Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Do individual rights exist?

The question remains: What exactly is the nature of a "right"?

My thinking at this moment is that "rights" are a logical political/social construct which attempts to define the maximum range of action an individual may have without trespassing on another's similar claim.

The obvious reason for such a thought process would be to set logical guidelines within which an otherwise non-hierarchical group of humans could exist and avoid conflict. As such, the concept of rights seems to me to be a practical concept aimed at conflict reduction.

The issue of pre-existence seems IMO as seems only an extension of human nature in this specific situation. That is to say, humans cannot conceive that which is beyond our conception. And so it is difficult to conceive of a world without us and out conceptions.

And in a similar fashion, our consciousness logically concludes that anything that exists which we did not create was therefore pre-existent. And since no human created "rights", it seems obvious that they must be pre-existent. But this pre-existence seems to me no different in character than the "pre-existence" of the number two, or 90 degree angles.

Absent human consciousness, "rights" cease to meaningfully exist. Absent a social milieu, "rights" cease to meaningfully exist. In such circumstance, I cannot imagine how it is that rights can be said to "pre-exist."


Inalienability is, IMO, a characteristic that one may choose to attach to rights at their definitional inception.

I propose the following as an exploratory example case. Let us suppose that we grant the justice system authority to impose a variety of punishments. And, let us suppose that capital punishment has been outlawed. And so some future president bush comes up with a novel new punishment to evade this restriction as possible. This new punishment would consist of a treatment that would permanently remove all consciousness. The criminal's body would remain alive, but permanently comatose and brain dead. How is it meaningful to discuss the "rights" that are retained by this alive individual? He/she may retain his rights in theory, but the restrictions on exercising those rights are total and comprehensive. And so the his/her retention of rights is in this case nothing beyond a theory. And so, in this case, when one says that each alive individual retains his full rights, we are simply exploring our defined conception of rights and not the characteristics of some pre-existent reality . And in that sense, inalienable rights are simply a logical and definitional artifact of our philosophical discussion of the nature of rights ... which in turn is nothing but a concept that we have created.

So when people say that rights are pre-existent and inalienable, I hear them saying "I define rights as pre-existent and inalienable. And we can see this is true because when we examine these rights... we find that they are pre-existent and inalienable."

I agree. I think this is the crux of the defining debate (pun intended).


I disagree. Here you are reducing it to a simple circular argument which, although it may be seen elsewhere, I have not seen expressed here.

Your first statement I think is all that is needed. At the time the Constitution was written, it was intended to be the ultimate 'law of the land' (or, more specifically, the Republic, and the society that makes up that Republic). The 'inalienable rights' I see as sort of a 'superior constitution', that the U.S. Constitution itself acknowledges, and from whence it logically flows. There is a hierarchy here.

When one's behavior in society is in opposition to law, the social agreement is that the law wins - unless it is wrong. When a law is 'wrong', and in opposition to the Constitution, the Constitution wins... unless the Constitution is wrong. If the Constitution is in opposition to inalienable rights, the Constitution must be amended.

But, the buck stops there. By including as a primary statement that "we hold these truths to be self-evident", it means that THIS part of the Constitution is deemed to be unassailable and nondebatable, with all other constitutional components to be measured against these 'truths', not to ever consider changing the truths, but only how to, if need be, change the Constitution.

In truth, it is somewhat circular; to me it seems they are saying these 'inalienable rights' are the ultimate authority to which ends the Constitution serves; if any of these 'truths' ceases to be, so will the Constitution cease to be.


Yes, it is a social agreement, and a product of human striving and ideals. But by specifically verbalizing and acknowledging this as being 'inalienable' and 'self-evident', it is the clear bright line that says beyond this we shall not go; beyond this point we, as a nation and a society, will cease to exist.

Take another look at your constitution
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
that quote just isn't in there. The Declaration of Independence is the document with that ringing phrase, but that is not the governing document of the United States of America.

