Fundemental Rights (So, I can't spell... sioux me)

[buckeyegrad]

BGrad,

It sounds as though you reject the notion that mankind is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights".

Interesting.

Well, if we are, I would like to know what they are and how one comes to the conclusion that those are what the Creator has given us (sorry, but Thomas Jefferson saying the Creator did this for us is not convincing enough for me). Now granted, I certainly enjoy the rights of life, liberty, and property to the point of even fighting for them; but I am not convinced they are given to us by the Creator as "rights" (blessings, yes; "rights", no).

I guess I should note that I do believe the Creator gives us one right: the right to choose whether to serve Him or ourselves; but even this right has consequences.

 

[MaxBuck]

...I would also argue that liberterianism in general has never been part of the foundation of the GOP ...

Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and GHW Bush were clearly not "social conservatives." They were basically "keep your hands off me when I enter my house" kinds of guys. So I disagree.

 

[MaxBuck]

Well, if we are, I would like to know what they are and how one comes to the conclusion that those are what the Creator has given us ...

Jefferson was really saying that what the Creator has allowed us, let not government take away (from the perspective of rights). He certainly would not have said that exercise of a given right was free of consequences, just that the federal government would not be the source of such consequence. God Himself, it seems to me, has allowed mankind the right to make foolish and self-destructive decisions; the list of Commandments is really pretty short.

Does that make sense?

 

[buckeyegrad]

Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and GHW Bush were clearly not "social conservatives." They were basically "keep your hands off me when I enter my house" kinds of guys. So I disagree.

So, these guys favored aborition, gay marriage, the government replacing the family as the educator of values, the redefining of the traditional family unit, and the elimination of a Judeo-Christian-informed culture? I guess I missed all of that some how.

What exactly is your definition of social conservative?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

So, these guys favored aborition, gay marriage, the government replacing the family as the educator of values, the redefining of the traditional family unit, and the elimination of a Judeo-Christian-informed culture? I guess I missed all of that some how.

What exactly is your definition of social conservative?

See, for me, this is where it breaks down.... the idea to the specification, I guess.

I mean, I would think if you framed it as
"The right to do with your body as you please, to marry who you please" and so on, you might find that they WOULD agree.

So... if we have "the right to marry who we please" weather that is a woman or a man is of no consequence to the right in question.... until you get specific about it... and when we get specific about it, we find, I think, that we really like having our nose in other people's shit. There's some valid and some not so valid reasons to behave in such a manner, not trying to sound like I'm making some kind of judgment here... just trying to call it what it is. (Edit: Like you said in your first post on this topic - it's all a social agreement of some sort (assuming I understood you correctly))

 

[MaxBuck]

So, these guys favored aborition, gay marriage, the government replacing the family as the educator of values, the redefining of the traditional family unit, and the elimination of a Judeo-Christian-informed culture? I guess I missed all of that some how.

What exactly is your definition of social conservative?

Abortion rights, "gay marriage," etc. were not part of the social debate at the time these men were in office, so please don't drag this red herring across the page.

Bottom line is, that at the time they served as POTUS, these Republicans were not in favor of legislating personal behavior; they regarded social pressure as the appropriate mechanism to maintain societal stability. Now, you may believe we have slouched so far toward Gomorrah that we no longer can trust society to apply the appropriate pressure, but that's a different discussion altogether.

I have already pretty well defined "social conservative." IMO it's someone who believes society has become so morally lax that it's the job of government to criminalize behaviors in an effort to get people to toe the line.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Abortion rights, "gay marriage," etc. were not part of the social debate at the time these men were in office, so please don't drag this red herring across the page.

Abortion wasn't an issue during Nixon, Ford, and Bush's administration? This is news to me. In fact everyone one of the issues I raised except gay marriage were issues for each of the ones you listed except Eisenhower. Now you may want to argue that social conservativism is an anachronistic term to apply to these men as it is a political movement that arose around 1980, fine with me as that is correct. (Bush was a social conservative by the way, go back to the 1992 Republican convention and all you heard was that the social conservatives had too much power in the party.) The more historically correct term for the other individuals you listed would be cultural conservatives as they did favor the preservation of an American, Judeo-Christian-informed nation.

