Your Right to Have Rights

[PraetorZorak]

Actually that's the very antithesis of a right. At least as according to the philosophical foundation of the Republic, a right is "inalienable", and as such cannot be taken, abrogated, or surrendered.

Right...er, correct, but my point is that rights as a whole only exist as a social construct. They guarantee nothing. A right only protects you as far as the level other individuals are willing to respect it. After that, it's only a matter of punishment, which may or may not help you at all.

[TheSpacePope]

Actually that's the very antithesis of a right. At least as according to the philosophical foundation of the Republic, a right is "inalienable", and as such cannot be taken, abrogated, or surrendered.

They guarantee nothing. A right only protects you as far as the level other individuals are willing to respect it. After that, it's only a matter of punishment, which may or may not help you at all.

So yea, our inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happieness. the only only one that really cannot be taken away is the pursuit of happieness, that is truly the only one, you can lock me in a metal box and take away my life and liberty, but i can pursue happieness until i die. the other two you most often have to fight for

[Lord Bitememan]

Locke,

I think that's an all-too-simple way to look at it, personally. It's not just a legal thing, for me. I won't pretend to hold my "rights" as this symbolic holy entity, but I will say that they are not purley legal.

The problem is without some form of legal of traditional recognition of something as a right, it isn't a right. Most people would accept driving to be a right which we regulate for the common good. The problem is, driving is not a right. Legally, driving is a priviledge, and it's one the government can revoke for any number of reasons having little or nothing to do with the general welfare of those who drive. So, yes, rights need some legal or traditional recognition to be rights.

Archbio,

I think that rights can be rationally determinated, and don't have to depend on a legal authority or popular opinion. On the contrary, to subject the determination of the rights to these might render them meaningless in effect.

Eh, I'd say rights do have to depend on legal authority, in that in the absense of legal authority there is no standard by which we might consider something a right or any other standard of conduct. It's a broad take on it, I know, but without laws no action enjoys legal status of any kind, and it is only within a framework of laws, in some form or another, that we may codify action as a right, a crime, or neither. But, expanding upon that, nothing becomes a right in society until we find a legal justification to consider it as such. An example would be the right to equal protection under the law for all people regardless of color. This did not exist until ratified into the Constitution, and could not have been rationalized from the previous legal or moral ethos of society.

As to the issue of popular opinion, it is important to distinguish between popular opinion and a social acceptance of something as a right. Popular opinion, for example, might condone the banning of Islam. However, society, as a whole, accepts the notion of a right to free religious practice. We therefore place public opion in a position inferior to the general social acceptance of a free excercise of religion. Rights are by no means stoic, what a society accepts as a right changes over time. In the 1700s and up to the mid 1800s it was considered a right to own another person as a slave. Society as a whole came to reject this notion, and ultimately crystalized this in the removal of a slave-owning right. So, certainly the will of society to accept or reject a right plays no small part in what we consider to be rights.

[Archbio]

Eh, I'd say rights do have to depend on legal authority, in that in the absense of legal authority there is no standard by which we might consider something a right or any other standard of conduct.

Yes, of course. Rights manifest themselves as 'rights' only in the context of legal tradition. In pure anarchy or pure tyranny rights would have no meaning, because of respectively of the total lack or constant fluctuation of the authority against which rights are a barrier.

Rights can't be inserted as 'exceptions' or 'principles' into a code if there's no code.

That's not quite the influence of legal authority I was addressing.

This did not exist until ratified into the Constitution, and could not have been rationalized from the previous legal or moral ethos of society.

But it was rationalized before it was put into law, which is the opposite of what I interpreted to be 'legal authority'.

So, certainly the will of society to accept or reject a right plays no small part in what we consider to be rights.

It did and it does, I agree, but what I meant is that it shouldn't. Unfortunately, at the moment it doesn't that rights are treated in a way which permits a 'self-determination' of rights. Since change towards better or fuller application of rights depends on the will of the population, the opposite remains a constant risk.

