Are our rights Innate, or priveledges from the State?

[The2ndAmendment]

Rights are whatever society as a whole at a particular time perceives them to be.

Hell, we really didn't come up with a real idea of "natural rights" until John Locke came along in the fucking 1700s; I think if rights were innate we'd have realized them before then.

The government is socially pressured to uphold the rights people perceive as necessary to a moral and functioning society.

Hence, rights are society-granted, not state-granted nor innate.

Yeah, Cicero was an imaginary phantom.

 

[eagle1462010]

Conservative and Innate.............

Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness..................

Not to be told how to live unless I violate the rights of others.........not told what to eat, to buy, or whatever...................

To a fat person, who likes to eat a lot............Is it his right to be fat if that is what makes him happy...............Who determines what makes each individual happy.................That is certainly not the Gov'ts job or responsibility...........It is the individual, and when the Gov't decides you will Obey new laws because we have deemed it necessary to protect you from yourselves.........you have tyranny.......

 

[TemplarKormac]

As the 14th states. I am a citizen by birth, therefore my rights are afforded to me at birth. I am guaranteed my life, my liberty and my pursuit of happiness at birth.

 

[House]

For my personal belief, they are innate.

However, the reality of the situation is, we have no rights. As Carlin so astutely (if comedically) points out, they're privileges.

[ame="http://youtu.be/gaa9iw85tW8?t=4m21s"]Carlin on rights[/ame]


(FF to 4:21)

 

[Two Thumbs]

freedoms are innate

The state keeps the strongest from ruling. Thus it is supposed to protect our rights.


statist seem to think the state is there for other reasons though

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some believe our rights are bestowed by God.

Many atheists believe the rights are bestowed by the Constitution.

 

[9thIDdoc]

No comment here. Just taking the poll.

The cap is 10 choices, so I couldn't' add more.

None of the above.
"Rights" are a list of those things we are willing to kill for and/or die to protect for ourselves and our loved ones.

 

[Bombur]

I would also point out that by failing to outlaw slavery the Constitution was clearly a piece of crap that failed to live up to the standards for government which justified the revolution in the first place.

???

There would have been no Constitution at all if the Abolitionists insisted on outlawing slavery. It's also that same Constitution that was amended (after a LOT of bloodshed) that removed that blight.

One can also argue that there existed no PEACEFUL measures that would have ended slavery. Only the industrial revolution (a few decades later) would have brought a peaceful end to it, but no one could have predicted that during the 1860's.

The point I was trying to make was that the Constitution blatantly failed to live up to the Declaration of Independence and we shouldn't confuse the justification for government(DOI) with the government itself(Constitution).

Even the DOI is an imperfect representation of the justification for the state. Either way the establishment of those justifications proceed the establishment of the government. No matter where you think those justifications came from. In addition the state is expressly formed to defend them.

 

[norwegen]

None of the above. Our rights are created as part of a social compact. Otherwise they are unenforceable. Then we would be in a Hobbesian state.

Americans recognized the existence of rights before entering into a social compact. Unalienable rights are innate rights. The equality to which "Nature and [of] Nature's God entitle" us is an innate equality.

The natural law is as old as humankind, and is the foundation for our country's founding.

The social compact created the government (by way of a constitution).

 

[norwegen]

I would also point out that by failing to outlaw slavery the Constitution was clearly a piece of crap that failed to live up to the standards for government which justified the revolution in the first place.

???

There would have been no Constitution at all if the Abolitionists insisted on outlawing slavery. It's also that same Constitution that was amended (after a LOT of bloodshed) that removed that blight.

One can also argue that there existed no PEACEFUL measures that would have ended slavery. Only the industrial revolution (a few decades later) would have brought a peaceful end to it, but no one could have predicted that during the 1860's.

The point I was trying to make was that the Constitution blatantly failed to live up to the Declaration of Independence and we shouldn't confuse the justification for government(DOI) with the government itself(Constitution).

Even the DOI is an imperfect representation of the justification for the state. Either way the establishment of those justifications proceed the establishment of the government. No matter where you think those justifications came from. In addition the state is expressly formed to defend them.

