Are anarchists overgrown teenagers?

[Brant Gaede]

In that sense "self-evident" would be a slam at the Crown and Parliament who did not find these truths so.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

In that sense "self-evident" would be a slam at the Crown and Parliament who did not find these truths so.

--Brant

The situation was more complicated than this. Many opponents of American independence, especially fellow Americans, worked within the same Lockean paradigm as Jefferson and other radicals. Therefore the most reasonable interpretation of "self-evident" is a contextual one. In other words, Jefferson was stipulating that the inalienable rights he listed were accepted as a common foundation by both the proponents and the opponents of independence.

Some historians (e.g., Morton White in The Philosophy of the American Revolution) have argued for a more technical interpretation of "self-evident." They maintain -- incorrectly, in my view -- that Jefferson's belief in the self-evident truth of certain moral principles was the logical implication of his belief in moral sense theory. This is the view I was referring to in the first line of my excerpt from Themes: "Perhaps the most compelling argument against the interpretation we are here considering...."

The book that most nearly approximates my interpretation of the Declaration -- a book that I highly recommend -- is The Natural Rights Republic: Studies in the Foundation of the American Political Tradition, by Michael P. Zuckert. Also valuable for background on the natural rights tradition during the 17th century is Zuckert's Natural Rights and the New Republicanism.

Despite my disagreements here and there with Zuckert, I regard him as one of the most reliable historians of the natural law/natural rights tradition.

Ghs

[sjw]

The Declaration of Independence was a declaration of war? You are quite the revisionist. War between the colonies and Great Britain had already erupted before the Declaration was written or signed. It was -- surprise! -- a declaration of American independence, not a declaration of war.

Well, it is both of course. Before declaring independence, they were not in a position to be at war, they were only in a position to be committing crimes against the state of Britain.

The Declaration is probably the most philosophically precise political document ever written.

Agreed, it is a great document, which is why I think it's pointless to quibble with the wording. But you'd rather do that than address the real issues here, wouldn't you? Then you can don your priesthood outfit and pretend to be conquering evil. The Heroic George H. Smith defends the Heroic Founders and Ayn Rand from their defamation! That makes you look a lot better than you look when you try to square off with me on the substantive issues here, so that's what you're doing now.

To say that property rights are not inalienable because we can in fact transfer (i.e., alienate) our rights to property is not to denigrate them in the least. It is simply to explain that they are not inalienable and why Jefferson did not include them in his list of inalienable rights.

I am certain that your incoherent rambling on the meaning of unalienability has caused you many pointless debates in the past. It's not one I have a particular interest in having with you now, there are bigger issues on the table right now that you are ignoring.

There were other issues involved as well, such as a serious controversy over the terms of the social contract that colonists had supposedly entered into with Britain. But how does one explain such things to someone who is tabula rasa in history and, what is worse, refuses to educate himself?

Suffice it to say that Jefferson was not writing to please O'ists. He was using the commonly accepted Lockean terminology of his day.

Ghs

All you're doing is trying to shift the actual debate to a place you are more comfortable with in order to make it appear like you're winning. It's not working. Try something else. More ad hominem maybe?

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Brant,

Here, in another excerpt from Themes, is a brief explanation of the significance of inalienable rights in the Declaration. I discuss this issue in far greater detail later in the chapter, but this summary should do for now:

Let us now consider Jefferson’s mention of “unalienable rights.” Unalienable (or “inalienable” ) rights stood in contrast to alienable rights, so we might wonder why Jefferson found it necessary to refer to this rather technical distinction, especially in a political document that was intended for popular consumption. Why didn’t Jefferson simply speak of “rights” in general, instead of focusing on inalienable rights?

Inalienable rights were regarded as fundamental corollaries of man's essential nature, especially his reason and volition, so these rights could never be surrendered or transferred to another person (including a government), even with the agent's consent. A man can no more transfer his inalienable rights than he can transfer his moral agency, his ability to reason, and so forth. This means that inalienable rights could never have been transferred to government in a social contract, so no government can properly claim jurisdiction over them. Consequently, any government that systematically violates inalienable rights is necessarily tyrannical and vulnerable to revolution. As Francis Hutcheson put it, “Unalienable Rights are essential Limitations to all Governments.”

