Human right, not constitutional right

[T.Lex]

Felons and Crazy People: If they are locked up, yes. If they are not locked up, then I would say no.

People in prison don't need to protect themselves?

Foreigners: They should be allowed to KBA

Even the ones that use their 1A human/natural right of free speech to promise death to minorities?

Enemies: Not sure what you mean by this. A country we are at war with?

Any of them. All of them. As a hRKBA, it doesn't matter, does it?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

My circles are large.

Selma?

 

[HoughMade]

You don't have a right unless it is protected and enforceable by you or others, theoretical musings aside.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Ok. Let's use that formulation.

If there is a hRKBA, can we deny it to felons, crazy people, foreigners and our enemies?

[ETA: let's set aside the distinction between right and necessity, although we can certainly come back to it if you want. I'm intentionally avoiding it only to stay focused on the issue presented.]

Is there a human right to life?

While philosophically interesting, I suppose, in practice no right is absolute regardless of in what terms you couch it.

 

[HoughMade]

Is there a human right to life?

While philosophically interesting, I suppose, in practice no right is absolute regardless of in what terms you couch it.

Do you mean you don't have a right unless its protected and enforceable?

 

[T.Lex]

Is there a human right to life?

While philosophically interesting, I suppose, in practice no right is absolute regardless of in what terms you couch it.

The most popular early formulation lists 3: life, liberty, and property (some also include the "pursuit of happiness" but does not guarantee the corollary "catching of happiness).

What you - and I think Hough - describe is government. A construct that exists to protect the recognizes rights of the people within society.

Is there a right to government?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Do you mean you don't have a right unless its protected and enforceable?

I think it's more along the "might makes right" lines, as rights have traditionally been dependent on who is in charge, and never been of a consensus amongst differing societies.

 

[HoughMade]

I think it's more along the "might makes right" lines, as rights have traditionally been dependent on who is in charge, and never been of a consensus amongst differing societies.

My position reflects reality, not wishful thinking.

Want a right? Concentrate power and get it. Political power, economic power, and yes, sometimes physical force. The Founders didn't bank on hopes and dreams to enact Enlightenment ideas. First they tried political power, and ultimately, they used physical force. The extension of civil rights to those who were denied started as an idea and became reality due to the the concentration of political power. Not all exercises of power are selfish (INGO opinions to the contrary) and not all rights that people seek to have recognized as protected and enforceable are selfish.

If you can't protect a right at law and enforce it, at least through the law if not more, how is it that you actually have a right. What's the practical difference between having a right you can't enforce and not having the right?

How is this not an accurate reflection of the way the world works?

 

[T.Lex]

My position reflects reality, not wishful thinking.

Want a right, concentrate power and get it. Political power, economic power, and yes, sometime physical force.

How is this not an accurate reflection of the way the world works?

That is called sovereignty. Get territory. Defend territory. Govern.

That's - supposedly - independent of natural rights, according to Jefferson, Locke, et al.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Do you mean you don't have a right unless its protected and enforceable?

No, that's a separate (and valid) point.

Even the "protected and enforceable" isn't irrevocable. So it's not particularly relevant in the "what sort of right is it" philosophical quest to label to ask the sorts of questions TLEX did. The right to life is the basis for all human rights, yet we kill to protect ourselves and our societies. If we deny life to people trying to kill us (or overthrow our society) is the right to life no longer a "human right"?

 

[T.Lex]

No, that's a separate (and valid) point.

Even the "protected and enforceable" isn't irrevocable. So it's not particularly relevant in the "what sort of right is it" philosophical quest to label to ask the sorts of questions TLEX did. The right to life is the basis for all human rights, yet we kill to protect ourselves and our societies. If we deny life to people trying to kill us (or overthrow our society) is the right to life no longer a "human right"?

If Locke or Jefferson were on Twitter, I think they would respond that human rights remain rights, even if being denied. In fact, the nature of an indefensible government is the denial of those human rights.

The idea of "natural rights" is an imperfect filter by which to examine interactions between individuals. Rather, the context is best understood with interactions between individuals and governments.

 

[HoughMade]

If Locke or Jefferson were on Twitter, I think they would respond that human rights remain rights, even if being denied. In fact, the nature of an indefensible government is the denial of those human rights.

The idea of "natural rights" is an imperfect filter by which to examine interactions between individuals. Rather, the context is best understood with interactions between individuals and governments.

I'm sure that's what Locke of Jefferson would say....and without a means to make the rights enforceable, such tweet would have all the relevance of...well...most tweets.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If Locke or Jefferson were on Twitter, I think they would respond that human rights remain rights, even if being denied.

That still leaves the question of how does being able to deny the right to our enemy validate if it's a human right or not?

