How does Inalienability of our rights always hold up?
15 Jan 2013, 4:23 pm
Your third point is the correct one. No one has figured out how to change your thoughts--it follows, therefore, that freedom of thought belief and opinion is the only legal right that cannot be abridged.
What about brainwashing and hypnosis. Can't these change a person's thoughts or are these only in the movies?
15 Jan 2013, 5:46 pm
We're oustide my area of expertise, so I can't be very definitive about this. But my intuitive response is that to be successful, these would require an element of voluntariness on the part of the subject.
_________________
--James
15 Jan 2013, 7:11 pm
You are born with certain inalienable rights, more than could ever be written down on paper. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A oppressive government has no legitimacy.
I have already demonstrated that none of these rights have any meaning. All of them can be alienated quite readily.
I am perfectly capable of understanding the concept of so-called natural rights. Just because I have rejected any practical significance to it, does not mean I don't understand it. Natural rights are no more than romantic notions. They have value only in their aspirational qualities. They inspire us to create better societies, and there is great value in that. But they are not rights and they are not enforceable.
I am, indeed, arguing semantics, because semantics are--at least in this case--important. If you act on the assumption that you have a broad, absolute right to defend yourself, and you act in that belief, what happens when you get arrested and hauled into court? You are not judged on your so called, "natural rights," you are judged on the basis of your actual rights--the rights that are defined by, and enforced in law.
I certainly maintain that they are different things. The one is a creature of law and enforced by it. The other exists outside of law and is only enforced by law after the fact, if the law chooses to recognize it.
So what is the basis for revolution? Politics, of course. When the political will rejects the existing sovereignty, then it will engage in revolution. The first act of a successful revolution is to retrospectively legitimate the revolution--to use the law to create a legal approbation of the acts which were, at the time they were committed, illegal. The law does not say, "this was justified by natural rights," the law simply says, "this was legal." The politician creates a romantic theory to support the legal change, but the romantic theory is irrelevant in law. It is only the act of the legislature or the judgement of the court that is relevant.
Infringing on rights does not mean those rights don't exist and tyrannical rule is never legitimate. If you believe our rights are given to you by the state then they can be taken away by the state, you accept dictatorship. There is no way around that. Your justification for "revolution" is twisted and confused. Just because an infringement of your rights can or is happening does not mean they are not inalienable. If some person on the street walked up to me and mugs me do I have no right to my property? What you argue is essentially is that might makes right.
You're trying to reconcile your idea of rights with your illiberal political beliefs, which is a step ahead of a lot of people who will hold conflicting beliefs without giving them second thought. The next step for you is to either accept these moral truths on their most basic level and reevaluate your political beliefs from there or to accept mob rule and that might makes right. Perhaps, I overestimate people.
15 Jan 2013, 7:56 pm
Doesn't seem to work with tangible objects all that well (everything outside of the mind; people don't seem to be happy with the Rule of Law when it's hindering them in some way -- doesn't matter if they're "right" or not) -- doubt it'll work any better when they figure out how to read thoughts (enter thought crimes and its proactive policing when they find out a correlation between certain thoughts and "crime" -- both a thought and hand grenade won't harm anyone until the person turns that thought into an action, but that's the irrational idea of control).
As for me, I'm of the mind that the rights you think you have are the ones you actually have. If people disagree with yours, then it's who is left standing afterwards who gets to partake in their rights. Might makes right and all that, and it's always been that way; I don't see it changing in a physical universe.
15 Jan 2013, 10:23 pm
I don't think you read my other post about visagrunt's use of the term "right". You're projecting beliefs on him based on a miscommunication. You're not going to understand his perspective if you don't pay attention to how he thinks. He has a lot of wisdom about some of this stuff but you have to get past the communication gap.
16 Jan 2013, 12:36 am
I side with the anti-rights group as well.
There are good reasons to express these notions in a rights-framework at certain times perhaps, but ultimately they cannot be taken in any manner that causes them to align perfectly with nature, or have some very clear-cut meaning. This isn't to say that individual liberty is wrong, only that it can't be defended on a wholly rights-based manner.
