Civil rights aren't GRANTED by society, they are RECOGNIZED by society. Outside of a social framework the concept of "rights" is meaningless, because it's only when someone with the power to infringe on your rights is present that "rights" become relevant. Where do we see rights discussed except in the political arena where they are subject to threats? A man apart from society doesn't have the "right" to hold property or do anything else, he has the unrestrained ability; it's only when someone comes along to contest that possession that his rights come into play.

That's the meat of it, IMHO.

It's not moral posturing at all, it's basic logic. Until/unless there are competing interests, ability and not right is the sole relevant concept. That I can't flap my arms and fly to the moon isn't God infringing on my rights, it's basic physics. Alone, nothing else limits my actions; I may not have the "right" to molest wildlife, but unless there's someone around to stop me, I can. It's only within a social construct that things like "slavery is wrong" become relevant.

That alone is (finally) an admission property rights are not foundational. Now we're down to discussing, not whether civil rights or property rights are basic (since we've both stated the latter is not) but whether civil rights or natural rights are. I submit that the term "natural rights" is oxymoronic, because God or nature only inherently endow ability, and that these are elevated to the status of rights when the ability of multiple individuals create conflicting interests. The conflict between acknowledged rights to liberty and property is a fine example, and the resolution lies, once again, in the realization that the rights society recognizes for all human beings preempt any one human beings right to property or liberty. Thus it is acceptable to revoke the liberty of a convicted murderer for the sake of others' lives.

No argument on that last bit. The Constitution, however, and indeed the whole theory of government as a social contract, legitimizes state defense by force of recognized civil rights. Again, that's why we can legally incarcerate criminals. In 1861 Americans knew this, which is why Lincoln had to result to the charade of saying US troops were attacked on US soil to legitimize the war (ironic, since prior to that date his greatest claim to fame was disputing the same claim regarding the Mexican-American War. ) Had the Civil War been sincerely fought for the freedom of men unjustly denied their right to liberty I'd have no objection, but on the grounds of revoking individual property or states rights by force, or the contradictory "liberty and union!" it doesn't work.

The prerogative of the states is not to deny its citizens civil rights on the basis of bias. You're falling into the same trap as Southerners did, the one that allowed the 10th Amendment to be made a dead letter in fact if not name: States rights are supreme so the states can do as they please unless the Constitution specifically reserves a given power to the feds. That's not what the Constitution says though:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

Note the usage of the words "the people" which also happen to be two of the first three words in the Constitution. States rights trump federal powers, but for the same reason the peoples rights (which is what I mean when I say, "civil rights" ) trump states rights. These are not "natural" rights because the only right gauranteed by God or nature is the right to, eventually, die. In a vacuum, everything else is a function not of what you have the right to do but of what you have the ability to do. Civil rights are those collectives recognize as universally held, and it is to protect and advance them that we form governments.

If he's alone no one can tell him he can't fly, but the ground may frequently and forcefully imply it. If he's alone, who is to gainsay his claim? Even so; that's why I speak of civil rather than natural rights. Enforcing the claim would almost certainly be an issue if someone else came around, and that often escalates the point rights to life and liberty are called into question, too. Civilization and social contracts are why the guy with the biggest club doesn't just resolve the matter de facto with no consideration of niceties like "rights. "

You have a keen eye for the obvious; a shame you didn't employ it sooner, smartass.

More productive? More successful would be closer to the mark, and then we're back to the strongest arm deciding. Civilization is more than just translating that into "he who has the gold makes the rules. " I don't think a trust fund baby is any "more productive" than a fry cook working 60 hours a week to feed his family (or try) but there's no argument who's more successful. Again, if you find the "supposed" benefits of society so objectionable, feel free to relocate to some place like Angola where you won't have all the burdensome American infringements on your rights. I feel it only "right" to warn you though: The average male life expectancy is about 34 (but you'll be FREE to be forced into the army at gunpoint!) This is what frustrates me about arguing with Libertarians: All the state powers from which we benefit directly are good, and the rest are tyrannical infringements on our liberty.

Fair enough; this is still America (sort of, for now.... )

I believe if you look around the world the "societies" (and I use the term loosely) that don't have widespread education and do have widespread hunger barely function at all. Somalias primary means of functioning seems to be piracy, for example, but who's to gainsay their right to seek food or the means to purchase it on their own?

Sure, I recognize there's a world in between, that compromises are not only possible but may be more effective. Indeed, part of the appeal of socialism to me is that consciously avoids the worst excesses of both total communism and laissez-faire capitalism. In a very real sense it RELIES on human nature; knowing that both big government and big business are untrustworthy and, ultimately, unaccountable, it sets them on each other and lets the public tilt the scale. If government becomes too autocratic the public in conjunction with corporate interests will beat it back for the sake of mutual interests, as the government and public will do with an unresponsive government. But when you start arguing in terms of what a mans rights are by himself, alone, you framed it in those terms and if you don't like where it leads that's not my fault or responsibility.

No prior statements to that effect have been cited; if you are aware of one perhaps I'll feel the obligation to provide a previous one by me. To my knowledge, Ben hasn't done the wotmania archive yet, so I can't show you any of the many cases where I used the phrase there (and by the last such I had refined it to something much more closely paralleling what you said) but here's the first instance I can find where I used it online:

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t26940.html

That should bring up a search page with one hit, and if you click the link, toward the bottom is an exchange between me and tombstoned where I say, "Civil Rights as just that, rights for everyone. A right not universally shared is no right, but a privilege which the elite that grant it will rescind whenever convenient. " Date is April '05, toward the end of my posting career on the only purely political site where I've ever contributed. Not that, once again, I'm aware of any prior claim to the phrase, but if you provide one I'm happy to attribute it in future.

