DOCSLIB.ORG

Addressing Modern American Rights Talk Connor W. Mighell Director

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Addressing Modern American Rights Talk Connor W. Mighell Director ABSTRACT A War of Freedoms: Addressing Modern American Rights Talk Connor W. Mighell Director: David D. Corey, Ph.D. Modern American rights claims spring from a wide array of historical, legal, and metaphysical sources, but these different sources often lead to radically different ideas about which rights are most important. This confusion within American “rights talk” has led to the assertion of conflicting rights in the public square and a corresponding political entrenchment by opposing sides. I study the current state of American rights talk by arguing that rights are essentially “protective capsules” placed around various freedoms that modern liberal society finds essential, but which are in many instances incompatible due to the evolving nature of liberalism itself. I also examine the difference between positive and negative liberty, and the importance of a proper understanding of liberty to a proper understanding of rights. Given the reality of conflicting liberties, citizens today need to engage in sustained political discourse to determine which freedoms are worth armoring as rights and which are not. I also recommend a return to the negative, true understanding of liberty. APPROVED BY DIRECTOR OF HONORS THESIS: ______________________________________________________ Dr. David D. Corey, Department of Political Science APPROVED BY THE HONORS PROGRAM: ______________________________________________________ Dr. Andrew Wisely, Director DATE: _______________________ A WAR OF FREEDOMS ADDRESSING MODERN AMERICAN RIGHTS TALK A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Baylor University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Honors Program By Connor Mighell Waco, Texas May 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements . ii Chapter One: Rights Talk Today . 1 Chapter Two: Rights and American History . 17 Chapter Three: Liberty and Rights . 30 Chapter Four: Examining Rights Claims . 48 Chapter Five: Rights and the “Dogmatomachy” . 63 Appendices . 81 Appendix A: Alan Dershowitz’s List of Conflicting Rights . 82 Appendix B: Full List of Rights Claimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . 84 Bibliography . 88 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deepest thanks to Dr. David Corey, for the hours of guidance and aid in editing that he provided. His mentorship has proven invaluable throughout this process. I would also like to thank Dr. Stephen Shipp, who first awakened in me a love for political philosophy in high school, and my mother, who taught me to write with precision and clarity. iii CHAPTER ONE Rights Talk Today In our daily conversation and interaction, we speak of rights as though we know what they are. However, upon closer examination, we observe that many influential thinkers whom we cite in favor of our own views have held widely differing emphases and definitions of rights. While the United Nations holds that “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,”1 characterizing rights as universal and applying them in policy primarily to oppressed groups rather than individuals, Ayn Rand emphasizes that “those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”2 To those who assert, as John Locke does, that our basic rights emerge from nature itself,3 utilitarian Jeremy Bentham returns that “natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense – nonsense upon stilts.”4 And to all prognosticators on the subject, Friedrich Nietzche delivers this aphorism: “No one talks more passionately about his rights than he who in the depths of his soul doubts whether he has any.”5 1 “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” UN News Center, accessed September 18, 2013, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr. 2 Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (New York: Signet, 1967), 61. 3 John Locke, Two Treatises of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration, ed. Ian Shapiro (New Haven: Yale UP, 2003), 104. 4 Jeremy Bentham, “Anarchical Fallacies: Being an Examination of the Declarations of Rights Issued During the French Revolution,” Duke University, accessed June 8, 2014 http://english.duke.edu/uploads/media_items/bentham-anarchical-fallacies.original.pdf, 5. 5 Friedrich Nietzche, Human, All Too Human: A Book For Free Spirits, tr. R.J. Hollingdale (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996), 191. 