A very good question, and one that I think has not been adequately answered (ever, not just in this thread.) If y'all will forgive my stepping into the pop philosophy:
A right is a social construct* between two or more people, with the intention of defining their behavior towards each other. For lack of a better term, a right is an agreement that is universal in both scope and application. If such agreement cannot be universally applied, then it is not a right.
I'm going to start with the assumption that there are only three rights, life, liberty, and property**, and all other rights are restatements of the same. The three primary rights all spring from a common concept - that it is immoral to initiate force against other sapient beings. Killing other people, imprisoning them, or stealing their property all count as initiation of force.
The concept mentioned above is sometimes referred to as the NAP, the Non-Aggression Principle. It's not a new concept; most religious texts contain an analogue to it. So the question becomes, "Where did the NAP come from?" If you're a religious type, you could say that it came from God. If you're an atheist (as I am) you would probably say that some individual invented the NAP, and signed on to by other individuals who thought it was a good idea. Other individuals probably didn't thing much of the idea, and formed other social constructs (as an aside, many of these early social constructs, mainly the ones that concentrated force in the hands of a few, evolved into governments.) Classic memetic propagation of ideas ensued, and the fact that the principle of non-aggression is still around gives it some degree of historical validity.
In short, rights come from one's status as a thinking individual, and his actions reflect the rights he is accorded. If one lives his life in accordance with a certain idea set, then he can claim those same rights as his own. For example, a big, nasty person who makes a habit of killing and enslaving others cannot claim his rights when confronted with someone even bigger and nastier.
- Chris
* - Note that I didn't say social contract. The idea of the social contract is a faulty one. Valid contracts require a positive action to indicate acceptance, as well as a set of start and stop conditions.
** - Some say that property is the only true right, and that life and liberty spring from it in the form of self-ownership. I find this idea pretty compelling.
A right is a social construct* between two or more people, with the intention of defining their behavior towards each other. For lack of a better term, a right is an agreement that is universal in both scope and application. If such agreement cannot be universally applied, then it is not a right.
I'm going to start with the assumption that there are only three rights, life, liberty, and property**, and all other rights are restatements of the same. The three primary rights all spring from a common concept - that it is immoral to initiate force against other sapient beings. Killing other people, imprisoning them, or stealing their property all count as initiation of force.
The concept mentioned above is sometimes referred to as the NAP, the Non-Aggression Principle. It's not a new concept; most religious texts contain an analogue to it. So the question becomes, "Where did the NAP come from?" If you're a religious type, you could say that it came from God. If you're an atheist (as I am) you would probably say that some individual invented the NAP, and signed on to by other individuals who thought it was a good idea. Other individuals probably didn't thing much of the idea, and formed other social constructs (as an aside, many of these early social constructs, mainly the ones that concentrated force in the hands of a few, evolved into governments.) Classic memetic propagation of ideas ensued, and the fact that the principle of non-aggression is still around gives it some degree of historical validity.
In short, rights come from one's status as a thinking individual, and his actions reflect the rights he is accorded. If one lives his life in accordance with a certain idea set, then he can claim those same rights as his own. For example, a big, nasty person who makes a habit of killing and enslaving others cannot claim his rights when confronted with someone even bigger and nastier.
- Chris
* - Note that I didn't say social contract. The idea of the social contract is a faulty one. Valid contracts require a positive action to indicate acceptance, as well as a set of start and stop conditions.
** - Some say that property is the only true right, and that life and liberty spring from it in the form of self-ownership. I find this idea pretty compelling.