Government gives rights?

[Danke]

I have been of the belief that rights are god (your creator) given or nature given.

And the Constitution secures these rights, not gives us these rights.

But I remember someone recently said in a convincingly way that they are given by government. Anyone have a link to that thread or any such articles?

 

[Jeremy]

Was it Kade in the thread about the Slate article?

 

[Kludge]

Here's a peculiar excerpt of a rant I shared with one of my instructors online...

[FONT=georgia,times new roman,times,serif]I believe that a "right" is only a right when society (government) recognizes, guarantees, and protects the right. People of the present United States may say they have a right to healthcare, but that obviously isn't true since they aren't receiving the healthcare they believe themselves entitled to, even if God is claimed as a source of that right. It only becomes a right when the government grants and protects it. This is most evident in anarchy, where it is most observable that are no natural rights at all. My neighbor could shoot me and there would be no guarantee (nor likelihood) that the murderer would even be sought. Especially in modern times of small lethal guns, potent poisons and devastating explosives, life would definitely be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" if government didn't at least try to grant and protect "rights" since at least Locke, Hobbe and I agree that people are inherently selfish (not that it is necessarily bad).[/FONT]
[FONT=georgia,times new roman,times,serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=georgia,times new roman,times,serif]The "rights" Jefferson chose are valuable to any society and worth protecting, but I don't believe that they were granted by God or nature but rather humans themselves. I think the Bill of Rights shows that at least some of the Framers didn't believe in Natural Rights either, as the Bill of Rights isn't a decree by God or Nature that government must follow, but a directive by people who established the (new) rules of the government. If Jefferson (and all other Framers) truly believed the rights he listed to be inherent, there would be no point in re-establishing that on a written document of rules government must follow.[/FONT]
[FONT=georgia,times new roman,times,serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=georgia,times new roman,times,serif]Most strange is that the fifth amendment guarantees that " ... private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation". Aren't representatives then violating the Consitution every single time they spend taxpayer (or "printed") money on something not of value to the taxpayer directly? Giving an extravagant "last meal" to a "Death Row" inmate certainly gives me no benefits. So even when rights are supposedly guaranteed by the government, they don't follow through. The entire concept of "rights" may be useless and flawed since no being, collective, or object can truly guarantee them. The government doesn't always protect "rights", God doesn't always protect "rights", and surely people (many, at least) aren't capable of respecting "rights".[/FONT]
[FONT=georgia,times new roman,times,serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=georgia,times new roman,times,serif]Instead, maybe they (government/God[god/gods]/people) merely grant privileges and then try to protect them. I have the privilege of living until someone/something takes it away. I have the privilege of healthcare until I can no longer afford it. I have the privilege of eating until I can no longer obtain it. [/FONT]
[FONT=georgia,times new roman,times,serif]In a Communist (or any other) society, I would be granted (ideally though very unlikely) those same privileges until a revolution occurs, seeking different privileges or until the government crumbles under its own policies/corruption/etc. The same would be true with a Church organization. Let's say they give food and drink to those unable to obtain it themselves. The church is then merely trying to protect my privilege to eat, drink and live. Even other people try to protect others' privilege to eat/drink/live when they give to charity or feed/house the person directly.
[/FONT]
[FONT=georgia,times new roman,times,serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=georgia,times new roman,times,serif]If it were truly a right, isn't it the duty of those with extra to give all they can to those without? Isn't Communism or some other radical form of socialism the only logical outcome if a society believes in rights? I see now why some may view Communism as a Utopia, those who truly believe in "rights" anyways... If "rights" were considered only as a privilege, then selfishness could be justified. In a society which "guarantees rights" though, it would just be immoral and a violation of rights if someone has excess and doesn't give to someone without enough because the duties of society (the governed individuals) and government cannot be different.[/FONT]​

 

[nate895]

If government doesn't exist in a natural situation without creation by man, how can it grant us anything?

 

[Alawn]

I have been of the belief that rights are god (your creator) given or nature given.

And the Constitution secures these rights, not gives us these rights.

But I remember someone recently said in a convincingly way that they are given by government. Anyone have a link to that thread or any such articles?

Rights are natural and exist without government and cannot be taken away. Privileges are given by government and may be taken away.

 

[Jeremy]

Rights: life, liberty property
Function of government: protect those rights

 

[nodope0695]

Rights are not given. We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights....we are born with them. Anyone who thinks otherwise, that they are "given," is wrong. They aren't "interpreting" anything their way...THEY ARE WRONG.

The People GRANT government with certain authorities and duties...the government does not (or rather, should not) grant anything. By the constituition, the government acts at the behest of the governed, not the other way around.

 

[nate895]

Rights are not given. We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights....we are born with them. Anyone who thinks otherwise, that they are "given" is wrong. They aren't "interpreting" anything their way...THEY ARE WRONG.

To think otherwise is legal positivism, which basically means that you couldn't punish Hitler for what he did because it was perfectly legal at the time he did it, considering he made the laws.