There is certainly some overlap between the two documents, with the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights having a strong overlap with things mentioned in the Declaration. However, they are not identical, nor should they be when you consider the widely divergent purposes of the two documents. The changing of the phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" to "Life, Liberty and Property" is one of the more notable changes. Perhaps the writers were just a little bit older now? 1776 / 1787 Yes, they were probably older.

When you are young and own nothing, pursuing happiness sounds pretty good. The pursuit is half the fun, and wow, just imagine when you catch it. Then you get a bit older, buy a farm, build some barns and a nice horse and buggy, and you start to feel responsible and start worrying someone will take it all away from you. Perhaps your property has become your happiness (You are what you drive).

The inalienable/unalienable word is not there because the constitution spells out restrictions on the government's rightful ability to alienate a person from their rights. While certainly more restrictive on the state than the Divine Right of Kings, it certainly does not claim inalienability for any particular right. Even the "Life, Liberty and Property" so sacred to libertarian constitutional scholars. Looked at from a "strong state" perspective, the Constitution merely spells out the conditions that must be met before you can make a person a prisoner or an ex-person. I wonder if that's what the Original Constructionists on the Supreme Court of the United States of America are really reaching for? I certainly hope not.

Fortunately for America, neither Bentham or Burke were considered to be germane by America's Founders.

Locke would be much more relevant in this discussion, or for my personal tastes, Thomas Paine.

A people who believe their rights are gifted to them by the state have drifted off into the realm of fantasy, when they think that they are free.

A legal system, which has differing standards of applicability, based solely upon citizenry, is justice bound and gagged, awaiting its execution down on the killing floor.

An American future, in which the people did not once again assert their natural rights, and restrain our leviathan, that in the throes of our understandable thirst for vengeance after September 11, 2001, we loosed upon this Earth as rabid wolf amongst the sheep, will never again experience peace.

::watches the train de-rail!::

Wrong!!!!

We're all designed seeds made by an advanced alien civilization, and thus all our brain activity is owned by our alien masters. Need proof!? The Nazca(sp.) Plains. BAM. Proof!!

Point Chuckles. And a apology for thread throw.

IMO Beechhouse makes an excellent point. It is obviously true that The declaration of Independence and the Constitution are quite different documents, written at different times, with differing intents, and differing governing authority.

The Declaration was a document written absent all significant concerns of governance. It's sole intent was to provide a basis for separation from an authoritarian government. The declaration is inspirational; revolutionary in nature. It has no governing authority. And so it is no surprise that the Declaration would drastically narrow that valid scope of government and emphasize individual rights that are the basis of revolution against an existing government.

The people writing the constitution faced a quite different challenge. They had to figure out how to actually govern the nation now free of oppression. Having that challenge, they realized that individual rights and government power had to be balanced in a way that prevented the government from crushing individual rights but still gave government sufficient power to achieve the legitimate aims of government (what ever they are). And so it is that in the governing document (the constitution) there is no discussion of inalienable rights. Instead there is a detailed discussion about the limitations of government's power to alienate the rights of individuals and states.

The Constitution IS NOT the source of our rights. It is instead a framework for a limited government, in which a small subset of our rights were ceded, in the interests of a stable society.

Allow me to first repeat, with emphasis added, what I have previously written, which was, “My view is that rights are inalienable and pre-exist the state and also pre-exist any agreement made among men to recognize them.” Please note that I did not write that they pre-existed man. I also wrote that “rights are integral to the human mind” which is to say they are integral to man. They are essential to the completeness of man and reflect the nature of man, not nature in general, not ‘natural’ man, but the nature of man.

Secondly, no, we do not agree that we can “abridge some portion of another person's inalienable rights”. But, I would agree, as I have previously stated, that an individual’s ability to exercise his rights can be restricted, but the right itself remains with him precisely because it is integral to him.

