Karl Marx, Yesterday and Today

[Unfettered]

I'm not sure if it's a matter of only two laws, nature vs. civilization. That is, I don't think humans instantaneously evolved from following the laws of nature to following the laws of civilization. I think it was a slow and evolutionary process. People within the same village, clan, or tribe might treat each other as kindred, giving their feelings and rights greater consideration than some outsider.

That even seems to be acceptable practice under the law of civilization. For example, Romans might have favored their own citizens from Rome, while people from conquered lands would have been considered outsiders, chattel, slaves - people without rights. Even within society, rights were distributed based on social and political class, so those lucky enough to be born into the right families were granted rights from birth, whereas those not so lucky didn't enjoy such benefits.

Such practices continued on until very recently, even since the time of the Declaration of Independence. For the first 150-175 years since the Declaration was written, rights were only given to people of a certain skin pigmentation, while people with darker skins were not given rights, at least not in practice, even if they were still written on paper. Most other societies seem to operate the same way, as people who are members/citizens of a given society are afforded rights, while outsiders generally are not.

It wasn't really until the time of the World Wars and the eventual creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that the concepts of rights were taken all that seriously at all.

I agree that a given society may find itself at any point between the poles of "law of nature" and "law of civilization." My comments point to a society fully on the pole of "law of civilization," because that's what I understand the law established under the Declaration to assert. Even still, as you point out, the practice of our society has not been squarely on the pole; some evolution of understanding was necessary to correct egregious injustices. But the Declaration does assert that the US is fully under the law of civilization. Our practice is still catching up.

Well, as the 10th Amendment suggests, just because a right isn't listed or enumerated, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Indeed. A critical point.

Well, again, this would be a practical issue. Why would we want a moral framework within civilization to live by? Is it simply out of a selfless desire to be good, decent people, or does it serve more of a practical benefit?

I see it more as a matter of cause and effect. Western liberal societies tended to favor concepts of rights because they were well aware of what can happen when a government refuses to listen to its people or grant rights to the common people. Revolutions are a common result of what happens when governments mistreat their people and deny them their rights.

The Revolutions of 1848 were a kind of wake up call in Europe. In Russia, in the early 20th century, the Tsar refused to recognize the people's rights and could not understand why there were riots, uprisings, and strikes in his domain. He thought the people should just suck it up and take it, as he saw them as nothing but peasants who should know their place in society and act accordingly. That's where he was wrong, and that's where the current leadership in the U.S. is also wrong.

The lesson here is, governments which are too arrogant, complacent, and/or refuse to listen to the pleas of their people will ultimately collapse if they don't change their ways. That's the path that the current U.S. government has taken since the 1980s, and it has led to a slow decline to the point where people are now genuinely worried about the political stability within the United States.

It's ironic, in a way. Throughout my life, I've encountered people (mainly Westerners) who have warned against the threat of communism, Marxism, socialism. They have fallen all over themselves to convince people that the USSR was the "evil empire" and how communist infiltrators were operating within the U.S. and other countries around the world to undermine and subvert the social and political system. They would cite a long list of grievances and atrocities perpetrated by communist regimes in other countries.

My response to that has generally been to point out the cause and effect of how these things happened in the first place. If people don't want there to be uprisings or the possibility of socialism in their own country (or fascism, for that matter), then that's all the more reason to pay attention to the needs of the people and not take them for granted anymore. It's really as simple as that.

I was tracking 100% until the point immediately below. I fully agree with your assessment of history, and the trajectory of the US. What follows, however, gets into exactly what I have been challenging this whole time—the provision of practical necessities by government:

Pay higher wages, provide better working conditions, more affordable housing, education, food, energy, healthcare, etc. Treat people better, and they will support the existing political system. Treat them like crap, and then they will become restive and disagreeable at first, slowly escalating from there.

