On Hobbes the Philosopher

Reading the book, The Standard Bookshelf, Great Philosophers by S.E. Frost Jr., I came across the authors view of Hobbes in his Chapter Man and the State 

  pg. 216.
Frost writes,
"The materialist, Thomas Hobbes, based his theory of the state upon the fundamental principle that man has the natural right to do anything which he pleases. The most primitive urge of all men is that of self-preservation. To accomplish this end, man may use any means he deems necessary. In this state of nature man may invade the rights of others with the  result that chaos reigns"

In this assessment of Hobbesian theory, any man can and will violate the very basic rights of another for their own gain and this is to be seen as a natural state of man. In this theory, a man who wishes to obtain land or wealth simply must be stronger than those that he wishes to obtain them from. By that it stands to reason that what Hobbes describes as rights are in fact only permissible actions or objects, since any man can come along and take them away. In a way, we live in that Hobbesian world now.

The next paragraph, "Man is, then, fundamentally a ferocious animal, one who engages in war and pillage, seeking always his own gain. But in such a state no man can be strong enough to preserve himself for long. Each man will destroy the others and he in turn will be destroyed by others."

In this part of the theory all actions are seen to only benefit the one at the expense of all others. The author makes it clear that in the Hobbesian model all men are expendable to the strongest other and in the end it shall be the strongest that survives and thrives until another rises to be stronger still.

He continues, "Thus, to escape from this inevitable end, man creates a society in which he voluntarily gives up his rights in many matters. This is a contract which men make with each other by which they give up certain rights in order to obtain others which they desire. To insure this mutual contract, men transfer power to one ruler or an assembly. After the ruler has been set up and given power, the men must obey."

The creation of "society" is done by the mergence of all interactions and individual actions of all living beings in any geographical area. What the author is trying to establish is Hobbes' inclination to the voting of given power, but then negates that by establishing the subjecting class of individual to obey this ruler. The inherent fault of modern voting is that even those that do not wish for that particular ruler or any rulers at all are subjected to the will of the majority because of some cosmic happenstance of geographical location relative to others. If one objects to those rulers or rulers in the general sense they are vilified and accused of "Utopian Idealism". The author charges that Hobbes was a monarchist, trying to defend the right and rule of the King of England. He made his theory to fit a mold of this belief.

Later in this dissection of Hobbesian theory Frost writes, "Hobbes recognizes, that at times the ruler will be unjust and will wreak hardships upon men. But they have no right to rebel. Hobbes justifies this position by holding that even at their worst, the injustices of a ruler are never so bad as the original state of man before power was given to the ruler."  

This is the mindset of those minarchist, monarchist, communists, socialists and all other forms of rule against individual secession and anarchy. Those that can give up their rights, and in turn the rights of others, for the gain of rule over them and given no form or function to remove these self locked chains are the sort this world is full of at the moment.

This theory is obvious in its practice today in our modern world. Its adherence is cast into all young people through mandatory hours of subjection to state made educational programs. This theory is not one that recognizes the inherent natural rights of man but rather forms them to be basic, aggressive and completely arbitrary to the will of the strongest man around. In nature the theory of " the strongest survive" is given leeway to man's ultimate desire without the least inclination to the fundamental rights of others. It is a theory of "you have right to what you can take and what you can keep, and you have a right to elect those that will take for you, but have no right to reduce or refuse that elected power". Seems pretty counterintuitive to a wholly moral philosophy in my personal opinion.

John Locke, philosopher, had a very different idea of the rights of man. I will detail this authors writings of Locke in a later post.

Follow The Jefferson Papers on Facebook.
Or you can follow me on Twitter.

Are they Rights or Permissions?

I have heard a few people recently exclaim they do not believe in the theory of "Natural Rights" but more in a theory that we, as humans, can do only what outside persons allow us to do or help us to do. This seems a crazy concept to myself, and probably to quite a few of my readers, so I wanted to take a moment to touch on this idea, and to ask for any feedback on the idea of  "permissible actions rather than explicit natural rights"

The beginning of this theory it is said relates to the young, the newly born, the ones unable to provide for themselves to ensure their safety, security, and prosperity. This part of the theory relies on the fact that as an infant, and what I would supposed to be also the case in a geriatric stage, that these beings need help to perform tasks and actions just for their basic survival. This is said to be the stage at which a person would not have a right to anything but rather a dependency on others to perform actions for it and can choose whether or not to do so.
Question: Under this theory I can conclude these people to say that a child has no "right" to live but only a permission to do so under the care of others, is this to say that even after birth, a child, a human being has no right to life and can be killed by its caretakers on a notion that they did not give permission for its survival and chose not to nurture the child until it was self sufficient?

That is a maddening thought to me; one that takes away the most basic humanity of people and subjects them to a form of barbarity and cruelty I do not want to know or ever allow to exist. I would seriously question the morality of anyone who dares to agree to that.


