Are rights granted or innate?

In another thread, a tangent developed in which I advanced the idea that governments grant rights to their citizens by way of protecting those rights. Without governments to protect rights, one is unable to exercise rights. Without the ability to exercise their rights, the citizenry effectively doesn't have those rights. Ergo, governments grant rights.

:::donning flamesuit:::

The tangential posts were a distraction to the original thread, so let's continue this here ... instead of having it in the Wealth Distribution thread ...

There have been many threads on this specific topic, intensively discussed.

Critter7r said:

In another thread, a tangent developed in which I advanced the idea that governments grant rights to their citizens by way of protecting those rights. Without governments to protect rights, one is unable to exercise rights. Without the ability to exercise their rights, the citizenry effectively doesn't have those rights. Ergo, governments grant rights.

:::donning flamesuit:::

The tangential posts were a distraction to the original thread, so let's continue this here ... instead of having it in the Wealth Distribution thread ...

Click to expand...

Neither, they are taken.

PirateMk1 said:

Neither, they are taken.

Click to expand...

Would you be so kind as to define that statement a little better? (asking straight, no slight)

Rights have to be mentally conceived to be 'given', or 'taken', not a tangible thing that can be stolen in the night.

Critter7r said:

In another thread, a tangent developed in which I advanced the idea that governments grant rights to their citizens by way of protecting those rights. Without governments to protect rights, one is unable to exercise rights. Without the ability to exercise their rights, the citizenry effectively doesn't have those rights. Ergo, governments grant rights.

:::donning flamesuit:::

The tangential posts were a distraction to the original thread, so let's continue this here ... instead of having it in the Wealth Distribution thread ...

Click to expand...

Neither, rights are taken from nature by force.

Some social agreements are universal and thus socially natural. These agreements need not be observed by an authority for them to exist. That these agreements are violated in no way discounts their universality; they are inalienable not inviolable. These universal agreements are self evident - just ask yourself and everyone you know. There are eminently three such agreements: the rights to life, expression and self defense.

The question governments decide are the extent to which these rights can be exercised without imposing on the same rights of others. This balancing of rights with each other and between individuals is the basis of Western law.

Critter7r said:

In another thread, a tangent developed in which I advanced the idea that governments grant rights to their citizens by way of protecting those rights. Without governments to protect rights, one is unable to exercise rights. Without the ability to exercise their rights, the citizenry effectively doesn't have those rights. Ergo, governments grant rights.

:::donning flamesuit:::

The tangential posts were a distraction to the original thread, so let's continue this here ... instead of having it in the Wealth Distribution thread ...

Click to expand...

I suspect we may want to identify "rights".

Today we have people who claim they have a "right" to government hand outs. Some people contend, in here, they have a "right" to a job.

"I have a right to have children" says the single mom of nine...does she?

And, according to the United States Bill of Rights, such things are "God given".

Governments are elected to protect rights, they don't always, sometimes they pass things like the Patriot Act and then your rights are purely theoretical.

Critter7r said:

In another thread, a tangent developed in which I advanced the idea that governments grant rights to their citizens by way of protecting those rights. Without governments to protect rights, one is unable to exercise rights. Without the ability to exercise their rights, the citizenry effectively doesn't have those rights. Ergo, governments grant rights.

:::donning flamesuit:::

The tangential posts were a distraction to the original thread, so let's continue this here ... instead of having it in the Wealth Distribution thread ...

Click to expand...

actually, i did not think you derailed anything ,because many state a basic human right as the need to redistribution.

Rights are an idea. They are an imaginary construct until placed on paper, codified, and agreed to and THEN only so long as the government (THEIR government) is willing to A-act within its legal bounds and B-prosecute those who by force strip others of their legal rights.

GottaGo said:

Would you be so kind as to define that statement a little better? (asking straight, no slight)

Rights have to be mentally conceived to be 'given', or 'taken', not a tangible thing that can be stolen in the night.

Click to expand...

Sure, the other party(ies) in that discussion were pointing to the existence of "natural rights", rights that exist outside of the protection and enforcement of governments ...

My point was that governments are made up of specific groups of people, those groups of people (including those that eventually become part of the government) decide which rights they want to allow for themselves, and create governments to protect those rights. Without the protection of those rights by governments, one effectively doesn't have those rights, ergo, governments grant rights ...

ernst barkmann said:

actually, i did not think you derailed anything ,because many state a basic human right as the need to redistribution.

Click to expand...

Meh ... I think it was a little too far OT to continue in there. And I think we were getting a little philosophical about it, so here we are.

I think there are certain, what I would call "common sense rights" that are built into the human species whether that is "God given" or "Protective evolution".
We are hard wired, barring fallacy in said wiring to generally want to protect the human species. Now what "rights" are entailed in this instinct is a much larger discussion. But a "right to exist" is generally universal once you are breathing on your own in this world.
You could call that innate (though some might say its granted by your parents) insomuch as most humans feel a natural obligation to keep a human child existing (hell for a majority that likely even extends to non human young).
In a way, nature protects this right (not going into quality of life over simply existing, etc.)

I would go a step further and say, generally, the right to survive is also tied into the right to exist. It is a natural tendency to seek survival and, as such, it is pretty much given to the individual to survive. Often times this creates empathy with the other members of the species and causes them to help those who aren't doing so well at it to survive.

Most other rights are human created concepts. One could argue that it is also human nature to try to give every human the same chances, same quality of existence, and so on but I would probably argue that point to some degree. It is a good thing that we do so but not necessarily an "innate" thing that we do so.

Critter7r said:

Meh ... I think it was a little too far OT to continue in there. And I think we were getting a little philosophical about it, so here we are.

