Natural Rights - Interpreting John Locke

i respectfully disagree, john locke notes his reasoning comes from the command of God.

nature is inherently immoral, we are the product of evolution where might makes right, and survival is based on the fittest. those are natural laws because nature would cease to exist if the strong did not capitalize on the weak.

a proper interpretation for john lockes natural right to property would be that he wanted the weak to be strong, or the poor to be private landowners.

if we guarantee the peasants of America, who are the majority, the natural right of property, where they have the divine rights of kings, Americans will passionately be loyal to the land as patriots. these patriots will evolve themselves and the country to be superior to the world as it is presently, but on shaky foundation since those divine rights of the American peasants have been stolen by the kings.

it is not up to America to save the world, it is up to America to save itself to lead by example. the world will follow on their own time and join us, or be lost to the superior people and country by their own doing.

 

This is true and what the common law, as well as statutory law, addresses is the "ownership of property" which is problematic when we address property based upon natural law and natural rights. In a moment I will address that but first I want to thank everyone that's posted, even though it's been a bit overwhelming because I haven't even had the time to read every post, because as I anticipated just subjecting the issue of the Natural Right of Property to discussion it's forced me to think more deeply about it. So let me begin at the beginning because there are two contradictory propositions.

Based upon statutory law and the common law going back thousands of years the Right of Property is the Right of Ownership.

My interpretation of Chapter 5 "Of Property" is that Locke is stating that the "Natural Right of Property" is the "Right of Use" of the property based upon their labor.

Once again there are numerous passages in Chapter 5 where "use" is the reasoning between the relationship of the person and the property. For example the limitations upon how much property a person can possess is based upon use.

Section 31
As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it
spoils, so much he may by his Tabour fix a property in: whatever is beyond
this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God
for man to spoil or destroy. And thus, considering the plenty of natural
provisions there was a long time in the world, and the few spenders; and to
how small a part of that provision the industry of one man could extend
itself, and ingross it to the prejudice of others; especially keeping within
the bounds, set by reason, of what might serve for his use; there could be
then little room for quarrels or contentions about property so established.

Locke is stating that the Natural Right of Property of the Person is unlimited so long as perishable property, such as food, is used before it spoils and that non-perishable property, such as land, must be used by the person during from the moment they take possession until they die. If they don't use the perishable property before it spoils or if they're not going to use the non-perishable item between "now" and their "death" (i.e. the rest of their lifetime) then the property is "is more than his share, and belongs to others." Based upon the conditional of the use of the property that is a criteria of the Natural Right it leaves "little room for quarrels or contentions about property so established" by anyone else that removes potential conflict in society over the property the person has because no other person's Natural Right of Property is being infringed upon or violated.

That same limitation on the establishment of the Right of Property specific to land based upon the "use" is repeated again in the following statement.

Sec. 38. The same measures governed the possession of land too: whatsoever
he tilled and reaped, laid up and made use of, before it spoiled, that was
his peculiar right; whatsoever he enclosed, and could feed, and make use of,
the cattle and product was also his. But if either the grass of his
enclosure rotted on the ground, or the fruit of his planting perished
without gathering, and laying up, this part of the earth, notwithstanding
his enclosure, was still to be looked on as waste, and might be the
possession of any other.

If the person establishes the Right of Property to land then, so long as they're using it and not allowing anything that land produces spoil, then they have a Right of Property to it but if the land is in excess of what they require for use, such as for their home, or for farming, or for the grazing of cattle or other productive use of the land then they do not have a Natural Right of Property to excess land and another person can establish their Natural Right of Property by using the "excess" land.

It is this repeated "condition of use" as a criteria for the Natural Right of Property that conflicts with the establishment of "ownership" because if the person isn't "using" the property then they don't have a Natural Right of Property to it. This can be exemplified by the following.

A person, through their labor, establishes the Natural Right of Property to 40 acres that they farming. As long as they use the land for farming they have the Right of Property to it because they're "using" the land. What happens if they stop farming it in the future? If they're not using the land, which is a condition required for the Natural Right of Property, then as established by Locke in Section 38, another person can establish their Natural Right of Property to the "excess land" that is not being used. If the Right of Property establishes ownership then it removes the condition of "use" that Locke repeatedly establishes as been a mandatory requirement for the Natural Right of Property.

Locke prior to this in Chapter 5 was addressing the "use" based upon personally "use" of the property in the possession of the Person where they have established a Natural Right of Property but there's something more important in defining what the actual Right of Property is. Not all "use" must be by the person that establishes their Right of Property. The person can also give that property to someone else or can trade property they have in excess, that they won't personally use, with someone else that will use it in exchange for something they can use. Locke addresses this in Section 46.

Now of those good things which nature hath provided in common, every
one had a right (as hath been said) to as much as he could use, and property
in all that he could effect with his labour; all that his industry could
extend to, to alter from the state nature had put it in, was his. He that
gathered a hundred bushels of acorns or apples, had thereby a property in
them, they were his goods as soon as gathered. He was only to look, that he
used them before they spoiled, else he took more than his share, and robbed
others. And indeed it was a foolish thing, as well as dishonest, to hoard up
more than he could make use of. If he gave away a part to any body else, so
that it perished not uselesly in his possession, these he also made use of.
And if he also bartered away plums, that would have rotted in a week, for
nuts that would last good for his eating a whole year, he did no injury; he
wasted not the common stock; destroyed no part of the portion of goods that
belonged to others, so long as nothing perished uselesly in his hands.


