View Full Version : Rights of Man
A recent topic got me to read once again one of my favorite of the founding fathers and even some of the other documents from what I consider the most important development in the concept of rights.
Now yes of course its only my opinion - for what it counts. One of my favorite documents is the Declaration of Independence especially this line of it.
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, --
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
This is closely followed by the works of Thomas Paine especially Common Sense and Rights of Man
Now Common Sense while an interesting read is not revelant to this discussion - and its available as an e-document on several sites on the internet. However The Rights of Man is revelant to the discussion that I wish to partake in.
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/p/p147r/
Several passages in the text require one to actually think about the content and the context of Paine's message concerning the Rights of Man that was put forth to the National Assembly in France during the French Revolution.
The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of men change also; and as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it. That which may be thought right and found convenient in one age may be thought wrong and found inconvenient in another. In such cases, who is to decide, the living or the dead?
This is so valid and true even in today's modern world.
While the Declaration of Rights was before the National Assembly some of its members remarked that if a declaration of rights were published it should be accompanied by a Declaration of Duties. The observation discovered a mind that reflected, and it only erred by not reflecting far enough. A Declaration of Rights is, by reciprocity, a Declaration of Duties also. Whatever is my right as a man is also the right of another; and it becomes my duty to guarantee as well as to possess
What is important to read is the French Declaration of the Rights of Man from the French Revolution time period - its included in the text of Thomas Paine's text.
I especially like this concept - since I strongly believe in this being a fundmental aspect of government
All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must either be delegated or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.
Governments have power because man allows the government to have power. What Thomas Paine was most fearful of in his writtings about governments has come to be - if we delagate to much power to the government it begins to assume power it should not have.
In contemplating a subject that embraces with equatorial magnitude the whole region of humanity it is impossible to confine the pursuit in one single direction. It takes ground on every character and condition that appertains to man, and blends the individual, the nation, and the world. From a small spark, kindled in America, a flame has arisen not to be extinguished. Without consuming, like the Ultima Ratio Regum, it winds its progress from nation to nation, and conquers by a silent operation. Man finds himself changed, he scarcely perceives how. He acquires a knowledge of his rights by attending justly to his interest, and discovers in the event that the strength and powers of despotism consist wholly in the fear of resisting it, and that, in order "to be free, it is sufficient that he wills it."
And interesting read is the chapter that this bit comes from.
Soulforged
09-25-2005, 08:13
Beatiful really, and I agree except with the last part of the last quote. The man is free is he wills it, but also he has to have some objective background. Though it seems that Mr. Burke is the antichrist in his texts ~D .
bmolsson
09-25-2005, 12:49
Right of man.... Not very PC.... ~;)
Right of man.... Not very PC.... ~;)
Thomas Paine was never very Politicial Correct. Read Common Sense it provides a lot of insight into the mind of Thomas Paine.
Louis VI the Fat
09-25-2005, 16:41
The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of men change also; and as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it. That which may be thought right and found convenient in one age may be thought wrong and found inconvenient in another. In such cases, who is to decide, the living or the dead? I'm always surprised, a bit baffled even, by the way Americans regard their constitution as something set in stone. Granted, you got it a right mostly in one go, but still. They're no stone tablets, putting forth a set of rules for all eternity.
A constitution can be changed, adapted to the contemporary circumstances. It is not meant to be interpreted or amended only. It should be subject to constant revision by the people, not left to interpretation by the Supreme Court only. Plus it would allow for anachronisms like 'the right to bear arms and form a militia' to be discarded.
We're already down to a fifth republic. And a sixt soon, once Louis finally seizes power.
While the Declaration of Rights was before the National Assembly some of its members remarked that if a declaration of rights were published it should be accompanied by a Declaration of Duties.Yes, 'tis so. But, in it's historical context, the Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen doesn't proclaim human rights. It doesn't state the extend of the rights of man, but rather, it adresses the government, and sets an absolute limit to it's power.
I'm always surprised, a bit baffled even, by the way Americans regard their constitution as something set in stone. Granted, you got it a right mostly in one go, but still. They're no stone tablets, putting forth a set of rules for all eternity.
Thomas Paine believed this fully - my interpation of his opinion would lead me to conclude that he would not like the present course of events in the American Government nor some of the mind set of the American Citizens.
A constitution can be changed, adapted to the contemporary circumstances. It is not meant to be interpreted or amended only. It should be subject to constant revision by the people, not left to interpretation by the Supreme Court only. Plus it would allow for anachronisms like 'the right to bear arms and form a militia' to be discarded.
