NationStates Jolt Archive

Is a civil right the right to enslave someone?

Is it the right to murder your best friend?

The right to freedom of speech?

The right to freedom of religion?

The right to masturbate?

The right to hijack an airplane?

What exactly is defined as a right and what makes it so?

A civil right is something you exercise in polite company.

I'm not sure quite what a "civil" right is but I know about the theory of human rights (which doesn't really make sense if you break it up into disjoint pieces).

Human rights emerged amoungst liberal medieval/enlightenment thinkers. The first mention of them I know of was by Spanish Scholastic monks protesting against the murder, enslavement and plunder of South American natives by Spanish and Portuguese colonists. Rights were most famously championed by John Locke and the classical Liberals. Nowadays such people are called Libertarians. Many of the "rights" we hear of today are incoherent babble about such things as tea breaks during work. The original theory of rights is both coherent and radical.

It is important to put the ideas in historical context. A big issue in the time of Locke etc was slavery. We all agree now that slavery is wrong (or do we? see later) but how do you explain that to someone who doesn't believe it? Why is slavery wrong?

The Libertarian answer is that each person owns themselves and thus cannot be owned by another. This is the "axiom of self ownership". Then, if you own yourself you must own your labour, and by extension the product of your labour i.e. property.

So human rights theory says you can do whatever you like with your own body and property which you have aquired just ownership of so long as you don't agress against the person and property of others. This includes the right to, say, smoke pot as well as more familiar rights such as freedom of speech, and freedom of association.

This means that a) taxation is a violation of your rights b) any law prohibiting acts other than agression against person and property is a violaiton of your rights (e.g. victimless crimes).

There is one major difference between Human and Civil Rights, that being their origon. Civil Rights are the inaliable rights granted to civilians, generally under a Constitution. By contrast, Human Rights are believed to be a kind of divine garunteed system of rights granted simply by being human.

That said, a right is any freedom of garuntee that remains protected, or veiwed as essential.

Furthermore it is useful not note the difference between Positive and Negative Freedoms (ie Positive and Negative Rights). A Positive Right is a right that is benificial to society and the individual, for example Freedom to Vote. A Negative Right is a freedom that has negative effects on society or another individual, often posing a quandry over individual rights versus social responability. An example of a Negative Freedom might be the Freedom of Speech being used to rally a group towards violent aims.

A civil right is a polite direction.

There is one major difference between Human and Civil Rights, that being their origon. Civil Rights are the inaliable rights granted to civilians, generally under a Constitution. By contrast, Human Rights are believed to be a kind of divine garunteed system of rights granted simply by being human.

That said, a right is any freedom of garuntee that remains protected, or veiwed as essential.

Furthermore it is useful not note the difference between Positive and Negative Freedoms (ie Positive and Negative Rights). A Positive Right is a right that is benificial to society and the individual, for example Freedom to Vote. A Negative Right is a freedom that has negative effects on society or another individual, often posing a quandry over individual rights versus social responability. An example of a Negative Freedom might be the Freedom of Speech being used to rally a group towards violent aims.
If they are inalienable how do you "grant" them?

Negative rights are when people are obligated NOT to do something to you, namely not agress against you or your property. Positive "rights" mean people have an obligation to do something for you e.g. provide health care, "education" etc. Both are enforced at gunpoint. Clearly they are incompatible, you can't guarantee everyone "free" healthcare unless you either steal from someone to pay for it or enslave doctors (as the Belgians did by conscripting them into the army!).

"Social responsibility" consists of not violating anyones (negative) rights, IMO.

I´m not English: but I think there is a rather simular distinction in my language:
Human Rights apply to all humans
Civil rights (or citizen rights) apply only to CITIZENS; e.g. the right to vote, e.g.

I´m very much in favour of a clear distinction between the two. A nation has first and for most to take care of their citizens. I´m therefore for a good protection of those rights for the citizens.
Foreigners of course can not claim this rights, as they apply to citizens only.