The transfer of property between people based upon Natural Law, the criteria for a Natural Right, and the characteristics of a Natural Right ultimately settles the question of whether the person established a "Natural Right of Ownership" of property or a "Natural Right of Use" of property.

I will address that in my next post because it should answer the questions of everyone on the issue.

 

The problem as I see it is that locke's "natural" right are just as artificial as e.g. divine right. What is the basis of divine right? Some guy said so. What is the basis of natural rights? some guy said so. Same argument, same basis. yes, it might be that locke didn't mean natural as in that it is natural to human behaviour (because clearly, as can be seen in history, it is not). So what exactly did he mean by natural? I don't have many objections to the actual ideas themselves, I'm just bothered by their claim to somehow be "natural".

the law of supply and demand is (kind of) like the law of gravity. It exists, independently of wheter we think it does. We can see it effects. It is impossible to violate it. now, economics, since it depends on humans and not on physics, is not always as clear cut. But, we can still see the law of supply and demand in action any day, just like the law of gravity. The same is not true with natural rights. not at all.

Then I suppose my objection is that his axiom is unfounded. He simply declares that natural rights exists and that they are right. How is that any different from just declaring that e.g. divine right is the truth? My objection is that he claims these rights are somehow natural, as if they are self evident, but he provides no justification for it.

The key word is 'might'. If these laws, as defined by locke, were natural, we would expect that they show up in "natural" conditions, but they typically do not. it seems locke just claims that they are natural, without backing it up.

 

I think I explained that pretty clearly in my prior post, "natural" (empirical, secular, scientific, in accordance with observable physics, more objective, less abstract, less central) as opposed to "divine" (metaphysical, ecclesiastical, capricious, in accordance with subjective edict and scriptural interpretation, more central, extremely abstract).

 

As Locke establishes in Chapter 5 property that based upon the Natural Right of Property the property people possess can be voluntarily transferred and exchanged between people and we all agree that this is a fundamental requirement. So the transfer and exchange can occur based upon the Natural Right leaving us to address what the actual Natural Right is. To do that we must address Natural Law first, the criteria for Natural Rights, and the characteristics of a Natural Right that are required in defining the Natural Right of Property where the transfer of property meets the conditions.

Natural Law
Natural Law establishes that the members of a species can remove from nature that which is necessary for their support and comfort for their personal use. This is a fundamental Law of Nature based upon survival of the species. The Natural Law allows the species, including man, to survive because without this law the species, unable to remove from nature that which they individually require for survival (support and comfort), would perish.

Criteria for a Natural Right
A Natural Right is inherent in the Person, not dependent upon another Person, does not infringe upon or violate the Right(s) of another Person, and does not impose an involuntary obligation upon another Person.

Characteristics of a Natural Right
A Natural Right is Inalienable (unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor), and therefore is Non-Transferrable but not Inviolable (never to be broken, infringed, or dishonored). The Natural Right exists exclusively with the person or that exist "in common" for all people but the individual cannot give a Natural Right, such as their Natural Right of Thought or their Natural Right of Labor, to another person but that does not imply that others are prevented from violating the Natural Rights of the Person or of the Common.

When we address the Criteria for the Natural Right of Property the first thing that is obvious is that the "property" itself is NOT inherent to the Person. The Property is external to the Person. What is inherent to the Person, based upon Natural Law, is the Natural Right to USE that which is necessary for their "support and comfort" (survival).

When we address the transfer of Property if the Natural Right of Property is the Right of Ownership then, because the Natural Right is non-transferable the Property cannot be transferred. Ownership establishes the Right of the Person to USE what the Own (such as their body that they own based upon the Natural Right of Self) but they can't transfer a Natural Right of Ownership that they possess to another person because Natural Rights are non-transferrable.

If the Natural Right of Property is the Right of Use, that everyone has based upon Natural Law, then the property can be transferred from one person to another because both have the independent Right of Use of the property for their own support and comfort established by Natural Law.

The conditions of "use" that Locke applies to the Natural Right of Property are fully met, including the condition that the person cannot possess more than they can USE based upon the Natural Right of Property because the Natural Right itself is the Right of Use that is self-limiting.

This has modern day importance especially when we consider employment. The employee provides "labor" that establishes the Right of Use to all that they do for the employer, The employee can't personally use that which they produce for their own support and comfort but the employer can use what's produced for their support and comfort. It was for that explicit reason that they employed the person. The transfer is voluntary exchange of services and/or goods where each provides through the exchange what the other person needs for their support and comfort.

