There is much talk in Britain of things such as freedom of speech and the European Convention on Human Rights. Few people though ask themselves where these supposed rights actually originate.
From Wikipedia, as a shorthand: "Natural law is a system of law based on a close observation of natural order and human nature, from which values, thought by natural law's proponents to be intrinsic to human nature, can be deduced and applied independently of positive law. According to the theory of law called jusnaturalism, all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason"."
In America we have a republic, not a democracy, governed by the rules of our constitution. It was written by people that had the recent experience of George III, Prime Minister Lord North, and the British parliament. We are guaranteed freedom of speech, assembly, of the press, and many others. But it has been touch and go lately with the current administration, one that has much in common with your Labor party. But they are voted out of power now and we're just waiting for the new administration.
Maybe the UK needs another form of government. I see you imprison people for voicing their opinions. How long before you imprison people for what they might think?
It seems to me that you are confusing the concept of “natural laws” with physics. The word natural in this case comes from “innate”, e.g. man has an innate sense of right and wrong.
You seem to be saying that the idea of rights is independent of culture and law, but is rather something built in, as it were to all humans, regardless of when and where they were born. Where do you suppose such a feature of humanity might have come from?
“natural law” and “human rights” are two distinct concepts. The first is about a natural instinct humans seem to possess about “justice”. It is not possible to give an exact definition with words, but if I would slap you in the face for no reason, you would know exactly what I was talking about.
“Rights” is a community level concept. It is a list of things the leaders of a community “agrees” on that all the members of the community has a right too.
In the real world there is only one right: the right of the strongest. “It is for the strongest to do as they please and for the weakest to suffer what they must”
All other rights are a human creation. They are necessary however to enable cooperation within a society. The better the rights match the natural sense of justice of the people, the more harmonious this society will be.
Mr Webb concludes: "The only rights you will ever have, CAN ever have, in this country, or any other, are the ones granted to you by the legislature of that country."
That is wrong (if I see it, he must too). –It is one's fellow citizens that decide/grant what 'rights'/freedoms one has.
To put it with the words of Mr Webb's 'counterpart' in Sweden, Patrik ENGELLAU. — He is as old and experienced as Mr Webb, but writes postings (critisising the government, the body politic, Media and everything else) on his website ['Det Goda Samhället (DGS), Eng. 'The Good Society'] rather than speak on videos; he tried in 2015, but it did not work (he is not as good looking as... King Charles) :
·
[I 'cheat': Reverso translation] –"What makes me weigh words on a gold-scale or even censor myself is the fear of what people will think."
–"People in this case are eg. You [the reader] or the neighbors or relatives or the workmates or the boss (if I had any; the closest I come is the friendly people who fund this business [ie. DGS])."
–"In conclusion, if I am to put it brutally, my freedom of expression is most of all restricted by public opinion."
(SOURCE: detgodasamhallet.com, 2017-Dec-21: "Yttrandefrihet" (Eng. Freedom of Speech).)
·
This (what can and can not be said, and think) comes from the national people's culture, which is the foundation for laws, ie. social norms/morals (a.k.a. 'values') in print/written down. (Politics is said to be 'Down-stream' of Culture, and so are laws.)
·
IT IS true that (Webb:) "Our current laws will not last for ever" and changes according to "the legislature [government and parliament] of that country".
But those changes are preceded by what makes the public consensus, so 'manufactured' —Ref. "Manufacturing Consent", 1988 book on mass media by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky— by the media-people, who wants to do good, creating just that: a 'public' consensus, but maybe not a private one.
·
THUS, Mr Webb is right after all: –Our laws govern (rule) us all, until someone dares to speak—
(2024-Feb-22, The Telegraph.co.uk, Suella BRAVERMAN (MP, fmr. Home Secretary): –"We need to overcome the FEAR of being labelled Islamophobic [and 'RACIST', My Rem.] and SPEAK TRUTHFULLY." — These moral accusation can be prevented by the Defamation Law, but no-one is using it. Why?)
— and willing to pay a personal price. Eg.: 2024-Mar-04 Spiked-Online: "The tyrannical jailing of Sam Melia [of Patriotic Alternative, PA]".
·
What his/their views are, I do not know (other than 'racist'?). But, if they are similar to that of muslims —eg. pakistanis, iraqis, and palestinians that want (as I have heard) the european jews to leave Palestina/'Israel'— that do not like or find 'Diversity' to be a Strength [Ref. the muslim mayor of London, Sadiq Khan], then I am not sure I could morally judge him as his legislature did, and his fellow citizens?
·
IF THIS is the foreseeable future (presumed unwanted)—
1) 2024-Jan-10 History Debunked (video): "The efforts to eradicate Christianity in Britain and promote Islam as its replacement";
2) 2024-Apr-06 The Telegraph.co.uk: "Just one in four British Muslims believe Hamas committed murder and rape in Israel": –"(32 per cent) want to see Shariah law implemented in the UK",
(2016-Apr-11 Channel 4/ICM Research: "C4 survey and documentary [Trevor Phillips] reveals What British Muslims Really Think": –"23% support the introduction of Sharia Law".)
