NationStates Jolt Archive

What is the relationship between rights and revolutions?

Is a revolution the creation of rights, or is it the protection of rights?

Is it somewhere in between, am I completely off-base?

I do not see any necessary connection.

Revolutions can happen that increase the rights of individuals, and revolutions can happen that remove these rights.

Rights can come into existence gradually, by evolving rather than revolting.

No. I think you are off base here. But a nice thought all the same.

I do not see any necessary connection.

Revolutions can happen that increase the rights of individuals, and revolutions can happen that remove these rights.

Rights can come into existence gradually, by evolving rather than revolting.

No. I think you are off base here. But a nice thought all the same.

A transition from one government to another must necessitate a point where there is no government authority to impose rights. So either at that point rights are provided by natural law, or there are no rights.

Certainly rights can be provided or taken away without a revolution, but that doesn't mean that a revolution is not a process of creating or taking away rights.

I think you may have committed a logical fallacy, but you know more about fallacies than I do, so I will let you decide on that one.

A transition from one government to another must necessitate a point where there is no government authority to impose rights. So either at that point rights are provided by natural law, or there are no rights.

Certainly rights can be provided or taken away without a revolution, but that doesn't mean that a revolution is not a process of creating or taking away rights.

I think you may have committed a logical fallacy, but you know more about fallacies than I do, so I will let you decide on that one.I would not say that he has, except that from what I've read about his beliefs, it seems as though he believes that rights exist only when they're given by governments, so perhaps he has.

A transition from one government to another must necessitate a point where there is no government authority to impose rights. So either at that point rights are provided by natural law, or there are no rights.

Certainly rights can be provided or taken away without a revolution, but that doesn't mean that a revolution is not a process of creating or taking away rights.

I think you may have committed a logical fallacy, but you know more about fallacies than I do, so I will let you decide on that one.

I don't think I have commited any logical fallacy here.

You are making some assumptions about revolution, law and rights that may or may not be true.

Revolution does not have to imply a period without government. There have been enough bloodless revolutions, such as the orange revolution in the Ukraine through history to see that.

Additionally, if the non existence of a government implied the anhilation of all rights, then every election in a democratic system would imply the destruction of all rights.

This is not to say that a post revolutionary government can not grant rights different to those extant prior to the revolution.

You are also assuming that all law disappears during a revolution, which is simply not always the case, even with a violent revolution such as the English Civil war. Where there is a clear separation between the legislative and judicial branches of government it is possible to have a violent revolution whilst retaining the rule of law.

I would not say that he has, except that from what I've read about his beliefs, it seems as though he believes that rights exist only when they're given by governments, so perhaps he has.

You have misread me then. Rights only exist when they are agreed. This does not mean that they have to be granted by a government. As far as I am aware no government has ever granted the right to support the football team of your choice, but it is something that we, as a society agree on, so it is effectively a right.

You have misread me then. Rights only exist when they are agreed. This does not mean that they have to be granted by a government. As far as I am aware no government has ever granted the right to support the football team of your choice, but it is something that we, as a society agree on, so it is effectively a right.Would a hermit living alone have rights? There would be no agreement there.

And wouldn't supporting the football team of your choice be counted as a part of free speech?

I don't think I have commited any logical fallacy here.

You are making some assumptions about revolution, law and rights that may or may not be true.

Revolution does not have to imply a period without government. There have been enough bloodless revolutions, such as the orange revolution in the Ukraine through history to see that.

Additionally, if the non existence of a government implied the anhilation of all rights, then every election in a democratic system would imply the destruction of all rights.

This is not to say that a post revolutionary government can not grant rights different to those extant prior to the revolution.

You are also assuming that all law disappears during a revolution, which is simply not always the case, even with a violent revolution such as the English Civil war. Where there is a clear separation between the legislative and judicial branches of government it is possible to have a violent revolution whilst retaining the rule of law.

I would say that in the process of a revolution, there is a point where an individual will find himself under the authority of a new government. This doesn't mean that the revolution doesn't operate its own code of law, only that there must be a point where the individual rests between codes of law.

I think you have mischaracterised a democratic system. A (most?)democracy is not composed of the elected office holders, but by the system of voting and policy making. The complete eradication of all office holders does not eliminate the government. Which actually attests to the idea that a revolution does not require a transition of governments.