There is one requirement for the exchange and that it is an equitable exchange based upon the Natural Right of Use of property. The employee is required to use their labor to perform the tasks assigned by the employer that the employer uses for their support and comfort. In return, based upon the employee's fulfillment of their requirement to perform the tasks assigned using their labor, the employer must provide the compensation necessary for the employee's support and comfort. It is solely the responsibility of the employer, in assigning the tasks, to ensure the equitable exchange. The employer assigns the tasks to provide what the employer needs and so the employer establishes how the employee uses their labor to "earn the compensation" required for the employee's support and comfort. If the employer assigns the task of "sitting in the corner" for eight hours to the employee, where the employee produce nothing of actual use by the employer, the employer still has the obligation to provide for the support and comfort of the employee because it was the employer that squandered the labor of the employee. The employee isn't responsible of the employer squanders their labor in the assignment of tasks the employee is require to perform and employee is still entitled to their support and comfort.

This is hugely important in a society based upon the Natural Right of Property because "under-compensation" for employment cannot exist. An equitable exchange of goods/services for the support and comfort of the employer is balanced by the employer's compensation that is necessary for the goods and services of the employee.

Working poverty cannot exist in an economy based upon commerce (the transfer of property) based upon the "Natural Right of Use" of property in a society.

What is really interesting is that the Natural Right of Use exists without any consideration to anything else. The Right to Use that which nature provides and that which the person is entitled to under Natural Law is "Inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person, does not violate the rights of another person, nor does not impose an involuntary obligation upon another person" so it fully meets the criteria of a Natural Right. All that Locke does is apply the Natural Right of Use it to "property" in Chapter 5 that is inherently limited to USE when addressing property in society.

This simply doesn't work when it comes to "ownership" that is a construct of man based upon common law and statutory law and is not based upon Natural Law.

 

Still pushing the socialism model. Freedom requires free trade. This would include between employers and employees. Not all labor is designed to be bread winning tasks. Some people may only need money for gas or dating. To establish minimum wages is to destroy opportunities, not only for meeting small wants or needs, but training that leads to breadwinner positions.

Again, you are defying property rights when you promote socialistic policies. Claiming one is limited in acquiring property, while promoting minimum rights to others, just lowers overall prosperity. It is one thing to espouse principles that may be more effective in an agrarian setting, but these principles limit overall prosperity in our modern system.

 

from your updated posts i understand your interpretation of john locke's natural right of property to be as follows:

1) the right of property only exists for capitalists who can exercise a right to use the land for their 'support and comfort'.

2) that capitalist is not allowed to get rich from the right to use that land, because that means they are wasting resources other more efficient capitalists can use.

• this is socialism with trickery, it restricts freedom from the peasant who is unable to compete efficiently, and redistributes property to only the most efficient of capitalists. furthermore it then mandates that those capitalists to only labor for their support and comfort.
  
  
• that is not free at all, under the right to ownership interpretation everyone competes for as little as a living wage, to as much as a kingdom of excess riches they would most likely pass down to their bloodlines inheritance
  
  
• this is possible because wealth is created, it does not have to be redistributed with socialism since it is not finite. everyone can be a capitalist with enough investment capital to manage risk responsibly, but only the right to ownership of property will allow them to be under-leveraged.

 

This is part of a signature that is repeated over and over by the OP, thus fair game to be discussed.

Trying to use the term Dixiecrat for the better known term Democrat is to foster a lie. The lie being the Democrats were fine, only Dixiecrats were not fine. That Dixiecrats had been purged from the rolls of Democrats.

I was a Democrat at that time. I do not recall Democrats purging Dixiecrats. They are part and parcel the same things.

There is absolutely no sign at all that Trump is a Democrat. And no, Trump will lead the party that promotes equal freedom for each person. Notice though the Democrats make use of the rich, they still trash the rich and claim they want we the rest of the public to end up with the property of the rich.

this brings us back to Locke since the signature line seems to show a clear lack of understanding of John Locke's work on government.

 

That is a decent summary. I must address property rights since this is a field I am expert in. By license and profession and legal training, it is my field.

I don't want to address the monarchy. It had a lot of flaws.

I wish to deal with the United States of America.

Our colonists arrived to find vast areas of land that had no title. A common habit of the native tribes was to roam as they so pleased. They no more claimed land than we claim sections of lakes as our own. I know of no person holding title to a surveyed part of a lake. It may in fact exist, but I know of no person.

The colonists had so much land to make use of, if they could prevent the natives from first killing them, it was really not much in dispute. If George Washington later took title to 10,000 acres, who cared? More land was there to be taken.

At a point in this nations history, a decision was made to survey all of the USA. Titles to land were lousy. A metes and bounds form existed far too often.

A metes and bounds is not precise. It can help to show a plot of land, such as starting at the giant boulder 50 paces off a trail, thence to the edge of the river, can be located. But it takes too much work and still is not really accurate.

So, the survey instruments came to be used. Even George Washington used the tools of the survey.

Most of you are not aware that the entire country has monuments planted by the Federal survey teams. And records were made. It is a rare person who learned of the monuments that are over the entire nation. The monuments have names.

We have base and meridian lines.

Anyway, upon robbing the natives of land they used, or in some cases paying them for the rights to the property, the property then became the property of the United States. Then the Government started giving land away. And since we all recognize Government at the Federal level, we recognize the land they offered with defined boundaries, was then our land.

Rather than a right of a king, it became then the right of the Federal Government.

