WEBVTT

NOTE Natural Rights

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:12.000
Novelty are casted always in every page and together with a traditional way of thinking.

2
00:00:12.000 --> 00:00:18.000
For instance, the secularization of natural law, which is considered to be very important,

3
00:00:18.000 --> 00:00:22.000
and most people consider it to be the work of Gratius.

4
00:00:22.000 --> 00:00:28.000
And that is the idea that natural law is not derived from God as a lawgiver,

5
00:00:28.000 --> 00:00:50.000
This here is at least as old as Grigori of Rimini, who died in 1358. Let me write it down.

6
00:00:50.000 --> 00:01:01.320
This is a very important thinker. He died in 1358 in Paris, not in René. I don't know

7
00:01:01.320 --> 00:01:09.040
when he was born, but nobody knows. And actually, so this is the idea. He was the very first

8
00:01:09.040 --> 00:01:17.160
person to advance the idea that natural law was going to be natural law even if God did

9
00:01:17.160 --> 00:01:23.160
did not back it. He was not ready to say even if God did not exist, of course. I mean, he didn't want to be burdened.

10
00:01:23.160 --> 00:01:33.160
He just wanted to stay alive. But actually what he meant was that natural law does not depend at all on the will of God.

11
00:01:33.160 --> 00:01:41.160
It's not God that makes natural law. God had a good plan for mankind, and then mankind can find natural law,

12
00:01:41.160 --> 00:01:46.820
Law, which is definitely in accordance, usually, with God's will, but does not depend directly

13
00:01:46.820 --> 00:01:48.600
on God's will.

14
00:01:48.600 --> 00:02:00.080
So if we think of Grotius as the person who in 1625 secularized the notion of natural

15
00:02:00.080 --> 00:02:06.000
law, we would be wrong, because it goes back to the scholastics.

16
00:02:06.000 --> 00:02:16.000
So that's one instance, and it could probably be traced back also to some passages of Thomas Aquinas, as I said yesterday.

17
00:02:16.000 --> 00:02:32.000
And it was long attributed to Grotius, who wrote, Grotius, let's forget his real name, I mean this is a Latin name, Grotius will be happy with that, Grotius.

18
00:02:32.000 --> 00:02:40.640
And he wrote his major book in 1625, and that's important because in 1625 historians think

19
00:02:40.640 --> 00:02:56.240
that modern natural rights theory began with this book which is called the Ure Belli Bacchus

20
00:02:56.240 --> 00:03:01.440
on Peace and War, although law, peace and war.

21
00:03:01.440 --> 00:03:09.600
So this came out in 1625 and usually, you know, when you ask somebody when modern political

22
00:03:09.600 --> 00:03:15.160
doctrines on natural law began, they always say 1625, the Europe-Eliac Project, so you've

23
00:03:15.160 --> 00:03:17.400
got to know that.

24
00:03:17.400 --> 00:03:21.960
And actually he's considered to be responsible also for the secularization, because he said

25
00:03:21.960 --> 00:03:34.960
at a certain point he said, and this, he's talking about natural rights, and he says, and this would be true even if we would say a thing which we cannot say without blasphemy and so on,

26
00:03:34.960 --> 00:03:50.720
but at the end he says, even if God did not exist, I mean very, and so that's considered to be like the secularization of natural law that most people used to think was the very, the very, the thing that was completely different,

27
00:03:50.720 --> 00:03:54.180
But as we said, it goes back even to the scholastics.

28
00:03:54.180 --> 00:03:57.760
But going back to the problem of continuity,

29
00:03:57.760 --> 00:04:00.560
actually scholars that tend to stress the continuity

30
00:04:00.560 --> 00:04:04.020
do have a very clear textual evidence

31
00:04:04.020 --> 00:04:06.860
of the close connections between the modern

32
00:04:06.860 --> 00:04:09.580
and medieval thinkers and even the ancient ones.

33
00:04:10.440 --> 00:04:13.360
And moreover, neither as a method

34
00:04:13.360 --> 00:04:16.880
nor as a body of doctrine was scholasticism

35
00:04:16.880 --> 00:04:20.320
as spent forth by the year 1600

36
00:04:20.320 --> 00:04:22.360
and even in 1650 or so on.

37
00:04:22.360 --> 00:04:24.400
And actually the greatest synthesis

38
00:04:24.400 --> 00:04:28.880
of scholastic moral theory came out in 1612.

39
00:04:30.440 --> 00:04:35.440
And of course you wanna know the real title in Latin.

40
00:04:41.300 --> 00:04:44.380
And the author is a very important one.

41
00:04:50.320 --> 00:04:54.320
And the title is...

42
00:05:15.320 --> 00:05:18.320
And the year is...

43
00:05:18.320 --> 00:05:24.720
16 and 12. So like the greatest synthesis of scholasticism came actually out

44
00:05:24.720 --> 00:05:32.000
during modern times and so it's de legibus, legibus ac deo legislator, no need

45
00:05:32.000 --> 00:05:44.240
to translate that, right? It's been on laws considering that God is the

46
00:05:44.240 --> 00:05:57.640
and so he was a Jesuit and his first name is Francisco by the way and so

47
00:05:57.640 --> 00:06:02.960
actually we should ask ourselves what is it that makes modern doctrine so modern

48
00:06:02.960 --> 00:06:08.280
what is there something that makes it very modern and my answer would be that

49
00:06:08.280 --> 00:06:14.120
the thing that make natural right theory so novel is not so much what

50
00:06:14.120 --> 00:06:21.400
What we find in them, but is pretty much what we find outside of them.