1 Modern Americans hold views that are just as diverse as the ones expressed above, each with unique professed grounds and bounds for rights. In fact, we not only differ on the foundation of these rights, but on their kind as well. Are rights merely legal constructs of our government? Are they divine gifts, meant to be safeguarded as though they were a religious sacrament? Do they emerge from the natural order of the universe, or from human nature? Do members of some social groups, genders, or races have rights unique to them? Not only the grounds and types of rights are up for debate, however, as there is also much conflict over the history of the concept of rights. Did rights emerge from the Roman tradition of ius, as some academics argue, or from the conciliar movement of the 1400s and the Thomistic resurrection of the Aristotelian tradition? Alternatively, was the idea of “right” first expressed in its modern form during the era of the Renaissance and Reformation, or did it first flower later, in the Enlightenment? Or do rights have a much more ancient origin, evolving out of the very beginning of society? This work proposes to confront the divergent array of asserted sources, types, and histories of rights and to make some cohesive sense of it by approaching it from the overarching perspective of freedom. In this chapter, I will take up the first task and classify some of the major ways that we view rights in our modern culture. For much of the modern western world, conceptions of rights expressed in international documents are rooted in the common humanity of all peoples. Merely by virtue of our human nature, various documents claim, we possess certain rights that cannot be justly removed from us. This concept shows up in the papal encyclical Pacem in terris, when Pope John XXIII declares: 2 Any human society, if it is to be well-ordered and productive, must lay down as a foundation this principle, namely, that every human being is a person, that is, his nature is endowed with intelligence and free will. Indeed, precisely because he is a person he has rights and obligations flowing directly and simultaneously from his very nature. And as these rights and obligations are universal and inviolable so they cannot in any way be surrendered.6 The Pope goes on to outline exactly what these “rights and obligations” are, pulling to a large extent from the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights.7 However, while that document is intended to regulate disputes among nations, Pacem claims that several of its rights emerge from “the natural law” or from “the dignity of the human person.”8 With these rights come corresponding duties. For instance, Pope John claims that “the right of every man to life is correlative with the duty to preserve it.”9 Ultimately, Pope John calls for men in society to respect and acknowledge the rights of others, creating a vision throughout the rest of Pacem of an organized, peaceful, and united world living by this creed. Pope John clearly believes, like others in the modern human rights tradition, that due to their nature as intelligent beings with free will, individuals have entitlements to the possession of some basic goods. I will refer to rights with this asserted ground as “human rights,” and to thought regarding them as human rights theory, because they are founded on what theorists believe to be the essential attributes of human nature, including the power to reason and the hypothesized original human state of freedom from social constraints. This school of thought on the foundation of rights has only recently come 6 “Encyclical Pacem in Terris of John XXIII, 11 April 1963,” The Holy See, accessed July 28, 2014. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j- xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem_en.html, 9. 7 Almost directly at points. Compare “Universal Declaration” Article 13 and “Encyclical Pacem” 22. 8 “Encyclical Pacem,” 12, 13, 18, 20, 21, 23, 26. 9 “Encyclical Pacem,” 29. 3 into prominence, paralleling the rise of Western democracy, individualism, and progressivism. Linchpin writings that conceptualized rights as grounded in individual humanity include the French Declaration of the Rights of Man10 and the more recent Pacem in terris and the aforementioned Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The recent resurgence and current dominance of this explanation for rights in the West may well result from increased international interaction in the wake of the World Wars. Arching over the ground-level concerns of culture, human rights theory creates a universalized ground for rights that would theoretically be acceptable to the majority of countries around the globe (since most humans do indeed feel that they are something unique and worth preserving), thus fostering cooperation. This realization of the concept of rights may also have initially emerged due to moral outrage at the Holocaust, as the West reacted against the evils of genocide. It is worth questioning, as theorist Michael Freeden does, whether human rights are as all-encompassing as modern thinkers posit. Freeden eschews entering the roiling waters of the human rights debate, making the intelligent distinction that “to assert that human beings have rights is not identical to asserting that they have human rights.”11 Freeden seems to support an alternative position, that “human right are the most basic, pertaining to what is essentially human, while other categories of rights are more specific, limited and, normally, derivative.”12 Pope John also recognizes a second identifiable ground for rights in Pacem called “natural law.” The Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains no reference to 10 “Declaration of the Rights of Man – 1789,” Avalon Project, accessed June 16, 2014, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Limiting the Right to Procreate: State V. Oakley and the Need for Strict Scrutiny of Probation Conditions
