Rights. Where do they come from?

This was touched on in another thread, but I don't want to derail it too much, so I thought I'd make a new one asking this question. Where do you think Rights come from? Some contend as the Founders did that rights that everyone is endowed with inalienable and natural rights. I don't agree with that view and here is why. If everyone was endowed with natural and inalienable rights then no government or group could ever take away your rights and everyone would have the same rights, because they are part of the some natural law. That, of course, is not true.

I do not think rights are part of some natural law like gravity, which cannot be violated as it is a law of nature, but rather they are creations of society and that is why it is so important for our society to preserve and protect the rights we have won. What side of the debate do you come down on? Do rights come from nature or are they the creations of society?

If they were natural and God given they would simply exist with no need for enforcement.

If they are granted by X, they can be taken away by X.

Now, put Bush, Reagan, Nixon in the White House. Would you like them to be X ?

The Libertarians twist the idea of rights around to make it sound as though they protect individuals, but if the world was just a bunch of individuals we'd still be building castle keeps and killing and pillaging and taking what we are strong enough to take.

In a well functioning society we agree that we have rights. More importantly, we have equal rights. We lose them when we can't use them for the common good. And we want to extend them in order to care not only for ourselves but for those who can't do it for themselves (elderly, disabled, animal, children, etc.). Everything else is lagniappe (and the definition of that depends entirely on whose side you come down on).

That's my opinion.

Nowadays.
Those with the most money buy the most rights.

I especially note the hardships that accompany slipping out of the middle class.

--imm

Keep in mind that natural law can be destroyed -- nature can be destroyed --

and we're proving that every day -- from trees to oceans!!

Also keep in mind that the Japan earthquake moved the earth off its axis by roughtly 3" --

and the Chile earthquake in 2010 also moved the earth off its axis by 3" --

Global Warming means increasing numbers and intensity of earthquakes --

So where are we going -- how much "out of line" will we be with nature?


Further the primary enemy of nature and self-will -- of inalienable rights -- is violence.

Certainly there is no natural law that makes slaves of humans -- rather it is VIOLENCE

which does that --


Nor is violence something natural to humankind -- because obviously nature isn't suicidal!


Of course, Sumerian history suggests that "humans" were created as slaves ---

because visitors to this planet needed labor for work they were no longer willing to do --

mining of gold, perhaps -- and animal life on the planet couldn't be controlled to do this

work --

But as you argue into that information, you will find you are arguing against animal life

be free and not naturally enslaved -- or you are arguing against the fact that "humans" at

some point fought to free themselves -- i.e., a natural instinct.

and not granted by the government. In other words, they exist irrespective of government. The Bill of Rights is written in a way that recognizes that: The BoR does not grant rights to the people; it restricts things the government can do so that the inalienable rights are protected

The fact that governments can and frequently do violate human rights does not mean they don't exist. It means that the government in question does not respect those rights.

Het Skinner, how about that rather than "unrec."?

The government cannot give them rights, they can only enforce the laws to make sure they have them. If the people do not demand their rights, they soon lose them.

Rights are a creation of society and it is up to society to protect them. They are not granted by natural law.

they are not a natural law such as the laws of physics. But they are there before society! They are primal.

If rights are a creation of society then rights can also be denied by society. Gay marriage is an example that immediately comes to mind. Using your line of reasoning, gays shouldn't have the right to be married because society has not granted them that right.

A Government/Society cannot confer rights. It can only restrict them.

Without a society to create and protect rights, we are reduced to a "might makes right" situation where the strong oppress the weak.

Socity can attempt to suppress righs or protect ights. It cannot confer rights. "Might makes right" does not mean that the basic natural right doesn't exists in the first place. MMR takes rights away. If there are no rights, except those conferred by society, MMR cannot oppress. They cannot oppres because they are taking what doesn't actually exist. Which is, of course non-sensical. A right has to exist before it can be taken away.r

Why isn't the whole world free and why doesn't everyone have the rights that you say are "basic natural rights"? If they cannot practice those rights, they do not exist for them. They are only a dream.

