Natural Rights - Interpreting John Locke

There have been those that imply that my interpretations of John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government are incorrect, especially when it comes to understanding the Natural Right "Of Property" so I thought creating a thread to address the interpretations might be a good idea.

Because an understanding of the Natural Right of Property is so important in our lives that's the best place for us to start so here's a link to Chapter 5 so we can go directly to the source of Locke's specific arguments but we need to also remember that Locke, by Chapter 5, has laid a lot of ground work so often we need to address prior chapters as well to be able to interpret Chapter 5 properly. So I'm also providing a link to the index that can be used in providing additional information required for interpretation.

Chapter 5 http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.txt
Second Treatise of Civil Government Index http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.htm

So before even addressing Chapter 5 we need to understand what Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government represents and for what purpose it was written which is contained in Locke's Preface statement.

The Second Treatise of Civil Government is the compilation of Locke's previous writings as well as his accumulated knowledge presenting his full arguments for Natural Law and Natural Rights, presented with virtually mathematical precision, in the step-by-step sequence of logical reasoning and deductions for the establishment of the truth of Natural Law and Natural Rights in addressing the social, economic and political interactions between people in society. That's fundamentally what the Second Treatise of Civil Government represents.

But for what purpose did Locke create this incredibly precise essay establishing the truth of Natural Law and Natural Rights? That is equally important because the Second Treatise of Civil Government presents positive arguments as opposed to rebuttal to that which the essay addresses. The reader is left to compare Locke's arguments to what it opposes based upon the knowledge of what it opposes because that isn't included. In short Locke provides a positive argument that negates that which Locke opposes. By analogy if there is a belief that the sky is green and Locke proves the sky is blue then a green sky does not exist.

What Locke opposes is implied by statements in the Preface as well because he opposed the Divine Right of Kings so that which exists based upon the Divine Right of Kings is disputed by positive argument in the Second Treatise of Civil Government by positive argument.

Of course the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings was a brilliant invention of the King where he simply proclaimed that God had given him unquestionable authority over everything within the kingdom including the land, natural resources, wealth, and even the people. The "King Owned Everything" without question because the King claimed God gave him unquestionable authority on Earth. And because the people believed in the unquestionable power and authority of God they couldn't dispute the King's proclamation that God put the King in charge of everything and that this power God's granting of this power could not be disputed by anyone.

So how was property addressed under the Divine Right of Kings. Obviously based upon the doctrine the King owned it all because God (according to the King) gave him unquestionable power over everything including all property, But the king had a problem because the kingdom was too large for him to control by himself. So he selected those he could trust and granted them statutory "titles" and then provided them with different parts of the kingdom where they would rule on his behalf and to specify the exact territories of the kingdom where they would be in control he granted them "statutory (written into law) title of ownership" to that area of land, based upon the kings original "God" Granted Ownership of everything (according to the king). The "Statutory Title of Ownership" gave the titled nobility "absolute" ownership of the land, natural resources, and the people within the boundaries that were recorded under the law (i.e. statutory) and the titled nobility was the local governor on behalf of the king and provided for the defense of the kingdom in that territory. Of course with the power of being the noble in charge they took what they whatever needed from the people in food, other goods, and labor because their statutory title authority and power that was a transfer of part of the unlimited authority and power of the king granted by God that was unquestionable. Of course this wasn't free to the titled nobility that had to pay "tribute" to the king that the titled nobility simple took from the people.

Basically the Divine Right of Kings established absolute ownership of all property (including the people originally) that they handed out by "law" creating the "Statutory Title of (absolute) Ownership" of property to other people. Of course, at the time, because the King had unquestionable power over everything the "Statutory Title of Ownership" was also subject to revocation by the King. This could be summarized by the statement, "What the king giveth the king can taketh away"

So to even before we begin to read Chapter 5 we already know that the arguments that Locke is going to present will debunk the concept of "Statutory Ownership of Property by Title" in his arguments for the Natural Right of Property. The government cannot establish ownership of anything under Statutory Law. The government doesn't have the authority to establish ownership of anything.

