Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: KrisKrinkle
The primary understanding of rights as “natural rights” do not come for contemporaneous dictionary definitions of the time. Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Mason, et al were heavily influenced by the work of John Locke and his “Second Treatise of Government” (1689): “...all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain “inalienable” natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are “life, liberty, and property.”
24 posted on 02/24/2018 3:53:57 PM PST by JGT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: JGT
"The primary understanding of rights as “natural rights” do not come for contemporaneous dictionary definitions of the time."

Does the primary understanding of anything come from dictionaries of the time (whatever time is under discussion), or do dictionaries reflect/record that primary understanding?

"Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Mason, et al were heavily influenced by the work of John Locke and his “Second Treatise of Government” (1689): “...all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain “inalienable” natural rights."

I know.

"That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away."

It follows that when we take someone's life, liberty or property as consequence for taking or attempting to take another's life, liberty or property, that someone retains the rights to the life, liberty and property and their taking is a violation of those rights. I believe you forfeit or give away your right to life when you are trying to murder me.

It also follows that if an apple is my property because I used my labor to pick it and I give that apple to another person, I still have a property interest in that apple. I don't see how that can work day to day.

"Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are 'life, liberty, and property'.”

Though they were heavily influenced by the work of John Locke, even the Founders had a problem with that property thing, at least some of them, since they wrote "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" not "life, liberty and property".

The property concept can be tricky. Most people think in terms of what can be acquired and disposed of from and to others. Yet, I read a quote where someone said their personality was there property. I'd say one's personality is a property of oneself, but not the kind of property that can be acquired and disposed of from and to others (in spite of the fact that you can acquire a sour disposition form others and thence spread it around to others).

Some Libertarians say their body is their property. If one's body is the kind of property that can be acquired and disposed of that kind of supports the concept of slavery, with which most of us disagree.

70 posted on 02/25/2018 11:34:01 AM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson