What makes the RTKBA a Right?

[applesanity]

The Founders actually rejected most of the teachings of the European enlightenment.

The Declaration of Independence paraphrases Locke's social contract so much it's just short of plagiarism. You can't say that it was just Jefferson who believed in what he wrote, because a bunch of other guys voted off for the declaration as well. The very concept of the People having the right to "dissolve" governments implies that at some point, the People gave power to the government( Same rationale used during succession) - very much the opposite of the then prevailing idea that kings had authority by "divine right."

The enlightenment taught that man was basically good and could be trusted with power.

Depends on which version and author. Some said they are inherently "savage" and civilization makes them good. Others said that they were in a "state of nature" until they entered into civilization.

Theory says that the "revolutions" in the western colonies turned out the way they did because only in the USA was there a large, educated middle class to hold the power. Elsewhere, you had lots and lots poor undeducated people and a very small ogliarchy. Education comes before democracy, not the other way around.

Ministers of the church were some of the first beheaded and abolished permenantly from France.

As for the French, well... they are the French after all. They were mostly against any authority figure, be it the royalty, the aristocracy, or the Church. They abolished all titles and lordships. They weren't just targeting religious people specifically. Only the French can stage a revolution for freedom, equality, and justice, all to hand power over to a Corsican dictator.

The writings of the Federalist Papers show that the founders intended RTKBA as the final check on governmental abuse. Also, for the strength of the nation. They most definitely distrusted standing armies (3rd amd.), and would rather have a militia of the People.

 

[Doug.38PR]

As for the French, well... they are the French after all. They were mostly against any authority figure, be it the royalty, the aristocracy, or the Church. They abolished all titles and lordships. They weren't just targeting religious people specifically. Only the French can stage a revolution for freedom, equality, and justice, all to hand power over to a Corsican dictator.

well that's just my point, the revolutionaries were committed to tearing down all institutions of law and order (royalty, government, church, etc.). Not so with the American colonists who highly valued law and order but distrusted government with power.

The Declaration of Independence paraphrases Locke's social contract so much it's just short of plagiarism. You can't say that it was just Jefferson who believed in what he wrote, because a bunch of other guys voted off for the declaration as well. The very concept of the People having the right to "dissolve" governments implies that at some point, the People gave power to the government( Same rationale used during succession) - very much the opposite of the then prevailing idea that kings had authority by "divine right."

Well, Locke, although somewhat influenced the Scottish Enlightenment was still a product of the Calvinist reformation. Remember England was influenced FAR less by the enlightenment than the rest of Europe. In fact the Scottish Enlightenment was a far cry from the European enlightenment. The Scottish Enlightenment still held a lot of Calvinist concepts and was far more conservative. The European Enlightenment was resisted by men like Edmund Burke in England. The basic concepts decribed in the Declaration can easily be attributed to Calvinist thinking. Also, you have to consider who the audience was they were writing the Declaration to, European powers. They were looking for help from other European powers (I.E. France) to give aid to their cause for independence and were wording it with language that they could relate to.

Depends on which version and author. Some said they are inherently "savage" and civilization makes them good. Others said that they were in a "state of nature" until they entered into civilization.

....yes, but that's still the same result, "civilzation makes them good" in that sense is a man centered (man is basically good) concept. It's kind of the same idea modern liberals have of social engineering. Put these "underprivileged people" in a new urban clean neighborhood to make them good citizens or bus them across town to another school.
Civilization to the American colonists was build on Calvinist foundations which taught that man was depraved but could be changed only by the grace of God through Christ (of course there were a few like Jefferson who strayed from this philiosophy to a certain degree) not through the efforts of force and government (man's) engineering or control

 

[Double Naught Spy]

No, the constitution PROTECTS a right that already exists by God and the nature that surrounds us.

In nature, there are not rights, only abilities and their application (inclusive of mental and physical capabilties and inclusive of natural attributes and cultural). In nature, my right to do something supercedes your right if my abilities are greater than that of yours and I so desire it.

Making appeals to God or any other supernatural entity is actually a logic flaw in reasoning that is called "an appeal to disembodied authority." It is done to give the impression that your view is superior because you are simply presenting the correct and accurate view of the supernatural entity.

For such appeals to work, the target audience must first recognize your disembodied authority and that you are in fact presenting the correct and accurate view of that authority. Sadly, discussions referring to God in such a matter usually break down into whose interpretation of the Bible is most accurate and correct and given that most of us are using 4th generation or later translations of translations after considerable revision and editing by the Catholic Church, it gets a bit tenuous.