Interestingly in Chapter 5 it only refers to one thing that the person literally owns an it's not property. Not once does Locke refer to "owning" property in Chapter 5 or anywhere else in the Second Treatise of Civil Government where it's the "possession" and not the Ownership of property that's referred to. The closest Locke comes is in the following statement from Chapter 5 where Locke does state the one thing the person owns without dispute.

"Sec. 27. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men,
yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right
to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may
say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that
nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and
joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property."

Locke is clear when it comes to the person being their own property but is vague when referring to that which the person removes from nature with their labor and making it "his property" because Locke doesn't say or imply that it's actual ownership of the property. Yes, the person does mix with something that which is their own, their labor, but what does "makes it his property" really mean?

Locke in Chapter 5 does addresses what the property is for.

"Sec. 26. God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given
them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and
convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the
support and comfort of their being. And tho' all the fruits it naturally
produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are
produced by the spontaneous hand of nature; and no body has originally a
private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they
are thus in their natural state: yet being given for the use of men, there
must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other, before
they can be of any use, or at all beneficial to any particular man."

So Locke establishes that the property is for "use" by the person and by mixing their labor, that the person owns, with the property the property becomes something that the person can use for "support and comfort of their being."

This begins to give us several things to consider when interpreting what Locke is actually stating. Locke never mentions owning anything except that the person owns their "self" and therefore their "labor" as well. He establishes that by mixing their labor, that they own, with nature the resulting "property" becomes something they can rightfully remove from nature so they can "use" it for their support and comfort. Finally we know that all of this is a rebuttal to statutory ownership of property by title but in Chapter 5 Locke also mentions title but we'll notice it's not the samething as statutory ownership established by title.

Sec. 32. But the chief matter of property being now not the fruits of the
earth, and the beasts that subsist on it, but the earth itself; as that
which takes in and carries with it all the rest; I think it is plain, that
property in that too is acquired as the former. As much land as a man tills,
plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his
property. He by his labour does, as it were, inclose it from the common. Nor
will it invalidate his right, to say every body else has an equal title to
it; and therefore he cannot appropriate, he cannot inclose, without the
consent of all his fellow-commoners, all mankind. God, when he gave the
world in common to all mankind, commanded man also to labour, and the penury
of his condition required it of him. God and his reason commanded him to
subdue the earth, i.e. improve it for the benefit of life, and therein lay
out something upon it that was his own, his labour. He that in obedience to
this command of God, subdued, tilled and sowed any part of it, thereby
annexed to it something that was his property, which another had no title
to, nor could without injury take from him.

Locke isn't referring to "title of ownership" which he opposes but instead is referring to "title of use" that the person establishes by mixing their labor with nature to acquire to property for their use in providing for their support and comfort. We're given the final argument related to use in the last section which states:

Sec. 51. And thus, I think, it is very easy to conceive, without any
difficulty, how labour could at first begin a title of property in the
common things of nature, and how the spending it upon our uses bounded it.
So that there could then be no reason of quarrelling about title, nor any
doubt about the largeness of possession it gave. Right and conveniency went
together; for as a man had a right to all he could employ his labour upon,
so he had no temptation to labour for more than he could make use of. This
left no room for controversy about the title, nor for encroachment on the
right of others; what portion a man carved to himself, was easily seen; and
it was useless, as well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take
more than he needed.

The labor established the "title to use the property" but does not grant ownership because of the person acquires more property than they can use, even by mixing their labor with nature to obtain the property, it is dishonest for them to possess the property by ownership secured by the title. The title only provides the recognition of the right of he person to use property and if it's more than they can use then the title doesn't exist at all.

It's something worthy of thinking seriously about because the Natural Right of Property always relates to the Use of Property and the Title represents nothing more than Right of Possession (that Locke refers to throughout the Second Treatise of Civil Government but never ownership) for use and not to the owning the property because the only thing the person really ever owns is their "Self" and therefore the "Labor of the Self" in Locke's arguments.

 

Perhaps a little more clarification on the purpose of this thread is in order. This is not a thread to address whether a member agrees or disagrees with John Locke that would be a massive undertaking to say the least. This thread is on interpreting John Locke regardless of whether you may agree or disagree.