51
00:06:21.400 --> 00:06:27.360
That is, the changing political atmosphere in Europe.

52
00:06:27.360 --> 00:06:33.720
And what we call, what I'm referring to, the rise of what we call the modern state,

53
00:06:33.720 --> 00:06:39.320
and according to a lot of historians, should just be called the state, as there was no

54
00:06:39.320 --> 00:06:46.800
Ancient or archaic state or anything like that, but the state was only a modern thing.

55
00:06:46.800 --> 00:06:52.680
And so in this sense, the new institutional reality of modern times that accompanied all

56
00:06:52.680 --> 00:07:03.920
these theories after the 1600s and that was shaped during the 1400s and 1500s, it's the

57
00:07:03.920 --> 00:07:08.620
greatest concentration of political power ever known to mankind.

58
00:07:08.620 --> 00:07:16.500
So at this point, the natural law theorists had to face something very new, absolutism,

59
00:07:16.500 --> 00:07:18.860
the state.

60
00:07:18.860 --> 00:07:26.300
And modern natural right thinkers are modern first and foremost because they are confronted

61
00:07:26.300 --> 00:07:30.520
with the state, the institutional framework of modernity.

62
00:07:30.520 --> 00:07:36.480
So that to me is like the most important thing for which they are modern.

63
00:07:36.480 --> 00:07:43.200
And of course, sometimes they're confused by the... they merge together with the social

64
00:07:43.200 --> 00:07:45.240
contract theorists.

65
00:07:45.240 --> 00:07:48.960
And so you have a lot of people, you know, the social contract, very simply it works

66
00:07:48.960 --> 00:07:54.400
like there was a state of nature, for some reasons it didn't work, or it was not enough,

67
00:07:54.400 --> 00:07:59.680
or it was bad enough, as for Hobbes, and then people had a contract and they formed political

68
00:07:59.680 --> 00:08:05.120
societies that is the state and they transferred, or maybe they did not, some of their natural

69
00:08:05.120 --> 00:08:11.440
Natural Rights to the Sovereign and then you have Political Community. Now that's Contractarianism

70
00:08:11.440 --> 00:08:17.200
and for a certain period, especially in the 1600s, the idea of the contract was very much

71
00:08:17.200 --> 00:08:23.000
and closely linked to the idea of natural rights. But actually from the intellectual

72
00:08:23.000 --> 00:08:28.560
and theoretical point of view, you can make clear distinctions between the two. One thing

73
00:08:28.560 --> 00:08:40.560
One thing is to say how political societies were born and to postulate it even as a historical reality or just a theoretical concept.

74
00:08:40.560 --> 00:08:47.560
And the other one is to say that men, that people, men and women have natural rights that is based on nature.

75
00:08:47.560 --> 00:08:56.560
One of the confusions actually is that most of the people think about natural rights as the rights that people possess in a state of nature.

76
00:08:56.560 --> 00:09:01.960
That is a very narrow way of looking at natural rights.

77
00:09:01.960 --> 00:09:07.480
Natural rights, according to the long tradition, is pretty much the rights that are dictated

78
00:09:07.480 --> 00:09:12.800
by nature, that are prescribed by nature to man, and that pertain directly to the essence

79
00:09:12.800 --> 00:09:14.120
of man.

80
00:09:14.120 --> 00:09:22.020
So actually, while the characteristic of ancient and medieval natural law was to be immutable,

81
00:09:22.020 --> 00:09:28.940
As we've said yesterday, the main feature of modern natural law was to produce rights,

82
00:09:28.940 --> 00:09:33.740
individual rights that were thought to be inalienable.

83
00:09:33.740 --> 00:09:41.140
And that's a good concept and we'll come back to this again pretty soon.

84
00:09:41.140 --> 00:09:48.300
And you have to note actually, you have to know that in John Locke's terminology, at

85
00:09:48.300 --> 00:10:07.300
at least in the Second Treaties, there's no mention of inalienability of rights and although he uses the concept and that has given rise to a lot of talk and discussion about inalienable and natural rights, but we'll discuss that in a bit.

86
00:10:07.300 --> 00:10:15.300
In turn, actually, inalienability means that one cannot divest himself or posterity of these rights,

87
00:10:15.300 --> 00:10:20.900
and that the state or political power cannot infringe upon the same rights.

88
00:10:20.900 --> 00:10:23.900
The concept has two meanings.

89
00:10:23.900 --> 00:10:28.700
And so the nature-given rights are the essence of human dignity,

90
00:10:28.700 --> 00:10:33.500
off the possibility actually of pursuing a fruitful and meaningful life,

91
00:10:33.500 --> 00:10:38.780
and to violate them as to deny the humanity of the individual.

92
00:10:38.780 --> 00:10:43.300
So it's just not doing wrong to someone.

93
00:10:43.300 --> 00:10:46.820
But for these writers, for most of these writers,

94
00:10:46.820 --> 00:10:49.220
and most of these thinkers, it really

95
00:10:49.220 --> 00:10:53.460
means to violate the dignity of the individual.

96
00:10:53.460 --> 00:10:56.900
But we'll go to this crucial point later.

97
00:10:56.900 --> 00:10:59.100
First of all, we have to sketch an outline

98
00:10:59.100 --> 00:11:01.780
of how the classical liberal tradition came

99
00:11:01.780 --> 00:11:14.380
to form on life, liberty and property, to focus on life, liberty and property as the powerful trio, summing up all natural rights.

100
00:11:14.380 --> 00:11:20.780
As you know, for the classical liberal tradition, there are only three natural rights, life, liberty and property.

101
00:11:20.780 --> 00:11:28.880
And when you think about it, we could say life and property, the idea that nobody can aggress yourself

102
00:11:28.880 --> 00:11:36.080
and the idea that nobody can aggress upon your lawful possessions because life is liberty.

103
00:11:36.080 --> 00:11:42.000
I mean, that's part of these. You can define liberty certainly in terms of being free to

104
00:11:42.000 --> 00:11:47.160
acquire goods and being free from aggression. So the close connection between liberty and

105
00:11:47.160 --> 00:11:54.560
property is part of the natural law tradition from Thomas to Suarez and was later developed

106
00:11:54.560 --> 00:11:57.920
fully by John Locke, as you all know.

107
00:11:57.920 --> 00:12:01.480
But the scholastics already called property dominium

108
00:12:02.800 --> 00:12:07.800
of external things and liberty dominium of oneself.

109
00:12:08.320 --> 00:12:11.080
So there you have a very closed link.

110
00:12:11.080 --> 00:12:13.620
You know, it was dominium over external thing

111
00:12:13.620 --> 00:12:16.800
that was property and dominium over yourself

112
00:12:16.800 --> 00:12:18.360
that was freedom.

113
00:12:18.360 --> 00:12:21.240
So you have a clear link that you don't have to wait

114
00:12:21.240 --> 00:12:23.920
until John Locke to see the closed link.

115
00:12:23.920 --> 00:12:30.880
And Suarez actually used the same word, dominium, to define the sovereign authority.

116
00:12:30.880 --> 00:12:38.920
So he used the word dominium in three senses, you know, it could be liberty, so when he was doing something wrong with his dominium,

117
00:12:38.920 --> 00:12:42.600
then you certainly had the right to rebel and not to obey him.

118
00:12:42.600 --> 00:12:48.840
Now the real problem is to distinguish between contractarianism, as I said, and nature-based rights.

119
00:12:48.840 --> 00:13:00.640
In other words, some rights might be viewed as the outcome of a contractual agreement and thus based on consent, and other rights as dictated by the very nature of men.

120
00:13:00.640 --> 00:13:08.840
And this is the way that most people look at natural rights, but I'll say how this could be kind of murky.

121
00:13:08.840 --> 00:13:16.840
And in many early modern theories, the line between consent and nature is not so easy to detect.

122
00:13:16.840 --> 00:13:21.480
You know, on one side you have a lot of people just thought that property came out of consent

123
00:13:21.480 --> 00:13:27.560
and then it was John Locke who proved that it came out of nature and it was a natural right.

124
00:13:27.560 --> 00:13:37.760
For instance, in Suarez's view, in situations of extreme hardship, the needy have the right to make use of private property of others.

125
00:13:37.760 --> 00:13:46.120
But not because of certain characteristics of private property, but simply because life overrides property.

126
00:13:46.120 --> 00:13:55.880
You know, he believed that there were natural rights, both life and property, but, I mean, if you're risking your life, you could get whatever you wanted and you were in need.

127
00:13:55.880 --> 00:14:00.320
And in that sort, in a certain sense, it could make some sense.

128
00:14:00.320 --> 00:14:12.960
But because private property returns, in his idea, it returns in times of hardship, it returns to the original common in the state of emergency.

129
00:14:12.960 --> 00:14:42.960
So the idea of the original common ownership for all mankind is present at almost in anybody, you know, in the 1600s, that was, that God gave the earth in common to the children of man, that's also written on the Bible, so it doesn't say in common, it says gave the earth to the children of man, but they just, that's the way they read it, and actually the only reason that private ownership was ever permitted is that it was consented to by the common

130
00:14:42.960 --> 00:14:47.960
and owners, and that up until John Locke, that was pretty much the view of very many

131
00:14:47.960 --> 00:14:48.960
thinkers.

132
00:14:48.960 --> 00:14:56.300
So, contractual agreements are always overridden by the goals set by the law of nature, which

133
00:14:56.300 --> 00:15:01.720
is in turn roughly and broadly speaking the common good in Suarez view, you know, so in

134
00:15:01.720 --> 00:15:08.120
a certain sense, private property is contractual, consented, I mean even tacitly consented

135
00:15:08.120 --> 00:15:13.440
by the people who let you take something out of the comments.

136
00:15:13.440 --> 00:15:19.120
So the idea was later expanded by the most important Protestant thinker of the times,

137
00:15:19.120 --> 00:15:27.520
Grotius again, who wrote The Law of War and Peace as I said in 1625, which was very influential.

138
00:15:27.520 --> 00:15:32.820
What you do not find in The Law of War and Peace was the idea of the state of nature.

139
00:15:32.820 --> 00:15:35.360
The state of nature is not there.

140
00:15:35.360 --> 00:15:36.960
It developed a bit later,

141
00:15:36.960 --> 00:15:40.840
but you have the idea that there are natural rights.

142
00:15:40.840 --> 00:15:42.560
And Grelzius outlines his view

143
00:15:42.560 --> 00:15:45.100
of how private property came into existence

144
00:15:45.100 --> 00:15:47.280
in book two, chapter two.

145
00:15:47.280 --> 00:15:50.420
And let me quote this.

146
00:15:50.420 --> 00:15:51.260
Yes.

147
00:15:52.500 --> 00:15:55.460
God conferred upon the human race

148
00:15:55.460 --> 00:15:59.620
a general right over things of a lower nature.

149
00:15:59.620 --> 00:16:02.540
Each man could at once take whatever he wished

150
00:16:02.540 --> 00:16:13.140
for His Own Needs, but whatever Hitch had thus taken from his own needs, another could not take from him," end quote.

151
00:16:13.140 --> 00:16:18.540
And then he states how things became subject to private ownership.

152
00:16:18.540 --> 00:16:36.060
It happened, and this is a quotation again, by a kind of agreement, either expressed as by division or implied as by occupation.

153
00:16:36.060 --> 00:16:38.460
So that was his idea of private property.

154
00:16:38.460 --> 00:16:48.300
And with some important differences, actually the same theory on the origin of property was becoming part of the modern natural rights doctrine in the 1600s.

155
00:16:48.300 --> 00:16:53.700
to Samuel Pufendorf, better write it down.

156
00:17:07.700 --> 00:17:14.100
So to Samuel Pufendorf, who wrote the law of nature and nations,

157
00:17:14.100 --> 00:17:41.400
in, well, I forgot the year, but it was 1660 something, you know, yeah, circa mid-sixties, all right, anyway, it was called, it was The Law of Nature and Nations, it's a very common title, you find a whole bunch of books that are called The Law of Nature and Nations,

158
00:17:41.400 --> 00:17:46.440
Because the law of nations in the 1600s was the law of nature. It was the same thing.

159
00:17:46.440 --> 00:17:51.240
And in fact, Thomas Jefferson, one time he was translating, and he translated the law,

160
00:17:51.240 --> 00:17:56.680
eus gentium, and he translated, which was actually the law of nations,

161
00:17:56.680 --> 00:18:02.520
and he translated natural rights, natural law, because it was supposed to be the same thing.

162
00:18:02.520 --> 00:18:06.280
You know, in the law of nations, there was nothing like positive law.

163
00:18:06.280 --> 00:18:09.880
There was also, there was only natural law. If you want me to write it down.

164
00:18:09.880 --> 00:18:28.760
on the law. And you had Fattel and all sort of people who wrote books with the same title

165
00:18:28.760 --> 00:18:35.820
and pretty profound stuff that I have to spend much time on. Anyway, he based the right to

166
00:18:35.820 --> 00:18:40.980
Property and Human Agreement, although the human agreement was of a different kind, but

167
00:18:40.980 --> 00:18:45.100
it was a human agreement rather than natural law.

168
00:18:45.100 --> 00:18:49.620
And at this point, you know, like the question of property and its origins seems to be pretty

169
00:18:49.620 --> 00:18:54.140
much solved by these thinkers, and they were authorities, you know, they were all well

170
00:18:54.140 --> 00:19:00.560
known throughout Europe and everybody referred to Grotus and Pufender and everybody was pretty

171
00:19:00.560 --> 00:19:01.560
much settled.

172
00:19:01.560 --> 00:19:12.880
But what happened then is John Locke came along and he changed the whole idea as far

173
00:19:12.880 --> 00:19:16.800
as the origin of property goes.

174
00:19:16.800 --> 00:19:25.240
And so in 1690 he published, well you know what he published, right, the Two Treatises

175
00:19:25.240 --> 00:19:26.240
on Government.

176
00:19:26.240 --> 00:19:27.240
I don't have to write it down.

177
00:19:27.240 --> 00:19:57.240
it was in 1690 and he put the date 1689 on it he actually published it in 1690 but now we know that he wrote the book in six between 1679 and 1683 so like almost ten years earlier than a lot of people thought for very many years now with what does that mean well the first thing it means that John Locke was

178
00:19:57.240 --> 00:20:05.240
was not writing any justification for the Glorious Revolution, because he wrote it prior to the Glorious Revolution.

179
00:20:05.240 --> 00:20:13.240
The second thing is, it was anonymous. I mean, he just wrote in his will that he probably was the author. Everybody knew, but it was anonymous.

180
00:20:13.240 --> 00:20:22.240
So he was really afraid. And if you're writing the justification of a regime which is in place, I mean, you're not afraid of anything, right?

181
00:20:22.240 --> 00:20:29.600
Right? I mean, you just want to be a sort of laureate philosopher, but he was actually afraid,

182
00:20:29.600 --> 00:20:34.080
you know, he was afraid because of what happened to Sydney in 1683.

183
00:20:34.080 --> 00:20:39.640
He actually lost his head for republicanism, literally, of course.

184
00:20:39.640 --> 00:20:48.480
And so actually it was written probably in 1679-81, and I point out this to you because it's very important

185
00:20:48.480 --> 00:20:55.320
because you have to understand that it's much more a revolutionary theory than we always thought,

186
00:20:55.320 --> 00:20:59.320
especially that Marx and a lot of other people thought.

187
00:20:59.320 --> 00:21:05.480
And so it changed forever the debate on the origins of property, that is, private property.

188
00:21:05.480 --> 00:21:12.600
And this book, the two treatises of government, I mean, you always talk about the first and the second one,

189
00:21:12.600 --> 00:21:17.360
but it's actually the same book, you know, it's like two parts of the same book.