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Seton Hall University Libraries LIMITING THE RIGHT TO PROCREATE: STATE V. OAKLEY AND THE NEED FOR STRICT SCRUTINY OF PROBATION CONDITIONS Devon A. Corneal∗ INTRODUCTION In August 2001, the Wisconsin Supreme Court touched off a national debate1 by upholding a probation condition placed on a man convicted of intentional failure to pay child support.2 The probation condition prohibited David W. Oakley from fathering children for the term of his probation unless he could prove that he was capable of supporting the nine children he had already fathered and any additional children he wanted to have.3 The ruling created a conflict between child welfare concerns and the fundamental right to ∗ J.D. Candidate, Seton Hall University School of Law; M.S. 1997, The Pennsylvania State University; B.A. 1994, The College of William and Mary. 1 State v. Oakley, 629 N.W.2d 200 (Wis. 2001). To see the breadth of coverage the case produced, as well as the countervailing policy and legal considerations, see Vivian Berger, Bedroom Sentence, NAT’L L.J., Sept. 17, 2001, at A21 (indicating that the ruling “illustrates the truth of the hoary maxim that hard cases make bad law”); Joan Biskupic, ‘Deadbeat Dad’ Told: No More Kids Wis. Court Backs Threat of Prison, USA TODAY, July 11, 2001, at 1A (stating that the decision was “likely to reverberate across the USA”); Dennis Chaptman, National Implications Seen in Ruling on Dad: Father of 9’s Attorney Considering Taking Case to U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights and Parliaments: Handbook for Members and Staff
    HUMAN RIGHTS AND PARLIAMENTS: HANDBOOK FOR MEMBERS AND STAFF The Westminster Consortium Human Rights And Parliaments: Handbook For Members And Staff March 2011 HUMAN RIGHTS AND PARLIAMENTS: HANDBOOK FOR MEMBERS AND STAFF CONTENTS CONTENTS Acknowledgements 9 Foreword 11 The Westminster Consortium 13 This handbook 15 PART I 1. Introduction 17 Why human rights? 17 Good governance, the rule of law and human rights 18 Sharing responsibility: a democratic dialogue on rights 19 2. Protecting human rights 21 The international human rights legal framework 21 INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS 21 RESERVATIONS AND DECLARATIONS: CAN STATES OPT-OUT OF MINIMUM HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS? 23 MAKING RIGHTS REAL 25 Supervision, monitoring and implementation of international human rights law 25 THE REPORTING PROCESS 25 ENFORCEMENT BY STATES PARTIES 28 INDIVIDUAL COMPLAINTS: THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL PETITION 30 INDEPENDENT INQUIRIES BY UN TREATY BODIES 34 NATIONAL PROTECTION MECHANISMS 34 CONTENTS HUMAN RIGHTS AND PARLIAMENTS: HANDBOOK FOR MEMBERS AND STAFF OTHER UN STANDARDS 36 THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL 38 Regional protection of human rights 40 AFRICA 40 THE ARAB REGION 41 EUROPE 41 THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE 41 THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER 42 THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND THE COMMIttEE FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE 42 THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COMMIssIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHts 43 THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHts OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 43 Domestic protection of human rights 44 CONSTITUTIONAL BILLS OF RIGHTS 44 LIMITATIONS ON LEGISLATIVE OR EXECUTIVE POWER 46 COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 48 LEGISLATIVE PROTECTION AND REVIEW 49 3. What do human rights mean for States? 49 Who is the State? 49 4.
    [Show full text]
  • The Works of Mercy and Human Rights
    The Works of Mercy and Human Rights Our vision A global community in which the dignity of every person is respected; resources are shared equitably; the environment is sustained; and nations and peoples live in peace. Our mission We are a Franciscan voice at the United Nations protecting the vulnerable, the forgotten, and the wounded earth through advocacy. A Reflection on the “Mandala” of Saint Nicolas of Flue This “Mandala” was created in the 15th Century based on the insights of Saint Nicolas of Flue (1417-1487), who was canonized shortly after the Second World War and proclaimed Patron Saint of Peace. The images of the mandala are sequenced according to the pleas of the “Our Father.” Its structure is that of a wheel which symbolizes the passing of time, and the history of the world and of humanity. God, the Unmoved Mover, is the center of the wheel and at the same time takes part in the different scenes. Through God’s action, history of the world becomes that of salvation. However, humans are not just the “objects” of salvation. They take active part in salvation, as “subjects,” with their acts of mercy. Just 70 years ago, after the horrific experiences of the First and Second World Wars, the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, with the hope that this action would prevent such horrors from ever occurring again. Mercy and human rights are interdependent. Without the recognition of the rights of humanity, mercy can be humiliating. Without mercy, rights can be loveless. Yet, both are rooted in human dignity which is unconditional and inalienable for each and every human being.