Also, on the "brainwashing" thing, I'd side with the alienability through brainwashing or some other extreme measure. At the greatest extreme, I'm sure that certain kinds of brain surgery may help arrive at conformity, even if by doing so brutally. So, sure, the brain is a machine/computer, machines/computers can be altered.
16 Jan 2013, 3:18 am
The idea of what constitutes the inalienability of rights is a fascinating and touchy subject. Of course, if you believe they are endowed to you by a creator, then that simplifies it a bit. That is still a viable claim, that can only be refuted by hardline atheists that insist a creator of any kind is impossible. They may claim that, but it is still evident that they have an agnostic claim to this. We are filling up the "Gaps of the Gods", but I still see more gaps than fillings. We probably will never discover the truth of it. (I do reject the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, benelovent God. Pantheist ova' here.)
There are two rules/principles that are important to take into account when discussing rights, the Rule of Law and the Non-Aggression Principle. The first, in layman terms, says that no agency of government can commit an act that, if done by a civilian, would violate the current law. This is obviously not followed through by any government, ever, although the Constitution attempted to implement this to the best of its ability. The second is an egalitarian moral stance that also gives much of the basis for the Constitution, namely the Bill of Rights. I feel vulnerable when people claim the Constitution is outdated, as it is a document that exists outside of law, protects us from wrongful laws, and is a type of insurance against violation of rights. It has kept us quite safe from tyranny. A breach of this, of course, would mean you violated someone else's rights and would mean that a non-partial means of judgement can decide the decide what follows next. But of course, juries these days are corrupt, violate the NAP, and in turn infringe on a persons rights.
I find the idea that if you are denied healthcare from a professional, your right to life has been violated, not rooted in what Locke had originally purported. The meaning of the right to life is based the principle of self-ownership. Every person, through this principle, is entitled live out their life in the way of their choosing. If that means a doctor refuses to treat you, even if you can afford it, then he is entitled to. You'll have to find another doctor to help you unfortunately. His morality though then comes into question. (Sidenote: I respect Ron Paul immensely for his decision to treat patients that were unable to afford the care in the first place). So if a person is entitled to life, then it stands that what you produce, your property, should not be infringed either. Liberty, highly rooted in the NAP, protects these other rights. How you ask? By a basic tenet of libertarianism, that sole purpose of a government is to protect these "inalienable" rights. To keep government in check, the wise founders of this nation created to Constitution. I stand by the Constitution, even when it routinely becomes violated each day by an unlawful government that continually violates Rule of Law and the Non-Aggression Principle. I believe that this governments violation of the Constitution has given the American public a very viable and legally sound framework for a Revolution.
16 Jan 2013, 8:26 am
There are two rules/principles that are important to take into account when discussing rights, the Rule of Law and the Non-Aggression Principle. The first, in layman terms, says that no agency of government can commit an act that, if done by a civilian, would violate the current law. This is obviously not followed through by any government, ever, although the Constitution attempted to implement this to the best of its ability. The second is an egalitarian moral stance that also gives much of the basis for the Constitution, namely the Bill of Rights. I feel vulnerable when people claim the Constitution is outdated, as it is a document that exists outside of law, protects us from wrongful laws, and is a type of insurance against violation of rights. It has kept us quite safe from tyranny. A breach of this, of course, would mean you violated someone else's rights and would mean that a non-partial means of judgement can decide the decide what follows next. But of course, juries these days are corrupt, violate the NAP, and in turn infringe on a persons rights.
I find the idea that if you are denied healthcare from a professional, your right to life has been violated, not rooted in what Locke had originally purported. The meaning of the right to life is based the principle of self-ownership. Every person, through this principle, is entitled live out their life in the way of their choosing. If that means a doctor refuses to treat you, even if you can afford it, then he is entitled to. You'll have to find another doctor to help you unfortunately. His morality though then comes into question. (Sidenote: I respect Ron Paul immensely for his decision to treat patients that were unable to afford the care in the first place). So if a person is entitled to life, then it stands that what you produce, your property, should not be infringed either. Liberty, highly rooted in the NAP, protects these other rights. How you ask? By a basic tenet of libertarianism, that sole purpose of a government is to protect these "inalienable" rights. To keep government in check, the wise founders of this nation created to Constitution. I stand by the Constitution, even when it routinely becomes violated each day by an unlawful government that continually violates Rule of Law and the Non-Aggression Principle. I believe that this governments violation of the Constitution has given the American public a very viable and legally sound framework for a Revolution.