A right is an intangible. You can't supress rights if they don't exist. Is marraige for Gays a basic civil right or not? It has not been conferred by much of society. Yet, most, I would think, here on DU would maintain that it is a Civil Right. Socity can only deny a right (which it shouldn't do, yet often does) it cannot confer one.

If I am wrong, so was Jefferson.

You seem t be thinking of a right as something that can be codified, like a law. It is not. It is much more basic.

Rights are the underlying theory behind law. Not the law itself. An abstract concept.

People thought they had a "right" to prevent the evil of alcohol from corrupting our society. Society decided differently. The people decided.

You may believe gay marriage is a right. In our minds and hearts, we may believe it to be so. However, until society decrees that it is a right, it is only in our imagination. It has to be codified into law to be real. It is an abstract concept until that time. The idea exists but the reality does not. Who makes it real? Society. We, the People.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

A right is an abstract. Whereas the law is the tangible concept. A goverment may have the authority to restrict anything it wishes, but it does not necessarrily have the right to do so.

Rights are abstracts.

It is up to the people to demand their rights and to protect those rights once they are gotten. Otherwise, there would be no dictators, no suppression of free speech, no blocking freedom of religion, no restriction to freedom to move around as you please. You do not have those freedoms unless you fight for them and demand them. They can be lost just as quickly as they can be gained. However, if people "think" they have those rights and that they are "inalienable", that is another question. That alone does not give them those rights.

White Wolf, as I read it is saying that rights only exist beacause society says so.

I on the other hand agree that must be protected bcause society/government can take them away. But hey originate more primally than from society itself. Society can and should guarantee protections of rights, but they do not confer them.

God?

Or more accurtely (our creator". I say they just are. They are an abstract.

Just like dreams.

I was created by my parents. IOW, you get them by being born human. A government can only limit them.

Rights are totally abstract. They evolve with the civilization of human instincts. Or maybe they are an illusion. :)


--imm

That gets me in the throat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycvJHQUqU1M

Self invention. Anything goes. Except pissing on someone else's coat. :)

--imm

It's kinda like my marriage, although the analogy isn't perfect. I'm in a marriage, it just isn't recognized by my government, but that doesn't mean what I have isn't a marriage.

would there be freedom?

Let's take the freedom of speech for example. If a Society/government does not restrict it, it is therefore free. Man in a natural element. But, if S/G passes laws that restrict that speech, then the freedom is taken away. Taken away by that same S/G.

The freedom is not given by the S/G. It just is. But, it can be taken away by S/G.

If there is no government or society and you say something one person doesn't like, then that person could bash your skull in and take away all your rights. Society creates rights, nature does not.

The right must exist before it can be taken away. What you're aguing is that repression is the natural order.

It is gone, taken away. It is not unalienable. If it was then no one could take rights away.

upset because their natural rights had been taken away. You're arguing that the crown was within it's right's to do so because they were he arbiters of societal law ie. the government.

And, I think unalienable was used to mean rights that should not be violated. Any right can be violated. the FF's knew this. That was their protest.

With you're line of reasoning, equality will never, ever happen. because, according to you, society can decide that any group may be denied rights. Civil Rights becomes a meaningless term.

I argue that society as a whole must demand that everyone is treated equal, because it won't happen until we change society. Rights are created by society and must be defended and expanded by society.

Equality would be a basic right, which you deny exists. It's only a right if the government says so. And that, my friend, is nonsense.

What I'm saying is no one is born with a right to free speech or anything similar, they must be fought for. How about this the Constitution says we have a right to keep and bear arms, yet a lot of countries in Europe restrict that right heavily. Their societies have decided that you don't have a right to keep and bear arms, the American society has decided you do. It is all up to your society.

Where does the idea originate? Basic rights are primal. They are more basic than law.

There are probably many "rights" that have not yet originated as ideas. Do they still exist. We can argue that the ideas exist but the rights are not there unless you have the freedom to practice them equally in our society.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Take it up with Jefferson.

"incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred." Rights are capable of being alienated, surrendered, and transferred. It has happened countless times throughout history.

because a King no longer got to decide which rights are capable of being alienated, surrendered and transferred.