I may be completely off-base though, this argument is not one that I necessarily want to cling to. I did have ulterior motives in making this thread. I wanted to prove natural rights to myself, in the form of a person's willingness and ability to enforce the obligations they apply to.

A revolution is the most practical representation of that principle that I could think of.

Fundamental rights of humanity exist whether they are agreed upon or not. Fundamental rights are not subjective.

Revolutions (in the sense that I believe you mean like the civil rights revolution and such) are changes that bring about the recognition of those rights.

In other words, governments do not create rights, but circumstances come about in which those rights can be recognized.

Would a hermit living alone have rights? There would be no agreement there.
No he would not, but why would he need them?

And wouldn't supporting the football team of your choice be counted as a part of free speech?

How is wanting a team to win speech?

Fundamental rights of humanity exist whether they are agreed upon or not. Fundamental rights are not subjective.
There simply are no fundamental rights.

Revolutions (in the sense that I believe you mean like the civil rights revolution and such) are changes that bring about the recognition of those rights.

In other words, governments do not create rights, but circumstances come about in which those rights can be recognized.

Circumstances under which the people agree to certain limitations on their freedoms - which is essentially what granting a right to others is.

There simply are no fundamental rights.

That is one school of thought, mine is different.


Circumstances under which the people agree to certain limitations on their freedoms - which is essentially what granting a right to others is.

How Hobbsian of you....I disagree. Society may agree to certain limitations, which in our nation is either through elected representatives passing laws, or the enactment and amending of our constitution. However whether or not we agree to be bound by the rights does not suggest that the rights do not exist.

If I rescind my agreement that I won't shoot you in the face do you lose the right to have me not shoot you in the face?

No he would not, but why would he need them? If he was wondering whether or not he was allowed to pick fruit or do any of the other things he would need to do to live. Rights are not limited to interactions between people; we have animal cruelty laws, for example.

How is wanting a team to win speech?Presumably the person in question would want to vocalize their preference at some point.

I would say that in the process of a revolution, there is a point where an individual will find himself under the authority of a new government. This doesn't mean that the revolution doesn't operate its own code of law, only that there must be a point where the individual rests between codes of law.

I think you have mischaracterised a democratic system.

There is nothing about a revolution that requires any change in the code of law. A change of authority yes, but this does not necessitate a discontinuity in the legal structure. I have not mischaracterised demoicratic systems as my use of them was conditional on revolution necessarily creating a hiatus in government, which I do not believe it does (any more than elections do in a democracy).

A (most?)democracy is not composed of the elected office holders, but by the system of voting and policy making. The complete eradication of all office holders does not eliminate the government. Which actually attests to the idea that a revolution does not require a transition of governments.
Exactly.

I may be completely off-base though, this argument is not one that I necessarily want to cling to. I did have ulterior motives in making this thread. I wanted to prove natural rights to myself, in the form of a person's willingness and ability to enforce the obligations they apply to.
Well as I am opposed to the concept of natural rights (and natural law for that matter) I guess I am not going to help you very much. I don't understand how you wanted to prove them though. I do hold that there are certain behaviours that are inevitable for us and that these are contingent on our physical nature. They are not rights though, they are consequences if that makes any sense. (Things like promise breaking being wrong.)

How Hobbsian of you....I disagree. Society may agree to certain limitations, which in our nation is either through elected representatives passing laws, or the enactment and amending of our constitution. However whether or not we agree to be bound by the rights does not suggest that the rights do not exist.

If I rescind my agreement that I won't shoot you in the face do you lose the right to have me not shoot you in the face?

I am not at all Hobbsian, although most people seem to think that that is the only possible line of thought if you deny natural rights and argue for rights by convention. I am Humeian. We agree to certain limitations due to our natural limits and characters. There is no 'contract' as such, and I have no 'right' to not have you shoot me in the face. I simply have the knowledge that you, like me are human and as such there are certain things that you value. One of these, an important one, is the good opinion of others around you. If you shoot me in the face, you will be sacrificing this good opinion. The question is for what gain? If you have sufficient gain in shooting me then you will, so I never had the right not to be shot, did I. There is no such thing as a right beyond the behaviour that we each, individually, decide to extend to others.

There is nothing about a revolution that requires any change in the code of law. A change of authority yes, but this does not necessitate a discontinuity in the legal structure. I have not mischaracterised demoicratic systems as my use of them was conditional on revolution necessarily creating a hiatus in government, which I do not believe it does (any more than elections do in a democracy).