Thought:

Archbio, what I meant by limits is that there is a point where people agree that a particular right "ends." One might term this a responsible limit; a point where to continue expressing your "right" would inhibit or degrade the rights and liberties of others. My old History Teacher termed it "my right to swing my fist ends where your face begins." Under such a situation, your face is the limit of my right.

I agree with that, but I think it's important to stress that these exceptions be the only limits. Here's a bit of your post that makes me wonder:

A right would then be allowed but only in a manner conducive to society. As Locke argued, some rights are given up when a person enters into a social grouping, like a nation (specifically, those rights that are counterproductive for that society)

Isn't this already a deviation from the previously defined limits of one's right? Maybe I am misinterpreting, but it seems to me like considering the 'interests of society' can easily deviate from a strict consideration for each individual's rights.

Maybe my aversion to the certain elements of the status-quo in legal matters (moral enforcement, notably) is skewing my understanding of this topic too much.

Because it is ambiguous people are often afraid that one group or another will get it outlawed.

I'd suggest that the root problem here might be the ease with which things are outlawed versus the lack of institutions that enshrine rights; but basically, I agree with the interpretation.

Technically, no one is equal to anyone else.

I'm pretty sure the Enlightenment Philosophers who advanced the concept of 'equality' that the Declaration if Idependance references never meant material equality (in any sense of the word material, as a matter of fact). Unless I'm mistaken and they are two different things entierely.

Rights almost demand that one assume that there is a creator, as it were, for “all men [to be] created equal.”

I always took that to be a peculiar oddity of formulation, with no real consequence upon the content (the equality in question).

[Lockeownzj00]

The problem is without some form of legal of traditional recognition of something as a right, it isn't a right.

Why not? Are we not being asked to define what a right is? I can understand if you disagree: but the entire point of what I was saying is that a right is not an inherently legal thing--you underestimate humans and how well they can collaborate voluntaryily (gasp). That sentence defeats the point of this thread. If you do want to talk about the legal implications (and we are), that's fine--but that's not what I was indicating in that sentence. I was not talking about your rights in the eyes of a faceless entity, but your rights as a real human being who interacts with other human beings.

Again we come to the anarchism argument: that without being controlled, people are hopeless. I simply disagree. People aren't as dumb as you think. I don't get why once the invisible layer is gone you panic. You just go on with common sense.

pure anarchy

Maybe I have sand in my vagina, but I'd prefer, if not just for clarity, you'd use entropy, or chaos or something. A pure anarchy would be a succesful communal, anarchistic town/city/state/planet/ooneevuhrss.

[Thought]

Originally Posted by Archbio

Isn't this already a deviation from the previously defined limits of one's right? Maybe I am misinterpreting, but it seems to me like considering the 'interests of society' can easily deviate from a strict consideration for each individual's rights.

To my understanding, Locke was discussing why people enter into a society and what their obligations to that society would then be. By entering into society we are inherently giving up our right to do what ever the heck we want. That right, is expressed by everyone, would destroy a society. Similarly, my natural right to take the necessities and comforts of life where ever they may be found (as any preditoril animal might have) must be restricted for the benefit of others, in exchange I receive the assurance that others will not do the same to me. Or maybe I am just not understanding your question.

I'm pretty sure the Enlightenment Philosophers who advanced the concept of 'equality' that the Declaration if Independence references never meant material equality (in any sense of the word material, as a matter of fact). Unless I'm mistaken and they are two different things entierely.

But that is just it; they never quite were able to define in what manner people are equal. Intellectually? Sorry no, I am fairly sure the venerable James Watson is smarter than, say, Jack Thompson. It can't be morally; else wise a legal system involving crimes would be impossible. Equal is such a vague word.

I always took that to be a peculiar oddity of formulation, with no real consequence upon the content (the equality in question).

