The Source of Rights

[Shadow Wolf]

humans tend to be weak. Then again we give a lot of props to Schindler for reducing suffering in a tricky situation he could not end. I wonder if many slave owners back in the day did not have a similar mindset.

Oh, I could go on with this all day. The English offered freedom to any slaves who left their American masters to join them, as this was more than the Americans were offering (and they ended up abolitioning it about 30 years later). Schindler was arrested multiple times protecting the Schindlerjuden, used up a great deal of his own personal fortune (he would depending on those who depended on him) and made such tremendous personal sacrifices that he's buried on Mount Zion. There are thousands alive today because of him. Most of Jefferson's descendants are alive today because of his misdeeds.

 

[74x12]

Sounds like you don't think religious freedom is one of the rights doled out by God.

What do you think free will is?

But you pay for the wrong choice.

The 1st amendment was never given to approve of or support false religion. It was put there because the founders understood that religion is really a personal thing between the individual and God. You're still free to make the wrong choices or the right ones. That's between you and God.

 

[ChristineM]

"Rights are not gifts from one man to another, nor from one class of men to another. It is impossible to discover any origin of rights otherwise than in the origin of man; it consequently follows that rights appertain to man in right of his existence, and must therefore be equal to every man."- Thomas Paine

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a
conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" ( Jefferson, Works, 8:404; P.P.N.S., p. 141)

"Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These
are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent
upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality?
And what is property but an extension of our faculties?" ( Bastiat:The Law, p. 6)

Now I know a few atheist will get their panties in a bunch over God being mentioned in politics, but even someone who wholly rejects God can value rights being above and beyond the reach of elected and unelected officials in government.

Rights are a human thing, and for that matter, a fairly modern concept. As indicated by your 3 examples.

Prior to the late 1700s/early 1800s the only rights bestowed on human beings were enjoyed only if you were wealthy or high in the church. The "common" people were basically gun fodder and providers of food for the elite.

So what rights does your god bestow?

 

[Brickjectivity]

The idea of rights is not invented in the USA, but the success of the states further cements the belief that rights build a better country.

The guiding principle of the Constitution is "In order to form a more perfect union." We recognize natural rights. In USA its done by recognizing them as endowed by the creator, which replaces the crown as the final authority. To the founders this is supposedly a good enough compromise for everyone from the atheist to the most personal theist, however they do not presume to claim a perfect union but aim for a more perfect one than one ruled by a king. They simply assert that it can all be done better without a king. They aren't claiming that God creates the USA. They are proven correct that the country can run better without a king.

The union lasts imperfectly for about 150 years before civil war breaks out. Then things have to change. When war breaks out you know that your union needs improvement, but still its not bad and the states have many golden years without a king. Rights are increasingly touted and discussed.

 

[Truth in love]

Schindler used his position, privilege, and own wealth to shelter and protect many Jews. Jefferson didn't do anything to attempt to improve the situation of the slaves.

tried to end slavery at the state and national level is not doing nothing.

We don’t have a day by day on his farm. He may well have tried to shelter as many as he could.

 

[Truth in love]

So, you think that you don't lose or gain rights when crossing a border or when politicians change a constitution? What would be the universal rights and how would we know that?

So, you think that you don't lose or gain rights when crossing a border or when politicians change a constitution? What would be the universal rights and how would we know that?

Natural rights are those rights which exist if there was no government. There is some debate on the finer details. Generally these are summed up as life, liberty and property. A look over the UDHR.