This is an example that started in 1936 and has become rather well known on the title of land.

 

Supply & Demand has always existed, even before it was discovered.

 

This claim nothing more than "caviling" (i.e. an objection that is petty or unnecessary) because all references to Biblical passages are irrelevant in the positive arguments and logical reasoning based upon Natural Law that establishes Natural Rights.

It is obligatory for us to understand the context of both the times as well as the nature of what Locke was to disprove in compiling the arguments he presents in the Second Treatise of Civil Government by positive logical reasoning. The "audience" that he addressed was a highly religious Protestant society and the Divine Right of Kings itself, an invention of the monarchy, was based upon Christian religious beliefs (i.e. the Bible). Locke invokes the usage of passages from the Bible but those passages are not the actual foundation for his logic and arguments that create the positive establishment of Natural Law and Natural Rights. All Biblical references can be removed, with reference to God being replaced exclusively by the reference to Nature, and the compelling reasoning is not altered at all.

By example the Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" because it was written for highly religious people of time but for "secularist" that can have or not have religious beliefs it's far more accurately and less ambiguous if it was written as "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all People are created equal, that they are endowed by Nature with certain unalienable Rights"

This is extremely shallow thinking.

The Natural Law Locke refers to is based upon the interactions within a species while evolution is based upon the interactions between species. The predator-prey relationship certainly exist within nature and that is also based upon Natural Law and Locke does address that but the self-appointed dominance of one member over another member of the same species that occurs in nature is not governed by natural law. It's the self-appointment of authority, enforced by force, that is immoral in human society. The self-appointed dictator that ruthlessly rises to power by the violent oppression of the people is immoral and the authority of the dictator was not granted by Nature.

While each species must compete with other species for survival, where natural selection picks the winners and losers, each member of a species has an equal right to take from nature that which is necessary for their survival (support and comfort) and all successful species have done that.

Natural Law dictates that for any species to survive the actions (labor) of the members of that species, either individual or as a group, must provide from nature that which is required for the survival (support and comfort) of the members of the species. If that does not occur then the species becomes extinct and does not survive. Self-predation within the species itself (i.e. the species killing or causing the death of the species itself) would always result in the extinction of the species.

A claim is made without a single quotation from Locke which qualifies it as a "rant" as opposed to an argument. This allegation is not supported by Locke's reasoning at all because the only thing that Locke claims the people own are themselves. The Natural Right of Self (self-ownership) is the foundation for all Natural Rights of the Person. Locke does not argue for "weak to be strong" but instead that all people are inherently equal and he doesn't argue for the poor to be "landowners" because the only thing that people own are themselves. .

I've provided compelling arguments that the very criteria for a Natural Right contradicts any claim for the "Natural Right of Ownership" of property because "property" itself is external to the person and a natural right is always inherent in the person (i.e. a part of the person). The only "thing" a person owns is themselves and by extension their labor. Locke's arguments are that the person has the "Natural Right of Use" of that which their labor produces, which is "property" that can either be physical property or intellectual property in their possession and that this "property is exclusively their own" but they can transfer it by voluntary gift to someone else that also has the "Natural Right of Use" for their support and comfort or it can exchanged between people based upon an equitable transfer of the property, based upon the Right of Use, for the support and comfort of those involved in the exchange (i.e. commerce). In short if I use my labor to provide what you require for your support and comfort then in return you must provide me with what I require for my support and comfort.

Once again this is a rant unsupported by any citation and isn't even a valid argument. "Ownership" of property was established by the laws of man that was embraced by the Divine Right of Kings while Locke is addressing the "Natural Right of Use" that is based upon a Law of Nature where the survival of the species is based upon the ability of a species to individually or collectively provide from nature that which is necessary for the members of the species to survive )(i.e. provide for support and comfort).

If we follow the evolution of mankind on the planet we know that early humans were able to provide for themselves perhaps in units of just a man, woman, and their children and that was probably at the barest essential of levels of survival (i.e. enough support to survive and little comfort). As the joined together into "tribes" that were small social groups they were able, to provide for more than the members were required from nature (i.e. enough for the support with much more comfort). Over time civilizations formed and the ability of these larger groups, where more and more of the members became specialized, in removing from nature that which was necessary for support and comfort of the members of the society grew exponentially so that today, in the United States, based upon the combined efforts of the members of our society, we're producing four times as much as is necessary for the basic support and comfort of all of the members of our society.

What the shallow-minded person seems to not understand is the difference between "Title of Use" recognizing the personal possession of property based upon the Natural Right of Use established by the labor of the person, that they alone own, is violated by custom (common laws) and statutory laws that grant Title of Ownership that's unrelated to the labor of the person or their use of the property that they have in their possession.

Locke doesn't argue for the Right of Ownership that was granted by custom or statutory laws or the Divine Right of Kings because no one has a Right of Ownership of anything but themselves. Title of Ownership is not based upon anything that the person has a Natural Right of Ownership to nor is it based upon Natural Law that requires the members of a species to provide for the survival of the members of the species where all the members have the Right to Use that which the species individually and/or collectively removes from nature in providing for the support and comfort of the members. Title of the Right to Use of property, that the person establishes through what they own (their labor), where the possession of the property can be transferred by commerce based upon the equitable Right to Use inherent in each person, protects the Natural Right of Use (of property) of the Person/People (member of the species) based upon natural law.