I am tying a code of law to authority, a different authority necessitates a different code, even if those codes are identical in effect.

Well as I am opposed to the concept of natural rights (and natural law for that matter) I guess I am not going to help you very much. I don't understand how you wanted to prove them though. I do hold that there are certain behaviours that are inevitable for us and that these are contingent on our physical nature. They are not rights though, they are consequences if that makes any sense. (Things like promise breaking being wrong.)

I do know your position on rights, and the last sentence doesn't make sense to me, but that is beside the point.

I wanted to prove that rights are natural in the sense that we possess unlimited rights to the point that we defend them. In this sense rights are not inalienable, but they cannot be taken as they must be relinquished by the individual.

As such, revolutions would correspond with the idea of people fighting to protect rights that they naturally have, rather than fighting to create rights.

If I could show that revolutions are a process of protecting rights, it would go a long way towards justifying natural rights to me.

I am tying a code of law to authority, a different authority necessitates a different code, even if those codes are identical in effect.
So if any change of authority necessarily changes the code (even to another identical one) then any election that results in a change in power has the same effect. It does, after all, change the authority.



I do know your position on rights, and the last sentence doesn't make sense to me, but that is beside the point.

I wanted to prove that rights are natural in the sense that we possess unlimited rights to the point that we defend them. In this sense rights are not inalienable, but they cannot be taken as they must be relinquished by the individual.

As such, revolutions would correspond with the idea of people fighting to protect rights that they naturally have, rather than fighting to create rights.

If I could show that revolutions are a process of protecting rights, it would go a long way towards justifying natural rights to me.

So if we chose to defend a right to own slaves, as various people have done, then slave ownership becomes a natural right? The people's revolution in China made wearing Mão suits a natural right?

This does not seem to make much sense, even if you hold with natural rights. It removes all meaning from the term natural right by making anything that we fight for, justifiably or not, a natural right.

If he was wondering whether or not he was allowed to pick fruit or do any of the other things he would need to do to live. Rights are not limited to interactions between people; we have animal cruelty laws, for example.
Sorry, but rights are limited to interactions with other people. A law is not an indicator of a right, and a right has to be reciprical. I can assent to an animal surviving, but that animal would only have a right to life itf it granted that same right to me. Now you try and negotiate that with the irritated Grizzly, while I use my freedom to run. (Actually I would stand very still and be very quiet, but that is another issue)

Presumably the person in question would want to vocalize their preference at some point.
And in doing so he would be using his right to speech. That however, is incidental to his right to support the team of his choice.

Sorry, but rights are limited to interactions with other people. A law is not an indicator of a right, and a right has to be reciprical. I can assent to an animal surviving, but that animal would only have a right to life itf it granted that same right to me. Now you try and negotiate that with the irritated Grizzly, while I use my freedom to run. (Actually I would stand very still and be very quiet, but that is another issue) Well, presumably that would also extend to people; self-defense is a right that people have.

And in doing so he would be using his right to speech. That however, is incidental to his right to support the team of his choice.I can't imagine freedom of speech without freedom of thought; an example of freedom of thoight would be supporting the team of his choice.

Well, presumably that would also extend to people; self-defense is a right that people have.
Sorry. I don't understand the connection here. Self defense is not a right, it is an ability. If I physically attacked an unarmed untrained 100lb weakling (I was a defensive end) then they do not have the right to self defense, they do not even have the ability to defend themself.

I can't imagine freedom of speech without freedom of thought; an example of freedom of thoight would be supporting the team of his choice.

Stop confusing abilities with rights. We are able to think as we wish, and no one can stop us doing so. This is not a right, it is an ability. Those that wish to claim freedom of belief, or thought as a right have no understanding of rights. You can have freedom of speech or freedom of religion as rights, as these are not natural abilities, but social actions.

Sorry. I don't understand the connection here. Self defense is not a right, it is an ability. If I physically attacked an unarmed untrained 100lb weakling (I was a defensive end) then they do not have the right to self defense, they do not even have the ability to defend themself. Does this mean that there is no right to property, since there are people who don't have the ability to acquire it?