The constitution has always been the framework of the government in regrads to the United States. The number of amendments to our constitution show that it has been adapted to fit with the changing of times. Certain ammendment have a strong emotional appeal even now. Which is one of the reasons I suspect that the founding fathers placed them into the constitution in the first place.
We're already down to a fifth republic. And a sixt soon, once Louis finally seizes power.
Is that because of the changes of society or because of the violence of the time period. France has also undergone several despotic governments during this time period.
Yes, 'tis so. But, in it's historical context, the Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen doesn't proclaim human rights. It doesn't state the extend of the rights of man, but rather, it adresses the government, and sets an absolute limit to it's power.
It proclaims the limit of the power that the government will be given by the people. This is what Thomas Paine meant with the delegated powers of government. The Right of Man is to determine how much power it will delegate to the government. This I believe is Thomas Paine's position - and I agree with it wholeheartly.
Soulforged
09-25-2005, 18:57
Wait a sec Red...What is the discussion here? ~:confused:
Wait a sec Red...What is the discussion here? ~:confused:
Well it can be several things.
One being where does the Rights of Man come from.
Or what I seem to be discussing - was Thomas Paine correct in his writings about government and the Rights of Man.
The value of Tom Paine's writing to his contemporaries is shown by his eventual fate. A tool, and little more.
Skomatth
09-25-2005, 23:00
Redleg, what is your understanding of the word right?
I take it to mean a privilege that one is justly entitled to and was wondering if I could interpret your statements in light of this meaning.
"One being where does the Rights of Man come from."
i think the Rights of Man comes from the same place that Divine Rights of the monarch came from which is the consent of society. people get together and say wouldn't it be nice if we had this, and they get enough people to agree and it becomes a Right. otherwise if the Rights of Man were truly inalienable, then places like north korea couldn't possibly exist, but they do exist.
and the Rights of Man even in places where the doctrine has been established for centuries like the u.s. are always in a constant if subtle state of flux. most americans agreed it was ok to give up some of their personal freedoms such as in airline searches and the stuff in the patriot act because they felt the goverment needed to assume more powers to protect their security. and with katrina, the authorities were telling people they could not bring their firearms with them when they were being evacuated. so i don't think the "Rights" are as permanent or stable as Paine might have wished.
Soulforged
09-25-2005, 23:27
[QUOTE]i think the Rights of Man comes from the same place that Divine Rights of the monarch came from which is the consent of society. people get together and say wouldn't it be nice if we had this, and they get enough people to agree and it becomes a Right. otherwise if the Rights of Man were truly inalienable, then places like north korea couldn't possibly exist, but they do exist. Yes they're formally inaniable, this means that the society recognices that this rights cannot be taken away from the person. Now materially it seems a little different sadly, and North Korea is not alone, this happens in all the world.
and the Rights of Man even in places where the doctrine has been established for centuries like the u.s. are always in a constant if subtle state of flux. most americans agreed it was ok to give up some of their personal freedoms such as in airline searches and the stuff in the patriot act because they felt the goverment needed to assume more powers to protect their security. and with katrina, the authorities were telling people they could not bring their firearms with them when they were being evacuated. so i don't think the "Rights" are as permanent or stable as Paine might have wished. Well I think that Paine talked about what it should be and not what it's. In any cas if you want to see if those rights are imprescriptible or inalienable for certain the look at all the movements that there exist to reafirm those rights. In the case of USA, I really don't know why they'll abandon such rights to privacy only for the sake of some abstract danger...I'll never do that...
Redleg, what is your understanding of the word right?
I take it to mean a privilege that one is justly entitled to and was wondering if I could interpret your statements in light of this meaning.
Its not my understanding of the word "right" that I am pondering. I am fairly grounded in what my expectations of the word means - the queston is revolves around what you might think it is.
Papewaio
09-26-2005, 03:04
Rights of Man:
After the Rite of Marriage the Rights of Man are limited to:
Yes, Dear.
No, Dear.
Sorry, Dear.
May I, Dear.
Rights of Man:
After the Rite of Marriage the Rights of Man are limited to:
Yes, Dear.
No, Dear.
Sorry, Dear.
May I, Dear.
Mine is "Whatever you say dear"
I actually believe the rights of man should now be this ... Human Rights
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
...
LINK (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm)
I can not find any clause here that I don't agree with.
Papewaio
09-26-2005, 03:29
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
If this was a fact there would be no need to enshrine them in laws and prosecute the people who break them. Society gives and it can take away.
Human rights are a worthy goal not the starting point.
Human rights are a worthy goal not the starting point.This sounds like a starting point to me "...should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
Papewaio
09-26-2005, 03:53
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Not true, slavery still exists today. And there are plenty of groups who wish to destroy other's dignity and rights because it goes against their mindset.