This returns us to Natural Law where survival of the species is dependent upon the Natural Right of the members of the species being able to Use that which is produced from nature, by individuals or the group, what is necessary for their survival (support and comfort). Collectively the United States, as a society, produces four-times more than what is necessary for the "support and comfort" of every member of our society that is contributing because they are a member of the society. We can ensure the Natural Right of Use of all of the People to that which or society produces annually so that they have the "support and comfort" that Natural Right requires and still have 3/4ths of it left over allowing many in our society to have far more of what they can use for their personal "support" (survival) and "comfort" (pleasure).

The final claim that the United States is only concerned with the United States is absolutely correct. It is not our place or our responsibility to "save the world" but instead it's our responsibility to achieve the lofty goals established by the ideology upon which the United States was founded and that ideology is expressed in two lines from the Declaration of Independence that, just like John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, needs to be understood based upon very minor revision to account for our growth in understanding. We can update both without changing either based upon our own evolution of knowledge in the hundreds of years that have passed.

As written: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

As revised: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all People are created equal, that they are endowed by Nature with certain Natural unalienable-inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among People, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The Natural Right of Use of Property by the People of the United States, that is violated by the statutory Ownership of Property based upon historic custom in common law and in our laws of property, must be "secured" by our government for the American People. It is the role and responsibility of our government to "secure" any and all Natural Rights of the Person/People and to prevent the violations of those Natural Rights. That's what it's expressly mandated to do and, as the Declaration of Independence establishes, that's the real reason for government to exist at all.

Any person living in the United States that opposes our government protection of the Natural Unalienable-Inalienable Rights of the Person/People can hardly claim to be a "patriot" because they stand in opposition of the express reason for our government's existence.

So yes, if we "lead by example" where our government does "secure and protect" our Natural Unalienable-Inalienable Rights of the Person/People then the people of other nations over time will look at the United States in awe and be envious of what we've accomplished and they too will change their governments to emulate the United States.

If we don't do that, if we as a nation and if our government fails to protect the Natural Unalienable-Inalienable Rights of the Person/People, then we will not inspire awe in other people nor will they be envious of the United States but instead they will continue to rationalize the violations of the Natural Unalienable-Inalienable Rights of the Person/People in their own countries.

While I've addressed the post the fact remains that it was a response to "caviling" (i.e. an objection that petty or unnecessary) and a "rant" that was unsupported and failed to even reflect any understanding of Natural Law or the Natural Right(s) that John Locke establishes by positive argument. I've spent considerable time in address both the caviling and the rant for the benefit of others and I will not respond to trivial and petty objections or to rants used in lieu of argument.

If there are legitimate arguments to be made related to interpretation I will address them but for someone to simply post a rant without foundation demonstrating that they have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of what John Locke establishes based upon compelling reason and argument then they will just be left with their erroneous opinions that they established by their own ignorance because they were unwilling to learn. It is impossible to address the intentional ignorance reflected by some people's opinions. A teacher cannot provide knowledge to the student that prefers to remain stupid.

 

No, they're not even remotely the same. There is no actual evidence of "Divine Law" but there's compelling evidence for Natural Law.

For example a species cannot survive if the members of the species, individually and/or collectively, cannot provide from nature that which is necessary for the survival of the members of the species. Natural Law establishes that by necessity for survival the members of the species individually and/or collectively have a Natural Right to remove from nature that which is necessary for the survival of the species. When we address the "higher" species Nature also address the fact that the providing for "comfort" in addition to just the minimal necessities for survival, enhances the ability of the members of the species to survive. That fur skin coat that early man made and used for their comfort in cold weather also improved and provided their survival by keeping them warm when the temperatures dropped to freezing where they could have frozen to death and it also allowed for the expansion of "Human territory" into climates that otherwise would have been prohibited to mankind.

Natural Law establishes that the member of a species have a Natural Right to Use that which nature provides for their "support and comfort" because if this Natural Right does not exist then the species doesn't have a Natural Right to support it's existence.

So the necessities for survival of the species in nature, that we can see and understand, provides the foundation for Natural Law so it is not a construct of mankind like Divine Law but instead is real and can be witnessed by anyone taking the time to observe.
.

As noted this is because of the obvious failure to understand that Natural Law is based upon the necessity for "survival of the species" that is not an invention of man but instead is a requirement for nature. We can observe it and can address it's different components where some species survive while others become extinct. The establishment of "Natural Law" necessary for the survival of the species, which in turn is reflected by the Natural Rights of all members of the species collectively and individually is a ration process of reasoning and that's what Locke provides.

The "axiom" at the foundation of Locke's reasoning isn't an "assumed fact" but is an "actual fact" that we witness of nature.

 

The individual's statutory "title of possession" that protects all of the property we can possibly use, that is based upon the Natural Right Of Use of the People/Person, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Socialism. In fact it's juxtaposed to socialism, redistribution of wealth, or anything we would consider to be "socialistic" in nature.

