What is a right?

[Venkman]

Rocky's thread on politics and the discussion of rights got me thinking.

Here is a great article that defines true natural rights vs. man-made "rights" that are actually an infringement of natural rights.

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/000415-11.htm

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Rocky's thread on politics and the discussion of rights got me thinking.

Here is a great article that defines true natural rights vs. man-made "rights" that are actually an infringement of natural rights.

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/000415-11.htm

I don't necessarily agree with the entire article.

But the article does touch on my concern, that in America we've become so obsessed with "rights" that we've forgotten that with any privilege comes a corresponding responsibility. (Why do I feel like Spiderman's dad?)

Rather than guarantee happiness, [rights] leave us responsible for our lives and for the pursuit of our freely-chosen goals.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I don't necessarily agree with the entire article.

But the article does touch on my concern, that in America we've become so obsessed with "rights" that we've forgotten that with any privilege comes a corresponding responsibility. (Why do I feel like Spiderman's dad?)

With which parts do you find disagreement?

By the way, am I the only idiot who doesn't quite grasp the concept of metanormative. I know what normative means, and I know what meta means, beyond or after, but what is beyond normative. Is it the normative processing of norms? It doesn't make sense to me. Could one of you smart persons elucidate.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Rocky's thread on politics and the discussion of rights got me thinking.

Here is a great article that defines true natural rights vs. man-made "rights" that are actually an infringement of natural rights.

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/000415-11.htm

I don't agree that all natural rights are simply freedoms rather than entitlements (which seems to be the authors point). If you read the amendments to the constitution there are a number of entitlements there including the rights to speedy trial and to counsel.

To me this is really just a semantic game. You can say that the affirmative rights named above are not really about getting a goody but about protecting a liberty. Okay. I can even agree that the founders mostly saw the goodies they thought should be dispensed in terms of protecting a freedom or a liberty.

So define freedom or liberty. Is it just freedom from interference in your life by the government? Or is it freedom from interference in your life from hunger, exposure, poverty, joblessness. Clearly the socialist conception is much closer to being free from the painful aspects of life that befall some. The founders are much further away on the spectrum.

The point, however, is that you can define just about anything as being a right/freedom/liberty as we have seen with Roe and its progeny (which I personally think is horrible law). These things don't fit neatly into two categories, however, but exist on a continuum. All we are then really arguing about is whether and where this line of freedom v. entitlement should be set. So, IMO, rather than set up a false dichotemy between the two sides of the line, which gets set depending ones political philospohy, and act like there is a bright line, it seems to me much more useful to have a discussion about the costs and benefits of various "rights" and whether they are desirable or not.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I don't agree that all natural rights are simply freedoms rather than entitlements (which seems to be the authors point). If you read the amendments to the constitution there are a number of entitlements there including the rights to speedy trial and to counsel.

To me this is really just a semantic game. You can say that the affirmative rights named above are not really about getting a goody but about protecting a liberty. Okay. I can even agree that the founders mostly saw the goodies they thought should be dispensed in terms of protecting a freedom or a liberty.

So define freedom or liberty. Is it just freedom from interference in your life by the government? Or is it freedom from interference in your life from hunger, exposure, poverty, joblessness. Clearly the socialist conception is much closer to being free from the painful aspects of life that befall some. The founders are much further away on the spectrum.

The point, however, is that you can define just about anything as being a right/freedom/liberty as we have seen with Roe and its progeny (which I personally think is horrible law). These things don't fit neatly into two categories, however, but exist on a continuum. All we are then really arguing about is whether and where this line of freedom v. entitlement should be set. So, IMO, rather than set up a false dichotemy between the two sides of the line, which gets set depending ones political philospohy, and act like there is a bright line, it seems to me much more useful to have a discussion about the costs and benefits of various "rights" and whether they are desirable or not.

I see the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights not as entitlements, but as natural rights. 1st ammendment rights are merely protecting your rights to liberty, same as right to a trial, habeas corpus, etc.

I don't see a false dichotomy here. Besides, I'm not really trying to have a public policy debate here, but rather have a philosophical discussion on the definition of natural rights. I'm well aware that having a debate on whether we should end entitlement programs is pie in the sky and not something that could realistically happen.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Venkman

I see the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights not as entitlements, but as natural rights. 1st ammendment rights are merely protecting your rights to liberty, same as right to a trial, habeas corpus, etc.