These are my beliefs. I do believe in the God of Abraham and Moses. Therefore, I do and choose to believe a creator. I believe our so called rights are not rights at all but gifts given to us by God. If it was a right then these things would have to supersede God himself and we would make these things above God. These gifts can be taken away from him at anytime for sin and wickedness. He has laid down laws that we are supposed to obey. In addition, we are supposed to accept Jesus Christ as our Messiah, lord and savior. We are commanded by God to honor our parents. We are commanded not to steal. We are commanded to choose life. These are commandments given to us by him. We don't have the right to life but we are commanded by God to choose life.
If we truthfully had these as rights God would be wrong for rescinding them no matter what the case was. The destruction of Sodom and Gormorrah would be wrong if they had a right to life in an absolute fashion. We have no rights that come from him but gifts and commandments. God can take away his gifts to us and exact justice on us for our iniquities, sins, and wickedness. If I am a serial killer and I am unrepentant he can take my life at anytime and punish me for it. He can take away my gift of life.
Here is what I choose to believe. All of us have come short of the glory of God and all of us have sinned before him. He can't be around and abide by sin. He chooses to have grace and mercy upon and he chose to send his son to die for all of our sins. We are still commanded not to sin and this includes not murdering.
This means we are not owed or entitled to anything from God. We don't have a right to anything from God. If we did have these things as rights then they introduce contradictions. Therefore, they are not absolute rights but gifts which can be rescinded by God at any point for our sins and wickedness. He has patience and will give grace and mercy to those who repent of their sins. This is the main reasoning that I can't accept the founding father's concept of inalienable rights.
God sent his only begotten son to die on the cross for our sins if we choose to accept him as our lord and savior, we choose to repent, and we choose not to sin again. This is my belief.
16 Jan 2013, 2:07 pm
You're trying to reconcile your idea of rights with your illiberal political beliefs, which is a step ahead of a lot of people who will hold conflicting beliefs without giving them second thought. The next step for you is to either accept these moral truths on their most basic level and reevaluate your political beliefs from there or to accept mob rule and that might makes right. Perhaps, I overestimate people.
If those rights exist outside a framework of law, how can they be enforced? What other instrument exists to stop the alienation of those "rights" that you believe exist outside the law? No such instrument exists, which is why these so-called rights are nothing more than a romantic notion.
The fact that I recognize that tyrranies are capable of taking away rights does not mean that I accept dictatorship. Can you not appreciate the difference between those two statements? My recognition means nothing more than that--I recognize it for what it is. Might does make right. Every government in history has demonstrated that principle far more elegantly than I ever could.
But that does not mean that I believe that this is moral, good or proper. It merely means that I believe it to be a fact of life--and no romantic theory of an agency outside of and superior to government is going to change that. You "inalienable right to life" will give you cold comfort in front of the firing squad. And as for your rights to property when you are mugged, look at what you have written. "Your rights to property?" Those are wholly and entirely created by law, because there is no property in nature. Property is a legal concept, created by law entirely from whole cloth. You cannot have a natural right to defend that which does not exist in nature.
I accept many moral truths--but because they are moral, they . I believe that no government acts morally when it extinguishes the rights of individuals without cause. I believe that a body politic is perfectly capable of displacing government when government ceases to act in accordance with the wishes of the body politic. I believe that democratic elections are preferable to illegal revolutions, and that governments that act morally create the means for their own peaceful replacement. I believe a lot of things, and none of them depend upon the fiction of natural law.
