What are "rights"?

[Stevicus]

As I was reading and responding to YmirGF's thread about "sovereign citizens" ("Sovereign citizens" run afoul of the law), I was reminded of some of the arguments I remember from those who supported the concept. Some of the arguments stemmed from America's founding and the idea that people have "inalienable rights" which are "self-evident" and which do not come from government, but from their Creator. The same idea seems to relate to the idea that "government can't grant rights, it can only take away rights."

But I wanted to just throw the question out there and see what others thought of the concept.

What are "rights"? Where do they come from, and why do we have them? Why do we need them? Isn't it enough that humans have a sufficient quantity of food, shelter, and other basic physical necessities to sustain life? "Rights" seem more intangible, abstract, and are not absolutely necessary to sustain life.

The concept of "sovereign citizen" seems to be the idea that some people believe they have certain "rights" that the government and others say that they don't have. But this would suggest that it is the role of government to grant "rights" and that no right is "inalienable" or granted by God. A lot of people are taught very early in life that they have "rights" and some people are very adamant in asserting their own rights. Likewise, people will confront others and say "what 'right' do you have to do this?"

It is often argued that "our rights end where the other person's rights begin," which would imply that as long as one leaves others alone, causes no harm to humans or property damage, then they have the "right" to do whatever they want.

For example, if someone is driving down the road and isn't harming anyone or causing any damage to any persons or property, then the police have no "right" to stop them. Only if someone causes actual physical damage is when the law should be invoked and impose some sort of punishment or restriction. It doesn't directly harm anyone if someone doesn't have a driver's license or vehicle registration. Likewise, if someone is at home smoking pot or doing some other drug, they're only harming themselves, not others. It's the idea that as long as no one else is harmed, then people have the "right" to do whatever they want.

Obviously, this isn't really true in practice, since many "rights" are restricted based on hypothetical projections of what might happen. Some believe that the "right" to own firearms should be restricted, since some people might go out and shoot others, which is true. But if we accept the idea that some "rights" should be restricted because of possibilities, doesn't that open the question that even more "rights" can and should be restricted?

If that's the case, then what purpose do "rights" actually serve?

 

[Grandliseur]

What are "rights"? Where do they come from, and why do we have them? Why do we need them? Isn't it enough that humans have a sufficient quantity of food, shelter, and other basic physical necessities to sustain life? "Rights" seem more intangible, abstract, and are not absolutely necessary to sustain life.

Look at Germany pre WWII and the Soviet Union. Once you let a 'democratic' ruler play king, you are flushing all your rights down the toilet. The initial loss is usually like an avalanche that starts slowly, kind of what we see in the US now, with people being booted left and right out of there, interfering with normal business, even long term people who should have been safe from immigration. When the nation doesn't stand up and stop unnecessary stuff like that, they soon won't have the power to stop anything at all.

The funny thing is that this is being done by someone who isn't that old to the nation, generationally speaking, and has family that in itself is recent in the US.

 

[Sunstone]

But if we accept the idea that some "rights" should be restricted because of possibilities, doesn't that open the question that even more "rights" can and should be restricted?

This appears to be a straw man argument. We do not typically accept that "some rights should be restricted because of possibilities", as you state. That is a gross over-simplification of all that goes into decisions about when and where to restrict rights. Such decisions are made on the basis of not only whether some harm might possibly occur due to the exercise of a right, but also on the likelihood of such harm occurring, the nature and extent of such harm, whether the harm outweighs any benefits that might come from exercising the right, whether restricting the right in a particular instance would prevent the right from being exercised in other instances, etc. etc, etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

As I was reading and responding to YmirGF's thread about "sovereign citizens" ("Sovereign citizens" run afoul of the law), I was reminded of some of the arguments I remember from those who supported the concept. Some of the arguments stemmed from America's founding and the idea that people have "inalienable rights" which are "self-evident" and which do not come from government, but from their Creator. The same idea seems to relate to the idea that "government can't grant rights, it can only take away rights."

But I wanted to just throw the question out there and see what others thought of the concept.

