Because rights don’t come from government. Specifically, the government does not “give” us the right to keep and bear arms. (Look up the word “inalienable” sometime…)
Well, forgetting for the moment that the word “inalienable” appears in the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution, I would advise you to read the very next sentence that appears after those inalienable rights are mentioned: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
The Founders, being in general men of good sense, accepted the fact that the exercise of rights cannot be effected except through the sufferance of government. To merely assert that government does not “give” us any rights ignores the necessity that, to secure those rights for all its citizens a government must first enumerate specific rights and set restrictions on their application.
Are you saying a man stranded on a deserted island does not have any rights because there isn’t a government around to supposedly “secure” them?
Government or no government, I have rights. Hell, I could be stranded in a space capsule, floating toward the sun (just like in that David Bowie song), and I would still have every right enumerated in the B.O.R.
Governments come and go, but people still have basic rights (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.). Another inalienable right (possibly the most important) is the right to protect our rights. This is worth repeating, so read it carefully: Our most basic and important right is the right to protect our rights. (Wordy, I agree, but it makes sense.) This is where the right to keep and bear arms comes in…
The government is a subcontractor to me. I have hired it to take on the duty of securing my rights; we even have a contract. If it fails to live up to our agreement, then I have every right to fire it and either a) take on the responsibilities of securing my rights myself, or b) hire a different contractor. Since the government is a monopoly, b) is unfortunately out of the question.
From Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
Main Entry: [sup]2[/sup]right
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English riht, from riht, adjective
Date: before 12th century
2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled b (1) : the interest that one has in a piece of property – often used in plural <mineral rights> (2) plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature <film rights of the novel>
3 : something that one may properly claim as due
Please notice in the above definitions that all are dependent upon interaction with other members of a society (note the use of words such as “interest” “privelege” “claim” and “entitled”). Your hypothetical man stranded on a desert island has total freedom of action but no rights.
For another explanation of that, read my comment here in reply to Lethal Lynx. (And read it carefully, alright? 
)
The US government is not the only subcontractor out there. A US citizen has every legal right to renounce his/her citizenship and contract with another government. They may notice when they do this that suddenly those inalienable rights that have nothing to do with government have changed, however.
CrafterMan: *Are you saying a man stranded on a deserted island does not have any rights because there isn’t a government around to supposedly “secure” them? *
That’s exactly right, Crafter! To see the point, consider a modification of the situation: there are two men stranded on a desert island, and the bigger one doesn’t like the smaller one to practice his religion or to talk about it, and clobbers him into insensibility whenever he tries. This goes on for the entire five decades they spend on the island, till the smaller guy eventually dies during an excessively vigorous clobbering. Now, what exactly does it mean to say that the late member of this small society “still had” the “right” to free speech and the “right” to free exercise of religion? He may have felt he still should have had those rights and it was wrong to deprive him of them, and we may all agree with him, but that didn’t make a damn bit of difference to his ability to exercise those rights.
Bottom line: Rights are social constructs (although not exclusively governmental ones), and the concept of “having a right” is meaningless in the absence of the willingness and ability on the part of society to protect individual exercise of that right. The concept of “natural rights” inherent at birth in every individual anywhere in the universe is a stirring bit of poetry that’s found its way into lots of good political propaganda; but it can’t change the fact that no right has any meaningful existence except within a society that supports it.
Good points Kim. IN the nature of kicking an idea around…
Would it be equally correct to say that a man on an island alone has an infinite numbner of rights? I mean, he can do anything he wants in the absence of an oppressor. He has free speech in its freest sense because no one is there to stop him.
Now a big thug shows up and doesn’t let him practice his religion, but lets him speak freely. doesn’t he now just have one less right?
It seems to me that in the example Kim gives, the oppressor is giving the opressed rights by failing to stop him from doing certain things.
IS this OK, Kim, or do you think I am off base? It seems to me that either way you look at it, the concept of a right in society stays the same.
Mr. Z.: *Would it be equally correct to say that a man on an island alone has an infinite numbner of rights? I mean, he can do anything he wants in the absence of an oppressor. He has free speech in its freest sense because no one is there to stop him. *
I see your point, though I like xeno’s distinction a bit better: i.e., the guy still has no “rights”, because the term “rights” presupposes a society that will establish and maintain the rights, but what he does have is infinite freedom of action.
