What are "rights"?

[sandy whitelinger]

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.

All animals are created equal. Some are more equal than others.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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

Actually without an inalienable right there is no foundation in law. Inalienable here seems to take on the meaning of inviolable and is the basis for which the freedom that bounds the constitution is formed.

 

[sayak83]

Actually without an inalienable right there is no foundation in law. Inalienable here seems to take on the meaning of inviolable and is the basis for which the freedom that bounds the constitution is formed.

Death penalty shows right to life is not inalienable at all. Etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

All animals are created equal. Some are more equal than others.

That smells like bacon!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Death penalty shows right to life is not inalienable at all. Etc.

I know it's controversial as to whether or not the death penalty is constitutional yet it not specifically enumerated in the document.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know it's controversial as to whether or not the death penalty is constitutional yet it not specifically enumerated in the document.

"Cruel" & "unusual" do evolve in meaning over the centuries.

 

[pearl]

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

I was responding to the op-

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

I agree we are all born, in this country anyway, with the expectation of equality, I do no think it is a biblical concept.

 

[sayak83]

I know it's controversial as to whether or not the death penalty is constitutional yet it not specifically enumerated in the document.

Does the Constitution actually says rights are inalienable and from the Creator?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

"Cruel" & "unusual" do evolve in meaning over the centuries.

I've often wondered why they didn't say cruel or unusual. What if it was just unusual and not cruel would that be ok?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That would be the Declaration of Independence . It is the foundational thought from which the Constitution arose.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've often wondered why they didn't say cruel or unusual.

It's in the 8th Amendment....
“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Why were they not specific?
Perhaps they simply thought it was obvious.
Or more likely, they thought it obvious, but that standards would change over time, & that
enforcement of the Constitution could change slightly in some ways without formal amendment.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Rights are nothing more than glorified privileges pending state allowance or denial. Rights are not necessarily or inherently universal or equally granted to all. The state may, at its own whims, decide to grant or strip rights.

 

[Revoltingest]

Rights are nothing more than glorified privileges pending state allowance or denial. Rights are not necessarily or inherently universal or equally granted to all. The state may, at its own whims, decide to grant or strip rights.

Spicy!

 

[Stevicus]

I believe everybody knows this.

I'm not sure "everybody knows this" or even if most people know it. Listening to the rhetoric commonly propagated out there, people talk about rights as if they're god given and sacrosanct. Politicians talk about freedom. Veterans and other pro military types routinely proclaim that they fight for our rights and,freedom. Even liberals say as much when they talk about freedom and many people take umbrage and get very emotional when anyone tries to tell them otherwise. I've seen it here on RF.

So, I don't think everybody knows this, and it almost seems heretical in the American mainstream political culture to even suggest such a thing.

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

Yeah, although no one says that money is "god given."

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.

But if it's all based on faith in certain ideals which seem to be fraudulent, then society starts to break down, which does happen from time to time. The question is, is the rule of law and the principles upon which our republic was founded even legitimate at all? What makes America so exceptional or different than other nations we presume to pass judgment on (such as NK, USSR, Germany, Iran, etc.)?

 

[sayak83]

I'm not sure "everybody knows this" or even if most people know it. Listening to the rhetoric commonly propagated out there, people talk about rights as if they're god given and sacrosanct. Politicians talk about freedom. Veterans and other pro military types routinely proclaim that they fight for our rights and,freedom. Even liberals say as much when they talk about freedom and many people take umbrage and get very emotional when anyone tries to tell them otherwise. I've seen it here on RF.

So, I don't think everybody knows this, and it almost seems heretical in the American mainstream political culture to even suggest such a thing.



Yeah, although no one says that money is "god given."



But if it's all based on faith in certain ideals which seem to be fraudulent, then society starts to break down, which does happen from time to time. The question is, is the rule of law and the principles upon which our republic was founded even legitimate at all? What makes America so exceptional or different than other nations we presume to pass judgment on (such as NK, USSR, Germany, Iran, etc.)?

What's wrong with Germany?

People in general are happier in US than in Iran or NK. Also more well nourished.

 

[Curious George]

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.



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



Do they? I don't think so

Yes, you say they do not. Yet you seem to have a might is right philosophy going. That one is entitled to what they can control. Thus one has a right to what they can control. This is embodied with your notion of right as something "someone grants."

You may deny it because it does not comport with how you like to think you see the world. But only one with power can grant which means they are the one with the right to grant. Therefore, power entitles one to take possession over what they may.

Perhaps the problem is not that you didn't make yourself clear, but you made you made yourself clearer than you intended.

None of this changes the fact that a right is a concept. Since different beliefs entail different duties and entitlements, they entail different rights. No worldview is without rights.

 

[Stevicus]

What's wrong with Germany?

Germany has a history.

People in general are happier in US than in Iran or NK. Also more well nourished.

So, then, that brings me back to my initial point in that the government's role is to ensure the well-being of the collective whole (such as providing nourishment), not so much for the protection of individual rights. Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

[Curious George]

I'm not sure "everybody knows this" or even if most people know it. Listening to the rhetoric commonly propagated out there, people talk about rights as if they're god given and sacrosanct. Politicians talk about freedom. Veterans and other pro military types routinely proclaim that they fight for our rights and,freedom. Even liberals say as much when they talk about freedom and many people take umbrage and get very emotional when anyone tries to tell them otherwise. I've seen it here on RF.

That is because beliefs entail rights. And many people have different beliefs. Some do believe some rights are god given, others believe that established by might. Others base their conception of rights in other moral grounding. Rights are rooted in the individual.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, you say they do not. Yet you seem to have a might is right philosophy going. That one is entitled to what they can control. Thus one has a right to what they can control. This is embodied with your notion of right as something "someone grants."

You may deny it because it does not comport with how you like to think you see the world. But only one with power can grant which means they are the one with the right to grant. Therefore, power entitles one to take possession over what they may.

Perhaps the problem is not that you didn't make yourself clear, but you made you made yourself clearer than you intended.

None of this changes the fact that a right is a concept. Since different beliefs entail different duties and entitlements, they entail different rights. No worldview is without rights.

You have a very hard time understanding me.

 

[Curious George]

You have a very hard time understanding me.

LOL and you have a very, very hard time understanding that I do understand you.