_________________
--James
17 Jan 2013, 5:12 pm
The fact that I recognize that tyrranies are capable of taking away rights does not mean that I accept dictatorship. Can you not appreciate the difference between those two statements? My recognition means nothing more than that--I recognize it for what it is. Might does make right. Every government in history has demonstrated that principle far more elegantly than I ever could.
But that does not mean that I believe that this is moral, good or proper. It merely means that I believe it to be a fact of life--and no romantic theory of an agency outside of and superior to government is going to change that. You "inalienable right to life" will give you cold comfort in front of the firing squad. And as for your rights to property when you are mugged, look at what you have written. "Your rights to property?" Those are wholly and entirely created by law, because there is no property in nature. Property is a legal concept, created by law entirely from whole cloth. You cannot have a natural right to defend that which does not exist in nature.
I accept many moral truths--but because they are moral, they . I believe that no government acts morally when it extinguishes the rights of individuals without cause. I believe that a body politic is perfectly capable of displacing government when government ceases to act in accordance with the wishes of the body politic. I believe that democratic elections are preferable to illegal revolutions, and that governments that act morally create the means for their own peaceful replacement. I believe a lot of things, and none of them depend upon the fiction of natural law.
This would still be true if there were natural rights. It would still be the case that a body (a government or a private militia of property owners) would have to interpret and enforce the rights. They could exist and be denied. The argument against natural rights is like the argument against objective moral values.
But I do agree with everything that you wrote here, except that, if there are natural rights, the only mechanism to enforce them is the state. Why couldn't individuals and private militas enforce them?
17 Jan 2013, 5:21 pm
This would still be true if there were natural rights. It would still be the case that a body (a government or a private militia of property owners) would have to interpret and enforce the rights. They could exist and be denied. The argument against natural rights is like the argument against objective moral values.
A very interesting question. It seems to me, though, that as soon as a private interest steps forward to enforce a "natural right," it then becomes one of two things: a force of law, or an illegal force.
The private militia that says, "we will protect everyone's right to life, liberty and security of the person," is simply setting itself up as a police force. In the absence of a state--or in the case of the state's failure to protect these interests, it creates a system of law through its existence, which then gives legal effect to these "natural rights." On the other hand, if the state exists and is acting, albeit incompletely or ineffectively, then the private militia is setting itself up as a vigilante force, outside of the law.
In the former case, these rights are still given effect by force of law. We've just substituted on lawgiver for another. In the latter case, these interests are protected by illegal action, in which case they are not rights, but interests protected outside of a framework of law. It's a very finicky distinction, I know.
_________________
--James
28 Jan 2013, 8:08 am
I agree with Andrea Mitchell on this. First, the term inalienable according to the oxford dictionary means not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor. By this standard, no exceptions exist to our rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. In addition, by this standard what is being said is that it is absolute and ironclad. I can't agree with this and here is why.
This is because our rights our only as inalienable as far as it does not violate the rights of others. One is not allowed to go into a crowded theatre and yell out "fire" and cause a mass panic. She is correct on this.
What about the Typhoid Mary Case? I believe her liberty had to be violated in order to protect other people's lives. It is claimed that these supposed inalienable rights come from our creator which most people today understand it to be the God of Abraham and Moses.
I am a Christian myself who is still learning but by what I have read so far I do not see how these rights being inalienable is biblical at all. In fact, I don't see how they are rights that can come from God. Where in the bible does it say that we have a right to any of these things? We have been granted gifts from God, he has given us commandments and edicts to follow, and he has granted us mercy and favor. We don't deserve any of these things.
God can take away a person or a group of people's supposed rights at any time because of our various transgressions against him. I see these things as gifts from God which we are all commanded not to violate unless it violates God's commandments. This means we can't infringe upon these gifts from God without cause. I don't see how I deserve and I don't feel that I am entitled to these supposed inalienable rights but I am grateful God has shown me favor and mercy.
I am thankful for Jesus Christ for dying for our sins on the cross but do I deserve it no. Do I feel grateful he did it despite my sinful nature, yes. I don't see these as rights but gifts he has given me and everyone else that he can rescind at any time. God has been merciful towards all of us but he can be just as well.