·
— then people need to Speak up, Truthfully. And politely (the english default), unless there is a demand for submission (Arb. 'islam') :
– BitChute video, 2024-Mar-20: "English employee bullied for eating during ramadan" OR Turning Point UK (@ TPointUK), Twitter (1770172175661641815) 2024-Mar-19.
·
If this englishman had slamed his fist on the table and told them: –'Go home to your own Culture', would he then be convicted for a 'hate-crime'? What say the english legislature? Which Culture takes precedence, according to the (as yet) silent public/majority?
“There are though only two possible sources for these rights. One is that [they] are an integral part of the universe, something natural like gravity or electro-magnetism. … The only other possibility is that they have been created by humans and that the only rights we enjoy are those which are granted to us by laws.”
A third possibility: moral rights. To say that human persons have rights, need only imply that people have a categorical moral right to certain types of treatment by each other. Laws can clearly flout such moral rights. That we have moral intuitions that include some categorical universal moral rights, appears to be a consequence of human evolution. Presumably, this was because they served the purpose of genetic preservation better than a society of completely amoral humans.
However, the content of such moral rights appears to be malleable. Hence even slavery was once usually thought natural and moral, although that is not a popular view today. But when we argue about such moral rights, we are psychologically bound to do so as though there were facts about these matters. Few people can adopt an attitude of de gustibus non est disputandum if someone tells them that he finds murder and rape to be good sport. The moral sense that some prescriptive theories are categorically “right” or “wrong” is ultimately in the same epistemological position as the factual sense that some descriptive theories are “right” or “wrong”. In both cases, we have only our intuitions (conjectures) and criticisms (potential falsifications) to go on. All types of theories appear to be improvable by the same process: bold conjecture and critical consideration.
One bold moral conjecture is that there is only one fundamental human moral right: the right to interpersonal liberty. In practical terms that implies self-ownership and liberty-derivable private property.
Excellent article Simon. And I couldn't agree more. The yardstick by which any individuals rights are assured is a very elastic measure.
Thank you! I'm glad that you enjoyed it.
From Wikipedia, as a shorthand: "Natural law is a system of law based on a close observation of natural order and human nature, from which values, thought by natural law's proponents to be intrinsic to human nature, can be deduced and applied independently of positive law. According to the theory of law called jusnaturalism, all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason"."
I cannot imagine why we should have a natural right to free speech and housing. This is not something found in, or based upon, nature.
I am not saying those are natural laws. But that would not prevent there being other natural laws.
There are so-called 'natural laws' which lay claim to some historical universality.
What are these natural laws?
In America we have a republic, not a democracy, governed by the rules of our constitution. It was written by people that had the recent experience of George III, Prime Minister Lord North, and the British parliament. We are guaranteed freedom of speech, assembly, of the press, and many others. But it has been touch and go lately with the current administration, one that has much in common with your Labor party. But they are voted out of power now and we're just waiting for the new administration.
Maybe the UK needs another form of government. I see you imprison people for voicing their opinions. How long before you imprison people for what they might think?
It seems to me that you are confusing the concept of “natural laws” with physics. The word natural in this case comes from “innate”, e.g. man has an innate sense of right and wrong.
You seem to be saying that the idea of rights is independent of culture and law, but is rather something built in, as it were to all humans, regardless of when and where they were born. Where do you suppose such a feature of humanity might have come from?
“natural law” and “human rights” are two distinct concepts. The first is about a natural instinct humans seem to possess about “justice”. It is not possible to give an exact definition with words, but if I would slap you in the face for no reason, you would know exactly what I was talking about.
“Rights” is a community level concept. It is a list of things the leaders of a community “agrees” on that all the members of the community has a right too.
In the real world there is only one right: the right of the strongest. “It is for the strongest to do as they please and for the weakest to suffer what they must”
All other rights are a human creation. They are necessary however to enable cooperation within a society. The better the rights match the natural sense of justice of the people, the more harmonious this society will be.
It's generally thought that humans are a fundamentally social and cooperative species. If so, then evolutionary adaptation.
Mr Webb concludes: "The only rights you will ever have, CAN ever have, in this country, or any other, are the ones granted to you by the legislature of that country."
That is wrong (if I see it, he must too). –It is one's fellow citizens that decide/grant what 'rights'/freedoms one has.
To put it with the words of Mr Webb's 'counterpart' in Sweden, Patrik ENGELLAU. — He is as old and experienced as Mr Webb, but writes postings (critisising the government, the body politic, Media and everything else) on his website ['Det Goda Samhället (DGS), Eng. 'The Good Society'] rather than speak on videos; he tried in 2015, but it did not work (he is not as good looking as... King Charles) :
·
[I 'cheat': Reverso translation] –"What makes me weigh words on a gold-scale or even censor myself is the fear of what people will think."
