Ok. Lets get started. Lets review the grounds that we have covered so far. Our topic is american constitutionalism. Our goal by the end of the semester is to be able to think more clearly and more deeply about some of the fundamental and pressing political issues of our time. Religious freedom, the proper relationship between church and state, the philosophical and historical arguments for religious freedom. Arguments against religious freedom, arguments that would limit religious freedom. In a few weeks, we will get to First Amendment questions. What does the establishment clause prohibit or allow, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment prohibits and allow . This semester, we will discuss what is harmful to a liberal democracy. That is what we are doing. Last week, we talked about christianity, and what christianity does to politics. commandlly, jesus to give to caesar what is caesar and give to god what is god. This fundamentally alters and radically disturbs the classical conception of politics. It destroys the idea that Political Authority directly comes from god. That is a presumption of classical politics. And give to god what is god. Ok. Christianity introduces all sorts of fundamental questions. What is the relationship between religious and Political Authority, the pope and the emperor, religious rulers and secular rulers . The two swords become too. What are the grounds for Political Authority . If Divine Authority is political you justifyow do it . How do we justify the rule of some men over other men. One response, and this is what we started to do last week, one response is to invoke religious authority. You see this in sharia law. We didnt talk about this. We see this in the argument for divine right of kings. You may know this from some of your history classes. It emerges in europe. Another response is to recognize the separate authorities, and see how they are complementary. This is what we did last class. With augustine and aquinas. They recognize legitimate Political Authority, and recognized religious authority. They think religious authority can be aided by political authorities. Argument fortines the mild use of force. They would course Political Authority, which can be useful to advance a true religion. We saw this with Thomas Aquinas as well. Ok. Aquinas also introduces the natural law. This is also a product of what christianity does to classical policy. The argument, and you can see into cedar antecedents in this in thinkers like aristotle or cicero. Theres a natural law accessible to human reason. It can ground or at least be part of the grounds for Political Authority. We should talk a little bit about and this is where we left off last time what is the natural law . Then, we have to understand the relationship between the natural law and the american experiment in constitutional government, ok . Some classic examples of natural law thinking. This is st. Paul in a letter to the romans, 214. He is recognizing this idea of natural law. He says, when the gentiles do not have sorry, when the gentiles but do not have the law, but do things instinctive of the law, are a law to themselves and show the works of law written in their hearts. Those who dont, who werent given, dont have, or were not given gods law, still can know the law through their natural reasoning. Paul is recognizing the national the natural law here. The classic american example you probably know is Martin Luther kings letter from birmingham jail. I mentioned this last class. He wrote this on scraps of papers in jail. He is asked, how can you justify breaking the laws . The sitins, and theyre not following the positive law, and how can you justify that . Martin luther king says the answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate that one have a moral and legal responsibility to obey just laws, and to disobey unjust laws. What is the difference between the two . How can you tell . He says a just law is manmade code that squares with the moral law or law of god. And unjust law is out of harmony with moral law. This is like aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Segregation is wrong because it is against natural law. It might be product of the positive law, in the sense that it was made, but its not just consistent with the underlying natural law. This idea of natural law, it involves the idea that there is right and wrong by nature. As opposed to what, convention or the things we make. There are certain things that are morally right and wrong, not because we recognize the right and wrong or we say the right and wrong, but because they are right and wrong. Thats what Martin Luther king is getting at. This is i made reference to the first book of the republic. This is the debate between for summit kiss and socrates in the first of this, his justice by nature or if integer of the stronger . Ok. Questions on that, and this idea of natural law . Lots of people think its very mysterious. Its just the idea that there are certain things that are right and wrong. Not because we say they are right and wrong. Slavery, or murder, or harming children. If a law says its ok to harm your children, that law would be problematic. Why . Its wrong for parents to harm their children. Usually. [laughter] all right. Here is what we are going to do for the rest of class. I will try to make an argument that the founders were natural law thinkers of a sort. What we are going to try to do is figure out the relationship