Gottfried definitely has a tremendous amount to contribute. I feel like a lot of people sleep on him. He’a a great gateway to a lot of reactionary ideas.
This was a great conversation, specifically the framing of natural law being different from natural rights. Thank you gentlemen. Cleared up some of my thinking.
Anything to say about negative rights vs positive rights. All i got out of this conversation was "rights don't really exist. Fight for your tradition, which will be proven right by winning." That is an ugly castle built on nothing.
I’m with Anton on this. When the colonists declared independence, they could have simple told King George, “We’re out.” Instead, they saw fit to justify their actions by appeal to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” That is to say, they tried to prove, objectively, that they were right and King George was wrong. The colonists thought of themselves as a distinct people and, according to Federalist 2, a people “attached to the same principles of government.” Though natural rights are universal, they saw their government founded on natural rights as a particular one. I don’t see why we must equate the particularity of the American revolution with the neocon worldwide democracy evangelism of the present.
At a dinner some years ago, I asked Sir Roger Scruton whether there is any such thing as rights at all. He rumpled his hair and said, “well, maybe negative rights, anyway.” Since I am only a lawyer, not trained in philosophy, I didn’t want question him about this further.
I'm in the complete opposite situation of Gottfried's personal life. I'm stuck in a small but very blue enclave in a very red state (WV). It can be quite the freak show.
_I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs the World by his Providence. That he ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable Service we can render him, is doing good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be fundamental Principles of all sound Religion._ *- Benjamin Franklin, the least religious Founding Father*
@@FEiSTYFEVER Benjamin Franklin wasn't a deist; he believed the Lord had an active role in the creation of the new country. _We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and by-word down to future ages...I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service._ --Benjamin Franklin That the Founders were deist is a myth conjured by atheist academics in the 60s (like everything else here that is communist).
@@FEiSTYFEVERA Christian deist. Benny wasn't claiming God is an elephant, had four arms, or spied on people through ravens. Deism is just protestantism with the serial numbers filed off.
Man is not the author of Creation, nor is he its slave. Man has agency, but also limits both of Nature and of Spirit. Childish spite sees these limits as unfair; mature wisdom knows them as the structure that allows him to climb to his greatest height. No right without commensurate responsability. Only the worthy may rule; if you are worthy you _must_ rule. Man's laws and words cannot remake reality, at best they serve as guides to unspoken truth. In a pragmatic sense once you have progressed to the point of needing to codify the structure of society and so-called rights in writing you have long since lost the Divine spark, and any kind of harmonious existence in the universe. but since we are there already, anything of that sort can only be done in accordance with the natural law that already exists. every right, every privilege, every claim to entitlement must be as close to actual ability, inherent nature, and willingness as possible. there will always be some deviation because the world isn't perfect. the greater the deviation, the greater the evil in the world. What you have the right to do and claim must always be aligned with what you have the ability and competency to do, and thus what you have the responsibility to do. So long as one is fulfilling their proper role, and carrying out their natural responsibilities, they absolutely have the right to dignity. They do not ever have the right to license. But you cannot defend you have no right to keep. not just because this is morally correct, but because it is naturally correct. This is the law of vitality, and everything that goes against it is, by definition, anti-life. Structures that move towards natural law Elevate and enhancement; structures that are antithetical to natural law entrap and de-soul. The ultimate test of right is not what you can say, but what you can do.
