Where do rights come from?

[Blackhawk2001]

I'm by no means an expert on the foundation of our government, but it seems to me that I've read that the Founders didn't base the Declaration and the Constitution entirely on Christian principles - although the society in which they were immersed and their education necessarily included immersion in Judeo-Christian teachings - but they also borrowed from the Greek philosophers and their concepts of the Rights of Man.

 

[KG1]

Free will.

I will choose.

 

[BigRed]

John Locke was wrong in that statement as many of us have been wrong on many occasions.

I disagree. Then again, I tend to find more in Locke that I agree with than not.

 

[2A_Tom]

Had he said Life, Liberty and the right to work. I think it would have been more correct.

 

[nonobaddog]

I will choose.

Rush

 

[PaulF]

Spinoff of a funny pictures thread conversation. Didn’t want to clog it up.

Simple question: where do rights come from? What gives one man the authority to say that anything another man does is right/wrong or legal/illegal?

I hear a lot that they come from man, but I believe that most people don’t actually live their lives that way.

I think human rights come from the imagination of men and exist only within the context of cooperative society. In my view rights are a necessary social construct that attempt to address the problems inherent in human conflict. In a vacuum a man's rights are absolute. The consequences of his actions fall upon him alone. The concept of "rights" has no foundation unless those consequences can be experienced by others.

Rights are an agreement between men that metaphorically determine where your fist ends and my face begins.

 

[BigRed]

Had he said Life, Liberty and the right to work. I think it would have been more correct.

I believe he was stating that property is the fruit of one's labor / capital. Thus, the right to property is the right to the fruit of one's labor / capital.

That said, I don't want to derail the thread on a rabbit trail to split hairs (or would it be hares?).

 

[T.Lex]

Had he said Life, Liberty and the right to work. I think it would have been more correct.

Locke would not have even thought of that formulation. Maybe a "right to compensation for work performed."

A "right to work" would've been tied to a corollary obligation among employers to hire anyone who wanted to work.

 

[2A_Tom]

So, Is Indiana wrong?

I cannot see a right to property as Hamilton could not. The government gives itself authority to tax and or confiscate everything you have.

 

[JettaKnight]

So, Is Indiana wrong?

I cannot see a right to property as Hamilton could not. The government gives itself authority to tax and or confiscate everything you have.

I guess "the right to property" has limitation like the other rights.

 

[2A_Tom]

And where is this right to property enumerated? Or is it like the right to kill unborn babies?

 

[T.Lex]

So, Is Indiana wrong?

What are you referring to?

Indiana's constitution recognizes a right to compensation for property (and services).

 

[2A_Tom]

A "right to work" would've been tied to a corollary obligation among employers to hire anyone who wanted to work.

So, Is Indiana wrong?

What are you referring to?

Indiana's constitution recognizes a right to compensation for property (and services).

Indiana is a right to work state. I "think" that under Pritzger Illinois just changed back to no right to work.

 

[T.Lex]

Indiana is a right to work state. I "think" that under Pritzger Illinois just changed back to no right to work.

Ahhhhh, you're talking about the marketing campaign "right to work." That's not actually about any sort of natural right to work.

That is an ad campaign that would be more accurately titled "right to compensation that doesn't automatically have union dues deducted."

 

[2A_Tom]

Opinions.

 

[JettaKnight]

Opinions.

Isn't that the point of this whole thread?

 

[JettaKnight]

I'm by no means an expert on the foundation of our government, but it seems to me that I've read that the Founders didn't base the Declaration and the Constitution entirely on Christian principles - although the society in which they were immersed and their education necessarily included immersion in Judeo-Christian teachings - but they also borrowed from the Greek philosophers and their concepts of the Rights of Man.

Since they didn't have Netflix, they had a lot more time to study the Ancients.

 

[T.Lex]

Opinions.

????

Did you think that Indiana only discovered a right to employment in... what... 2017?

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I think human rights come from the imagination of men and exist only within the context of cooperative society. In my view rights are a necessary social construct that attempt to address the problems inherent in human conflict. In a vacuum a man's rights are absolute. The consequences of his actions fall upon him alone. The concept of "rights" has no foundation unless those consequences can be experienced by others.

Rights are an agreement between men that metaphorically determine where your fist ends and my face begins.

I don’t know, that just doesn’t go deep enough for me. The German society under Hitler cooperatively killed millions. The Russian society under Stalin cooperatively killed millions. The Chinese society under Mao cooperatively killed millions. That’s not like inconvenience with a restrictive government, that’s dead. It’s not like you think, oh well that society determined their level of cooperation. Good for them. Let them be. There’s an underlying foundation that you know that’s wrong, that’s what I’m interested in. The cooperative society context just doesn’t work for me, and I make it a point to not use religious arguments when I’m speaking about government/political thing because who cares.

 

[churchmouse]

Isn't that the point of this whole thread?