between natural rights and law, as the founders understood it. Our task is to understand what the founders thought. Thats only a precursor to asking another question is there a philosophy adherence with being persuasive . What is their understanding of natural law and rights . We are doing that because religious liberty is a part of natural rights. One of the most fundamental natural rights. To understand what the founders thought about the rights of religious liberty, underlying class, we have to understand the philosophy of Natural Light natural rights and their political philosophy more generally. That means understanding the relationship between natural law and natural rights. That is why we are doing what were doing today. Our goal today is to get through political philosophy. Next class, well talk about specific arguments for natural rights to religious liberties. Ok . Ok. Again, stop me if you have questions, or want me to slow down. Just let me know. Ok. There are three basic principles or articles of the founders natural rights political philosophy. It is known as the social compact theory. , he wrote about it, its sort of the intellectual architecture that the founders borrow from or build upon. There are three basic articles that we are going to talk about today. The first one is human equality, and we will spend a while talking about this. Government is instituted by consent to protect rights. Some rights are inalienable. That is. 3. Equality, government instituted by consent to protect rights, some rights are inalienable. Those are the three main points of the founders social compact theory. If you can understand those, you can understand the founders basic political philosophy. Equality, and this brings us to the declaration of independence, which i ask you to read. Very familiar to us. We will recite this at the beginning of the Football Game on saturday. We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal. Equality is the foundation of the foundation of american political thinking. It brings up the obvious question, what do they mean by equality . What do you think . What have you been taught, or what do you think . Equality and dignity. Equality and dignity, values of human life, and what else . Historically, equality in opportunity, immigrants coming to the country are given the opportunity to advance in society, where we didnt have this in other countries. Equality in opportunity. For the founders, it is an line, that every man, woman, child is born with natural, inalienable rights. Equality and rights. What about the manifest problems of slavery . We dont talk much about this, but we need to talk about it a little bit, right . How can you believe in equality and own slaves . How was this handled in your High School Classes . Do you talk about this in high school . I have an idea for a thesis. I think would be interesting to go through high School Textbook and see how equality is taught in high School Textbooks in the declaration of independence come declaration of independence, and see the changes over time or by region. I dont know the answer, but i think it would be interesting. What were you taught . That these were old white hypocritical men, who wrote equalities and owned slaves, and it didnt deal with the quality of race or gender. Because of slaveowning men, they didnt believe in equality, or only for white men . Yes. That is what you were taught . Thats surprising. Thats a small minority. I think it went along the lines that the founders generally would have liked to abolish slavery. They knew they couldnt do it at that point in history. I do a whole another class, the american political thought class for the minor and bash minor in for the minor in constitutional studies, where we talk about this. Heres my basic argument of how to address this. If you want to know what founders thought about equality, you should read what they wrote. Thats where you start at least. Look at what they did, but also what they said. My quick conclusion to that, and i will just speak about jefferson, is that what you see is hypocrisy. Jefferson did one thing, but he believed something else. He articulates these philosophical principles. Which i believe he held about human equality. Jefferson, i will assert this here. There is not enough time to go over here. He believed in human equality, and the quality of the slaves, they equality of the white man and black man. He didnt live up to that in his practice. Scholars debate that of course, right . The implication if im right, the implication of that could be that you could rightfully charge jefferson of hypocrisy. Now, there might be some defenders who would say, you didnt do anything. Others say he should have done more. Thats also an interesting question. I believe if you read jefferson and other founders, hamilton for example, who was active in the new york munition society, to try to free slaves, then buy their freedom. John adams was a critic of slavery. If you read the founders, what they say, i think the evidence is clear that they believed in equality, whether they lived up to it or not. That doesnt answer a question which is what do you mean by equality . This is called the selfevident truth. We dont have to talk about seven about self evidence to much but what else was there . , other ideas . We can all reason and nobody is so perfect they can reason perfectly, and in that sense, we are all equal. We are equal in reason, but in our fallible reason. That