But what gives the tradition its worthy ground? Is it simply that it's handed down? The Taliban handed down a tradition. Postmodernists hand down a tradition. Is the more fundamental ground in the way a tradition is formed and maintained, and in the existential needs a tradition responds to? But then, isn't that ground something closer to what any tradition has in common? (even if it's a repressive tradition)
I have far more of the framework of Paul Gottfried. I think about much of what he asserts often. Much of what he discusses here are largely my issues with conservatism at large. I certainly agree on his take regarding tradition, as well as his takedown of natural rights doctrine that seems to be soup-de-jour in America. This of course does not make guys like us popular among many groups on the Right despite us being on it. I'm obviously a young guy and not as well read as Paul, but definitely take the time to read and develop my views on these subjects, and indeed have over the years, and continue do so. What strikes me as an American is that we don't have any traditions in this country. My family largely doesn't have them either, at least none that I'm involved with. America largely seems traditionless and has no semblance of being a serious country with an substantive identity. Even lesser countries have at least that. A good example of this, among many, that has always bugged me is that my family isn't from this country. I'm black, yet when I look outside I see all manner of celebrations of "pride", other cultures, and other countries, among other degenerate celebrations that are prominent in this country under the banner of "human rights" and "liberal democracy." I see things like West Indian Day parades, which is where my family comes from, and I find myself hating it because this is not their country nor is it the country of West Indians. Out there they don't even celebrate Thanksgiving, and have no idea what it is. No American would dare impose it out there, yet everything is imposed on Americans out here. I use to tout approvingly about our cultural melting pot, but I wonder if even that has replaced and erased American culture and tradition. I have arrived at yes. I don't have any traditions to speak of as an American, and that bothers me and I wonder why conservatives don't realize this no matter how much they pretend otherwise. Our borders are wide open and that is yet another death knell in this ostensible country. Many on Right pretend that it has no affect, and articulating that we have no country will get you labeled all sorts of obscenities and perjoratives, especially among conservatives. Like Gottfried noted, the way we go is tradition, irrespective of familial blood, and it must be specifically defined and passed on as tradition. I'm a Christian guy so biblical morality is definitely a priority for me as well. I don't mind grouping with likeminded folks who want to build that community with me. It's easier said than done, but it's needed and worth it for sure. Good stuff here. I appreciate this conversation and Gottfried saying what needs to be said. Men like him are of great value.
I'm reading Antifascism at the minute. It's pleasantly readable. Sometimes I find political books a little heavy going. My uneducated brain can handle this one. Fascism might be next on my list.
Receiving an education on these things, so relatively late in life, has made me feel rather foolish and duped. Growing up in "conservative" Christian circles, and at the same time having that Christianity constantly conflated with American constitutionalism, I did feel the dissonance, but only with the passage of decades did I come to understand exactly why the dissonance existed. The trifecta of "rights" in the Declaration of Independence, I now see, is deeply irreligious, and profoundly un-Christian. Like all intellectual products of the Enlightenment, it misinforms because it lacks a proper Anthropology. It deals with the human being as if it were possible for him or her to be truly an isolated individual. (As a side note, therefore, to recover a proper Tradition requires, among other things, theology...which is one reason why I don't think we're ready for it, since that word basically means "fairy tale" to so many people.) It also opens the door, as Auron and Paul pointed out, to the slippery slope made possible by the divorce of rights from responsibilities, as if every so-called "right" did not automatically bring a host of responsibilities in its train. My wife works in the domain of Social Services and Mental Health, and at a recent conference she attended, someone used a reprint of something from the 90's called the "Personal Bill of Rights". Among almost 30 nauseating items listed were gems such as the following: "I have the right to follow my own values and standards." "I have the right to express all of my feelings..." "I have the right to determine my own priorities." "I have the right not to be responsible for others' behavior..." "I have the right to be uniquely myself." "I have the right to my own reality." "I have the right to my own needs for personal space and time." "I have the right to have my needs and wants respected by others." "I have the right to be treated with dignity and respect." "I have the right to a fulfilling sex life." "I have the right to be happy."
Great convo. Sure, Locke is bringing in something different, but still within natural law tradition. The point is to limit the scope of government, and individual rights is the mechanism. Yes, it can be taken on a tangent and perverted, but so can the particulars of any regime. There's a reason why America is the best regime in history, but also a reason why it can be perverted.