It can be subjugated; and that is the basis for the fight for rights. In the cas of he DoI, rebellion agfainst the suppression of rights by the British.

and was further enshrined in the constitutions and governing documents of various countries.

Basically we agree to allow each other certain rights and freedoms. These vary from country to country, even from US state to US state, but they are all essentially formalized matters of law or legal convention.

It's essentially a contract. In exchange for an acknowledgment that we reserve rights to ourselves, we promise to respect the laws and not go all la Terreur on their asses.

Rights are derived from the those who consent to be governed, which is society as a whole.

It requires an unhealthy level of passivity and deference to "God-given" laws and social constructs.

It does not say deerived. It says reserved.

In Ancient Greece to have the right to be a citizen you had to contribute something to the state in return. It is a symbiotic relationship to ensure order, and justice between the state and the individual.

It deserves more recs, in my opinion.

I think the problem there is that this, like mos of my threads, is a controversial subject that a lot of people disagree with so they unrec it based on the opening post. I prefer to judge the thread as a whole when it comes to recs and see if it produces a good debate.

Throughout history, various governments have tried to protect or circumvent human freedom and human dignity, but the governments are not the source of rights. The creator is.

The differences in rights among the several nations is because nations are run by humans and humans screw things up and do things imperfectly. If a government or person trespasses against a person's rights, that is a moral offense, whether it happens in democracy or in a land that has never known freedom.

Libya would like to have one of those. How do they get it? Do they wait for their creator to give it to them? Or do they demand it as a people, as a society? A thought without action is of little purpose to people that are suffering.

All people in all nations, because they are human, deserve to be treated with respect and deserve to be free.

to make pretend berries, which were made into a magic giant gnome souffle by Zeus, who ate it and then went to bed and dreamed up Vishnu who went with the Tooth Fairy to his astral workbench and assembled assorted UFO and Yeti parts into a mobius jar, and out of that jar popped "God".

Who then made humanity, and gave us freedom.

And that they are just a construct created by human beings. And what follows is that rights change according to the whims of humans.

then they're not much good, are they?

Any no president, king or even a zoning board has the authority to take my rights.

Ever try to consider a framework where you might be able to arrive at inherent rights that isn't dependent upon supernatural beings?

If my rights depend one humans, they only last until the thugs steal them or the political winds blow them away. I prefer more concrete foundations.

We don't even know if there is a deity at all. Besides, I've always found the Judeo-Christan God to be very "might makes right" kind of thinking. God is all-powerful so we shouldn't question him or his will.

And my God wants me to be free and treated with respect.

And the idea that rights either depend on people or on supernatural beings is a false dichotomy.

The answer is they come from God. But humans have to work hard to ensure that freedom and human dignity protected in accordance with the creator's will. Humans are not the SOURCE of freedom and are not the SOURCE of human dignity - just the stewards.

You'll have to do better than that.

And can I pick which landlord I prefer? Can I pick the one that doesn't make me wear magic underwear?

"Stop Touching Yourself, Kent"

"The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government."

The will of the people however imperfect, is (unlike the creator) real.

So where is this 'God' fellow?

<crickets>

All right, next.

premise.

Erosion is a type of change, eradication certainly is a type of change. When a society decides to give up the right to keep weapons in exchange for a safer society, they are surrendering a right.

or founding documents and legal structure. They are only valid as long as they are adhered to.

Rights exist. All rights belong to the people, inherantly.


Constitutions only serve to PROTECT rights which exist, not grant them - at least such is the case with the US constitution.

Not simply for your contributions to this thread, but for starting one that has had the most intellectual power I've seen here for quite some time. I noticed that your OP spawned responses that were quite thoughtful in their nature.

Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

You:

"the Founders did that rights that everyone is endowed with inalienable and natural rights."

What is missing from your summary is the answer to your question.

What about all the others? Even some that did not exist when that was written? Were we doing the work of the Creator when we, the Society, granted women the right to vote and forbid slavery in our nation?

Governments can take away a little or a lot of the pre-existing freedom.

Slavery was instituted by government and was an infringement on God-given freedom. Abolition of slavery was simply a government rollback of a restriction on freedom that had been previously instituted by government.