According to this theory, legitimate disagreements may occur between subjects and rulers when alienable rights are involved, but no such disputes are possible between people of good will when inalienable rights are involved. No government can claim jurisdiction over inalienable rights, because they are incapable of alienation and so could never have been delegated or surrendered to a government in the first place. This means there can be no excuse for the systematic violation of inalienable rights. This is the bright-line test that enables us to distinguish the incidental or well-intentioned violation of rights, which even just governments may occasionally commit, from the deliberate and inexcusable violations of a tyrannical government.

This is why Jefferson focused on inalienable rights in his effort to fasten the charge of tyranny on the British government. The violation of inalienable rights was a defining characteristic of a tyrannical government, and only against such a government is revolution clearly justified.

Ghs

[sjw]

Perhaps the most compelling argument against the interpretation we are here considering has nothing to do with philosophy. It has to do with the probable fact that Jefferson wasn’t even responsible for the term “self-evident.” In the original draft of the Declaration, Jefferson wrote: “We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable….” In this draft the words “sacred & undeniable” are crossed out and “self-evident” substituted in their place. Since this editorial change appears to be in the handwriting of Benjamin Franklin (who served on the five-man committee responsible for drafting the Declaration), most historians credit him with the term “self-evident.”

Jefferson later characterized alterations made by other committee members as “merely verbal” and insisted that they did not fundamentally change the meaning of what he wished to say. This indicates that Jefferson didn’t view the change from “sacred and undeniable” to “self-evident” as anything more than a stylistic improvement, which doesn’t make a lot of sense if we interpret “self-evident” in a technical philosophical sense.

Sounds like something Franklin would do. Jefferson's version is better, although I also agree with him that it does not fundamentally change the meaning.

Shayne

[sjw]

Brant,

Here, in another excerpt from Themes, is a brief explanation of the significance of inalienable rights in the Declaration. I discuss this issue in far greater detail later in the chapter, but this summary should do for now:

Let us now consider Jefferson’s mention of “unalienable rights.” Unalienable (or “inalienable” ) rights stood in contrast to alienable rights, so we might wonder why Jefferson found it necessary to refer to this rather technical distinction, especially in a political document that was intended for popular consumption. Why didn’t Jefferson simply speak of “rights” in general, instead of focusing on inalienable rights?

Inalienable rights were regarded as fundamental corollaries of man's essential nature, especially his reason and volition, so these rights could never be surrendered or transferred to another person (including a government), even with the agent's consent. A man can no more transfer his inalienable rights than he can transfer his moral agency, his ability to reason, and so forth. This means that inalienable rights could never have been transferred to government in a social contract, so no government can properly claim jurisdiction over them. Consequently, any government that systematically violates inalienable rights is necessarily tyrannical and vulnerable to revolution. As Francis Hutcheson put it, “Unalienable Rights are essential Limitations to all Governments.”

According to this theory, legitimate disagreements may occur between subjects and rulers when alienable rights are involved, but no such disputes are possible between people of good will when inalienable rights are involved. No government can claim jurisdiction over inalienable rights, because they are incapable of alienation and so could never have been delegated or surrendered to a government in the first place. This means there can be no excuse for the systematic violation of inalienable rights. This is the bright-line test that enables us to distinguish the incidental or well-intentioned violation of rights, which even just governments may occasionally commit, from the deliberate and inexcusable violations of a tyrannical government.

This is why Jefferson focused on inalienable rights in his effort to fasten the charge of tyranny on the British government. The violation of inalienable rights was a defining characteristic of a tyrannical government, and only against such a government is revolution clearly justified.

Ghs

George's concept of unalienability artificially and wrongly elevates some rights above others, and invites those others to be put on the chopping block. Which is precisely what happened.

There is no ranking of rights, they are coequal.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

To say that property rights are not inalienable because we can in fact transfer (i.e., alienate) our rights to property is not to denigrate them in the least. It is simply to explain that they are not inalienable and why Jefferson did not include them in his list of inalienable rights.

I am certain that your incoherent rambling on the meaning of unalienability has caused you many pointless debates in the past. It's not one I have a particular interest in having with you now, there are bigger issues on the table right now that you are ignoring.

Inalienable rights were an essential element in the case for the right of revolution. Their violation was regarded as a defining characteristic of a tyrannical government. It is scarcely accidental that Jeremy Bentham castigated inalienable rights as "nonsense upon stilts" in his piece titled Anarchical Fallacies. Bentham knew that inalienable rights constituted the bedrock of the rights of resistance and revolution, both of which he virulently opposed.

Unlike you, Bentham understood the position of his adversaries. Unlike you, Bentham was not an ignoramus blowing hot air. And this is one reason why Bentham's ideas were influential, whereas yours will never be. No one is interested in Shayne's refutations of Shayne's own bogus arguments.

