From where do our rights come?

[voilsb]

Okay, this seems like a no-brainer. Everybody knows the Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, it simply enumerates and offers to protect them. Our Declaration of Independence states that people "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." This is generally believed to be the case.

I don't get it, though. It's more than "if you don't believe in God, then from where do your rights come?" Although that's a good question, and it might server to help this, it's more than that. I'm a Christian. I do believe in God. And I have never seen anything where I'm given any unalienable rights. The closest I've seen is that I have no rights and that He gives and takes as He pleases, and who is the clay to question the potter?

I'm curious. Where do we get our rights? If it's from God, where does He say it? If it's not from God (this one is more aimed at those who don't believe in God), then from where?

And if this violates the new-and-improved L&P rules, I apologize. My intent is for this to centered on from where our rights come, not whether God exists or whatnot.

 

[Cosmoline]

As I understand it, the notion of inalienable rights comes from Enlightenment philosophy. I'm far from an expert, but I believe the key phrase is "we hold these truths to be self-evident." There's no citation to the Bible. The citation is simply to creation itself. We have a brain and free will. As a natural part of these gifts from the creator we have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It would make no sense to have the gift of free will and a mind to use it if any meaningful right to life and liberty could be taken away at will by some dusty monarch. It is self-evident that King George III was the half-mad son of a krautlander, for example, not the hand of God on Earth.

 

[Molon Labe]

Excellent response, Cosmoline.

voilsb: This is a philosophical issue. To achieve a full understanding of it you’ll have to read the writings of Cicero, Polybius, Coke, Locke, Montesquieu, and Blackstone, among others.

But Cosmoline has it right… in a nutshell, we consider it “obvious†that all humans are simply born with certain rights.

You can also look at it another way... the last thing we want is a philosophy that states the government is the source of our rights. So if our real goal is to unequivocally state that the government is not the source of our rights, then we must state that our rights come from our Creator. Or that we’re simply born with them.

 

[voilsb]

So in other words they're not inalienable rights, they're simply stuff we as a society currently like that we don't want the government to be allowed to take away so we call them that to give credibility to our argument.

(yes, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I generally hold them to be inalienable rights, because it makes sense for them to be, but was wondering if there was anything more concrete on it than that)

 

[tcdrennen]

The only thing that all rational humans can agree on as a starting point is that each person's OWN LIFE is of value TO HIM or her. From that one can deduce ethical and moral guidelines for the individual, and extrapolate a social contract that enhances one's abilities to ensure the value of one's life while not interfering with the same processs for others.

Christianity, BTW, is revolutionary among world religions by making demands ONLY on an individual; the basic value system is based on one's SOUL, and ONLY the individual has ANY power to save or lose same.

State, Church, Community - all these are only valuable so long as they enhance the individual's ability to preserve and protect one's LIFE and SOUL (which is equivalent for an agnostic or non-believer to LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) [see where I'm going here? ] which leads us back to the idea of inalienable rights that adhere to the person a priori and cannot be denied by institutions nor surrendered by individuals.

This is a philosophical issue. To achieve a full understanding of it you’ll have to read the writings of Cicero, Polybius, Coke, Locke, Montesquieu, and Blackstone, among others.

Excellent starting points. I'd add Hobbes, Burke, Ricardo, Adam Smith, JS Mill; and Suetonius, Tacitus, Thucydides, Aristotle, Aquinas - for classics and classicals. More recently, Albert Jay Nock, Rose Wilder Lane, Ayn Rand, Jean Revel; and Belloc, Chesterton, Tolkien for a spiritual reference.

So many [books guns places people things] so little time.

 

[Barbara]

I believe they come from God.

If that were not the case, I would still believe our US Bill of Rights spells out the bare minimum needed to live with dignity our lives as human beings.

 

[Mr. Bombastic]

Rights are inherent.

 

[voilsb]

Barbara said:
I believe they come from God.

Based on what? Why do you believe this? As stated before, I believe this, too, for the above reasons: they're a fairly obvious extension of having free will.

Mr. Bombastic said:
Rights are inherent.

Okay. We already covered that. Why are they inherent?

 

[mantispid]

To me, my rights are inherent because I'm willing to die for them.

If I successfully defend my rights, I live and I have them to exercise. If I can't defend my rights successfully, I'm dead. If I'm dead, my rights can't be violated.

Pretty simple, eh?