If there is a hRKBA, can we deny it to felons, crazy people, foreigners and our enemies?

If there is a hR to life, can we deny it to felons, crazy people, foreigners and our enemies?

 

[T.Lex]

That still leaves the question of how does being able to deny the right to our enemy validate if it's a human right or not?

If there is a hR to life, can we deny it to felons, crazy people, foreigners and our enemies?

Thanks, Denny.

But more seriously, if hRKBA exists, our enemies have it, too, regardless what government they suffer.

And, if there is a hR to life, indeed, we can deny it to those who breach the natural rights themselves (at least according to the traditional formulation). By breaching the law of nature, they forfeit the benefit of it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Thanks, Denny.

But more seriously, if hRKBA exists, our enemies have it, too, regardless what government they suffer.

And, if there is a hR to life, indeed, we can deny it to those who breach the natural rights themselves (at least according to the traditional formulation). By breaching the law of nature, they forfeit the benefit of it.

Locke (and Kut) would agree.

 

[T.Lex]

True story: the Declaration of Right in 1689 asserted that Protestants had the right to bear arms for defence. Well, arms suitable to their means and as allowed by law.

 

[edporch]

Hiya. So I've been browsing the forum for some time now, and I've noticed that when referring to the right to keep and bear arms you guys always call this a person's "constitutional right", when it ought to be called, and truly is, a person's human right. The Constitution does NOT give a person this right, they are born with it, the constitution merely protects it. This is a very important distinction and I felt that I needed to call you guys out on it. Far too often I've seen people on here call it a "constitutional right" and it pisses me off to no end.
Thanks

Yes, the right to keep and bear arms is a human right, and our founding document the Declaration of Independence declares that our human rights come from our creator, not government.

The US Constitution is merely the best attempt of those at the time to codify it's truths into law.

So when it's said that the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right, it's true because it's based on the truths in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[jamil]

Selma?

Well. Not THOSE circles.

 

[Spear Dane]

Hiya. So I've been browsing the forum for some time now, and I've noticed that when referring to the right to keep and bear arms you guys always call this a person's "constitutional right", when it ought to be called, and truly is, a person's human right. The Constitution does NOT give a person this right, they are born with it, the constitution merely protects it. This is a very important distinction and I felt that I needed to call you guys out on it. Far too often I've seen people on here call it a "constitutional right" and it pisses me off to no end.
Thanks

Yeah you are totally right. If you are going to insist on being in the right we are going to ask you to leave. We here at INGO do NOT let facts get in the way of a good argument, not even alternative facts.

 

[jamil]

I think it's more along the "might makes right" lines, as rights have traditionally been dependent on who is in charge, and never been of a consensus amongst differing societies.

There are some core rights that most in the West can agree on. One is, well, not so much anymore, but the one right that is probably most important for a free society, free speech. The societies in the West who now **** on free speech are those which are rejecting the ideas achieved by the Enlightenment.

If Locke or Jefferson were on Twitter, I think they would respond that human rights remain rights, even if being denied. In fact, the nature of an indefensible government is the denial of those human rights.

Yes, they would. It's a principle. A right infringed upon is no less a right, but to Hough's point, fat lot of good that does when it's trampled upon by someone stronger. And this is the need for some government, to protect citizens' rights fairly. A natural right is what should be, not so much what always is.

The idea of "natural rights" is an imperfect filter by which to examine interactions between individuals. Rather, the context is best understood with interactions between individuals and governments.

The idea of "natural rights" isn't intended as a filter by which to examine interactions between individuals. Conceptually they stand apart from that. In a free society where government's primary purpose is to protect the rights of citizens, "the government" IS the citizens, individuals appointed by the individuals in society to fulfill the role of govenrment--protecting rights.

That still leaves the question of how does being able to deny the right to our enemy validate if it's a human right or not?



If there is a hR to life, can we deny it to felons, crazy people, foreigners and our enemies?

I still think that when I hear people talking about "human rights" it's really no different from the idea natural rights. And it seems like some may be conflating human decency with human rights. You don't have a right to charity. But humans have a moral responsibility to be charitable. Human rights (natural rights) and moral responsibility are the foundation of a free society. One defines what humans should be able to do, and the other defines how humans should act. So we form governments to help protect rights, and to some extent, help define how humans should act.

Thanks, Denny.

But more seriously, if hRKBA exists, our enemies have it, too, regardless what government they suffer.

And, if there is a hR to life, indeed, we can deny it to those who breach the natural rights themselves (at least according to the traditional formulation). By breaching the law of nature, they forfeit the benefit of it.

It is indeed a denial of human rights to lock people up, or execute people, or disarm them. But as part of our social contract to live peacefully, we agree on rules, and punishments for breaking the rules. We agree on what is just in a democratic way.