All that the "Right of Use" establishes is that when there is an exchange of "property" between individuals that is always based upon "Right to USE" what the labor of the person establishes. The exchange is not based upon the "property" but instead it's based upon the Right to Use the Property that another person establishes by their labor.

Once again, everyone has a Natural Right of Use to everything that they can possibly "use" for their support and comfort.

We know that "mankind" starting with the individual is capable under even the most primitive conditions to provide for all they need to "use" for their support and comfort by taking from nature that which they require. We know this is a fact because our very existence is proof of that. We also know that mankind formed social associations, starting with just a man and woman that later became tribes and eventually became civilization, because by working together where individuals started performing individual tasks that only cumulatively provided for all members of the group, as oppose to each individual performing all of the tasks necessary, they were able to provide more of what was necessary for all of the members of the group. "Specialization" of the members results in more of everything than what the individuals can produce on their own for themselves.

The United States todays is a great example of that fact because, as individuals specializing in thousands of different professions, we measureably produce four-times more than we could possibly produce where every individual had to be a "jack-of-all-trades" limited to just what their "labor" could take from nature. In fact we probably produce 1,000 times more though individual specialization because much of what we have, such as modern medicine, wouldn't exist at all if it wasn't for the specialization of individuals in providing for the needs of the other members of society.

It was specialization that expanded what the individual could produce for themselves to what everyone could produce for everyone that has allowed mankind to succeed unlike any other species. That doesn't imply that what is produced by everyone is to be equally distributed to everyone (socialism) but the specialization does require that everyone's Natural Right to Use what is necessary for their basic support and comfort be provided for by our society that is based exclusively upon individuals being specialized.

In the modern world the individual is required to be a specialist and they are required to engage in commerce while they still retain the Right of Use of the Property necessary for their Support and Comfort. To require the person to specialize and to engage in commerce society must ensure that they have the "property" that is necessary for their support and comfort based upon their labor, that belongs to no one except them and is non-transferrable, when they perform the specialized tasks required for the support and comfort of others.

This is not "socialism" but instead is merely a requirement for equitable compensation for the "products of labor" (property) created by the labor expended by another person.

 

divine right, rests upon religion, which according to a believer is natural. provided that you believe there is a god, and he grants kings the right to rule, that is just as natural as "natural rights". See, the problem for me is that there is nothing more empirical, scientific, objective, less abstract about "natural rights" than with divine right. You can argue, rightly, that believing in divine right requires one assume things to be true without evidence. But so does, as far as I can see, beliving in natural rights. What empirical experiment is there can confirms natural rights?

So, in summary: "Natural Law establishes that by necessity for survival the members of the species individually and/or collectively have a Natural Right to remove from nature that which is necessary for the survival of the species. "

in other words, a species has a "natural" right to use, collectively or individually, that from nature which is necessary for their survival? Have I understood it correctly?

I think I understand your argument, but i do not agree at all. Who or what grants these rights? nature? nature cannot grant rights. If you dispute that, then please explain to me the form of which this nature agent appears? is there some mother-nature deity, gaia? How does this right manifest itself? do the animals respect our rights? do plants? do wind, water, earth?

it seems nonsensical to me that any species, just by having survival needs, would thus a right to fulfil them. As has been said before, who grants them? but also, we can see things -plants, animals, humans, whole species- dying all the time. nature doesn't seem to care about these rights, either for animals or humans. There is simply no evidence, as far as I can see, for that claim to be true.

and, even if we grant that species, by merely having needs, also have a right to fulfil them, that does not necessarily mean libertarian rights. The same needs could be fulfilled under e.g. a socialistic system, or a feudal system, or even under divine right.

So, there's still a big gap in the logic here.

 

This thread was created because some have claimed that, as a libertarian focused on the Natural Rights of the People/Person, I've been misinterpreting the Natural Rights that John Locke establishes in his Second Treatise of Civil Government. They've claimed that it was "proven" in other threads that I misinterpreted Locke but I've never seen any proof that discredits my interpretation so I've given anyone and everyone that opportunity to do so in this thread.

I may have missed posts in this thread that required me to personally address them and if so please direct me to them. Many posts were simply unsupported opinion (e.g. rants) or trivial issues or unsupported opinion (or sometimes outright fabrications) in opposition to Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government. Some I responded even though they didn't warrant a response at all because they were "rants" (i.e. opinion that's unsupported) but I probably shouldn't have. A couple I did respond to because I felt the member was simply uninformed and perhaps my responding might lead them to actually read the Second Treatise of Civil Government to become informed.

In any case it's been almost 24 hours since my last posts that provided the logical reasoning behind one interpretation.

The first issue of dispute was what the Natural Right of Property actually is. Is it the Natural Right of Use of the property or is it the Natural Right of Ownership of the property?

I believe my arguments are compelling for the following reasons.