190
00:21:17.360 --> 00:21:23.200
and but but we all do we all do we talk about this the first and second one and it's really

191
00:21:23.200 --> 00:21:29.760
considered the starting point of classical liberalism and also libertarianism and Locke's

192
00:21:29.760 --> 00:21:35.920
doctrines of course did not come out of the blue in fact Lord Acton himself considered him to be

193
00:21:35.920 --> 00:21:42.800
the last of the scholastics and he said that Thomas Aquinas was the first of the Whigs so in

194
00:21:42.800 --> 00:22:05.800
In this sense, you can see that there is a relationship with the old tradition and it's very clear because especially now we know how much Locke's ideas were deeply rooted in the natural law tradition as it is clearly shown by his essays on the law of nature,

195
00:22:05.800 --> 00:22:16.300
which were written probably in 1663, 64, but were published only in 1953 for the first time.

196
00:22:16.300 --> 00:22:19.300
They came out and were published in 1953.

197
00:22:19.300 --> 00:22:29.300
So a lot of people said, well this guy, because a lot of people thought that he didn't talk long enough about what law of nature was, what he meant by the law of nature.

198
00:22:29.300 --> 00:22:36.100
And actually he didn't do that because he had already done this in the essays on the law of nature but were never published.

199
00:22:36.100 --> 00:22:44.000
So you can see that there is a clear connection between scholasticism and everything that was going on and the thought of John Locke.

200
00:22:44.000 --> 00:22:54.500
So Locke is really a political thinker of great force and his arguments that tie private property and private ownership to natural rights and natural justice

201
00:22:54.500 --> 00:22:59.000
are still at the core of classical liberal and libertarian thinking.

202
00:22:59.000 --> 00:23:08.000
And moreover, actually, since we are in America, you know that the Founding Fathers, most of them, at least, were thinking in Lockean terms,

203
00:23:08.000 --> 00:23:18.000
as they thought that the only legitimate role of government was to protect individual rights that predated any establishment of political society.

204
00:23:18.000 --> 00:23:21.000
That was the common understanding in America.

205
00:23:21.000 --> 00:23:27.200
Actually, John Locke was much more important for political developments in America than in England.

206
00:23:27.200 --> 00:23:35.600
In England, he was not, I mean, politically, he was taken too seriously as a philosopher and not too seriously as a political thinker.

207
00:23:35.600 --> 00:23:44.900
But in America, it was quite the opposite, and I think he was a much greater political thinker than a philosopher.

208
00:23:44.900 --> 00:23:48.200
He was a great philosopher, a much greater political thinker.

209
00:23:48.200 --> 00:23:55.600
And in spite of the revisionism that came from the so-called republican school that you've heard about,

210
00:23:55.600 --> 00:24:05.000
Gardenwood, Pockock and so on, the U.S. at the founding was really found in lock the basis of their moral philosophy.

211
00:24:05.000 --> 00:24:14.920
And really of note that for me the U.S. is always plural, you know, I'll never say the U.S. is,

212
00:24:14.920 --> 00:24:37.920
John Locke was the first to demonstrate and to show brilliantly that the laws of nature impose an obligation on men to respect the property rights of anybody who acquired these rights, in a just and legitimate way.

213
00:24:37.920 --> 00:24:54.920
So Locke really wants to show how men might come to have a property in several parts of that which God gave to mankind in common, and that without any express compact among all the commoners. This was a quotation, end quote.

214
00:24:54.920 --> 00:24:59.920
Man might come to have a property in several parts. That was actually his task.

215
00:24:59.920 --> 00:25:04.920
So pretty, the legitimacy of the original acquisition was really the task.

216
00:25:04.920 --> 00:25:10.920
And to demonstrate that was a task that Locke was really wanted to achieve and he did achieve it.

217
00:25:10.920 --> 00:25:16.920
And Locke actually discovered that private property was indeed imposed by the law of nature,

218
00:25:16.920 --> 00:25:21.920
long before any human convention sanctioned it.

219
00:25:21.920 --> 00:25:27.280
and he begins to explore in the second treaties the characteristics of the state of nature

220
00:25:27.280 --> 00:25:32.480
and I wanted to quote at length of second treaties but I will not do that right now otherwise

221
00:25:32.480 --> 00:25:40.160
I will not have time to to conclude my argument but but it's a it's very short brief you can read

222
00:25:40.160 --> 00:25:47.280
it in one afternoon and it stays with you for quite a while and so Locke agrees with the traditional

223
00:25:47.280 --> 00:25:53.280
A view that originally God gave the world in common to the children of men. However, quote,

224
00:25:53.280 --> 00:26:02.280
Every man has a property in his own person, and this nobody has any right to but himself.

225
00:26:02.280 --> 00:26:10.280
So this was really the starting point of the natural, of the idea that you can acquire property from

226
00:26:10.280 --> 00:26:14.280
in the state of nature in a legitimate way, because you do own yourself.

227
00:26:14.280 --> 00:26:30.280
So this is really a crucial point. In fact, it is exactly from this absolute right of self-ownership that the legitimate acquisition of what was once common property becomes possible.

228
00:26:30.280 --> 00:26:43.280
In fact, it was an obedience to a command of God and reason that man mixed his own labor with the earth to improve it for the benefit of life.

229
00:26:43.280 --> 00:26:48.640
so it was really a command of God and a command of reason pretty much the same

230
00:26:48.640 --> 00:26:56.840
thing and man and next to the land that nobody was using his labor which is

231
00:26:56.840 --> 00:27:01.700
something that was his property and nobody else had a title to nor could

232
00:27:01.700 --> 00:27:07.480
without injury take from him and so Locke clearly stated two axioms that are

233
00:27:07.480 --> 00:27:12.760
crucial to the contemporary libertarian movement the self ownership and the

234
00:27:12.760 --> 00:27:22.520
The Homesteading Accidents, Homesteading.