    [Show full text]
  • Cps Rights of Children and Youth in Foster Care Child Protective Services (Cps)-Permanency Division
    Form K-908-2530 Revised March 2017 CPS RIGHTS OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH IN FOSTER CARE CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES (CPS)-PERMANENCY DIVISION Purpose: Children and Youth in the conservatorship of DFPS must be provided with a copy of the CPS Rights of Children and Youth in Foster Care. Directions: The caseworker must provide a copy of the CPS Rights of Children and Youth In Foster Care (Rights) to all children and youth in CPS foster care no later than 72 hours from the date they come into care and when a placement change is made. The caseworker must review these Rights with the child or youth. Upon completion of the review, the caseworker must have the child or youth sign on the appropriate signature line and attach the Rights to the Child's Plan of Service (CPOS). The reviewed and signed Rights must be attached to the initial and any subsequent reviews of the CPOS. The child or youth must receive a copy of the Rights and a copy must be placed in the case file as well. CHILD'S INFORMATION Child/Youth Full Name Child’s Date of Birth Date: Placement Name and Address: Note if the child/youth is unable to sign and the reason. CHILD'S RIGHTS AS A CHILD OR YOUTH IN FOSTER CARE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO: SAFETY AND CARE 1. Be told: Why am I in foster care? What will happen to me? What is happening to my family (including brothers and sisters)? How is CPS planning for my future? 2. Good care and treatment that meets my needs in the most family-like setting possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School
    Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School Ralph Raico Foreword by Jörg Guido Hülsmann Preface by David Gordon LvMI MISES INSTITUTE The cover design by Chad Parish shows the Neptune Fountain, at the Schönbrunn Palace, in Vienna. Copyright © 2012 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given. Ludwig von Mises Institute 518 West Magnolia Avenue Auburn, Alabama 36832 mises.org ISBN: 978-1-61016-003-2 Dedicated to the memory of the great Ludwig von Mises Table of Contents Foreword by Jörg Guido Hülsmann . ix Preface by David Gordon . xiii Introduction . .xxv 1. Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School . .1 2. Liberalism: True and False . .67 3. Intellectuals and the Marketplace. 111 4. Was Keynes a Liberal? . .149 5. The Conflict of Classes: Liberal vs. Marxist Theories. .183 6. The Centrality of French Liberalism . .219 7. Ludwig von Mises’s Liberalism on Fascism, Democracy, and Imperalism . .255 8. Eugen Richter and the End of German Liberalism. .301 9. Arthur Ekirch on American Militarism . .331 Index. .339 vii Foreword “History looks backward into the past, but the lesson it teaches concerns things to come. It does not teach indolent quietism; it rouses man to emulate the deeds of earlier generations.” Ludwig von Mises1 The present book contains a collection of essays written through- out the past twenty years. I read virtually all of them when they were first published. They have been a central part of my education in the history of liberalism and of the Austrian School of economics, and I consider myself privileged indeed to have encountered Professor Raico and his work early on in my intellectual development.