1. The only thing the people actually own are themselves and therefore their own labor.
2. The Right of Use is inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person, does not (based upon Locke's caveats) infringe upon or violate the rights of another person, and does not impose an involuntarily obligation upon another person.
3. It is impossible for a person to have a Right of Ownership to property because the property itself is not inherent in the person.
4. If there was a Right of Ownership to property then the property would be non-transferrable because Natural Rights are unalienable/inalienable and cannot be transferred even by the consent of the person that has the Natural Right.
5. The Right of Use does allow the transfer of property where what is not to be used by the person can be exchanged for property that the person can use.
6. Locke never claims that a Right of Ownership of property exists with the exception of the fact that the person does literally own their own person, and therefore the labor they expend. Other than the ownership of the "self" Locke repeatedly establishes that the possession of property by the person is limited to what they will Use before it either spoils or before their death. Every condition related to the "Right of Property" by Locke relates to Use of the property. Even the condition that "enough, and as good as"' must remain before what originates in nature can be possessed by the person is based upon the availability for "use" of property by other people. It's all about USE and not about Ownership.

If my arguments are compelling, and I believe they are, then this has significant implications one of which I mentioned was compensation for labor. If the exchange is based upon the person's Natural Right of Use of property for their support and comfort, as opposed to being an exchange based upon statutory ownership of property, then it changes the conditions for exchange dramatically. We can discuss that at length but first any challenges, with supporting citation, need to be presented before we can move on.

As noted if I missed a post of importance please direct me to it.

 

forgive me for remaining stupid with caviling teacher, i will include quotes this time.

if we replace God with nature in john locke's quote below to establish proper reasoning, and exclude the divine rights he specifically states, we are still drawn to the same interpretation.

since free market capitalism creates wealth rather than redistributes it, john locke must be interpreted as meaning we are free to create as much wealth and be as rich as we like, without quarrels or contentions about property.

if you interpret john locke's quote below without the divine right, because the rules of our discussion replaces john lockes own words with nature instead of God, we still have a socialist interpretation with the 'right to use', instead of the 'right to ownership'.

this is simply because when you tell someone they have no right to create more wealth than they can use, by default you are saying wealth is in bondage, and must be managed instead of freed.

 

This is only because you ignore that Natural Rights are based upon Natural Law that is scientific. Natural Law is based upon the observation of what Nature requires for the survival of a species. A species, to survive, must have the ability to take from nature with it's labor what is necessary for it to use for it's survival. If it can't do that then it becomes extinct. Additionally a species that relies upon the consumption of itself does not survive. Those are scientific observations that establish the Natural Laws that, for survival, a species must be able to use it's "labor" to remove from nature what is required to provides for it's survival.

It is the Natural Law, based upon scientific observation, that through the process of logical reasoning, establishes the Natural Right of Use of "property" for the "support (i.e. barest necessities for survival) and comfort (i.e. in excess of the barest necessities that also improves survivability) based upon the labor of the person, that the person owns, for survival. If mankind was unable to take from nature what was necessary from survival with their labor then mankind would be extinct. That is a scientific fact and not an unsupported opinion.

Religion is a belief.

Natural Law is based exclusively upon scientific observations of nature and Natural Rights are based upon logical deduction that originate in Natural Law (the observations of nature).

 

Firstly, I do not agree that just because a species has fundamental needs, it therefore has a right to fulfil them.It is that casual claim that I think is unfounded.

secondly, even if we grant that there is such a casual relationship there, how does this manifest itself? in other words, how would the world look any different if there were no such natural rights? would we see any difference?

thirdly, if we again grant that having fundamental needs imples a right to fulfil them, how does it follow that they justify libertarian laws? as i've said, those needs can be met in other ways, e.g. socialistic.

 

No one "grants" these rights but instead they're inherent in nature because the Natural Laws are based upon the scientific observable in nature that determines whether a species survives or dies. The Natural Laws of survival only address the individual species and what is required for the survival of that specific species and not the interactions of different species. For example the lion and the antelope both have the identical requirements for survival even though the antelope is the prey of the lion. They must both obtain from nature with their actions (labor) that which is necessary for their survival and both must reproduce at a rate equal to or greater than the death rate of the species.

We can also note that there's Natural Law related to the extinction of the species that's also based upon scientific observation. There are "actions" that can lead to extinction and we can even identify one of them that's unique to mankind.

Arguably the statutory "Right of Ownership" of property could lead to the extinction of the human species. If all of a species live in a single environment and one member of the species "owns" (has exclusive possession and use) all of the water then every member of the species, except the one member, will die of dehydration because they have no water. The one member will survive for awhile because it has water but eventually it will die of "old age" and the species becomes extinct.

We can demonstrate that this is true based upon a scientific test and if you want to literally prove it to yourself you can test it at home. Buy some mice or rats. All of the mice/rats will receive everything they require except one thing that will be exclusively owned by just one of them. Assign ownership of the water to one and only allow that one mouse/rat to drink the water because it "owns" the water. Deny water of any kind, including water that might be in a food source (i.e. give them dry food), to the rest of the mice/rats, because they don't own any water, and watch them slowly die until none are left. Continue to provide water to the one that does survive and eventually it will die anyway and you will have zero mice/rats because they've become extinct exclusively because of "private ownership" of the water that is necessary for survival and that is provided for by nature.

Private ownership of what nature provides, and is necessary for survival, can be shown by scientific test to lead to extinction. This is not a belief but instead is a Natural Law that can be proven scientifically.