Article 1 — Right To Equality. We all have the same rights.
Article 2 — Freedom From Discrimination. The government treats us each as a person not as group which might have special rights or be punished.
Article 3 — Right to Security of Person
Article 4 — Freedom from Slavery
Article 5 — Freedom From Inhumane Treatment
Article 6 — Right To Legal Recognition
Article 7 — Right To Equality Before the Law (really a restating of item 2)
Article 8 — Right To Remedy by Competent Tribunal
Article 9 — Freedom From Arbitrary Legal Prosecution
Article 10 — Right To Fair Public Hearing
Article 11 — Right To Be Considered Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Article 12 — Freedom From Interference (I should be free to live my life as I see fit without limits, except as to respecting the rights of others. This includes my freedom to enter into a contract).
Article 13 — Right To Free Movement
Article 14 — Right to Asylum From Prosecution (this one is a bit gray as it demands actions from other governments).
Article 15 — Right To A Nationality (This one also is gray, you are a person and you live in a place these are natural rights, but the origination of government is not)
Article 16 — Right To Marriage
Article 17 — Right To Own Property (This one is vital yet one of the most ignored by governments)
Article 18 — Freedom Of Belief (is the US this one got really abused under FDR and LBJ it is not just the right to believe hidden in the closet).
Article 19 — Freedom Of Speech (I think one can justly limit the freedom to threaten another, but the recent efforts to stop "disinformation" AKA anything the ruling party does not want to be said are a violation of this.
Article 20 — Right To Peaceful Assembly and Association. Both BLM and the Jan 6 protests started peaceful and crossed the line.
Article 21 — Right To Participate In Government

With few limits the above are consistent with natural rights. We also see the UN going off the rails and adding in a lot of stuff that is not natural rights, and are often when attempted a violation of those rights. Much of the following is found not in nature, but in the ratings of Marx.

Article 22 — Right To Social Security. This is not a natural right, this is a requirement that the government violate the non establishment clause and the rights of property to give what person A worked for to person B.

Article 23 — Right To Desirable Employment. While people need the freedom to work the details outlined are dangerous. “Equal pay for equal work" is a nice tag line, but how do you enforce it without destroying freedom, privacy and the right to contract? Who is to say which amount of work or quality of work is equal to another? Would not I as the owner have the right to give more money to my son if I wish? Should I not be free to pay more to the worker whose daughter has cancer if I desire? They might refuse a gift, but accept a raise. Now the government enforcing a contract. They could compel me the owner to pay you for the work you did at the rate I agreed to pay.

Article 24 — Right To Rest. Yes take a break, but holidays with pay is not a natural right.

Article 25 — Right To Adequate Living Standard. No, No and No. Again like item 22 this require the governments to violate other rights. Modern versions of this at least in the US like punishing people who want to live off the grid are harmful to the rights of the people. If I want to live like my ancestors without power and running water that is my choice (I personally like those things, but it's my call). Now if your life style actually harms the rights of others such as trespassing on their property the government could deal with that issue.

Article 26 — Right To Education. Same. Education matters, but its not the government job to provide it. They should simply ban people from trying to stop it.

Article 27 — Right To Participate in and Enjoy the Culture of One’s Community (Could be creativity abused but the notion is valid)

Article 28 — Right To Realization of This Declaration

Article 29 — Duties To Community (Yes we have duties and this does not mean the community can bulldoze our rights.)

Article 30 — Freedom From Interference in Above Rights (same as 29)


When the line is crossed from protecting the rights I have naturally as a person to the creating entitlements, the micromanaging my life etc. We have a problem.When the government is the one denying me my rights the system I can appeal to is the same one that is harming me and the odds of my appeal working are very low.

 

[Truth in love]

Uh, dude Jefferson owned over 600 slaves. Sure, he signed the abolition of the international slave trade preventing more slaves from being brought from Africa, but that law was met with little opposition from slave owners themselves since it made slaves rarer and thus more valuable. Plus, unlike in Ancient Rome, you could "breed" your slaves ad infinitum and sell their children or simply grow your estate's workforce organically. He even wrote "A woman who brings a child every two years is more profitable than the best man on the farm" about that very subject. Jefferson might have opposed slavery in a very soft way and believed the institution could be curtailed and then abolished progressively and with compensation for slave owners, but he didn't even freed his slaves on his deathbed like Washington did.

He put his political career in jeopardy many times to try to end the practice. I was not around and did not know him, but his actions clearly show that he was trying to end it. Just because something is right does not mean it is politically realistic.