The word "God" doesn't appear once in the Constitution. The "creator" spoken of in the Declaration is quite likely the Deist "God", which bears absolutely no relation to any sort of interventionist Deity favored by Christianity.

which implies there are others.

but it doesn't mention them specifically. We cannot say with certainty which ones they may have meant? We can guess.

They come from a society, this is supported by the fact that societies can take away rights or expand them. Some would argue that when a society puts you in jail for criticizing the government or practicing the wrong religion, that your rights still exist, but are merely being repressed. I think that is just arguing over semantics to justify their point of view. If you are being thrown in jail for something then you don't have the right do that thing, even if I think you should.

Jews did not have the right to live in Germany in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Is that what you really believe?

Yes! Did they, that is a different question entirely. They certainly should have been able to, but the society of Germany said no and thus their rights were taken away. If their rights were inalienable then those rights could not have been altered in anyway, since that is the definition of inalienable.

If I steal something from you it's still yours, you just have to get it back




"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
Thomas Jefferson

That is why I firmly believe they are a creation of society. Humans impose their will upon nature to create a just society, but nature itself is far from just or free. The only rights you have in nature is to try and survive.

"within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others"

I take that to mean that we should all have equal rights with others around us. Not more and not less.
Tyrants can take away our liberties if we let them. Naturally that would violate the rights of individuals.

The right is always there. What you seem to be implying is that Germany was correct to do this because society confers rights. If Germany was correct, we have no business (right) to crticize what was endorsed by the pevailing social view.

We have no business being concerned aout Women's rights in some Islamic countries because these rights simply do not exist. and since we are not part of that society we should shut -up.

But, if the rights are basic. There for all people. And they are being suppressed by a repressive regime; we should be concerned.

Thanks!

nt

Riddle me that, Batman.

"endow" Him with rights. He is Almighty God. No one can grant Him any rights that He does not already have by virtue of being who He is.

So because of my infallible logic, your almighty creator now DOES need someone to endow him with rights.

And unlike "God", there is physical evidence that *I* exist.

Now we arrive at the crux.

Pride. It is the root of all sin. Until you know humility, you will never understand.

I exist. There is physical evidence of my presence in our 3 dimensional universe.

That's way more of an accomplishment than your sky-man can claim.

That's some pretty nasty pride right there. As long as you refuse to humble yourself, you will not be able to understand what I am saying. I hope it happens for you.

Beyond that? I can't put myself in "God's" place any more than I can put myself in Zeus's place, or Athena's Place, or Vishnu's place... because THEY DON'T EXIST.

You are granted free will. Make your own decision. All the best to you.

You're presuming you're qualified to tell me all sorts of shit about what I'm 'granted' because you claim an invisible magic man in the sky says it's so.

See, I exist. That's a fact, in as much as anything is a fact. I posit that by virtue of my existence, I have rights inherently, I don't NEED anyone or anything to 'grant' them, thankyouverymuch.

Your argument is that you have an invisible friend who is the only one who can grant rights, but of course you can't prove he's there, and HE doesn't need to be granted rights, of course, because HE- your invisible, unprovable friend- has them inherently. But we don't.

(He also allegedly wrote a book several thousand years ago presumably explaining the existence of the entire Universe, but he left out minor details like dinosaurs and black holes and dark matter. But I digress.)


And that's supposed to be some sort of argument-winning logic, too.

make your own choice. That's the beauty of free will. You have chosen, for now at least, to mock God by referring to Him as "an invisible magic man in the sky."

Do you think you are being original or clever by mocking God? Please. It's been done before. It never ends well.

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7

Here's a question for you: Does "God" have free will?

You think you are so clever. You think you can outsmart God.

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." Proverbs 14:12

Yes, or No?

It is like asking whether God can make a stone too heavy for Him to lift. It is sophomoric.

Sophomoric? Exactly. And silly.

against God is unwise, but is not silly. It is dead serious. Each of us is given a choice. We do not have to accept God. We are free to reject Him. You have chosen that path, and you have every right to do so. I of course am saddened by your choice, and hope that at some point before your death you will reconsider. Nevertheless, it is your choice and I respect it.

