As a human on Earth, you have no rights. Your right to life is ignored by a hungry puma. Your right to free speech is ignored by laryngitis. Your right to free press is pretty well thwarted by not having a piece of paper during a power outage. In the US, the Bill of ‘Rights’ should be called the Listing of Liberties the Government Must Not Infringe, and Must Defend. The Constitution gives nobody rights. In fact, it strictly limits the rights of a whole group of American citizens. That group is the group that makes laws, and their restriction is obviously in the best interest of the people. The first way this works is restriction by enumeration (enumeration meaning to list or specifically mention). The Constitution strictly defines the powers of each governmental branch, indeed each group of elected officials (at the Federal level), in this country. For example, the enumeration of the powers of the President precludes that office being hereditary by providing for elections at fixed intervals. Nothing in the Constitution specifically says that the office isn’t herediatry, it simply defines the means of picking presidnts. The second way the Consitution limits the powers of government is done in the several amendments. The phrase “Congress shall make no law…” isn’t simply boilerplate. It specifically enumerates the boundaries of the legislature above and beyond the abilities of the enumeration of what Congress can do. Amendments can also change the original wording on the Constitution, re-enumerating the limits in the original fashion. To summarize, the Constitution guarantees nothing. It simply restricts the government.
[QUOTE]
**
As a human on Earth, you have no rights. Your right to life is ignored by a hungry puma. Your right to free speech is ignored by laryngitis. <<
Rights are concepts which only apply to social situatons between rational beings. A hungry bear may maul me to death but it can't murder me.
Marc
Communisum was not a form of government in the USSR. Just as Capitalism is the form of goverment in this country. It is an economic device. What went on in Russia was Stalinistic Socalism.
The Constitution isn’t about rights? What about that “Bill of …”
The OP is using the concept of rights in what I will call a unique way, and one which is generally unworkable. It closes debate entirely, which makes one wonder why start a debate if one is going to define terms in such a way as to make that debate moot.
Bucky
Th eform of government in this country is not Capitalism. That’s our economic system. We’re, IIRC correctly, a democratic republic, ie we vote for people who vote for us.
This assumes that you by “this country” meant the United States.
–John
I think we all need to brush up on our Locke.
What is a “right”? Black’s Law Dictionary defines “right” (as a noun) as:
Emphasis added. From this definition, it’s apparent that the idea of a “right” is grounded upon a supposition that there are certain actions that everyone is entitled to take, and certain actions no one is entitled to take, based upon a “primal” grant of such entitlement, prior to the codification of any law (or, as the definition puts it "antecedent to their recognition by positive law). Where do such rights come from, initially? Some argue that they are “inherent,” though that to me begs the question. Some argue that they come from God – which is the party line embraced by the founding fathers and the philosophers they relied on in drafting the Constitution, including Locke.
The argument has been made, however, that the very idea of existent “inherent” rights is a fiction. This appears to be the position taken by the OP. To me, whether it’s a fiction or not does matter. If we, as a society, agree that every man has certain rights, and that those rights are worthy of protection, then that agreement itself creates the right, regardless of whether the idea of rights is fictive or not. In other words, rights exist in our society because we have agreed that they do. Turning to the OP:
If we accept, as I think we must, that “rights” are the product of a social compact between people, then it is obvious that “rights” are only operative between people and not between people and nature. This is the point that MGIBSON is making when noting that you cannot be “murdered” by a bear.
It could certainly be called that. But I see no difference between a “Liberty the Government Must Defend” and a “right.”
Of course it does. It enumerates fairly clearly those rights that cannot be infringed upon – freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, among others. The idea that the government may not trespass upon such rights is clearly premised on the rights existing in the first place. But providing that such rights may not be infringed, the Constitution provides that they exist. If they did not exist, they could not be infringed, even hypothetically.
The Constitution restricts the power of the government but it does not restrict the rights of the individuals making up the government, who enjoy the same individual rights as the rest of us.
The purpose of enumeration, though, is to specifically set forth what the government can do. Why? Because all powers not specifically given to the Federal government are expressly reserved to the states and to the individual. Therefore, we start with a premise that the government is entitled to do nothing, and then we enumerate those tasks which, by law and by social agreement, the government can do. This is not a limitation on the government’s power; it is the totality of that power, which would not exist in the absence of what you term “enumeration.”
Correct. And why? Because going beyond those limitations violates the rights of the citizenry as those rights are enumerated in the Constitution. Again, if the right did not exist, there would be no need to limit the government’s power to infringe upon it.
It restricts the government precisely because rights exist by social contract in our society (if not by inherency). The very fact that it restricts the government from infringing on the rights of the citizenry works to guarantee the rights of the citizens. The whole Bill of Rights is a guarantee of preservation of rights; that’s why it was drafted.
Perhaps rights could be looked at in this manner: They are actions do not cause willful interference with other human beings and which cannot be willfully intereferd with by others. I as a human being has the right to commit any action which does not itself prevent others from the like.
I may say anything I like because the idea itself causes no harm. I may gather with a group of other people because the gathering itself does others no harm. I may hold a belief in a supernatural operation because the belief itself causes no harm. I may have a biological existence (life) because my life itself causes no harm. I may own any item because the posession of that item itself causes no harm.
I may not steal from others because I interefere with the person I am stealing from possessing the item of which they already had established ownership. I may not kill another because I interfere with that persons biological existence. The method of transmission of my ideas may interefere with others rights, and so though I may express any idea I wish, if the method of my expression intereferes with others rights, I cannot use that particular medium (for instance, spraypainting my ideas onto private property). Though I may own a gun, I may not fire that gun at another, because it causes them harm.