I don't see a false dichotomy here. Besides, I'm not really trying to have a public policy debate here, but rather have a philosophical discussion on the definition of natural rights. I'm well aware that having a debate on whether we should end entitlement programs is pie in the sky and not something that could realistically happen.

I think I understand the philospohical point, I just think (as I think you understand) that the distinction is illusory.

I certainly understand that the founders and those elingtenment thinkers who they relied upon thought in terms of natural rights, and that our founding documents are mostly a set of limitations on government. However, this was not all they thought government should do.

In the preamble to the constitution (cue the School house Rock music) they talk about forming a more perfect union, establshing justice, securing domestic tranquillity, providing for the common defense, promiting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty. Those almost all sound like things the government provides, rather than ways the government protects you from itself. As I've said before, "liberty" under the fifth amendment now entails a host of rights, some of which IMO are well founded in that concept.

So back to defining natural rights. Most would agree that we each have the right to defend ourselves from the attack of our neighbors. A right to not be attacked. Yet we have delegated that right to the collective. I'm not attacking insurgents in Iraq personally, rather I do it prepresentatively. Natural rights can be delegated. Some people (not me) believe we have a natural right not to starve, and that this right has been delegated to the collective. My point was that the devil is in how you define a natural right.

If you want to say that natural rights are only those that entail a freedom of interference from the government, that is fine. I think that is mostly what the founders thought but as I say they also had more than just that in mind. In any case, it is a normative judgment that is being made as to what is and what is not a natural right. I'm just trying to highlight that.

[Venkman]

Some good points...

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think I understand the philospohical point, I just think (as I think you understand) that the distinction is illusory.

I certainly understand that the founders and those elingtenment thinkers who they relied upon thought in terms of natural rights, and that our founding documents are mostly a set of limitations on government. However, this was not all they thought government should do.

In the preamble to the constitution (cue the School house Rock music) they talk about forming a more perfect union, establshing justice, securing domestic tranquillity, providing for the common defense, promiting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty. Those almost all sound like things the government provides, rather than ways the government protects you from itself. As I've said before, "liberty" under the fifth amendment now entails a host of rights, some of which IMO are well founded in that concept.

I think that the idea was that the government would provide for a more perfect union, justice, tranquility, defense, etc. primarily because they intended to protect the natural rights of man instead of trample on them which was the norm for every other country in the world. The general welfare clause didn't refer to what we commonly think of as welfare, at least that's what they said in the Federalist Papers.

Originally Posted by UtahDan

So back to defining natural rights. Most would agree that we each have the right to defend ourselves from the attack of our neighbors. A right to not be attacked. Yet we have delegated that right to the collective. I'm not attacking insurgents in Iraq personally, rather I do it prepresentatively. Natural rights can be delegated. Some people (not me) believe we have a natural right not to starve, and that this right has been delegated to the collective. My point was that the devil is in how you define a natural right.

I absolutely agree that we can delegate natural rights to the collective. But a collective right not to starve means that an individual right to liberty and property has to be violated to provide another with food. Now providing a framework (free market, strong court system, right to property) is necessary to foster an environment in which a person can work to obtain food is important, but that's different than taking money from one and giving it to another.

Originally Posted by UtahDan

If you want to say that natural rights are only those that entail a freedom of interference from the government, that is fine. I think that is mostly what the founders thought but as I say they also had more than just that in mind. In any case, it is a normative judgment that is being made as to what is and what is not a natural right. I'm just trying to highlight that.

I'm not sure I'd define it as freedom from government interference. As far as a the definition of a natural right, I go back to his definition in the article:

"To be a natural right it must be possible for all persons to exercise the claimed right simultaneously without logical contradiction. Rights such as freedom of speech, freedom to own property, freedom of religion, and freedom of association are examples of natural rights. Each can be exercised by each person without denying that right to others. Whenever a right claimed by an individual imposes an obligation on another to perform a positive action, it is impossible for the alleged right to be exercised by each simultaneously without logical contradiction."

