The point is that neither God (or the creator if you prefer) nor governments give rights. People give rights. And people can take away rights. 2sense said it rather eloquently, so I won’t repeat it.
However SPOOFE challenged:
First of all, criminals do not “give up” their rights. Society “takes them” away. There’s an important difference here. Second, there are many so-called victimless crimes that still revoke the rights of the criminals - even though they have not infringed on the rights of others. Third, what about the rights of the innocent victims of gun violence? A greater number of people have their rights violated as a result of accidental shootings, domestic disputes, mistaken identity, and psychopaths. Doesn’t the basic tenet of the greater public good suggest that the right to bear arms violates more rights than it grants?
Society even takes rights away from non criminals all of the time. As new laws are passed that restrict what people can do, some of their rights are revoked. This is not a bad thing - it’s a form of growth.
>SPOOFE Bo Diddly: The Constitution is so amazing because it ushered in a new era of governmental management. And don’t point out that the Greeks did it first, 'cuz they had a different form of democracy (I think ours is a “constitutional democracy”, but I’m not positive).
We’re not a democracy (at least we’re not a pure one, anyway); we’re a constitutional republic. A pure democracy would be hell-on-earth, as a pure democracy has no need for a Constitution.
Our form of government can best be described by the following three adjectives:
Limited
The powers, duties, and responsibilities of the government are forever-limited, i.e. the government cannot do “anything it wants.”
Delegated
We elect other people to act on our behalf.
Enumerated
The powers, duties, and responsibilities of the federal government are not only limited (see #1), they are precisely known: they’re listed in the Constitution. Furthermore, the powers of the government are restrained to those specifically listed, i.e. if doesn’t say specifically say it’s allowed to do it, then it can’t.
>JoeyBlades: The point is that neither God (or the creator if you prefer) nor governments give rights. People give rights. And people can take away rights.
Oh, is that right? People give rights??
Are you saying (specifically) that the government gives me rights? But I thought the government was my servant acting on my behalf! How can my servant give me rights??? Please, someone explain this to me!
NOWHERE in our Constitution (which is the “Law of the Land”) does it say the government “gives” us rights. Sure, it certainly lists some of them (press, religion, arms, etc.), but where does it say it GRANTS them?
Answer: It doesn’t.
The government did not “grant” me freedom of speech; I was born with that right, and the words of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution support this. And while the government does NOT have the legal or moral authority to grant me rights, it sure-as-hell can take them away. Which is precisely WHY we have the Bill of Rights.
Seems you need a refresher course on the philosophical foundations of our country.
>> The government did not “grant” me freedom of speech; I was born with that right
> Sez who?
> Why do you believe that you were born with the right to say anything? I’m NOT saying you’re wrong, mind, I just want to know why you believe it.
First of all, you must understand my statement that “I was born with a right to speak freely” is a philosophy. And like all philosophies, it cannot be “proven.” Likewise, the statement “I was not born with a right to speak freely” is also a philosophy, and therefore cannot be “proven.”
But it’s not just any-ol’ philosophy: it’s the philosophy of our Founding Fathers, and the philosophy this country was founded on.
So why do I believe in this philosophy? Two reasons:
I like it
It makes sense
And why do I think it makes sense?
Our rights come from SOMEWHERE. Some people will have you believe your rights come from government, but that makes absolutely no sense to me. The government is a paid servant (or subcontractor, if you wish) working on your behalf; how can a servant grant you rights?? Others claim your rights come from “other people.” But how is that different from government?
It is totally illogical to me, not to mention insulting, to believe that a government can grant me rights. Our Founding Fathers didn’t believe it, and our Country was not founded on that principle. Yet so many people believe it today. I wonder why that is?
For someone who seems very eager to throw out “You need to brush up on your democracy philosophy”, you seem fairly unsupported in the facts.
Philosophy is not just a good idea that people go along with. It certainly isn’t fact, but it CAN be supported, and is arrived at after careful analysis of ideas, theories, concepts, and sometimes facts.
John Locke is a perfect example, and fortunately for us, the philosopher much of our current democratic state is based upon.
Now, if you go flipping through the Two Treatise, I need to advise you not to just pull out the first thing you see. He develops and develops on his ideas (sorry, I don’t have my copy with me at work. I’ll be happy to see if I brought back from school when I get home.)
He does go over inalienable rights, and god-given rights and the lot. And he gives very specific ideas regarding them as well. You REALLY need to support your thoughts. In this forum, that won’t last long.
Also, your statement of “Oh, is that right? People give rights?? Are you saying (specifically) that the government gives me rights?” needs revising. And by “revising”, I mean “deleting”. It doesn’t make sense, it puts words in his mouth, and makes you look ignorant. Its taken out of context, and even then is a fallacious argument.
> For someone who seems very eager to throw out “You need to brush up on your democracy philosophy”, you seem fairly unsupported in the facts.
> Philosophy is not just a good idea that people go along with. It certainly isn’t fact, but it CAN be supported, and is arrived at after careful analysis of ideas, theories, concepts, and sometimes facts.
