Are our rights Innate, or priveledges from the State?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I find it pretty funny that so many people believe their rights are innate. Seriously? People living under democracy may believe that, but not everyone lives under democratic rule. Even in a democracy, society determines what are rights and what are not. Now it could be argued that you have a couple of innate rights, and those would be to pay your taxes and to die. Everything else is negotiable.

Respectfully disagree.

Consider the fact that the United States is not a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic, where citizens are subject to the rule of law, not man – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

And the rule of law is predicated on the fact that our rights are indeed inalienable, subject to no vote or referendum. The majority of a given jurisdiction does not have the authority to determine who will or will not have his inalienable rights, and one’s rights are not determined solely as a consequence of his jurisdiction of residence.

That other countries or nations refuse to acknowledge their citizens’ inalienable rights in no way means those rights don’t exist. In fact, here in the United States, for example, there are those who refuse the acknowledge the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to marry – obviously same-sex couples possess that right, where those who seek to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights don’t have the authority to do so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

After five pages, still everyone seems to be operating on the belief that all rights are created equal. Is there nobody who can envision it differently?

It’s not so much a matter of envisioning it differently, but of not understanding the relationship of our inalienable rights to government.

Our rights are not ‘created,’ but they are equal, in the sense that although inalienable, they are not absolute, they are not unlimited, and consequently they’re subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Determining that relationship is the responsibility of the judiciary, in the context of judicial review, where a balance is struck between that which the government may restrict and that which it may not.

For example, there are limits to the right to free speech (Schenck v. United States (1919)), limits to religious expression (Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990)), and limits to the right to freely assemble (Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)).

When government seeks to place restrictions on our civil liberties, the burden rests most heavily with the state to justify those restrictions, and failing to do so, the courts invalidate measures found to be offensive to the Constitution. Government may not, for example, place unreasonable restrictions on certain types of hate speech (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), on the right to own a handgun pursuant to self-defense (DC v. Heller (2008)), or the right to privacy (Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)).

But one’s inalienable rights will forever remain equal and intact, guaranteeing each citizen the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in the Federal courts, and compelling the government to justify its desire to indeed infringe upon one’s civil liberties.

 

[ilia25]

No comment here. Just taking the poll.

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

It's a false choice, and the answer in "neither".

 

[SwimExpert]

Our rights are not ‘created,’ but they are equal, in the sense that although inalienable, they are not absolute, they are not unlimited, and consequently they’re subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

So you still are operating on the idea that all rights are created equal. Excuse me....that all rights are equal. I don't think you're understanding in the slightest.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

These theories and beliefs are not scientifically based.

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

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

The concept of natural rights, it's a social idea.





or a philosophical one or an ideological one, but reality?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

God? Prove this god of yours exsits

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Natural law? Where does that come from, nature? Nature has no law s(rights) for us, the animal kingdom

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

All morality is based on the human ability to be empathetic and our desire to create the world we think should exist. Rights are just an extension of that.

 

[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.

This is almost a Chicken and the Egg type of question.

Jefferson used some spiritual rhetoric in the opening of the declaration "Laws of Nature" "Creator" (sounds like 12-Step language, a higher power of your own understanding) Then TJ specifically says "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

That says that Government secures the rights. But also keep in mind, these were upper class businessmen and wealthy landowners, who wanted to make sure their new Government secured their property, their wealth, and their slaves.

The last offense listed by TJ was: He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

As much as we hold the Founders in high regard, don't be fooled, they were wealthy men who wanted to be left alone to make more wealth for themselves. The new government they set up would be designed to benefit them over the working class.

America was founded on a redistribution of wealth (land and property) and power (monarchy). -- Distributed to the land owners who put themselves in charge.

twisted.

Your class system shit didn't exist back then. The class system of that era was totally different.

Sam Adams, John Adams and many of the founding fathers were much poorer than John Hancock and many of the Southern gentry

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The idea of human rights changes over time. The idea of what rights humans have change over time.

They cannot be innate if they change.

This assumes that rights only exist inasmuch as humans perceive them.

Rights, insofar as they are perceived under the republic, are an extension of self-ownership. As such, they depend upon nobody else to perform anything for them to exist.

