PDA

View Full Version : What is a "Right"?



jaydoc1
12-08-09, 09:38
I got into a fairly philosophical discussion this morning with one of my more liberal partners when I read that the EPA has asserted their "Right" to regulate the emission of greenhouse gasses. My point was that they have no Right to that, and that, in fact, no such Right exists for anyone.

That led us to a discussion of exactly what a Right is. His position is that Rights are given through the government by way of laws and regulations. My assertion is that governments may not give Rights but only infringe on them. He then went on to ask if I could list what exactly are all the Rights all people posses. I said that there are actually very few Rights which could be considered unalienable.

I found this very excellent quote on what a Right is:


WHAT IS A RIGHT?
Fatal Blindness (FR archives) ^ | 06/14/99 | Fulton Huxtable

Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 10:27:09 AM by NMC EXP

A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. The concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you may exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights of another—within this context, rights are an absolute.

A right is universal—meaning: it applies to all men, not just to a few. There is no such thing as a "right" for one man, or a group of men, that is not possessed by all. This means there are no special "rights" unique to women or men, blacks or white, the elderly or the young, homosexuals or heterosexuals, the rich or the poor, doctors or patients or any other group.

A right must be exercised through your own initiative and action. It is not a claim on others. A right is not actualized and implemented by the actions of others. This means you do not have the right to the time in another person’s life. You do not have a right to other people’s money. You do not have the right to another person’s property. If you wish to acquire some money from another person, you must earn it—then you have a right to it. If you wish to gain some benefit from the time of another person’s life, you must gain it through the voluntary cooperation of that individual—not through coercion. If you wish to possess some item of property of another individual, you must buy it on terms acceptable to the owner—not gain it through theft.

Alone in a wilderness, the concept of a right would never occur to you, even though in such isolation you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In this solitude, you would be free to take the actions needed to sustain your life: hunt for food, grow crops, build a shelter and so on. If a hundred new settlers suddenly arrive in your area and establish a community, you do not gain any additional rights by living in such a society nor do you lose any; you simply retain the same rights you possessed when you were alone.

A right defines what you may do without the permission of those other men and it erects a moral and legal barrier across which they may not cross. It is your protection against those who attempt to forcibly take some of your life’s time, your money or property.

Animals do not have rights. Rights only apply to beings capable of thought, capable of defining rights and creating an organized means—government—of protecting such rights. Thus, a fly or mosquito does not possess rights of any kind, including the right to life. You may swat a fly or mosquito, killing them both. You do not have the right to do the same to another human being, except in self-defense. You may own and raise cows, keep them in captivity and milk them for all they are worth. You do not have the right to do the same to other men, although that is what statists effectively do to you.

There is only one, fundamental right, the right to life—which is: the sovereignty to follow your own judgment, without anyone’s permission, about the actions in your life. All other rights are applications of this right to specific contexts, such as property and freedom of speech.

The right to property is the right to take the action needed to create and/or earn the material means needed for living. Once you have earned it, then that particular property is yours—which means: you have the right to control the use and disposal of that property. It may not be taken from you or used by others without your permission.

Freedom of speech is the right to say anything you wish, using any medium of communication you can afford. It is not the responsibility of others to pay for some means of expression or to provide you with a platform on which to speak. If a newspaper or television station refuses to allow you to express your views utilizing their property, your right to freedom of speech has not been violated and this is not censorship. Censorship is a concept that only applies to government action, the action of forcibly forbidding and/or punishing the expression of certain ideas.

Statists have corrupted the actual meaning of a right and have converted it, in the minds of most, into its opposite: into a claim on the life of another. With the growth of statism, over the past few decades, we have seen an explosion of these "rights"—which, in fact, have gradually eroded your actual right to your life, money and property.

Statists declare you have a "right" to housing, to a job, to health care, to an education, to a minimum wage, to preferential treatment if you are a minority and so on. These "rights" are all a claim, a lien, on your life and the lives of others. These "rights" impose a form of involuntary servitude on you and others. These "rights" force you to pay for someone’s housing, their health care, their education, for training for a job—and, it forces others to provide special treatment for certain groups and to pay higher-than-necessary wages.

Under statism, "rights" are a means of enslavement: it places a mortgage on your life—and statists are the mortgage holders, on the receiving end of unearned payments forcibly extracted from your life and your earnings. You do not have a right to your life, others do. Others do not have a right to their lives, either, but you have a "right" to theirs. Such a concept of "rights" forcibly hog-ties everyone to everyone else, making everyone a slave to everyone else—except for those masters, statist politicians, who pull the strings and crack the whips.

Actual rights—those actions to which you are entitled by your nature as man—give you clear title to your life. A right is your declaration of independence. A statist "right" is their declaration of your dependence on others and other's dependence on you. Until these bogus "rights" are repudiated, your freedom to live your life as you see fit will continue to slowly disappear.

jtb0311
12-08-09, 15:23
Good article.