What are "rights"? Where do they come from, and why do we have them? Why do we need them? Isn't it enough that humans have a sufficient quantity of food, shelter, and other basic physical necessities to sustain life? "Rights" seem more intangible, abstract, and are not absolutely necessary to sustain life.

The concept of "sovereign citizen" seems to be the idea that some people believe they have certain "rights" that the government and others say that they don't have. But this would suggest that it is the role of government to grant "rights" and that no right is "inalienable" or granted by God. A lot of people are taught very early in life that they have "rights" and some people are very adamant in asserting their own rights. Likewise, people will confront others and say "what 'right' do you have to do this?"

It is often argued that "our rights end where the other person's rights begin," which would imply that as long as one leaves others alone, causes no harm to humans or property damage, then they have the "right" to do whatever they want.

For example, if someone is driving down the road and isn't harming anyone or causing any damage to any persons or property, then the police have no "right" to stop them. Only if someone causes actual physical damage is when the law should be invoked and impose some sort of punishment or restriction. It doesn't directly harm anyone if someone doesn't have a driver's license or vehicle registration. Likewise, if someone is at home smoking pot or doing some other drug, they're only harming themselves, not others. It's the idea that as long as no one else is harmed, then people have the "right" to do whatever they want.

Obviously, this isn't really true in practice, since many "rights" are restricted based on hypothetical projections of what might happen. Some believe that the "right" to own firearms should be restricted, since some people might go out and shoot others, which is true. But if we accept the idea that some "rights" should be restricted because of possibilities, doesn't that open the question that even more "rights" can and should be restricted?

If that's the case, then what purpose do "rights" actually serve?

Rights are entitlements which groups of people agree upon.
They might apply to all, or only to some groups. And there
sure is variation with time, culture & location, so no rights
are universal.

 

[pearl]

The concept of "sovereign citizen" seems to be the idea that some people believe they have certain "rights" that the government and others say that they don't have.

I think our 'rights' are determined by the Constitution. They are not written in stone, depending on what body is in power they may be increased or decreased. The Bill of Rights states 'all men are created equal', but that is not biblical.

Likewise, if someone is at home smoking pot or doing some other drug, they're only harming themselves, not others. It's the idea that as long as no one else is harmed, then people have the "right" to do whatever they want.

Case in point, currently in Massachusetts we have the 'right' to grow our own cannabis for our own purposes, also it is legal to sell, even within baked goods, stores springing up allover. Now the current USAG is going to enforce a federal law which holds that the use of marijuana is illegal and will enforce the federal law.
So is it possible that the issue is headed for the Supreme Court to determine, once again, a person's 'right'.

 

[sayak83]

As I was reading and responding to YmirGF's thread about "sovereign citizens" ("Sovereign citizens" run afoul of the law), I was reminded of some of the arguments I remember from those who supported the concept. Some of the arguments stemmed from America's founding and the idea that people have "inalienable rights" which are "self-evident" and which do not come from government, but from their Creator. The same idea seems to relate to the idea that "government can't grant rights, it can only take away rights."

But I wanted to just throw the question out there and see what others thought of the concept.

What are "rights"? Where do they come from, and why do we have them? Why do we need them? Isn't it enough that humans have a sufficient quantity of food, shelter, and other basic physical necessities to sustain life? "Rights" seem more intangible, abstract, and are not absolutely necessary to sustain life.

The concept of "sovereign citizen" seems to be the idea that some people believe they have certain "rights" that the government and others say that they don't have. But this would suggest that it is the role of government to grant "rights" and that no right is "inalienable" or granted by God. A lot of people are taught very early in life that they have "rights" and some people are very adamant in asserting their own rights. Likewise, people will confront others and say "what 'right' do you have to do this?"

It is often argued that "our rights end where the other person's rights begin," which would imply that as long as one leaves others alone, causes no harm to humans or property damage, then they have the "right" to do whatever they want.

