I did not realize that Dr Kelley Ross had written a letter to the NY Post about an article attacking the Second Amendment. I did not even know he reads the NY Post -- being a Californian like myself.
And there also he brings this idea of John Locke about "natural rights"that do not depend on the will of the Majority. Natural rights is mostly traced to Aquinas who deals with "natural law" in great detail and at great length. But the idea natural law was also brought by Saadia Gaon in his Doctrines and Views אמונות ודעות and the Rambam in the Guide.
[The view of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson I think is that the state is created to secure natural rights and that one gives up no rights in order to live within a state. I had seen once a different view -that one gives up certain rights to live in a state but later I noticed that that view does not appear in the Two Treaties on Government. Also in Dr Kelley Ross's treatment of natural rights, it also doe not appear. And would have to say that in the Declaration of Independence the view is that the entire purpose of a state is to secure natural rights. So I think that in no sense is the existence of the state thought to conflict with natural rights.]
The obvious question then is to trace this all back to Saadia Gaon and the Rambam {Maimonides}. Natural Law they both have and natural rights is simply a statement of the laws of Torah as applied. [That is "Thou Shalt not Steal" etc. Meaning one has a right to his own possessions. But what about a state?]
In term of a state I think it is clear that the Rambam holds from a consequence theory--that is you need a state because no human good is possible without it. As he explains in the Guide, that many laws of the Torah are for the sake of peace of the state.
[As for the kind of government, it seems to me that the Torah requires a king only when the people ask for a king. Look at the actual verse. And that in itself explains why Samuel the prophet was upset with Israel for asking for a king.]
And there also he brings this idea of John Locke about "natural rights"that do not depend on the will of the Majority. Natural rights is mostly traced to Aquinas who deals with "natural law" in great detail and at great length. But the idea natural law was also brought by Saadia Gaon in his Doctrines and Views אמונות ודעות and the Rambam in the Guide.
[The view of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson I think is that the state is created to secure natural rights and that one gives up no rights in order to live within a state. I had seen once a different view -that one gives up certain rights to live in a state but later I noticed that that view does not appear in the Two Treaties on Government. Also in Dr Kelley Ross's treatment of natural rights, it also doe not appear. And would have to say that in the Declaration of Independence the view is that the entire purpose of a state is to secure natural rights. So I think that in no sense is the existence of the state thought to conflict with natural rights.]
The obvious question then is to trace this all back to Saadia Gaon and the Rambam {Maimonides}. Natural Law they both have and natural rights is simply a statement of the laws of Torah as applied. [That is "Thou Shalt not Steal" etc. Meaning one has a right to his own possessions. But what about a state?]
In term of a state I think it is clear that the Rambam holds from a consequence theory--that is you need a state because no human good is possible without it. As he explains in the Guide, that many laws of the Torah are for the sake of peace of the state.
[As for the kind of government, it seems to me that the Torah requires a king only when the people ask for a king. Look at the actual verse. And that in itself explains why Samuel the prophet was upset with Israel for asking for a king.]