You should have Anton on. I don't think you adequately understand what you're critiquing. You say natural rights are separate from natural law but then fail to define what natural rights are. Their proponents do not believe that they lead to an endless panoply of positive rights, like gay marriage or abortion or whatever. When Gottfried summarized his argument against abortion, I found it to be just a different way of phrasing the right to life argument. I suspect the two sides are talking past each other to some degree.
It is absurd to claim that prior to the 2nd Amendment being penned nobody in history had the right to keep and bear arms, Natural rights do not come from the state or a document or a god. People are born with natural rights. All people regardless of where they were born or live have the same natural rights, No man has a responsibility to others. That view is advocated by Communists. Gottfried 20 minutes into the discussion mention responsibility to others. One has a responsibility to one's self and one's family but not others.
At a dinner some years ago, I asked Sir Roger Scruton whether there is any such thing as rights at all. He rumpled his hair and said, “well, maybe negative rights, anyway.” Since I am only a lawyer, not trained in philosophy, I didn’t want question him about this further.
Gottfried definitely has a tremendous amount to contribute. I feel like a lot of people sleep on him. He’a a great gateway to a lot of reactionary ideas.
Rights are irrelevant if you're unwilling to defend them.
That was a fantastic interview. Dr Gottfried should be seen as a natural treasure.
This was a great conversation, specifically the framing of natural law being different from natural rights. Thank you gentlemen. Cleared up some of my thinking.
Excellent mulling and over-viewing; thank-you gentlemen!
Gottfried is a treasure!
FANTASTIC conversation.
Anything to say about negative rights vs positive rights.
All i got out of this conversation was "rights don't really exist. Fight for your tradition, which will be proven right by winning."
That is an ugly castle built on nothing.
Good talk especially as I’m currently reading Kirk’s John Randolph of Roanoke.
You should interview Z-Man. He's not an anonymous blogger. He wrote for V-Dare under his name, Christoper Zeman.
a pseudonym.
Thanks for interview
I’m with Anton on this. When the colonists declared independence, they could have simple told King George, “We’re out.” Instead, they saw fit to justify their actions by appeal to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.” That is to say, they tried to prove, objectively, that they were right and King George was wrong.
The colonists thought of themselves as a distinct people and, according to Federalist 2, a people “attached to the same principles of government.” Though natural rights are universal, they saw their government founded on natural rights as a particular one. I don’t see why we must equate the particularity of the American revolution with the neocon worldwide democracy evangelism of the present.
Conservatives be like, “We support our long tradition of natural rights.”
At a dinner some years ago, I asked Sir Roger Scruton whether there is any such thing as rights at all. He rumpled his hair and said, “well, maybe negative rights, anyway.” Since I am only a lawyer, not trained in philosophy, I didn’t want question him about this further.
Gottfried is a great guest Any thoughts of asking Steve Sailor or Jim Goad on?
Steve might be hard because he generally doesn't like the video medium, but it's worth asking!
Goader would be amazing, he has kind of been out of the conversation for awhile.
They would both be fantastic guests
I'm in the complete opposite situation of Gottfried's personal life. I'm stuck in a small but very blue enclave in a very red state (WV). It can be quite the freak show.
Doesnt the right to bear arms come directly from the British bill of rights 1689 but without the Catholic exclusion clause?
The English tradition is one of infinite rights - with common law courts making the determination when these rights come into conflict
(23:52) Notice on the unprompted topic of infanti_ how he immediately dehumanizes the human life.
Why does the USA have to have judeo Christian beliefs? That’s very odd
If you went back to 1950 and started talking about judeo christian values people would look at you like you'd escaped from the zoo
Why aren't they called Abrahamic values? I wonder.
@@joeld.k.7652 that's a damm good point
_I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs the World by his Providence. That he ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable Service we can render him, is doing good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be fundamental Principles of all sound Religion._
*- Benjamin Franklin, the least religious Founding Father*
No mention of Christ or his Church. So he believed in God. Great. So does anyone with sense.