As for the "bigger issues," should you ever decide to address the real arguments of anarchists, instead of demolishing arguments that exist nowhere except in your imagination, please let me know.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George's concept of unalienability artificially and wrongly elevates some rights above others, and invites those others to be put on the chopping block. Which is precisely what happened.

There is no ranking of rights, they are coequal.

The distinction between alienable and inalienable rights is not my conception. It is a distinction that goes back centuries, and it was essential to the development of radical libertarian thought, such as we find during the revolutionary period in America.

Nor does this distinction have anything to do with elevating some rights above others. It is a description of different types of rights, not an evaluation.

You are even more of an ignoramus than I thought you were. A lot of people don't know anything about the history of rights theory, but few if any are as militantly ignorant as you are. You wear your ignorance as a badge of honor.

Has it ever occurred to you to read a book or two on a subject before spouting off about it?

Ghs

[sjw]

Inalienable rights were an essential element in the case for the right of revolution. Their violation was regarded as a defining characteristic of a tyrannical government. It is scarcely accidental that Jeremy Bentham castigated inalienable rights as "nonsense upon stilts" in his piece titled Anarchical Fallacies. Bentham knew that inalienable rights constituted the bedrock of the rights of resistance and revolution, both of which he virulently opposed.

Unlike you, Bentham understood the position of his adversaries. Unlike you, Bentham was not an ignoramus blowing hot air. And this is one reason why Bentham's ideas were influential, whereas yours will never be. No one is interested in Shayne's refutations of Shayne's own bogus arguments.

As for the "bigger issues," should you ever decide to address the real arguments of anarchists, instead of demolishing arguments that exist nowhere except in your imagination, please let me know.

Ghs

As usual, you ignore the point and then ramble on about the history of this or that as a means of distraction from the true debate.

We could go down the path of you rambling on about the history of rights, and then I could engage you explaining my actual meaning of the concept and showing you how yours was deficient, only to have you switch to yet another topic which you could ramble on about. Or you could get back on track regarding sovereignty and land ownership.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Perhaps the most compelling argument against the interpretation we are here considering has nothing to do with philosophy. It has to do with the probable fact that Jefferson wasn’t even responsible for the term “self-evident.” In the original draft of the Declaration, Jefferson wrote: “We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable….” In this draft the words “sacred & undeniable” are crossed out and “self-evident” substituted in their place. Since this editorial change appears to be in the handwriting of Benjamin Franklin (who served on the five-man committee responsible for drafting the Declaration), most historians credit him with the term “self-evident.”

Jefferson later characterized alterations made by other committee members as “merely verbal” and insisted that they did not fundamentally change the meaning of what he wished to say. This indicates that Jefferson didn’t view the change from “sacred and undeniable” to “self-evident” as anything more than a stylistic improvement, which doesn’t make a lot of sense if we interpret “self-evident” in a technical philosophical sense.

Sounds like something Franklin would do. Jefferson's version is better, although I also agree with him that it does not fundamentally change the meaning.

Shayne

Yeah, like you would know what Franklin would do.

Actually, Franklin's revision did change the meaning of Jefferson's original words. "Self-evident" does not mean the same thing as "sacred and undeniable."

Ghs

[sjw]

George's concept of unalienability artificially and wrongly elevates some rights above others, and invites those others to be put on the chopping block. Which is precisely what happened.

There is no ranking of rights, they are coequal.

The distinction between alienable and inalienable rights is not my conception. It is a distinction that goes back centuries, and it was essential to the development of radical libertarian thought, such as we find during the revolutionary period in America.

Nor does this distinction have anything to do with elevating some rights above others. It is a description of different types of rights, not an evaluation.

You are even more of an ignoramus than I thought you were. A lot of people don't know anything about the history of rights theory, but few if any are as militantly ignorant as you are. You wear your ignorance as a badge of honor.

Has it ever occurred to you to read a book or two on a subject before spouting off about it?

Ghs

More evasions and distractions to cover for your incompetence. Your method of debate is clear: if I ever start demolishing any one of your arguments, try to change the subject. Ergo you have been rambling on about rights for the last half a dozen posts (throwing in your usual ad hominem and misrepresentation of my view, trying to tempt me to go along with you), even though we had started talking about my argument against anarchy.

Shayne

[sjw]

Yeah, like you would know what Franklin would do.

Like you would know why I would say that. But go ahead, hide behind mockery you coward.

