Thes a right inherent in relationship between individuals and government. His class is about 70 minutes. Ok, lets get started. Lets review the ground we covered so far. The topic is [indiscernible] constitutionalism. End of the the semester is to think more clearly about the political and constitutional issues of our time, what is religious freedom . What are the philosophical and historical arguments for religious freedom . What are the arguments against religious freedom . What would limit religious freedom . What does the free exercise clause in the First Amendment prohibit or allow . We will also talk about whether religion is good for liberal democracy . About thistalked unity and what christianity does the politics . Specifically, jesuss command to give to caesar what is caesars and to give to godwins gods. To godmentally what is gods. This destroys the idea that religious authority im sorry Political Authority comes from got . That is from god. That is the presumption of classical politics. Allstianity introduces sorts of fundamental questions. What is the relationship between religious authority and Political Authority, between the pope and the emperor. Become two. Ds what are the grounds for Political Authority . If Divine Authority is not the grounds for Political Authority, how do we justify Political Authority . How do you justify rules the rule of men over other men . One response and this is what we started to do last week one responses to try to reinvoke religious doherty for political are Just Authority for religioushority authority for Political Authority. Another response is to recognize the separate authorities but see how they are complementary and this is what we did last class with augustines and aquinas. They think religious authority can be aided by Political Authority. A mild use of force in religious matters. Co. Of Political Authority can be useful to advance the true religion. Aquinas introduces the natural law. Is that therement is a natural law acceptable to and that can be part of the grounds for Political Authority. What is the natural law and then we have to try to understand the relationship between the natural law and the american experiment in Constitutional Government some classical examples, this is saint law st. Paul in 2 14 romans. He is recognizing this idea of natural law. Gentiles that do not have the law do instinctively the things of the law are the law unto themselves and they show the works of law written in their hearts. Given or were not given gods law still can know the law. How . Through their natural reasoning. The classic example is Martin Luther kings letter from birmingham jail. I mention this last class. He wrote this on scraps of papers in jail. He says that she 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. Ive would have to i have to obey just laws. One has a legal and moral responsibility to obey just laws, and to disobey unjust laws. No just law, no law at all. What is the difference between the two . How can you tell . A just law is manmade code that squares with the moral law or law of god. An unjust code is out of harmony with moral law. 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 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 socrates in the first of this, his justice by nature or if integer of the stronger . Or is justice simply the advantage of the stronger . Ok. Questions on that, and this idea of natural law . Lots of people think its very mysterious. To me, there are just things that are right and wrong not because we say there are. Slavery, or murder, or harming children. If a law says its ok to harm your children, that law would be problematic. Why . Because 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 makers of a sort. 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 the founders philosophy cohesive or persuasive . What is their understanding of natural law and rights . For doing that because religious liberty is a part of natural rights. To understand the rights of religious liberty, underlying tasks, we have to understand natural rights, political philosophy more generally. That means understanding the relationship between natural law and natural rights. That is why we are doing what we are doing today. Our goal today is to get through the founders 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, note known as the social compact. John law has secretarys on government, 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 as instituted is instituted by consent. To protect rights. Some rights are inalienable. Thats. 3. Point three. Government is instituted by consent, to protect rights. Some rights are inalienable. Those are the three main points of the founders 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 office question obvious question, what do they mean by equality . What do you think . What have you been taught, or what do you think . The quality in dignity. The equality and dignity, values of human life, and what else . Historically, the quality is opportunity, immigrants coming to the country are given the opportunity to advance in society, where we didnt have this in other countries. Equality is opportunity. Founders, its in the that every man, woman, child is born with natural, inalienable rights. Equality in rights. What about the manifest problems of slavery . We dont talk much about this, but 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 theme. 