The question as a society we ask is not what are our rights, rather it is whether or not we can allow a right to be practiced. For instance the use of drugs itself is an act that intereferes with no other human beings rights. However, no action exists in a vacuum, and we as a society have deemed that the damage to society by drug use has outweighed the right the individual has to use those drugs, due to percieved inescapable consequences associated with them. Thus we have willfully supressed a right. The problem with willfully supressing a right is that there needs to be a compelling reason to do so. In the absence of compelling evidence, the right must not be supressed.
No one questions whether murder or stealing is wrong. OK, people do, but they’re a bit nutty. But there are many who question the properness of making drugs illegal. That’s because they are illegal for different reasons. The former crimes are crimes because they are actions that in and of themselves cause others harm. The second is illegal not because it is an action that causes others harm, but because it is an action that may cause one to cause others harm. It’s tricky. Murder is harm to others, whereas drugs may CAUSE harm to others. There is no forgone conclusion that drugs are harmful to people who do not take them, except in that people may comit actions while on drugs that are harmful to people. Murder is murder whether done while on drugs or sober. But using drugs only * may * cause murder. We must make a decision as a society whether we are willing to take that risk.
To pick at a nice fat nit…
I would append with:
directly to other humans
Human Life cannot exist without imposing death.
So this will have to do.
Derlith is mostly right. His understanding of the Bill of Rights is is correct. It clearly states that these Rights are not to be infringed on by the federal government. It does not positively gaurantee these Rights.
However the “and Must Defend” clause in the Constitution is added by the 14th ammendment ( Ratification completed on July 9, 1868. )
Before the Civil War, federal protection of Rights, as we know it today, did not exist.
Instead of the 3 paragraphs I wrote and lost, I will have to settle for 3 sentences.
Rights are neither inherent nor eternal. What we call Rights are the principles of our society. Societies change.
2SENSE says:
No, he’s not, and no, it’s not. He said “humans have no rights.” This is incorrect. We have rights if we agree as a society that we do. He appears to be arguing that we have no inherent rights, but that’s a red herring in the context of discussing the Constitution, because, under the Constitution and in this society, we do have rights.
He did not say “will not be infringed by the government,” which is correct, he said “the Constitution gives nobody rights.” It quite obviously does, because it provides that the government cannot infringe upon those rights. (And, by the way, in certain very limited circumstances these rights do extend into the private sector also: See, e.g., NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 89 S.Ct. 1918, 23 L.Ed.2d 547 (1969), holding that a union may not as a condition of contract infringe upon an employer’s right to free speech by seeking to limit the employer’s right to communicate with its employees.)
He (and now you) appear to be saying that because our Constitutional guarantees only extend to actions undertaken by the government, therefore the rights protected from government interference do not exist. That is simply not correct, and "me too"ing his initial post will not make it any more correct.
The historical justification for granting rights to individuals in the first place, and for providing that governments may not infringe upon them, is that they are inherent and/or eternal. I’m not sure I buy it, either, but that’s the reason generally given for extending rights to individuals in the first place.
My intent in the OP was to state that the government really can’t guarantee anything. All it can do is agree to limit itself. This was in response to the pro-Communist stances taken by people like Marc in his ‘Crazy Pinko Idea’ thread. I know that Stalin was a contradiction in terms (a Fascist Communist). I know that society can try to guarantee things using guns to kill pumas, antibiotics to cure laryngitis, etc. Social contracts break down when the society trys to impose ‘minumum standards’ whereby a certain percentage of the people try to support the majority who are living on welfare (re: USSR, Cuba). Lentils and cheap rooms don’t come from the sky, people. Private industry has to produce them, because nature has no interest in human survial and a social contract must be bound by the laws of physics.
It appears that I did not understand Derlith’s point. So I was not “me too-ing” but rather “me-ing”.
jodih’s post is right on the money.
Just because the government is not obligated to defend your Rights it does not mean that they do not exist.
Interesting stuff. Thanks for the insight.
:: Eyes Califbummer sig line suspiciously ::
Peace
DERLITH says:
Well, shoot, how am I supposed to argue with that? 
Yes, in fact, it does. If you quote Locke to a puma, it will make no difference. If you try to reason with laryngitis, you’ll just get even more hoarse. Social contracts are bound by natural law. You’ve corrupted Locke’s thesis of ‘Rights Every Government Must Honor’ to resemble ‘Rights Nature Must Honor’. Nature doesn’t have to honor jack diddly.
I am not certain what you are trying to infer…
But my statement is not false. If Rights are inherent and eternal, then they are not dependant on actions of the government.
I didn’t mean to interupt your thread,
Please continue.
Are you saying that Nature, the wild thing that has existed for millions of years, is bound to honor your rights? Wrong. What Locke said, and what I’m saying, is that only civilized beings can honor rights. Only civilized beings can have rights. Every government of humans must honor rights. No humans, no rights. Rights are a social contract. It is permissible to use violence to defend that contract, or to institute it. You cannot sign a contract with a puma. The puma would eat you.
The problem with seeing rights as flowing purely from the social contract can be demonstrated in a hypothetical. What if two humans meet in a situation not controlled by a social contract? Does that give them the right to behave like animals? Certainly not. In fact, certain rights flow from our existence as rational beings, i.e. the right to live. Obviously the topic of rights doesnt apply to Nature, or any other non-rational situation, i.e. psychopaths. I wouldnt say rights are eternal, but they are inherent in our mutual existence as rational beings.
Two people meeting in the woods have options open to them that would not be open in Times Square. They can decide how to approach each other, how to live with each other, or how to defend themselves. If one of the two cavemen decides that the other wants what he has, an attack might happen. If one of the two gets killed, there was no social contract. If they decide to get along, there is a social contract. Only parties in agreement can sign contracts. That’s why revolutions are needed to overthrow monarchies.