If we look around at the acts of violence over abortion going to the sates vs an edict from the supreme court we can get a glimpse of some of what was likely going on in the south. Slavery was a much bigger deal economically, culturally and just flat out living to see another day.

Washington put in his will that the slaves be freed on his wife's death. I don't know enough of the details of Jefferson's life, duties to children, kin etc. Maybe he thought being his slave gave them some degree of protection they would lose otherwise. Maybe he was thoughtless on this count. I don't know. But his actions show him to be anti slavery.

 

[Augustus]

They referred to the "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence to counter the divine right of the King of England.

The British monarchy was already subservient to parliament.

The Glorious Revolution was (in part) about Parliament's right to choose the monarch, in opposition to the idea the monarch was sovereign over parliament.

This meant that if the King could claim authority through the rights given by God then the FF could assume their own set of equal rights through the same God. It was a political calculation, not necessarily religious.

Providential deism was pretty much a "religious" view.

Providence was a feature of both Christian and Enlightenment thought (Locke, Smith, etc)

Deists obviously rejected the supernatural and theological aspects of Christian thought, but retained the idea that God wills human flourishing, but humans have to realise this themselves.

It was basically a 2nd Protestant reformation, rejecting some things while retaining the historical teleology, Divine Providence, and sense of a universal "true religion" (that is when you free people from false beliefs you are left with our true state)

Irreligious folk today might well believe the world has no concern for human flourishing, and rights are not self-evident but are human conventions taken and/or held by force and only as secure as you can make them.

 

[Heyo]

Natural rights are those rights which exist if there was no government. There is some debate on the finer details. Generally these are summed up as life, liberty and property. A look over the UDHR.

Article 1 — Right To Equality. We all have the same rights.
Article 2 — Freedom From Discrimination. The government treats us each as a person not as group which might have special rights or be punished.
Article 3 — Right to Security of Person
Article 4 — Freedom from Slavery
Article 5 — Freedom From Inhumane Treatment
Article 6 — Right To Legal Recognition
Article 7 — Right To Equality Before the Law (really a restating of item 2)
Article 8 — Right To Remedy by Competent Tribunal
Article 9 — Freedom From Arbitrary Legal Prosecution
Article 10 — Right To Fair Public Hearing
Article 11 — Right To Be Considered Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Article 12 — Freedom From Interference (I should be free to live my life as I see fit without limits, except as to respecting the rights of others. This includes my freedom to enter into a contract).
Article 13 — Right To Free Movement
Article 14 — Right to Asylum From Prosecution (this one is a bit gray as it demands actions from other governments).
Article 15 — Right To A Nationality (This one also is gray, you are a person and you live in a place these are natural rights, but the origination of government is not)
Article 16 — Right To Marriage
Article 17 — Right To Own Property (This one is vital yet one of the most ignored by governments)
Article 18 — Freedom Of Belief (is the US this one got really abused under FDR and LBJ it is not just the right to believe hidden in the closet).
Article 19 — Freedom Of Speech (I think one can justly limit the freedom to threaten another, but the recent efforts to stop "disinformation" AKA anything the ruling party does not want to be said are a violation of this.
Article 20 — Right To Peaceful Assembly and Association. Both BLM and the Jan 6 protests started peaceful and crossed the line.
Article 21 — Right To Participate In Government

With few limits the above are consistent with natural rights. We also see the UN going off the rails and adding in a lot of stuff that is not natural rights, and are often when attempted a violation of those rights. Much of the following is found not in nature, but in the ratings of Marx.

Article 22 — Right To Social Security. This is not a natural right, this is a requirement that the government violate the non establishment clause and the rights of property to give what person A worked for to person B.