Actually the statement is true if taken in the context of "Article Two"
"Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."
Therefore, this right is above the rights of states to impose their will on others.
However, if a state has not ratified the rights into their laws, it can not be held accountable. This is why this makes a good starting point.
Papewaio
09-26-2005, 04:22
I agree that it is a good starting goal, I just don't agree when people say it is inherent.
Soulforged
09-26-2005, 04:42
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. This one in particular may have two effects: 1- It's bad written, and they should have added the word "imprescriptible" or "inanienable". 2- This resolves the discussion between me and Redleg.
I'll bet that the first is the acceptable.
This one in particular may have two effects: 1- It's bad written, and they should have added the word "imprescriptible" or "inanienable". 2- This resolves the discussion between me and Redleg.
I'll bet that the first is the acceptable.
Your getting close - however the word you looking for might actually be unalienable.
However society and the state must have recourse for when the individual breaks the laws of the society. Hence you come to the conundrum that faces all nations - Insuring the overall security and wellbeing of the society without trambling on the individual rights of the citizens. Some nations do this better then others - but no state can do it perfect.
Hence Thomas Paine's writtings become revelant to any discussion about government and rights.
Soulforged
09-26-2005, 05:14
Your getting close - however the word you looking for might actually be unalienable.
However society and the state must have recourse for when the individual breaks the laws of the society. Hence you come to the conundrum that faces all nations - Insuring the overall security and wellbeing of the society without trambling on the individual rights of the citizens. Some nations do this better then others - but no state can do it perfect.
Hence Thomas Paine's writtings become revelant to any discussion about government and rights.Damn english and it's devious use of negatives... ~;)
I agree with you, but there's limits. To me that limit does not pass the patrimony, freedom and life are out of the question.
Damn english and it's devious use of negatives... ~;)
I agree with you, but there's limits. To me that limit does not pass the patrimony, freedom and life are out of the question.
The discussion of such is what creates a stronger democracy and a better government. Society in the end will decide what delagation of authority/responsiblity that it wants to provide to the government. If the government assumes to much power from society - the past tells us that eventually the people will revolt and constitute a new form of government.
Soulforged
09-26-2005, 05:43
The discussion of such is what creates a stronger democracy and a better government. Society in the end will decide what delagation of authority/responsiblity that it wants to provide to the government. If the government assumes to much power from society - the past tells us that eventually the people will revolt and constitute a new form of government. And what about if the government just is an instrument of the higher classes? ~;)
And what about if the government just is an instrument of the higher classes? ~;)
That has already been shown - and pointed out. Or were you unable to restrain yourself nor read the very last sentence in the paragraph that you quoted.
:dizzy2: ~:eek:
what if the people are realistically unable to revolt successfully, say like when czechs began to break away from communism in 1956? and the soviets sent the tanks in? they didn't ask for the gov't, it was imposed by an outside power, and they can't get away from it.
so i think there are some instances where the gov't may assume powers that are not granted by society, and there are instances where the gov't may not be created by society.
what if the people are realistically unable to revolt successfully, say like when czechs began to break away from communism in 1956? and the soviets sent the tanks in? they didn't ask for the gov't, it was imposed by an outside power, and they can't get away from it.
Never stated that the revolt would be successful - only that the people would revolt. After re-reading the paragraph I can see where one might assume that the revolt will always be successful - but history shows us several revolts that have not been.
so i think there are some instances where the gov't may assume powers that are not granted by society, and there are instances where the gov't may not be created by society.
Thomas Paine addressed this very issue - and it quoted from the Rights of Man in my first post. But here is the revelant sentence again. Its covered also in his Common Sense Pamplet. In this pamplet he criticizes the form of government that was England in the late 1700.
All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation.
Soulforged
09-27-2005, 05:30
That has already been shown - and pointed out. Or were you unable to restrain yourself nor read the very last sentence in the paragraph that you quoted.
:dizzy2: ~:eek: Well again you answered when I didn't want an answer. Maybe I should clearify when it's rethoric. I just wanted to point out that communism will happen following that logic, the same goes to anarchism.
Well again you answered when I didn't want an answer. Maybe I should clearify when it's rethoric. I just wanted to point out that communism will happen following that logic, the same goes to anarchism.
Or it could be neither which is what happened in many revolutions were democracy was installed - or despotism was re-installed, or etc.. etc..
Clarifying it was rethoric would not have prevented my response - especially given the nature of how you stated it. You got the answer I felt your comment deserved. ~:eek:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.