You've run through every idiotic theistic argument in the book;

1) it's that way because that's the way it is
2) you better believe it or else
3) you can't ask that question/talk about that
4) -sniff- your lack of belief is hurting my/"God's" feelings

rinse. repeat.

Guess what. "He's" a figment of your imagination. I will happily "choose" to go to my grave believing that, and if it turns out the universe really IS run by the incoherent, vain, scientifically illiterate Deity of the Judeo-Christian Bible, and "he" really has nothing better to do than worry about and punish people for not believing in "him", then I will skedaddle off to the fiery furnace singing this song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH7I6ibA-SM

if god exists, god has no human form. god is the all in all, not a male.

in order to begin to pretend you know the first thing about what god may be like in any way, you need to get beyond the ridiculous visualization of god as a man... as a "he."

small minds make a small god.

the god of the bible is a small god. jealous. petty. vindictive.

full of human emotions - not any sort of wisdom.

but to ask whether "he" has free will is "meaningless".

Classic.

and I encourage you to do further reading on it.

Here is a page that addresses the issue.

I can't say what I think.

I would encourage you to read Bart Ehrman.
http://www.bartdehrman.com/

At one point in his life he was as deluded as you are. However, he studied the bible in its original texts and came to understand that it is a book of lies.

To claim that a misogynist and patriarchal belief system that was formed in a pre-literate culture has anything useful to say about the gender of a god is a joke.

the point is that your view of god is too small to get beyond the prejudices of your indoctrination.

I was as deluded as Bart D. Ehrman is now. Yes, I was atheist for most of my life. I was only saved in 2003. So I know exactly where you and Mr. Ehrman are coming from.

hope that works out for you.

All the best to you and yours, as well. :)

after you were "saved?"

iow, to accept a fundamentalist doctrine of salvation, did you have to throw out all other forms of fact too?

It depends on your frame of reference. See Einstein.

this is why so many Jews who I know find it funny that so many fundamentalists claim affinity with them. Fundies and their variations use the old testament as a cudgel to beat others over the head into unquestioning submission.

this is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the view of the study of the question of god, god's will, the issue of justice, of mercy, of ANY issue that really comprises the core of religious, and therefore ethical, thought - thought, not doctrine.

it's also the EXACT OPPOSITE of the view of the founders who used logic, history, the lessons of other cultures - such as Greek, Roman and Native American democracies and republics to overcome the monotheistic subjugation to a king - such a mindset is part and parcel of fundie think - blind submission - but is abhorrent to any nation that wants to use reason and reality to create a more perfect union.

so we know that they didn't really think all men are created equal. Thus, what they said was just their inconsistent opinion; it was politically convenient for themselves at the time.

It's much better to discuss this for ourselves, rather than assume an old document got it right, without criticizing it.

This near worship of the Founders in the U.S. is, in my opinion, really holding us back as a nation.

because he recognized that the govt he and his compatriots were forming was a product of its time and place with limitations on it created by the limitations of human minds - the very same sort of traditional worship that made it possible to codify a divine right of kings also now makes it possible to codify a divine right of capital - both are constructs of a societies with powerful people who benefit from these beliefs and seek to perpetuate them to perpetuate their power.

some of the founders also knew that slavery was wrong. in order to create a coalition that could fight against George and his favored East India Corporation, the founders compromised on the basic rights of an entire class of people.

Rights are most important when they protect others, not your own, since humans are going to be selfish as a means of survival.

I said that rights are endowed by the Creator. You said that the Founders did not abolish slavery. Your statement is a nonsequitur.

how can they be taken away? Which happens all the time, saying that they are merely being suppressed is nothing more than trying to cloud the issue with semantics. Suppression is a form a change and something that is inalienable cannot be changed in anyway.

that does not mean that the right no longer exists. It simply means that the government is infringing on the right.

Besides, you are focusing on the word "inalienable," but my post focused on the words "endowed by their Creator." My point was that the answer to the OP's question was in the words that the poster intentionally or inadvertently omitted from his/her summary.

Again, muriel_volestrangler's statement that the Founders failed to abolish slavery is not on point, and certainly does not refute my statement about rights being endowed by the Creator.