235
00:27:22.520 --> 00:27:28.240
So private property was now founded on the solid rock of natural law instead of the murky

236
00:27:28.240 --> 00:27:31.240
sands of human conventions.

237
00:27:31.240 --> 00:27:37.400
And I'm not saying that it's not been challenged, but actually if you take a look at any article

238
00:27:37.400 --> 00:27:43.400
was written in the 1900s on private property. They always began quoting Locke.

239
00:27:43.400 --> 00:27:48.400
I mean, even if it's to refute his position and so on.

240
00:27:48.400 --> 00:27:52.400
Whenever they start talking about private property, they always begin with John Locke,

241
00:27:52.400 --> 00:27:59.400
because it was very forceful and certainly it sounds something like of natural justice, too.

242
00:27:59.400 --> 00:28:04.400
There are other aspects of John Locke's political doctrine that are very important, definitely,

243
00:28:04.400 --> 00:28:17.280
Definitely, but nothing compares to this. Labor and reason establish the title to private property, and there is no consent, either express or tacit, involved in this operation.

244
00:28:17.280 --> 00:28:32.640
And actually in the 1800s, you had a bunch of British socialists that, given this labor theory of acquiring property, tried to use John Locke as sort of the grandfather of socialism.

245
00:28:32.640 --> 00:28:37.200
it didn't last very long I mean it was clearly flawed but but certainly the

246
00:28:37.200 --> 00:28:46.060
idea that he put labor as the essence or essential entity essential thing that

247
00:28:46.060 --> 00:28:51.960
came out to justify property was was important also to some socialists but in

248
00:28:51.960 --> 00:28:57.560
some part of the Second Treatise Locke refers to property meaning life, liberty

249
00:28:57.560 --> 00:29:02.400
and estate usually property is private ownership and so on but then he refers to

250
00:29:02.400 --> 00:29:09.360
refers to that property summing up all the natural rights that is life, liberty and estate.

251
00:29:09.360 --> 00:29:18.940
That is, property becomes the sum of all natural rights and it is in this way he began a tradition

252
00:29:18.940 --> 00:29:27.920
which we can call the property rights tradition.

253
00:29:27.920 --> 00:29:33.520
And actually the dream I would say or illusion at least of Locke, Jefferson and countless

254
00:29:33.520 --> 00:29:39.560
classical liberals after them was to create a government as a rights protector.

255
00:29:39.560 --> 00:29:43.400
That was their dream that we can now see as an illusion.

256
00:29:43.400 --> 00:29:48.880
And strictly confined to its role of offering the individual pretty much the same protection

257
00:29:48.880 --> 00:29:54.600
for his rights that she would seek for herself if she were so powerful.

258
00:29:54.600 --> 00:29:59.600
That was the idea, actually, that most of these classical liberals had.

259
00:29:59.600 --> 00:30:06.220
It was a very noble idea, I greatly respect it, but to tell you the truth, I agree with

260
00:30:06.220 --> 00:30:11.960
Rothbard that says that the real utopia is limited government, because government power

261
00:30:11.960 --> 00:30:16.520
tends to grow in itself and there's no way of stopping it.

262
00:30:16.520 --> 00:30:22.640
So the real utopia seems to be limited government, and well, anarchy might be a sort of utopia

263
00:30:22.640 --> 00:30:34.820
So one thing must be clear, in the Lockean and largely American framework, individuals

264
00:30:34.820 --> 00:30:41.120
do not give up any of their natural rights whenever they enter into society.

265
00:30:41.120 --> 00:30:46.160
There is this bizarre notion, and sometimes you even read this in textbooks, that they

266
00:30:46.160 --> 00:30:47.560
give up some of their natural rights.

267
00:30:47.560 --> 00:30:50.480
No, they do not give up any of their natural rights.

268
00:30:50.480 --> 00:30:57.480
One thing they probably do give up is self-defense, because actually the state of nature, according

269
00:30:57.480 --> 00:31:02.760
to Locke, is a state in which there is no common judge.

270
00:31:02.760 --> 00:31:08.240
And if you do have a common judge, then you give up your right to self-defense, but that's

271
00:31:08.240 --> 00:31:12.320
probably the only thing you may think of giving up when you enter society.

272
00:31:12.320 --> 00:31:18.680
Rather individuals enter into a state of political society and leave the state of nature only

273
00:31:18.680 --> 00:31:25.120
to better preserve and protect their natural rights, in his theory, and it could be argued

274
00:31:25.120 --> 00:31:30.960
that the only right that do relinquish, as I said, is self-defense, but the compact that

275
00:31:30.960 --> 00:31:37.840
creates political society, in Locke's opinion, has got to be unanimous. You see, if one person

276
00:31:37.840 --> 00:31:43.760
says, no, I'm pretty much glad to remain in the state of nature with all my rights, that's

277
00:31:43.760 --> 00:31:47.760
This is all for the rest of the community, you know. There's no way you can create.

278
00:31:47.760 --> 00:31:55.760
There's not, there's anything like this murky concept of quasi-unanimity that Buchanan uses or anything like that.

279
00:31:55.760 --> 00:31:59.760
You know, it's unanimity. It's got to be, everybody's got to consent.

