NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been wondering what people on NS think about this. Are your rights, eg, citizenship, the right to a good education, the right to be treated with respect, etc, are they rights to be lost or earned? Or are they rights that every human being deserves and always will?

Personally I think it's the former. I wouldn't give any respect to a rapist, a murderer, a war criminal, or anyone like that. If I was working in a shop i'd do my very best to make their time in there a hassle, etc.

On the other hand, there are people that believe that whatever you do "all humans are good" and everyone deserves and should have the same rights as anyone else.

Thoughts?

I believe that all people are born with inalienable rights that cannot, and should not, be revoked. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness chief among them.

However, some things that people percieve as rights are really privilages. For instance, at a certain age you can get a licence and own and operate a vehicle. But, should you violate the law, the privilage to operate a vehicle can be revoked.

Here's my view of rights:

Rights are a human invention. We never assign rights without at least one moral agent, so the idea that they are intrinsic doesn't work. Our species used to be small, rat-like mammals with no rights at all.

I also think that we have, to some degree, every conceivable "right". However, we value rights differently and every right violates some other right. My right to poke you in the eye is nowhere near as important as your right not to be physically harmed, unless you are attempting to do me physical harm as well.

A lot of people value freedom of speech very highly, but are still happy to have slander and death threats illegal as they violate other rights.

Yeah I've kinda thought a little on this. Early American documents tend to say rights are God-given, though I believe they are 'earned' and should only be considered when in respect to the ideals of others that have these 'rights'... IOW they are, of corse, meaningless outside of society.

There are no such things as "rights" in an objective sense. Any rights you think you have are all in your head and in the collective heads of those around you who agree to play by your rules.

Any rights are inventions of the state, or failing that the community around you.

I believe that rights of citizenship should be earned. And also that all punishments for crime should essentially be limited to, in their entirety, the stripping of all human rights from the offender - then they're allowed to go free.

At least, free until their victims catch up.

A right is something you're entitled to just for existing.

You know, I think I'm just going to read these responses and use them as ammo later. Answer away, folks! Tell your friends!

All rights are inherent.

All rights are at risk whenever human interaction takes place.

Government is necessary in protecting rights during human interaction.

For government to protect the rights of all individuals, government must restrict some of the rights of all individuals.

The ability to choose which rights that government protects and which rights the government takes is the most important right.

A right is something you're entitled to just for existing.
Agreed. However, rights are manmade abstract concepts. Many people do not believe in human rights. I guess it falls to the ones of us who do, to make the others respect them.

Might makes right. That's how the world works. Why'd the Neanderthals become extinct? Homo sapiens booted them out. How were there kings and queens? They achieved power over others. Why is there government? Well, the goal may be to defend its people from other goverments, and those who would take away their freedoms. But that same government requires its people to sacrifice part of what they have. You trade your freedoms for security and stability.

In an ideal world, everyone would get what they want. But the moment you're around another human being, you have to compromise, establish dominance, submit, run away, or kill them. Which is why anarchy is impossible to maintain, it's a fleeting thing. Unless you're alone.

However, some things that people percieve as rights are really privilages. For instance, at a certain age you can get a licence and own and operate a vehicle. But, should you violate the law, the privilage to operate a vehicle can be revoked.

Were you reading the NS Classic Liberal thread? I addressed this exact issue in that thread. In it, I pointed out that the ability to drive is a right, not a privilege, and explained why.

"Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'?

As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost."
-- Colonel Dubois, Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein

This is the half of "TANSTAAFL" that people like to try and ignore.

(And in anticipation of "Heinlein was a fascist!" responses: Proceed immediately to the nearest bookstore and pick up a copy of The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and Starship Troopers. Read each. Think about it for a moment.)

"Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'?

As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost."
-- Colonel Dubois, Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein

This is the half of "TANSTAAFL" that people like to try and ignore.

(And in anticipation of "Heinlein was a fascist!" responses: Proceed immediately to the nearest bookstore and pick up a copy of The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and Starship Troopers. Read each. Think about it for a moment.)

As for this, life and the pursuit of happiness are technically inalienable in the sense that they cannot actually be taken, they can only be destroyed. Liberty is certainly never unalienable, I don't know how slave owners could have thrown that obvious falsehood into the Declaration.

I think some rights are granted by divinity, i.e. the right to live.

Other rights, namely the civil rights, or the lack of it, are created and granted by the society in which you reside it.

As long as these rights are met with responsibilities. I.e. if you are given the right to education, then I think you are also responsible to use this education and contribute to society. If you are given the right to vote, then you are responsible to vote fairly and with information.