Under the Declaration, none of these things is deliverable by government because no one has a natural right to them. Not a single one. Each time the US government takes upon itself to be the provider of these kinds of practical necessities, either directly (through actual production) or indirectly (through market control), society takes another step toward dissolution (as measured by the enjoyment of our rights). Our law is not compatible with government of this kind because our government's purpose, as set forth in the Declaration, is not to provide the necessities of life to the people, but to secure their natural rights—and nature grants no creature the right to have the necessities, only to fight for them, or pursue them, as the Declaration recognizes.

I'll respond to the rest of your post in a bit.

 

[Unfettered]

As far as the opening sentences of the Declaration, one can hold these truths to be self-evident, but what does it really mean in terms of tangible, actual rights that would be enforceable in a court of law? "All men are created equal"? Do we actually practice that principle in the real world? (And some might ask, why is it "all men are created equal" and not "all men and women" or "all humans"?) And of the three enumerated rights, "life," "liberty," and the "pursuit of happiness," only "life" is the term that has any real tangible meaning. "Liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" are vague, undefined abstractions which sound good to the masses but are functionally useless in terms of actual application in real world situations.

We don't have to choose the functionally useless abstractions. We don't have to. But if we do at all, doesn't it make zero sense to only go part way? Isn't the fullest expression of what it means to be human found in the magnanimity of not only being OK with all your neighbors having and enjoying their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but also of standing against even the most subtle repression of those rights?

I am fully on board with the law (the Declaration) because I want everyone to enjoy his rights. Always. I don't want anyone to be left out. The law provides for that. So why would I ever excuse anything less? Everyone knows humans abuse one another. So let's point to and agree to and defend whatever it is that will, if honored, stop the abuse. Our law—our first law—is that very standard. We just have to agree to honor it and defend it.

 

[Stevicus]

I agree that a given society may find itself at any point between the poles of "law of nature" and "law of civilization." My comments point to a society fully on the pole of "law of civilization," because that's what I understand the law established under the Declaration to assert. Even still, as you point out, the practice of our society has not been squarely on the pole; some evolution of understanding was necessary to correct egregious injustices. But the Declaration does assert that the US is fully under the law of civilization. Our practice is still catching up.

Yes, we still have some catching up to do in that regard. I daresay that there may be those who don't really want us to catch up or be fully civilized. If being civilized means raising taxes or cutting profits, there are some factions which have expressed the desire to remain somewhat uncivilized. Sometimes, "civilization" can appear to be just a veneer, a facade to cover up man's darker character.

It might be analogous to the distinctions made between adults and children. Adults can oftentimes be just as immature and "wild" as children, yet they find different ways of showing it to make it appear more legitimate.

Indeed. A critical point.

I was tracking 100% until the point immediately below. I fully agree with your assessment of history, and the trajectory of the US. What follows, however, gets into exactly what I have been challenging this whole time—the provision of practical necessities by government:

Under the Declaration, none of these things is deliverable by government because no one has a natural right to them. Not a single one. Each time the US government takes upon itself to be the provider of these kinds of practical necessities, either directly (through actual production) or indirectly (through market control), society takes another step toward dissolution (as measured by the enjoyment of our rights). Our law is not compatible with government of this kind because our government's purpose, as set forth in the Declaration, is not to provide the necessities of life to the people, but to secure their natural rights—and nature grants no creature the right to have the necessities, only to fight for them, or pursue them, as the Declaration recognizes.

I'll respond to the rest of your post in a bit.

I didn't specifically say that these things should or need to be provided "by government," as I'm merely pointing out the causes and effects of what can happen when the needs of the people are not met.

If the private sector can learn to be moral, decent, just, fair, and equitable (aka "civilized") on their own, then so much the better. But oftentimes, it does not happen that way. (For example, it took a Civil War with over 600,000 deaths just so the private sector could learn that owning slaves is not okay. A very expensive lesson that shouldn't have to be taught to people claiming to be civilized.)

The Declaration does say there is a natural right to life, which would imply, at the very least, access to the provisions of life. Individuals might still have to pay for or work for such provisions, as no one is claiming a right to "free stuff" (as some critics of socialism falsely point out).

