# Constitutional Rights: Do they apply to everyone inside the USA or just citizens? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 30, 2019, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030 "2019-09-30T05:35:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/61 "2019-10-02T11:45:50Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > That first sentence–especially the “should” in it–reinforces my understanding that our argument is semantic. The “should” is something that’s deduced, not a product of culture. The rights you say humans should possess are legal rights. The “should” comes from the underlying natural rights that arise when sentient, desirous entities interact. Well for a majority of humanity’s existence and for the majority of humans these so-called rights haven’t existed. So the idea that they arise naturally doesn’t have strong support. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/62 "2019-10-02T11:57:57Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Well for a majority of humanity’s existence and for the majority of humans these so-called rights haven’t existed. So the idea that they arise naturally doesn’t have strong support. And here I thought we had improved. Though it makes for a great excuse for Trump and his merry band of thugs. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/63 "2019-10-02T12:05:28Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Well for a majority of humanity’s existence and for the majority of humans these so-called rights haven’t existed. So the idea that they arise naturally doesn’t have strong support. That begs the question. My claim, of course, is that those rights existed, but they just weren’t recognized. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/64 "2019-10-02T12:38:36Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > And here I thought we had improved. > > Though it makes for a great excuse for Trump and his merry band of thugs. We have improved and in many cases are improving. That doesn’t mean that vigilance and constant reinforcement of ideals isn’t necessary. Speaking of Trump, aren’t you glad that the US populace hasn’t, yet, ceded to much individual liberty to the state? > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > That begs the question. My claim, of course, is that those rights existed, but they just weren’t recognized. But they didn’t. And for many people today they don’t. Natural rights are like morality derived from religious teachings. They are accepted by many as axiomatic but that doesn’t mean that they are a universal truth. Now, I strongly believe that they are exceedingly important and I think that they should be advocated for even in unpopular cases. It’s in all of our self interests to promote the fiction of strong individual human rights. To address the OP, I don’t think, absent a state of war, that suspension or application of human rights ought to be a function of citizenship or legal status. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/65 "2019-10-02T16:08:06Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I don’t have any problem with the idea that there are rights that all humans should posses. I expect if we compared notes, they’d be pretty much identical to what you call natural rights. My objection is that nature has nothing to do with them - they’re _human_ rights. As in, rights for, and _from_, humans. To reiterate **Left Hand of Dorkness** and as I called out earlier, our differences are with terminology and not substance. I’ll note that my statement “people have rights because they are people” is substantially similar to your “rights for, and from, humans”. > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Then why do we have courts and laws? Why isn’t the moral stance “people have rights because they’re people” enough? Why do you have a Bill of a Rights,declared to be the supreme law of the land, and enforced by government agencies, notably courts? If the moral stance is all that’s needed, why not abolish courts and repeal the Bill of Rights? Our courts and laws are the mechanisms we use to establish a just society. Our morals are what we use to evaluate how just that society actually is. > [@Miller](#): > > What am I supposed to make of that statement if I don’t believe in a Creator? We have to understand the Declaration of Independence in 18th-century terms. Despite the ignorance of some right-wing Christians, many of the founders were Deists and did not believe in any sort of personified god. Belief or disbelief in any god was not implied by their use of the term “Creator”. Rights endowed by a Creator was their rebuttal to kings who claimed divine rights, and then parcelled them out. The founders claimed everyone had rights, not simply those granted to them by a sovereign. > [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > And that reference to “all men” was just a typo, right? Jefferson meant to say “all men and women, including the black slave that I’m having carnal relations with, are created equal”? Likewise in an 18th-century context, the word “man” meant a person in general. It has evolved to mean exclusively a male adult. No one argues that anyone, including the founders, has met the ideals they espoused. That does not diminish their ideals as goals worthy of striving for. When I say “people have rights because they are people” I am not stating a legal fact, I am advocating my moral ideal. > [@Miller](#): > > And I think the bigger peril is forgetting that the rights we have are incredibly fragile, and can be taken away from us from us very, very easily, which is something the concept of “natural rights” elides. Heh, see that is why I like the terms “inalienable rights” or “inherent rights”, because no matter what the current status of the law is, I can advocate that people have more rights. Rights, not based on fragile laws, but rights based on the fact that they are people. Governments might try to deny the personhood of some people, but to me it’s self-evidently true that people are in fact people. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/66 "2019-10-02T16:51:36Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > That first sentence–especially the “should” in it–reinforces my understanding that our argument is semantic. The “should” is something that’s deduced, not a product of culture. The rights you say humans should possess are legal rights. The “should” comes from the underlying natural rights that arise when sentient, desirous entities interact. I wouldn’t say it’s entirely semantic. I have genuine issues with any argument for the existence of my rights that amounts to, essentially, “Because God says so.” As an atheist, I need a slightly firmer foundation than that. Also, I think your last sentence is factually wrong, in that it presupposes that these rights are an inevitable consequence of human society, when they are, at best, a fortunate aberration. > [@Pleonast](#): > > We have to understand the Declaration of Independence in 18th-century terms. Despite the ignorance of some right-wing Christians, many of the founders were Deists and did not believe in any sort of personified god. Belief or disbelief in any god was not implied by their use of the term “Creator”. Rights endowed by a Creator was their rebuttal to kings who claimed divine rights, and then parcelled them out. The founders claimed everyone had rights, not simply those granted to them by a sovereign. I agree that use of the term “creator” should not be read as an endorsement of any particular religious faith, but it’s still pretty explicitly invoking a supernatural source for human rights, which, again, I kinda have a problem with as an atheist. > [@](#): > > Likewise in an 18th-century context, the word “man” meant a person in general. It has evolved to mean exclusively a male adult. Ha, no. In the 18th century, “man” meant, specifically, “man.” It was used as a stand-in for “person in general” because the general mindset of the time disregarded women entirely. Any law written in the 18th century that specifically referred to “men” (such as voting laws) would be interpreted as applying only to men. People who talked about “the rights of men” were specifically and consciously excluding women. > [@](#): > > Heh, see that is why I like the terms “inalienable rights” or “inherent rights”, because no matter what the current status of the law is, I can advocate that people have more rights. Rights, not based on fragile laws, but rights based on the fact that they are people. Governments might try to deny the personhood of some people, but to me it’s self-evidently true that people are in fact people. I can say “the concept of natural rights is bullshit,” and still advocate that people should have more rights, regardless of the state of the law, so I’m not really seeing the advantage there. Likewise with recognizing people as people. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/67 "2019-10-02T17:44:55Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I wouldn’t say it’s entirely semantic. I have genuine issues with any argument for the existence of my rights that amounts to, essentially, “Because God says so.” As an atheist, I need a slightly firmer foundation than that. > > Also, I think your last sentence is factually wrong, in that it presupposes that these rights are an inevitable consequence of human society, when they are, at best, a fortunate aberration. This is where we’re talking past one another. When you both say that you need a stronger foundation than “god”, but then you say that the stronger foundation I offered is factually wrong, I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying. Rights, in my view, exist whether or not they’re recognized, in the same way that there can be two planets in a solar system that no sentient being has ever recognized, or in the same way that the number “two” was a good descriptor of those planets long before any sentient being formulated a concept of number. RECOGNITION of rights, much like recognition of pi, might be a fortunate aberration of culture. But neither rights nor pi are a product of culture. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/68 "2019-10-02T18:05:47Z")
Maybe this is the best way to think about it. There are, according to our best definition of planets, eight planets in our solar system, right? But fifty years ago, we had a different definition of planets. Does that mean we actually had a different number of planets? And fifty million years ago, we didn’t have any definition of planets, or any definition of numbers. Were there no planets in our solar system fifty million years ago? I’d say that, according to our best current understanding of planets, there are eight planets in our solar system now, and fifty years ago, and fifty million years ago. Sure, we didn’t recognize those planets fifty million years ago–but based on what we know now, those planets were there even though we didn’t recognize them, even though no mathematical system of counting had been invented yet. Human rights are a way of understanding the “shoulds” of human interaction. Honestly I’m not sure they’re the best model. I kinda like preference utilitarianism, and I definitely recognize that I’m an ignoramus in this area. But rights can exist independent of recognition, just like the number of planets existed before there were people around to count them. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/69 "2019-10-02T18:08:16Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > This is where we’re talking past one another. When you both say that you need a stronger foundation than “god”, but then you say that the stronger foundation I offered is factually wrong, I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying. I don’t think that you offered a stronger foundation than, “Because God.” I think you offered what is, essentially, a reformulation of that foundation, with an added dollop of objectively disprovable history. > [@](#): > > Rights, in my view, exist whether or not they’re recognized, in the same way that there can be two planets in a solar system that no sentient being has ever recognized, or in the same way that the number “two” was a good descriptor of those planets long before any sentient being formulated a concept of number. I get that. I really do. I just think its absurd. > [@](#): > > RECOGNITION of rights, much like recognition of pi, might be a fortunate aberration of culture. But neither rights nor pi are a product of culture. And again, whether or not people understand what pi is, or what planets are, those things continue to function just the same. Rights don’t work that way, as you’ve already admitted. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/70 "2019-10-02T18:10:19Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Maybe this is the best way to think about it. No, that’s absolutely the worst way to think about. That way of thinking about it is precisely why I think the concept is rubbish. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/71 "2019-10-02T18:20:12Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I don’t think that you offered a stronger foundation than, “Because God.” I think you offered what is, essentially, a reformulation of that foundation, with an added dollop of objectively disprovable history. Okay. If you’re somehow getting “because God” from what I’m saying, our communication barrier is impenetrable. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/72 "2019-10-02T21:24:47Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > This is where we’re talking past one another. When you both say that you need a stronger foundation than “god”, but then you say that the stronger foundation I offered is factually wrong, I don’t think you’re understanding what I’m saying. > > Rights, in my view, exist whether or not they’re recognized, in the same way that there can be two planets in a solar system that no sentient being has ever recognized, or in the same way that the number “two” was a good descriptor of those planets long before any sentient being formulated a concept of number. > > RECOGNITION of rights, much like recognition of pi, might be a fortunate aberration of culture. But neither rights nor pi are a product of culture. No. That doesn’t make sense. Why don’t trees have rights? Why don’t worms have rights? Why don’t computer programs have rights? Why don’t chimpanzees or dolphins have rights? Why won’t we have rights if a more powerful alien civilization or a super advanced AI “decides” we don’t? It’s because rights are as much of an artificial construct as a can of Cherry Coke. Cherry Coke wasn’t some ideal Platonic entity waiting to be brought into existence by the exertions of an inspired humanity. Cherry Coke had to be created and outside of a strictly deterministic universe, or an infinite universe, the creation of Cherry Coke was not guaranteed. It didn’t exist until it did. How long were humans and proto humans around? Out of that million or so years how long has the concept of intrinsic rights been discussed? A few hundred. Out of that few hundred how many years have they been universally applied? 0. For something that exists as a real entity or an unavoidable truth that is a pretty poor ratio of duration. How about global scope? How many folks to this day don’t live in a nation that respects and vigorously enforces these so-called intrinsic human rights? Probably a majority of the planet. For something that is an unavoidable truth that is also a pretty poor ratio. The idea of intrinsic human rights being as you say they are makes as much sense as any of the religions being a real thing just waiting to be discovered. Now here’s the scary thing. Even in a nation like ours even on a so-called educated web site like this the actual, genuine and strong support for the concept of intrinsic human rights is very lacking. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/73 "2019-10-02T21:50:03Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > RECOGNITION of rights, much like recognition of pi, might be a fortunate aberration of culture. But neither rights nor pi are a product of culture. I’ve tried to stay out of this silliness, but you keep stretching it too far. Humans do not have intrinsic rights. None. Not of any kind or definition or source. All rights are cultural. Rights are something new in human societies. They were not there all along waiting for people to recognize them. People invented rights out of whole cloth for their own benefit, and then spent millennia slowly and grudgingly granting them to more and more people in their societies - solely because more and more people gained power and most definitely not because rights were seen as there waiting to be recognized. No two societies today agree on what those rights are, however, any more than two people agreeing on all the tenets of their religions. Moreover, rights are specific to time and place and circumstances: there are probably dozens of reasons why a government or an individual can take the life of a person, and those vary from culture to culture. If the right not to be killed is not a right, then nothing is. I.e., nothing is. By the it’s not “inalienable” rights, it’s “unalienable” rights. And that phrase appears not in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence, which has the same legal standing and the same reason for being as a post in the pit. Once you start seeing your rights coming out of a pit rant you lose all possible persuasive power over others. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/74 "2019-10-02T22:28:59Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > And again, whether or not people understand what pi is, or what planets are, those things continue to function just the same. Rights don’t work that way, as you’ve already admitted. I continue to think you two are arguing over definitions. **Left Hand of Dorkness** believes that moral rights exist in the platonic sense. They don’t do anything on their own, they just exist. If a person exists, that person has rights because the existence of a person implies the existence of rights. There is no genesis of rights; it is impossible to literally _create_ rights (outside of creating a person I suppose). In my opinion this position is non-falsifiable. Neither does this position alone offer any guidance as to which rights should be considered when determining how to act. The analogy to planets is faulty because planets are material objects. The analogy to numbers is much more appropriate. As **Left Hand of Dorkness** believes numbers “existed” before humans had developed the concept, so too do rights “exist” even when humans did not (do not) recognize them. You seem to deny that moral rights exist unless they are established by law or culture. You do not differentiate between moral and legal rights. Society itself creates rights by explicit or implied contracts. Rights themselves can be determined based on evidence, but in my opinion your basic position that rights are established by law and culture is also non-falsifiable. Neither does your basic position offer any guidance as to which rights should be considered when determining how the law or culture _should_ be. I suspect both of you agree on the actual calculus as to which rights _should_ be given consideration, but disagree about the point at which such a calculation should be made. For **Left Hand of Dorkness** I think the decision comes before every act, and for you i think it comes when writing the law or shaping culture. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/75 "2019-10-02T23:04:37Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > **Left Hand of Dorkness** believes that moral rights exist in the platonic sense. He does, but he’s wrong. That’s not a matter of definition. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/76 "2019-10-02T23:24:30Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > He does, but he’s wrong. That’s not a matter of definition. And yet nothing that anyone has said addresses my point. The best attempts seem to be attempts to prove that legal rights can’t be ascertained by deduction, which has nothing to do with what I am saying. Other attempts just call the concept names, which is also not particularly persuasive. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/77 "2019-10-02T23:26:36Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > And yet nothing that anyone has said addresses my point. The best attempts seem to be attempts to prove that legal rights can’t be ascertained by deduction, which has nothing to do with what I am saying. Other attempts just call the concept names, which is also not particularly persuasive. That seems like an unfairly reductive summary of the conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/78 "2019-10-02T23:39:18Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I’m not always gonna reference Wikipedia, but in this case, the article section [Natural versus legal rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights#Natural_versus_legal) may help clarify the conversation. Do you believe in natural rights, by any name, yes or no? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/79 "2019-10-02T23:45:37Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > And yet nothing that anyone has said addresses my point. The best attempts seem to be attempts to prove that legal rights can’t be ascertained by deduction, which has nothing to do with what I am saying. Other attempts just call the concept names, which is also not particularly persuasive. Why is your favored set of axioms real and other sets favored by other people not real? That’s a pretty egocentric view of the fundamental nature of the universe isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030/80 "2019-10-02T23:59:37Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > That seems like an unfairly reductive summary of the conversation. I think it’s pretty fair, actually. > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Do you believe in natural rights, by any name, yes or no? How is this even a question? Have you not read my posts in this thread? As for your earlier post, it’s just nonsense, and not worth addressing. > [@octopus](#): > > Why is your favored set of axioms real and other sets favored by other people not real? That’s a pretty egocentric view of the fundamental nature of the universe isn’t it? This is a dumb question. I believe the principles–not axioms, principles–I believe because I think they’re most logically consistent and consistent with the world I perceive. That’s not egocentric, that’s how everyone operates. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/constitutional-rights-do-they-apply-to-everyone-inside-the-usa-or-just-citizens/841030.md?page=5)