Stop confusing abilities with rights. We are able to think as we wish, and no one can stop us doing so. This is not a right, it is an ability. Those that wish to claim freedom of belief, or thought as a right have no understanding of rights. You can have freedom of speech or freedom of religion as rights, as these are not natural abilities, but social actions.So then government issued propaganda would be seen as okay as it wouldn't interfere with anyone's freedom of speech even though it interfered with their thought processes?

So if any change of authority necessarily changes the code (even to another identical one) then any election that results in a change in power has the same effect. It does, after all, change the authority.

The authority in democracy is not the person, it is the system.

So if we chose to defend a right to own slaves, as various people have done, then slave ownership becomes a natural right? The people's revolution in China made wearing Mão suits a natural right?

Yes.

This does not seem to make much sense, even if you hold with natural rights. It removes all meaning from the term natural right by making anything that we fight for, justifiably or not, a natural right.

It does undermine the meaning of natural rights as inalienable rights that all people merit with their personhood. But that didn't have much meaning anyway.

What is the relationship between rights and revolutions?

Is a revolution the creation of rights, or is it the protection of rights?

Is it somewhere in between, am I completely off-base?

I don't believe that revolutions necessarily have to be about the creation or protection of rights (even if they often are.)

Simply, I believe a revolution is a transition of government; usually in a method not acceptable by the current legal framework of the previous government. We can play word games over what the difference would be between a coup and a revolution, but ultimately it's about power transferal (often meaning more power to the majority of people, as opposed to a select few.)

Revolutions may cause the creation/protection of rights by ensrhining it in a new legal framework, but in the same breath they can could theoretically remove rights (i.e.; a hypothetical country that undergoes a revolution due to racial/ethnic tensions that results in oppressive conditions for a minority group.)

Well, presumably that would also extend to people; self-defense is a right that people have.

Self-defense is an ability, in that there is no obligation placed on those around the person. However, self-defense is critical to my argument here for natural rights.

Does this mean that there is no right to property, since there are people who don't have the ability to acquire it?

The right to property is a set of obligations between people regarding things.

Rights are defined by the obligations they entail between people, property applies while self-defense does not.

Stop confusing abilities with rights. We are able to think as we wish, and no one can stop us doing so. This is not a right, it is an ability. Those that wish to claim freedom of belief, or thought as a right have no understanding of rights. You can have freedom of speech or freedom of religion as rights, as these are not natural abilities, but social actions.

I suppose that depends on the legal framework of 'rights' in your country. (If you're like me, and view 'rights' as a product of positive law...). In Canada, belief and expression are 'fundamental freedoms', as opposed to 'rights.'

Well as I am opposed to the concept of natural rights (and natural law for that matter) I guess I am not going to help you very much. I don't understand how you wanted to prove them though. I do hold that there are certain behaviours that are inevitable for us and that these are contingent on our physical nature. They are not rights though, they are consequences if that makes any sense. (Things like promise breaking being wrong.)

It does not, because it seems to me that you are making a distinction without a difference. Put simply, I see no fundamental difference between "certain behaviours that are inevitable for us and that these are contingent upon our physical behavior" and natural law precepts about the human condition. As a consequence, if you say that our desire to preserve our life emerges out of a natural right to life, and an inevitable behavior to preserve life, you've just repeated yourself in my eyes.

Stop confusing abilities with rights. We are able to think as we wish, and no one can stop us doing so. This is not a right, it is an ability. Those that wish to claim freedom of belief, or thought as a right have no understanding of rights. You can have freedom of speech or freedom of religion as rights, as these are not natural abilities, but social actions.

Rights are just abilities that have obligations tied to them. Why cannot natural rights be considered those abilities whose obligations are tied to them by nature?

The right to free speech is an obligation placed on others to allow you to speak, the right to free opinion is an obligation placed on others to allow you to form an opinion.

Rights are just abilities that have obligations tied to them. Why cannot natural rights be considered those abilities whose obligations are tied to them by nature?

The right to free speech is an obligation placed on others to allow you to speak, the right to free opinion is an obligation placed on others to allow you to form an opinion.
Have you formed an opinion on whether there are any Rights, that have not been granted/given/acquired?

I suppose that depends on the legal framework of 'rights' in your country. (If you're like me, and view 'rights' as a product of positive law...). In Canada, belief and expression are 'fundamental freedoms', as opposed to 'rights.'
What difference between a Freedom and a Right?