Only when possession of what nature provides is limited by "use" where all members of the species have an equal "right of use" does ensure against any possibility of extinction that private ownership can cause. As Locke also notes, because nature provides far more than what mankind requires for survival, some individuals can possess far more than others up to the point where they can actually "use" that which they possess. There is both a minimum and a maximum "Natural Right of Use" of property ensuring survival of the human species that doesn't exist based upon the statutory/common laws of "Ownership" that is an invention of mankind and was not based upon Natural Law.

The Natural Right of Use ensures that everyone has "enough" while allowing others to have more, sometimes much more, than "just enough" as long as they can/will use it.

Ownership can prevent some people from even having enough to survive while others have far more than they could ever conceivable use.

 

this is the collective interpretation of john locke right of property, it removes rights of the individual for the survival of the species.

science is being misused here, because not in all circumstances would the individual ruin the species with their pursuit of riches and/or happiness.

for example if we understand that wealth is created, not redistributed, then that created wealth which is in excess for the individual whom created it would go on to benefit the species. this merely means that the excess wealth of ones kingdom of riches would trickle down to the others who can make use of it.

as the old saying goes, one persons trash is another persons treasure.

 

Once again we're confronted with a rant and not a valid argument. It's not supported by any facts and the facts contradict the allegations made in the rant.

Locke does not restrict the ability of a person to accumulate all of the wealth they can possibly use in their pursuit of happiness so the claim being made is false. In fact Locke openly states that a person has a right of property to use all that they possibly use (in their pursuit of happiness). The only limitation is when a person acquires more than they can ever possibly use or when they allow what they possess to spoil so that it can't be used. In those cases it's not about "use" but instead it's about hoarding for the sole purpose of preventing others from using that which the person possesses.

Natural Law does not support the "hoarding of nature" (what can't be used or that is allowed to become unusable) by a single member of the species solely to deny the use by other members of the species.

To make an argument against Locke first and foremost it must be made based upon truth and not fabrication. The claim that Locke in anyway prohibits the acquisition of property to the maximum extent possible for the "pursuit of happiness" is a fabrication.

Additionally it can be accurately stated that ownership of property, created by custom reflected by the common law and in statutory law, may not always and will not always result in the extinction of the Human Species but it does have the calculable potential for causing the extinction of the Human Species. As noted in a previous post if one person could secure the "ownership of all water" then they could deny all other people water and mankind would perish from the face of the Earth.

What is more important is that "ownership of property" has resulted in millions of deaths that would not occur based upon the Natural Right of Use of property that is shared equally by every member of the species. We can look historically at the tens of millions of Chinese that died under the communist rule of Mao following WW II and this is a direct result of the "ownership of property" by the communist government. We can look at many Third World countries where the wealthy do very well based upon "ownership of property" while thousands and tens of thousands of the "working poor" die from starvation and disease.

 

I think I understand the argument now. If I understand you correctly, you are saying we ought to have those rights. I do not mind that statement. My problem is if you are claiming that these rights literally exist, as e.g. the law of gravity does. What I mean is, the law of gravity is undeniable, and clearly apparent. But the idea that a species has a right to survive is not undeniable, it's an opinion. A perfectly valid one of course, but it's in a wholly different league.

 

First is the fact that if a species cannot meet it's fundamental needs it becomes extinct. There's a direct "causal" connection between the member of a species individually fulfilling it's own needs and/or a group of the species working together to fulfill the needs of the group and the survival of the species. Obviously because we focus on survival of the species as opposed to the extinction of the species we place value on the natural laws that govern survival of the species.

secondly if Natural Law didn't exist, which in turn removes the foundation for Natural Rights, then a species could survive without food, water, or other essentials that are a necessity for life today. Extinction would never occur because there would be no Natural Laws related to survival or extinction. Once again people want to focus on the Natural Rights that are just a logical extrapolation of Natural Law and it's the Natural Law that establishes the Natural Rights of individuals within a species.

"Libertarian law" that is based upon Natural Law (and the resulting Natural Rights) is based upon scientific observation that is not subjective and by being objective it is not open to dispute. As with any observations of nature by science that define Natural Law can literally be tested to validate the Natural Law.

Other ideologies such as socialism, that can only be initiated and maintained by force, fail to accomplish that because they're based upon "human law" that is subjective and open to dispute and not "natural law" that based upon scientific fact that is not subjective and not open to dispute.

 

this argument will be based on fact, if we look at the quote below john locke wanted the 'working poor' to have the privilege of 'ownership of property'.

according to john locke, God gave people the right to get rich from earths natural resources, this line is in bold below.

one cannot be rich if they are restricted only to accumulate what they can use, to be rich one has to be free to accumulate more than they can use, that is why it is a privilege to be rich. if we are to interpret john lockes usage of support and comfort to include pursuing happiness from being rich, then we must accept this.

humans cannot become extinct under the right of ownership because any excess wealth accumulation will trickle down to others, in free market capitalism.

in your example if one person controls all the clean water, they will sell shares of ownership of that clean water and create more wealth.

 

Is not Locke's idea of property rights based upon a person's own labor having made a thing or condition? If one accumulates more property than one could create by one's own labor does that not imply that the excess is not rightfully owned?