I'm not the scholar and instead I'm the student and John Locke is the scholar. The purpose of the student is to understand the scholar and I'm developed a greater understanding every time I've gone back to read the numerous chapters of Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government. Like Locke I'm also open to having what I interpret to be challenged but I would also include the same provisions that Locke included for those that wanted to seriously challenge the Second Treatise of Civil Government. The provisions Locke established are as follows:

"If any one, concerned really for truth, undertake the confutation of my
Hypothesis, I promise him either to recant my mistake, upon fair conviction;
or to answer his difficulties. But he must remember two things.

First, That cavilling here and there, at some expression, or little incident
of my discourse, is not an answer to my book.

Secondly, That I shall not take railing for arguments, nor think either of
these worth my notice, though I shall always look on myself as bound to give
satisfaction to any one, who shall appear to be conscientiously scrupulous
in the point, and shall shew any just grounds for his scruples."

Basically be serious, don't resort to triviality, and refrain from what is nothing more than a rant without substance so that we can both learn together. This is not a competition about who's right or wrong but instead it's a discussion so that a greater understanding is achieved by those that seriously participate.

In case I was at all vague in my first post in reading Chapter 5 on the Natural Right "Of Property" it has been my conclusion that Locke establishes a "Natural Right of Use of Property" as opposed to a "Natural Right of Ownership of Property" in Chapter 5.

There are obviously many other issues that are addressed based upon Chapter 5 and we can explore those as well in the future.

 

Locke speaks to statutory title based on the theoretically unsound foundation of Divine Right in the OP passages, not statutory title generally, or specifically based on the sound theoretical foundation of social contract, so it is a mistake to include the former as a denial of the latter. To repeat, Locke is not speaking to unsoundness of statutory ownership generally, but to the unsoundness of statutory ownership vested by a central monarch empowered as absolute owner by religious doctrine. For our purposes today, he is theorizing against the notion that the state owns everything and allows us as citizens to keep some of it, NOT advocating for universal ownership of land or personal property generally. "Natural rights" is merely an abstract foil against the Divine Right, and IMO, not intended to be puzzled out of its abstraction other than as a foil to injustice re central property ownership.

To puzzle out the social contract and natural rights concretely, to delineate the ownership of the body and the fruits of labor, we apply less idealistic, empirically observable and measurable legal and commercial principles that go further than abstractions can go, and are in fact far older than Locke or the Enlightenment generally, specifically in terms of shaping the impact of the principles of "waste" and "highest use" of property, among other principles. Communally owned property, for example, as we see in hundreds of empty federal buildings all over the country, saw in Soviet Russia, and in the commons in villages of the feudal past, necessarily entails higher waste than society should tolerate in its policies. Similarly, the commons suffers from "highest use" and free-riding problems, among many others. Title by Divine Right addressed those issues, just based on a falsehood, and subject to caprice of the monarch as opposed to the rule of law. We address those issues within the Republic with a very complex (and ancient) statutory delineation and title system (via state not federal law) of who "owns" what... that is entirely and irrefutably legitimate within Locke's broader social contract theory.

 

Does Locke ever prove that these natural rights exists, or does he simply assume that they do?

 

Sanskrits point is valid, and civil society agrees for its own good that the natural rights exist.

Today, biology and genetics understood with psychology will show they exist as an advanced manifestation of our instinct to survive, adapt and evolve.

It's shameful that our society has no better place, with broader access and greater capabilities to discuss and refine what Locke began.

 

that a society may agree that such rights are beneficial, is a wholly different thing from proving that these rights somehow exist naturally. No, the so called natural rights are not the manifestations of our nature. If they were, we would have expected to see in early history societies based on such ideas, but we do not.

 

In the USA, who continues to grab and horde land is the government. Look at a map of it sometime? The government now owns (by seizing it) the majority of land in many states. Of course, the government pays no taxes on it's own land, just like the government pays no taxes on its business operations.