At the time the Declaration was written, providing for oneself was much simpler. Most people (at least those who weren't slaves) had the wherewithal and skill to hunt, fish, live off the land, build a cabin, farm, etc., in order to survive. All they really needed was the liberty to move freely, to find some unclaimed land along the frontier and do their hunting, trapping, farming or whatever - without the need for a bank loan, without any permits, without needing corporate investment, or any other kinds of complications that people have to contend with nowadays. Not to mention the fact that industrialization and specialization have made most people into urban dwellers who don't really have the skills for hunting, farming, fishing, or living off the land. (And even if they did, where would they do it? These activities are strictly regulated and limited.)

America and the world have changed drastically since 1776.

 

[Stevicus]

We don't have to choose the functionally useless abstractions. We don't have to. But if we do at all, doesn't it make zero sense to only go part way? Isn't the fullest expression of what it means to be human found in the magnanimity of not only being OK with all your neighbors having and enjoying their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but also of standing against even the most subtle repression of those rights?

I am fully on board with the law (the Declaration) because I want everyone to enjoy his rights. Always. I don't want anyone to be left out. The law provides for that. So why would I ever excuse anything less? Everyone knows humans abuse one another. So let's point to and agree to and defend whatever it is that will, if honored, stop the abuse. Our law—our first law—is that very standard. We just have to agree to honor it and defend it.

Part of the problem might also be a common perception that the granting and the securing of rights is strictly and solely a governmental function, when it really requires the active participation and cooperation of the society as a whole. In practice, however, we have a largely passive society which can often behave uncooperatively, with many prone to corruption.

We also have a highly litigious society, an indication that people are so intransigent and uncooperative as to be unable to work out even the tiniest of squabbles without going to court over it. I recall a quote from Tacitus who said "When the state is most corrupt, then the laws are most multiplied." And we do have a lot of laws in this society.

Some people use the system and take advantage of our country's commitment to individual rights, which can lead to private citizens and organizations wantonly abusing their rights and taxing the system's ability to secure and uphold people's rights. Some examples might include certain shifty types, like Al Capone or Vito Genovese, who were able to understand the system and game it well enough so as to be able to get away with some of the most heinous crimes (which definitely violated other people's rights).

I agree that, if people agreed with these concepts of rights favored by America's founders and honored those rights, things would be much better.

Another quote, from the same person who wrote the Declaration of Independence :

"A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[Unfettered]

I agree that, if people agreed with these concepts of rights favored by America's founders and honored those rights, things would be much better.

The problem is that people claim to agree and believe they agree, but fail to comprehend that agreement demands complete surrender 1) to the reality of natural rights and 2) to the reality that government's only function (that doesn't subvert #1) is that of securing #1. Just ask anyone whose rights have been trampled by or through the instrumentality of government; their comprehension of the all-or-nothing nature of this question is acute. Provided they were aware of the infringement, of course (some are so sold to the idea that their rights are granted by government that they don't realize how many rights they've already lost).

Another quote, from the same person who wrote the Declaration of Independence :

"A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." - Thomas Jefferson

In what context was Jefferson speaking? What threat was he addressing?

 

[Stevicus]

The problem is that people claim to agree and believe they agree, but fail to comprehend that agreement demands complete surrender 1) to the reality of natural rights and 2) to the reality that government's only function (that doesn't subvert #1) is that of securing #1. Just ask anyone whose rights have been trampled by or through the instrumentality of government; their comprehension of the all-or-nothing nature of this question is acute. Provided they were aware of the infringement, of course (some are so sold to the idea that their rights are granted by government that they don't realize how many rights they've already lost).

Even if people surrender to the reality of natural rights, that doesn't mean they surrender to everyone else's ideas as to what the concept actually means in practice. In practice, it doesn't really matter what anyone believes or what the law actually says. In practice, the law is only what the people in the black judges' robes say it is, which means that people are bound to surrender to the authority of the courts who have a virtual blank check in terms of the power to determine what the law actually means and what people's rights actually are.