280
00:31:59.760 --> 00:32:05.760
And so, to enter in a social state, I mean, you have to go by a contract of this kind.

281
00:32:05.760 --> 00:32:11.760
And the social state means to have a common judge, because you just believe that

282
00:32:11.760 --> 00:32:21.760
The real problem with the state of nature was that you didn't have a common judge to refer to, and so the principle was name-o, eudic, I'll write it down.

283
00:32:21.760 --> 00:32:40.800
So the principle that was violated in the state of nature was that nobody should judge

284
00:32:40.800 --> 00:32:46.680
when his part of, when, nobody should judge his own things, his own quarrels, his own

285
00:32:46.680 --> 00:32:47.680
conflicts.

286
00:32:47.680 --> 00:33:14.680
So that was violated and then so people moved to the state of society in order to avoid this this problem, but it creates, you have to understand that not only you have a common judge, but what you do is you create, it's really twofold, the contract that creates political society.

287
00:33:14.680 --> 00:33:22.680
First, it creates a global civil right, that is, the right to securely enjoy life, liberty and property.

288
00:33:22.680 --> 00:33:29.680
And it does not create any conventional rights, like the rights you can have by majorities with parliament or anything like that.

289
00:33:29.680 --> 00:33:33.680
It just creates you a global civil right. It gives you a global civil right.

290
00:33:33.680 --> 00:33:40.680
The right to be protected by government and enjoy life, liberty and property.

291
00:33:40.680 --> 00:34:10.680
and there's nothing like such a right such as to a welfare check or anything like that that could be created do I mean majority and conventionally actually what it happens you can say that these rights are reinforced conventionally but only the natural rights are reinforced conventionally and there are there's no new right new right implied in the contract so in this framework civil rights are the right

292
00:34:10.680 --> 00:34:16.740
of being protected by the government. On the other hand, the compact poses strict

293
00:34:16.740 --> 00:34:24.780
limitations on government activities, not only the violations, but also the

294
00:34:24.780 --> 00:34:29.420
scarce protection of natural rights render the government illegitimate and

295
00:34:29.420 --> 00:34:35.640
thus subject to the right of revolution. So we have two rights stemming out of the

296
00:34:35.640 --> 00:34:45.640
A right to be protected by the government and an individual right to revolution, that is to protection from the government.

297
00:34:45.640 --> 00:34:57.640
So you have, with John Locke, you have this very limited government, a right, you have the right to be protected, and of course you have your own right, which is the right to revolution, and John Locke is always individual.

298
00:34:57.640 --> 00:35:11.640
I'll show it to you, but it's clearly stated it's individual. You could do it collectively, but it's not of the whole community. It's always an individual riot.

299
00:35:11.640 --> 00:35:20.640
So this sums up, actually, the moral and political philosophy of Locke and also of most of the founding fathers of the United States.

300
00:35:20.640 --> 00:35:30.640
And, as you know, they were very suspicious of political power in general, and also they thought that the real threat for human liberty came from government.

301
00:35:30.640 --> 00:35:37.640
And in this sense, they not only considered rights natural, but also inalienable, as I said.

302
00:35:37.640 --> 00:35:44.640
Now, one problem with this is that Locke doesn't use the concept. He uses the concept, but he does not use the word.

303
00:35:44.640 --> 00:35:56.240
We'll go very quickly on that, but the concept of inalienable rights was certainly very important to revolutionary America.

304
00:35:56.240 --> 00:36:05.000
So if certain basic rights were to be the moral touchstone by means of which the conduct of all political authority must be checked,

305
00:36:05.000 --> 00:36:08.760
then they must be hinderant to hold individuals.

306
00:36:08.760 --> 00:36:12.320
This was clear for the revolutionary generation in America,

307
00:36:12.320 --> 00:36:19.520
But, actually, what happens to be yesterday's matter of fact, matter of course, becomes today's puzzle.

308
00:36:19.520 --> 00:36:27.220
As you see, you know, with all those historians writing pages and pages on inalienable rights and they don't know what they're talking about.

309
00:36:27.220 --> 00:36:34.120
And so, so many contemporary scholars have trouble understanding the very concept of inalienable rights.

310
00:36:34.120 --> 00:36:41.120
And some even contend that inalienable and natural are two separate categories,

311
00:36:41.120 --> 00:36:46.860
which is really bull as far as I'm concerned.

312
00:36:46.860 --> 00:36:57.900
And actually there's a scholar who said that I could relinquish my natural right to property by letting kids play in my own yard.

313
00:36:57.900 --> 00:37:01.840
That's a very bizarre statement. It comes from a good scholar, I tell you that.

314
00:37:01.840 --> 00:37:07.340
I mean, you're exactly using your natural right to property. You let people in and play, you know.

315
00:37:07.340 --> 00:37:11.700
That's the way of using it, not forfeiting your natural light.

316
00:37:11.700 --> 00:37:13.340
But I'll make it very simple for you.

317
00:37:13.340 --> 00:37:21.420
Inalienable actually means that one cannot divest herself of these rights, even if you really wanted to.

318
00:37:21.420 --> 00:37:27.980
And being the essence of the human condition, it would be equivalent to saying, I am not a person.

319
00:37:27.980 --> 00:37:32.140
However, inalienability is the impression of nature.

320
00:37:32.140 --> 00:37:45.980
So nature renders inalienable certain rights by imprinting her mark on them, and by creating men, nature's God has also provided them with rights, both natural and inalienable.