Article 23 — Right To Desirable Employment. While people need the freedom to work the details outlined are dangerous. “Equal pay for equal work" is a nice tag line, but how do you enforce it without destroying freedom, privacy and the right to contract? Who is to say which amount of work or quality of work is equal to another? Would not I as the owner have the right to give more money to my son if I wish? Should I not be free to pay more to the worker whose daughter has cancer if I desire? They might refuse a gift, but accept a raise. Now the government enforcing a contract. They could compel me the owner to pay you for the work you did at the rate I agreed to pay.

Article 24 — Right To Rest. Yes take a break, but holidays with pay is not a natural right.

Article 25 — Right To Adequate Living Standard. No, No and No. Again like item 22 this require the governments to violate other rights. Modern versions of this at least in the US like punishing people who want to live off the grid are harmful to the rights of the people. If I want to live like my ancestors without power and running water that is my choice (I personally like those things, but it's my call). Now if your life style actually harms the rights of others such as trespassing on their property the government could deal with that issue.

Article 26 — Right To Education. Same. Education matters, but its not the government job to provide it. They should simply ban people from trying to stop it.

Article 27 — Right To Participate in and Enjoy the Culture of One’s Community (Could be creativity abused but the notion is valid)

Article 28 — Right To Realization of This Declaration

Article 29 — Duties To Community (Yes we have duties and this does not mean the community can bulldoze our rights.)

Article 30 — Freedom From Interference in Above Rights (same as 29)


When the line is crossed from protecting the rights I have naturally as a person to the creating entitlements, the micromanaging my life etc. We have a problem.When the government is the one denying me my rights the system I can appeal to is the same one that is harming me and the odds of my appeal working are very low.

As you didn't answer the last question (how do we know), I assume that the above is your personal opinion?

 

[F1fan]

Natural rights are those rights which exist if there was no government. There is some debate on the finer details. Generally these are summed up as life, liberty and property. A look over the UDHR.

Article 1 — Right To Equality. We all have the same rights.
Article 2 — Freedom From Discrimination. The government treats us each as a person not as group which might have special rights or be punished.
Article 3 — Right to Security of Person
Article 4 — Freedom from Slavery
Article 5 — Freedom From Inhumane Treatment
Article 6 — Right To Legal Recognition
Article 7 — Right To Equality Before the Law (really a restating of item 2)
Article 8 — Right To Remedy by Competent Tribunal
Article 9 — Freedom From Arbitrary Legal Prosecution
Article 10 — Right To Fair Public Hearing
Article 11 — Right To Be Considered Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Article 12 — Freedom From Interference (I should be free to live my life as I see fit without limits, except as to respecting the rights of others. This includes my freedom to enter into a contract).
Article 13 — Right To Free Movement
Article 14 — Right to Asylum From Prosecution (this one is a bit gray as it demands actions from other governments).
Article 15 — Right To A Nationality (This one also is gray, you are a person and you live in a place these are natural rights, but the origination of government is not)
Article 16 — Right To Marriage
Article 17 — Right To Own Property (This one is vital yet one of the most ignored by governments)
Article 18 — Freedom Of Belief (is the US this one got really abused under FDR and LBJ it is not just the right to believe hidden in the closet).
Article 19 — Freedom Of Speech (I think one can justly limit the freedom to threaten another, but the recent efforts to stop "disinformation" AKA anything the ruling party does not want to be said are a violation of this.
Article 20 — Right To Peaceful Assembly and Association. Both BLM and the Jan 6 protests started peaceful and crossed the line.
Article 21 — Right To Participate In Government

With few limits the above are consistent with natural rights. We also see the UN going off the rails and adding in a lot of stuff that is not natural rights, and are often when attempted a violation of those rights. Much of the following is found not in nature, but in the ratings of Marx.

Article 22 — Right To Social Security. This is not a natural right, this is a requirement that the government violate the non establishment clause and the rights of property to give what person A worked for to person B.

Article 23 — Right To Desirable Employment. While people need the freedom to work the details outlined are dangerous. “Equal pay for equal work" is a nice tag line, but how do you enforce it without destroying freedom, privacy and the right to contract? Who is to say which amount of work or quality of work is equal to another? Would not I as the owner have the right to give more money to my son if I wish? Should I not be free to pay more to the worker whose daughter has cancer if I desire? They might refuse a gift, but accept a raise. Now the government enforcing a contract. They could compel me the owner to pay you for the work you did at the rate I agreed to pay.