All a chap needs for happiness and serenity are a well-stoked pipe, a generous measure of fine gin with tonic and fresh lime, good quality laudanum, a pristine tweed suit, a ready supply of hair grease, a plushly cushioned couch for lounging and the undivided attention of a dozen or so nubile wenches.

Mmmaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarvellous.

Is a civil right the right to enslave someone?

Is it the right to murder your best friend?

The right to freedom of speech?

The right to freedom of religion?

The right to masturbate?

The right to hijack an airplane?

What exactly is defined as a right and what makes it so?

That it seems, is the point. Depending on your beliefs, each of these different things could be civil rights, or they could be prohibited.

The idea of a right and the corresponding resposibility are dynamic, they can be set by different states different ways.

if you're looking for a definition, a civil right is a liberty granted to a citizen by a government. This right is granted as an act of trust between a state and its citizens. Generally, the relatiohship between a citizen and a state is that the state may impose laws that govern a society in return for providing direction for the country and governing on behalf of the citizens. The state is granted powers that allow it to do its job, and a right is a stated limitation on these powers. It's basically you can do what you need to do to govern, except [insert right here]

so realistically, a civil right can be anything, depending on the power of the government.

of course, rights have evolved beyond simple rules of governing; consider: muslim women no longer have the right to wear a hijab in school. Women wearing hijabs aren't going to bring down the government or make it hard for Chirac to win another government, but for some reason they've decided to remove that right. This is not in the spirit of civil rights because it's not a "reasonable limitation" on freedom, as there is no reason NOT to allow them to wear the veil. I feel the same way about big crucifixes and skullcaps. Still, the government has decided to remove this right.

Then what do we define as human rights and why so? What is a right? Do we need rights or do we just WANT them? :?:

Like I said, the theory of human rights is that each person may do whatever they like with themselves and their property. If a civil right is something granted by govt then civil rights and human rights are inconsistent since govt can only exist by violating people's property rights.

@New Genoa,

I can only give you an historic explanation.
We in the west - especially in continental Europe - have had a history of absolutism. The role model for absolutism was France, but it was practised in most other continental Europe countries.
The absolute ruler had unlimitted power: "L état c´est moi" - The state am I or I´m the state was the famous statement of Louis XIV.
The enlightenment was a counter movement to that: french, english, german philosophers and writers criticized the absolutistic system, which had dominated Europe more than 100 years after the 30-year-war (1618-48 - That was also the justification for absolutism: Thomas Hobbes advocated it as a necessary step to prevent the "evil humans" from continuing this defastating war against each other: Therefore the monarch should have absolute power to prevent such wars (which were a mixture of wars beetween coutries and civil wars with realy devasting effects on Central Europe: some regions lost up to 60% of their population during that war).
In contrast to absolutism the enligthenment didn´t see humans as evil but as good. It sees the problem in an absolutist state which restricts the freedom of the people.
Therefore the classical liberalism demanded always the "freedom from" state interference, e.g.
That were the damands: Freedom of speech (or end of censorship), freedom of religion (end of state religion or forced religions), freedom to assemble (end of state repression of peaceful demonstrations), e.g.
This rights or freedoms DON`T demand anybody to give something. It just demands the state to STAY OUT.

Demands for state involvement (social rights) were from their origin NOT LIBERAL. There were SOCIALIST.
Some people today mix that up. People who demand that are not liberals: there are socialist or at least social-liberals.
But they have nothing to do with economic liberals who push for a much freer economy. The economic liberals have therefore much more in common with the classical liberals than the social liberals or left-liberals.

Then what do we define as human rights and why so? What is a right? Do we need rights or do we just WANT them? :?:

Just like driving on the right side of the road (or left side, depends where you are from) and writing with certain, at least passsable, grammar; rights are conventions that we all pretty much agree on so that we can get along with each other. There are also duties, of course, but that's another topic.

Human rights are conventions that governments agree to be inalienable to every and any human being, just for being human. Now, rights have no existence by themselves, they are just something we think would be nice and necessary to make life livable.