is good. You know the story of jeffersons death . Do you know when he died . Jefferson died with john adams on july 4, 1826. The 50th anniversary of the declaration of independence. Ferson obviously rights writes the rough draft of the, the main draft of the declaration of independence. Adams was the founder most responsible for getting the colonists to move towards independence. You could argue that they are the two founders most responsible for the declaration of independence, and they die on july 4, 1826, a poetic ring to it. Theres a big party in philadelphia to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the declaration of independence, and folks write to jefferson and say, please come to philadelphia, we want you to be part of this celebration. Jefferson is about to die. He writes this letter back, and i should have had you read this, but i have a passage for you. It is written at the end of june 1826. I think this might be jeffersons best statement of his own understanding of the declaration of independence. He says, i should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged their congratulations personally with the small band, the remnant of that host of worthies who joined with us on that day, referring to try forth , i believe it will be to some parts sooner, to others later, all, the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition has persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings of selfgovernment. Here the most important part for our purposes. Spread of a powerful truth that mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor are they ready to ride them legitimately by the grace of god. Mankind has not been born with saddles on their back. What does that mean . That is jeffersons teaching about what equality means in the declaration of independence. He is referring to how a lot of people looked at the bible to justify slavery, saying white men were meant to be slave masters. The question is referring to the bible, biblical arguments for slavery. He has a line against monkish ignorance. Jefferson was not friendly to catholics. He didnt like those sorts of religious arguments. You are right on that. Let me put it this way, horses are not born with saddles on their back. What does that mean . Why is it legitimate to put a saddle on a horse and ride the horse . View some of you have done this. This is how people used to get around. Animals dont have the same level of reason. They are animals. Draw it out. Since they are animals, they dont have our level of reason, the same rights that we do, therefore its ok for us to put saddles on their back so we can break them and ride them and own them. No man may treat another man like an animal or horse. There is a distinction among the species that is nature, right . Who distinguishes animals from men . Thats in nature, right . Some people who believe in Animal Rights i dont know if you can take buses on us here at notre dame. Theres lots of Animal Rights discussions in the philosophy departments. Some people who advocate for an all right say that people who fail to recognize animalrights our specists. That is, they think there are distinctions among the species. Jefferson would say yes. Theres a natural distinction among the species that distinguishes men from animals, which is why he can ride a horse, break a horse. You dont have to pay a horse, negotiate with a horse for 15 an hour. Horses are not lobbying for minimum wage. That is set by nature, is jeffersons argument. There are no such similar distinctions established by nature among human beings. To get at the same point in a different way, all bees are not created equal. They are, what, by nature . Queen bees, who makes the queen bee the queen bee . There are not elections. Bees dont vote. [laughter] there are queen bees and worker bees by nature. Some of you have heard this before. The worker bees of the world dont unite, right . Nature established theres rules. There are no kings or queens by nature. Thats jeffersons argument. We can phrase it this way. All in human beings, all individuals have the right of self dominion by nature. A natural liberty to govern themselves. That includes natural rights. Jacks point. Equality means equality in our natural rights. Thats how the founders talked about that bundle of liberty we rightly possess by nature. Again, whether jefferson acted on these principles, they and suppose, he clearly failed to. Our task in this class is to try to understand the principles. Questions on that . Thoughts on that . Go ahead. Its problematic to me to say he had these ideals, and that was he had this idea of rights and self dominion all humans had, and he genuinely believed those, then had so to keep slaves and treat them as slaves. How could the author of the declaration of independence have slaves . I think its a fair question. Its one thing to say lying is bad and then you mess up sometimes and lie, but owning human beings is completely different. Yeah, no, its, its, im not a huge jefferson fan, because its deeply morally problematic. Youd have to look at the context on how difficult it was or wasnt to free slaves. I dont think that excuses him. Heres the contrast. Washington also owned slaves. But, washington freed all his slaves after he died, so he set up an endowment, so there would slaves to be the able to live off. When the slaves reached 18, maturity, they became freemen. Actsf washingtons last was to free his own slaves and help provide for