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 and see if it changes over time. It can change 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 a quality 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 are were taught . Thats surprising. Thats a small minority. I think it went along the lines of the founders generally would have liked to abolish slavery. I do a whole another class, the american political thought class for the minor and 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. I will assert this here. Equality and the equality of the slave, including but he didnt live up to that in his practice. Scholars debate that of course, right . An implication if im right, and implication of that 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, if you have the founders active in the new york society, to try to free slaves, then buy their freedom. If you read the founders, what they say, i think the evidence is that they believed in equality, whether they believed in it or not. Whether or not they lived up to it. That doesnt answer a question which is what do you mean by equality . What does that mean . All men are created equal . This is called the selfevident truth. We dont have to talk about it too much, but what else was there . Other ideas . You know the story of jeffersons death . When he died . Jefferson died with john adams on july 4, 1826. The 50th anniversary of the declaration of independence. Jefferson obviously writes the main draft. Adams was the founder most responsible for getting the colonists to move towards independence. You could argue that they are the two 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, 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 in june end of june 1826. I think this might be jeffersons best statement of his own understanding of the declaration of independence. He says i i should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged their congratulations personally with a small band, the remnant of that host of were these, who joined us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for a country, i believe it will be to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally tall 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 and and security of selfgovernment. This has already been laid open. 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 . Jeffersons teaching about what equality means in the declaration of independence. Hes referring how to how people looked at the bible to justify slavery, saying white men were meant to look at this 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 writing horse and ride a horse . I assume you have done this, 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. 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 and ride and owned 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 take classes here at notre dame theres lots of Animal Rights discussions and philosophy departments. Some people who advocate for Animal Rights saying that people who fail to recognize animalrights our species just. Speciesists. 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 worse. You dont have to pay a horse, negotiate with a horse for 15 an hour. Horses are not lobbying for minimum wage. Nature ist by jeffersons argument. There are no such similar distinctions established by nature among human beings. Get out the same point in a different way, all bees are not created equal. There are, what, 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 human beings, individuals have the right of self minyan by self dominion by nature. Thats a natural liberty to govern themselves. That includes natural rights. Equality means equality in our natural rights. Thats how the founders talked about that bundle of liberty we rightfully possess by nature. Again, whether jefferson acted on these principles, they clearly failed. Well, he clearly failed to. Our task in this is to try to understand the principles. Questions on that . Go ahead. Its problematic to me to say he had this idea of rights and self dominion documents had, and he genuinely believed those, and he genuinely believed those, then had so great and air to keep 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 than mess up and like, but only human beings is completely different. Fast 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. You heres 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 be a fund to be able to live off for the slaves. When the slaves reached 18, maturity, they became freemen. Washingtons last act was to free his own slaves and help provide for them. Now, should washington of own slaves in the first place owned slaves in the first place . 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. 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 important at the time. Signer of the declaration of independence, significant in pennsylvania politics, was a was at the constitutional convention. He was one of the justices at the Supreme Court. He gave just as much as lectures between 17901792, lectures on law, fundamental principles on law. This is James Wilsons account of our national freedom, and Natural National 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 with 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 the entertains such tender affections. If all this be true, the undeniable consequences, if this be true, that he has a right to exact exerts 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 stinks for freedom, coupled with our our human instincts for freedom, coupled with our sentiment, and especially our faculties, ability to reason, but wilson looks at human nature. He is a look at man. 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 see he is a free being, meant to be free. Our passions, and stings, 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 chose wisely will use this honorably, and those who are not will pursue meaner pursuits. Others may indulge in what may he centered as fishes and dishonorable. Theres human freedom, by nature, but theres also write and run 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. The lock this immediately follows from the text you just read. The laws of nature are the measure and the world that ascertains the extent of natural liberty. 