I think there is a need for basic rights, like those in the declaration of human rights. There are other rights that we may want, depending on our society and those may or may not be granted.

Is a civil right the right to enslave someone?

Is it the right to murder your best friend?

The right to freedom of speech?

The right to freedom of religion?

The right to masturbate?

The right to hijack an airplane?

What exactly is defined as a right and what makes it so?

No, no, yes, yes, yes, no, and civil rights are the right to do things that don't really hurt anybody else. Enslaving someone, murdering someone, and hijacking an airplane cause harm to other people, and people have no right to do this unprovoked. Free speech, free religion, and masturbation, in and of themselves, don't hurt anybody. Free speech should and does have restrictions, however, such as libel or slander (in other words, if you publish that George W. Bush eats children, it hurts him, and it's probably not true...but if it's true, then it's free game.)

Kybernetia, you are right that liberal does not equal socialist (though it's possible to be both); however, none of the examples of freedoms you attribute to liberals are economic. On the basis of the examples you have provided, there is no evidence to support today's economic liberals being representative of the classical liberals of yesteryear.

Kybernetia, you are right that liberal does not equal socialist (though it's possible to be both); however, none of the examples of freedoms you attribute to liberals are economic. On the basis of the examples you have provided, there is no evidence to support today's economic liberals being representative of the classical liberals of yesteryear.
One who wants people to be free to do what they like with their body but not their property is today called a socialist or a "liberal". One who want's people to be free to do what they like with their property but wants state regulation of other aspects of life is called "conservative". Those who consistently oppose violence (esp. state violence) against people peacefully using their bodies AND property are called "Libertarians" and are unfortunately very few (or severely underrepresented in legislatures).

@Libertovania

"Kybernetia, you are right that liberal does not equal socialist (though it's possible to be both); however, none of the examples of freedoms you attribute to liberals are economic. On the basis of the examples you have provided, there is no evidence to support today's economic liberals being representative of the classical liberals of yesteryear."
Well: they do have: the economy of these days (Absolutism) wasn´t free: it was mercantilism. People were not free to set up their own business. They had to be members of a sector organisation (I don´t know the english name): For example: every city had a fixed number of shoemakers. And this didn´t change until the chamber of shoemakers decided so. It was a chamber system: That wasn´t a free market: it was the opposite. The classical liberals were not only demanding freedom for the person from the state but ALSO freedom for business (e.g. Adam Smith).
THE MESSAGE FROM THE CLASSICAL LIBERALS WAS: LESS STATE.
In todays sense: a liberal is very often left on moral issues but very right on economic issues.
Liberalism is in that sense the oldest political movement. Its first counterpart were the conservatives. They were in favour of a strong state and in favour of the monarchy.
With the appearance of the socialists in Europe in the second half of the 19th century the former enemies Conservative and Liberals moved closer together. The socialist demand for revolution and an end of the free-market economy led to conservative-liberal alliances in many countries.
However: in many countries there was also a split within the liberal parties: right-liberals (sometimes also national-liberals) who were ready to work with the conservatives and left-liberals (who didn´t).
In some european countries this division even exists today: for e.g. the Netherlands: they have two liberal parties: In other countries there is just one but with two wings.
However: i wouldn´t call those left-liberals socialists: they are still for less regulations than the socialists but more than the economic liberals: They are probably centrists in the economic field. If they are far in the left I wouldn´t call them liberals - nor it would be usual in Europe to call those people Liberals - That may be different in the US since the definitions are not the same in States and in continental Europe.
Sometimes with a lot of problems by the way since socialists and conservative try to minimize them by including social liberal policies or right-liberal (economic liberal) policies within their party program.
The Libertarians are going so far to question the existence of a state.
They have no influence in continental europe but have some in the anglo-saxon world.

Then what do we define as human rights and why so? What is a right? Do we need rights or do we just WANT them? :?:Human rights are the basic rights to live free from oppression, persecution, torture, genocide, slavery or forced migration. Civil rights are rights within a political system. Since violating your human rights can cause you to cease to exist, an arguement can be made that they are needed, not just wanted.