    [Show full text]
  • ADJUDICATING the HUMAN RIGHT to ADEQUATE HOUSING Analysis of Important Judgments from Indian High Courts
    ADJUDICATING THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HOUSING Analysis of Important Judgments from Indian High Courts HOUSING AND LAND RIGHTS NETWORK Adjudicating the Human Right to Adequate Housing Analysis of Important Judgments from Indian High Courts 01 Suggested Citation: Adjudicating the Human Right to Adequate Housing: Analysis of Important Judgments from Indian High Courts, Housing and Land Rights Network, New Delhi, 2019 Conceptual Framework, Analysis, and Editing: Shivani Chaudhry and Miloon Kothari Legal Research and Analysis: Aishwarya Ayushmaan [with inputs from Ikshaku Bezbaroa for the initial draft] Published by: Housing and Land Rights Network G-18/1 Nizamuddin West Lower Ground Floor New Delhi – 110 013, INDIA +91-11-4054-1680 [email protected] www.hlrn.org.in New Delhi, April 2019 ISBN: 978-81-935672-2-7 This publication is printed on CyclusPrint based on 100% recycled fibres ADJUDICATING THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HOUSING Analysis of Important Judgments from Indian High Courts HOUSING AND LAND RIGHTS NETWORK ii Housing and Land Rights Network PREFACE “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” ~ Theodore Parker While justice should be an inherent component of the law and, incontestably, is its end, in many parts of the world, law and justice, unfortunately, are not synonymous. Even where just laws exist, they are often not implemented, or selectively used. The judiciary, too, does not always ensure the uniform administration of justice. However, for the poor and marginalized, who find their rights being violated by state and non-state actors, the judiciary, at times, is the only hope for the pursuit of justice.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Margins of Profit Rights at Risk in the Global Economy
    February 2008 Volume 20, No. 3(G) On the Margins of Profit Rights at Risk in the Global Economy Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 Background: Understanding the Different Ways Business Activity Can Infringe Human Rights ..........................................................................................................4 Impacts: A Selection from Reporting by Human Rights Watch ..................................7 Right to Security of the Person............................................................................ 9 Economic and Social Rights ..............................................................................16 Civil and Political Rights.................................................................................... 21 Non-Discrimination ...........................................................................................27 Labor Rights......................................................................................................32 Rights of Communities or Groups including Indigenous Peoples........................39 Right to an Effective Remedy and Accountability................................................44 Findings................................................................................................................ 48 Conclusion.............................................................................................................50 Acknowledgments..................................................................................................52
    [Show full text]
  • Syllabus of M.A. Program
    Syllabus of LL. M. Kathmandu School of Law (KSL) Purbanchal University Suryabinayak-4, Dadhikot, Bhaktapur Syllabus of M.A. Program KSL offers one year interdisciplinary M.A. Programmes in: 1) Conflict and International Humanitarian Laws. 2) Human Rights The course encourages the scholars holding Masters’ Degree in any discipline from any accredited university. Kathmandu School of Law (KSL) 32 Syllabus of M.A. Syllabus of M.A. 1.1. M.A. M.A.IN CONFLICT IN CONFLICT & INTERNATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN HUMANITARIAN LAWS LAWS Program : MA in Conflict and International Humanitarian Laws Duration of the Course : One Year Total Full Marks : 600 Evaluation System: 1. Theoretical Subjects External Evaluation through Annual Exam Full Mark 60/Pass Mark 30 Internal Evaluation through Terminal Exams and Term Papers, Full Mark 40/Pass marks 20. 2. Practical Subjects: a. Field Research and Reporting: According to Existing University Rules in other Faculties shall apply. b. Dissertation: According to Existing University Rules in other Faculties. Subjects Credit 1. International Humanitarian Laws and Implementation……….. 100 2. International Criminal Law and Court System…………………. 100 3. Protection of Women and Children in Armed Conflict…….. 100 4. Conflict Resolution (Principles, Norms and Practices)…. 100 5. Field Research and Reporting……………………………… 100 6. Dissertation……………………………………………….. 100 Total: 600 1) Course Title : International Humanitarian Laws and Implementation Objectives: 1.2.1. Contribution of the Eastern Values and To familiarize students with international Practices humanitarian tools relating to the protection of 1.2.2. The Role of ICRC in the Development people, property, and environment in the time of of IHL armed conflict 1.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Idealismo Di Girolamo Cotroneo
    Idealismo di Girolamo Cotroneo Bibliografia In uno dei suoi lavori più importanti, Il liberalismo in un mondo in trasformazione, Nicola Matteucci ha scritto che quando parliamo di «classici del liberalismo», il pensiero corre subito «a Locke e a Montesquieu, al Federalist, a Humboldt e a Constant, a Tocqueville e a John Stuart Mill, i quali hanno ricercato una libertà concreta a misura dei problemi del loro tempo, contribuendo così a instaurare un nuovo ordine liberale», e nelle cui opere «sono presenti, in stretto accordo, l’elemento empirico e realistico (l’attenzione a quella realtà che si vuole modificare) e l’elemento critico, che quella realtà contesta partendo dall’ideale della libertà, di una libertà che quasi mai è intesa in termini utilitaristici». Aggiungeva poi di avere omesso «i nomi di Kant e di Croce, non perché non siano liberali, ma perché ci sono maestri solo nel campo della filosofia pratica, non nella progettazione dell’ordine liberale». La differenza tra «filosofia liberale» e «ordine politico liberale» è decisiva per dare ragione del rapporto tra «liberalismo» e «idealismo»; una distinzione che sembra escludere dai classici del liberalismo filosofi dalla forte caratura teoretica come Kant e Croce, includendovi una serie di pensatori che va da Locke a Stuart Mill attraverso Montesquieu, Benjamin Constant e Alexis de Tocqueville, e alla quale vanno aggiunti, ad esempio, José Ortega y Gasset, Raymond Aron, Friedrich von Hayek e Karl R. Popper, per non dire poi dei pensatori statunitensi contemporanei, come ad esempio i teorici della «giustizia» John Rawls e Michael Walzer e il teorico dei «diritti» Ronald Dworkin.