Citing the Founding Father's statements is one thing, interpretting what they wrote and making claims as to what they wanted is another form of appeal to disembodied authority as they are all dead, although it is a whole lot close in time, culture, and language than making attributes to supernatural deities.

 

[Doug.38PR]

In nature, as a man I have a right to live, to breathe, to be fruitful and protect said things. What do you mean by this:

In nature, my right to do something supercedes your right if my abilities are greater than that of yours and I so desire it.

That's survival of the fittist. That's the animal kingdom. Do you think of yourself as an animal?
Tell us why you think you have the RTKBA or is it just PTKBA.

 

[Redworm]

Do you think of yourself as an animal?

Of course. We're animals. Survival of the fittest is the reason we are on top of the food chain.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens

And in nature, as a pre-civilized human with no concept of society, you had no "rights". Only the ability to live, to breathe, to procreate and possibly protect said things. No one granted homo rhodesiensis or homo neanderthalensis any rights and by the time homo sapien had begun to branch out our species was still too primitive and stupid to understand concepts like "rights". Virtually all of life was still pure instinct at that point. Society and culture had yet to be formed and thus there were no laws, nor morality and subsequently no rights.

 

[Doug.38PR]

so figuratively speaking your great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great *deep breath* great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather Chim Chim accidentally hit his head against a tree knocking his peanut brain into place and suddenly said to his cousin Donkey Kong while they were swinging around one day "Oooga booga, I have been thinking I have the right to life, liberty and property. Let's be loving, merciful, patient, kind. Let's be civilized. So....OMGsh, I can talk!!!!" And everything just played out from there? Voila they were on top of the food chain. Lizards became apes, apes became people and eventually they became civilized into Redworm and Doug. All this was just random chance and accident. (I think I hear 2001: A Space Odyssey theme playing in the background)

Wow, what a faith you have. And you think it ridiculous that myself and others believe in an all powerful God that created this universe and created man in his image separate from the Animal Kingdom and gave him dominion over all of creation and animals. No offense but it sounds like it takes more faith to believe in the former than the latter. But we are drifting into religion, so I'll back off.


Like BillCA said earlier, even under your faith, Chim Chim bashing Donkey Kongs head in with an animal bone to protect himself indicates a natural right to life and which follows the right of self defense.

 

[Redworm]

lol it's not faith

it's called science

 

[Doug.38PR]

Doesn't sound very scientific to me. Believing that all this that is around today came about ultimately from an explosion or random chance or Donkey Kong becoming Doug.38PR is not a very good hypothesis. Darwin wasn't a scientist

 

[MDman]

I am not sure of what you consider the definition of "right" to be, but if something is an inalienable right given to us by god, then how come it can be taken away?

 

[Doug.38PR]

It can't be taken away. It can be violated by corrupt men. Any right can be violated by corrupt and men. That's what I say in the original post, governments might not recognize our rights but they exist nevertheless.

 

[Redworm]

Doesn't sound very scientific to me.

Then with all due respect, you don't understand science. It's the difference between believing in the process of combustion and the chemistry that creates the gunpowder your guns rely on and believing in a Mother Goose fairy tale.

Believing that all this that is around today came about ultimately from an explosion or random chance or Donkey Kong becoming Doug.38PR is not a very good hypothesis. Darwin wasn't a scientist

You're right, that's not a very good hypothesis. That's why what you said isn't the hypothesis. At all.

And yes, Darwin was most certainly a scientist.

 

[Slugthrower]

Man is both animal and yet something more than animal. Since men don't have any natural weapons such as claws or large canine teeth, he must use his brain to make up for that shortcoming. Man using his brain has devised and revised weapons that are needful and practical for use by his hands in defence and for offence. That little thumb we have is very versatile in combination with mans self awareness. We didn't evolve from an ape. If such was the case. Then why hasn't nature eliminated the ape in favor of the more advanced/evolved man?

Science only makes discoveries. When a man dis-covers a hidden truth and understands the laws of nature that govern it, he then must ask the question. Who wrote these laws into nature that we interpet?

 

[BillCA]

American legend 101...actually you take a bunch of guys pissed off over money, toss in some high falutin theories from the scottish enlightenment and presto...instant country.

Discussion of the reasons for the revolution should be reserved for another thread. The colonists had their own governmental bodies, approved by England, for closer to two hundred years before the revolution. When England began impressing sailors from the colonies, dissolving legislatures, adding taxes and tariffs with no consultation and putting military forces above civil authorities, they voided their own word with the American colonists and started a chain of events leading to revolution.

