Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan
I'm glad you have retreated from that position. It was inhibiting a discussion of the more interesting issues here. Just so we are on the same page however, after I said that these natural rights only applied between a government and the governed you said:
Paragraph one says that ALL (you even used all caps) men have these rights. Paragraph two states that governments exist to secure "those rights", referring back to the rights of "ALL." You then clarified further that just because you are not among the governed doesn't mean you aren't "entitled" to them (refering to "those rights" which "ALL" men have). I hope you now have an idea of why I think you were saying that governments are formed to secure the rights of all. It is, of course, because that is what you said. Apparently it is not what you meant and I have already told you I am glad this is the case.
Continuing now with your last post:
Now you are getting closing to articulating what I did, and this is the area I think we have common ground on. You have refined your argument now to just include "those who come within our grasp" as opposed to all others who are not within that grasp. The devil, as always, is in the details. It is hard to think of a more ambiguous or open ended standard that "within our grasp" except for maybe "reasonableness." I think I can assume, because this is the context of the discussion, that you are saying that detainees are within our grasp. What I have asked you before, and you have not yet extended your argument to answer, is what justifies the killing of a non-citizen on a foreign battlefield if that same person, once captured, is owed due process to protect his natural rights? Recall that I have already said, and stated my reasons, why I clearly think that US citizens and persons captured on US soil are different. I have already said I think they get due process. I am talking now about a foreign soldier on a foreign battle field.
So (1) do we ever have the right to kill that person (I have to assume you will say yes) and (2) if we don't kill him why is depriving him of due process more offensive to a notion of natural rights than killing him is? There may be other good reasons, but remember we're just talking about natural rights.
1. See above.
2. You can't turn that question around on me because I have not made the argument that a government has to protect the rights of "ALL." Just the opposite. I have said that the government owes the protection of those rights to the governed primarily, so from my theoretical framework, when you have a situation like the US Civil war where the south secedes, it has opted out of the social contract and its people are no longer among the governed. Their new government is now the defender of their rights. In the much more common form of civil war in modern times what you really have is either no government or a faction controlling the government. This scenario is not cleanly dealt with by the idea of of a social contract because there really is none. Same is true during a revolution. This is the limitation of that concept.
3. I'm not going to get too excited over your concept of "securing the rights of the people" because it is almost as nebulous as "within our grasp." Unless we talk about what rights are included there then you can justify almost anything under that notion. Some people think we have a right to inexpensive oil for example and tried very hard to get price caps imposed this year. A very small leap to say we are entitled to kill to ensure our supply, if you define that as a right. Just one example.
Now I'm really confused because I'm pretty sure you told me above that the position I am characterizing as impossible is not actually your position. I think you have abandoned it and rightly so.
I suggest that we now move on to talk about who is "in our grasp." Why don't you start with answering my question above about when the enemy soldier we may justifiably kill "comes within our grasp" and why and when from a natural rights perspective he gains entitlement to due process.
|
Good stuff. Glad to hear you are glad I have "retreated" from a position I never held (but which you attributed to me). I am glad you have retreated from your position that Buddhists like to eat green jello.
I freely admit this conversation involves some ambiguity. Of course it does! I have said as much earlier in this thread as well (and we are starting to rehash some of the arguments that have already been debated earlier, so I recommend you read those posts rather than ask for information that is already available). We are dealing with natural rights. You appear to accept the premise that people do hold natural rights. Isn't the very concept of natural rights ambiguous? Which rights are natural rights? Only the three listed in the Declaration of Independence? Hard to accept that proposition, since Jefferson argues that those listed are "among" others. Locke gives property as one; Jefferson does not. The entire debate is based on a theoretical principle. Arguing about how to apply a certain situation in the abstract will only lead to more ambiguity. The best we can do is argue that, based on the facts before us, the theory dictates a certain outcome (and we both appear to agree on that outcome).
As to your question about killing a person v capturing them, yes, I accept that killing someone on the battlefield is appropriate. In that moment, a person is presented with exigent circumstances that dictate an immediate decision- kill or don't kill. Not killing could very well lead to the death of the ponderer or his comrades. When a person is captured (comes within our grasp) those circumstances disappear. The person is not an immediate threat. We have a responsibility to respect their natural rights at that point (i.e., must afford them due process).
You could ask the very same question with those in our government compact: why is it that you could kill an intruder in your home if you felt threatened but you would have to give them due process if the police came and captured the intruder?
Your argument with the civil war is interesting (though it isn't the position the US took in the Civil War).
As to this:
Quote:
|
Now I'm really confused because I'm pretty sure you told me above that the position I am characterizing as impossible is not actually your position. I think you have abandoned it and rightly so.
|
You are only confused because you continue to attribute arguments to me that I didn't make. You seemed to understand my argument earlier on in your post but then somehow forgot that argument and reverted back to believing in your misinterpretation of my argument by the bottom of the post.