That I forgot that Locke implied ownership via labor changes what the constituion and DoI is, and what concepts undergird it? You must be joking.

Lol not really. The only thing that is different is land ownership and how that conflates with freedom of movement, which it is perfectly clear remains a natural right. For the founders especially, considering they protected this specific right in the 5th amendment. They just meant it applies to the 'commons' I suppose.

Yes. EDIT: a much better word for this is autonomy

For the future, I'm disengaging from this conversation because I don't like talking to you.

I obviously mean editing quotes of other people. You missed a word from the Locke quote to make the meaning unclear so that you could force your own interpretation, then you dropped a word from my post to completely change the meaning, then you edit in "FYP" after my response.

You're so horrendously dishonest in the way you engage in these discussions.

That you would go for dozens of posts vigorously defending an erroneous understanding, and then flippantly toss it aside as irrelevant upon discovering that you're obviously wrong.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...ifth_amendment

I have no idea what you're referring to. Can you elaborate?

This is an interesting word choice, because much has been written about autonomy, and it doesn't say what you seem to be saying here. For example, see the footnote on page 125:

https://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/c...ontext=facpubs

If the autonomy of self were unlimited, then there would be no reason to elaborate on specific behaviors, as they would all be included. Rather, there is a limitation of autonomy as far as rights are concerned. And since you've insisted that your perception is accurate, I'll point out that based on your definition and your lack of denial that murder is a "natural right" that one can add other abhorrent behaviors, such as rape, and call it a "natural right" because it is within one's capacity to engage in that behavior.

You are free to do as you choose.

Just a reference link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedo...ted_States_law

I didn't edit in FYP after your response. I edited it because it was required. It just so happened to occur at the same time you responded. You completely mangled what Locke was saying by rewording it into a grammatically nonsensical sentence, so I changed it so that it actually meant something.

Lol that's pretty rich coming from someone who has special pleaded in nearly every post since the beginning of the thread and refuses to engage with any points that directly challenge the logical outcomes of his stance. At least I can admit when I'm wrong.

Just because I was wrong about what Locke implied on land ownership, doesn't mean I'm wrong about natural rights or how they are articulated in the DoI and constitution. You vigorously and aggressively nitpick apart clearly understood meanings of words in nearly every post, and then strut around in self-proclaimed victory like a pigeon who just **** on a chessboard. I didn't flippantly toss it aside; I admitted I was wrong which is something I suspect you have never done in your life.

In other words, the government cannot deprive you of your natural right to movement, without due process.

The word, when used in conjunction with the liberty to consent or not consent to a form of government, clearly indicates an autonomous and individual right to 'vote' or 'assent' to said form of government. It's not voting in the direct 'representative government' definition of vote, but it's still voting.

What, exactly were the founders doing when they wrote and signed the DoI, if not voting?

According to Locke there is, and there is a lot of controversy surrounding how well he defends this, or if he does. Other philosophers do not agree, and see autonomy as perfectly unlimited even if it infringes upon the right of others (Hobbes, etc)

Very honest of you.

"As much land as a man tills...so much is his property" is a perfectly fine statement grammatically speaking.

I removed the other verbs in the middle like "cultivates". They don't change the meaning of the quote. On the other hand, you dropped the noun and then questioned what nouns he was talking about.

This is really silly. People can clearly see what you wrote by looking at your post. They just can't understand it because its nonsensical.



It's not clear, given the fact this was written hundreds of years ago and the changes in context and sentence structure that accompany such a long period of time, what the last sentence segment is referring to. At least in a vacuum. Combined with OrPs good digging up of other quotes its clear he means some form of ownership. I still don't think its strong ownership; it doesn't read this way, and Locke himself points out the contradiction between that and his claim all land belongs to everyone. I don't think he does a good job of defending it, so I disagree with him. Freedom of movement is a natural right, and it does conflict with his 'right' of land ownership.

Most of you commie progressives should agree with that anyway.

EDIT: this thread is getting derailed a little with this discussion but it's pretty relevant

I think it's pretty clear to any thinking person that people's, and more specifically sole proprietors, natural right to liberty (which clearly contains freedom of thought, expression, association, etc) is being infringed upon when a government steps in and forces them to do things for people and associate with people (in the form of trade) they don't want to. Anti discrimination laws are probably unconstitutional. I'd like to see if any court cases have come up surrounding this.

I'm really not sure which part you think was nonsensical.

In other words, the government explicitly has the authority to deprive you of your so-called "right of natural movement." It just needs to follow a process that the government itself has defined as "due process."

You have gone from "self-governance" to mean the ability to go anywhere and do anything, and you're now trying to once again narrow it to voting in some form. This is incredibly inconsistent, and only furthers the evidence that you are engaged in an intellectual disingenuous discussion.

What the founding fathers did is an irrelevant red herring.

You can say that Hobbes considered autonomy to be unlimited, but I do not this he would consider it a "right." He also had a constrained view of "natural laws" that similarly runs contrary to the general thrust of what you've put forward.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/

But, as before, you're welcome to present something that Hobbes wrote that would prove me wrong. Maybe somewhere he did assert that humans have the "right" to behave in any way they choose. I welcome a reference to accomplish that end.