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 . Im a faculty member, so i can 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 newspapers at the time. The british torrie 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 are the hobby and. You, the tory, are the. Bbesian this is good and wise men have embraced to similar theories. They have supposed a natural law it is binding all over the globe , in all countries, at all times. Dictated by god himself is superior in all obligation. No human law of any validity are contrary to this. It is that some a question mark . That is Martin Luther king, right . Hamilton says there is a law of nature and then this is what follows. Up on this law 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 . Lots of people say no. They are not exactly the same. But they are both natural thinkers of being there is natural law by nature. Human freedom is part of the natural law. That human freedom is what we call next rights. Ok . Good . Questions, thoughts . Ok. 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. 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. Munoz so you go out and fish and you catch a bass and back to your dorm. 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] have they done wrong . Yeah. Prof. Muoz aidan is like, 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. But 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 you own the fish until i own the fish and now i own the fish and i ate the fish. I guess its just they are mine. [laughter] prof. Muoz why are they yours . They are mine because all bill 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 here it why isnt it i had it last . Because of Natural Light and natural rock walls natural rights and natural laws. Prof. Muoz she took your fish. She is not going to explain it to you. I was hungry. I was hungry, too. You took my fish. Prof. Muoz someone help him out. He is the one who took them from third 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 the cuts nature 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 can 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 could become his . Does anyone think thats right . But why . Doesnt locke say that when you put in the 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 . One of the key aspects of self dominion is 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 their agents 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. They violated the natural law because part of the law is to respect the natural rights of others. So what do you do with them . If they have already eat my in 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 did 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. Perfec i will put something in e 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 come 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 . [laughter] 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. He has already collected the money. What do you do . Find him. Prof. Muoz you dont go to Campus Security . Why not . Because it is illegal what we are doing. We are not under the law. Prof. Muoz drugtrafficking happens in the state of nature. You cant when aidan anza 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 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 by government is formed. 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 rule. To dominate. There is no natural justice. It is my nature to dominate others. And nietzsche is the philosopher who articulates this most beautifully, 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. So 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 bless, direct, take that means no one can rules, direct us, 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. To exit the community. 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. Ok, i will be a part of this regime. 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 theater the founders theory for the country to keep you. What you are saying is i am not becoming a part of this regime. I am taking back my natural rights. Government must be of consent. Consent follows from our natural freedom. Or natural equal freedom. That is the first stage. Of the social compact. Consent must be unanimous that is everyone agrees by tacit consent. The second stage is when a Political Community, a people, form a government. Theson calls that constitutional combat. 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. Arguably, there are some forms of government that are incompatible with the founders philosophy. 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. Hereditary monarchy reintroduces birth as a claim to rule. One could make an argument that the people are free to set up a regime that any arm 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 . A president for life. Or Supreme Court justices for life. So we agree that we have rights by nature. Remember, founders social compact theory. Nature 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 back up a second. 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 this better more clearly than any other document the founders compact theory. Everything we are talking about. 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 fundamental 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 run all of your cant the government threaten your rights . So what sense do we surrender our rights . This here is complicated. There are two basic ideas. Theres let me clarify, im going to give you my interpretation. There are two basic components of natural right. 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 say we surrender our right, clearly we surrender our executive powers to the government. Instinct was to call Campus Security. Why call Campus Security . Theuse they are in effect government here at notre dame. Right . Goods,omeone steals your you call the police because the police possess the executive authority we all originally possessed when we turned it over to the government. , itss why criminal cases not soren versus aidan. Its sorin versus the people of notre dame. Right . Aidan has given up or surrendered his executive authority to the government. Let me give you an example, an actual example. This happened right by my in seattle. Use some of you have heard me tell the story before. This guy had custom rims on his truck. Those are not the tires, but the things the tires go on . He had custom rims, and they were stolen off his truck. Are veryy rims expensive. He is driving around the neighborhood a week later. He