 

Bull (*)(*)(*)(*). The Founders and Framers set up a system where the government owns everything and doles it out? Nonsense. This is the kind of twisted bullying that the left dreams of that has resulted in Dibert Endorsing Donald Trump

Scott Adams of Dilbert: I'm Endorsing Donald Trump, Because My Only Care In Politics Now Is To Push Back Against the Relentless, Remorseless Social Bullying of the Liberal Media and Political Establishment

In not now, when?
~
I've been trying to figure out what common trait binds Clinton supporters together. As far as I can tell, the most unifying characteristic is a willingness to bully in all its forms.

If you have a Trump sign in your lawn, they will steal it.

If you have a Trump bumper sticker, they will deface your car.

if you speak of Trump at work you could get fired.

On social media, almost every message I get from a Clinton supporter is a bullying type of message. They insult. They try to shame. They label. And obviously they threaten my livelihood.

We know from Project Veritas that Clinton supporters tried to incite violence at Trump rallies. The media downplays it.

We also know Clinton’s side hired paid trolls to bully online. You don’t hear much about that.

Yesterday, by no coincidence, Huffington Post, Salon, and Daily Kos all published similar-sounding hit pieces on me, presumably to lower my influence. (That reason, plus jealousy, are the only reasons writers write about other writers.)
...
Team Clinton has succeeded in perpetuating one of the greatest evils I have seen in my lifetime. Her side has branded Trump supporters (40%+ of voters) as Nazis, sexists, homophobes, racists, and a few other fighting words. Their argument is built on confirmation bias and persuasion. But facts don’t matter because facts never matter in politics. What matters is that Clinton’s framing of Trump provides moral cover for any bullying behavior online or in person. No one can be a bad person for opposing Hitler, right?
...
As far as I can tell, the worst thing a presidential candidate can do is turn Americans against each other. Clinton is doing that, intentionally.

Intentionally.

As I often say, I don’t know who has the best policies. I don’t know the best way to fight ISIS and I don’t know how to fix healthcare or trade deals. I don’t know which tax policies are best to lift the economy. I don’t know the best way to handle any of that stuff. (And neither do you.) But I do have a bad reaction to bullies. And I’ve reached my limit.

I hope you have too. Therefore…

I endorse Donald Trump for President of the United States because I oppose bullying in all its forms.
~
Hear! Hear!

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152293480726/the-bully-party

I think we have about had it with the Scummy Crony War Mongers and the Clintons with all their thieving and lying and bullying and deleting.

And now these crooks want to own all private property and dole it to their cronies? I can't believe you support that.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152293480726/the-bully-party

 

As stated, the rights are "natural" (maybe fair to say -secular-, even empirical) as in foils to "artificial" -ecclesiastical- constructs such as Divine Right. Remember that there are several things Locke can't say directly without making some extremely powerful, vengeful enemies, and he is already well over that line without going further. I do not think Locke was suggesting that they are natural to human behavior in the way above. It is also unclear to what extent Locke was invoking the strict meaning of "natural" or not (people have two hands and eyes generally, not one eye and eight arms, and exert forces in accordance with natural, continuous laws of motion) as opposed to unnatural (spirits, mythical beasts or constructs... or capricious, inconstant priestly edicts which do not necessarily follow any empirical natural rules). This is why I think it best to leave "natural" as a foil to "Divine Right" and move on to more concrete, measurable principles to build the specifics of social contract, namely the perfectly good principles of tenure and ownership developed over thousands of years and long before the Enlightenment, just replacing the king and pope at the top with rule of law and the representative republic.

 

Hmmm, you completely omitted consideration of my points of; biology, genetics and psychogy showing they exist.

Academia is a feature of society.

Your point is null.


I would add to my post;

"It's shameful that our society has no better place, with broader access and greater capabilities to discuss and refine what Locke began" because the ability to do so is vital to the continuity of civil society to begin with.

 

Yep, and not just raw land. The graft of central government winds all through our commercial property infrastructure. For each of these 14,000 or so wasteful buildings, some career bureaucrat or crony was almost certainly enriched at taxpayer expense.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/21stcenturygov/tools/excess-map

 

I agree with and submit it can happen in human society with almost no cognitive interaction as a result of natural reaction originating from instincts defining "fairness".