> John Locke is a perfect example, and fortunately for us, the philosopher much of our current democratic state is based upon.
> Now, if you go flipping through the Two Treatise, I need to advise you not to just pull out the first thing you see. He develops and develops on his ideas (sorry, I don’t have my copy with me at work. I’ll be happy to see if I brought back from school when I get home.)
I think we’re in agreement, yet I’m trying to understand your criticism… are you saying I should turn this into a thesis on natural rights? Whoa! There wouldn’t be enough disk space on this server to do that! Now there might be enough disk space to give Mr. Locke a fair shake, but I don’t have that kind of time or inclination. I would encourage any interested party to read-up on Mr. Locke’s writing on their own. I’m just giving the super-abridged layman’s version.
> He does go over inalienable rights, and god-given rights and the lot. And he gives very specific ideas regarding them as well. You REALLY need to support your thoughts. In this forum, that won’t last long… I wonder why that is?
I certainly should not need to prove to anyone that John Locke wrote extensively on natural rights; it’s a fact, and any interested party can knock themselves out at their local library. The point I’m trying to make is that this country was founded on the philosophy that “The People” have inalienable rights (the right to bear arms being one them, which was my original point), and that our government was created to SECURE these natural rights. Inherent to this philosophy is that the government CANNOT give us rights - and that’s my main point.
2sense>There is also no such thing as an Inalienable Right in this country.
2sense>If a felon is senteced to die, his Right to life has been alienated. If that felon has his sentence commuted and is simply imprisoned, his Right to liberty has been alienated. If that felon is freed someday he can never legaly own a gun, his Right to bear arms has been alienated.
2sense>Why are this man’s Rights alienated? Because we agree that they should be. No one is born with any Right that we do not agree that they should have. As our society changes, so do our Rights.
You’ve just proven a point I’ve been trying to make: The government does not GIVE you rights upon birth; it can only take them away (at some point).
Of course, your natural rights are suspended if you’re incarcerated, and re-established if you’re let out. But they’re natural rights none-the-less.
OK, I think I understand where you’re coming from, Crafter. I agree that governments do not necessarily grant rights (although they do grant priveleges). However, I don’t understand why you accept that governments are human constructs while denying that the idea of rights is also a human construct. Merely looking at the exceptions to the rights enumerated in the US Constitution shows that the idea of what is and is not a right changes. I have the right to speak my mind, except when I’m in a crowded theater and what’s on my mind is “FIRE!” I have the right to practice my religion, until it involves public nudity and smearing chicken blood on my driveway. For that matter, I have the right to life until I’m face-to-face with a hungry and pissed-off polar bear.
Govenrment secures rights, government guarantees rights, government (as you say) revokes rights. But govenrment does not create rights.
Neither does God. Or nature.
Rights, just as governments and religions, are created by people. The people who have top live together. The people who form a society. And in a glorious gestalt that would make Hari Seldon applaud, societies over time determine the aspects of their society–morals, ethics, and yes, rights. The saxon serf in the 12th century didn’t have a right to free speech. Should he? Sure. Did he? Hell no.
I believe that the concept of inalienable rights is a human construct, and that these rights are as well. I do not believe that they were endowed by any Creator.
> Rights, just as governments and religions, are created by people. The people who have top live together. The people who form a society. And in a glorious gestalt that would make Hari Seldon applaud, societies over time determine the aspects of their society–morals, ethics, and yes, rights. The saxon serf in the 12th century didn’t have a right to free speech. Should he? Sure. Did he? Hell no
I disagree that “rights come from people.”
Let’s say I grew up (from a baby) alone on an uncharted and unclaimed island in the Pacific. Are you saying I would have no rights because there are no other people around to give me rights? That I would not have a natural right to create my own religion? That I would not have a natural right to defend myself? That I would not have a natural right to inscribe text onto rocks?
Whether you are stranded alone on island, or floating around in space, or surrounded by millions of people in NYC, you have the SAME BASIC, NATURAL rights, some of which are so eloquently enumerated in our Constitution. These natural rights have ALWAYS existed since man appeared on the scene thousands of years ago. And they will continue to exist as long as man exists.
Governments come and go, but our basic rights remain constant.
Damn straight I am. “The Pursuit of Happiness”?! What was T.J. smoking when he came up with that line?! I mean, I know he couldn’t recite John Locke’s trinity of “Life, Liberty, and Property” verbatim without coming off like a pro-slavery barbarian, but couldn’t he have come up with something a little more substantial than “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”?!
Heck, Franklin had to tell him to cool it on the pro-religion front at least once, too – Jefferson’s first draft said, “We hold these truths to be sacred”, before Franklin made him change it to “We hold these truths to be self-evident”.
Good example, Crafter, and I think it can serve to bolster my point as well. What’s appropriate for a society of one is determined by the one. If I’m stranded on an island, I might well believe I have a right to bathe daily in seagull dung. If I think I should create a religion of one (which would technically be a philosophy, I suppose), I’ll do so. Or whatever.