Practically, I would agree that there is little difference, but theoretically there is a world of difference. I would propose that in order to take something away one must be at least as great and that which originally gave it. If equality is bestowed by the thoughts of men, then men can take it away again. However if rights are bestowed by a creator, then men can't take them away. Regardless of which is true, humans will act as humans will act. But at least in terms of an intellectual discourse, the difference is important.

Anywho. Just a,

Thought

[Archbio]

By entering into society we are inherently giving up our right to do what ever the heck we want. That right, is expressed by everyone, would destroy a society. Similarly, my natural right to take the necessities and comforts of life where ever they may be found (as any preditoril animal might have) must be restricted for the benefit of others, in exchange I receive the assurance that others will not do the same to me. Or maybe I am just not understanding your question.

I'm just saying that most of the limitations that allow a society to function can be derived from a mutual respect of rights (which is what you seem to be getting at). I wasn't sure if you were saying that there was another set of limits that have to be respected to protect society itself as an abstract entity. That kind of thinking tends to be very, very arbitrary.

But that is just it; they never quite were able to define in what manner people are equal. Intellectually? Sorry no, I am fairly sure the venerable James Watson is smarter than, say, Jack Thompson. It can't be morally; else wise a legal system involving crimes would be impossible. Equal is such a vague word.

Isn't it "equal before the law", as in they are assumed to be equals in rank for the most basic purposes of social life (for ye olde political liberalism it was just the law and taxes, and for ye olde democrats it was political participation as well)?

I think that's how the philosophes des lumières meant it, altough it might be different for the Declaration of Independence (altough I always heard there was a strong link of parentage between the two things).

Practically, I would agree that there is little difference, but theoretically there is a world of difference. I would propose that in order to take something away one must be at least as great and that which originally gave it. If equality is bestowed by the thoughts of men, then men can take it away again. However if rights are bestowed by a creator, then men can't take them away. Regardless of which is true, humans will act as humans will act. But at least in terms of an intellectual discourse, the difference is important.

I agree there is a difference a theory, but both 'origins' of rights make sense to me. I see no objection to humans setting up rights as a principle for a society without a care if that was naturally or divinely intended.

[Thought]

I agree there is a difference a theory, but both 'origins' of rights make sense to me. I see no objection to humans setting up rights as a principle for a society without a care if that was naturally or divinely intended.

Maybe it is just the historian in me, but I like to cite a source whenever possible, rather than leaving it at my own say so. Same goes for rights; being able to cite a source for them offers a much more convincing argument, to me, than merely stating them because “I said so” (as it were).

Isn't it "equal before the law", as in they are assumed to be equals in rank for the most basic purposes of social life (for ye olde political liberalism it was just the law and taxes, and for ye olde democrats it was political participation as well)?

Ah, that would make much more sense. I always took that to mean that they were equal in responsibility, so no more laws such as "If anyone lies with a maiden belonging to the king, he is to pay 50 shillings compensation," "If anyone lies with a nobleman's maiden, he is to pay 20 shillings compensation" and so forth (taken from the Laws of AEthelbert, king of Kent 602-603ish). However, I read that as still allowing laws that applied only to one people group (such as claiming that only old white protestant men could vote, as per early American tradition).

~Thought

[Lord Bitememan]

Archbio:

But it was rationalized before it was put into law, which is the opposite of what I interpreted to be 'legal authority'.

Rationalized, yes, to some degree. But, I would suggest that rationalizing a right doesn't make it a right. I can, for example, rationalize a right to rape my wife (not trying to be trollish, just trying to give a crystal clear example). Using marriage with the understanding of a physical union and a dissolution of seperate property rights into shared property, I can conceptualize that my wife's body belongs to me as much as any other property we now share joint ownership of, and as marriage is a regulated physical union I have every right to engage in this physical act with something now belonging to me. I have, there, conceptualized a right. In America (and thank God) this would never gain the acceptance of society at large. Society would reject the notion that this is a right, and so our laws would reflect that. Now, take an ultra-masculine society, one with a very radical bent to it, like say the Taliban or extreme rural Pakistan. There you might actually find acceptance by broad sections of society that full sexual rights exist for a man over a woman in a matrimonial union. There, you might actually find a de facto right to rape your wife.