For example, if someone is driving down the road and isn't harming anyone or causing any damage to any persons or property, then the police have no "right" to stop them. Only if someone causes actual physical damage is when the law should be invoked and impose some sort of punishment or restriction. It doesn't directly harm anyone if someone doesn't have a driver's license or vehicle registration. Likewise, if someone is at home smoking pot or doing some other drug, they're only harming themselves, not others. It's the idea that as long as no one else is harmed, then people have the "right" to do whatever they want.

Obviously, this isn't really true in practice, since many "rights" are restricted based on hypothetical projections of what might happen. Some believe that the "right" to own firearms should be restricted, since some people might go out and shoot others, which is true. But if we accept the idea that some "rights" should be restricted because of possibilities, doesn't that open the question that even more "rights" can and should be restricted?

If that's the case, then what purpose do "rights" actually serve?

Societies and states grant rights to its members. There is nothing called inalienable rights.

 

[bobhikes]

But I wanted to just throw the question out there and see what others thought of the concept.

What are "rights"? Where do they come from, and why do we have them? Why do we need them? Isn't it enough that humans have a sufficient quantity of food, shelter, and other basic physical necessities to sustain life? "Rights" seem more intangible, abstract, and are not absolutely necessary to sustain life.

What is a right, IMO A right is something I am allowed for survival, problems arise when my needs for survival interfere with others needs for survival or if I have wants that are not necessary for survival. Government comes sets and police's rights and privileges based on consensus because there is no valid way to say one person has more rights than another for survival. We don't need rights we have rights but we need a policing system for those rights. The disagreement is how it should be policed.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think what people tend to think of when they say something is a "right" are the social constructs of what is acceptable or enabled by law.

From my perspective, however, I would define a true/real "right" in the basest sense (something that isn't merely a socially agreed upon set of ideas) as something which does not need to be granted to you or supported by an authority, and that would need to be forcibly taken away from you in order for you not to intrinsically have ownership of it.

For example, you have the right to your own thoughts. They are intrinsic to you, and you need no outside party to acknowledge them for them to remain yours. You also have the right to liberty. Unless your liberty is forcibly removed, you have such freedom, and it is intrinsic without need for outside party to enforce your ownership of such. An outside party can only attempt to forcibly take that right from you. An outside party who is defending your liberty is, therefore "fighting for your right" on your behalf. The "right" is still yours... the party fighting for you does not retain ownership of it, even though they are acting on your behalf.

 

[Brickjectivity]

As I was reading and responding to YmirGF's thread about "sovereign citizens" ("Sovereign citizens" run afoul of the law), I was reminded of some of the arguments I remember from those who supported the concept. Some of the arguments stemmed from America's founding and the idea that people have "inalienable rights" which are "self-evident" and which do not come from government, but from their Creator. The same idea seems to relate to the idea that "government can't grant rights, it can only take away rights."

But I wanted to just throw the question out there and see what others thought of the concept.

What are "rights"? Where do they come from, and why do we have them? Why do we need them? Isn't it enough that humans have a sufficient quantity of food, shelter, and other basic physical necessities to sustain life? "Rights" seem more intangible, abstract, and are not absolutely necessary to sustain life.

The concept of "sovereign citizen" seems to be the idea that some people believe they have certain "rights" that the government and others say that they don't have. But this would suggest that it is the role of government to grant "rights" and that no right is "inalienable" or granted by God. A lot of people are taught very early in life that they have "rights" and some people are very adamant in asserting their own rights. Likewise, people will confront others and say "what 'right' do you have to do this?"

It is often argued that "our rights end where the other person's rights begin," which would imply that as long as one leaves others alone, causes no harm to humans or property damage, then they have the "right" to do whatever they want.

For example, if someone is driving down the road and isn't harming anyone or causing any damage to any persons or property, then the police have no "right" to stop them. Only if someone causes actual physical damage is when the law should be invoked and impose some sort of punishment or restriction. It doesn't directly harm anyone if someone doesn't have a driver's license or vehicle registration. Likewise, if someone is at home smoking pot or doing some other drug, they're only harming themselves, not others. It's the idea that as long as no one else is harmed, then people have the "right" to do whatever they want.

