It's interesting that brother SARTRE should rely on the philosopher John Locke to make his argument for natural rights.  As an empiricist, Locke believed in the innate goodness of human beings, born with a mind he called "tabula rasa" or a clean slate.  As a Calvinist, SARTRE believes that humans are born to sin, with the Mark of Cain already on them.

Moreover, Locke did not dispute the utility of government, as does our resident libertarian/anarchist.  He successfully opposed the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings and the ideal of Kingly government argued by the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes, but transferred the notion of sovereignty from the King to the people, and it was upon this principle that the American founders based their own notion of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.  Locke also believed strongly in majority rule reflecting the will of the nation, not something our SARTRE thinks too highly of, since that majority will is often at loggerheads with his own will.

Yes, Mr. Locke believed in natural, inalienable rights.  But what was the guarantor of these rights?  Not the weak notion of 'man's duty to his neighbor' that SARTRE offers, but the people's government.  Locke and the founding fathers understood clearly that while rights might be natural, their defense must be public and communal.

Let's examine SARTRE's idea of natural rights more closely.  In a state of nature there exist no natural rights but the right to survive by tooth and claw.  When prehistoric Ugga met Wugga, they did not debate each other's right to a carcass but had it out with clubs, and it was the right of the strongest and most skilled to take what was wanted.  Early history was little different, with the strong preying on the weak and no mention of human rights, innate or otherwise.

The Greeks discovered the idea of "natural law" by which they meant something akin to the laws of human nature or a rational order discoverable, not invented, and universal in its nature--a law transcending culture.  The Romans and Christians adopted and advanced these ideas.  But the notion of " natural rights" as opposed to "natural laws" was still lacking in the Roman Empire and the Kingdoms of the Middle Ages and remained so until put together by Locke and his ideological opponent, Thomas Hobbes.

Rights are the province of all human beings. Natural rights stem from the reality that a person exists. In the writings of the British Empiricist John Locke, An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding and Two Treats of Government, he argues that natural law and natural rights are inherent to man's being. By contrast Thomas Hobbs in his work, Leviathan, viewed the nature of man is not endowed with intrinsic rights that could be based upon natural law, but rights are a creation of state power.

These two diametrically opposite viewpoints have profound implication. Our analysis rests upon an accepted understanding of man's nature. If you grant that man is created and unique as a human, we may be able to intelligently discuss the role of society and government. But if you conclude that man is a result of an environmental progression, not much different from other animals, your raison d'etre of government will require adoption of the Hobbesian judgment.

Statist are devoted worshipers of the Leviathan. They reject inborn human rights. But for those who cherish the Judeo-Christian tradition of Western Civilization and respect the dignity in every human being, the heritage of Locke is wisdom - for all ages.

Rights only reside in the individual. Since each single human being is separate from all others; community, society or government are quite different. Absent from any other person or group of people, the singular individual retains all their natural rights. Either natural rights exist in each person or they exist in none. We all share the same nature. If rights are innate we only need to define what they are and their characteristics. But that task will be left for another time.

What is more important is to dispel the erroneous notion that rights are attributes of any abstract form of organization. As basic as the family structure is, it does not possess any natural rights. The right stays within each individual in the family unit. A community is nothing more than a group of people, while society is the total of social relations among communities and all individuals. Government is defined as the control and administration of public policy in a political unit. There are no natural rights endowed, inherent and intrinsic within a community, society and certainly not in an organization like civil government, that is not human.

Individuals have responsibilities towards other human beings. But what is the legitimate rationale for conferring a duty upon an individual for recognizing rights of entities that construct social society, when no such right exists? Schemes of establishing relationships of benefit for participating parties, deserve cooperation based upon free consent. However, there is no obligation that an individual needs to bear if they reject the demands that these contrived entities seek to impose. Government on the other hand is based upon the axiom that coercion is required and lawful, for forced compliance. The State is not a natural being, but is the result of competing interests. Different interests can be as simple as that of one person with another. Factions can share mutual appeals, or may differ profoundly. But factions don't have rights, just interests of perceived benefit or discord.

Opponents of human dignity offer up the notion that any society has a charge to require and conform behavior, to the greatest good for the most people. They claim that humanity will be protected and that society will display empathy, when the rights of the many are secured, even at the loss of the rights of the few. Attribution that the many have a joint singular right, while the individual must sacrifice their own, is ludicrous. The right resides ONLY within their own person, of each individual.

Responsibilities are essential to proper social relationships of the individual with his neighbor. But the rightful authority for imposing acceptable conduct upon an unwilling individual behavior must stem from the consent of that individual in the arbitration of competing interests. The government does not have their own right of compulsion. Their willingness to impose force to compel compliance is the exploitive method practiced by all governments.  The fact that rights are non existent in the entity of any State is totally ignored by those who seek to direct the mechanism of conformity.

Political debates always are reducible to conflicting interests. The codification of willful consensus into laws seems appropriate. However, in practice the State abandons their proper role as an organizational steward of functions and becomes the Leviathan of Hobbs. Citizens have duties only to their neighbor. One of those responsibilities is to prevent their government from arbitrary administration. The only purpose of government is to serve the interests of citizens. The reality and horror of the State is that controlling individuals is the sad record of virtually every government. The perversion that falsely assumes a living organism status for government, seems to prove Hobbs correct. But if that was the final disposition, human dignity could not exist.

The Locke standpoint has seldom been employed in history. The creation of our country was a noble experiment, that has failed. Hobbs is now embodied, in the cowards and miserable excuses that profess to be loyal Americans. They eagerly petition their government to gauge what rights remain, for them to further lose. Those who defend our natural rights are willing to bear the consequences of a tyrant who deceitfully claims to dispense our rights. It is the price we pay to follow Locke. Only those who relinquish their own dignity, serve the Leviathan.

James Hall aka SARTRE