Article 24 — Right To Rest. Yes take a break, but holidays with pay is not a natural right.

Article 25 — Right To Adequate Living Standard. No, No and No. Again like item 22 this require the governments to violate other rights. Modern versions of this at least in the US like punishing people who want to live off the grid are harmful to the rights of the people. If I want to live like my ancestors without power and running water that is my choice (I personally like those things, but it's my call). Now if your life style actually harms the rights of others such as trespassing on their property the government could deal with that issue.

Article 26 — Right To Education. Same. Education matters, but its not the government job to provide it. They should simply ban people from trying to stop it.

Article 27 — Right To Participate in and Enjoy the Culture of One’s Community (Could be creativity abused but the notion is valid)

Article 28 — Right To Realization of This Declaration

Article 29 — Duties To Community (Yes we have duties and this does not mean the community can bulldoze our rights.)

Article 30 — Freedom From Interference in Above Rights (same as 29)


When the line is crossed from protecting the rights I have naturally as a person to the creating entitlements, the micromanaging my life etc. We have a problem.When the government is the one denying me my rights the system I can appeal to is the same one that is harming me and the odds of my appeal working are very low.

No natural rights to own guns. That's interesting. I would suspect this is the case because rational people would resolve their conflicts and differences with discussion and compromise, and not threats and violence.

 

[Truth in love]

Rights are a human thing, and for that matter, a fairly modern concept. As indicated by your 3 examples.

Prior to the late 1700s/early 1800s the only rights bestowed on human beings were enjoyed only if you were wealthy or high in the church. The "common" people were basically gun fodder and providers of food for the elite.

So what rights does your god bestow?

1. We have writings going back far before the 1700's on natural rights. Marcus Tullius Cicero leaps to mind. Also the Saxon's legal code provided a lot of protection for the poor. There is a long history of the powerful abusing those not in power. It is one of the greatest shames in all of human history.

2. The Bible provides some great guidance
Right to life (Exodus 20:13)
Property (Exodus 20:15)
Freedom from kidnapping and enslavement (Exodus 21:16) (yes the Bible times did not end enslavement, but even under the law of Moses a slave had a lot more rights than the stereotypical slave of the 1600's.
Freedom of religion. (Joshua 24:15)
Ex 22: lists many items including holding people accountable who damage property, steal and kill. Also baring the mistreatment of strangers.
Malachi 3:5 bars underpaying or withhold wages from workers and lying.
It is not as detailed as some other documents but its a start.

Moving beyond the Bible we also find

In the Book of Mormon:
Mosiah 2:14 the king explains that he did not tax his people (respect for the right of property)

Mosiah 2:21 Freedom of action, life,

Mosiah 2:26 equal right.

Mosiah 27:4 right to work

Alma 30: 6-8 Freedom of belief and speech equal protection under the law.

Alma 48:24 right to defend self and nation


In the Doctrine and Covenants

134: Freedom of speech, religion, self defense, right to appeal for help, property rights,

98:

4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.



So was have an endorsement of the US Constitution and its principles for the freedom of all mankind. We have many, but not all rights spelled out or at least referenced in scripture. (I’d wager there’s a lot more detail if we spent a lot of time digging).

 

[Truth in love]

As you didn't answer the last question (how do we know), I assume that the above is your personal opinion?

How do we know gravity is a thing? We try it out and look for evidence. When we see things like free enterprise putting the Americas decades ahead of pretty much the rest of the entire world during the great depression we can reasonably conclude that free enterprise is effective.

We have thousands of years of political theory to review. We also can ask ourselves what right do I have if I'm out on my own? If the right exists when I'm on my own it is a natural right.