sees his rims and that arise. There is no doubt that they are his. What you think he does that night . What he takes his rims. Professor muoz right. How many of you would do that question mark you have something stolen. You go get it. Would you . Thats not what youre supposed to do. You are supposed to call the police. He breaks into the house, steals his rims back, and guess what happens to him . He gets arrested. Professor muoz he gets arrested. For stealing his own rims. Theres no question that these are his rims. He can document it. So what should happen to him . Well, he can be charged with breaking and entering, right . Because he turned over he surrendered his executive authority to the community, and therefore it is the communitys right or the police you are supposed to call them and let them prosecute your right. Have trial by jury, a jury of your peers. Would you convict this guy . Its an interesting argument about that, right . And he is let off at the end of the story. That this is part of what it means to alienate your rights. Technically you alienate your executive powers. That elite nation that alienation is not total and complete. An example is the right of selfdefense. If you are walking its very safe, it would never happen here that if you happen to be walking down a street late at night and someone pulled a gun someone pulls a gun on sorin, of course soren is packing her own gun, which she uses to get her own way. If someone threatened soren in the middle of the night, has a knife, can she shoot him . We say yes, because theres no ability to call the police. So that alienation is not make. It makes sense 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. Peoplely sensible that would have the right to defend themselves. What about what i call the legislative component of the right . Do we alienate that . This is a little bit tricky. Its not altogether clear and some of the founders seem to disagree, but what i think is going on, what the founders have in mind is when you enter the social compact, you give authority to the government to make your rights regular, that is, to regulate your rights. It means to make regular. Here is my example. You could saving natural right meaning that you get to choose your spouse, right . I mean, how many of you would let your parents choose your spouse for you . You imagine a country we dont need to imagine, right . Where the parents choose the spouse for their kids . We would say thats deeply problematic. Why would we say that is problematic . Because we believe in natural rights. The natural right to liberty, the right to choose your spouse is part of our natural freedom, ok . But when you get married, you have to have a marriage license, so theres a natural right to marriage, but we still set up a system of licensing. The government makes the exercise of our right to marriage regular and it specifies, look you have to have written consent, two witnesses it could before, he could be one, whatever. The government sets up mechanisms to make the enjoyment of your natural rights easier. That is what it means to make regular. So you can regularly enjoy them. So, the regulation of marriage is consistent with natural rights or when you have a child you get a birth certificate. It sort of an odd thing. You get a stamp of approval from the government. Why do we have birth certificates. The parents have a natural right to make decisions for their childrens wellbeing. What is the point of a birth certificate . [indiscernible] professor muoz but in terms of the parentchild relationship . So the child can enjoy all of the benefits that the parents have to offer . Offessor muoz sure, part that, but the birth certificate specifies what . Who the parents are. It is a way we regularize, that is to make regular, the rights of parents visavis their kids. Right . In the father of my kid. I get to choose whether they get this treatment or not. The right of the parent. Righties rights and duties are not opposed. The state makes the enjoyment of that right regular through regulation. Surrender does not adequately capture that, but that is what the founders mean, ok . Think of property rights. You have a natural right to property, right . Aidan has the right to go out to fish. A and but what if aidan is a really good fisherman and catches all of the fish . To spoilage. Locke said you could not take more you have no more right to take more property out of the commons that would go to spoil. And we capture this through fishing licenses, right . You can go out and catch 12 fish or whatever. Its a way to make regular the enjoyment of our right to fish. Make sense . Regulation of rights, of this legislative component of the right, is to facilitate the exercise of the right, ok . So when we surrender our rights, what that means is we give government power to specify our rights, to help the facilitation of the right for the community of many people and also we alienate our executive power. Make sense . Questions about that . Part of this is also coordination, right . Natural right a to drive on the clearest path, thealso we have to drive on right, not the left. All that matters is we all drive on the same side. If there was no government, you could drive where it is open. Was government is instituted, you have got to drive on the righthand side of the once government is instituted, you got to drive on the righthand side of the road. When we are alienating, partially alien alienating our rights, we are surrendering them to the government body or society as a whole or to each other . Professor muoz thats a good question. Who are we alienating our rights to . We become members of a Political Community and the Political Community then sets up a government. The government is in charge of protecting our right, right . Rightsthat protection of gives us two things. One, we all alienate our executive authority to the government, and we give Government Authority to regulate our rights. So the state possesses them. But in the founders theory, the he moste fundamental rights are all natural rights. There are also acquired