Obviously, this isn't really true in practice, since many "rights" are restricted based on hypothetical projections of what might happen. Some believe that the "right" to own firearms should be restricted, since some people might go out and shoot others, which is true. But if we accept the idea that some "rights" should be restricted because of possibilities, doesn't that open the question that even more "rights" can and should be restricted?

If that's the case, then what purpose do "rights" actually serve?

The History of Human Rights
History of Natural Law & Basic Freedoms, Cyrus the Great: United for Human Rights
A Short History of Human Rights

At foundation human rights are invisible spiritual items, much like the constitution of a country. We recognize them with laws, but we believe that they exist whether there are laws for them or not. They are articles of belief.

 

[Nakosis]

If that's the case, then what purpose do "rights" actually serve?

Rights provide you freedoms. The only thing that creates rights is might. You only have rights when your are capable of enforcing them. The government of a country has a greater ability to enforce rights than an individual.

It doesn't matter what you think your rights are if you can't enforce them. We have a legal system to deal with the rights of citizens however they also only exist as long as the country is willing to enforce them.

This need to have rights enforced basically comes down to might makes rights. There's no creator that gave us rights. Folks may believe there is but that belief is only as good as that belief can be enforced.

 

[sun rise]

The fundamental problem with only considering "rights" is ignoring the balancing factor of "responsibilities". In widening circles, I have a responsibility to myself to try to be healthy and in general to take care of myself. As a married person, I have responsibilities to my wife. If I had children, I'd have responsibilities to them. As a citizen of a city, state and country, I have responsibilities there as well. And as a human being, I have a fundamental responsibilities to the people and environment of the Earth.

The "sovereign citizen" nonsense is what happens when people ignore responsibilities and only focus on rights. And further, focus on rights and ignore consequences.

 

[columbus]

Rights provide you freedoms. The only thing that creates rights is might. You only have rights when your are capable of enforcing them. The government of a country has a greater ability to enforce rights than an individual.

This is kinda where the problem is. Rights and Freedoms can have diametrically opposed meanings. It's easy to confuse a "freedom from" something (like polluted drinking water or government intrusion) with the "freedom to" something (like put whatever fertilizer you want to on your own property or have the police deal with your dangerous neighbor).
So the conversation about freedom and rights gets convoluted.
Tom

 

[Brickjectivity]

...It doesn't matter what you think your rights are if you can't enforce them...

It may not matter to the police in the moment, but in the long term it still matters. Over time you can change how the police think about rights, and so you can make your dreams come true for your kids or grandkids etc. Rights are a way to give your descendants an inheritance.

 

[Nakosis]

This is kinda where the problem is. Rights and Freedoms can have diametrically opposed meanings. It's easy to confuse a "freedom from" something (like polluted drinking water or government intrusion) with the "freedom to" something (like put whatever fertilizer you want to on your own property or have the police deal with your dangerous neighbor).
So the conversation about freedom and rights gets convoluted.
Tom

So you have freedom from as opposed to freedom to.

The freedom from drinking polluted water as opposed to the freedom to drink clean water?

Are you correlating rights as the freedom from or the freedom to?

It seems to me, in either case, the freedom from or the freedom to exist only so long as they can be enforced.

If you can't prevent someone from polluting your water you won't have the freedom to drink clean water.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the idea that people have "inalienable rights" which are "self-evident" and which do not come from government, but from their Creator.

There is no reason to believe that, unless there is a reason to believe that we have a creator.

Furthermore, even if that is the case, that creator never offered us any rights. People that have legal rights live in places where human beings enumerated them and both enforce them and defend them.

The rest have to wait for that to happen for them where they are or go to where rights are guaranteed by governments that enforce them.

The same idea seems to relate to the idea that "government can't grant rights, it can only take away rights."

In democracies, people use governments to enforce rights that they decide are worth enforcing.

What are "rights"? Where do they come from, and why do we have them?

We have rights because we wanted them and were able to grant them to ourselves. They are the freedoms that we collectively decide we want.

Why do we need them?

We don't. We prefer them.