Then again, I never asserted these men were social conservatives, you implied I did when I said they were not liberterians. All I stated was that liberterianism did not, nor has it ever, represented a foundation of the GOP.

Bottom line is, that at the time they served as POTUS, these Republicans were not in favor of legislating personal behavior; they regarded social pressure as the appropriate mechanism to maintain societal stability. Now, you may believe we have slouched so far toward Gomorrah that we no longer can trust society to apply the appropriate pressure, but that's a different discussion altogether.

Yes they did. Any punishment of a crime is a legislation of social behavior. All that has changed in their time versus ours is the redefining of what constitutes a crime. As for legislating economic behavior, every president post-Coolidge has been in favor of legislating it, just to different degrees.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Jefferson was really saying that what the Creator has allowed us, let not government take away (from the perspective of rights). He certainly would not have said that exercise of a given right was free of consequences, just that the federal government would not be the source of such consequence. God Himself, it seems to me, has allowed mankind the right to make foolish and self-destructive decisions; the list of Commandments is really pretty short.

That really doesn't get to my point. My question is what does the Creator allow us? Jefferson asserted that it was life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Going back even further, Locke said it was life, liberty, and property. My question is where do they get the notion that this is what the Creator allowed us? My contention is that their answer was based on their conception of the romanticized individual in nature, which never existed in reality.

 

[AKAK]

I take your point here well, but you said "liberterian fiscal conservative", so I was assuming you were limiting your comments only to fiscal issues where I am certainly in that camp; not the broader idea of general liberterianism. Of course, I would also argue that liberterianism in general has never been part of the foundation of the GOP (and only fiscal liberterianism since the 1950s with the rise of William Buckley's brand of conservatism).

Well, of course the problem is that the ideologies are not mutually exclusive... so its hard to root out who is what, you know?

The irony in your statement of course is that Reagan was a big time Buckley disciple, and at the same time he was the one who mobilized the religious right to the Republican side...

At any rate, The GOP is a coalition party.

And, its difficult to say, Well, the social conservatives are the plurality when there are a group of interests that are voting for one thing... or what the primary drive in a vote is...

At any rate, they aren't really running a Pro-lifer this term, are they?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I'd have to agree with Grad that the idea that "the Creator" would grant us "Property" as an inalienable right of our very being seems to me quite an odd thing to think.

I don't see any theological problems with the idea that we have "rights" in life and liberty... or the pursuit of happiness, I guess, though the last two are pretty malleable concepts.

 

[buckeyegrad]

There's some valid and some not so valid reasons to behave in such a manner, not trying to sound like I'm making some kind of judgment here... just trying to call it what it is. (Edit: Like you said in your first post on this topic - it's all a social agreement of some sort (assuming I understood you correctly))

Yes, you understood me correctly---horay, someone finally does!

My arguement is that the validity of those reasons is specific to each group/society/political unit based upon their unique understanding of the relationship between self, other, and "god". However, I also believe there is a universal standard to measure the validity of those decisions.

All I am arguing in this thread is that the universal standards held by most Americans when they think of rights existing before the formation of government (though in reality that idea is based upon the idea of pre-existence before the formation of society) is a historical misperception in that such a time never existed.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Yes, you understood me correctly---horay, someone finally does!

My arguement is that the validity of those reasons is specific to each group/society/political unit based upon their unique understanding of the relationship between self, other, and "god". However, I also believe there is a universal standard to measure the validity of those decisions.

All I am arguing in this thread is that the universal standards held by most Americans when they think of rights existing before the formation of government (though in reality that idea is based upon the idea of pre-existence before the formation of society) is a historical misperception in that such a time never existed.