Early in the Revolutionary era, slavery was an accepted part of American life. Slave status was merely the basest in a hierarchy of dependencies.

But upon instituting natural law principles in their new republican governments, the Americans were becoming well aware of the contradictions between that "peculiar institution" and America's bourgeoning ideals of liberty and equality. That is why the Constitution does provide for the eventual dismantling of slavery. By discouraging it with the three-fifths clause (Article I, section 2) and by taxing it and anticipating its abolition after 1808 (Article I, section 9), the framers hoped its dismantling would be gradual and painless. Suddenly eliminating an institution like this that Americans took for granted would have proved impossible.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No comment here. Just taking the poll.

The cap is 10 choices, so I couldn't' add more.

Innate or privileges from the state? ... false choice.

Not even the state nor those who believe rights are not innate believe rights are privileges...otherwise they would not be called 'rights' -- D'Oh!

Rights are what society says they are. There is NO natural law or such idiocy as natural rights

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What's your point? Regardless of whether rights are "God-given", without a State to ensure them they aren't anything but wishful thinking.

Without a state, there would be no need to "ensure" them.

Nature abhors a vacuum...without a state some power would be enforcing or squelching or dictating rights an individual or group insisted they have.

Rights are a human construct

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What's your point? Regardless of whether rights are "God-given", without a State to ensure them they aren't anything but wishful thinking.

If rights are innate, the role of Government is to protect them, or least protect certain rights, as the State only has limited time and resources.The goal of this Government is to prioritize which rights it protects, among the infinite reservoir of rights that are innate and retained by the people (Ninth Amendment).

If rights are granted by the State itself, then the role of Government is to determine when to take those rights away from the Law abiding (non criminals). The goal of this Government is police the people, no ensure that they do not exercise any rights not granted by the State. The State will make maximum use and efficiency of its limited Time and Resources to police those who challenge its authority.


HUGE EFFING DIFFERENCE.

hmm...a comment? only a poll? did you lie?


The role of any Government is what the people with power say it is. In the USA we the people get to say what the role of our government is through the US Constitution. The rest of your post is inane crap.

strawmen, false choices, all so disingenuous or worse -- ignorance

 

[SmedlyButler]

No comment here. Just taking the poll.

The cap is 10 choices, so I couldn't' add more.

Whether "god-given" or "natural" every human being is born with the full set of Rights.

From the Bill of Rights Institute;

According to natural rights theory, as described by philosophers such as John Locke, everyone is born with an equality of certain rights, regardless of their nationality. Since they come from nature or from God, natural rights cannot be justly taken away without consent. As the Declaration of Independence asserts, natural (or “inalienable”) rights include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Other natural rights are protected in the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech, religion, and press.
The Founders believed that it is an important purpose of government to protect peoples’ natural rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom that infringements of conscience were a violation of natural rights; James Madison included protections from government abridgement of natural rights in the Bill of Rights. Belief in natural rights theory led many Founders, notably James Otis, to denounce slavery as a violation of natural rights. The Ninth Amendment addresses those natural rights not specifically listed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but which the people retain.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

What's your point? Regardless of whether rights are "God-given", without a State to ensure them they aren't anything but wishful thinking.

If rights are innate, the role of Government is to protect them, or least protect certain rights, as the State only has limited time and resources.The goal of this Government is to prioritize which rights it protects, among the infinite reservoir of rights that are innate and retained by the people (Ninth Amendment).

If rights are granted by the State itself, then the role of Government is to determine when to take those rights away from the Law abiding (non criminals). The goal of this Government is police the people, no ensure that they do not exercise any rights not granted by the State. The State will make maximum use and efficiency of its limited Time and Resources to police those who challenge its authority.


HUGE EFFING DIFFERENCE.

hmm...a comment? only a poll? did you lie?

????

I made no comment in the OP. Once others starting a discussion, I am allowed to chime in. Are saying I cannot comment later on in another post?

 

[Destroyer2]

Rights are whatever society as a whole at a particular time perceives them to be.

Hell, we really didn't come up with a real idea of "natural rights" until John Locke came along in the fucking 1700s; I think if rights were innate we'd have realized them before then.

The government is socially pressured to uphold the rights people perceive as necessary to a moral and functioning society.

