What are "rights"?

[Jeremiah Ames]

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.



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'.

It seems to me, that we are all created equal.
But that equality disappears quickly. IMO

 

[columbus]

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.

I think that there's a very good reason that the Framers settled on the term Creator, rather than God.
In 18th century America, God meant the God of the Bible. But you won't find much support for anything in the Declaration of Independence in Scripture. Quite the opposite, the Bible clearly supports monarchy and submission. All good Christian folks knew that.
So they used the more vague moniker, Creator. Who may or may not have anything to do with the Bible.
Tom

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

People need to understand there is no such thing as rights, they are granted privileges, hopefully on long term basis, that sadly can be removed at any time by a governing or dominant body of people.

 

[LuisDantas]

In common political and legal usage, a "right" is no more than a statement of policy or, if the subject matter is sufficiently abstract, of values.

It is a confusing usage, because that amounts to glorified and systematic bluffing.

True rights are granted on a case-by-case basis by whoever sees fit to sacrifice their personal convenience on behalf of others.

 

[Curious George]

.

True rights are granted on a case-by-case basis by whoever sees fit to sacrifice their personal convenience on behalf of others.

Can you explain this more and perhaps give an example.

 

[Curious George]

People need to understand there is no such thing as rights, they are granted privileges, hopefully on long term basis, that sadly can be removed at any time by a governing or dominant body of people.

I think this is mistaken. It is analogous to me saying there is no such thing as stories just ideas people share at different points in time.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Curious George :

What does a true right make?

It seems to me that it would be the fact that someone is willing and able to grant us that right.

Not some deity, not even a government as such, but whoever finds himself or herself in a position that allows from favoring someone else and ends up doing so.

Say, for instance, someone who has effective control over a tract of land and decides to grant right of use for some measure of it to family or friends.

Naturally, those rights are inherently unstable, and will vanish into thin air at the moment that the granter loses the ability or the willingnesss to grant them.

Probably not very appealling when compared to the legal and political takes on the word "right", but it is the only true take far as I can see.

 

[Curious George]

@Curious George :

What does a true right make?

It seems to me that it would be the fact that someone is willing and able to grant us that right.

Not some deity, not even a government as such, but whoever finds himself or herself in a position that allows from favoring someone else and ends up doing so.

Say, for instance, someone who has effective control over a tract of land and decides to grant right of use for some measure of it to family or friends.

Naturally, those rights are inherently unstable, and will vanish into thin air at the moment that the granter loses the ability or the willingnesss to grant them.

Probably not very appealling when compared to the legal and political takes on the word "right", but it is the only true take far as I can see.

But is your right not an entitlement you possess entailed by your beliefs here? You first believe that a right to use or possess the land exists and you secondly believe that a right to use can be granted or withdrawn. How are these rights privileges that are granted? These rights are constructs in your mind that are related to your beliefs.

I notice you did not use the word ownership (another right entailed by some people's belief). Rather someone "effectively controls." Now in your scenario this person either has a right to effective control this land or they do not. That is they are entitled to do so. Even if you abide by the might is right belief. In this respect they are entitled to do so only as long as they are capable of doing so. No one was necessarily willing and able to grant them such a privilege for it would still be true that they have effective control if people were unwilling to grant them the privilege but unable to stop them from effectively controlling it.

Now consider the same scenario from a different belief system than your own. Let us imagine a belief system that entailed a duty to ensure reasonable safety to all who are invited upon land that one effectively possesses. Now if the person who possesses the land invites a group of people on to their land and causes purposeful unreasonable bodily harm to that group, have rights been violated? From your perspective perhaps not, but from the perspective of the person whose beliefs entail a duty, they have.

While I think your belief system is common enough, it doesn't really answer the question of what are rights. Rather it answers the question of what specific rights exist that are entailed by @LuisDantas' beliefs.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

I think that may be part of what I was getting at. Many would argue that the US is a "free country" because we have rights, which is often compared to Nazi Germany or the USSR where (it is argued) that the people don't have rights. But if "rights" are not absolute, then it's subject to the whimsy of whatever the current government decides, then there's really not that much difference, is there?

 

[Stevicus]

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.

Perhaps it's an oversimplification, but I don't think it's a straw man. After all, that's exactly what happens when rights are restricted. A common example which is used is when doing something presents a "clear and present danger," which is why Freedom of Speech does not cover yelling "fire" in a crowded theater (unless there is, in fact, a fire).

