Rights

[Tecumsehsbones]

Everybody talks about 'em. So what is a "right?"

I would suggest the following. . . a "right" is an area of life or interaction where the choice of the holder of the right cannot be denied nor even questioned.

Which don't mean ya can't say the person's wrong, and use your rights to thwart him. Just that it's improper and a violation of rights to say, and try to enforce, the concept of "you can't say/do that or "you can't make that choice."

 

[pgs]

I think rights are adequately defined in your constitution.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I think rights are adequately defined in your constitution.

You're wrong. The Constitution has a list of rights that the people have, but does not contain a definition of the term.

Thanks for playing. Feel free to prove me wrong with a quote.

 

[taxslave]

You're wrong. The Constitution has a list of rights that the people have, but does not contain a definition of the term.

Thanks for playing. Feel free to prove me wrong with a quote.

Why would they need a definition? The right to bear arms seem self explanatory. So does freedom of speech.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Why would they need a definition? The right to bear arms seem self explanatory. So does freedom of speech.

Why would whom need a definition?

 

[Ron in Regina]

A “Right” or “Rights” is one of those words that everybody thinks they know the definition of (including myself) until you really have to stop and think about it. ???

There is considerable disagreement about what is meant precisely by the term rights. It has been used by different groups and thinkers for different purposes, with different and sometimes opposing definitions, and the precise definition of this principle, beyond having something to do with normative rules of some sort or another, is controversial.

Yes, I’m pulling this from Wikipedia using someone else’s homework.

There has been considerable debate about what this term means within the academic community, particularly within fields such as philosophy, law, deontology, logic, political science, and religion.

Rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

• Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from human nature or from the edicts of a god. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. These are sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights.
• Legal rights, in contrast, are based on a society's customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures. An example of a legal right is the right to vote of citizens. Citizenship, itself, is often considered as the basis for having legal rights, and has been defined as the "right to have rights". Legal rights are sometimes called civil rights or statutory rights and are culturally and politically relative since they depend on a specific societal context to have meaning.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Here I’m seeing the use of the terms Right or Rights…. But strangely so far I’m not seeing a definition of the terms.

Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Canada.ca

This guide explains the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its importance in our daily lives.

www.canada.ca

THE CONSTITUTION ACTS 1867 to 1982

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

A “Right” or “Rights” is one of those words that everybody thinks they know the definition of (including myself) until you really have to stop and think about it. ???

There is considerable disagreement about what is meant precisely by the term rights. It has been used by different groups and thinkers for different purposes, with different and sometimes opposing definitions, and the precise definition of this principle, beyond having something to do with normative rules of some sort or another, is controversial.

Yes, I’m pulling this from Wikipedia using someone else’s homework.

There has been considerable debate about what this term means within the academic community, particularly within fields such as philosophy, law, deontology, logic, political science, and religion.

Rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

• Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from human nature or from the edicts of a god. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. These are sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights.
• Legal rights, in contrast, are based on a society's customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures. An example of a legal right is the right to vote of citizens. Citizenship, itself, is often considered as the basis for having legal rights, and has been defined as the "right to have rights". Legal rights are sometimes called civil rights or statutory rights and are culturally and politically relative since they depend on a specific societal context to have meaning.

Here's the problem. None of that is a definition.

I would suggest that if you can't define a term, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Here's an example. I read a letter in an agony aunt column where a young woman said she was "eloping," and was upset that her mother and sister disapproved of her wedding outfit. My immediate question was "If you're eloping, who the hell cares what your mother and sister think? And how do they even know?" Clearly the anguished young bride and I have different definitions of "elope."

So it is with "rights." They say we have a "right" to life. What does that mean? Does it mean that if you're shot in the head, your "right" will prevent you from dying? Clearly not. Does it mean that the government can't kill you? Then why do many states and the Federal government have death penalties? And why can an agent of the state kill you and suffer no penalty?

You have a "right" to say whatever you want. It's right there in the First Amendment. Does that mean you can tell your boss "Hey boss, you're uglier'n a mud fence and too dumb to pour piss out of a boot, and your wife takes it up the ass" and not be fired? Clearly not. Actually, the First says "Congress shall make no law" limiting your freedom of speech. But what does that mean? Is the law making it an offense to lie under oath in court, or to lie in an FBI investigation, unConstitutional? Is the government punishing you for lying in such circumstances not contrary to your "right" of freedom of speech?

