Then absent an external standard - the "inalienable right" - one is more or less reduced to appealing to the better angels of the mob, isn't s/he? Something like the so-called "critical studies" people at the Harvard School of Law who argue that the law should be "socialized" - i. e., it should reflect what a majority of people think it ought to be.
Ron,
the problems of the system are obvious. We agree that a social contract based system of rights is subject to corruption.
Where it seems that we may disagree is the following. You appear to believe that it is possible to set up a immutable standard that does not have the above defect.
I do not believe that is possible. First of all, simply naming it as as immutable standard does not change the fact that citizens/government leaders can change the standard at will.
I would imagine you tp respond that this is the reason why we have to have a fixed standard that cannot be changed.
And I would respond that as long as there are leaders (Like George Bush) there will always be the very real risk that such a leader will simply ignore any "fixed" standard.
Further, our government is designed to respond to the will of the people. The result is that any madness of the crowd can and will be translated into corruption of the standard. War/attack are typical and unavoidable examples.
The immutable standard will always have exceptional cases (IE death penalty) where the standard does not apply. And IMO that is always a vulnerability of the standard that can be expanded. So if you have the death penalty for massmurders, then a situation will come along where someone will say that it is also terrible to have a traitor against the nation and so that should have the death penalty also.
Finally, it is is well and good to say we "need" to have an immutable standard. But simply naming the standard as immutable does not change it's fundamental character. No matter which words you use to describe that immutable standard, the fact remains that it is a political/social agreement that has established the standard. And being a political social agreement... the standard is inherently subject to the potential corruptions inherent built into it's fundamental nature.
We may observe a pet fish and say that we no not want to name it a shark because sharks are aggressive killers. Naming a shark a "white fish" does not change it's nature. Naming rights as immutable reflections of natural law does not change the nature of their origin.