*It seems to me that in the example Kim gives, the oppressor is giving the opressed rights by failing to stop him from doing certain things. *
Mmmmaybe, but that seems to imply the “presumption of infinite natural rights” again. I actually don’t think it matters much whether you say that societies “give” individuals rights (starting from a presumed “natural rights” base of zero) or “limit” individuals’ rights (starting from a presumed “natural rights” basis of infinity). Either way, how it works out is that the rights that society is willing to recognize and protect are the only rights that individuals effectively have.
Crafter_Man wrote:
And where did you get the idea that the rights to “keep” and “bear” arms also include the right to buy & sell arms?
Hypothetical situation, followed by a question…
-
I have a dollar.
-
Mr. Bigg comes, punches me in the head, and takes my dollar.
-
Do I still have the dollar?
You have a claim to that dollar. …And a lump on your head.
For a more complete analysis of the situation, perhaps you could share the context in which this forcible transaction took place.
xenophon41: I think I see the problem: we each different interpretations of the term “right” means.
According to your interpretation, a “right” is only a “right” as long as you’re able to physically practice it. In other words, you’re saying that the guy on the deserted island has a right to freedom of speech until the bigger guy infringes on it. Once the big guy pounces on him, you believe the little gut no longer has any rights.
My interpretation of “right” is different. Continuing with the “deserted island” example, I believe the little guy still has an inherent right to freedom of speech, but he is forbidden to practice it. Do you understand the distinction? I believe natural rights reside within a person, just like a heart, and cannot be “taken away” except by death. But what can happen is that an outside force could stop you from outwardly and physically exercising your right.
Here’s another example: A Chinese citizen is living in Beijing. According to you, this Chinese citizen does not have a right to freedom of speech. But I believe he does. It’s just that the Chinese government prohibits him from outwardly (and physically) exercising this right. But this right still exists inside him simply because he’s a human being.
To summarize, I believe every person has basic rights from the time they’re born until the time they die. These rights do not depend on anything. It doesn’t matter what government you’re under, where you live, what century you live in, or what your astrological sign is. These rights are within you, and cannot be removed by any animal, vegetable, or mineral. But what can happen (and often does) is that an outside force will prohibit you from outwardly & physically exercising those rights.
Yayyyyyy!, Kimstu agrees with me on something! WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOO!
:rolling on teh floor hugging self:
One more thing: This is why I cringe every time I hear, “He does not have a right to freedom of speech.” This is wrong. It should be, “He has been forbidden to exercise his right to freedom of speech.” There is a difference.
Let’s continue the story and say that, soon after the killing, the Big Guy is rescued and returned to the country where he was born. (For convenience, it’s the USA.) The body of the man he killed is found and autopsied and it is determined that he was killed, possibly murdered. The Big Guy is arrested and charged with murder. The Big Guy, at trial, does not deny killing Smaller Guy. However, he (or his lawyer) claims that since no government had any jurisdiction over the island, no government can convict him of murder or even try him, for that matter. The prosecution says, however, that since he is a citizen of the USA (he was born there and has never revoked his citizenship), he can be tried under US law because he is bound by those laws even when he is in unclaimed territory; only if he had been within the borders of another sovereign nation could the USA not try him.
I’m with the prosecution on this one. How about the rest of you?
Mr. Z.: Yayyyyyy!, Kimstu agrees with me on something!
Oh-oh, Mr. Z., you do realize that that’s one of the signs of the End Times, right?!?
CrafterMan: *To summarize, I believe every person has basic rights from the time they’re born until the time they die. These rights do not depend on anything. It doesn’t matter what government you’re under, where you live, what century you live in, or what your astrological sign is. These rights are within you, and cannot be removed by any animal, vegetable, or mineral. But what can happen (and often does) is that an outside force will prohibit you from outwardly & physically exercising those rights. *
I see what you’re saying, CM: that’s the concept of “natural rights” that many people support. The chief problem I have with it is: under that assumption, what’s the difference between a right I really have but am simply forbidden to exercise, and a right I think I have but don’t?
See what I mean? If rights are naturally inherent in individual humans independent of social consensus, how do I tell which of the things I want to do are things I have an actual right to do, and which are not? Suppose I feel I have a God-given right to be addressed as Her Imperial Majesty the Empress Josephine—what is there in your system to identify that as an invalid rights claim? Or to take a less silly example, suppose I believe that post-pubescent children have the full rights of adults. How can we determine whether 14-year-olds actually don’t have the right to vote, etc., or whether they do have these rights but are being unjustly prohibited by the government from exercising them?