So, while I understand your point that we must conceptualize something as a right rather than just something you can do, I think it is actually more a factor that society as a general consensus has to accept that an action is a right. Society can conceptualize many things as rights, but fewer still we actually accept are rights.

It did and it does, I agree, but what I meant is that it shouldn't. Unfortunately, at the moment it doesn't that rights are treated in a way which permits a 'self-determination' of rights. Since change towards better or fuller application of rights depends on the will of the population, the opposite remains a constant risk.

But rights must change and adapt to the culture in which they are granted. If they do not you end up with a society that has a slew of anachronistic rights. If we stuck by the notion that rights should not change with the needs of society, and instead should remain at the ideal of maximization, we would have a nation that resembled what it was during the Articles of Confederation because it would be impossible to compromise our rights enough to form a more cohesive central government. So, certainly some broadly accepted limitations, and sometimes even unpopular limitations on rights are a necessity to a healthy society.

Locke:

Why not? Are we not being asked to define what a right is? I can understand if you disagree: but the entire point of what I was saying is that a right is not an inherently legal thing

Stateless societies have no such thing as a concept of "rights." Try to find a translation of the term in the languages of the idigenous peoples of the Amazon rainforest, you'll find there isn't a need for one. Rights exist to protect people within codified frameworks. They generally do not apply to people operating as agents outside the boudaries of those frameworks. Take this as an example, you have a right to be free of illegal entry of your home by the government. If the government illegally enters your home, you can sue them for violating your civil rights. You cannot, however, sue a burglar for violating your civil rights. You can sue him for damages he causes, criminally prosecute, etc., but you can't sue him for violating your civil rights. That's because the rights exist to protect you from the government, not from other people. Laws exist to protect people from each other, rights exist to protect you from the law.

you underestimate humans and how well they can collaborate voluntaryily (gasp).

A whole other issue aside, the efficacy of people devoid of the state, let's just address the conceptual issue here. Suppose you have a society devoid of the state, with only people cooperating with one another. There is no hierarchy, there is no governing class. It doesn't matter how many laws and rights you draw up for this society, nobody can enforce them. The instant they enforce them, that, my friend, becomes governance. When you have governance, you have a government. Even if there is no fixed position for any one man, or even really no fixed institutions, it's still a government. The Greeks were big on this, it's called direct democracy.

Now, suppose your stateless society has a right that says "You have a right not to get clubbed over the head." It doesn't have to be fixed in writing, it is just verbally understood. Now, I go and club you over the head, splattering various soupy inside portions of it across the wall. One of two things is going to happen. The unlikely result is your society, ignoring the concept of codified law, shrugs and goes about its merry way because organized response is state-behavior. In this case, your society remains stateless, but it also reamains rightless, since anyone, at any time, can club someone over the head. The likely response, however, is that the group gets together, confers that what you did was out of line, and gets together and meets out punishment (probably a club to my head in retaliation). Guess what, your stateless society now has a judicial process and executive branch with organized martial force.

So, it's not that your cooperative society will be devoid of state and legal authority, you just have a differing standard of who gets to participate in the governing role. You will still have all the organs of a state, a legislature which decides the rules, a judiciary which ejudicates the infractions, and an executive power responsible for enacting the decisions of the previous two. That you have the same people in all three branches and encompass the whole of society in it is meaningless. Seperation of powers is not a necessary componant of government, just and adviseable one. The fact is you will still have a state, and the rights which exist in this state will only exist in as far as the people agree they are rights, and as a functioning state process act upon them with authority (i.e., treat them as laws).

I was not talking about your rights in the eyes of a faceless entity, but your rights as a real human being who interacts with other human beings.