Well, even to the extent that we accept your argument, what do the words

"among these [rights]" in the Declaration

And

the 10th Amendment add to the "social contract" angle?

That is, even if we agree it is quite simply a social contract, aren't we free to define and redefine our "inalienable rights" as we see fit? And then, in that regard, my question would be, why the resistance to increased individualism from the "right" generally?

 

[buckeyegrad]

Well, of course the problem is that the ideologies are not mutually exclusive... so its hard to root out who is what, you know?

Good point.

The irony in your statement of course is that Reagan was a big time Buckley disciple, and at the same time he was the one who mobilized the religious right to the Republican side...

Which to me is just futher proof that one can be a social and/or cultural conservative and a fiscal liberterian. Reagan was the one who created such opportunites....or if not created, capitalized on them.

At any rate, they aren't really running a Pro-lifer this term, are they?

What do you mean by this? McCain is about as pro-life as you can get. Am I missing what you are saying?

 

[buckeyegrad]

That is, even if we agree it is quite simply a social contract, aren't we free to define and redefine our "inalienable rights" as we see fit? And then, in that regard, my question would be, why the resistance to increased individualism from the "right" generally?

I would agree that a society is free to redefine the "inalienable rights" as we see fit. Of course, one of the first questions then becomes through what process? Is it the collective majority decides through some agreed upon process? Or do those who hold power at the time simply decide when to make such changes?

The even more interesting question for me though is what is to become of those who do not agree with the changes? By remaining in the society, do they tacitly agree to these changes? Perhaps, but what if they do not have the option to leave the society (this was the big assumption by Locke on his concept of tacit concent)? When the Puritans felt they no longer agreed with the decisions of their society in the early 17th century, they had an entire continent to move to. In today's world where essentially ever square inch of the globe is now controlled by some governing authority, where can those who would like to leave the society to which they belong go? If there is no where, what is the breaking point for where they begin to fight for a place?

As for the resistance to which you speak, that goes back to my argument that the limitations a group places on the individual is going to be a decision based upon how those who control the group understand the relationship between self, other, and "god". The reason you and I might disagree on a particular "right" by an individual is because we perceive that relationship at radically different points.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I would agree that a society is free to redefine the "inalienable rights" as we see fit. Of course, one of the first questions then becomes through what process? Is it the collective majority decides through some agreed upon process? Or do those who hold power at the time simply decide when to make such changes?

Well, the answer to "by what process" is beyond my intended scope, so I won't get in to it here. I don't see any reason to believe, however, that the "american way" of solving this problem is inferior to any other way. (No, not saying that is your implied contention, just saying our system seems a fine enough way to deal with it)

The even more interesting question for me though is what is to become of those who do not agree with the changes? By remaining in the society, do they tacitly agree to these changes? Perhaps, but what if they do not have the option to leave the society (this was the big assumption by Locke on his concept of tacit concent)? When the Puritans felt they no longer agreed with the decisions of their society in the early 17th century, they had an entire continent to move to. In today's world where essentially ever square inch of the globe is now controlled by some governing authority, where can those who would like to leave the society to which they belong go?

That is an interesting question. I suppose this issue may have something to do with the ever increasing hostility in politics. (If I may assume there even is an ever increasing hostility for the sake of the argument). "I've got nowhere else to go, so I have no choice but to make THIS place more "my" way"

As for the resistance to which you speak, that goes back to my argument that the limitations a group places on the individual is going to be a decision based upon how those who control the group understand the relationship between self, other, and "god". The reason you and I might disagree on a particular "right" by an individual is because we perceive that relationship at radically different points.

I can't argue against this conceptually as I agree. For me, I take the "live and let live" approach. To the extent that the expression of your rights does not infinge on me, have at it, is my philosophy. If you want to marry a pork sausage, fine. I don't much care. To the extent that you want to drive on the street intoxicated... well...now I care, 'cause I might be on that street.