In other words, if “basic rights” are inherent from birth and universal, then what are they? If there is a natural set of rights that are shared by every human being in the history of our species and that nobody can take away from you, then surely we should be able to identify exactly what this set consists of. But I don’t think there’s a way to do this that won’t be completely culture-dependent, or maybe even completely idiosyncratic. I’m kind of dubious about the concept of a set of “inherent natural rights” that we can’t all agree on.
I’ll take a crack at this one, since no one else did after it appeared on Page 4: If the laws are not being enforced, it could be because the police are under-manned and there is not enough prison space. This is probably because they are also under-funded. Would any of you be willing to have your taxes raised to make sure all the gun laws are enforced? Or making sure what tax money is collected is spent more efficiently? Or privatizing police forces and prisons? (The second choice is most desirable, but the most difficult to make work. The third choice bothers me a lot. It probably wouldn’t work and I don’t like the idea of punishment-for-profit.)
Thanks, Kimstu (er — I mean Your Imperial Majesty). As usual, you said what I wanted to say, but did it much better.
The problem I have with the idea of “natural rights” is that in all my observations of nature the only constant I’ve seen so consistently applied as to be called a “right” is the right to compete for survival. Since in most higher primates this frequently involves actions taken against members of one’s own species, it’s not a great leap of understanding to see the advantages to humanity inherent in our social orders, which tend to define rights in terms of group mores as well as individual interests.
Excellent question.
The concept/philosophy of Natural Rights has been around for thousands of years. (It is not an original concept of John Locke’s!) During this time, philosophers and theorists have more-or-less agreed there exists a finite “list” of basic natural rights based on the behavior of the “human animal.” (I hate that term…) While there is not a definite list floating around out there, most agree a human being has the following natural rights (in no particular order):
The right to speak your mind
The right to protect yourself from harm
The right to purchase (and thereby own) property
The right to practice religion
The right to protect your rights
The right to be secure in your person and property
The right to happiness, and to live your life as you see fit (this is kind of a “catch all,” and assumes you’re not infringing on any one else’s rights in the process)
The right to be treated humanely
As you can see, there is some overlap in the above rights. It should also be noted that there are some common-thread characteristics of each natural right: A) A natural right should not give you a right to a material entity. B) Practicing your natural right should not force someone else to do something. (There are some notable exception to this one, such as a right to have a lawyer appointed for you and a right to a speedy trial. But these are forcing the government (your servant) to do something.) This is why I cringe when I hear people talk about a “right” to food, housing, clothing, health care, prescription drugs, etc. Those are material things, and you do not have a right to anything material. Not even oxygen.
Crafter_Man, I can’t resist asking this, and I mean no disrespect. If you say I have no right to food, housing, health care, etcetera why then do you say I have some inherent right to buy, sell, carry or transport weapons? And please don’t tell me this bears directly to my right to defend myself; I’d say food and housing have an even more direct bearing on my right to [the pursuit of] happiness.
CM: *During this time, philosophers and theorists have more-or-less agreed there exists a finite “list” of basic natural rights based on the behavior of the “human animal.” *
Okay, but which “philosophers and theorists”? Plenty of philosophers and theorists (e.g., Bentham and Mill père et fils) don’t think that there are in fact any “natural rights.” How can we accept this concept as universally valid when even a bunch of more or less culturally homogeneous white European male intellectuals can’t agree about it??
Even if by some miracle we found that there was indeed a real consensus in favor of the concept of “natural rights” as consisting of the individual rights you list, these are still riddled with ambiguity and cultural biases:
*The right to speak your mind. * About what, and in what circumstances?
*The right to protect yourself from harm. * What sort(s) of harm, and to what degree?
*The right to purchase (and thereby own) property. * What kind(s) of property, purchased how and from whom?
*The right to practice religion. * What religion, and what practice(s)?
*The right to protect your rights. * To what degree?
*The right to be secure in your person and property. * From what, and to what extent?
*The right to happiness, and to live your life as you see fit (this is kind of a “catch all,” and assumes you’re not infringing on any one else’s rights in the process). * I think they’re all kind of catch-all!
The right to be treated humanely. What does “humanely” mean?
And to continue my hypothetical from the previous post, which of these rights pertain to 14-year-olds?
I’m sorry, but I don’t think you’ve even come close to making a case for a general consensus on a clearly delimited set of “natural rights” that are automatically universally inherent in every individual. You can believe that rights are independent of social consensus if you want to, but I don’t see how you can logically consider that you’ve demonstrated it to somebody who doesn’t already believe it.