Sorry. I don't understand the connection here. Self defense is not a right, it is an ability. If I physically attacked an unarmed untrained 100lb weakling (I was a defensive end) then they do not have the right to self defense, they do not even have the ability to defend themself.
He does have the right to shoot you, especially if he has good reason to think his life is in danger and that shooting you is the only way he can save it. Government-granted right.




Stop confusing abilities with rights. We are able to think as we wish, and no one can stop us doing so. This is not a right, it is an ability. Those that wish to claim freedom of belief, or thought as a right have no understanding of rights. You can have freedom of speech or freedom of religion as rights, as these are not natural abilities, but social actions.
If one is discriminated against because of his known opinions, that is infringement on his freedom of thought. It is not about the right to think per se.

In my opinion rights are gained by work. So in any goverment, country, system etc. as long as people believe they get what they work for the system is accepted good(actually not good but just). Also people belive system is better if they work less and get more, and it is best if they do nothing at all but have all that they want.
So what causes revolution is when people think they work more than what they get for it, they get angry. So they use any means they have to make it right in their own beliefs. When it happens many things effect the revolution and revolution gains a life of its own and all people effect it and get effected by it shape it as much as they are shaped by it and results may vary.
In some revolutions people die, some get rich some get poor until another revolution.
What is best for humanity can be attained in a revolution thats perfectly just to anyone, even if someone doesnt like it or no one likes it. What is truly and neutrally good is what is just and balanced, but not all humans are aware of their higher noble selves thats just to themselves and to others, so wars and revolutions are still raging on. Even with ideals like equality for all, revoultions may turn into things like some are more equal than others :p

Have you formed an opinion on whether there are any Rights, that have not been granted/given/acquired?

Nope, that is the purpose of this thread and some past threads.

I have abandoned the conventional idea of natural rights.

Does this mean that there is no right to property, since there are people who don't have the ability to acquire it?

So then government issued propaganda would be seen as okay as it wouldn't interfere with anyone's freedom of speech even though it interfered with their thought processes?

Sorry about the delay - RL exists.

No one has a natural right to property, some have the ability to acquire it, some inherit it, and they are granted free possesion of the property by our system of laws.

The government does issue propaganda, hadn't you noticed? And some people think it is OK, others disagree with it. Whether they can express their opinion depends on the rights they have agreed in their culture, but they have the ability to form an opinion regardless of this.

What difference between a Freedom and a Right?

Good Question.

What is the difference between a right and a freedom? We often use the terms interchangeably but, in law, there is a difference. A legal right is something that cannot be given to you one time and then denied another time. If you have a legal right, then some other person has a legal duty to see that this right is honoured. If it isn't, you can rely on the law to see that something is done about the matter. A freedom implies that no one will interfere with what you want to do. Unlike a right, no one has a duty to oversee or enforce this freedom. The government, however, still has an obligation not to unduly limit individual freedoms.

Taken from http://www.acjnet.org/teacher/freeinfo.htm

Essentially, in the Canadian Charter at least, a freedom implies common actions that should not be infringed upon (unless demonstrably proven to be acceptable by society in order to protect other rights/freedoms), such as the freedom to say what you want, think what you want, and be with the people you want to be with.

A right implies legalities which the state grants equally to all people, such as the right to vote, the right to be treated innocent until proven guilty, or the right to be treated fairly under the law regardless of ethnicity, race, religion, etc.

(I have to admit though, I'm not sure why 'mobility' is a right in our charter, and not a 'fundamental freedom'.)

Rights are just abilities that have obligations tied to them. Why cannot natural rights be considered those abilities whose obligations are tied to them by nature?

The right to free speech is an obligation placed on others to allow you to speak, the right to free opinion is an obligation placed on others to allow you to form an opinion.

It is a very strange conception of rights.
I have the right to beat up my child? I mean I have the ability to do so, or do I have the right to not beat up my child? I feel that my child has a right to not be beaten up, but this is not an ability of my child, it is an obligation on me.

I can not see rights as being abilities with obligations. That may define moral action in some way (i.e what type of actions are subject to moral judgement) but it simply does not work for rights.

The right to free speech is an obligation placed on others true. Rights always generate obligations (one more reason why only people have rights - how do you explain obligations to a tiger?) but that obligation is not tied to any ability naturally. That a person has the ability to speak does not oblige him to allow others to speak, nor others to allow him to speak. There is no necessary connection betwen the ability and the obligation.