 

Does the law of supply and demand exist? What sort of law is economic law? It's derived from observations of human behavior in reaction to scarcity. Natural law is derived from observations of human behavior in reaction to his environment. Which would you say is universal among human kind: the desire to live, the desire to die, or ambivalence to life or death?

Maybe you would argue that the law of supply and demand is really whatever society agrees that it is. That would explain the way legislators tend to think, so, by extension, so must so many of those who vote for them.

 

I don't know what others are saying, but it's not that I disagree with your assessment of Locke. What I disagree with is that Locke is the sole authority on natural rights, and that your stance is at all libertarian.

Really, if we have to believe that Locke is the final authority on natural rights then shouldn't we accept Plato as the final authority on the relationship of government to society?

Locke isn't infallible. His ideas present logical contradictions. However, it has been advanced upon by others who came after and those contradictions dealt with.

 

To offer an anecdote, my grandfather grew up on a farm, very good relations with the neighbors, so good that they had a common herd of swine. There were no property boundaries, the pigs roamed freely through the mostly wooded property, and when a family needed meat, they killed a pig. This works great on an extreme micro level... until it doesn't.

What happens when another family moves in the area and builds fences that capture all the pigs? What happens when a member of a family gets drunk, mad, and kills all the pigs one night? What happens when an estate is split up and inevitable fences are built? What happens when...? If I'm taking your meaning, all these problems require significant cognitive interaction to solve, and people have drastically different while equally credible definitions of fairness. IMO, our system of land title, devise, descent, grant, etc., based on ancient principles, does about as good a job as can be done, far better than the morass of regulatory law and tax codes. The regulatory morass is why I dread the prospect of making real estate law more codified and civil as opposed to common law and settled... even if based on somewhat archaic traditions and language.

@thread generally When you look into any state's code (or at least the ones I've looked into), you will find that the real property laws, though among the most important, are often the least codified. That's because so much of it is thousands of years old common law and principles expressed in cases. In a property dispute, unlike most any other, a lawyer will cite to cases decades or even hundreds of years old without worry.

There are many parts of the country, mine for example, where beautiful, arable land can be had for $1000-2000 an acre, 1-2 weeks' wages. It takes about 5-10 acres of land to support a family of four. The people who seem to have the most problems with current real property law in the US are people who are married to a certain infrastructure lifestyle. Hint. It's the -infrastructure-, not the land itself, that is so expensive. No jiggering with our real property law is going to remedy that.

 

mr locke assumes people would labor only for what they need to live and that is the marxist interpretation, but people are tempted to labor for more fruits than they need to live and that is the capitalist interpretation of mr. locke.

the right interpretation is the capitalist one because no one labors just for what they need, they pursue happiness laboring for what they want, and that is why capitalism made America great for the peasants who defeated england with the help of the rich capitalist founding fathers.

this interpretation of john locke is used by most people today because America fought for freedom from england so that the peasants could have the divine rights of kings, too. the natural right of property was only a privilege to kings before the American revolution, now it is a privilege for the poor. the poor today must retake their government from the rich to reclaim their birthright of the divine rights of kings.

 

locke argues that people would only profit from supply and demand enough to live on for basic things, not anymore for fun things.

however supply and demand is not set in stone to personal survival which is dishonest to assume it is, those who profit excessively from supply and demand can afford to share the profits with others less fortunate.

this shows locke is wrong in this particular interpretation because even if everyone has their own natural right to property, be it from their labor or private ownership of land, there would still be those who profit excessively from talent and depending on poverty legislators would have to redistribute it equitably.

 

Can you objectively define "excessive"? You are sitting behind a computer. Likely, you are living a lifestyle that is better than the majority of the world is able to live in. Do you deem it excessive, or does that only apply to people who have more than you?

I was using an analogy about the existence of concepts. I was not talking about Locke's other books.

 

Ah, yes.

The intrinsic values, principles, self awareness of interdependency, separateness, fear, etc. of the society comes into question and under scrutiny.

Subtle or not, we are not a people today that readily resolve differences. Melting pot symptom? I dunno.

But I do know that in some indigenous societies of the past, that principles recognizing survival and harmony were very strong amongst those of their specific culture, and that teaching such uniformally amongst the people was done since early childhood. This was occasionally so great an influence that our society cannot measure its effects.