 

[Truth in love]

No natural rights to own guns. That's interesting. I would suspect this is the case because rational people would resolve their conflicts and differences with discussion and compromise, and not threats and violence.

Guns are a from of arms which is a from of property. Arms are needed for the protection of person and state. The UN not going into this detail topic does not mean the right does not exist.

 

[F1fan]

Guns are a from of arms which is a from of property. Arms are needed for the protection of person and state. The UN not going into this detail topic does not mean the right does not exist.

That's a clever interpretation. It still doesn't mention guns.

Let's note certain types of humans have been considered property. Women have been considered property. Words matter.

 

[Heyo]

We also can ask ourselves what right do I have if I'm out on my own? If the right exists when I'm on my own it is a natural right.

Look at the rights and ask yourself what you have when you're on your own. Most of them simply don't apply as regulate social interaction. The rest are at least questionable as there is no one to enforce them but you.

 

[ChristineM]

@Truth in love

Cicero had little power to impose any rights, though he was good at talking about them. The right to introduce human rights was that of the senate of which he was one member

Saxons tended to be wealthy and treated locals under their jurisdiction as chattel.

And taking the bible as a moral source means cherry picking, while ignoring slavery, rape, theft, murder of conquered people's. For every humane act in the bible i can counter with an inhumane act

Human rights that actually mean something to human beings and not verses in a book read on sunday (or Saturday or Friday) then tor the most part forgotten about did not come about until well into the industrial revolution

 

[Truth in love]

That's a clever interpretation. It still doesn't mention guns.

Let's note certain types of humans have been considered property. Women have been considered property. Words matter.

So are you arguing that a past abuse means people don’t have a right to own property?


If I don’t have a right to be armed where do the cops and military get their right to be armed?

 

[Truth in love]

Look at the rights and ask yourself what you have when you're on your own. Most of them simply don't apply as regulate social interaction. The rest are at least questionable as there is no one to enforce them but you.

My right to property, life and liberty are all these on my own. Granted on my own I don’t have much need to be protected from an abusive sheriff. On the other hand If the sheriff got his powers from the convent of the people they can’t give him a power they lack. If we are the only two people in the world do I have the right to invade your home or take your stuff?

 

[Truth in love]

@Truth in love

Cicero had little power to impose any rights, though he was good at talking about them. The right to introduce human rights was that of the senate of which he was one member

Saxons tended to be wealthy and treated locals under their jurisdiction as chattel.

And taking the bible as a moral source means cherry picking, while ignoring slavery, rape, theft, murder of conquered people's. For every humane act in the bible i can counter with an inhumane act

Human rights that actually mean something to human beings and not verses in a book read on sunday (or Saturday or Friday) then tor the most part forgotten about did not come about until well into the industrial revolution

People often forget to live by their stated convictions that is very true.

The Saxon code provided for legal protection. It was harsh by today’s standards, but then again so is life up to a few decades ago.

And no I don’t cherry pick the Bible. Some of the legal codes were based on the local situations and the realities of a society with limited resources.

it never endorsed rape.

yes there are some wholesale slaughters. Only when ordered by God is this acceptable. If theft was ever endorsed I missed it. Murder is condemned. Sexual immorality is also condemned.

Now people messed up often, and there was a degree of mercy, but this is not an endorsement of the wrongs done.

 

[ChristineM]

it never endorsed rape.

Among the violent acts included are war, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, murder, rape, genocide

The Bible and violence - Wikipedia.

So a tribe conquers another tribe, they slaughter all male captives and keep the female ones for themselves to become their "wives". Do you really think a young girl who has just seen her family butchered is going to willingly bed the butcherer?

No,not willingly so it is rape

yes there are some wholesale slaughters. Only when ordered by God is this acceptable. If theft was ever endorsed I missed it. Murder is condemned. Sexual immorality is also condemned.

Yes massacre ordered by god, cool, that makes it all good then.
The theft of the livestock of those massacred.

Murder is condoned by god if the poor sod murdered didn't worship the abrahamic god.

The sexual immorality, see my first paragraph