Actually, Franklin's revision did change the meaning of Jefferson's original words. "Self-evident" does not mean the same thing as "sacred and undeniable."

Ghs

On an abstract level it does not change the meaning. Not that I would ever expect you to understand anything at an abstract level.

Shayne

[sjw]

I never learn my lesson regarding how deeply dishonest some people are. George has pulled this crap over and over again on me and I keep coming back for more, hoping that I might actually get to the bottom of some point with him.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Inalienable rights were an essential element in the case for the right of revolution. Their violation was regarded as a defining characteristic of a tyrannical government. It is scarcely accidental that Jeremy Bentham castigated inalienable rights as "nonsense upon stilts" in his piece titled Anarchical Fallacies. Bentham knew that inalienable rights constituted the bedrock of the rights of resistance and revolution, both of which he virulently opposed.

Unlike you, Bentham understood the position of his adversaries. Unlike you, Bentham was not an ignoramus blowing hot air. And this is one reason why Bentham's ideas were influential, whereas yours will never be. No one is interested in Shayne's refutations of Shayne's own bogus arguments.

As for the "bigger issues," should you ever decide to address the real arguments of anarchists, instead of demolishing arguments that exist nowhere except in your imagination, please let me know.

Ghs

As usual, you ignore the point and then ramble on about the history of this or that as a means of distraction from the true debate.

What point would that be?

You are the one who complained about my distinction between alienable and inalienable rights. I simply pointed out that this is not my distinction at all. If you don't want me to correct you on historical points, then stay away from history. You cannot make up history as you go along so that it conforms to your own beliefs.

Whenever you get backed into a corner or called on a falsehood, you complain that I have missed the point, or that I have misrepresented your views. I would think that even you would grow tired of this nonstop tap dancing after a while.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Yeah, like you would know what Franklin would do.

Like you would know why I would say that. But go ahead, hide behind mockery you coward.

Okay, I'll bite. Please tell us why you would expect Franklin to substitute "self-evident" for "sacred and undeniable." I can hardly wait to hear your explanation.

Actually, Franklin's revision did change the meaning of Jefferson's original words. "Self-evident" does not mean the same thing as "sacred and undeniable."

Ghs

On an abstract level it does not change the meaning. Not that I would ever expect you to understand anything at an abstract level.

Oh, please, do tell us how the term "self-evident" was understood during the 18th century, and how "self-evident" didn't differ in meaning from "sacred and undeniable" -- on an "abstract level," of course.

Given your vast knowledge of 18th century philosophy, I'm sure you will have no problem explaining this matter to us less enlightened souls.

Ghs

[sjw]

What point would that be?

It always comes to this. You go off on some random jaunt, I try to get you back on topic, then you demand me to remind you of everything. If you are really that senile then let me know and I'll stop interpreting what you are doing as dishonest.

You are the one who complained about my distinction between alienable and inalienable rights. I simply pointed out that this is not my distinction at all. If you don't want me to correct you on historical points, then stay away from history. You cannot make up history as you go along so that it conforms to your own beliefs.

I'm well aware of the history. But -- here's a new concept for you George -- if you agree with a distinction then it is *your* distinction. You incessantly want to hide behind your books and your history. The weaker your case, the more history and books you bring out.

Whenever you get backed into a corner or called on a falsehood, you complain that I have missed the point, or that I have misrepresented your views. I would think that even you would grow tired of this nonstop tap dancing after a while.

Ghs

Contrary to your megalomanical aspirations, history and truth isn't what George H. Smith proclaims. Perhaps your acolytes have given you plenty of intellectual insulation, but in the real world you have to defend your views. So just asserting that I'm wrong won't do.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

What point would that be?

It always comes to this. You go off on some random jaunt, I try to get you back on topic, then you demand me to remind you of everything. If you are really that senile then let me know and I'll stop interpreting what you are doing as dishonest.

You are the one who complained about my distinction between alienable and inalienable rights. I simply pointed out that this is not my distinction at all. If you don't want me to correct you on historical points, then stay away from history. You cannot make up history as you go along so that it conforms to your own beliefs.

I'm well aware of the history....

Oh, what a bald-faced liar you are!

But -- here's a new concept for you George -- if you agree with a distinction then it is *your* distinction. You incessantly want to hide behind your books and your history. The weaker your case, the more history and books you bring out.