So again. . . what does the term mean? I offered a definition. Thus far, nobody's agreed with it, disagreed with it, or suggested changes or alternatives. You're the only one who has even approached the notion that when people babble about "rights," they simply don't know what they're talking about.

I quote the world's greatest swordsman, Inigo Montoya. . . "What is this word? I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

[Ron in Regina]

If I unintentionally threw out the basis of a definition, then I didn’t even realize it. I was just trying to put some information out front and Centre so that we could debate what the definition was with respect to a “Right” or “Rights”.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I heard a professor in a political science course define a right as anything you can do that doesn't require a license or permit. That seems a little facile to me, though it's sometimes a useful way to think about it. You don't, for instance, have a right to drive, that's a privilege, you have to demonstrate competence at it and get a license in order to do it, or some apparatus of the state will come down on you and stop you. That's another way to think about it, a right is something no apparatus of the state can take away from you, but on general principles I don't much like negative definitions like that, that's like defining something by saying what it isn't, rather than what it is. Besides, I'm not convinced there's anything the state can't take away from you. If the people running things decide they don't want you to do something, you're hooped. Much of what we call our rights I think are nothing of the sort, they depend too much on the good will and common sense of the authorities we've allowed to be set over us, and my experience suggests that depending on others' common sense is a risky thing to do. It also seems clear that there are things we call rights that *can* be taken away from us, they remain rights only in the sense that the system provides a means of redress after the fact. Sometimes... not much you can do if you've been deprived of your right to life, though your surviving relatives might be able to get some redress.

A thorny question, I agree, and many better minds than mine have failed to come to grips with it definitively.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I heard a professor in a political science course define a right as anything you can do that doesn't require a license or permit. That seems a little facile to me, though it's sometimes a useful way to think about it. You don't, for instance, have a right to drive, that's a privilege, you have to demonstrate competence at it and get a license in order to do it, or some apparatus of the state will come down on you and stop you. That's another way to think about it, a right is something no apparatus of the state can take away from you, but on general principles I don't much like negative definitions like that, that's like defining something by saying what it isn't, rather than what it is. Besides, I'm not convinced there's anything the state can't take away from you. If the people running things decide they don't want you to do something, you're hooped. Much of what we call our rights I think are nothing of the sort, they depend too much on the good will and common sense of the authorities we've allowed to be set over us, and my experience suggests that depending on others' common sense is a risky thing to do. It also seems clear that there are things we call rights that *can* be taken away from us, they remain rights only in the sense that the system provides a means of redress after the fact. Sometimes... not much you can do if you've been deprived of your right to life, though your surviving relatives might be able to get some redress.

A thorny question, I agree, and many better minds than mine have failed to come to grips with it definitively.

True, but even the attempt can help clarify and refine one's thinking. And of course, one has no natural rights of any kind. Another way to look at "rights" is that they are the most fundamental and widely-agreed portion of social/legal structures. And they're only as good as the social/legal structure under which one lives. But "rights" are granted by the government, regardless of what fiction they put on it. As an obvious example, once upon a time in the United States (and its predecessor British colonies), your "right" to hold slaves as chattels was absolute and unquestioned. Until it wasn't.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

... And of course, one has no natural rights of any kind. ... But "rights" are granted by the government, regardless of what fiction they put on it.

Yes, I'd say those are the key points. Rights exist only with reference to other people and their rights. If you're the only person on the planet you can do whatever you want, nothing you do can affect anyone but you, the issue of rights doesn't arise. But put another person there with you, then suddenly what you do can affect them, and vice versa, and the issue *does* arise so you'll have to negotiate some rules. That's the social/legal structure you referred to, the rules we've agreed upon about how we're going to get along with each other, and they differ pretty widely across the various social/legal structures humans have invented. Things we take for granted, for instance, like freedom of speech and association and religion and whatnot, don't exist everywhere, and it seems to me that the more authoritarian a society is the fewer rights its members have. But even those things we take for granted have limits on them, there are no absolutes that I can think of, hence my conclusion, and yours, that there are no natural rights, rights are a human invention.
And I'm sure I haven't told you anything you didn't already know.