 

[Danke]

It is late now, but tomorrow I will reread all of which you gentlemen have written. Thanks for the responses. Very interesting indeed.

 

[yongrel]

The only compelling argument I know of goes as follows:

In order for society to function, there must be boundaries between individuals in order to prevent them from interfering with each other. An efficient society is one in which murder, theft, etc do not occur between individuals, because these actions are to the detriment of society's order.

In order to best secure order between individuals, government grants rights based on faculties. In being granted rights as a result of being self-aware and sapient, one becomes obligated to respect the rights of others as given by the government. Individuals coexist best when violating each others rights least, so the individual has an obligation to society to respect the rights of others. This obligation comes from society/government's respect for the individual's rights, but that respect is conditional on the individual respecting the rights of others.

In this way, government can ensure a free and efficient society by properly assigning rights to individuals.

*******

That's an extremely condensed version of a philosophical argument I make in a few Parliamentary debate cases I run. The scary part is that when I ran a case containing this reasoning against a West Point team, they came up to me afterwords and told me they agreed with me, on the condition that the rights were assigned by the military. *shudder*

 

[slothman]

Here's my theory.
Everyone has rights of which can be taken away from the gov't.
The gov't can also grant privileges to people.

Rights such as voting or living can be taken away if you are too young or committed a bad enough crime, respectively.

In an anarchy you have all rights and no privileges, while in communism(insert bad gov't type here) you have no rights and all privileges.

In most gov'ts you have some of each.

 

[FreeMo P48]

Rights are inherent to the individual exclusively. Each has his own mind, organs,etc. Government is a cooperative effort by individuals to secure and protect those rights. Society suffers when murder occurs, but it is not for societies sake that murder is prohibited. Society is not murdered, individuals are. Without individuals, society does not exist!

Health care, as an example, can not be a right. If it were, whose right would it be to provide it? Health care can be provided only if some individual decides to offer it. If health care is forcibly provided, it could only be done by a slave. I personally would not care to be treated by a slave Doctor!

 

[TruckinMike]

...just a little thought about Rights -- read with an open and fair mind.

Natural Rights (Rights in Nature):

The only Rights man has under nature is his right to eat or be eaten. The only fair and just thing in nature is the concept of the strongest shall survive. Without that precept, we would still be pond scum...wouldn't we? We all know Darwin, if you subscribe to his line of thinking how can one derive the theory proclaiming Natural rights protect the weaker from the strong? Nature doesn't work that way. Thats life, thats nature. If an over bearing tyrant wishes to lop your head off - thats his right as the stronger party.

Natural rights are eat or be eaten. PERIOD.


======================================================


Note: Most of our founders knew where YOUR rights came from and it wasn't from nature.

Just a little thought...

TMike

 

[nodope0695]

...just a little thought about Rights -- read with an open and fair mind.

Natural Rights (Rights in Nature):

The only Rights man has under nature is his right to eat or be eaten. The only fair and just thing in nature is the concept of the strongest shall survive. Without that precept, we would still be pond scum...wouldn't we? We all know Darwin, if you subscribe to his line of thinking how can one derive the theory proclaiming Natural rights protect the weaker from the strong? Nature doesn't work that way. Thats life, thats nature. If an over bearing tyrant wishes to lop your head off - thats his right as the stronger party.

Natural rights are eat or be eaten. PERIOD.


======================================================


Note: Most of our founders knew where YOUR rights came from and it wasn't from nature.

Just a little thought...

TMike

To some extent, I agree. Humans do have basic insticts. The need to eat, shelter, procreation, social needs. However, I DON'T subscribe to darwinism, and believe humankind to be ABOVE the animals. We humans are motivated by more than just instinct. We are driven by a myriad of feelings, emotions, and needs not found in the animal world. Therefore, we do enjoy certain rights animals do not.

Life, Liberty and Property.
To Live securely in our persons and papers.
To not self incriminate.
To bear arms and thus protect ourselves.
The right of habeas corpus, and due process.

None of these rights are afforded to, or desired by animals. They are uniquely human.

 

[FreeMo P48]

A man can be eating or beat over the head with a club, he is certainly not the most physically strong animal in the field.

Rights come from the fact that man is man. His mind is his means of survival. Man is really quite vulnerable and has no defense facility other than his mind. He has to make choices that no other creature need do. Man is a moral being by virtue of the fact that he can and must consciously make choices.

Man has his own mind, it is "right" that he use it to further and sustain his life. A right does not guarantee he will survive, but to the extent he is capable, his only means of survival is to use his mind. That is why our forefathers implemented the Constitution of this United States. They recognized that ever human being has a right to exist for his own sake. They created this document in order to protect man from forces that violated his basic means of survival. Man was to be protected from violence against him from any source, be it repressive governance, other members of society or any other institution or entity.