In practice, rights get lost in a gibbering mass of legalese, which means that the reality is a tyranny of the judiciary. In practice, rights only belong to lawyers and those who are wealthy and privileged enough to employ them.

In what context was Jefferson speaking? What threat was he addressing?

I believe it was in the context of the U.S. purchase of the Louisiana Territory from France. Do you disagree with Jefferson here?

 

[Unfettered]

Even if people surrender to the reality of natural rights, that doesn't mean they surrender to everyone else's ideas as to what the concept actually means in practice. In practice, it doesn't really matter what anyone believes or what the law actually says. In practice, the law is only what the people in the black judges' robes say it is, which means that people are bound to surrender to the authority of the courts who have a virtual blank check in terms of the power to determine what the law actually means and what people's rights actually are.

In practice, rights get lost in a gibbering mass of legalese, which means that the reality is a tyranny of the judiciary. In practice, rights only belong to lawyers and those who are wealthy and privileged enough to employ them.

This represents the worst case. But the point I'm making is that our law is that humans have natural rights and our government is established to secure them. That is the law, not just fanciful or wishful thinking.

It is, therefore, my opinion that we should acknowledge the law, recognize that it is a good foundation, and champion it in our speech and actions.

It is also my opinion that ignoring the law on the basis that our practice is not yet equal to its high ideals draws society away from the state of civilization the law points to. We're sure to hit lower than our aim. So let's aim for 100%, not 30%.

I believe it was in the context of the U.S. purchase of the Louisiana Territory from France. Do you disagree with Jefferson here?

I can't agree or disagree yet. I'm ignorant here. At first glance the gravity of the claim, as it reads, doesn't seem to match the action to which it's supposedly attached. I'm going to have to read the letter(s).

 

[Stevicus]

This represents the worst case. But the point I'm making is that our law is that humans have natural rights and our government is established to secure them. That is the law, not just fanciful or wishful thinking.

It is, therefore, my opinion that we should acknowledge the law, recognize that it is a good foundation, and champion it in our speech and actions.

It is also my opinion that ignoring the law on the basis that our practice is not yet equal to its high ideals draws society away from the state of civilization the law points to. We're sure to hit lower than our aim. So let's aim for 100%, not 30%.

Ultimately, what we call "the law" amounts to nothing more than words on a piece of paper which the consensus of society (however it may be determined) agrees to. It's not denying or ignoring the law to question the use of language or human interpretations of it.

Words are imperfect signifiers of things, but not the things themselves. The word "tree" is just a set of letters or a combination of phonemes - it's not the object itself. Of course, that's obvious, but I've learned to be careful in considering how the use of language can influence and determine how we view and perceive the various phenomena around us, whether tangible, abstract, man-made, or natural.

One thing to keep in mind is that the Declaration of Independence was as much a declaration of war as anything else. The American colonists argued that King George had ruled in a way contrary to the principles of natural rights, so based on that notion, the casus belli for the American Revolution had been forged. They were openly defying the law and the government which upheld it - and used force and violence towards that purpose. The use of violence is often considered very primitive and animalistic, but it's also about as natural as it gets.

I can't agree or disagree yet. I'm ignorant here. At first glance the gravity of the claim, as it reads, doesn't seem to match the action to which it's supposedly attached. I'm going to have to read the letter(s).

It's oftentimes related to the idea that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." Sometimes, certain laws and rights have had to be temporarily suspended, such as what happened when Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR were Presidents. Oddly enough, they (along with Jefferson) are considered among America's greatest Presidents, as their good deeds were seen as far outweighing whatever bad they may have done. But even that seems to be changing, as the perceptions of history can also change over time.

They did do some bad things - things that might be considered violative of natural rights, the law, and the Constitution itself. But many people's views of that may be tempered and mitigated by the circumstances and the times in which these events occurred. It's a variation on the standard "lesser of two evils" argument.