    [Show full text]
  • CPS Rights of Children and Youth in Foster Care Form 2530 01/11/2012 Page 2 of 4 30
    TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES Commissioner John J. Specia, Jr. Rights of Children and Youth in Foster Care As a child or youth in foster care: 1. I have the right to good care and treatment that meets my needs in the least restrictive setting available. This means I have the right to live in a safe, healthy, and comfortable place. And I am protected from harm, treated with respect, and have some privacy for personal needs. 2. I have the right to know: Why am I in foster care? What will happen to me? What is happening to my family (including brothers and sisters) and how CPS is planning for my future? 3. I have the right to speak and be spoken to in my own language when possible. This includes Braille if I am blind or sign language if I am deaf. If my foster parents do not know my language, CPS will give me a plan to meet my needs to communicate. 4. I have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, exploitation, and harassment from any person in the household or facility where I live. 5. I have the right to fair treatment, whatever my gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, disability, medical problems, or sexual orientation. 6. I have the right to be free of any harsh, cruel, unusual, unnecessary, demeaning, or humiliating punishment. This includes not being shaken, hit, spanked, or threatened, forced to do unproductive work, be denied food, sleep, access to a bathroom, mail, or family visits.
    [Show full text]
  • John Locke and the Fable of Liberalism
    This is a repository copy of John Locke and the fable of liberalism. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/121796/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Stanton, Tim orcid.org/0000-0002-8282-9570 (2018) John Locke and the fable of liberalism. Historical Journal. pp. 597-622. ISSN 0018-246X https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X17000450 Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ The Historical Journal JOHN LOCKE AND THE FABLE OF LIBERALISM Journal: The Historical Journal Manuscript ID HJ-2017-062.R1 Manuscript Type: Article Perio : 1600-99, 1700-99, 1800-99, 1900-99, 2000- Intellectual, Historiographical, Religious, Political, A ministrative ( Legal, Thematic: Social Geographic: ,urope, Continental, .ritain, America, North Cambridge University Press Page 1 of 46 The Historical Journal Locke and the fable of liberalism JOHN LOCKE AND THE FABLE OF LIBERALISM TIMOTHY STANTON University of York ABSTRACT. This essay explores the ways in which John Locke was claimed by liberalism and refashioned in its image.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
    TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES Rights of Children and Youth in Foster Care As a child or youth in foster care 1. I have the right to appropriate care and treatment in the least restrictive setting available that can meet my needs. This includes the right to live in a safe, healthy and comfortable placement where I receive reasonable protection from harm, appropriate privacy for personal needs, and am treated with respect. 2. I have the right to know • Why I am in foster care • What will be happening to me • What is happening to my family, including siblings, and case plans. 3. I have the right to speak and be spoken to in my own language whenever possible. If I am placed with foster parents who cannot communicate with me, there will be a written plan to meet my communication needs. 4. I have the right to be free from unfair treatment because of my gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, disability, medical status, or sexual orientation. 5. I have the right to be free from any harsh, cruel, unusual, unnecessary, demeaning, or humiliating punishment. 6. I have the right to be disciplined in a manner that is appropriate to my level of maturity, developmental level, and medical status, and I must receive an explanation of why I was disciplined. Discipline does not include the use of restraint, seclusion or corporal punishment. 7. I have the right to attend community, school, and religious services and activities of my choice to the extent that it is appropriate for me, as planned and discussed with my placement and caseworker, and based on caregiver ability.
    [Show full text]