As to what I mean by the “nature of man” being the source of rights, Allow me to provide an example. In studying the nature of man (or if you prefer, the essence of man) it is observed that man has the ability to have thoughts, ideas, and concepts. He also has the ability to communicate or express his thoughts, ideas, and concepts through language or by other means. It can be further observed that these abilities do not require that they be provided by another (a basis for the concept of negative rights) or that, in exercising these abilities, they would interfere with the right of other men to do the same. From this it can be concluded that such ability is integral to man (not separate from nor an addition to) and it thus follows that man would have the natural right to communicate or express his ideas.

Returning to the idea of rights being unalienable, if rights are essential to the completeness of man (integral), as I think they are, then they cannot be separated from him without altering the nature of man. He can of course be prevented from exercising those rights, but they remain a part of him – until of course, he dies or is killed (Don’t confuse the “right to life” with immortality:-)).

How does my position versus your position play out from a “real world” point of view? Your position is that groups or societies determine through agreement what will be considered a right. In doing so, such ‘rights’ are by definition arbitrary and dependent upon whom within a group holds the greater power of persuasion or coercion. Such ‘rights’ can be altered or withdrawn at will by a simple majority. Thus, whatever rights the majority agrees on, the minority must intellectually accept as right. To unabashedly go to the extreme, this would mean that within NAZI Germany (going back to your WWII source of examples) the determination and laws passed that Germans who were Jews would not have as many ‘rights’ as German non-Jews, would be valid. Those who objected would have no philosophical basis for claiming differently. The group had spoken. To maintain intellectual honesty, those who hold that rights’ are arbitrary and have a basis in and are granted only by the societal group, must acknowledge that within NAZI Germany the removal of ‘rights’ of German Jews was a valid act.

Another example would be the silliness of anyone claiming that there is a right to same-sex marriages if ‘rights’ derive from the consensus of the majority within any given society. If the ‘right’ is not already agreed upon and granted, then it becomes ludicrous to assert that a right is being denied. After all, based on your position, there are no rights beyond the agreement of a given societal group. Thus, demanding that which does not exist is ludicrous.

This is where my position on the existence of natural rights integral to man most differs with one in which ‘rights’ are a mere product of pragmatic agreement between men. The German Jew would have the same rights as the non-Jewish German – and indeed all other persons in the world. They would be unalienable and universal. She and the rest of the world could demand that her ability to exercise her natural rights be restored and condemn those denying her that ability. The natural rights position provides not only an intellectual basis, but perhaps more importantly, a moral basis for making such a demand.

Finally, I am not only suggesting that inalienable rights exist, I am also saying that without those inalienable rights, man, as we know him, would not exist.
Yours,
Issodhos

Issodhos,
Thanks for taking the time to write so much on the subject. It is impossible for me to respond comprehensively at this moment. And so I simply choose to respond to one small part of what you wrote


I observe that when babies are born, they have no capability to communicate in the manner that you describe above. From that fact, would we conclude that babies do not have the natural right that you describe?

I have also not understood from your prose what is a "natural right" such that it is directly implied by the capability to do something. How does capability imply right?


So it is not a right if exercising the "right" would conflict with another person's similar exercising of his right? Is this fundamental to the definition of rights?

This seems to me to be a nice structure. If I was setting up a social contract among people, I would want to include just such a provision.

Still, I fail to see that this provision logically follows from any prior premise, or that it is some sort of logical extension of the fundamental concept of rights. And so I have to wonder where this rule came from?

And further, there seems some assumption that there are some fundamental rights which will never be in conflict. But it seems to me that claims to "rights" would have inevitable conflicts. In the case of the proposed natural right to communicate ideas, there are innumerable potential problems. For instance, when one person is speaking, the other person cannot speak. And maybe speaking second is less advantageous. So who has the right to speak first? If someone has a right to communicate his ideas, does that obligate others to listen? What if someone conspires to keep people from hearing my free expression... without actually stifling my free expression... have my rights been violated?