“I think this at the end of the day is a big philosophy difference,” he continued. “What Ms. Kennedy and others were saying is that this is a new government-granted right. We disagree with the notion that our rights come from government, that the government can now grant us and define our rights. Those are ours, they come from nature and God, according to the Declaration of Independence — a huge difference in philosophy.”Read it at Raw Story
Paul Ryan: Repeal health law because rights come from God
by David Edwards
Rep. Ryan doesn't get that empirically rights are human social constructs that are ratified by law. These constructs are basically normative. Nature is not normative and prescriptive, and statements relating to God are matters of belief.
There are opposing arguments over the basis of rights, and Ryan's position is one of the many possible views, none of which can be justified empirically because the premises are essentially normative.
That anything "comes from God" is a matter of belief rather than reason or observation. And who speaks for God in matters like these?
"Natural" means either found in nature or, in the sense of "natural law," a norm that is specially privileged by its universality, or self-evident. But no right is not found universally in nature. What does it mean to say that something is self-evident if it is not universally agreed upon, and even disputed?
Historically, rights are ideas — social constructs — that develop over time in certain cultures first as customs and then they get ratified by law as formal statements of institutional arrangement. The conception of rights differs among cultures and social groups.
On one hand, there are good consequentialist arguments for rights. On the other hand, Ryan's position is deontological insofar as it is categorical, being based on dogmatic belief, and it also commits the naturalistic fallacy, that is, deriving an "ought" from an "is."
The "founding fathers" justification is an argument from authority based on the authority of 18th century social and political liberalism stemming from the writings of John Locke. Hardly authoritative philosophically, and not a very secure basis for a convincing argument.
But to his credit, Ryan admits that this is a difference in philosophy, that is, not subject to scientific verification. So the argument, in his opinion is basically a moral argument, in which consequences do not apply given his categorical methodology.
There is nothing wrong with subscribing to Ryan's view if it is one's preference as long as one admits it is a preference. However, it is a weak position in mixed company, where not everyone agrees with the presuppositions.
24 comments:
And who speaks for God in matters like these?
This drives me nuts. People who tie their ideology to Him. Even better when He speaks to them directly and therefore "makes it so". Natural disasters that happen due to 'teh gay', Obama, Planned Parenthood, etc.
Want to know how I know this is wrong? The nozzle on my hair dryer tells me otherwise, that's how. And in MY world, that makes my "messages" superior.
It's called rationalization. And no one can get through a day without making a doozy of one. But at least understand what the source is.
Lastly, God doesn't have a favorite team in every football game you win. But we ALL know he hates the Green Bay Packers. My hair dryer told me so.
Wait, I forgot to answer the question.
A: ME. Or perhaps Tom Cruise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0
Yes! And stay tuned to find out what our definition of "Nature and God" is. Originally, we thought it would be a good brand name for a mix of post-dated cat food and parts of, uh, other, uhm... "previously living things" that we could sell to seniors and other "fixed income" markets. After further consideration, we decided it just plain wouldn't be right to expose The Lord's Valiant Job Creators to the resulting spiteful lawsuits that would inevitably be launched by freedom-hating dirty hippy socialists.
@Trixie
You're leaving Travolta out of this? He played Michael, fer chrissake!!!
@Unforgiven
The Orgs are here to help. But it's also about dating scabbage or something like that.
(dramatic hand gestures)
You are either in or you're out. And I won't hesitate to put my ethics in you. Period.
Your powers are no good around here. Move along. In whatever it is you are talking about.
(stares)
Because I outsource like EVERYTHING to a higher being. Even if his name is Xenu. Or God. Reality!
"That anything "comes from God" is a matter of belief rather than reason or observation.
So is the belief - [That anything "comes from God" is a matter of belief rather than reason or observation].
Those who believe in G.O.D are believers. Those who do not believe in G.O.D. are also believers. None are knowers.
Those who reason that there is a G.O.D. and those who reason there is no G.O.D are not able to prove their reasoning. None are knowers.
That means it is better to know.
Or to say simply: "I do not know".
That is honesty ...
I thnk the criterion of Human Rights should be the spirit of harmlessness - if everybody would like to get along. To have a little elbow room to be yourself and let others have the same.
Upanishads(?): "The worldly mind is born in darkness, lives in darkness, dies in darkness". That is why those guys pointed towards the human heart (not the mind) if anybody wanted to understand what love is, and where G.O.D. resides!
Someone needs to tell Ryan that God hasn't existed for at least a couple of hundred years.
I have a hard time knocking Ryan for this. Even when the constitution was being drafted, the idea of enumerating rights was controversial. If a peice of paper can give rights then it's reasoned that anything not enumerated can be subject to terms of the state. As it was reasone that God ultimately grants man freedom , there was no reason to spell out the rights. Whether right or wrong, I think the driving force was a healthy distrust of government infringing on natural rights. I'll point out that, even in this modern day ,there are plenty of examples why this distrust are warranted.
"I have a hard time knocking Ryan for this…"
Although the statement he made has some truth in it I doubt his motive for saying it is for the right reasons.
His goal is to de-legitimize government and create a fully privatized economy with no safety net.
Ayn Rand is his God.