@@JonathanSaxonThat's because he was a Deist and a Freemason.
@@FEiSTYFEVER
Benjamin Franklin wasn't a deist; he believed the Lord had an active role in the creation of the new country.
_We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and by-word down to future ages...I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service._
--Benjamin Franklin
That the Founders were deist is a myth conjured by atheist academics in the 60s (like everything else here that is communist).
@@FEiSTYFEVERA Christian deist. Benny wasn't claiming God is an elephant, had four arms, or spied on people through ravens. Deism is just protestantism with the serial numbers filed off.
I listened to the whole thing if you agree with me give me a thumbs up
Man is not the author of Creation, nor is he its slave. Man has agency, but also limits both of Nature and of Spirit. Childish spite sees these limits as unfair; mature wisdom knows them as the structure that allows him to climb to his greatest height. No right without commensurate responsability. Only the worthy may rule; if you are worthy you _must_ rule.
Man's laws and words cannot remake reality, at best they serve as guides to unspoken truth. In a pragmatic sense once you have progressed to the point of needing to codify the structure of society and so-called rights in writing you have long since lost the Divine spark, and any kind of harmonious existence in the universe. but since we are there already, anything of that sort can only be done in accordance with the natural law that already exists. every right, every privilege, every claim to entitlement must be as close to actual ability, inherent nature, and willingness as possible. there will always be some deviation because the world isn't perfect. the greater the deviation, the greater the evil in the world.
What you have the right to do and claim must always be aligned with what you have the ability and competency to do, and thus what you have the responsibility to do.
So long as one is fulfilling their proper role, and carrying out their natural responsibilities, they absolutely have the right to dignity. They do not ever have the right to license.
But you cannot defend you have no right to keep. not just because this is morally correct, but because it is naturally correct. This is the law of vitality, and everything that goes against it is, by definition, anti-life.
Structures that move towards natural law Elevate and enhancement; structures that are antithetical to natural law entrap and de-soul.
The ultimate test of right is not what you can say, but what you can do.
But what gives the tradition its worthy ground? Is it simply that it's handed down? The Taliban handed down a tradition. Postmodernists hand down a tradition. Is the more fundamental ground in the way a tradition is formed and maintained, and in the existential needs a tradition responds to? But then, isn't that ground something closer to what any tradition has in common? (even if it's a repressive tradition)
I have far more of the framework of Paul Gottfried. I think about much of what he asserts often. Much of what he discusses here are largely my issues with conservatism at large.
I certainly agree on his take regarding tradition, as well as his takedown of natural rights doctrine that seems to be soup-de-jour in America. This of course does not make guys like us popular among many groups on the Right despite us being on it. I'm obviously a young guy and not as well read as Paul, but definitely take the time to read and develop my views on these subjects, and indeed have over the years, and continue do so.
What strikes me as an American is that we don't have any traditions in this country. My family largely doesn't have them either, at least none that I'm involved with. America largely seems traditionless and has no semblance of being a serious country with an substantive identity. Even lesser countries have at least that. A good example of this, among many, that has always bugged me is that my family isn't from this country. I'm black, yet when I look outside I see all manner of celebrations of "pride", other cultures, and other countries, among other degenerate celebrations that are prominent in this country under the banner of "human rights" and "liberal democracy." I see things like West Indian Day parades, which is where my family comes from, and I find myself hating it because this is not their country nor is it the country of West Indians. Out there they don't even celebrate Thanksgiving, and have no idea what it is. No American would dare impose it out there, yet everything is imposed on Americans out here. I use to tout approvingly about our cultural melting pot, but I wonder if even that has replaced and erased American culture and tradition. I have arrived at yes.
I don't have any traditions to speak of as an American, and that bothers me and I wonder why conservatives don't realize this no matter how much they pretend otherwise. Our borders are wide open and that is yet another death knell in this ostensible country. Many on Right pretend that it has no affect, and articulating that we have no country will get you labeled all sorts of obscenities and perjoratives, especially among conservatives.