them. Now, should washington have owned slaves in the first place . Well, not according to our founding principles, but at least at the end of life, he tried to correct that. We see nothing like that in jefferson. Other thoughts . Ok. We had this natural equality. Natural equality is an equality in our natural liberty. We are all equally free, meaning we all equally possess a right of self dominion. Or selfdirection appeared or selfdirection. Thats the fundamental teaching of the declaration of independence. Ok . Ok. Any of you know who james wilson is . Hes kind of an obscure founder, but super important at the time. Signer of the declaration of independence, significant in pennsylvania politics, signer of the constitution, was at the constitutional convention. He was one of the first justices at the supreme court. He gave lectures between 17901792, lectures on law, the fundamental principles on law. This is James Wilsons account of our natural freedom and natural liberty. He says nature has implanted in man the desire for his own happiness, and inspired him with many tender affections towards others, especially near relations of life. She has endowed him with intellectual and active powers, she has furnished him with a natural impulse to exercise the powers of his own happiness, and the happiness of those for whom he entertains such tender affections. If all this be true, the undeniable consequences that he has a right to exert those powers for the company spent of those purposes in such a manner and upon such objects, as is his inclination and judgment shall direct area provided he does no injury to others. Our human passion and instincts for freedom, coupled with our sentiment, and especially our faculties, ability to reason, but wilson looks at human nature. He says look at man. Our nature is to live freely, to live as selfdirected moral agents. A being like that is created to be free. You see how this corresponds to the distinction between animals and human beings . We have faculties that animals do not. How do we know that . By comparing ourselves with animals. If you look upon what man is, he is, you see he is a free being, meant to be free. Instincts,s, sentiments, faculties ground our freedom. Its our nature to be free. Ok . This is just wilsons explanation of what jefferson was saying. Freedom doesnt mean there is no right or wrong, and this is one of the reasons i wanted to show you the wilson quote. Look at the bottom. Those who judge wisely will use this honorably, and those who are not will pursue meaner pursuits. Others may indulge in what may andentered as vicious dishonorable. Theres human freedom, by nature and there is also right and wrong by nature. Some people will use their freedom well, and some will use their freedom poorly. Some people think that they thought there was no right or wrong. Thats clearly not what the founders thought. They recognize right and wrong by nature, and thought freedom was part of the natural law. Look at the bottom here. This immediately follows from the text you just read. This is also james wilson. The laws of nature are the measure in the rule that ascertains the extent of natural liberty. So we have this natural liberty, but those rights are part of the natural law, and limited by the natural law. Ok . How can we better explain that . Umm, have any of you seen the hamilton video, or, the hamilton show . I am a faculty member, so i cant afford tickets. [laughter] this is hamilton. Hamilton writes a letter in 1775, a pamphlet. Hamilton is writing against this tory loyalist arguing against the revolution, this guy named c barry, who writes under the pseudonym the farmer. Hamilton writes this pamphlet, the farmer refuted. These were in newspapers at the time. The british tory argued that all americans talk about natural rights, that means that there is no right and wrong by nature. The founders, the americans are asserting freedom, not recognizing morality or law. Hamilton writes back, and says you, you the tory, are the hobbesian. He says good and wise men have embraced this similar theories. They have supposed a natural law. He says this is called the law of nature. Dictated by god himself as the. An obligation to all others and binding all over the girl all over the globe. No human laws are any validity in contrary to this. Who does that sound like . That is Martin Luther king, right . There is a natural moral law and this is what follows. Upon this depends the natural rights of mankind. They understood that for rights to be part of law. You can have a very good argument that the founders natural law the same as Thomas Aquinasnatural law . But they are both natural thinkers of being there is natural law by nature. Founders argument is human freedom is part of the natural law. That human freedom is what we call next rights. Ok . Good . Questions, thoughts . Ok. Umm. Here is the difficulty. We have this freedom by nature. There is a right and wrong by nature. But lots of us, lots of human beings dont respect the nature or natural rights of others. An example might be helpful here. The natural right to property. Why do you have the right to property . Do you fish . What do you like fishing for . Fish. But what type of fish . Bass or whatever. Prof. Muoz so you go out and fish and you catch a bass and bring them back to your dorm. What are our human . He goes to saint eds and is out grilling all these fish for his classmates. So someone comes along and aidan is preparing