinner. Nature is red in tooth and claw, and humans solved that problem by being able to bunch together in the largest groups of any related species to ours (like Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis).

Libertarianism pursues a mythological human race instead of the real one. Just like Bolshevism did.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

I have often argued this before however there is 1 other natural right that you missed.

In addition to the right to die you also have the right to try.

That is you can try anything you want. You may not succeed but you can try it and nothing and no one can prevent you from making the attempt.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

I sense that wahat you say is true- and yet out of this chaos of mud and sludge that the natral world gives us, we can shape cities in which there are nice, warm dry spaces where we ca sit, eat , sleep and write sonnets, as well as make mney and do interesting things with telescopes and test tubes.

Perhaps we should abandon this search for Natural rights and consider the potential that we have to make the world more the sort of place that is nice for everyone to live in , instead of just the lucky few.

[torpidai.livejournal.com]

Nature and the universe will not acknowledge your 'right to be free'

Nature does a damned fine job of keeping most other animals in check don't(sic) it? but hell, many go to the countryside and think it's "All very serene" wheras in reality, everything out there is fighting for it's food, or fighting to not be food, it's just that most other animals get on with life (and death) in a much more dignified silent manner.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"The point was also raised that it's quite ok to ban people doing obnoxious things like polluting the air with smoke in your own premises, but to stop them lighting up in a public place - well, your rights there do not trump their rights to light up!"

That is not quite what was said.

You have the right to tell anyone on your property what they can and cannot do as a condition of remaining on your property.

If you want to ban smoking on your property, well while they have a right to smoke they do not have a right to be on your property.

On the flip side, if you are on someone Else's property and they allow smoking, well you are free to leave anytime you like.

Public property on the other hand is a separate matter entirely, here the question that has to be answered is who is the owner. If "Society" is the owner then the government acting as the proxy for "society" can legitimately set the rules for it's use as the effective owner. If on the other hand there simply is no owner then my right to smoke cannot be interfered with, although in theory if I persisted in doing so and somehow caused you health issues from the pollutants produced by my actions I could be held liable for those damages.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"Now, in England , we still have a Queen. Sneaky, huh? Because she owns the place. It is her government, acting in her name, that makes the rules, and we choose them by voting for them. in a sense, the British people decide how old you can be before you have a beer, or drive a car. So, if we say that, as a body, we won't tolerate smoking in premises outside people's own homes - that is how it is.
"

The problem with the bolded statement is how do you support morally it without also supporting the statement...

"if we say that, as a body, we won't tolerate people with black skin having rights or freedom - that is how it is

It is in essence an appeal to Might making Right, there being no action so heinous that if the majority of society voted for it could not be implemented.


This is one of the things no one ever seems to grasp about libertarians. No we are not personally comfortable with all of the implications of our beliefs. Yes we understand that in a pure libertarian system children could be allowed to starve in the streets. We don't like that, the problem is we cannot come up with a morally consistent way of preventing it that does not also create far more evil results. On the other hand collectivists never seem to realize the implications of their beliefs and never seem to be terribly concerned with them being morally consistent, instead relying on appeals to power of the masses.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'Yes we understand that in a pure libertarian system children could be allowed to starve in the streets.'

The execution of morality in society is always there. Let me put forth this idea, is a society with laws against spitting gum out on the sidewalk going have less or more gum on its sidewalk than those that don't have that law? I ask because if there's no law against it then logically you'd assume that people spit out gum all the time and no one has an issue with it. I'd counter and put forth that there's no law because that society has people that self-regulate themselves due to their ethics and will not spit out gum.

If there are children starving in the streets it's because that society is tolerant of it. The type of society that would be tolerant of it does not need it to be happening for it to be an indictment on them.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"How things work out in the states, I dunno, but it does pose an interesting question. If the State grants the right to drink beer or drive a car to someone over a certain age, is this accepted as a 'civil right', or would a Libertarian of a certain age argue that if Brits can drink beer at 18, then 19 yr old US citizens are having their 'natural rights' infringed by the government of the United States? Hey, If I was 18, know I would! :)"

2 completely separate issues here.

1) I am aware of no country or locality in the world which has an age restriction on driving. If you own 2000 acres in the middle of nowhere and want to let your 10 year old drive your truck across it at 100 MPH then more power to ya. The restriction is on use of the Roads. The use of roads which were built by the government and owned by the government is not a right, it is a privilege and just as with any private owner they are free to set any restrictions on their use that they wish.


2) Ah, Age of Consent regulations. This is a somewhat perplexing issue for libertarians. One the one hand we recognize that full adult rights cannot be granted to children at birth and that they have to be extended over a continuum as they grow and mature. On the other hand none of us has ever come up with a morally consistent method of handling it.