They don't. Rights are a very subjective and abstract thing. It is up to the people to define their rights and create a government to defend those rights. In the U.S. the right to keep guns is considered on par with freedom of speech, but in many European countries it is not and in some it is illegal to own guns. This is just one example, if rights are endowed by a Creator, then said Creator is not very consistent at all.

They are suppressed. Which is not the same thing! The right, which is an abstract idea, still exists. All the Tyrant can do is create an environment where that right cannot be enjoyed. He cannot destroy the rightn itself. If he could, then there would be no hope. The impetus to fight and protect these rights comes from the fact that these rights are eternal!

The US Declaration of Independence was written by men who did not actually believe what it claimed - they owned slaves, or were content for other Americans to do so. Even if it wasn't so inconsistent with their actual beliefs and actions, it would still only be the opinions of one group of men. It's fairly irrelevant to the discussion - you yourself have already had to point out that the founders of the USA were fundamentally wrong about slavery (in the opinion of us all), and thus wrong about the fundamental right of liberty.

If you want to convince others that rights come from a Creator, then you need to show some evidence for the existence of that Creator. Pointing to a reference in a political document is not evidence.

slaves always had the right to be free. But that society suppressed that right.

The OP asked where rights come from. The OP used a phrasing that seemed to have been clipped from the Declaration of Independence, but mangled by omitting what is stated therein as to the source of the rights. The OP said something like "endowed with unalienable rights." I merely pointed out that if the OP was going to be copying from the Declaration of Independence, he/she could find the answer to his/her question regarding the source of the endowed rights by simply looking at what he/she omitted from his/her summary. The Declaration of Independence does not say "endowed with unalienable rights." It says "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Indeed, this is described as a "self-evident" truth. If you have a problem with this because of your philosophical or religious or anti-religious belief that there is no Creator, then that is your issue, but it is largely irrelevant to the issue that I was addressing with the OP.

so when you say "the Declaration says they come from the Creator; that answers your question", all you are doing is stating a bald assertion by the Founders, which the thread starter has already said he disagrees with, as if it's a fact, and as if that clears up his question. He didn't mangle the phrasing; he said he disagreed with their conclusion, and he happened not to write the 'by the Creator' bit. Mentioning a Creator does not address the OP at all.

The "self-evident" description is another example of how the Founders got it wrong. It is a rather pathetic cop-out to say your 'truths' are 'self-evident', especially when they include something that a lot of people do not believe exists - ie a Creator.

the existence of a Creator is self-evident from Creation itself. If you find a grandfather clock, you can reasonably conclude that it was built by someone. You could posit that the grandfather clock was "always there" or that it spontaneously "sprang into existence" out of nothing, but those seem rather far-fetched, and they violate known laws and observable facts about the universe. So the reasonable conclusion for most people is that the existence of Creation is powerful evidence for a Creator. If it is not evident to you, that does not mean it is not self-evident. It just means that it is not evident to you.

All that geology, biology, astronomy, and physics hasn't made much of a dent in your worldview, has it?

was it at the big bang?

with multi-cellular organisms?

with the advent of sexual reproduction in cells?

since the story of creation as presented in the bible is a metaphor, not a description of reality, how do you determine the point at which a creator endowed rights to living organisms?

do plants have rights endowed by a creator?

or do you claim that the creation story is a representation of fact?

if so, please explain how this story is a fact when every branch of science indicates your position is a lie.

They also saw nothing wrong with not letting women vote.

Did the Creator find that all right too? Did he change his mind in the early 20th century?

duh.

However, tangibly, I'm at the mercy of my fellow man.
So, ultimately, society where I reside.
Short answer.

In case some haven't noticed, nature is worse than waterboarding. It's being torn limb from limb. There are no rights in nature, except the right to obey gravity, and the right to starve, and be eaten.

That's the long answer to we created rights. We made a safe environment in which to enjoy life. Ultimately, I believe, the law of nature claims all. The rights we have created are only temporary at best. But that's over a long period of time.

I think that they are the creations of society. But I also think that the only rights you keep are the ones you're willing to fight for. And die for.

Does this mean you have a view different than the views listed in the OP? If so, I'd be very interested to hear them.

or God or society. I think that rights are TAKEN from society. As I said, rights are only as good as how strongly you fight for them.