beverages for the rest of the class. Claire comes by and you see the fish on the grill, what do you do . Take it. Prof. Muoz so they take the fish. And they go over to lewis and they say check out the fish. They have a party. [laughter] prof. Muoz have they done wrong . Yeah. Prof. Muoz aidan is like coming yeah. Why are they your fish . Because i caught them and i put in the work to get that good. They didnt do anything to retrieve them. Prof. Muoz so the fish are in the lake, you bring them back. I took the effort into stealing them. Prof. Muoz what is the difference . I did the same things you did, so you only official until i own the fish and now i on the fish and i ate the fish. I guess its just they are mine. Prof. Muoz why are they yours . They are mine because all though she came along and took them, i had them first. That sounds like a toddler argument. Prof. Muoz i have two toddlers and this is what they say. It is mine. I had it first. Hy isnt it i had it last . Because of Natural Light and natural rights and natural laws. Prof. Muoz she took your fish because i was hungry. I was hungry first. Prof. Muoz someone help him out. He is the one who took them from their natural habitat. Claire took them from another human and he took them from the lake. Prof. Muoz why is one taking just or a rightful claim to property and another not . I would say because nature is our domain and we have a right to this. Prof. Muoz but that is the question. Why do you have that right . You cant say because he has the right to them, the question is why does he have the right . Because he grew up on the distinction between species. Because it was just fish in the lake it is different from taking from another person. The difference between what is in the lake and the property of another. Prof. Muoz i dont think we have gotten there yet. Who owns the fish in the lake . No one. Prof. Muoz lets say father jenkins comes along. Lets say no one owns the lake. When aidan fishes, why do they become his . Does anyone think thats right . But why . Doesnt lock say that when you put labor that you out into the retrieval. Then you own the item . Prof. Muoz so what does aidan own precisely . He owns his labor. Right . Therefore he owns the fruits of his labor . Why does he own his labor . Who said so . Why doesnt claire on his labor . Because i dont own him. Prof. Muoz because they are equal, right . Because he has the right of self dominion . Ownership of our own labor is one of the key aspects. Claire was right to bring up lock. We have a natural right to our own labor. When you go out into the ocean and fish. No one owns the fish. When you mix your labor with something in the commons and appropriate it, the fish become yours. They are his fish. When claire takes the fish off the grill, they are stealing his labor. Does that make sense . Ok. That is wrong whether or not we have municipal laws, Campus Security. Part of the law is to respect others. So what do you do with them . If they have already eaten my fish . I guess i have to go get more fish . Prof. Muoz thats very passive. Youre not going to do anything . I would probably ask them why they took my fish. And have the exact same debate, i guess . Prof. Muoz and their responses because we are smarter and faster and we are going to do it again. Youre dumb enough to leave your fish on the grill unprotected. I will have a buddy watch the grill next time. Prof. Muoz all right. What are you going to do if they do it again . I guess, im not going to be stupid enough to use that same grill and make the same mistakes i made before. Prof. Muoz how are you going to convince them not take your fish again . Threatening. Am i supposed to make a threat here . Prof. Muoz i dont know, how hungry are you . I guess i really like these fish. I will put something in the fish so they dont want to eat it. Prof. Muoz that was not the answer i was expecting. [laughter] would aidan be wrong in suggesting that he would be not nice if they took the fish again. What could he legitimately do . There is no Campus Security. He has the right to physically protect his fish. Prof. Muoz what if claire and all the other women of lewis and they say, stop us all. And they just use their brutal force to take the fish. What could aidan do . Nothing. I could get the guys from my dorm to come down and back me up. Prof. Muoz so, locke and the founders following them say we have natural executive power to protect our rights. To enforce the natural moral law. So you have these natural rights by nature. You also have authority to protect your rights. We call that the executive power of the state of nature. Why is, im going to pivot here, but you will see the connection. Why is the drug trade so violent . Ok aidan, you have gotten out of fishing and now you are trafficking narcotics, what do you like to sell . This is all hypothetical. Something good. I dont know. Prof. Muoz aidan is trafficking cocaine, all right . Ok claire it the fish and now they want a better time. So aidan promises them a brick of cocaine but he only gives them a half. What do you do . Find him. Prof. Muoz you dont go to Campus Security . Why not . Because it is illegal what we are doing. Prof. Muoz you cant when aidan owns business and soren owns another business. But if aidan is selling drugs and his Business Partner does not pay him the right amount, you cannot go to court. How do you protect your rights . That is why the drug trade is always so violent. It is lawless. But