Under this theory all human action is delegated to permissions from what we can label "society". If this society allows us to own a home, we can, but if they do not than we cannot. This point can be taken with all property, actions, and production. In this theory only that which is allowed, by what I am to assume is a majority, can be be done. What a scary theory indeed. A socialistic, communal, decision can affect the lives of everyone. But let us not think of it only in what can be called negative rights or what is not permitted. Let us take this theory to positive rights or permissions.
If this society were to condone and endorse an act of taking someone's life for a small transgression against another, say you ran over their flower garden (if they are allowed to have one) with your car (if you are allowed to have one) and the result of this would be in the norm for the transgressor to be killed by the victim.
What has been done to justify the taking of life? What has been done to rectify the situation other than to kill the other party? What positive effect can come of this?

If in this self indulgent society where permission is a valid use of force and judgement of others, the idea were to arise that an act in violation of one's morals were to become routine and customary, made to be privy to the permission of the majority vote, would they then regard the notion of permission over rights as invalid?

Rights exist regardless of the permission granted by anyone, it is the practice of those rights that is in question of permissibility. In that, a look into private property rights would be more influential.
If a man were to allow or disallow an act in or on their property, it is the act of permission that can be charged as hindering rights.  In that aspect all property owners have a right to refuse or allow whatever actions they feel comfortable with and assume all risks therein in response to those actions. It is still not to say that natural rights do not exist, but that the practice of those rights have been trumped by others natural rights.

This entire argument bases itself on the thought that Natural Rights do not exist when in fact it is a study into the permission of the practice of those rights that is the argument. One can do well to recognize the argument as a fallacious debate on two entirely different aspects of human behavior and interaction.

On Constitutional Rights

Of the many different arguments on where rights come from I find the Constitutional Case the most far-fetched. It is a long held and deeply rooted belief that the United States Constitution is where the country’s citizens obtain their rights. The argument of Constitutional Rights is fallacious and easily the most wide spread and enduring myth among Americans. This argument supposes that a document signed by and ordained by people long since dead have somehow bestowed upon the subsequent generations certain acts or protections under a system of governance. The myth of Constitutional Rights is a touchy subject for most, but I will try to explain the case against the Constitutional Rights Theory. 

A piece of paper has no inherent rights. It is a product of labor mixed with resources, by humans. Lacking any inherent rights it also has no rights to bestow upon others. It does not offer any protection, as it has no means of protection, except by outside forces, notably human beings. And since men cannot endow rights to others it stands that it has no means to give those rights away. It has no voice, and is subjective to the capabilities and thoughts of those who read it. It, being paper can be destroyed by many different means and can be reproduced with almost no limit. It carries no means to hold precedence over man, and cannot be asked to define its power or even source of power.

As a document it was a contract between those that agreed to partake in its formation, contracting themselves to its supposed limits by signature. There is no reference to it being forced upon following generations, there is no clause that leads us to be ruled by others opinions and writings of a time we did not live or respect and follow a document, a contract we did not sign. This is the error in the Social Contract Theory, the basis of which is that as I did not sign into any contract I do not have to subject myself to that contract. The Social Contract Theory is dependent on the thought that one must be obligated to endure the social rules in a place he was placed at birth or else leave. This theory is particularly used when a person is found to dissent to the idea of the social rules in that area of birth. The “if you don’t like it here  you can leave” attitude in other words.

Of the many errors of those that hold a belief in Constitutionally Granted Rights is the interference in the logic of American History.

 “The members of the Constitutional Convention signed the United States Constitution on September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Constitutional Convention convened in response to dissatisfaction with the Articles of Confederation and the need for a strong centralized government. After four months of secret debate and many compromises, the proposed Constitution was submitted to the states for approval. Although the vote was close in some states, the Constitution was eventually ratified and the new Federal government came into existence in 1789. The Constitution established the U.S. government as it exists today.” Excerpt from the Library of Congress Website

The first thing to look at in this excerpt is the phrase, “secret debate and many compromises”. If this were to be the founding form of contract for every generation hereafter its signing why then would these debates and meeting need to be held in secret?  Why would this sort of thing be kept from those that it intended to subject? 

The next point to be taken is the phrase, “dissatisfaction with the Articles of Confederation and the need for a strong centralized government”. The dissatisfaction of the current form of governance grew from the inability to control the free and sovereign states and its lack of control over industry, trade and the funding of federal exploitation of other nations. The Articles of Confederation were partially successful in their ability to maximize personal freedom while offering some semblance of protection of the natural rights of the people. They were not successful in retaining power as the march of men and their power hungry ways consumed it and disregarded it.

The last point in this small quote is the last line. “The Constitution established the U.S. government as it exists today.” This is exactly the problem with the idea of limited government touted by the Republican Party, Constitutionalists, and the various tea party groups. The limit that is imposed is not by the citizenry but by the same government that gives it power. Small government is likely to grow out of this relative smallness and into the beast it is today.

The very Idea that this contract gives any person rights is easy to prove otherwise. Since the beginning of non-native conquest and inhabitation in the Americas began well before the drafting and ratification of the Constitution the question is posed; where did these Pre-Constitution people derive their rights from?  Were they privy to the Magna Carta? Hard to be since the Magna Carta did not grant rights to people but rather limited power of King John of England and stood to protect their natural rights in the year 1215. Did they derive their rights from the Articles of Confederation? The articles were an agreement among the 13 founding states that established the United States of America as a confederation of sovereign states and served as its first constitution. Again these articles did not propose to grant rights to people and would in effect limit the freedom of people inside the confines of territory of what would become the United States.