321
00:37:45.980 --> 00:37:48.700
They are one and inseparable.

322
00:37:48.700 --> 00:37:52.580
Now one last word on the recent revival of natural rights doctrine.

323
00:37:52.580 --> 00:37:56.940
As you know, after the 1800s, it went down, slowly declined.

324
00:37:56.940 --> 00:38:01.940
At the end of the 1800s, it was over, and it was only the Catholic Church who used it.

325
00:38:01.940 --> 00:38:08.940
In 1879, they proclaimed Sam Thomas Aquinas to be like the official philosopher of the Church and so on.

326
00:38:08.940 --> 00:38:16.940
So for at least, for almost 100 years, if you wanted to talk about natural brides, you had to know your Latin and go to talk to a lot of bishops.

327
00:38:16.940 --> 00:38:31.940
But, what happened in 1974? A book came out, not a great book at all, but influential, which is called Anarchy, State, and Utopia, and was written by Robert Nozick.

328
00:38:31.940 --> 00:38:42.940
But the good thing about this book is that since the guy was at Harvard, then you could start talking about natural rights again, and they would accept the articles, at least for quite a while.

329
00:38:42.940 --> 00:38:47.180
But everybody says, you know, that he takes a natural rights approach.

330
00:38:47.180 --> 00:38:53.820
However, he never really argues for his thesis that individuals are engines in their own cells

331
00:38:53.820 --> 00:38:56.540
and thus have rights to life, liberty and property.

332
00:38:56.540 --> 00:39:00.140
He just states it in the first pages and that's it.

333
00:39:00.140 --> 00:39:01.660
Then he never argues about it.

334
00:39:01.660 --> 00:39:03.900
He never argues in favor of it.

335
00:39:03.900 --> 00:39:10.060
As his position was never defended, it was very easy for him to abandon his weak classical liberalism

336
00:39:10.060 --> 00:39:12.300
and become a socialist.

337
00:39:12.300 --> 00:39:42.300
and he did that, I mean it's written all over, he said it to me at once actually, we were always talking to Robert Nozick and he was considered at the time a great philosopher and he said oh there's only a bunch of you libertarians, why don't you go on an island and build up a society, that's a great way of reasoning for one of the greatest philosophers of our times, really a great argument, but anyway, since he wanted

338
00:39:42.300 --> 00:39:48.580
And to be considered part of the Harvard establishment, I understand that there was some utility.

339
00:39:48.580 --> 00:39:52.580
But actually, the books that he wrote after Anarchy, State and Utopia, I mean, nobody

340
00:39:52.580 --> 00:39:54.280
really cared about it.

341
00:39:54.280 --> 00:39:56.100
Not at Harvard and not anywhere else.

342
00:39:56.100 --> 00:40:00.780
The Nature of Rationality is a book that made me laugh all through the book.

343
00:40:00.780 --> 00:40:03.360
I mean, it's just not his field.

344
00:40:03.360 --> 00:40:08.100
But a much more serious effort, and that's really the end of it, a much more serious

345
00:40:08.100 --> 00:40:22.100
Days after, to restate, the natural rights doctrine was done by our, Murray Rothbard, in 1982, in the Ethics of Liberty, a book that I was very proud to translate in Italian a few years ago.

346
00:40:22.100 --> 00:40:28.100
Now, so you're pretty much sure that I read it, since I just dated it.

347
00:40:28.100 --> 00:40:35.100
So Rothbard really takes the position of natural rights to the extreme.

348
00:40:35.100 --> 00:40:45.100
He actually uses the concept of inalienability to destroy the idea of the legitimacy of the social compact.

349
00:40:45.100 --> 00:40:53.100
So the social compact would in fact imply the alienation of natural rights, and thus it is illegitimate,

350
00:40:53.100 --> 00:40:58.100
just like a contract by which someone would sell himself to slavery.

351
00:40:58.100 --> 00:41:04.020
So, at this point, you can see that the two traditions that Block fused, on one side,

352
00:41:04.020 --> 00:41:09.660
contractarianism and natural rights on the other, are now completely separated.

353
00:41:09.660 --> 00:41:17.580
The most notable defender of the former of contractarianism is John Rawls, who wrote a

354
00:41:17.580 --> 00:41:23.140
lot of books, but the most influential of which was The Theory of Justice in 1971, who

355
00:41:23.140 --> 00:41:29.440
who actually argues that we can agree upon certain ideas of what a just and fair society is,

356
00:41:29.440 --> 00:41:33.500
but that we have no natural rights to begin with.

357
00:41:33.500 --> 00:41:37.780
He actually argues that we do not own our own talents.

358
00:41:37.780 --> 00:41:42.300
I mean, let's say I was Pavarotti, I was a great singer, I do not own this kind of talent.

359
00:41:42.300 --> 00:41:47.540
And I guess what kind of personality comes out of this when you don't even own your talents,

360
00:41:47.540 --> 00:41:49.060
when you owe it to society.

361
00:41:49.060 --> 00:41:51.300
I think you're not even human.

362
00:41:51.300 --> 00:41:58.140
So while the natural rights doctrine is still the greatest fence to liberty as Rothbard shows,

363
00:41:58.140 --> 00:42:03.820
the contractarian tradition has followed a quite different path, the justification of

364
00:42:03.820 --> 00:42:08.940
the warfare welfare state that historically has been the greatest threat to individual

365
00:42:08.940 --> 00:42:09.940
liberty.