My rights exist as a function of my will.

If a person isn't willing to die for their rights, then they really don't have any rights.

 

[Standing Wolf]

This lifelong atheist believes all human rights are inherent. If I had proof, I'd share it with you.

 

[Carlos]

edited out

 

[Molon Labe]

I look at it as a logical argument:

1. Each person has fundamental rights.

2. Government does not have authority to give people rights.

3. Therefore, people are born with rights.

4. If you’re not religious you stop at #3 (i.e. people are born with rights). If you are religious, you also believe these rights are a gift from God.

 

[voilsb]

Mantispid: Good call. That's actually a pretty good line of reasoning.

Standing Wolf: Thanks for being honest. Any ideas why you might feel that way? Or does it just "make sense"?

Malon Labe: any pressupposition to give a reason to #1? Otherwise, it sounds circular reasoning. "Human rights are inherent. Because they're inherent, the .gov doesn't grant them. Therefore, they're inherent." Granted, that's not quite what you said, but it's basically how I read it.

Thanks for the discourse, guys!

 

[Barbara]

Well, I believe we are created by God. Therefore, everything we are and everything we have is also the creation of God. What I meant was that even if I did not believe that, I would still believe the rights enumerated in the Constitution are inherent because without them human beings could not live to their fullest, most free, potential.

 

[Mr. Bombastic]

'Rights are inherent.'

Okay. We already covered that. Why are they inherent?

No, at the time of posting, I don't think it had been covered. (I was in a hurry, hence the three-word-post). I don't believe my rights have been granted to me by God, even though I am a Christian. Who is he to tell me that I have this right, but not that right? I am sentient (thank God ), so I will decide for myself what rights I need to be a free man. And the rights I believe are inherent in being free are the rights I believe I inherently have (or I wouldn't be free).

I have a right to free speech because I can comprehend that right exists, and it is against my sense of freedom to deny that right to myself and others.

The same can be said for the right to exist, to eat, sleep et al.

A dog cannot comprehend the right to free speech, so it does not have that right, but it can well comprehend the concept of the right to exist, so it has that right.

If your freedom infringes on others (like a murderer's right to exist would infringe on his victim's right to exist) the particular right of the infringer, relating to the aspect of freedom being infringed, is revoked.

Why? Because I say so.

Rights are the essence of freedom. They outline each aspect of what being free means. Without rights, there is nothing to define the concept of freedom.

Rights are the blueprints of freedom.

 

[spartacus2002]

Let's look at it like this:

1. before governments existed, each person's self-defense was that individual's responsibility. Would anyone argue that other people would have right to kill each other? Of course not. So, each individual would have a right to defend themselves - either individually, or thru mutual cooperation and defense agreements.

2. people sought to charge certain individuals in the group with the primary responsibility for defending the other individuals, probably for division-of-labor purposes (easier for the tribe to pick the berries and kill the deer if Joe and Schmoe are in charge of keeping the other tribe at bay).

3. As states and governments arose, people formalized #2 above by making the governmental employees their agents.

Now, there are two thoughts to consider at the end of this:

1. 2 and 3 above are pretty utopian; most govts arose because a strongman took over a demographic group in a certain geographic area. If a govt was formed against the people's will, do they lose their right to self-defense?

2. If a just govt is formed with the consent of the governed, do the people lose their right of self-defense just because a govt is formed?

In America, govt is our agent, not our lord and master. The people retain their rights, and we do not hand them over to the govt and bureaucrats REGARDLESS of whether 5 of the 9 dudes in black robes say we do.

THat's just self-defense. Anyone else care to argue other rights? I bet Don Galt could give a good explanation of the right to free trade.

 

[AnklePocket]

Our Rights are very alienable. They come from our ancestors who fought for them and our ancestors who fled to this country to live by their rule. They cease to exist when we stop being willing to fight for them as they're always at risk. I'm not quite sure why they're always at risk, but they are for some strange reason.
Maybe it's because we sometimes take these rights somewhat for granted although I can't comprehend living without them. That must be why I'm willing to die for them just as many before us have died for them. Maybe that's why real Americans don't like being told what to do - we already know what to do.
So, to summarize: Our Rights come from us and God gives us the opportunity to maintain them. The obligation is ours.

 

[CaesarI]

This is a VERY good post, and a VERY good topic. Regretably most replies have not been very good.

