Reply #90: Thanks for Instructing Me

[orwell]

...to back off from my literalism. Earlier you consigned my statements to the moronic. I guess I'm making progress... ;)

They argue from the other, philosophical, vantage point however when they say that government in turn has no say in the existence of individual rights which are not conferred or conferrable by any human entity...Note also that as products of their time, the new notion that all men are created equal had not yet spread, as you observe, to classes of creatures who were not considered 'men', including the propertyless, women, and slaves.

These two statements are contradictory. If government has no say in the existence of individual rights than they can not confer them. As they were "conferred" at a later date, (the Amendments), government de facto does have a say in their "existence." The laws of physics can not be conferred. They exist in the absence of humans. The sound of a tree falling in the forest and all that...

"what I am interested in is the notion that they are inherent, and cannot be granted or taken away by any fellow human. Denied, yes. Made to not exist, no.

I notice there is no "God" in this statement. So we are far afield of my original post, concerning "endowment by God." But I will play.

What about this notion of inherence. Are rights inherent? Of course they aren't. Something inherent is intrinsic, unable to be separated. Rights and laws are not inherent. How do we know this? Because they change according to who is in control. They are separated, not constant. Do rights exist absent humanity? Of course they don't. Does physics? As far as we know, yes. Physics doesn't change. The laws of physics are constant no matter who is in control.

The Founders great achievement was the separation of their individual beliefs about God from the granting of rights in a legal framework. That is why the Constitution starts with "We the People." It is a broadside over the bow of the "divine right," not only of the Church but of the tyranny of the "God-empowered" King. They understood the historical moral relativism of religion and monarchy through the ages. They wisely separated the sacred from the profane. Does that mean they didn't form their moral underpinnings from one or another religious philosophies? No. I never said that. But it does seem that they recognized that rights and the power that enforced them were ultimately consented to, empowered by, and enforced by the governed through the rule of law.

God did not write the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or subsequent Amendments. We the People did. The rights were not inherent, they were enumerated and agreed upon through a long and contentious debate. And they changed over time.

This gets to the foundation of the debate which now threatens to send us back into the pre-Darwinian dark ages. Science uncovers provable truth, provable through experimentation. I take it from your writing that you are in favor of such methods. If we consign rights to God, philosophical inherence or anything other than our social contract, we have removed it from our mortal (and moral) changing purview. If truly inherent, rights can not change with the times, as human experience (experimentation) demands.

(BTW: Moral relativism becomes the straw man as does "truth". Everything is relative to the observer, that exists in time and space. E=MC2. The "Right" needs to get over it.)

If we accept that no right is inherent, but that it is fought for through reason, debate, social contract and enlightenment, we can remove the sense of entitlement and complacency that now pollutes the public commons. This government is taking away your "inherent rights" as we speak, whether or not you or I believe they are inherent. It is up to both you and I to fight for them, or lose them to the totalitarian royalists who have taken the castle, in the name, of course, of God. I suspect God will sit the whole thing out.

Humans are important, as is all of wondrous creation. What we think is important. Words are important. In many respects we create the physical reality around us, alter our own cellular structure minute by minute through our own beliefs/addictions. Just ask Einstein, or a modern molecular biologist.

And remember, Nature always bats last.

Thanks for the post.

Cheers!