Our knowledge of our nature is badly impaired by a tyranny of fears we react to unconsciously without even knowing it. It has been so for at least 2,000 years. Epigenetics have since devolved us spiritually.

I agree completely, and observe your point of infrastructure, but divided up your post to emphasize the fact that we have been heavily dumbed down and manipulated throughout, and, that we do not know what we do not know. Accordingly, nearly all of the aversion implied with your message could be artificially imposed unconsciously from a number of conflicting unconscious positions carried in the populations, and we would not even know it. All we can say is, that for sure, a lot of people and books were burned for a reason.

 

If you start from the very beginning of Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government it is a progressive step-by-step process of providing the "truth" of the fact that Natural Law and the Natural Rights exist based upon reason and logical deduction. A very accurate analogy is how "mathematics" that starts with an axiom or postulate (i.e. something assumed or accepted to be true) and then build an entire field of mathematics based upon the axiom or postulate. Locke does the exact same thing in the progressive development of the logical arguments required to establish that both Natural Law and Natural Rights are real.

As I noted in my second post Locke also challenged anyone to honestly challenge his progressive establishment of the Natural Rights of the People/Person and never in his lifetime or at anytime since 1690 has anyone been able to find any flaws in the Second Treatise of Civil Government that would invalid it or the truth of Natural Law and Natural Rights. Many nefariously pull something from context, perhaps something from Chapter 5 "Of Property", and argue it but their arguments have always been flawed because they ignore a previously established foundation that was perhaps covered in Chapter 3.

It really is an awesome work and perhaps the finest philosophically developed work in history. I'm honestly awed by how Locke managed to compose it in such a manner that no one has been able to find any significant flaws that would invalid his conclusions because they're all very well supported.

 

That is actually correct in that context, as well as others.

Understanding the northwestern Indigenous peoples culture brings the fact that they were capitalists but directed it altruistically, promoting very positive unconscious human attributes, through the Potlatch.

The only way a person could gain influence was by giving things to others fulfilling needs. The powerful would compete to divest themselves of their excess wealth to those in need.

That time also had competition for speaking. Those who spoke creating understanding between the people which tended to inspire; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting everyone's life, liberty with their pursuits of happiness, were at some point later, nominated for leadership.

That function, was called " The Greater Meaning of Free Speech" by the northeastern tribes.

 

I have no idea where this opinion originates but I know for a fact that it didn't originate from Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government. I can actually quote the Second Treatise of Civil Government to demonstrate the opposite but it would be far better if you actually read the Second Treatise of Civil Government so that you don't continue to make erroneous statements about what John Locke actually establishes.

 

Very nice thread as always Shiva.
I think the commentary in the Cambridge edition is invaluable for anyone interesting in knowing the broader context.
http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academi...tises-government?format=PB&isbn=9780521357302

 

There's a flaw in this logic. Both the social contract and the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings relate to government and "Of Property" is in Chapter 5 that precedes any reasoning related to government or even to civil society. The Right of Property is not based upon society but instead exists independent of any statutory laws, regardless of source, that would establish or even recognize "ownership" of property.

I believe that people assume Locke uses the word "title" in the context that we generally do where it means "all the elements constituting legal ownership" while it's my impression that he's using the word to mean "an alleged or recognized right" in Chapter 5 because Chapter 5 precedes any logical arguments of laws or legality of any kind. This makes sense in reviewing this passage in Chapter 5:

He that in obedience to
this command of God, subdued, tilled and sowed any part of it, thereby
annexed to it something that was his property (his labor), which another had no title (alleged or recognized right)
to, nor could without injury take from him.

In this usage the word "title" makes absolute sense. The man mixes that which he owns, his labor, with the land and it is his labor that establishes his Natural Right to Use the Land.

 

Natural rights was one of those ideas that got knocked around by many enlightenment era philosophers. Most of the inquiries into human understanding began with the concept of man in nature. Natural rights are those rights a man in nature - absent any government - might have. They are assumed to be self evident but apparently not everyone agrees on which rights are actually natural and which are products of out society.