Is Natural Law Sufficient to Defend the Founding?

[Chris]

Not in the context of the document in my opinion , " pursuit of happiness " for instance is most definitely a matter of the human heart, and is being referred to in the broadest most comprehensive way possible.
This generalized affair of the heart can be broken down even further , still maintaining the broadest most comprehensive context possible.
I agree with you completely about throwing out considerations of the " individual " being factored in , but there is no way our founders could have achieved the success that they did without realizing and applying a broad based measurement of the human heart and it's role in the process of governments naturally evolving to their " destructive " ends .

Locke in Treatises wrote "life, liberty, and estate," in Teleration "life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_...t_of_Happiness

Madison in Property wrote:

This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them....

I'd go along with Madison and his generalization.


As to collective and individual, I think the founders, in transition, straddled both, one foot in an old aristocratic, organic collective in the people and the other in new egalitarian, constructed (social construct) collective (the state). Wood's The Radicalism of the American Revolution develops this theme more fully.



I'm still leary of "human heart." Not sure what you mean.

[MisterVeritis]

I think if you read the opening words of the Declaration, the founding was based on natural law:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness....

It speaks of "one people" and "the Right of the People." It does not speak of individuals or individual rights.

The people are individuals. The DOI is all about individual rights as well as about your right to govern ourselves.

[MisterVeritis]

Locke in Treatises wrote "life, liberty, and estate," in Teleration "life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_...t_of_Happiness

Madison in Property wrote:



I'd go along with Madison and his generalization.


As to collective and individual, I think the founders, in transition, straddled both, one foot in an old aristocratic, organic collective in the people and the other in new egalitarian, constructed (social construct) collective (the state). Wood's The Radicalism of the American Revolution develops this theme more fully.



I'm still leary of "human heart." Not sure what you mean.

This supports individual rights.

[Peter Ainslie]

Not in the context of the document in my opinion , " pursuit of happiness " for instance is most definitely a matter of the human heart, and is being referred to in the broadest most comprehensive way possible.
This generalized affair of the heart can be broken down even further , still maintaining the broadest most comprehensive context possible.
I agree with you completely about throwing out considerations of the " individual " being factored in , but there is no way our founders could have achieved the success that they did without realizing and applying a broad based measurement of the human heart and it's role in the process of governments naturally evolving to their " destructive " ends .

The heart is not a good governor. Emotions
It was carefully crafted by thought, not emotion.
While some are running around in today's society, those in charge are not doing there work based o emotion. They are planning and scheming on how to remove those Rights

Thank you for partially making my point .
You are correct the human heart in it's natural state is no good , " not a good governor" and no good for anything else .
That is why our founders formed our government based upon a precept that no government in human history had ever taken into account before, the pure craven infidelity of the human heart in it's natural state .
You are quite wrong about what is behind the desire , ( desire being the key word ) , of some people : " planning and scheming" : to remove the rights & liberties of others .
It is pure " emotion"!
Emotional lust of power & greed according to the natural tainted condition of the human heart .
This is the basis on which our founders authored our government.
Recognizing human history being an unbroken chain of "destructive" governments there is no other conclusion they could have reached

[Chris]

The people are individuals. The DOI is all about individual rights as well as about your right to govern ourselves.

Sure, the people are individuals in a society at a time and place. The DoI says nothing about individual rights. How could it when it assumes all men are created equal with equal rights?

[MisterVeritis]

Sure, the people are individuals in a society at a time and place. The DoI says nothing about individual rights. How could it when it assumes all men are created equal with equal rights?

I marvel that you will never get it.
Because we are created equal we all have individual rights to life, liberty and property.

[Chris]

This supports individual rights.

You can repeat that till the cows come home but unless you provide an argument you'll not get another response.

[MisterVeritis]

You can repeat that till the cows come home but unless you provide an argument you'll not get another response.

Believe or don't. It is all the same to me.

[Chris]

Thank you for partially making my point .
You are correct the human heart in it's natural state is no good , " not a good governor" and no good for anything else .
That is why our founders formed our government based upon a precept that no government in human history had ever taken into account before, the pure craven infidelity of the human heart in it's natural state .
You are quite wrong about what is behind the desire , ( desire being the key word ) , of some people : " planning and scheming" : to remove the rights & liberties of others .
It is pure " emotion"!
Emotional lust of power & greed according to the natural tainted condition of the human heart .
This is the basis on which our founders authored our government.
Recognizing human history being an unbroken chain of "destructive" governments there is no other conclusion they could have reached

In the sense that man is flawed, by emotion or otherwise, I agree the founders put together a social contract to deal with that.

[Chris]

The book arrived this afternoon and I had a few minutes to read the intro and all I can say is those individualists who believe in radical autonomy and find it in the founding will not like this book. An excerpt from the intro: