Where do rights come from?

[Leadeye]

T. Lex's statement is correct as rights are what people agree on, but based on custom, tradition, etc., and the power structure at the time. This changes over time and changes back again.

A good example are gun rights, leadership at it's core doesn't like concepts like Sam Colt's definition of equality. Here in the US, custom and traditions are different than other places and citizens have what is recognized as rights to firearms. Leadership gives on this as it not in it's best interest to round up and arrest everybody that has a gun. Citizens in return agree to some degree of regulation of their rights. Here, this has moved in one direction or another over time.

 

[nonobaddog]

I believe we have the right to life, to think and to act. These are intrinsic and not 'given' by any jurisdiction.

The simple truth that these rights can be violated does not change that. Certainly governments and men can violate the right to life. This is murder and happens a lot. The violation of a right does NOT imply that the violator had anything to do with the existence of that right in the first place. They can only take life not grant it.

Might doesn't make these rights but might can make wrongs.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I believe we have the right to life, to think and to act. These are intrinsic and not 'given' by any jurisdiction.


The simple truth that these rights can be violated does not change that. Certainly governments and men can violate the right to life. This is murder and happens a lot. The violation of a right does NOT imply that the violator had anything to do with the existence of that right in the first place. They can only take life not grant it.


Might doesn't make these rights but might can make wrongs.

Do I, or should I, have the right to travel anywhere I want, and with the sweat from my brow, work anywhere for whatever someone is willing to pay me?

 

[JettaKnight]

Not according to our constitution. Certain rights are inalienable. You have them because you are a human being, outside of any degree of force.

Remind me where that's enumerated in the US Constitution. I see that described in the Declaration of Independence... a document written by a select group of men.

Did they declare it or did they understand it? “Endowed by their Creator” makes me think the latter.

Again, not in the Constitution.



I don't disagree with the premise of granting those rights to all, but I do disagree with ascribing them to a gift from God. Just because you say they came from God, doesn't make it so. That's just bad theology on the lines of claims by Joel Osteen et al that God wants me to be happy, healthy, and wealthy.

But in this rapid slide towards the edge it may be force that lets us keep those rights. It was force that removed the over bearing rule of the British from this land so we as a people could put them in place. This is by mandate. Nothing else.

I really don't think that's a road we want to start traveling here on INGO.

 

[nonobaddog]

It is kind of a semantic thing. There are real Rights (big R) and then there are man-made rights (little r) that are not real rights at all and should have their own word. They are actions allowed by jurisdictions. The "right" to vote is strictly a man-made right. It implies a man-made government for one thing.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Suggested reading.

https://www.amazon.com/5000-Year-Le...0&s=gateway&sprefix=5000+year+,aps,140&sr=8-1

Its based on NATURAL rights, not biblical rights per se. There is confusion because natural rights coincide with many of the 10 commandments so it is often assumed that our country was founded DIRECTLY on a biblical basis.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Here, let's divide by zero.

For the Christians, is freedom to practice any religion, a right? I ask this, because if God grants rights, how does this reconcile with his Commandment to not have any other god before him? A Commandment isn't a suggestion. If you believe that freedom of religion is a right, then you are admitting that rights are really suggestions.

 

[Robert Richardson]

" Rights" are what you are willing to fight and die for. It's the only way to have them and to be able to keep them. Up to you.

 

[JettaKnight]

And how can you have a guarantee of those if it was decided before you that you don't?

Say a country is being founded, and the people of that time all agree that the people do not have control over the fruits of their labor. For whatever reason.

And everyone agrees on that, and every future person born is born into that, and doesn't question it because it's just how things are.

You never had that right to begin with.

There's probably going to be two different views in this thread... people that think of how it should be, and how it is.

That, and the religious answers.

I don't agree with these rights coming from God, because there's no Biblical evidence for that specifically.

In the US formulation:

Life - granted by God, man can end it but cannot create it

Liberty - Free will, granted by God and part of our make up. We are not (and should not be) a slave to animal instinct, we have the ability to plan and work toward complex goals and in this are unlike any other part of creation

Pursuit of happiness - Gift from God. "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
No other part of creation has been granted dominion over us

The Constitution overtly recognizes the existence of our rights from God, it does not presume to grant them. "We hold these truths to be self-evident ..." and the list is not claimed to be exhaustive " ...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are ..."

This is probably the best reasoned explanation I've heard.

But... and I want to get some work done today, so I'll toss out some passages for consideration...

Phil 1 & Rom 6

In the Christian ethos, those that submit to Christ are demanded to give up those selfish rights and submit to Christ.