rights, trialhe right to a jury is a civil right. Meaning there are no juries in nature. It is a right created by government, right . So there are natural rights and nonnatural, acquired rights. Copyrights, for example. Right . Jefferson and madison talk about that, jefferson is specially. Or patents. Its not clear there is a natural right to a patent, but that is a civil right instituted for you because it is useful, it spurs innovation. Does that answer your question yucca of does that answer your question . Ok . Are patents the extension of the natural property right . Professor muoz right, so patents, you have a right to your property, but you have a right to prevent others from using it . You invent a way to open a beer bottle without touching a bottle. Not that that would be useful. Somehow. Ok, so you get to use it and i see this contraption, whatever it is a ridiculous example say,hatever it is, and i oh, that is how he did it. I in that one. What can you prevent me from using it i invent that. How can you prevent me from using it . Do you have a natural right to prevent others from using it . Fish, you have a natural right to use the fish. You can both eat the same fish, but we could both use this device. Theres a debate whether intellectual property is actually is that a creation of the government . But you are, with most ipyrights for personal use think when it comes to making money off an idea, thats money that you are not making that by rights you should be making. Professor muoz well, that is the argument for it. On this probably go on road. Here is the culmination of the lecture. Why are we all doing this . Reasons. Class on iv of the New Hampshire declaration of rights some rights are inalienable, rights of conscience. The founders said religious liberty is an inalienable they use the term unalienable, but we say in inalienable natural right. What does it mean to be in inalienable . You cant begin to address that question without Understanding Social contract theory. Does that make sense to you . , butrty is a natural right it is an alienable natural right. There are other rights that are natural rights, but in alienable natural rights. Religious liberty, rights of conscience are in alienable natural rights. And we have to figure out what that means. If we want to understand the founders, and then we have to ask, well, are they correct . R the good arguments . Let me are there good arguments . Let me give you a different view of an inalienable right. The right of revolution is clearly a natural right, referred to in the declaration of independence. Could you ever give up your right of revolution to the government . Its nonsensical, right . Whether revolution is an individual right or collective right complicates things. There are some rights we can give up because it would destroy the understanding of the rights. Right . Right . The right of life is said to be in alienable. What does that mean to be in alienable . What does that mean . Cant give up to the government Discretionary Authority to say you can live for this amount of time, but not that amount of time. Your right to finishes your right to fish is alienable. You can catch 10 fish, but you could never get the government a right to license living. You can live for 10 years or 75 years. And the no more. Because theres only so many resources in the world, we cant support everyone, so everyone only gets to live 75 years, right . Right . We have to ration human life just like we ration the fish in the sea. Its not totally unreasonable, right . But would you ever give Government Authority to do that yucca that is the sense in which the right to life is in alienable. In alienable it he is different from forfeiture. You can forfeit your natural rights, and what does that mean . Simply means that, look, if you violate the laws of nature, like sorin did when she took as say wassorin, feeling particularly sorin aggressive and she killed eight. She is a bls major, shes been reading a lot of nietzsche. We will make friday more interesting. Sorin would have forfeited argue, or, locke would most of the founders believed this, would have forfeited her life. The Death Penalty is executed on someone when they have forfeited their rights, but forfeiture of right is different from alienating your rights. Argument is the right of religious liberty is in inalienable rights. Right. Class is to next figure out what they meant by religious liberty being an inalienable right. Memorial ands remonstrance, rejefferson, comeback tuesday and the first question is going to be, why is religious liberty and in alienable natural right . Ok. Have a good weekend. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] monday, christmas day, queen her annualelivers christmas message and cornell west and allender shorts debate israel and its impact alan durr shall its debate israel and its impact on middle east peace allender shall its alan dershowitz. How will we forget the very ugly realities in gaza and the west bank. . Worldook tv on cspan2, yellenveteran jerry recalls Bombing Missions over japan with his book the last fighter pilot. The squadron took off. 27 fighter planes went down. , and itsre killed hard for me to tell you the truth of how i felt. I missed my airplane. I did not miss danny. Ourere there to protect freedom. It was after the war that i suffered. Playwright lynn man well maranda linmauel miranda receives an award. Linmanuel. Watch monday, christmas day, on cspan networks. During world war ii, the United States military was racially segregated. Up next we hear from a member of airmen, the first unit of africanamerican fire pilots. And from a veteran who served with the 442nd combat team comprised of japaneseamerican soldiers. The American Veterans Center Posted this 35 Minute Panel Discussion at their 25th annual conference. I am glad to be here this morning. As i have in the past, i am honored to be here. Like many of you i always enjoy hearing stories about world war ii. As paul just mentioned, for the last 15 or 16 or 17 years, i ha
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.