Yes society needs some way of determining when a child reaches various milestones and becomes ready for "the next" (whatever it happens to be, freedom of contract, freedom to engage in sex freely, freedom to consume whatever they please, etc.) level of responsibility. That method need not involve government laws and regulations, tradition would work just as well, however if we presuppose the existence of a government there is no reason why it cannot be through government law.

So to a libertarian the general concept of age of consent laws is not problematic, but the ways they are implemented often are.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

I think a lot of people critical of natural rights tend to think of rights as physical implementations. That being the existance of a right demands its ability to be put forth to completion. When people who support natural rights talk of them they're talking about the ability to act without limitation by others or the gov't. Not that nature bows down before them and provides them with an implementation for that right. It would explain to me why some of them advocate positive rights though.

If you don't believe in natural rights then you may as well disavow the whole notion of rights and just talk of permission because by nature then everything should only be allowed if society/ruler allows it.

Kind of a real pisser to trash natural rights and then bitch about people violating rights that haven't been legally acknowledged then.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"Even so, there are times when my right to do what I like, even on my own property, may cause other people a certain amout of grief. Say, for instance that I get myself a stereo system with 4 x 500 watt speakers and really mean bass capability. Then I decide to play it at full power, on a warm summers night at about 2 am, with my windows wide open."


As I explained the other day...

Yes you have an unlimited right to play whatever music you like at any volume you like at any time you like.

With one caveat.

You have to either devise a way to prevent ANY of the sound from escaping from your property or have the consent of anyone whose property the sound can be heard from.

It's that whole your right to swing your fist ends at my nose thing. Your right to enjoy your music on your property ends when it's preventing me from falling asleep on mine.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"The guy next door is burning old fashioned coal in his grate, and you live in a smokeless zone.
He plays his stereo way too loud, and doesn't seem to have any consideration for anyone else when it comes to what he does in his own back yard, even though what he does causes a real nuisance to the res t of the folks around him.

In a democratic State, we call the cops. And because we get these problems, the cops have already got a list of by laws, regulations, etc, that they can throw at the offender to sort them out. If not, we soon pass a couple that will do the trick. But how would Libertarians and other 'free market' enthusiasts tackle the problem?"

We'd call the cops because his pollution (Smoke, Sound, etc.) is on my property without my permission.

No laws needed.

It is simple, you can do what you like on your property, but if any of the byproducts of that end up on my property without my express permission then you are infringing on my rights and I do not need some bureaucrat to pass a law saying it is illegal anymore than there needs to be separate laws against punches to the face and kicks to the face. Either way it is assault.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"Isn't this case where the best solution is to hand out 'civil rights' to everyone and make sure that yours include a bit of peace and quiet after a certain time, the right to breath clean air, and the legal right to brutally repress anyone who can't seem fit into our Democratic way of life?"

No, because inevitably you end up with creeping incrementalism that creates a society where there is no semblance of freedom because everything which is allowed and compulsory and anything not compulsory is forbidden.

Far better to have a loose framework of general laws that are designed to protect rights and then use the courts to adjudicate when they have been violated.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Well, i was only joking when I spoke about ' brutally repressining ' people.

In actual fact, England has got legal codes, and Judges will interpret them very carefully.
Judges do realise that their interpretation may ' set a precedent', and other people will cite their decision and say that ' The law say X, the judge in 1880 said it meansY, so therefore , this court has no alternative but to do Z on behalf of my client.' Yup, jusdges know that it happens, so are careful when making decisions. however, they do make them.

Also, society does pass laws.
At present, we have bannned smoking in England in all private premises. Even if you own a public bar ( a 'pub', sa we brits call it) You cannot let people light up and smoke in it, even if you wish to. because although you may compensate any workers who suffer from ill health as a result of passive smoking, it is realised that most people regard money as a poor substitute for their own health.

So it is that whereas , if prohibition were imposed on England, people would still drink, the general consensus is that smokers do not have the same follwing as non smokers do. There is no rioting in the streets and civil law has benrespected in this sceptered isle - this time at least.

[ofbg.livejournal.com]

"If the State grants the right to drink beer or drive a car to someone over a certain age, is this accepted as a 'civil right'"

Not really 'natural rights'. Both examples are regulated privileges because both activities are not natural but just employing a manufactured product, products than can negatively affect the safety of others.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

hence I call them ' civil rights' , not 'natural rights'.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

My main comment is that Sumer was one of several contemporary and separate emergences of civilization and that civilization in Peru has roots as deep as that in Iraq in the continuous inhabitation sense. And that the Greek Polis went where it did not because of the virtues of democracy, but because the Greeks adopted large monarchies.

Now, the *Roman* system spread because of a Hellenized Republic and in the opposite pattern its expansion ground to a halt once it became the Empire.

As far as natural rights v. civil rights are concerned, in a civilized society people accept that states of nature do not exist and that yielding some inherent natural rights is essential that all people live together in a strong society.