And I'd say you can't delegate a wrong to the government and call it a right. For instance, If I see you're a rich guy and your neighbor's poor and I take a thousand bucks from you and give it to the poor guy then I'd go to jail. Yet we've given the government the power to do just that. I don't think that's what the founding fathers had in mind. Taxes were used to provide for the common defense and protection of natural rights.

Now we can say things have changed since then and that the government has an obligation to provide housing, healthcare, etc. I guess that would get into the cost/benefit areana. I just object to calling these things rights, when they're not in my opinion.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Venkman

I absolutely agree that we can delegate natural rights to the collective. But a collective right not to starve means that an individual right to liberty and property has to be violated to provide another with food. Now providing a framework (free market, strong court system, right to property) is necessary to foster an environment in which a person can work to obtain food is important, but that's different than taking money from one and giving it to another.

So I think your agreeing that we are all paying for the framework not just to eat, but to have any right. In other words, the collective has to start by creating an environment where any number of rights can be exercised. You distinguish that from simply redistributing wealth. I see the distinction, but I think it is a fuzzy line. For example I may be a wealthy person who never has the need of the courts nor really has much to say but who depends greatly on the free market. My neighbor is often in litigation and is active in politics, but his government job provides for most of his needs and so he doesn't much rely on the market place. So he subsidizes the way I live and make money, and I subsidize the way he lives and makes money. In otherwords, some will contribute more to creating the framework than is proportional to the benefits they derive and still others will freeride. A good either protected or provided can take a tangible form (money) or an intangible (the ability to make money).

Originally Posted by Venkman

I'm not sure I'd define it as freedom from government interference. As far as a the definition of a natural right, I go back to his definition in the article:

"To be a natural right it must be possible for all persons to exercise the claimed right simultaneously without logical contradiction. Rights such as freedom of speech, freedom to own property, freedom of religion, and freedom of association are examples of natural rights. Each can be exercised by each person without denying that right to others. Whenever a right claimed by an individual imposes an obligation on another to perform a positive action, it is impossible for the alleged right to be exercised by each simultaneously without logical contradiction."

I wonder if the author has erected a hurdle he cannot jump over with that statement. I don't know how you have any of those rights for anyone without calling on at least some to pay for them. In order for me to own property which I can exclude others from with more than just my shotgun, I need a courthouse to record the deed in, a clerk to record it and keep the records, judges to hear may case when someone trespasses and police to enforce the orders of the court. May I now pause to thank all the renters of the world who pay for that system but will never benefit from it, or if they do very indirectly.

Originally Posted by Venkman

And I'd say you can't delegate a wrong to the government and call it a right. For instance, If I see you're a rich guy and your neighbor's poor and I take a thousand bucks from you and give it to the poor guy then I'd go to jail. Yet we've given the government the power to do just that. I don't think that's what the founding fathers had in mind. Taxes were used to provide for the common defense and protection of natural rights.

Now we can say things have changed since then and that the government has an obligation to provide housing, healthcare, etc. I guess that would get into the cost/benefit areana. I just object to calling these things rights, when they're not in my opinion.

I don't disagree with this. Natural rights as a concept has always been a moving target and the two step analysis is (1) can we all agree and what they are and (2) do we want to pay for others to be secure in them.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I wonder if the author has erected a hurdle he cannot jump over with that statement. I don't know how you have any of those rights for anyone without calling on at least some to pay for them. In order for me to own property which I can exclude others from with more than just my shotgun, I need a courthouse to record the deed in, a clerk to record it and keep the records, judges to hear may case when someone trespasses and police to enforce the orders of the court. May I now pause to thank all the renters of the world who pay for that system but will never benefit from it, or if they do very indirectly.

I'm certainly not saying strong government isn't important, and I don't think the author is. There is nothing wrong with the government taxing it's citizens to protect their natural rights. Without some mechanism to protect the violation of one's liberty and property, there would simply be anarchy. And I do think the renters benefit from it. Property is not just land, but anything you own, money, cars, etc. By supporting a system that protects property rights, contracts, the free market, etc. they have the ability to enter the ranks of home/land owners themselves.

I have no problem with government that provides legitimate service (ie. doesn't violate natural rights). And I admit, there is some gray areas. But to me at least, it's obvious that if there was any sort of line there, fuzzy or not, we've long since sprinted past it.