For example, self-ownership begets my right to speak for myself. That does not, by extension, impose an obligation upon anyone to listen to me or provide me with a printing press, radio station or a cable access program.

Jesus, self-ownership? We don't 'own' ourselves.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Oh?

If you don't own yourself, whose slave are you?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

All rights, as set forth by the baseline presumptions of the original republic, stem from the precept of self-ownership.

That is.....debatable. It is also narrow. What about rights not "set forth by the baseline presumptions of the original republic"? Such a notion implies that rights don't exist except by being granted by the government.

Not debatable at all.

Let's start from the stem right: Life.

It takes no action from any government to give anyone their life. By extension, the cognitive ability of that person is their property, and theirs alone.

Unless, of course, you want to argue that my mind is yours.

the serf mentality of most folks here still speaks of 'ownership' -- just buying into the owner's paradigm

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Only rights everyone has comes from the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights,
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Afaik though the US hasn't enacted these into law (though much of the rest of the member states to the UN have.) We voted for it, but voting for it and actually enacting it are two very different things.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh?

If you don't own yourself, whose slave are you?

Ownership is a paradigm that belongs back in the 12th century. move-on is more than just a dot org

Slavery?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Only rights everyone has comes from the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights,
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Afaik though the US hasn't enacted these into law (though much of the rest of the member states to the UN have.) We voted for it, but voting for it and actually enacting it are two very different things.

rights come from a document or a governing body?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Oh?

If you don't own yourself, whose slave are you?

Ownership is a paradigm that belongs back in the 12th century. move-on is more than just a dot org

Slavery?

Obviously, the whole conversation is way over your head.

Maybe it's you who should move on to a thread where you can fling some poo at other posters.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh?

If you don't own yourself, whose slave are you?

Ownership is a paradigm that belongs back in the 12th century. move-on is more than just a dot org

Slavery?

Obviously, the whole conversation is way over your head.

Maybe it's you who should move on to a thread where you can fling some poo at other posters.

ownership society

 

[emilynghiem]

Great question to ask and discuss Dante.

To be fully accurate, I would have had to select three:
Progressive Democrat AND Constitutionalist --> birth not state given

Also of course I would specify that
* natural rights are given by nature or birth
* while additional rights (such as privilege to drive
cars under certain traffic rules and road regulations)
would be given and regulated by the state under manmade conditions

people existed before governments were developed
so of course there are human rights and freedoms that
existed before any government enforced laws of justice

the big issue I run into today is with people who
invoke equal authority as govt by enforcing Constitutional laws directly
vs
those who either don't have faith in this system or don't use it
or invoke it directly, but they rely on politicians, party or govt
to invoke it for them

this creates the disparity we see with some people believing in
govt to represent and protect that
and others believing in God or Life giving inherent
rights and freedoms which govt cannot diminish
without consent or without due process of laws

for some reason people cannot respect each other's views on this
and end up competing to OVERRULE each other by abusing force of law
through the media, legal or legislative power, political party and majority rule

very curious to see at what point will recognize that these
different beliefs constitute the equivalent of "political religions"
and either consensus is required to prevent unfair discrimination with public laws, or separating and funding their own respective agenda and beliefs without imposing on others

if people don't have faith in God controlling everything, that can't be forced by law
so why this threat to exclude people for not having faith in Government controlling things

shouldn't this be proven to work first, where people willingly choose to follow
if atheists consider a cross to be imposing a symbol of faith on them
why aren't the federal mandates considered an imposition of faith by govt?
under penalty of law? isn't that an imposing a tax discriminating on the basis of faith.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Ownership is a paradigm that belongs back in the 12th century. move-on is more than just a dot org

Slavery?

Obviously, the whole conversation is way over your head.

Maybe it's you who should move on to a thread where you can fling some poo at other posters.

ownership society

Right. Ownership is antiquated.

That's why there are certificates of title for automobiles, deeds for real estate, copyright and licensing agreements for things like computer software. But ownership is a throwback to the days of horse and buggy.

As I said, you are clearly in over your head. Move on.