there is still sort of a natural justice to it all. You are supposed to agree to pay what you agreed upon. The problem with living alone in the state of nature, that is an authority a state there is no authority. People do not follow the natural law. There are too many individuals like soren and claire. They do not respect the rights of others. That is why government is formed. This is the founders social compact theory. There are rights by nature. There is a natural moral law. People dont because of human selfishness, because of wickedness, because of miscalculation dont respect the rights of others. Therefore you need government. Make sense . Please. Couldnt you argue that if people dont follow the natural law because of their inherent selfishness that it is not natural law . Prof. Muoz yeah. There is an argument and this gets back to the first book of the republic there is no natural justice. What is truly natural is to be strong. To dominate. There is no natural justice. It is my nature to dominate others. And nietzsche is the philosopher who made that most powerfully. It is a rejection of the idea of natural law. Therefore a rejection of the idea of natural right. Does everyone follow that . It is a great question. Therefore, ultimately a rejection of the idea of human equality. Ok . Ok . If all individuals are born naturally free, how is Political Authority created . This is to connect where our summary. We are all born free, that means no one can direct, take our labor without our consent, right . That is what natural freedom means. But we need government to protect our rights. We cannot protect our rights alone. So government is created. Thats what the founders referred to as the social compact. There are two stages. This is a little technical but it illustrates an important point. There are two stages. The first is a people becomes a people that you become members of the Political Community and the founders argument there is, they are following law, that must be by unanimous consent. Because of your natural freedom, you have no obligation to become a part. To give up your natural rights to protect your own rights. You have no obligation to turn that over to a community. It is yours to keep if you want. Where this matters is, what if you are born into a Political Community. Most of us were born americans. The implication of this philosophy is a natural right to emigrate. James wilson writes about this , upon the age of maturity, if an individual born into a Political Community wants to leave, they have a natural right to do so. This happens. People do leave. A country that did not allow you to leave would be tyrannical. Think of the berlin wall. In east germany they built a wall. Why did they build a wall . To keep citizens in. People could not leave. That is why we said east germany was a tyranny. If you stay in the country, the argument is you have given your tacit consent. And tacit consent is a valid form of consent in this theory. If you stay and enjoy the protections of the law, you have given your consent to be part of the regime. There is an argument to make that once you turn 21 or 18, you should have a declaration. There is something that functions this way, do remember when you signed up for the Selective Service . Its a big deal, right . This is when you sign a piece of paper saying, what . Doesnt give you permission to draft you if theres ever a draft again . Prof. Muoz yes. I am willing to be drafted. Gentlemen, do you all remember this . Some of you paused, it is a big deal, right . In a way that functions as consent to be part of the regime. At that moment it is up or out. You will stay or go. If you did not want to sign up, to sign that you might say i will move somewhere else. It would be wrong, according to the founders theory for the country to keep you. I am taking back my natural rights. Government must be of consent. Consent follows from our natural freedom. Natural equal freedom. That is the first stage. Consent must be unanimous that is everyone agrees by tacit consent. The second stage is when a Political Community, a people, or a government. The constitutional contact. If they can form the government the form of government can be role of one, rule of few, rule of the many. The people are free to set up whatever form of government that best secures their safety and happiness. You dont necessarily, according to the natural rights law have to form a democracy. An example would be a hereditary monarchy. What is the claim to rule in a hereditary monarchy . You are born. Your birth. Lets think of jeffersons letter. No man is born with a saddle on his back. No other man booted and spurred. One could make an argument that the people are free to set up a regime that any form of government that best secures their safety and happiness a regime that was a hereditary monarchy would fail that. But you could have a constitutional monarchy, right . So we agree that we have rights by nature. Remember, founders social compact theory. We set up a government to protect rights. Rights by nature are limited by natural law. We set up government to protect our rights. Then, i need to get some more text here. Let me explain this document. This is the New Hampshire declaration of rights. The reason i asked you to read this is because it articulates better more clearly than any other document the founders compact theory. Every state that is not quite true. 11 of the first 13 states drafted new state constitutions