When did I say that I agreed with Jefferson's distinction? I must have missed that part.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Whenever you get backed into a corner or called on a falsehood, you complain that I have missed the point, or that I have misrepresented your views. I would think that even you would grow tired of this nonstop tap dancing after a while.

Ghs

Contrary to your megalomanical aspirations, history and truth isn't what George H. Smith proclaims. Perhaps your acolytes have given you plenty of intellectual insulation, but in the real world you have to defend your views. So just asserting that I'm wrong won't do.

Should you ever decide to stop your incessant whining and actually defend a substantial point, we will see how far you get.

Ghs

[bmacwilliam]

Ugh...

I for one would actually like to see some substantive discussion on the core of these issues and maybe learn something.

George seems to avoid clear concise language as readily as he digresses into his verbal diarrhea of archane historical references and insults. I do understand this somewhat because sometimes when a physics topic is discussed, the clearest way to make a statement is in mathematical language. Sadly, this language is not universally understood to say the least. Often, one can look for other, simpler ways to express the ideas without thinking that one is speaking "stupid". Instead of clear language, George flows readily and repeatedly into rants like "Any quivering pre-Rothbardian, post-Pavlovian quasi-Randian drooling Troglodyte knows..."

I know that n=1 (oops, might have lost George now) but if George is any indication, the maturity of the group in question is at about the 12-year-old level with the morality of a Bangkok pimp.

Bob

[sjw]

Okay, I'll bite. Please tell us why you would expect Franklin to substitute "self-evident" for "sacred and undeniable." I can hardly wait to hear your explanation.

Because he has an amoral, pragmatist disposition, as opposed to Jefferson's generally principled and morally forthright stance. Jefferson was conveying a moral tone proper to the subject when he said "sacred and undeniable", and I have no doubt that if this had remained, the country would have been better off for it. Nor do I have any doubt that Jefferson's statement grated on Franklin at his very core.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

Ugh...

I for one would actually like to see some substantive discussion on the core of these issues and maybe learn something.

Try starting here .

George seems to avoid clear concise language as readily as he digresses into his verbal diarrhea of archane historical references and insults.

Please specify the words I have used which you do not understand. I will then explain what I meant by those big words. I am always happy to slow down or back up for bumpkins.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Okay, I'll bite. Please tell us why you would expect Franklin to substitute "self-evident" for "sacred and undeniable." I can hardly wait to hear your explanation.

Because he has an amoral, pragmatist disposition, as opposed to Jefferson's generally principled and morally forthright stance. Jefferson was conveying a moral tone proper to the subject when he said "sacred and undeniable", and I have no doubt that if this had remained, the country would have been better off for it. Nor do I have any doubt that Jefferson's statement grated on Franklin at his very core.

Shayne

Ben?

--Brant

[caroljane]

Okay, I'll bite. Please tell us why you would expect Franklin to substitute "self-evident" for "sacred and undeniable." I can hardly wait to hear your explanation.

Because he has an amoral, pragmatist disposition, as opposed to Jefferson's generally principled and morally forthright stance. Jefferson was conveying a moral tone proper to the subject when he said "sacred and undeniable", and I have no doubt that if this had remained, the country would have been better off for it. Nor do I have any doubt that Jefferson's statement grated on Franklin at his very core.

Shayne

Ben?

--Brant

--there, done that

will never get another such opening so could not resist

it seems to describe the Anarchist-Minarchist Hundred Years War anyway

enlist - and re-enlist- and re-enlist -and re-enlist---

[Brant Gaede]

It strikes me that if the basic unit of government is the family and something to do with sovereignty and land ownership--isn't that ownership, real property, defined first by law?--that this is basically codification of agricultural patriarchy.

Not saying I've got Shayne right here, but this conversation needs to be refocused a little.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I have to go with Shayne so far with this unalienable-inalienable rights business. Regardless of what was in the minds of the Founding Fathers, we contemporaries have a right to what we think is a right understanding of rights. Anyway, I've always taken "unalienable rights" as a re-enforcing redundancy for the dupy dopes back in England or colony Crown royalists with marginal educations. So too with "negative rights," which are put up there to distinguish human rights (negative) from "chicken in every pot" rights. I've never heard or understood of an alienable (negative) right that wasn't underpinned by an inalienable one. To actually give up a right is submission, which is hardly anarchistic.

For George to hold onto this kind of formulation he needs to import it to the present and show how it improves on Rand's expositions and understanding. That property rights are transferable doesn't negatively impact the right to property in the least, but is right at the heart of that right.

--Brant

Edited February 10, 2011 by Brant Gaede