You may wish to argue that a constrained ability is not an ability at all. I, however, hold that if you have an ability then you have it, regaredless of whether you are permitted to use it.

I am still curious as to how it is possible to prevent someone from forming an opinion? Without that possibility, the concept of the right to form an opinion is null.

It is a very strange conception of rights.
I have the right to beat up my child? I mean I have the ability to do so, or do I have the right to not beat up my child? I feel that my child has a right to not be beaten up, but this is not an ability of my child, it is an obligation on me.

You have the right until you give it up. You have the right up until you cannot force others to oblige your actions.

I am not attempting describe the optimal.

I can not see rights as being abilities with obligations. That may define moral action in some way (i.e what type of actions are subject to moral judgement) but it simply does not work for rights.

The right to free speech is an obligation placed on others true. Rights always generate obligations (one more reason why only people have rights - how do you explain obligations to a tiger?) but that obligation is not tied to any ability naturally. That a person has the ability to speak does not oblige him to allow others to speak, nor others to allow him to speak. There is no necessary connection betwen the ability and the obligation.

The ability doesn't obligate people, the right does. But the right obligates others to allow one to exercise their ability.

Also, concerning animal rights, I don't particularly like the idea of animal rights, but the right of a tiger sets obligations on the people interacting with a tiger. Only the people are required to understand the obligation.

I am still curious as to how it is possible to prevent someone from forming an opinion? Without that possibility, the concept of the right to form an opinion is null.

It is not possible to prevent someone from forming an opinion, a person can only stop themselves (I'm not even sure if that is possible), but that is why I would call it a natural right.

Good Question.



Taken from http://www.acjnet.org/teacher/freeinfo.htm

Essentially, in the Canadian Charter at least, a freedom implies common actions that should not be infringed upon (unless demonstrably proven to be acceptable by society in order to protect other rights/freedoms), such as the freedom to say what you want, think what you want, and be with the people you want to be with.

A right implies legalities which the state grants equally to all people, such as the right to vote, the right to be treated innocent until proven guilty, or the right to be treated fairly under the law regardless of ethnicity, race, religion, etc.

(I have to admit though, I'm not sure why 'mobility' is a right in our charter, and not a 'fundamental freedom'.)
Charters of Fundamental Rights, and Freedoms, (which I think are the same) are, afaik, usually a set of codified rules, directed at the state. The state is then supposed to make sure there is legislation in place to protect those rights/freedoms.

When this Rights stuff began, early-mid 20th century, this was all about stuff the government was NOT allowed to to. Like take the life of anyone without going through proper procedure, like not imprisoning someone without a fair trial, etc. First generation Human Rights. Later there was stuff like freedom from discrimination on grounds of gender, hair colour, religion, etc. Second generation. Stuff government was obliged to do/provide. Like grant everyone access to education. We are sometimes thinking about Fourth generation rights, these days. Other less fortunate people are still fighting/hoping for the first generation. Sometimes there is even a relapse. Who is worrying about is entitlement to a beutiful environment when he has been in prison for years without a trial (let alone a fair one)?

........
It is not possible to prevent someone from forming an opinion, a person can only stop themselves (I'm not even sure if that is possible), but that is why I would call it a natural right.

...one way of putting it:
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom,
either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to
manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and
observance.

2 Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to
such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of
public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others.

Charters of Fundamental Rights, and Freedoms, (which I think are the same) are, afaik, usually a set of codified rules, directed at the state. The state is then supposed to make sure there is legislation in place to protect those rights/freedoms.

When this Rights stuff began, early-mid 20th century, this was all about stuff the government was NOT allowed to to. Like take the life of anyone without going through proper procedure, like not imprisoning someone without a fair trial, etc. First generation Human Rights. Later there was stuff like freedom from discrimination on grounds of gender, hair colour, religion, etc. Second generation. Stuff government was obliged to do/provide. Like grant everyone access to education. We are sometimes thinking about Fourth generation rights, these days. Other less fortunate people are still fighting/hoping for the first generation. Sometimes there is even a relapse. Who is worrying about is entitlement to a beutiful environment when he has been in prison for years without a trial (let alone a fair one)?

Yeah, I know what you're saying. (Canada didn't have an official Charter until 1982!).