between 1776 and 1784. Rhode island and connecticut did not get around to doing it. We dont really know why they just never got around to doing it. Most of the state constitutions were prefaced by something the state called declaration of rights. These were statements of political principles. Kind of like preamble of the constitution, or like the declaration of independence. All men are born equally free and independent. We talked about that already. Therefore government of right originates from the people it is founded in consent. We talked about that. All men have certain natural essential and inherent rights. That is what it means to be born free and equal. When men enter into the state of society, they surrender up some of their Natural Resources site in order to protect others. What does that mean to surrender your rights . Youre willing to give up some of your personal rights in order to gain protection you need from the government. Prof. Muoz could be. What else . This is complicated here. You have these rights by nature, but they are insecure. They are not necessarily respected so you join a government. The purpose of government is to protect your rights. To protect from soren and claire. That is why we have government because of the sorens and claires of the world. If you give up all your rights to the government, cant the government threaten your rights . So what sense do we surrender our rights . This here is complicated. There are two basic ideas. Let me clarify, im going to give you my interpretation. There is the legislation, the rule a person owns the fruit of their labor. That is the legislative component to the right of property. You own your labor, there for you on the fruit of your labor. Then there is the executive power to enforce the right. When someone steals my labor i can go punish them. When the founders say we surrender our rights, most clearly we surrender our executive power to the government. So, aidans first instinct was when soren took his fish was to call Campus Security. Why call Campus Security . Because they are in effect the government here at notre dame. So if someone steals your goods, you call the police. The police possess the executive authority that we all originally possessed but we turned it over to the government. This is why in criminal cases, it is not soren versus aidan it , it is soren versus the people of notre dame. Because aidan has given up or surrendered his executive authority to protect his rights to the government. Let me give you an example. It happened right by my parents house. This guy had custom rims on his truck. Rims are not the tires, but the things that tires go on. I dont know. He had custom rims. And they were stolen. Off of his truck. Apparently they are very expensive. He is driving around the neighborhood a week later and he sees his rims in the garage. There is no doubt they are his rims. So what do you think he does that night . Takes his rims back. Prof. Muoz if something was stolen, how many of you would go get it . Would you . But what is he supposed to do . He is supposed to call the police. He breaks into the house and steals his rims back. Guess what happened to him . He gets arrested. For stealing his own rims. Again, there is no question that these are his rims. He can document so what should happen to him . He can be charged with breaking and entering, right . He turned over he surrendered his executive authority to the community and therefore it is the communitys right, our police you are supposed to call the police and let them prosecute your rights. Would you convict this guy . He is let off this the end of the story. But this is part of what it means to alienate your rights. You alienate your executive power. That alienation is not total and incomplete. The example is the right of selfdefense. If you are walking down this would never happen here but if you are happening to walk down a street at night and someone pulled a gun on you. Someone pulls a gun on soren but she is packing her own gun. She uses to get her own way. If someone threaten soren in the middle of the night and had a knife can she shoot them . We would say yes. There is no ability to call the police. She reacquires her executive power. That alienation is not complete. Make sense . This is important in states like rural communities. Imagine you live in the middle of nowhere. It would take the police 45 minutes to get there and there is a break in. Its only sensible that people would have the right to the defend themselves. What about the legislative component of the right . Do we alienate that . This is a little bit tricky and it is not altogether clear. Some of the founders seem to disagree. But what the founders have in mind is that when you enter the social compact, you give authority to the government to make your rights regular. To regulate your rights. Regulate does not mean to control or manipulate it means to make regular. Here is my example. You can say there is a natural right to marriage. Meaning that you get to choose your spouse. How many of you would let your parents choose your spouse for you . Can you imagine a country this is easy to imagine, right . We would say that is deeply problematic, right . Because we believe in natural rights. We believe the right to choose your spouse is part of our natural freedom. But when you get married, you have to have a marriage license. So there is a natural right to marriage, but we still need the system of licensing