Like Gottfried noted, the way we go is tradition, irrespective of familial blood, and it must be specifically defined and passed on as tradition. I'm a Christian guy so biblical morality is definitely a priority for me as well. I don't mind grouping with likeminded folks who want to build that community with me. It's easier said than done, but it's needed and worth it for sure. Good stuff here. I appreciate this conversation and Gottfried saying what needs to be said. Men like him are of great value.
Two people who don’t understand natural rights get confused. Many such cases.
I'm reading Antifascism at the minute. It's pleasantly readable. Sometimes I find political books a little heavy going. My uneducated brain can handle this one. Fascism might be next on my list.
Receiving an education on these things, so relatively late in life, has made me feel rather foolish and duped. Growing up in "conservative" Christian circles, and at the same time having that Christianity constantly conflated with American constitutionalism, I did feel the dissonance, but only with the passage of decades did I come to understand exactly why the dissonance existed. The trifecta of "rights" in the Declaration of Independence, I now see, is deeply irreligious, and profoundly un-Christian. Like all intellectual products of the Enlightenment, it misinforms because it lacks a proper Anthropology. It deals with the human being as if it were possible for him or her to be truly an isolated individual. (As a side note, therefore, to recover a proper Tradition requires, among other things, theology...which is one reason why I don't think we're ready for it, since that word basically means "fairy tale" to so many people.) It also opens the door, as Auron and Paul pointed out, to the slippery slope made possible by the divorce of rights from responsibilities, as if every so-called "right" did not automatically bring a host of responsibilities in its train.
My wife works in the domain of Social Services and Mental Health, and at a recent conference she attended, someone used a reprint of something from the 90's called the "Personal Bill of Rights". Among almost 30 nauseating items listed were gems such as the following:
"I have the right to follow my own values and standards."
"I have the right to express all of my feelings..."
"I have the right to determine my own priorities."
"I have the right not to be responsible for others' behavior..."
"I have the right to be uniquely myself."
"I have the right to my own reality."
"I have the right to my own needs for personal space and time."
"I have the right to have my needs and wants respected by others."
"I have the right to be treated with dignity and respect."
"I have the right to a fulfilling sex life."
"I have the right to be happy."
Great convo. Sure, Locke is bringing in something different, but still within natural law tradition. The point is to limit the scope of government, and individual rights is the mechanism. Yes, it can be taken on a tangent and perverted, but so can the particulars of any regime. There's a reason why America is the best regime in history, but also a reason why it can be perverted.
You should have Anton on. I don't think you adequately understand what you're critiquing. You say natural rights are separate from natural law but then fail to define what natural rights are. Their proponents do not believe that they lead to an endless panoply of positive rights, like gay marriage or abortion or whatever. When Gottfried summarized his argument against abortion, I found it to be just a different way of phrasing the right to life argument. I suspect the two sides are talking past each other to some degree.
It is absurd to claim that prior to the 2nd Amendment being penned nobody in history had the right to keep and bear arms, Natural rights do not come from the state or a document or a god. People are born with natural rights. All people regardless of where they were born or live have the same natural rights, No man has a responsibility to others. That view is advocated by Communists. Gottfried 20 minutes into the discussion mention responsibility to others. One has a responsibility to one's self and one's family but not others.
What does the word 'right' pick out in nature?
@@benjaminangrignon3916 ?
this is a circular argument. Morality is based on consensus which is based on traditional morality.
Morality flows from nature as do rights.
You know, you know, you know... this American verbal habit is very annoying.
At a dinner some years ago, I asked Sir Roger Scruton whether there is any such thing as rights at all. He rumpled his hair and said, “well, maybe negative rights, anyway.” Since I am only a lawyer, not trained in philosophy, I didn’t want question him about this further.