Basically, what I was getting at is that arguing over what is a right vs. a freedom vs. an ability is all just legal jargon for the same thing; whether or not the state recognizes obligations and responsibilities to its constituents.

Your mention of 'generational rights', as in the idea that what people consider to be 'rights' depends upon their stage of development, is part of the reason why I disregard the idea of Natural Law. How can there be a natural law if what they consitute, varies from person to person?

(Sidenote: I think the 'right's stuff' predates the 20th century...)

Self-defense is an ability, in that there is no obligation placed on those around the person. However, self-defense is critical to my argument here for natural rights.That depends. There are certain nations who have a definition of self-defense which is different than other nations' definition of self-defense. For instance, some nations might have a law that says if you're attacked, you can defend yourself by any means necessary; others might say that your amount of defense has to be proportional to the attack you receive. Therefore, the right to self-defense would mean non interference from others (i.e. not being tried for murder for defending yourself).[/QUOTE]

No one has a natural right to property, some have the ability to acquire it, some inherit it, and they are granted free possesion of the property by our system of laws.The government issues guidelines for acquiring property; certain acquisitions are rightful and will be protected by government; others are not rightful and the government will protect someone else.

The government does issue propaganda, hadn't you noticed? And some people think it is OK, others disagree with it. Whether they can express their opinion depends on the rights they have agreed in their culture, but they have the ability to form an opinion regardless of this.The government does lie to people, but I wouldn't say that it's the constant barrage of lying that constitutes propaganda. If you've read 1984 for instance, the propaganda that that government issued would have been severe enough to interfere with a person's ability to form an opinion.

Revolutions are bith the protection and creation of rights.

Rights are just privileges you give to someone to make sure there is an "unbiased" basis for laws. If you have the right to choose your own religion, no one can prevent you from choosing your belief system. However, I have never seen anything in nature that reveals this "natural" right.

That depends. There are certain nations who have a definition of self-defense which is different than other nations' definition of self-defense. For instance, some nations might have a law that says if you're attacked, you can defend yourself by any means necessary; others might say that your amount of defense has to be proportional to the attack you receive. Therefore, the right to self-defense would mean non interference from others (i.e. not being tried for murder for defending yourself).

Laws give legal rights, but I don't think we are dealing with those in this discussion. I understand the discussion tobe more about so caled natural rights, Those that we believe that we have independently of the legal framework in which we happen to live. Perhaps they should be called universal rights rather than natural. In this context self defense is clearly not a right. It is an ability if you can do it, it is a failing if you cannot.

The government issues guidelines for acquiring property; certain acquisitions are rightful and will be protected by government; others are not rightful and the government will protect someone else.
I actually believe that with respect to property the government enshrines in law the system that exists prior to the government being formed. As such, property rights are deeper than just legal rights, they relate to the way in which we co-operate socially and communally. How does your family handle personal possessions within the family? This is not a matter of government lawmaking, but a matter of social behaviour.

The government does lie to people, but I wouldn't say that it's the constant barrage of lying that constitutes propaganda. If you've read 1984 for instance, the propaganda that that government issued would have been severe enough to interfere with a person's ability to form an opinion.
Outside of fiction that level of propaganda has never been achieved. Not even in NK as it is today. As such I do not believe that freedom of opinion can be removed. But that is just my belief.

Laws give legal rights, but I don't think we are dealing with those in this discussion. I understand the discussion tobe more about so caled natural rights, Those that we believe that we have independently of the legal framework in which we happen to live. Perhaps they should be called universal rights rather than natural. In this context self defense is clearly not a right. It is an ability if you can do it, it is a failing if you cannot.

I actually believe that with respect to property the government enshrines in law the system that exists prior to the government being formed. As such, property rights are deeper than just legal rights, they relate to the way in which we co-operate socially and communally. How does your family handle personal possessions within the family? This is not a matter of government lawmaking, but a matter of social behaviour.Right, so it seems to me that if there is a such thing as natural rights, then they are independent of social behavior (codified or not into law), and if there is no such thing as natural rights, then all rights depend on social behavior.

I would not say that simply having the ability to do something also means that you have the right to do it.

Outside of fiction that level of propaganda has never been achieved. Not even in NK as it is today. As such I do not believe that freedom of opinion can be removed. But that is just my belief.It seems to me that part of the reason that this level of propaganda hasn't been achieved is the people's belief and protection of the right to form an opinion.