I got into an argument not too long ago with a friend who is the most rigorously logical person I know. I lost rather soundly.

I can prove every other right once I have the right to life, however, I can't prove that with nothing else. So if someone can provide a solid argument for the right to life that no rational person could disagree with, we can tack'em together.

However, in aid of this endeavor, I propose we define our terms :cough::
Rights: Moral principles sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context.

So then, one who took my right to life would become "bad".

While it is true that force of arms are often necessary to defend rights, they cannot create them. This claim can be disproven by example: I have a right to the property I earn. While I'm away a criminal breaks into my home, and takes my cup. If the source of my rights is that I defend them, then my right to property has ceased to exist because I have been robbed. While it is certainly the case that rights would cease to be of much importance if anyone could violate them with impunity, this would not mean that they do not exist (if one accepts the founder's principle that such rights are self-evident).

There are those on the left who would of course insist that "property is theft" and that by my exercising my right to property I am denying them the use of property which was once communal (particularly land). That is to say I am granting myself a monopoly on a particular piece of property. Such claims of course are not as valid for things like firearms as they are for land. In the case of a firearm it was something that would not of existed were it not for the person or persons who created them. In order that a person's creations be their property of course, it is first necessary that they own themselves, that is, have a right to life. Thus those who deny the right to property are also denying the right to life. This concept is of course lost on the leftists, but still doesn't prove the right to life.

Hmmm..... arguably... my right to life comes from, of all people, my parents!
Take the right to property argument:
1. The parents create something which heretofore did not exist, namely the child. Were it not for the existence of the parents, and further their decision to create a child, and further their decision to do the things necessary to create one (such as keep themselves alive, well fed, there's some part about birds and bees too) the child would not be
2. The child then becomes the property of the parents just like anything else they create.
3. The parents essentially "set the child free" at some point or another.

The only complication with this is that it also pre-supposes the parents own themselves.

-Morgan

 

[Moparmike]

I believe what some others have said. I have my rights because I "am." I think, therefore I am. I exist, therefore I have rights. I cant logically argue how I derive my rights or how they were "granted" to me, except to say that all the rights I have are also inherent to every other person.

For gun-relatedness, some might paraphrase Mao Tse Tung, and say "My rights come from the barrel of my gun." I am not 100% one of those people.


If we cannot define from where we derive our "inherent rights," then from where or by whom are they taken away?

 

[MJRW]

I don't get involved in this often, but I'm going to throw in my penny. I believe rights are inherent because man can exist without government, but government cannot exist without man. It is on the introduction of government that rights become subdued and controlled. Prior to that introduction, man has all rights. He may speak freely, assemble with what he wishes, practice a religion, find and use weapons, and so on.

 

[jfh]

AN EXCELLENT SUBJECT!

for us to weigh in on.

Pragmatically speaking, it seems to me that the observations--and maybe even the conclusions we can draw here--give THR readers and posters concepts that allow us to better deal with the 'living document' political 'philosophy' for the Constitution. It has long seemed to me that this is the fundamental tenant of the gun grabbers....

Over the course of my life I have gradually moved to a position of atheisim although I was raised as a Protestant Christian. So, like some others here, I do NOT see these 'inalienable rights' as granted by God. It does seem to me that we can start with believing that since we have the right to exist (once created), we have to right to maintain that state of being.

Since this 'philosophical split' is being used to build the anti-gunner's political rights--i.e., in our current collective consciousness as citizens, the living document argument appeals to many people--we need a well-built model to deal with it.

If we can build a rational, logical model that builds on these primary 'notions'--those necessary a priori assumptions--and eliminate a bit of the apparent conflict, then promote that model into the culture wars over firearms, we stand a much better chance at gaining the support of the general public.

Does anyone have a link to / the title of / textbook author / whatever a class 101 level for Philosophy?

 

[Sven]

I believe rights come from self-awareness, consciousness. "I am"

 

[matis]

Instead of "where do our rights come from, should we worry more about where they go?

First, I've zipped myself completely into my flame suit, gloves on vizer down.


In theory our rights come from G-d or we're born with them (natural rights theory). And as has been mentioned above there are many good books to read on the topic.


But actually our rights come from government!


Now understand that I'm not saying that they SHOULD come from government (I believe rights are inherent) -- only that, actually, they do.

And actually, you all agree with me.

For instance, those of you who carry, do you do so without a CCW?