Good thought provoking post BTW, wolf. But then I expect that out of you. :)

I'' ve only read the titles to all the responses that you've got but I was very much surprised not to see anyone mention Thomas Hobbs and John Locke. In Hobbs you will find what I think of as the father of the Republican way of thinking, and in Locke you will find an early Democrat .

Hobbs: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html

Locke: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/#SecTreGov

At least in my opinion. I always felt Thomas Paine had a lot in common with the modern day Left.

He was pretty fucking MILITANT. The modern day Left has to go a little bit to get to that level of militancy. :)

I agree - rights are the product of civilization.

They're based upon an understanding of the golden rule.

by God or government or even society. They are TAKEN by the people themselves. And to take them, sometimes (most of the time?) you have to fight for them.

to the will of the simple majority.

They have no independent existence.

Whatever rights we have are granted to us by cats.

Grudgingly.

that "everyone is endowed with inalienable and natural rights." The liberal hierarchy of rights are life, liberty and property.

When you say that rights are creations of society you are describing legal rights, which are granted by the government to the governed. These so-called "rights" are typical with less developed cultures and governments.

For instance I do not believe in the right to property at all. That is simply the right to exploit others. It is a creation of the capitalist class to legitimatize their system of oppression and exploitation. If anything is typical of less developed cultures it is capitalism, that needs to be abolished for us to advance as a species.

Do you believe that you own yourself?

the great treaty of peace was a way to negotiate peace between different groups - to avoid warfare.

but those nations did not come out of an ideology that stated that land was property - their beliefs held that they were trustees for the land where they lived - but they did not own that land.

the ability to survive by having adequate resources available to a person or a group is the issue - not property rights per se. I'm not opposed to property rights - but they are not a primary right - they're a choice a society makes - and when property is treated as more important as a right than liberty, life or the pursuit of happiness - then that's a perversion of basic ideas of the right of all persons to the same respect under the law (as with slavery, for instance, or with the recent bail out of banks to the detriment of the American people.)

So while they may not have recognized individual property rights, they certainly recognized and fought to establish and maintain tribal property rights.

But as I previously mentioned, the idea of individual rights, is the result of thousands of years of philosophical evolution that has not occurred in some less advanced cultures.

The did not even believe in the concept of owning the land, they could not fathom the idea of buying or selling land. Once again, the right to property is just a myth to legitimatize a system of exploitation and slavery.

which you conflate with the right to claim ownership to property. Access to resources for survival is not an issue of civilization - it's a basic survival issue found across the spectrum of the animal kingdom. Property rights are a codification of this basic fear of a lack of resources. In a society that wastes far more than it consumes, the protection of people from such basic survival issues is a primary indicator of civilization.

If you are a wealthy society that is willing to let others starve, go without health care, go without a sense of safety for their persons - you are not an advanced civilization - you're a barbarian horde. Property rights made it possible for settlers to treat Native Americans as worthy of genocide. That's not civilization either. That's a barbarian horde.

The great treaty of peace was a way to end disputes - and this treaty, btw, inspired Franklin and the other founders of the U.S. They incorporated parts of it in our own constitution.

If you think that Native Americans were a less advanced culture - well, you're sort of not informed enough to make any statements about civilization. Esp. considering the founders thought the Onondaga were advanced enough to influence their own thinking on culture.

Western European culture was not advanced enough to recognize intellectual capacity and rights for women at a time when some Native American cultures had had such cultural advances in place for a long time. One problem with the history of western civilization is that the dominant religion was (and is) reactionary and stupid when recognizing the rights of others. That's a long problem - one that sadly infects this nation to this day.

You are arguing from the libertarian position. Of course I own myself. I do not have the right to own a factory and exploit the labor of others, since by definition profit is exploitation. You make profit by not paying someone the full value of their labor simple as that. I should be able to own a house sure, but I should not be able to charge someone money to live on land I am not using simply because a piece of paper says I 'own' the land.

not private property. There IS a difference.

I should have made that distinction clearer. Maybe I should repost the section from the Manifesto dealing with that?