Click to expand...

well many people as i have said use basic human right to justify redistribution.

when people grant rights, ...they have the ability to violate rights in doing it.

natural rights cannot ever violate the rights of another person

The natural rights described by John Locke are pretty much absolute.
To participate in polite society, we agree to give up some of those
absolute rights.
Governments by there very nature can only limit rights,
they cannot grant that which they do not possess.
Part of governments role is protecting each of our rights without
unduly encroaching on the rights of others.
An example is that we have laws against murder,
even though killing someone for a perceived slight is a natural right.

Fearandloathing said:

And, according to the United States Bill of Rights, such things are "God given".

Click to expand...

"God given" or "endowed by their Creator" was an 18th century way of saying "from nature" and the statement does not qualify natural rights on the existence of a deity.

longview said:

An example is that we have laws against murder,
even though killing someone for a perceived slight is a natural right.

Click to expand...

Nonsense.

We do not define what is socially natural by the whims of an individual. What is socially natural is established in a social context and according to agreements made between people.

longview said:

The natural rights described by John Locke are pretty much absolute.
To participate in polite society, we agree to give up some of those
absolute rights.
Governments by there very nature can only limit rights,
they cannot grant that which they do not possess.
Part of governments role is protecting each of our rights without
unduly encroaching on the rights of others.
An example is that we have laws against murder,
even though killing someone for a perceived slight is a natural right.

Click to expand...

a simple premise is that - i as a man, cannot give another man a right, and he cannot give me a right, therefore how can we elect people as part of government and have them grant rights, when we do not have the ability within ourselves.

ecofarm said:

"God given" or "endowed by their Creator" was an 18th century way of saying "from nature" and the statement does not qualify natural rights on the existence of a deity.

Click to expand...

the DOI is subjective to the reader.....god in heaven or natures god.

ecofarm said:

Nonsense.

We do not define what is socially natural by the whims of an individual. What is socially natural is established in a social context and according to agreements made between people.

Click to expand...

I am not really saying anything different,
Our natural rights are simply anything we choose to do at that second,
and are physically capable of doing.
Society defines limitations on our absolute natural rights, that allow people
to coexists within a framework of rules(laws).

ernst barkmann said:

the DOI is subjective to the reader.....god in heaven or natures god.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The point being, the rights come from something beyond an individual man or government. They are part of human society, a necessary agreement made by all for the continuation of our species.

ecofarm said:

Agreed. The point being, the rights come from something beyond an individual man or government. They are part of human society, a necessary agreement made by all for the continuation of our species.

Click to expand...

true they do not come from man, because if they did man would have authority over them, the constitution has no authority over the rights of man..per the constitution

longview said:

I am not really saying anything different,

Click to expand...

Actually, you are. You are failing to establish a social construct on social terms and, instead, you are trying to establish a social construct on the whims of an individual.

Our natural rights are simply anything we choose to do at that second,
and are physically capable of doing.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. This would preclude disabled people from having natural rights. Natural rights are socially natural, not individual whim.

Society defines limitations on our absolute natural rights, that allow people
to coexists within a framework of rules(laws).

Click to expand...

No right is absolute. For example: the right to life is justly curtailed in the face of the right to self defense.

ernst barkmann said:

true they do not come from man, because if they did man would have authority over them, the constitution has no authority over the rights of man..per the constitution

Click to expand...

I agree. These rights are part of human society and are established by a will to continue the existence of our species (they result naturally from self preservation).

"If justice be not a natural principle, it is no principle at all. If it be not a natural principle, there is no such thing as justice. If it be not a natural principle, all that men have ever said or written about it, from time immemorial, has been said and written about that which had no existence. If it be not a natural principle, all the appeals for justice that have ever been heard, and all the struggles for justice that have ever been witnessed, have been appeals and struggles for a mere fantasy, a vagary of the imagination, and not for a reality.

If justice be not a natural principle, then there is no such thing as injustice; and all the crimes of which the world has been the scene, have been no crimes at all; but only simple events, like the falling of the rain, or the setting of the sun; events of which the victims had no more reason to complain than they had to complain of the running of the streams, or the growth of vegetation.

If justice be not a natural principle, governments (so-called) have no more right or reason to take cognizance of it, or to pretend or profess to take cognizance of it, than they have to take cognizance, or to pretend or profess to take cognizance, of any other nonentity; and all their professions of establishing justice, or of maintaining justice, or of regarding justice, are simply the mere gibberish of fools, or the frauds of imposters.

But if justice be a natural principle, then it is necessarily an immutable one; and can no more be changed - by any power inferior to that which established it - than can the law of gravitation, the laws of light, the principles of mathematics, or any other natural law or principle whatever; and all attempts or assumptions, on the part of any man or body of men - whether calling themselves governments, or by any other name - to set up their own commands, wills, pleasure, or discretion, in the place of justice, as a rule of conduct for any human being, are as much an absurdity, an usurpation, and a tyranny, as would be their attempts to set up their own commands, wills, pleasure, or discretion in place of any and all the physical, mental, and moral laws of the universe." - Lysander Spooner

Really, lets assume for a moment the principle is crap, that rights really are just something that are granted to us. If that is the case, then how do we justify them?

Henrin said:

Really, lets assume for a moment the principle is crap, that rights really are just something that are granted to us. If that is the case, then how do we justify them?

Click to expand...

How about first .... before we get too far into this discussion ... we define them?

What are we arguing about?

those of you arguing that there is such a thing as "Natural Rights" ... what are they?

I assume I know what you all mean, but let's be clear about defining our discussion first.

'Rights' are a social construct. They vary from one society to another, and within a society over time. I imagine that each group of our ancestors if 100,000 years ago worked out their own system as to who had the right to the best bits of a newly killed animal.