::shrug:: Like I said, I disagree with you. I don’t believe that there are any “absolute” or “natural” rights.
(But then, I also believe that most people’s lives are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”)
You believe that Rights come from God. Your belief comes from faith. I can’t debate your faith logicly. My belief that Rights are created by Man comes from logic. It can be debated logicly. OK, we disagree. We can only logicly debate something ( such as gun control ) if we understand the meaning the other person gives to the words they are using.
Your belief that Rights can not be taken away can be disproven. I have done so. You have also done so in your posts.
While your Rights are “suspended”, they have been alienated.
If it was “taken from him” , this Right was alienated.
You argue that the Right still exists. Fine. But it is alienated and therefore not inalienable.
I believe that you must see the logic in my argument. If so, then we can move on to exactly when I believe that your Rights ( and my own ) should be alienated.
You seem to be confused about what a right is. You view it as some concrete thing, ordained by God, though not explicitly stated by him. The problem with this argument is that there are societies that have very different rights and/or lack of them that share the same concept of God. The U.K. is a good example. From a religious standpoint, they share most of the same concepts and beliefs about God. Some of the rights that you claim in the U.S. are not rights in the U.K…
A right is something that is granted by a society. People. Governments can write laws to try and protect these rights, but they cannot enforce the rights themselves only people can enforce the rights. Or better stated, only people have the power to take a right away from someone. This may happen on the societal level with new laws or it may happen on the individual level by infringement.
As an individual, I can take away your right to life by killing you. Society has decided that this may be unacceptable and might decide to punish me by taking away some of my rights. I could also take away your right to carry a gun, at least temporarily, by walking up to you and taking your gun. Society would have to decide if I had wrongfully denied you your rights. I could take away your right to free speech by rendering you unconscious. Again society would have to decide whether this was justifiable. In all of these cases, the circumstances would have to be reviewed. For instance, all three of these cases might be deemed self defense or defense of others and perhaps I was completly justified in denying you these rights.
Conversely, individuals and only individuals can grant rights. I can grant you the right to life by NOT killing you or I might even push you out of the path of a speeding bus to save your life. I might give you a gun for your birthday and grant you the right to bear arms. I might invite you to my home to tell me of your philosophy or at least, allow you to spout it off without interrupting, assuming it doesn’t infringe on mine or other’s rights.
Rights are volitile concepts. They are situational. Every time you try to exercise a right, the people around you review your right and decide whether they are going to grant it or deny it. Fortunately, you live in a society where your rights are normally granted. A society that has laws designed to punish those who wrongfully deny you your rights. But notice, the laws themselves do not grant rights or protect rights. As for God, he certainly does not seem to exercise routine intervention when people’s rights are being violated. I don’t think you have much of a case, to make that argument.
Actually, I agree with that. The concept of a right only has meaning in the context of a society. Of course, our theoretical castaway can do whatever he wants, but he is not exercising rights. A right only exist if there’s a threat of challenge or contention. Let’s take a few examples, maybe it will become clear. First the classic example of yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater. Most people would agree that I do not have this right. If the theater is completely empty, can I yell “FIRE”? Of course, but only because there’s no one around to contend my ‘right’ to do this. Do I have a right to yell “FIRE” in an empty theater? I’m saying this question makes no sense… Another, more disturbing example. You and I are the last people on the Earth. I kill you. Have I violated your right to life? I deem that I had a ‘right’ to kill you. You’re dead so can’t argue to the contrary and there’s no one else around. Ethics and morality aside, in that situation before I killed you there was an argument that you had a right to live - after the fact, the concept had no meaning (or at least no one to defend the concept).
How is it that you are born with the right to free speech and a baby born in a comunist dictatorship might not be? Just being born does not give you the right to free speech. Just being in the U.S. doesn’t give you the right. The right is implied, but it’s the people around you that actually grant you that right. The people who share a common philosophy that you should be allowed to speak freely, no matter what dribble might roll out (as long as it’s not harmful to others).
Thanks for the reply, but I think you’re missing the whole point.
According to the philosophy of natural rights, ALL people - in every location, over all time - are entitled to certain BASIC rights. Let’s take freedom of speech, for example. According to natural rights, every Chinese person has a basic, inherent right to speak freely simply because they’re a human being. But the second they are born, the government takes that right away from them. According to natural rights, every Cuban has a basic, inherent right to speak freely simply because they’re a human being. But the second they are born, the Cuban government takes that right away from them. According to natural rights, every US Citizen has a basic, inherent right to speak freely simply because they’re a human being. The US government does NOT take this right away after birth (except in esoteric circumstances).
Do you understand??
I believe ALL people are ENTITLED to speak freely. Repeat: I believe ALL people are ENTITLED to speak freely. I believe it is a BASIC human right. You, on the other hand, believe we are only ENTITLED to rights GRANTED by the government who happens to be controlling us at the time. According to you, if I am unlucky enough to be born in North Korea, then I am not ENTITLED to free speech. I understand I wouldn’t have freedom of speech in North Korea. But you go the extra step and say I am not even ENTITLED to it. I find this quite disturbing.