Discussion of rights — natural, societal, etc. (1 Viewer)

[V Chip]

This deserves its own thread. If other posts can be moved here or copied here that would be helpful.

Are there such things as “natural” or “god-given” rights? Which rights would qualify? Which rights that are very common wouldn't? Who/what grants or enforces such rights?

 

[Paul]

No. Laws are simply the rules societies live by. Some laws protect people in disadvantageous positions, but certainly it isn't the sole purpose of the law.

OK, but rights do not cost money.

You are confusing the ability to speak with speech.

Nice try. I am talking about free speech and not inability to utter sounds.

 

[Paul]

Who/what grants you that right, and how is it enforced?

Free speech is not enforced---------it happens.
Freedom of association happens.
Freedom of religion happens.
Rights are not granted by anyone. They are intrinsic to our humanity.

 

[SystemShock]

OK, but rights do not cost money.

Nice try. I am talking about free speech and not inability to utter sounds.

Man, you are trying so hard...

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Nope:

Amendment I​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The above costs no money.

Please find which rights in the Bill of Rights requires dollars:

Bill of Rights (1791) - Bill of Rights Institute

billofrightsinstitute.org

6A. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

Public defenders are paid for their services.

 

[Paul]

6A. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

Public defenders are paid for their services.

OK, that was very good. You found one instance where the right may require the assistance of counsel. I give you credit for that. That was obviously thrown in to make the trial fair. However, this does not mean that having free legal advice is a right of Americans.

 

[SystemShock]

Free speech is not enforced---------it happens.
Freedom of association happens.
Freedom of religion happens.
Rights are not granted by anyone. They are intrinsic to our humanity.

The ability to do something doesn't give you the right to do it.

 

[Paul]

The ability to do something doesn't give you the right to do it.

Sure, a tyrannical coercive government may try to prevent the inalienable rights. For example you could not speak your mind on this forum.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

OK, that was very good. You found one instance where the right may require the assistance of counsel. I give you credit for that. That was obviously thrown in to make the trial fair. However, this does not mean that having free legal advice is a right of Americans.

You are shifting the goalposts. You said the rights contained in the Bill of Rights are basic rights that cost no money to grant:

"Any so called right that requires money or requires another human to provide help or support is not necessarily a right.

Rights are free and do not require others to pitch in or act in a negative or positive manner.

Rights do not infringe the right of others."

Now that you are demonstrably wrong, you move towards "free legal advice", which is not in the Bill of Rights.

Additionally, your caveat that any right that "requires another human to provide help or support is not necessarily a right" eliminates at least half of the Bill of Rights. Six through eight deal with juries, which is an unpaid and forced commitment. Nine deals with rights that explicitly exist without being spelled out in the Constitution and ten reserves those rights to the states, which opens up nearly everything granted by every state constitution.

 

[Paul]

You are shifting the goalposts. You said the rights contained in the Bill of Rights are basic rights that cost no money to grant:

"Any so called right that requires money or requires another human to provide help or support is not necessarily a right.

Rights are free and do not require others to pitch in or act in a negative or positive manner.

Rights do not infringe the right of others."

Now that you are demonstrably wrong, you move towards "free legal advice", which is not in the Bill of Rights.

Additionally, your caveat that any right that "requires another human to provide help or support is not necessarily a right" eliminates at least half of the Bill of Rights. Six through eight deal with juries, which is an unpaid and forced commitment. Nine deals with rights that explicitly exist without being spelled out in the Constitution and ten reserves those rights to the states, which opens up nearly everything granted by every state constitution.

OK, you have made a very competent argument and credit is due. However, this opens the door for so-called rights that require massive contribution from fellow citizens. In my opinion those are not rights, but benefits afforded to citizens (health care, shelter, good, transgender surgery, education, etc). The benefits exist because of the availability of funds to pay for them. Meanwhile basic rights stand on their own whether there is cash or not.

 

[coldseat]

OK, you have made a very competent argument and credit is due. However, this opens the door for so-called rights that require massive contribution from fellow citizens. In my opinion those are not rights, but benefits afforded to citizens (health care, shelter, good, transgender surgery, education, etc). The benefits exist because of the availability of funds to pay for them. Meanwhile basic rights stand on their own whether there is cash or not.

Do you believe in a "right to life"? Who/what grants or bestows that right: a divine being, nature, another person or government?

 

[SystemShock]

Sure, a tyrannical coercive government may try to prevent the inalienable rights. For example you could not speak your mind on this forum.

You should change your handle to Paul-sequitur or goal-Pauls

I'm sure the mods and site owner will appreciate the compliment too.

 

[Paul]

Do you believe in a "right to life"? Who/what grants or bestows that right: a divine being, nature, another person or government?

Rights are a social construct.

My point is that there is a difference between inalienable rights and benefits provided by society at large. I am trying to make a distinction between for example the right to free speech versus the so-called right to receive medical care.

 

[Paul]

You should change your handle to Paul-sequitur or goal-Pauls

I'm sure the mods and site owner will appreciate the compliment too.

Do you have an argument?

 

[V Chip]

Free speech is not enforced---------it happens.
Freedom of association happens.
Freedom of religion happens.
Rights are not granted by anyone. They are intrinsic to our humanity.

No they don't.

If you say "I don't like shortbread, it should be banned!" and a shortbread maker punches you in the face, or kidnaps you, or kills you, who enforces your "right" to say what you said?

If the government or rulers or just some group of people bans your religion, how do you redress that grievance?

It's ridiculously simplistic to claim any right is intrinsic to humanity without the means to enforce it and the means to defend it.

 

[V Chip]

Rights are a social construct.

Well on this we agree. "Inalienable" rights are simply rights that society has decided should be available to all people without fail. But if rights are inalienable or "god-given" or natural, then why have rights changed over time? Pretty much everyone agrees today that rights shouldn't be based off religion, or gender, or race but this has not always been the case. Is it because society advances and reason advances enough to recognize those rights, or did nature/god(s)/whatever change their mind?

My point is that there is a difference between inalienable rights and benefits provided by society at large. I am trying to make a distinction between for example the right to free speech versus the so-called right to receive medical care.

If rights are a social construct as you just stated, why can't society decide then that something else that wasn't considered a right centuries ago should be? I mean certainly you can argue that you don't agree that a right should be a "universal" right, but why couldn't healthcare be decided as a right by a society?

 

[coldseat]

Rights are a social construct.

My point is that there is a difference between inalienable rights and benefits provided by society at large. I am trying to make a distinction between for example the right to free speech versus the so-called right to receive medical care.

You didn't answer my question. Is the right to life and inalianable right? Who grantees/grants that right?

 

[Paul]

You didn't answer my question. Is the right to life and inalianable right? Who grantees/grants that right?

I said the rights are a social construct. Is there something else you wanted me to say? I am agnostic. The right to life is basic, but it is still a social construct.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

It costs money to enforce laws. There is a need for a police force and tribunals. However, basic rights do not cost money. The laws and the rights are different entities. For example to say medical care is a right is wrong because medical care costs money. However, the right to free speech costs no money.

These are all constructs of man and differentiating between them is merely rhetorical fluff. To say a right to healthcare is different from a right codified in the actual Bill of Rights based on whatever criteria you want to insert is meaningless.