What are rights, and what do they mean?

Question

Quick story. There is a debate at my college over a campus-wide smoking ban. Those who disagree with the ban cite their right to consume products as they see fit, and proponents of the smoking band have cited their "right" to not inhale second hand smoking. This is all very confusing.

We are defining rights as "legal justification to do whatever I want" (ie "it's my right to drive 20 over the speed limit, it's a free country").

What are rights, and where do they begin and end? What rights do we have, and what rights do we not have?

Answer 1

the opposite of lefts

Answer 2

The Law is the only thing that matters because it is the only thing that can tell a person what they can & cannot do (legally). If the law states that you cannot smoke on college campuses then you can't (legally) smoke on campus. If there is no law stating that you can't smoke on campus then you smoke & there's nothing anybody can do about it even if they don't like 2nd hand smoke. (You can drive over the speed limit just as long as the cops don't catch you doing it which may be your right but if you get caught you don't have that right anymore.)

Answer 3

In the legel sense, a "right" is something that you are legally protected in doing, and which cannot be forbidden by laws.

So, if a law says "any person may walk and chew gum at the same time", then you have the right to do so, because the law allows it.

Similarly, if a law says "no person may be prosecuted for wearing green suspenders", then you have the right to do so, because the govt is not allowed to punish you for doing so.

In the US Constitution, most rights are defined as things the government cannot prohibit ("Congress shall make no law"). Some are defined as things everyone is allowed to do ("in every criminal prosecution, the accused shall have the right to counsel"), or that nobody can be compelled to do ("no person may be compelled to testify against himself").

There are dozens of specific protections listed in the Constitution, and dozens more implied in it through the Courts. There are thousands of protections enacted as laws, either federal and/or state.

Answer 4

You are a Human Being above all else, and you have the right to make any natural choice you so wish, however, providing your choice "FACTUALLY" causes harm to others, then said choice is wrong... thus second hand smoke is FACTUALLY harmful to others "ONLY" with long term exposure, such as 15-35 yrs, and in many cases "PERIODIC" exposure to second hand smoke can help boost a persons immune system, and that's a "FACT" that the commie scum bag liberals do not want people to know....

Answer 5

Simple. There are all kinds of rights. Some are more fundamental than others, and trump them. My right to a safety and security of person trumps the "rights" of someone to pursue a hot business opportunity by dumping barrels of mercury into the river (or filling public spaces with carcinogenic smoke from a factory). The separate argument over how far government "should" go in protecting us from ourselves is external to the reality within which your question is framed, though.

We have a right to bear arms, which is curtailed in the context of people's right to enjoy safety and security in their house or business- so stores and banks can refuse to allow people to carry a shotgun into Bank of America or McCrea's Pub.

Smoker's rights advocates make several claims. The weakest claim centers around the notion of complete individual freedom as distinct from liberty (which carries responsibilities).

More sophisticated claims include the claim that their smoking is victimless (doesn't hurt anyone). There is ample scientific evidence to counter this claim. This is extended to a claim that is effective against efforts to illegalize smoking altogether as with illegal drugs (since the harm to self and others is substantially less than, say, crack cocaine).

They also make claims based on property rights, which are largely effective against efforts to ban smoking in one's own private place, but this right is confounded when property owners themselves wish to ban smoking in their establishment, such as a private university. There are even laws that criminalize smoking in close-proximity residences like apartments and condos, when second-hand smoke is reported to police by neighbors and smoke ordnances are enforced. Some see this as an invasion into the personal sphere and property rights, but the potential harm to others seems to trump these rights. The property rights claim is pretty useless when we are talking about public property, such as a state university or park.

Nobody is telling people that they cannot smoke in their homes- they are just saying that they don't allow it on their own property or when it harms other people.

The kids on campus seem to be fighting a losing battle using some very unsophisticated arguments, both in the legal context and in the realm of public opinion. Those who disagree with the ban "cite" a "right to consume products as they see fit" that does not exist- read the constitution, I don't think that one is in there, otherwise, many of us would be smoking crystal meth and crack behind the wheel.

The deeper argument is a libertarian vs. big govt argument, but since we aren't living in a purely libertarian world, (I like liberty but not sure I want pure anarchy, and most people seem to agree on that) the "smoker's rights" movement seems pretty doomed in my opinion. I personally wouldn't devote much of my time to that fight if I were a smoker.

Answer 6

rights are in the declaration of independence. it's basically your natural born rights that no man can take from you i.e. you have the right to speak, you have the right to not accept the present government if the government is not protecting the natural rights of the people (privacy, isn't that funny?). we do not have the right to take someone's life but we do have the right to live.