Rights

[Tecumsehsbones]

I hear a lot of talk about "rights." You have a right to do this, or a right to do that, or think this or that, or believe this or that. Nowadays you have a "right" to receive this or that.

But there ain't no point in debating a concept you can't define. So, I'll leave it up to the members here. Exactly what is a "right?"

I'm looking for a definition of the term here, not a laundry list of what you think your "rights" are.

More questions after we get a definition.

 

[Ludlow]

privileges granted by the laws of the land.

 

[captain morgan]

A perceived entitlement

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

privileges granted by the laws of the land.

Hmm. . . so all "rights" are granted by the laws? Does that mean that one has no rights until and unless they are granted by the laws? Does it mean that one's rights can be stripped away by changes in the laws?

 

[Ludlow]

>>....

Absolutely. Trail of Tears?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

>>....

I'm refining the definition here, Ludlow. Need your help.

You have a very good argument. I would agree that a "right" that is not secured by the laws might as well not exist. But our Founding Feathers talked a lot about "natural" or "God-given" rights, as did the British legal system. Was that just political balderdash to justify their treason, or did they have something there?

>>....

Absolutely. Trail of Tears?

The fact that something is violated doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Ludlow]

I'm refining the definition here, Ludlow. Need your help.

You have a very good argument. I would agree that a "right" that is not secured by the laws might as well not exist. But our Founding Feathers talked a lot about "natural" or "God-given" rights, as did the British legal system. Was that just political balderdash to justify their treason, or did they have something there?


The fact that something is violated doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Many things can be applied to justification. Hell most of us do that several times a day. Historically speaking, the theft of others property was justified by the term "Manifest Destiny". Maybe that's part of what the "founders meant by god given rights. You asked others opinion on what they thought the definition of "rights" were. I answered privileges granted by the laws of the land. Those privileges are subjective to what or who implements those privileges. As far as anything else, who knows?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Many things can be applied to justification. Hell most of us do that several times a day. Historically speaking, the theft of others property was justified by the term "Manifest Destiny". Maybe that's part of what the "founders meant by god given rights. You asked others opinion on what they thought the definition of "rights" were. I answered privileges granted by the laws of the land. Those privileges are subjective to what or who implements those privileges. As far as anything else, who knows?

OK..

 

[SLM]

Rights are defined by law. But I suspect you're looking to see a different answer perhaps? Because that answer, while technically true, doesn't really "define" it per se. I think maybe it's more of a philosophical ideal, a "right" is a thing(privilege, entitlement, enjoyment, etc) that everyone has or should have merely for existing.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Rights are defined by law. But I suspect you're looking to see a different answer perhaps? Because that answer, while technically true, doesn't really "define" it per se. I think maybe it's more of a philosophical ideal, a "right" is a thing(privilege, entitlement, enjoyment, etc) that everyone has or should have merely for existing.

That's a little closer, I think. Probably more in line with "and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Purfoot of Happiness."

That at least implies that there are rights one has inherently, and that any law that infringes, or unreasonably infringes, those rights is illegitimate, morally at least and possibly legally.

Another example, that puts it pretty directly. An American judge found that "the right to self defense precedes all positive law." By which he meant that the right to self defense not only does not spring from the law, it cannot be justly taken away by the law. This despite the fact that the right appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution.

 

[Colpy]

It is a tough question.

Constitutional rights are limitations on the power of government to coerce or punish certain behaviours. I would argue that those are the only real "rights", and that they exist outside the constitutional framework, and are merely recognized by those documents, not created or granted by them.

 

[SLM]

So then we can say that an individual's rights come into existence upon their birth and cease upon their death. It's something that is beyond the scope of the law, the law can only place limitations on individual rights for the benefit of the majorities (societies) rights.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

It is a tough question.

It certainly is. Worth of discussion here.

Constitutional rights are limitations on the power of government to coerce or punish certain behaviours.

Interestingly, half the time the Bill of Rights doesn't talk about rights at all, but merely prohibits certain actions. The fact that we often tend to mash up prohibited government actions with rights is just one aspect of how fuzzy and ill-defined the term is.

I would argue that those are the only real "rights", and that they exist outside the constitutional framework, and are merely recognized by those documents, not created or granted by them.

I agree with all but the first part. For example, the right to self defense is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, yet our law has recognized it as among the most fundamental rights possible. Similarly, the right to be free of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, &c. is at least as important as many of the enumerated rights, but it is not found in the Bill of Rights, and only partially addressed in the Fourteenth Amendment.

That may actually be a reasonable working definition of "right:" an area of individual freedom that is so pervasive in the society that even the law recognizes it.

Another is "an area of existence where the will of the holder of the right cannot be challenged."

 

[55Mercury]

thing about rights is sometimes they just ain't right, i.e., just because you have the right doesn't necessarily "make it right".

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

A right is more of a concept even a biproduct of the socitety we live in. This includes the government and the laws which are also bi-products of the society.

A right is only there because the government/law supports it and lets you believe in it.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

thing about rights is sometimes they just ain't right, i.e., just because you have the right doesn't necessarily "make it right".

I think that's captured in my definition of a right as "an aspect of life where the will of the holder of the right cannot be challenged."

One of the things that makes it a right is that you can't be compelled to use it any particular way.

A right is more of a concept even a biproduct of the socitety we live in. This includes the government and the laws which are also bi-products of the society.

A right is only there because the government/law supports it and lets you believe in it.

There's certainly some of that, but as we've seen, people have gone to court and gone to war over "rights" that the law and the government did not allow them, so they can't be solely creations of law and government.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I think that's captured in my definition of a right as "an aspect of life where the will of the holder of the right cannot be challenged."

One of the things that makes it a right is that you can't be compelled to use it any particular way.


There's certainly some of that, but as we've seen, people have gone to court and gone to war over "rights" that the law and the government did not allow them, so they can't be solely creations of law and government.

People don't go to war. Someone who wants to rule an area of society goes to war and convinces their underlings to support them.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

People don't go to war. Someone who wants to rule an area of society goes to war and convinces their underlings to support them.

Perhaps so, but off topic, so pardon me if I don't comment further.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Perhaps so, but off topic, so pardon me if I don't comment further.

Not really, I see it all tied together. Rights are what you percieve from the government/ruler/laws that are currently in effect over you. A different person may seek to be your ruler and will allocate you different rights. The whole term is an illusion. Nobody has any rights for the sake of having rights.

You may chose to comment further or not. In this society, it is your right.

 

[Ludlow]

That's a little closer, I think. Probably more in line with "and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Purfoot of Happiness."

That at least implies that there are rights one has inherently, and that any law that infringes, or unreasonably infringes, those rights is illegitimate, morally at least and possibly legally.

Another example, that puts it pretty directly. An American judge found that "the right to self defense precedes all positive law." By which he meant that the right to self defense not only does not spring from the law, it cannot be justly taken away by the law. This despite the fact that the right appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution.

interesting portion of the declaration of independence. Penned by a man who owned several slaves. Somehow I can't pass over the irony in that.

but that's another subject.