Hence, rights are society-granted, not state-granted nor innate.

Yeah, Cicero was an imaginary phantom.

Oh yeah, forgot about Cicero. Durr.

Even then, besides Cicero, no one really had a concept of natural rights. It's a social idea.

Not to mention that everyone has different ideas on what those supposed "natural rights" are; some people believe in freedom of speech, some don't, some people believe in freedom to bear arms, some don't, some believe in freedom to keep slaves, some don't, etc. etc. etc.

Do you kind of see my point? Rights are really determined by social trends and public opinion at any given time.

 

[whitehall]

Simple answers to complex questions. Just what they have been feeding kids for the last fifty years in union based schools. Our rights are God given and they are listed and spelled out in the greatest document ever created by man, the U.S. Constitution

 

[norwegen]

Rights are whatever society as a whole at a particular time perceives them to be.

Hell, we really didn't come up with a real idea of "natural rights" until John Locke came along in the fucking 1700s; I think if rights were innate we'd have realized them before then.

The government is socially pressured to uphold the rights people perceive as necessary to a moral and functioning society.

Hence, rights are society-granted, not state-granted nor innate.

Yeah, Cicero was an imaginary phantom.

Oh yeah, forgot about Cicero. Durr.

Even then, besides Cicero, no one really had a concept of natural rights. It's a social idea.

Not to mention that everyone has different ideas on what those supposed "natural rights" are; some people believe in freedom of speech, some don't, some people believe in freedom to bear arms, some don't, some believe in freedom to keep slaves, some don't, etc. etc. etc.

Do you kind of see my point? Rights are really determined by social trends and public opinion at any given time.

Natural rights derive from the natural law, a term Plato used well before Cicero. The Romans articulated the principle, gave it its own vocabulary, made it a "school," but the Greeks had already become conscious of the principle.

The concept, though not always articulated - certainly not committed to parchment - is much older. The Hebrews exercised such principles in their own way, recognizing, for example, the right of people to acquire property and defend it and themselves and their own with weapons.

 

[Destroyer2]

Yeah, Cicero was an imaginary phantom.

Oh yeah, forgot about Cicero. Durr.

Even then, besides Cicero, no one really had a concept of natural rights. It's a social idea.

Not to mention that everyone has different ideas on what those supposed "natural rights" are; some people believe in freedom of speech, some don't, some people believe in freedom to bear arms, some don't, some believe in freedom to keep slaves, some don't, etc. etc. etc.

Do you kind of see my point? Rights are really determined by social trends and public opinion at any given time.

Natural rights derive from the natural law, a term Plato used well before Cicero. The Romans articulated the principle, gave it its own vocabulary, made it a "school," but the Greeks had already become conscious of the principle.

The concept, though not always articulated - certainly not committed to parchment - is much older. The Hebrews exercised such principles in their own way, recognizing, for example, the right of people to acquire property and defend it and themselves and their own with weapons.

And their perception of it was different so they ended up with different sorts of "rights" than what we consider "rights" today. Hence my point.

 

[norwegen]

Oh yeah, forgot about Cicero. Durr.

Even then, besides Cicero, no one really had a concept of natural rights. It's a social idea.

Not to mention that everyone has different ideas on what those supposed "natural rights" are; some people believe in freedom of speech, some don't, some people believe in freedom to bear arms, some don't, some believe in freedom to keep slaves, some don't, etc. etc. etc.

Do you kind of see my point? Rights are really determined by social trends and public opinion at any given time.

Natural rights derive from the natural law, a term Plato used well before Cicero. The Romans articulated the principle, gave it its own vocabulary, made it a "school," but the Greeks had already become conscious of the principle.

The concept, though not always articulated - certainly not committed to parchment - is much older. The Hebrews exercised such principles in their own way, recognizing, for example, the right of people to acquire property and defend it and themselves and their own with weapons.

And their perception of it was different so they ended up with different sorts of "rights" than what we consider "rights" today. Hence my point.

Unalienable rights don't change. They can't change. Inherent rights are as human as toes and fingers.

Our understanding and appreciation of them, our approach to them, our articulating them, are what changes.