So I knock him for being deceptive in a manner often attributed to Satan.
> His goal is to de-legitimize government and create a fully privatized economy with no safety net. Ayn Rand is his God.
Oh really? Do you think he goes to a Rand temple every Sunday? There are plenty of Christians who like the non-athiest parts of Rand. Like self-sufficiency, hard work, not taking the fruits of other people's labor, etc. I think one rule of thumb is the intersection of Nozick and Rand.
Good for you Trixie. My can of shaving cream speaks to me every day too. You should hear the things he says !!!
This is just Ryan attempting to turn around the negatives he racked up when he was exposed as a faux-Catholic hypocrite who follows the philosophy of a radical individualist atheist.
"…not taking the fruits of other people's labor…"
Why are you knocking the profit motive?
Anonymous: "I have a hard time knocking Ryan for this. Even when the constitution was being drafted, the idea of enumerating rights was controversial. If a peice of paper can give rights then it's reasoned that anything not enumerated can be subject to terms of the state. As it was reasone that God ultimately grants man freedom , there was no reason to spell out the rights. Whether right or wrong, I think the driving force was a healthy distrust of government infringing on natural rights. I'll point out that, even in this modern day ,there are plenty of examples why this distrust are warranted."
Yes, this is pretty much John Locke and Adam Smith, too. This is the time that Liberalism was in formation, when the bourgeoisie was growing large and powerful enough to assert itself against the status quo and claim more power for itself. It needed a rationale and Locke and others began to provide the political rational. Smith and Ricardo provided the economic rationae.
Basically capitalism needed more space in which to function and capitalists saw the existing government, run by the monarch but actually the court and landed ("titled") as an obstacle to their functioning in terms of markets.
The point is that it is a rationale, just like the "divine right of kings" is a rationale. 18th century proto-Liberalism can be seen as a counter-rationale to the then prevalent but waning divine right of kings.
Ryan is repeating this rationale of God-given personal rights and rights stemming from natural law.
As I said, nothing wrong with believing in this rationale. It was a good one in its day. But we are no longer living in the 18th century.
Moreover, the so-called God-given rights bit opens up a regression to medieval or even earlier conceptions of God-given law through a so-called scriptural basis, and the natural law argument has long been recognized as justification for one's own normative biases.
Another one of those rationales that sounds good, but when analyzed is found to be full of holes.
"not taking the fruits of other people's labor"
Economic rent — land rent, monopoly rent and financial rent — is not "labor." Broadly categorized economic rent is any economic gain in excess of productive contribution. Rent is extraction of "the fruits of labor."
> Economic rent — land rent, monopoly rent and financial rent — is not "labor."
Monopoly rent and financial rent are pretty incoherent concepts, so let's focus on the strongest one: land rent.
If I labor, save some of my wages, and use my savings to purchase land, which I then rent out, how is the land not a fruit of my labor?
Maybe the *old holder* did not labor for the land (it fell into his lap from the sky or whatever), but that just means that the sale money he now has is "unearned." *I* either have a claim to the land or to the money. I choose the land.
marris: "If I labor, save some of my wages, and use my savings to purchase land, which I then rent out, how is the land not a fruit of my labor?"
That's not the meaning of "land rent." It is gains from the increase in the asset value of RE that accrue fron land appreciating. This excludes not buildings, which depreciate, or owner provided improvements — due to factors not attributable to the owner, i.e., chiefly govt infrastructure.
Monopoly rent is gain in excess of what would be the value in a nearly perfect competitive market, i.e., where artificial scarcity of some type applies.
Economic rent is financial return in excess of reasonable compensation for sacrifice of liquidity and risk-level.
Rights don't exist. They are human constructs usually enforced from consensus by an authority (like the government).
There isn't such thing as a 'natural right' from an ontological pov. Ask any wild animal about rights and see their answer.
Stupidity everywhere.
> It is gains from the increase in the asset value of RE that accrue fron land appreciating.
So you're talking about a capital gains like effect? That seems *even more earned* than renting out. After all, I pick up factors of production on the cheap and hold/sell them when their value increases. That's basic entrepreneurship.
Further, if others could have also bought land at the cheaper price (when I did), then they would benefit from the increase. They chose poorly. I chose wisely.
Of course, it could easily have turned out that *I* made the bad decision. I could buy the land at a high price and see it's value collapse. Too bad for me.
> They are human constructs usually enforced from consensus by an authority (like the government).
I'm not sure what "consensus by an authority" is supposed to mean.
If it is by an authority, then this means that authority would never be violating your rights, regardless of it's actions. Most people do not subscribe to this view (and you probably don't either).
If it is by majority consensus, then the majority would never be violating the rights of a minority. Most people *also* don't believe this.
If you're assuming some unanimous consensus, then you've simply assumed away conflict... rights can only be violated in conflict situations.
marris: "That's basic entrepreneurship.
That's your definition of entrepreneurship, not the current one used in economics.
Rights are norms in a social compact that get institutionalized by the social contract iaw the rule of law as formalized institutional arrangements.
All arguments for them are justifications based on premises that rest on ever descending turtles, circular reasoning, or stipulations.
It'll be interesting to see if the Bishops weigh in again against the Ryan position....
rsp,
Post a Comment