Of course, some folks probably don't WANT to be educated. :rofl:

If you recall, King George and the Torries were the conservatives, while the American Revolutionaries were the liberals.

Classical liberalism has very little in common with modern day liberalism. Your statement that without property rights other rights would not exist, nearly matches what Ron Paul said a few days ago word for word.

Without property (in this case food) rights, I have no right to life.

Don't try and twist the issue. I have never seen a single person bring food into an argument on property rights. Food like a house would fall into personal property, which as point out above is not private property. We both know that by property rights you are referring to the right own a factory, corporation, or other entity to exploit people's labor and make a profit off it while not paying them the full value of their work. The right to own private property is the right to exploit others, it is as simple as that.

i sympathize with your concerns.

These statements are all true, false, and meaningless in some sense.

surely there are SOME things about liberalism that marxists would want to retain in their future society, like procedural democracy, formal equality before the law, individual liberties within certain limits, and so on. you don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I haven't talked to any Marxists who do either(well except a few Stalinists and Maoists, but I don't like them anyway) I support all of the things you mentioned, I do not support the notion of private property, however.

Moreover, the more rigid the adherence to those constructs, the happier a society is.

This, of course, depends on which rights are chosen to be established. You see the more developed societies slowly moving towards better sets of rights, and better enforcement, than they had before. Roughly.

a legitimate option to curtail or remove those rights if it feels the need. Inalienable or natural rights are not granted by any institution and may not be curtailed or removed. The key to the puzzle is the practical exercise of those rights. societies may, illegitimately in my opinion, use the power of the state to curtail or remove those rights, but the rights exist whether exercised or not.

Some were important enough to enumerate and just because those were enumerated does not mean others don't exist. Civil liberties are another matter and they do come from society.

They don't 'come from' anywhere. They just ARE.

I'm sorry I don't have one of these well-reasoned, logical arguments, like "they come from a magic invisible man in the sky"

Such as that offered by the OP, that 'rights' are a construct of society, the correct answer.

Your explaination is hardly better than the theists.

nevertheless, I assert that I have some, even in a vacuum. One right I have is the right to make that assertion.

If you disagree, you're welcome to try and stop me.

because basically everything is a social construct except for the moon and the stars.

To quote Jeremy Bentham.

Regretfully.

they got all the rights that money can buy.

To unilaterally declare violence not an option is to signal surrender.

One cannot accumulate wealth without the forces necessary to extricate it from the working collective.

Governments rule by consent of the ruled. History has demonstrated that, when the people rise up en masse, governments fall. Royalty or republic, it doesn't matter. In order to rule, you must have the consent of the ruled. No government in history has ever survived a general rebellion.

"Rights" are those subjects which the "ruled" refuse to compromise on. They are the subjects which, when violated, are justification for the overthrow of the ruling government. They are the rules which, by the demand of the people, the government must abide by.

Given that reality, it's safe to say that rights spring directly from the common morality and social mores of the people demanding them. If the people, en masse, say "This is my right", then it simply IS.

Rights come from the people.

And we each try limit the instances in which we infringe on those reciprocal rights. Its a social contract. One that began with small groups of people, the "me" and "you" in my example.

Over time, "you and I" grew to include more and more people. The notion being, if you "join us", then those "out there" who would hurt you (take your rights) won't be able to do so. "We" take care of "us".

"We" let others "join us", only if they agree to give everyone else the same rights they want for themselves.

And so, I agree with you ... the "rights" ultimately come from the social group who joined together.

Slave owners claimed to have a right to have slaves. Feudal lords believed that they had a right to their powers.

Undeterred by the government campaign to discredit him, Paine issued his Rights of Man, Part the Second, Combining Principle and Practice in February 1792. It detailed a representative government with enumerated social programs to remedy the numbing poverty of commoners through progressive tax measures. Radically reduced in price to ensure unprecedented circulation, it was sensational in its impact and gave birth to reform societies. An indictment for seditious libel followed, for both publisher and author, while government agents followed Paine and instigated mobs, hate meetings, and burnings in effigy. The authorities aimed, with ultimate success, to chase Paine out of Great Britain. He was then tried in absentia, found guilty though never executed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine

between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.