Again, I'm not saying you should; I may get a CCW myself one day.

But if you first got a CCW, then you agree with me that after all the discussion of 2nd amendment "rights" dies down, it is the government that allows you to carry, which makes it a priviledge, actually. And then only subject to onerous rules and regulations, many of which are absurd and some even dangerous.

Another example: if you bothered to learn a good trade or profession and earn good money, and if you work for yourself as is the ideal, then government takes, whether you like it or not, at least 50% of every dollar you earn.

Fica = 15.03% (self-employed pay both sides) and the top bracket is (only after our wonderful tax reduction -- which evaporates after 10 years) 35%.


I just replaced a tire and battery. I paid $1 dollar to the state for each tire, one old and one new. And I paid $1.50 tax for the battery. Only then did I pay the 7% sales tax.


It's now November 23rd. By the end of the month I'll pay the real estate tax on my house or the state will take it from me. So, although, my house is now "paid for", actually I rent it in perpetuity from the government.

Writing the checks for my electricity and water and for my telephones I noticed all kinds of special taxes, about 30% of the total, that I can either pay or forgo the services.

Taking this all into account I'm lucky if I get to keep 35% of what I earn and that's in FLA where there is no state income tax.

In NYC, for example the poor saps also get to pay a state and a borough!! income tax, in addition fo the Federal W/H..


If I don't wear my seat belt I get fined. Should I spank my child, I risk the state taking her away. In most places in the US I can go to prison for defending myself with the appropriate weapon.


I could go on, but you know what I mean. Perhaps you might like to read a book by James Bovard called, Lost Rights. Whatever isn't mandated is now forbidden.


Now! tell me where my rights come from?


There was a joke the Soviets used to tell on themselves:

An American fellow-traveler was visiting the Moscow Zoo accompanied by his intourist guide (government agent). He stopped to read the plaque on the gorilla's cage.

It listed as his daily diet: 25 lbs of monkey chow, 20 lbs of mixed vegetables, 10 lbs of bananas, 2 gallons of fruit juices, vitamin and mineral supplements, etc. etc.

"My goodness!", gushed the American, "what a wonderful diet!"

"Yes, it is." Agreed the intourist guide, "But who's going to give it to him?"


We get more and more like this gorilla every day.


In theory we're free. But so were the Soviets.

In actuality?

Monkey chow, anyone?



matis

 

[jfh]

cheap trick, IMHO, matis

and actually little more than rhetorical game-playing.

IOW, using poster's comments on what starts as appearing to be an open-ended topic...and then playing it to rationalize your point.

Clearly, the issue you wished to examine appears NOT to be the source of "rights" per se, but the institution of various social contracts that exist in ANY form of social group / government. As a simple example: It isn't only the US Gov't or the Soviets for whom their citizens perform as "law abiding." and who would not disobey (certain) laws--and the 'conventions' of paying taxes for real estate would not generally be defined as "rent."

Are you trying to examine (individual) performance in accordance with 'the law?' or are you trying to determine where rights 'come from?'

So, what assumptions are you making that lead you to define that 'paying taxes' is the same as rent?

 

[mantispid]

I think you're mixing up rights and privileges.

For instance, when I decide to fully exercise (peacefully, of course!) my 2nd Amendment rights (which exist even if there wasn't a 2nd Amendment) in the distant future, I'll be carrying, permit or not.. and I'll probably be carrying something like an FN P90. The gun laws won't matter to me. My rights transcend any law. And my sense of ethics and morality is enough to keep me from ever lifting a finger against another person unless they are putting my life or the life of others in immediate danger.

For now, I'll voluntarily choose to suppress my own rights and go with the privileges simply because it's more conducive to my long-term goals of individual freedom in today's political climate. (I.e., being thrown in jail at this time isn't something I'm willing to risk at this time.)

Even government can't suppress my rights without my cooperation. I don't have to follow laws if I don't want to. All government can do is threaten a bigger and bigger hammer to drop on me. Again, if I'm willing to die for my rights, then it doesn't really matter *what* they threaten to do to me. Perhaps that is why some oppressive regimes threaten the entire family, rather than the individual. Fortunately, my family is raised that liberty is more important than family, so such threats wouldn't work on us.

Even a slave is partially responsible for his slavery. You can't be made a slave if you're willing to die to be free. If all would-be slaves had that attitude, slavery would be a profitless enterprise.