 

[Stevicus]

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

Except in the Declaration of Independence. It was the view of America's Founders that humans have "inalienable rights endowed by their Creator" (however one wants to define that).

 

[Stevicus]

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.

Yes, I can see how that can relate to concepts of natural law, in that "might makes right." But doesn't that mean that the opposite could also be true? That is, if an idea is "right" and enough people go along with it to create enough political strength (or even military strength if it comes to that), then doesn't it also follow that "right makes might"?

 

[Grandliseur]

I think that may be part of what I was getting at. Many would argue that the US is a "free country" because we have rights, which is often compared to Nazi Germany or the USSR where (it is argued) that the people don't have rights. But if "rights" are not absolute, then it's subject to the whimsy of whatever the current government decides, then there's really not that much difference, is there?

At the moment, we are on the path of Hitler in the US. Rights are being taken away, 'Jews' (undesirable nationalities) are being kicked out of the country, people's property is being confiscated without trial, etc. It is not rule that is in the interest of the people - things are going south, metaphorically.

 

[Stevicus]

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

I thought about that, but I recall that when "common law" was explained to me, it was based on the concept that someone must actually cause harm or property damage to someone else to actually invoke the law. If something someone does causes no damage or injury or loss of life, then it can't legally be "punished" under that principle. It's the same idea that "your rights end where the other person's rights begin." But if that notion is not really recognized in practice, then doesn't that mean that all the talk about "rights" and "freedom" is nothing more than propaganda?

 

[Stevicus]

At the moment, we are on the path of Hitler in the US. Rights are being taken away, 'Jews' (undesirable nationalities) are being kicked out of the country, people's property is being confiscated without trial, etc. It is not rule that is in the interest of the people - things are going south, metaphorically.

Yes, some people have compared Trump to Hitler, although Hitler thought more in terms of national or collective rights more than individual rights. He thought that the German people, as a collective, had a "right" to rule over whatever nations they conquered, simply because they had the military might to do so. The US is slightly different, although some have argued that we have a "moral right" to lord it over other nations, since it is believed that since we support "freedom" and "democracy," it puts us on the moral high ground over other nations which do not. But if we don't really support "freedom" in practice, then we lose that moral imperative to judge and/or condemn other nations.

 

[sayak83]

Except in the Declaration of Independence. It was the view of America's Founders that humans have "inalienable rights endowed by their Creator" (however one wants to define that).

They were wrong.

 

[LuisDantas]

But is your right not an entitlement you possess entailed by your beliefs here? You first believe that a right to use or possess the land exists and you secondly believe that a right to use can be granted or withdrawn. How are these rights privileges that are granted? These rights are constructs in your mind that are related to your beliefs.

Apparently I failed to make myself clear.

I do not see rights as existing as such. They only exist to the extent that someone (specific people) grants them, and while they do.

I notice you did not use the word ownership (another right entailed by some people's belief).

Indeed. I see land ownership as a fiction sustained by political perception.

Rather someone "effectively controls." Now in your scenario this person either has a right to effective control this land or they do not.

Do they? I don't think so

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, I can see how that can relate to concepts of natural law, in that "might makes right." But doesn't that mean that the opposite could also be true? That is, if an idea is "right" and enough people go along with it to create enough political strength (or even military strength if it comes to that), then doesn't it also follow that "right makes might"?

That is the basis of trial by combat.
Trial by combat - Wikipedia

 

[Stevicus]

That is the basis of trial by combat.
Trial by combat - Wikipedia

I wasn't really talking about trials, though.

They were wrong.

Perhaps, although if enough people believe that, it would shake the very foundations of our republic and the rule of law. If people didn't believe they were free or that all men were created equal, it would open up an enormous can of worms which could lead to the end of our current form of government. In any case, it would mean that those who rule over us lose their "right" to rule or pass laws.

 

[sayak83]

I wasn't really talking about trials, though.



Perhaps, although if enough people believe that, it would shake the very foundations of our republic and the rule of law. If people didn't believe they were free or that all men were created equal, it would open up an enormous can of worms which could lead to the end of our current form of government. In any case, it would mean that those who rule over us lose their "right" to rule or pass laws.

I believe everybody knows this. Rights are as much a social construct as the value of a $20 bill. That hasn't stopped the economy from working, has it.

We elect people to maintain our social construct via laws etc. Politicians are no different from different from construction workers in that regard, public servants who help keep the infrastructure of society going.