One could argue that the very basic precept of time in relation to rights clearly defines that the rights of individuals predates even the earliest form of community or government. One could also argue that if one believes in the endowment of rights by written words than the act of destroying this document would insure the decimation of all semblances of rights. If any Constitution would be destroyed today the ability and right to speak as one wishes remains; the act of defense remains the same, the right of being secure in the privacy of your own property and the right to own said property would all still be there.

Secondary questions.

Did people before any written documents not have inherent rights? Were these people somehow less inclined to the abilities of themselves and of freedom from tyranny? How would their lives be defined if not for the rights they had? Were those Native Americans here long before Europeans invaded and settled not in possession of any rights in their lives and property? Do people outside of all Constitutions or documents forming any sort of Government not have rights? Could the destruction of these documents ensure no person would have any rights to themselves or property?

Simply stated, the origin of rights is inherent on a person being alive. They are natural, they are inalienable, they are non- transferable, they are not for sale or rent, they begin the moment of life and cease with death. The idea of any right bestowed from outside forces begets the ability to restrict those rights from outside forces. The Natural ability to do as one sees fit as long as those actions do not interfere with the rights or freedoms of others is not reliant on any form of documentation, any decree, from any person or institution.  

Tesla Motors is going Open Source.

Tesla Motor's CEO  Elon Musk put out a short statement on the car makers website June 12th 2014. This statement was to address the decision to completely release all of the patents currently held by Tesla Motors. This is a great step forward in the effort to bring the zero emission and alternate fuel based vehicles into a better field of collaboration and competition. In the economics study of the Austrian field competition is seen as a great motivator to reduced prices and better services. I hope with this in mind more companies seek to not try and hold onto patents but allow open sourcing to make great strides in not only the competition area but also in the technological advancements area. Below is the letter written by Mr. Musk explaining his decision in a bit more detail and reasons why this move was made. 

"Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology.
Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal. Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.
When I started out with my first company, Zip2, I thought patents were a good thing and worked hard to obtain them. And maybe they were good long ago, but too often these days they serve merely to stifle progress, entrench the positions of giant corporations and enrich those in the legal profession, rather than the actual inventors. After Zip2, when I realized that receiving a patent really just meant that you bought a lottery ticket to a lawsuit, I avoided them whenever possible.
At Tesla, however, we felt compelled to create patents out of concern that the big car companies would copy our technology and then use their massive manufacturing, sales and marketing power to overwhelm Tesla. We couldn’t have been more wrong. The unfortunate reality is the opposite: electric car programs (or programs for any vehicle that doesn’t burn hydrocarbons) at the major manufacturers are small to non-existent, constituting an average of far less than 1% of their total vehicle sales.
At best, the large automakers are producing electric cars with limited range in limited volume. Some produce no zero emission cars at all.
Given that annual new vehicle production is approaching 100 million per year and the global fleet is approximately 2 billion cars, it is impossible for Tesla to build electric cars fast enough to address the carbon crisis. By the same token, it means the market is enormous. Our true competition is not the small trickle of non-Tesla electric cars being produced, but rather the enormous flood of gasoline cars pouring out of the world’s factories every day.
We believe that Tesla, other companies making electric cars, and the world would all benefit from a common, rapidly-evolving technology platform.
Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor, but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world’s most talented engineers. We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard."

Doing this Tesla Motors has opened the doors for innovators and engineers to review and modify the original plans and designs of the motor company's model lines. In the hopes that these "outside eyes" see what can be done to make the cars better, safer, or all around redesign the looks.

 Tesla Motors is leading the way in the new era of innovation and collaboration for car makers, and I for one am ecstatic about the future of this concept. Imagine if every patent were released for open source. Imagine the college engineering students getting together with the Medical students to design and build a better prosthetic organ. Imagine the advancements we could see when the ideas and processes are open for peer review and  public review. Adding your ideas into a larger concept that can literally change the world and history as we know it.

But many people are against the idea of open sourcing and not patenting works and ideas. While many hold a belief in patents and copyrights being a foundational  need in society, there are those that dispel this myth and make the case for open dispersion of ideas.

Stephen Kinsella, a Patent Attorney who has rethought his stance on the use and viability of patents after consideration as to what the actual patent or copyright does has much to say on this topic.His books and articles explain these issues better. Patents said to be a protection of the original creator of any ideas, but they also have the effect as to limit and restrict any others from ever reproducing this thing later on even with their own property. It is a violation of the rights of use of another mans property.

This point can be seen clearly by those who reject the act of restricting rights of men for any reason and therefor is not a universal thought. The act of restricting what any other person can do with their property because a man has had a state give him a numbered file in a bureaucrats office.

Tesla Motors, for me, is moving the game to a whole new level and I am excited to see what the world makes of these cars with their new ability to redesign and innovate using the car as their base.