–"People in this case are eg. You [the reader] or the neighbors or relatives or the workmates or the boss (if I had any; the closest I come is the friendly people who fund this business [ie. DGS])."
–"In conclusion, if I am to put it brutally, my freedom of expression is most of all restricted by public opinion."
(SOURCE: detgodasamhallet.com, 2017-Dec-21: "Yttrandefrihet" (Eng. Freedom of Speech).)
·
This (what can and can not be said, and think) comes from the national people's culture, which is the foundation for laws, ie. social norms/morals (a.k.a. 'values') in print/written down. (Politics is said to be 'Down-stream' of Culture, and so are laws.)
·
IT IS true that (Webb:) "Our current laws will not last for ever" and changes according to "the legislature [government and parliament] of that country".
But those changes are preceded by what makes the public consensus, so 'manufactured' —Ref. "Manufacturing Consent", 1988 book on mass media by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky— by the media-people, who wants to do good, creating just that: a 'public' consensus, but maybe not a private one.
·
THUS, Mr Webb is right after all: –Our laws govern (rule) us all, until someone dares to speak—
(2024-Feb-22, The Telegraph.co.uk, Suella BRAVERMAN (MP, fmr. Home Secretary): –"We need to overcome the FEAR of being labelled Islamophobic [and 'RACIST', My Rem.] and SPEAK TRUTHFULLY." — These moral accusation can be prevented by the Defamation Law, but no-one is using it. Why?)
— and willing to pay a personal price. Eg.: 2024-Mar-04 Spiked-Online: "The tyrannical jailing of Sam Melia [of Patriotic Alternative, PA]".
·
What his/their views are, I do not know (other than 'racist'?). But, if they are similar to that of muslims —eg. pakistanis, iraqis, and palestinians that want (as I have heard) the european jews to leave Palestina/'Israel'— that do not like or find 'Diversity' to be a Strength [Ref. the muslim mayor of London, Sadiq Khan], then I am not sure I could morally judge him as his legislature did, and his fellow citizens?
·
IF THIS is the foreseeable future (presumed unwanted)—
1) 2024-Jan-10 History Debunked (video): "The efforts to eradicate Christianity in Britain and promote Islam as its replacement";
2) 2024-Apr-06 The Telegraph.co.uk: "Just one in four British Muslims believe Hamas committed murder and rape in Israel": –"(32 per cent) want to see Shariah law implemented in the UK",
(2016-Apr-11 Channel 4/ICM Research: "C4 survey and documentary [Trevor Phillips] reveals What British Muslims Really Think": –"23% support the introduction of Sharia Law".)
·
— then people need to Speak up, Truthfully. And politely (the english default), unless there is a demand for submission (Arb. 'islam') :
– BitChute video, 2024-Mar-20: "English employee bullied for eating during ramadan" OR Turning Point UK (@ TPointUK), Twitter (1770172175661641815) 2024-Mar-19.
·
If this englishman had slamed his fist on the table and told them: –'Go home to your own Culture', would he then be convicted for a 'hate-crime'? What say the english legislature? Which Culture takes precedence, according to the (as yet) silent public/majority?
“There are though only two possible sources for these rights. One is that [they] are an integral part of the universe, something natural like gravity or electro-magnetism. … The only other possibility is that they have been created by humans and that the only rights we enjoy are those which are granted to us by laws.”
A third possibility: moral rights. To say that human persons have rights, need only imply that people have a categorical moral right to certain types of treatment by each other. Laws can clearly flout such moral rights. That we have moral intuitions that include some categorical universal moral rights, appears to be a consequence of human evolution. Presumably, this was because they served the purpose of genetic preservation better than a society of completely amoral humans.
However, the content of such moral rights appears to be malleable. Hence even slavery was once usually thought natural and moral, although that is not a popular view today. But when we argue about such moral rights, we are psychologically bound to do so as though there were facts about these matters. Few people can adopt an attitude of de gustibus non est disputandum if someone tells them that he finds murder and rape to be good sport. The moral sense that some prescriptive theories are categorically “right” or “wrong” is ultimately in the same epistemological position as the factual sense that some descriptive theories are “right” or “wrong”. In both cases, we have only our intuitions (conjectures) and criticisms (potential falsifications) to go on. All types of theories appear to be improvable by the same process: bold conjecture and critical consideration.
One bold moral conjecture is that there is only one fundamental human moral right: the right to interpersonal liberty. In practical terms that implies self-ownership and liberty-derivable private property.
https://jclester.substack.com/p/liberty-in-itself-a-libertarian-viewpoint
https://jclester.substack.com/p/critical-rationalism