Slavery is the ultimate violation of rights and morality because the use of the slave's own mind is negated. A slaves means of survival are constrained by the slave master. A slave is reduced to little more than a head of cattle, certainly not a human being. I think that any person who could sanction slavery must not be a human being themselves. They must have forfeited their own means of survival (their own mind) and hence their claim to the title human, thereby becoming dependent on the efforts of others for their own survival.

 

[Brian in Maryland]

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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[Kade]

Kludge started echoing this in a more noticeable way. Although this has always been my position.

The most recent conversations have been in private messages, but I was able to find these:

Because even if they inherently exist, they are useless unless recognized by others capable of force. You cannot have any rights of worth unless they are recognized by the government. Anarchy can not protect the "rights" of the defenseless. Until men are angels, a tyrannical force is necessary to maintain whatever rights it can for the minority and otherwise defenseless.



I began stopped believing in absolutism. Kade got to me

Other relevant conversations:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=154154

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=155145

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=146096

 

[micahnelson]

But I remember someone recently said in a convincingly way that they are given by government. Anyone have a link to that thread or any such articles?

Unless you believe in the Divine Right of Kings, it is hard to understand how a government could be the source of rights- when governments are established by men. It reminds me of pagan gods crafted from stone and clay and worshiped by the hands that formed them. The power of government comes from the consent of the governed, and not just in a republic. Authority can be claimed from many sources, but power comes from consent. Only the collective consent of the people enables a government to rule. If collective consent is the source of power, than collective consent is the only valid source of authority.

The consent, of course, is to surrender rights. I surrender my right to vengeance in order to promote a system of laws. I surrender my right to claim all property I can physically obtain in order to have a system of trade that protects the rights of all individuals. I surrender my right to use my property in any manner I see fit in order to have safe travel, quiet neighborhoods, etc.

The "rights" we have are things that the government is not allowed to ask of a person. Our freedom to protect ourselves, assemble, and speak is necessary for all other freedoms to exist. For instance, A city might decide that they want strict noise pollution laws because they wish to maximize the comfort of serenity by surrendering the right to blast a radio. The freedom to express themselves and assemble are necessary for the town to come to this decision.

Kind of rambly, but all rights come from people. The people empower the state.

 

[moostraks]

*******

That's an extremely condensed version of a philosophical argument I make in a few Parliamentary debate cases I run. The scary part is that when I ran a case containing this reasoning against a West Point team, they came up to me afterwords and told me they agreed with me, on the condition that the rights were assigned by the military. *shudder*

 

[Kade]

Unless you believe in the Divine Right of Kings, it is hard to understand how a government could be the source of rights- when governments are established by men. It reminds me of pagan gods crafted from stone and clay and worshiped by the hands that formed them. The power of government comes from the consent of the governed, and not just in a republic. Authority can be claimed from many sources, but power comes from consent. Only the collective consent of the people enables a government to rule. If collective consent is the source of power, than collective consent is the only valid source of authority.

The consent, of course, is to surrender rights. I surrender my right to vengeance in order to promote a system of laws. I surrender my right to claim all property I can physically obtain in order to have a system of trade that protects the rights of all individuals. I surrender my right to use my property in any manner I see fit in order to have safe travel, quiet neighborhoods, etc.

The "rights" we have are things that the government is not allowed to ask of a person. Our freedom to protect ourselves, assemble, and speak is necessary for all other freedoms to exist. For instance, A city might decide that they want strict noise pollution laws because they wish to maximize the comfort of serenity by surrendering the right to blast a radio. The freedom to express themselves and assemble are necessary for the town to come to this decision.

Kind of rambly, but all rights come from people. The people empower the state.

The government = the people. At least, that was what a democracy intends. It took me a year here on these forums to realize people didn't realize that... that the GOP is a monarchy, and they believe a few elite people ought to rule in order to reduce the amount of influence the "government" has... in other words, reduce the amount of influence the people have...

I declare my rights, and I pursue and act upon them until someone physically stops me. Authority grants rights. It's very simple. Do you have a "right" to walk on my property at any time? If not, why not?

You answer will involve physical force in some way as the inevitable line of reasoning concludes.

I can grant you the right to my property. A stronger force than I can also grant you right to my property.

Is this in essence ethical, moral, or righteous, or any other word that might mean "good"? Of course it's not... not to us... which is why we, as the governed, demand more influence and power over this authority, to weaken it, and to subvert it to our consent.

How we the people react is different. Some of us believe we have a right to use this authority to stop actions that don't affect us directly, some of us believe this authority ought to have the absolute minimal power, some of us believe that this power should be there as a mediator only...

All the manifestations of this power, this authority changes nothing. It is still an authority, and without, there will be a short moment of anarchy, before it is replaced with a more authoritative, less limited power, which will "grant" you even fewer rights..


This is the nature of our reality. We must fight for the rights we believe in, and we must do so by demanding a limitation on the power that exist, enough that the barbarians at the gates do not replace it, but just short of anything resembling the restriction of the most well defended and rationalized rights.