Isn't it enough that humans have a sufficient quantity of food, shelter, and other basic physical necessities to sustain life?

It's enough to survive, but it is better to have more.

if someone is driving down the road and isn't harming anyone or causing any damage to any persons or property, then the police have no "right" to stop them

They have the right if it is granted to them by law. What you seem to mean is that morally, they have no justification, which a different thing called by the same name.

But if we accept the idea that some "rights" should be restricted because of possibilities, doesn't that open the question that even more "rights" can and should be restricted?

If a behavior is restricted, it is not a legal right. Many behaviors that people might call their rights should be restricted. Once again, they are discussing something that is not a legal right until it is declared as such and enforced.

Americans have a legal right to be free of religious intrusion into their lives, for example, but it is not always enforced. Call that what you like. It is obviously not the same thing as a legal right that is enforced.

If that's the case, then what purpose do "rights" actually serve?

They create options.

 

[Nakosis]

It may not matter to the police in the moment, but in the long term it still matters. Over time you can change how the police think about rights, and so you can make your dreams come true for your kids or grandkids etc. Rights are a way to give your descendants an inheritance.

If the country gets taken over by a foreign ideology, like Sharia law. Which gets enforced. Your desire to influence what the police believe won't matter a whole lot.

However even if it did work out for you, this is still might makes right. By influencing what others believe to be right you are just increasing your ability to enforce what you believe to be right.

Religion was important before secular governments in getting people to be willing to enforce an ideology.

Enforcement requires a willingness among a majority to enforce. If you can convince a large enough force of people to enforce what you believe to be rights. Then you have your rights but it's still only because of your ability to enforce them, through your greater numbers, that you can exercise them.

Anytime a right cannot be enforce by you, it can be taken away.

 

[Willamena]

An interesting perspective: [U10] Types of rights

 

[Brickjectivity]

If the country gets taken over by a foreign ideology, like Sharia law. Which gets enforced. Your desire to influence what the police believe won't matter a whole lot.

It doesn't change what rights are. Rights are things you believe in and make happen. Are you trying to argue that they are pointless? They're not.

However even if it did work out for you, this is still might makes right. By influencing what others believe to be right you are just increasing your ability to enforce what you believe to be right.

Religion was important before secular governments in getting people to be willing to enforce an ideology.

Enforcement requires a willingness among a majority to enforce. If you can convince a large enough force of people to enforce what you believe to be rights. Then you have your rights but it's still only because of your ability to enforce them, through your greater numbers, that you can exercise them.

Anytime a right cannot be enforce by you, it can be taken away.

Might makes ape, not right. Nobody is strong by themselves. They need servants, family and other things. So they are weak. Everybody has a weakness, and so no might does not make right.

 

[Curious George]

As I was reading and responding to YmirGF's thread about "sovereign citizens" ("Sovereign citizens" run afoul of the law), I was reminded of some of the arguments I remember from those who supported the concept. Some of the arguments stemmed from America's founding and the idea that people have "inalienable rights" which are "self-evident" and which do not come from government, but from their Creator. The same idea seems to relate to the idea that "government can't grant rights, it can only take away rights."

But I wanted to just throw the question out there and see what others thought of the concept.

What are "rights"? Where do they come from, and why do we have them? Why do we need them? Isn't it enough that humans have a sufficient quantity of food, shelter, and other basic physical necessities to sustain life? "Rights" seem more intangible, abstract, and are not absolutely necessary to sustain life.

The concept of "sovereign citizen" seems to be the idea that some people believe they have certain "rights" that the government and others say that they don't have. But this would suggest that it is the role of government to grant "rights" and that no right is "inalienable" or granted by God. A lot of people are taught very early in life that they have "rights" and some people are very adamant in asserting their own rights. Likewise, people will confront others and say "what 'right' do you have to do this?"

It is often argued that "our rights end where the other person's rights begin," which would imply that as long as one leaves others alone, causes no harm to humans or property damage, then they have the "right" to do whatever they want.