Okay, let's go down this road again. A right is only a right if those other human beings, collectively, recognize it as one and have some manner of process for dealing with its implications. Cavemen had no rights. A caveman could catch another caveman, kill him, and eat him. There was no right to be free of cannibalism. It wasn't until humans began organizing into tribal societies and began to establish informal laws, protections, and consequences that you can argue rights came about. Even then, it wasn't much. You had a right, sort of, not to be speared by your fellow tribesman. It was a more egalitarian process, the whole tribe pretty much had to accept it and consent to this as a protection, and it wasn't written down, because there was no writing, but some chief in the tribe could give the go-ahead and have you dealt with for violating it. You had a proto-state with law, and you had rights. They simply didn't exist before this. And, if you dissolve the mechanisms of the state, they won't exist anymore.

Again we come to the anarchism argument: that without being controlled, people are hopeless. I simply disagree. People aren't as dumb as you think. I don't get why once the invisible layer is gone you panic. You just go on with common sense.

The problem is it isn't an invisible layer, as you suggest. There are very real, very visible consequences to those who step out of line. The fact is without the threat of being ticketed by the police, we would all speed, we would all run red lights, and nobody would fix their mufflers. It's because the police will ticket me that I drive the speed limit, stop at the red light when nobody is coming, and make sure to keep that muffler as quiet as the day the factory installed it.

[Archbio]

Maybe it is just the historian in me, but I like to cite a source whenever possible, rather than leaving it at my own say so. Same goes for rights; being able to cite a source for them offers a much more convincing argument, to me, than merely stating them because “I said so” (as it were).

I can't start debating that, no-religion-discussion rule and all.

However, I read that as still allowing laws that applied only to one people group (such as claiming that only old white protestant men could vote, as per early American tradition).

And as in early Republican French tradition (and of many other countries) only men of a certain wealth could vote. Not all lumières philosophers of the time agreed with that, however, but I guess the elite who put ultimately put these ideas to practice were concerned with their own power as well as with a certain equality.

We shouldn't forget that discrimination (the inequal distribution of rights) is still alive and kicking; not that it is never justified. It is a complex issue, and very few people argue that the right to vote could be exercised by all.

Bitememan

The "Marital" Example

I understand what you mean, and I realize that I might put too much stock in what is, in the end, a malleable mental construct, but this example is simply too extreme to work. Perhaps I have not properly articulated my idea: when I meant rationalized, I meant rationalized in a somewhat systematic matter.

This right would automatically be found to contradict the core of human rights (as I understand them, at the very least), exchanging the most basic of human rights for a right granted to a non-individual entity. No other individual human right is offered to balance this immense infringement.

Now, you mention ultra-masculine societies: in that case, the meaning of 'right' in 'sexual rights' takes an almost opposite meaning, since these 'rights' are based on a basic inequality in the consideration given to men and women, both having two very separate set of rights (if the women have any at all). I say it must be considered a different meaning, since in the concept of Human Rights, a basic unity of humankind is implied.

There is a pooling of ressources through legal marriage in Western Society, but it is understood that the measure is not mandatory, it's based upon full consent on both parts and is, in theory, at least, entierely symmetrical.

But rights must change and adapt to the culture in which they are granted. If they do not you end up with a society that has a slew of anachronistic rights. If we stuck by the notion that rights should not change with the needs of society, and instead should remain at the ideal of maximization, we would have a nation that resembled what it was during the Articles of Confederation because it would be impossible to compromise our rights enough to form a more cohesive central government. So, certainly some broadly accepted limitations, and sometimes even unpopular limitations on rights are a necessity to a healthy society.

I agree, actually, in good part. Rights shouldn't be considered finite and static. They should be revised continually. As should be the ways in which the laws may or may not infringe upon them. However, I'm not convinced at all that reasoning rights based upon what society or the state needs is the best way to preserve them, as the state and society can be interpreted to have objectives that can go beyond its basic operation, and that should probably never trump any core rights, only other rights should.

If you could elaborate on these Articles of the Confederation I'd be grateful. I don't know how rights were limited and to grante the government (US government, I assume) what powers. It seems like it could go either way.