Usually it is to offer argument, not to change what the other person is saying. Rephrasing in your own words outside the quote or paraphrasing is one thing, but to give the impression that he said something else is bad. I don't think Bladesman meant to express what you edited his post to be.

FYP is a passable as a joke or when the edit is so clearly not what was stated that it is an implied counter-argument. To "FYP" and continue as if "this was what you really meant" is just bad.

And let us not forget this all started with you misquoting Locke, by removing the word "land" in his statement about owning land, before arguing it was not about owning land.

To clarify, since that's the post I assume DoOrDoNot thinks is nonsense, the grammar I used is fine. What's not fine is the implication that you can own something that isn't a noun, so to restate it: Locke isn't saying you own "cultivates", he's saying you own the noun, the land.

By adding "what he" before "cultivates" you change the meaning such that it could be referring to a product of cultivation and not the land. That's why we don't insert words to change the meaning to what we want it to say. You have to address what the person actually said.

It's not fine. You can't own a verb. I guess were at the point now where I not only have to give you basic information about how your own government works and what natural rights are, but how the English language works too. Basically a waste of my time. Yes I changed your words slightly to make sense. Thanks for clarifying its not what you meant; everyone was aware of that already.

I admitted 3 times already I was wrong about what Locke was implying. You over it yet? I guess continue to autistically screech about an irrelevance since you will not/cannot engage with the meat of my argument.

I used his words to clarify what I was saying.

Ya thanks for the lesson on internet posting. I guess I'll dispense with this one considering it has about as little substance as any of your other posts.

At this point you're not even reading. That was my point all along. For some reason you thought that point was "nonsensical".

You used your own words to change what he was saying.

Well, I'm not the one dropping words to make quotations from Locke fit my argument.

But that's your MO I guess. Be provocative and bombastic, lie when need be, resort to insults when called out.

What argument? Your view is in shambles as far as I can tell. You are claiming/suggesting that the government doesn't have the right to enforce anti-discrimination laws. You based this on an account of universal human rights that includes the right to conduct or not conduct business with whomever you want.

Your problem is this: you are not consistent on whether natural rights are alienable. Hobbes claimed that we enter a social contract by everyone giving up their rights to a common sovereign (who does not give up his rights to do as he pleases). Here rights are clearly alienable and there is no problem of legitimacy for anti-discrimination laws.

On the other hand, Locke claimed that the only thing we give up when we enter a social contract are our police and some administrative powers. We don't (and can't) give up our natural rights of freedom though. Thus, if we have a natural right to conduct or not conduct business with anyone we want for any reason, any law abridging this right is not justified because it is taking away this natural right.

Your inconsistency is that you claim people have a natural right of free movement in the state of nature, but that people give up this right when they enter a social contract that grants land property rights. On a Hobbesian understanding, this makes sense, but then you can't claim that anti-discrimination laws are wrong because it makes people give up some part of their business rights. On a Lockean understanding, you can justify the unconstitutional nature of anti-discrimination laws, but only by also showing that land property rights that restrict our natural freedom of movement are also unconstitutional.

Have we considered the possibility that opposition to anti-discrimination law is "properly basic?"

You joke, but the Declaration of Independence does say that "we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..."

Another Alvin Plantinga fan.

Touché.

Although... I feel like the declaration of independence is the second-most important document to an explanation of my moral intuitions, behind the Sermon on the Mount. Yet it seems like the entire history of the world belies the claim that its truths are "self-evident", at least for most people.

The text of the Dec. of Ind. was modified numerous times, substantially to Jefferson's ire. See Jefferson's Writings by the Library of America where Jefferson shows his original version and how much was cut by a committee.

Also this:jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/declaration-independence


The American D of I is an important document in human political history and development. It contains great statements, but truths are more rarely in evidence. And it is self-evident that it contains more than just a few lies. Ditto for the Sermon on the Mount, a rag-tag blend of bland poetry and half-truths mixed into a feel good harangue to impress the ignorant. I could do just as well in a half drunk tirade after six pints in an Irish Pub.

Forgetting about the divine right of kings seems like a huge oversight. And it's plagued you ever since.

What is inspiring in the Sermon on the Mount is not the language but its reordering from a hierarchy of values based on power, money, and strength to a moral community oriented around humility, love, and service to God. No one cares what you say down at the pub because you are just being a drunken idiot, but that isn't true for the preachers, missionaries, and laypeople who actually have dedicated some or all of their lives to embodying this Christian moral community. Here, the poetic quality of the writing is helpful, but primarily as an aid to memory. Jesus and the Gospel writers weren't philosophers giving a defense or groundwork for their ideas, but trying to spark and lead a social movement. Ceteris paribus for the Declaration and its ideals, which have a similar organizing function in the moral lives of many Americans.

Meh, I don't think this is true. I think few Americans have ever thought of presidents as having authority that derives from God directly rather than from the democratic process (which I'll grant many believe is guided by Providence). Manifest Destiny - the idea that the US as a country has a special mission from God - has obviously been a powerful religious justification for American imperialism and violence, but that is a different idea from the divine right of kings (maybe more like the divine right of the American government rather than any specific individual in that government).

Maybe more like the divine right and moral responsibility of Americans as a collective people than the divine right of the government. The people would move west with divine authority to build towns and seek to be brought under the government (bottom up), not the government spreading itself under divine authority (top down). Though I grant it's really mixed up between the two perspectives.