Natural rights v government granted rights

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I have never said that every government is formed to secure the rights of not just the governed, but of all. That would be nonsensical, and, frankly, I have no idea how you got that from my post. Every goverment is SUPPOSED to be formed to secure the rights of its people (no, not of everyone). Clearly they do not all do that (or the Declaration of Independence would have been nonsensical too).

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:

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I think you misread the Declaration of Independence. It is saying that ALL men are granted certain inalienable rights (the debate in the thread you did not read deals with what rights are inalienable rights).

Government is formed to SECURE those rights. Securing those rights is not the same as saying people are not entitled to the rights unless they are part of the governed. It means they ARE entitled to those rights, and a good government will ensure they receive the rights to which they are entitled.

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:

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

We should expect that all good governments will secure the rights of anyone who comes within their grasp. That is the definition of a natural right. We recognize that people have rights whether or not their government grants them rights. It doesn't mean we have a responsibility to liberate everyone, but it does mean if one of their governed comes within our grasp, we should extend to them the very same rights we extend to our own governed because we recognize it is not our government charter that is the fountain of their rights but rather their mere existence.

So, for those Iraqis we capture (or any other nationality), yes, we have a responsibility to ensure that their basic rights are not violated.

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.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I am not derailing here, you are simply reading more into this than you should. The same question could be asked of you: when would the killing of another in a civil war be justified? What about in a revolutionary war? The answer is the same: when the war is in pursuit of securing the rights of its people. Before you get too excited about that statement, I don't know that there has ever been a war where two sides were actually fighting to secure the rights of their people (kind of like the theory that no two democracies have ever gone to war).

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.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

It is hardly an impossible position. In fact, I think it is a relatively accepted position in terms of what the Declaration of Independence meant and was trying to accomplish. And yes, I did notice you agree with the underlying premise that due process should be afforded to those captured in this war. I agree on that point (obviously).

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.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

See above. We aren't trying to secure the rights of all. We are responsible for securing the rights of those who come within our grasp (such as prisoners of war).

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.