On the OP - the RTKBA - As we are sapient beings, we can determine that which is inherent in all people from those things which are but mere license from authority. As expressed in our declaration of independence and the constitution, it is the people of a State (country) who give consent to be governed and reserve the right to alter or abolish their systems of government. [1]

Our constitution is, then, a contract that defines what powers have been granted to the government by the people. It also defines rights of the people which remain in their hands that the government has no authority to change or abolish.[2]

Whether you believe these rights to be ordained by Almighty God, derived from natural rights, or by contract through the Constitution, they define firm limits on the exercise of government power.

1 The idea that subjects-citizens-peons not only could throw off a form of oppressive government but had the duty to do so was actually fairly novel in the 18th century.

2 The rights defined in the BoR spells out explicit examples of areas the government is NOT entitled to regulate or abolish. At least, that is the theory. In practice, we see slow erosion of these areas over time, as predicted by any number of commentaries from history.

 

[Redworm]

That little thumb we have is very versatile in combination with mans self awareness

Yeah that's nice but Pandas, Koalas and Racoons also have thumbs so it's not something unique to humans. Besides, all other primates have opposable thumbs. It's all about brain power.

We didn't evolve from an ape.

No and no one is suggesting we did.

Then why hasn't nature eliminated the ape in favor of the more advanced/evolved man?

If you want me to explain the basics of evolutionary biology I'd be happy to forward you one of my dissertations in a PM.

Science only makes discoveries.

Science attempts to learn the truth.

When a man dis-covers a hidden truth and understands the laws of nature that govern it, he then must ask the question. Who wrote these laws into nature that we interpet?

No because most scientists don't have it in our heads that someone must have written those "rules". Some of us believe that's simply the natural order of the universe and it doesn't require The Force to manage it.

 

[junkpile]

Then with all due respect, you don't understand science. It's the difference between believing in the process of combustion and the chemistry that creates the gunpowder your guns rely on and believing in a Mother Goose fairy tale.

Evolution, not having put forth a testable hypothesis, (sans time machine) is not scientific in the Popperian sense of the word.

 

[Redworm]

Evolution, not being a testable hypothesis, is not scientific in the Popperian sense of the word.

oh yes it's testable. genetic selection is the reason we have agriculture.

And Karl Popper has interesting ideas but he's a nut just like Michio Kaku

 

[Let it Bleed]

99% of all species that have ever existed on this planet are extinct. Noah should have built a bigger boat.

Is a 9mm sufficient for Apatosaurus or do I need a .45? Damn critters keep eating my vegatable garden.

 

[Redworm]

or just put a saddle on it and reduce our dependancy on oil...that couldn't possibly have been the product of millions upon millions of years of decomposition because the earth is only 6000 years old!

 

[Al Norris]

The most profound statement made in this thread:

Only the French can stage a revolution for freedom, equality, and justice, all to hand power over to a Corsican dictator.

The most un-enlightened statement in this thread:

Well, Locke, although somewhat influenced the Scottish Enlightenment was still a product of the Calvinist reformation.

Somewhere in between these two thoughts, is the idea that rights exist.

How they exist, how they came into being, to what extent they are absolute, is the Scottish Enlightenment that Doug (and most Calvinists) rejects, failing to understand that it was exactly those Calvinist Scots that brought modernity into its proper being.

"The people have the right to confer the royal authority upon whomever the wish." The Law of Government Among the Scots, George Buchanan, 1579. Sound a little "Lockean" to you? Look at the date! [John Locke (1632-1704)]

Then we have Francis Hutcheson (1694-1746), Essay on the Nature and Conduct of the Passions and Affections, with Illustrations of the Moral Sense, 1728.; David Hume (1711-1776), A Treatise of Human Nature, 1739; Adam Smith (1723-1790), The Wealth of Nations, 1776. The list goes on and on. And these were just the Scottish thinkers. Add into this mix, Burke, Locke, Hobbes, etc. And you have an astonishing amalgamom of British thinking that trump anything Europe had. Not meant to disparage the European Enlightenment either. For they are great thinkers also! Voltaire, to mention just one.

These were all highly influential sources upon the American psyche of the time. The great philosophers, and the American thinkers, rejected Calvinism and its depiction of God and man.

Having written this, I must protest this sidetrack into evolution vs. theism. It is not germane to the general argument of "rights" and the particular argument of RKBA.

(Anyone who does not understand what I have just written, please, PM me and I will spell it out in very specific terms.)

 

[MDman]

I am very surprised that in the year 2007 we still have debate over Evolution....who should I blame for this?

EDIT: Blame yourself for not reading my post, above. Antipitas.

the only right you have are the ones, your or some one else will defend for you. If it was made it can be destroyed.