I don't believe that the government gives us rights. Rights just are. From the Declaration of Independence:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

RancidSumo
12-08-09, 18:47
Life, Liberty, and Property. Everything else stems from those.

NoBody
12-08-09, 18:50
Inalienable Rights...given to us by God and not the government. Remember, the government exists to serve the People and not the other way around.

I was actually taught that in my Civics class 30 years ago. I wonder what they are teaching now. :(

11Bravo
12-08-09, 19:11
snip...His position is that Rights are given through the government by way of laws and regulations. My assertion is that governments may not give Rights but only infringe on them...snip
You have hit upon the main difference in how the left and the right view "rights".

The left believes that rights are what the government tells you that you can do.
The right believes that rights are what the government cannot tell you that you cannot do.

The left believes that it is illegal unless the government says it is legal.
The right believes that it is legal unless society lets the government tell them that it is illegal.

GMZ
12-08-09, 19:20
Yes rights are endowed upon us by our creators, the BoR just lays out which ones the govt is not supposed to **** with.

The Dumb Gun Collector
12-08-09, 19:32
I know this isn't a popular position, but rights are mainly BS. You have whatever rights you can force on others or others choose to give you.

NoBody
12-08-09, 19:38
I know this isn't a popular position, but rights are mainly BS. You have whatever rights you can force on others or others choose to give you.

Hence the reason we need the Second Amendment! :D

11Bravo
12-08-09, 19:41
I know this isn't a popular position, but rights are mainly BS. You have whatever rights you can force on others or others choose to give you.
That's the practical.
I believe we are discussing the theoretical.

You know what they say,
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice...

rlgdestroyu@hotmail.com
12-08-09, 19:43
I think that if we respect ourselves and we want those basic rights for ourselves, then we would respect others and thier desires for the basic rights as well. If that fails....second amendment.

Bubba FAL
12-09-09, 00:41
The concept of "natural rights" presupposes an authority higher than man. The Founding Fathers believed that rights did not come from any human authority, but rather from God. This was not unique to the FFs, as John Locke and William Blackstone espoused the same philosophy in their writings. These Natural Rights are considered involiate - that is while we can forfeit our natural rights, no man has the authority to take them from us. At the time the Constitution was drafted, these rights were commonly understood in England and Colonial America and it was initially considered unnecessary to include them in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) was added during the various Conventions to explicitly define (some of) these Natural Rights.

There are also certain "vested" rights which are created by human authority for citizens' protection or well-being. These rights are subject to legislative whim.

Now, with "rights", whether natural or vested, comes responsibility. For example, I believe that I have the natural right to arm myself for defense of my self and my family, however, responsible exercise of this right precludes me from wantonly brandishing my arms without cause as this would unnecessarily cause problems for others.

Another example is shouting "Fire" in a theater. While within my rights to free speech, to do so without cause could result in injury or death to others. This is clearly irresponsible.

Of course, these days, the concept of personal responsibility seems to have been nearly expunged from our society.

My $.02, take it for what you paid for it...

FromMyColdDeadHand
12-09-09, 01:03
I know this isn't a popular position, but rights are mainly BS. You have whatever rights you can force on others or others choose to give you.

Heretic! Just kidding.

I think that this is an important idea, but it is rather static. You can deny people their rights, but they don't go away. That is incrediblely powerful idea, because authoritarian governments can try to stamp out freedoms based on rights, but you can never get rid of the rights.

The suppression of the freedoms, in violation of the rights, creates an inbalance that over time causes ever growing problems in the society in general, and greater skepticism in individuals. The longer the inbalance goes on, the more abrupt the change. You can model it in a Darwinian sense, or an economic sense, or a theist sense. The system will not survive competition, will be economically unsound, or just plain evil.

I think the Cold War is a great example. The Communist system fell because the whole system was rotten. In regards to China, I think trying to force 'rights' on them is like trying to push a noodle. I'd take the stand that they are going to get more free whether they like it or not and that they are going to have to plan for it, or it is going to get ugly.

You can't keep a free man down, and at our core we are all free men.

SteyrAUG
12-09-09, 02:24
A "Right" is a mythical protection the government tricks you into believing you posses in order to distract you while the "Left" takes any actual protections you may possess.

Low Drag
12-09-09, 07:16
A 'Right' is a JUST CLAIM to UNFETTERED ACTION. A right is not given by the government. Governments can only take rights away or not. There are no rights if no one is willing to secure said rights.

Go to Thomas, the Library or Congress web page and look up historical documents. Read the PREAMBLE to the Bill of Rights.

Our Bill of Rights is a list of rights that the government promises not to jack with.

Stupid liberals (sorry redundant) think the government gives rights.