For example, if someone is driving down the road and isn't harming anyone or causing any damage to any persons or property, then the police have no "right" to stop them. Only if someone causes actual physical damage is when the law should be invoked and impose some sort of punishment or restriction. It doesn't directly harm anyone if someone doesn't have a driver's license or vehicle registration. Likewise, if someone is at home smoking pot or doing some other drug, they're only harming themselves, not others. It's the idea that as long as no one else is harmed, then people have the "right" to do whatever they want.

Obviously, this isn't really true in practice, since many "rights" are restricted based on hypothetical projections of what might happen. Some believe that the "right" to own firearms should be restricted, since some people might go out and shoot others, which is true. But if we accept the idea that some "rights" should be restricted because of possibilities, doesn't that open the question that even more "rights" can and should be restricted?

If that's the case, then what purpose do "rights" actually serve?

Well that is a good and complex question.

You are likely to get different rights with different philosophies. As @Revoltingest pointed out rights are not universally agreed. This does not mean there are not universal rights.

The rights in which you believe are derived from your philosophy. Your philosophies entail certain principles which in turn entail certain entitlements and duties which we term rights. There are both positive and negative rights.

If x has an entitlement or duty with respect to y, then some right exists. This right is descriptive of the relationship between x and y.

 

[Nous]

As I was reading and responding to YmirGF's thread about "sovereign citizens" ("Sovereign citizens" run afoul of the law), I was reminded of some of the arguments I remember from those who supported the concept. Some of the arguments stemmed from America's founding and the idea that people have "inalienable rights" which are "self-evident" and which do not come from government, but from their Creator. The same idea seems to relate to the idea that "government can't grant rights, it can only take away rights."

But I wanted to just throw the question out there and see what others thought of the concept.

What are "rights"? Where do they come from, and why do we have them? Why do we need them? Isn't it enough that humans have a sufficient quantity of food, shelter, and other basic physical necessities to sustain life? "Rights" seem more intangible, abstract, and are not absolutely necessary to sustain life.

The concept of "sovereign citizen" seems to be the idea that some people believe they have certain "rights" that the government and others say that they don't have. But this would suggest that it is the role of government to grant "rights" and that no right is "inalienable" or granted by God. A lot of people are taught very early in life that they have "rights" and some people are very adamant in asserting their own rights. Likewise, people will confront others and say "what 'right' do you have to do this?"

It is often argued that "our rights end where the other person's rights begin," which would imply that as long as one leaves others alone, causes no harm to humans or property damage, then they have the "right" to do whatever they want.

For example, if someone is driving down the road and isn't harming anyone or causing any damage to any persons or property, then the police have no "right" to stop them. Only if someone causes actual physical damage is when the law should be invoked and impose some sort of punishment or restriction. It doesn't directly harm anyone if someone doesn't have a driver's license or vehicle registration. Likewise, if someone is at home smoking pot or doing some other drug, they're only harming themselves, not others. It's the idea that as long as no one else is harmed, then people have the "right" to do whatever they want.

Obviously, this isn't really true in practice, since many "rights" are restricted based on hypothetical projections of what might happen. Some believe that the "right" to own firearms should be restricted, since some people might go out and shoot others, which is true. But if we accept the idea that some "rights" should be restricted because of possibilities, doesn't that open the question that even more "rights" can and should be restricted?

If that's the case, then what purpose do "rights" actually serve?

The SEP article begins:

Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions, or (not) to be in certain states; or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or (not) be in certain states.

Rights dominate modern understandings of what actions are permissible and which institutions are just. Rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done.​

Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Consistent with this, I would say that rights are expressions of the moral treatment of people (and hopefully other animals). Those people who were slaves in the Confederate states and ancient Greece and elsewhere nevertheless possessed, or should have been recognized as possessing, rights to certain freedoms regardless of the fact that the laws that governed did not recognize these rights for them. It was people who recognized the wrongness or immorality of depriving slaves of these rights who fought for correcting the wrongful laws.

Just as with our understanding of objective moral facts, our understanding of rights continues to develop. (Similarly our understanding of the laws that govern empirical or "physical" reality continues to develop.)