Oddly enough I DID post a list of my stock phrases near the end of wotmania, mainly because few people were posting much of anything and I thought it might generate a little discussion. Unfortunately the only limited discussion was the consensus that too much of it was about God (as Shakespeare would say, "the fault, dear Brutus.... " ) It took me a while to get that particular phrase exactly as I wanted it, to make it concise while preserving meaning, so it didn't make the list, but if it will help you out I'll add it and repost the list for remedial reasons.

Actually THAT phrase used THAT way is, I believe, a Reaganism, and I doubt he nor Nancy would appreciate him being styled a "classical" or any other kind of liberal. However, saying a government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything isn't at all the same as saying that a non-universal right is just a privilege from an elite who'll rescind it at will. Again, and for the record, I've only ever posted on one political forum, and it did happen to be liberal (theoretically; it began as the Kerry/Edwards campaign forum and I only joined because they were missing OBVIOUS campaign opportunities and I felt even my scant help could benefit them. ) I was active for about a year, and that was five years ago.

I did ultimately find the Chesterton quote within the piece and then understood that was the one you meant, but thanks for the clarification.

You clearly DO know what words I'm referencing, since you just said others have used similar phrasing for similar meaning, though you still haven't managed to precisely articulate a thought you NEARLY struck at the start of all this. It's entirely possible to mock a notion without identifying its source, but clearly that was not the intent here since you used the phrase in a positive context. It seems far more likely that you encountered the phrase (whether or not you recall doing so) and subsequently misapplied the meaning, hence the change of one very important word.

News to me, but I don't read a lot of Chesterton; I believe the two of you have more in common than he and I do.

I'm inclined to agree with at least the last statement but, as I say, there has not been and will never be a perfect democracy because we are fallen beings. As much as I admire Jefferson though I'm dubious that life or much of anything else is a God given RIGHT; a bear can come along and eat you in the wilderness without any consideration of a right to life, just as disease can deny you the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As I said elsewhere, the chief value of governments and societies lies in recognizing human beings have such rights, but the principle of "rights" really only applies where there exists an entity that respects such concepts. Apart from that there are only things for which you have or lack the ability.

On the contrary, it seems to me, rightly or wrongly, you're still attempting semantic games. "Natural rights are those rights all human beings are endowed with in regards to each other, by virtue of their being human beings. They apply only to human conduct towards one another, but are inherent and sacrosanct" but "Civil rights are those rights in a society which are granted by society, and protected under law. " Emphasis mine, btw. When you speak of human endowments "in regards to each other; " you are speaking of civilization, of society, as when you elaborate that "They apply only to human conduct towards one another; " you are no longer speaking of a lone man with his God given rights in a vacuum. The only distinction that seems possible on those grounds is that a civil right is a natural right that has the explicit sanction of law, but I would counter that a "civilization" that grants no such sanction is not so much a civilization as a series of individuals who coincidentally occupy the same vicinity. Further, with respect to America specifically, thanks to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments the distinction between a right "in regards to each other" that applies "only to human conduct towards one another" it is truly a meaningless distinction because "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" so natural as well as civil rights have the explicit if not ennumerated sanction of no less authority than the US Constitution, and are equally protected by law, thus in America they are synonymous by your definition. If you wish to "drown that noxious idea in blood" you may have your work cut out for you.

I actually do agree there; the Civil War was, IMHO, the right war for the wrong reasons, which is why the peace was so awful. It's also, I suspect, why Lincoln was shot days after the war ended; had he lived, his Reconstruction plan was even less onerous than the one that got Johnson an impeachment trial (I believe the line was "with malice toward none, with charity for all" ) and I doubt he would've allowed the mammoth growth of corporate power and impoverishment of the South. In 1850 7/10 of the richest US states were in the South; by 1870 the Southern states were the poorest, and this generally remains the case. Had the war been fought in defense of civil rights (those held by the people and recognized as such by the government sworn to protect them) we would all be much better off, and assertions of states rights would remain the honorable and justified duty envisioned by the Founders rather than raising the specter of treason as it generally does today. I have no problem if someone wants to repeal the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to deny either state or civil rights, but there's a process for doing that, and it isn't "invade Virginia. "

I noticed, but then, I'm inclined to agree even if my response to the basic question is different. Yes, the freedom of a million is worth half a million dying, especially if a 300,000 of those died trying to DENY that freedom. But of course, that's only the way it went if you accept the victors account of history, the same people who point to Plymouth Rock as the first American colony because it's inconvenient to remember Jamestown was thirteen years earlier (and for that matter there were already French and Spanish colonies in the present day US even in 1607. ) Of one thing you may be certain, however you answer the question: If a mans family is dying of thirst and you tell him he has to kill you to get water from your well, that's exactly what he'll do, and you know darned good and well you'd do the same in his position. Hence Joe Kennedys comment that he'd gladly give up half of all he had to keep the other half in security. That wasn't about empowering the government, it was about keeping the mob off his doorstep.

Yes, I note that you've changed from "property rights are fundamental" to "natural rights are fundamental" but since you've defined "natural rights" in a way that makes them synonymous with "civil rights" obviously I can't define them in a way that doesn't include what they are. Good try changing horses in midstream, but your dismount was sloppy.

The surest form of power is power; that's what so many Libertarians forget, that the only thing keeping criminals individually or in groups coming to their homes with guns and TAKING what they want is that same government tyranny they castigate. That prevents corporate monopolies having to kowtow to the people even more than their absolute control over vital necessities like food, shelter and medical care. That people must resort to force either directly or collectively via law is the prime example of why "natural rights" are in practice the same as "civil rights. "

True enough, but character is who you are in the dark. I'd attribute that if I knew the original source, but I don't; it sounds like Twain.