But, that's to Christ, not to governments...




I guess I'm just musing here, and don't really know what the right answer is.



The answer gets even harder when you stop and ask, "OK, specifically, what does these rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness look like?" Are they infringed because I have to have driver's license?

 

[nonobaddog]

Do I, or should I, have the right to travel anywhere I want, and with the sweat from my brow, work anywhere for whatever someone is willing to pay me?

To me that is not a Right. That is a man-made thing and completely up to the man-made jurisdictions. "Travel anywhere" is highly likely to be restricted by most man-made jurisdictions. "willing to pay me" implies a man-made monetary system and therefore subject to the allowed actions by some man-made rules. Nothing to do with real Rights in my book. Sounds more like allowed privileges.

 

[BugI02]

Here, let's divide by zero.

For the Christians, is freedom to practice any religion, a right? I ask this, because if God grants rights, how does this reconcile with his Commandment to not have any other god before him? A Commandment isn't a suggestion. If you believe that freedom of religion is a right, then you are admitting that rights are really suggestions.

You must realize that that is not a natural right, except where it is entangled with free will. The Constitution doesn't grant you freedom of religion, it constrains the government from establishing a state-sponsored one (think Church of England)

God doesn't prevent you from falling into sin or worshiping false gods, he has given you free will. God has given you a blueprint for right living with an assurance of the eventual consequences for disobeying, and Christ has given you a lifeline to eternal life through him because he is uniquely qualified to know how "... straight is the gate, and narrow is the way"

 

[T.Lex]

The OP question is totally about semantics.

A "natural" right that a government refuses to recognize is not much of a right.

If we accept that "life" is a natural right of a sentient being, then the US government - and few million of her citizens over the years - have regularly denied that right to the unborn. So, if that's a natural right that's unrecognized (at least in certain situations) by the existing government, then it isn't really a Right or right.

In a utilitarian sense, any right you can think of is a reflection of what the local authority believes you have a right to. That's because the local authority is the mightiest animal on the farm.

 

[BugI02]

The answer gets even harder when you stop and ask, "OK, specifically, what does these rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness look like?" Are they infringed because I have to have driver's license?

Apparently, not if you're a sovereign citizen

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So they're common sense rules that most civilized nations abide by. Don't need to be said, or written, or taught, or explained... just things we agree on, as humans.

Things we all want for ourselves, and understand that everyone around us deserves them, at a minimum.

 

[T.Lex]

So they're common sense rules that most civilized nations abide by. Don't need to be said, or written, or taught, or explained... just things we agree on, as humans.

Things we all want for ourselves, and understand that everyone around us deserves them, at a minimum.

Yeah, almost like an agreement among people in society... like ... a social compact.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You must realize that that is not a natural right, except where it is entangled with free will. The Constitution doesn't grant you freedom of religion, it constrains the government from establishing a state-sponsored one (think Church of England)

God doesn't prevent you from falling into sin or worshiping false gods, he has given you free will. God has given you a blueprint for right living with an assurance of the eventual consequences for disobeying, and Christ has given you a lifeline to eternal life through him because he is uniquely qualified to know how "... straight is the gate, and narrow is the way"

Freedom of Religion falls nicely under "pursuit of happiness," which I recall you listing as a right.... and the part relevant in the Constitution would be the "make no law....prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

 

[T.Lex]

Dammit Janet...err... GPIA7Rshjfknuvsinving... I missed the ironic italics. My bad.

 

[BugI02]

You are dithering between the specific and the general. God grants you the free will to worship him or deny him, it is part of your essential nature. The Constitution recognizes that free will and makes no requirement that you worship a specific god, or any god at all. You are free to believe that your happiness lies with Mohammad or Buddha or Baal. The wages of sin are seldom paid in this life

 

[BugI02]

Freedom of Religion falls nicely under "pursuit of happiness," which I recall you listing as a right.... and the part relevant in the Constitution would be the "make no law....prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

So, applying some Jetta level reduction to absurdity; are you saying that if planned parenthood took off the mask and acknowledged their fealty to Baal and that murdering children as an offering was their true raison d'être, you think the government would have no power constitutionally to prohibit it

'Pursuit of happiness' can never be mistaken for 'Do what thou wilt'

 

[nonobaddog]

'Pursuit of happiness' can never be mistaken for 'Do what thou wilt'

Exactly. One 'right' does not override another 'right'. Saying "it makes me happy to kill you" does not make it your 'right'. It comes down to respecting other's 'rights'. Some people never seem to grasp this absurdly simple principle.