People are always talking about their rights. What do you consider to be a "Right"?

Question

Feel free to expound. I've always said a right is something that can't be taken away from you, i.e the right to die; anything else is a privelege.

Surprisingly enough, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of rancor in this string. There are a few fatalistaic attitudes, and someone ascribing right-wing view points to the phrasing of the question, but overall some well thought out answers.
To clarify my personal viewpoint, I believe that a right is something that cannot be taken away. The right to die, means that no one, in any way, can make you live forever, against your will. Doctors can extend your life against your will, but they cannot make you immortal. No one can make you think differently than you do; they can kill you to keep you from thinking, but they can't change your thought processes themselves. These are two examples that come quickly to mind.
It seems that this opinion is in the minority, at least among the respondents, but it has worked well for me. I realize that this flies in the face of the legal definition of rights, and I understand that. I am a great supporter of the law.

I degreed in Criminal Justice and was in the process of joining the DEA when I got married and decided that a different career path would be better for the family.

Answer 1

Great question.

Indeed, our government and most of the American voting public disagree with even those "unalienable (sic) rights guaranteed by our Creator;" all three of which can be relinquished under statutory law. After a guilty plea has been handed down, more than a few have said a forlorn goodbye to any combination of life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness.

Rights are simply agreements, written or understood, between a government and its populace. By your definition, privileges. However, those rights that cannot, in theory, be taken away, or are ordained by nature or our Creator, are called natural or universal rights.

Their existence is a contentious issue to which I could add only very little...except taking a side.

While I do have rights as those understood by law (i.e., to drink an alcoholic beverage, to vote, to own property) and those understood by tradition (i.e., religious rights or rights of opinion), I do not believe I possess any natural rights. Nature is not sufficiently flexible or intelligent enough to endow me with rights of any kind, nor have I come to expect any different from my Creator.

Regrettably, your question deserves more time and more complete answer...but, keep in mind, you have no right to either.

Answer 2

What is a "right"? It's a good question and there are no easy answers.

The Founders of the US were products of the Enlightenment, students of John Locke, who considered that there are "natural rights." That idea has since been well debunked.

Today we see ignorant obscurantists who imagine that "rights" are somehow handed to you from God. This idea has long been discredited. It was promoted by Jean Bodin, and enthusiastically embraced by the Bourbon and Stuart kings as the "Divine Right of Kings." George W. Bush "the Decider" seems to have bought into that monarchist fantasy.

The founders of the American Republic had a better idea. Rights are inherent in WE THE PEOPLE and WE THE PEOPLE then delegate powers - not rights - to their servant the government. There is no higher authority in this Republic than WE THE PEOPLE. Americans, when true to the vision of the founders, do not kneel, bow, grovel or beg for anything from anyone or anything alleged to be a higher authority than WE THE PEOPLE.

Answer 3

Rights are about protecting freedoms.

We are living in a world where we have organized into city states. As a result we have organized forms of government and social structures. So the only way that people will follow the rules of this system is if they feel they are allowed to maintain thier individualism and their rights. To avoid revolution.

Rights are those things which all people are entitled to as human beings and citizens. Human rights are universal and apply to all people, but are often abused and denied. Rights of citizens are up to individual countries, ideologies, religions.

So lets focus on the usa 'cause thats where im from. here we have a republic funded by capitalism. For us, rights are things which allow us to successfully function in the society we were born into. To me these should include speech, religion, healthcare practices, education, healthcare, no self-incrimination, trial, representation, bear arms (So we can protect ourselves from our own government not for HUNTING or KILLING each other ) etc. etc.

Now, judging by your question it seems like you take issue with things like healthcare, education, speech. Why should people be entitled to these things. The idea is that a majority of the people do not want to revert back to feudalism, which is the result of capitalism minus rights. Uneducated and unhealthy people are not able to to get jobs to pay for their kids education, therefore, their kids will not be educated and its becomes a cycle until eventually all the money is at the top and most of the people are at the bottom. Uneducated and unhealthy people can not be expected to successfully negotiate contracts. Its so unreasonable, educated people have to hire lawyers to negociate contracts.

Answer 4

Check :

- The United States Declaration of Independence

- The US Bill of Rights

- The US Constitution

- The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen ("La Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen"), one of the fundamental documents of the French Revolution

- The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

- The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adopted by the Council of Europe

Answer 5

In refutation to Kevin H, although rights need to be secured, and therefore given by a sovereign nation, this does not negate the existence of essential inalienable rights. Rights are not contingent on their acknowledgment by governments. They are capable of being ignored, stripped, and dismantled. However, when our rights are infringed upon, it is morally unjust. If rights were merely arbitrary and given by a government, then it would be morally acceptable to oppress, segregate, or discriminate against a people.

We have certain human rights because we are humans, not because a government decides that we have rights. Our ability to exercise our rights, however, is contingent on the government, yet the existence of these rights is based internally, on our own existence.

-Kerplunk!

Answer 6

When someone opens with that old phrase "people are always taking about" it means a rightwinger is about to sneer at something.

Rightwingers are indeed big on "privileges" (ie, for themselves) What privileges do you want to enjoy (but not extend to others)?

What on earth is a right to die? Since it merely seems to mean everyone does die, what is added by calling it a "right"?

Answer 7

I like shea's answer but I also wanted to add that in this country we boast about protecting our rights, etc. but what happens when protecting one person's rights violates another person's rights, who gets to decide who gets their rights protected. EXample: suppose your child plays sports at school, and also suppose a child with aids plays sports with your child at the same school, does the child with aids (of no fault of their own) lose their rights to protect all the other children-- this probably IS the best solution so that the most amount of people get their rights protected but SOMEBODY'S (the child with aids) will get their rights violated.

Answer 8

Those things that are present in human nature...the right to your own life, the right to seek your own happiness, the right to not be impeded in these pursuits so long as they do not infringe upon anothers same rights.

Some will say that "rights" must be given to you by state, or decree....but that implies they are a privilage and not a right, as if they must be granted, they can be therefore be revoked.

Answer 9

A right might be thought of as a kind of guarantor of personal liberty under the conditions established by positive, natural or divine law.

Answer 10

Basic truth of this world: Might makes right. Like it or not, when all gets down to animal basics, it is a fact.

Absolute and total violence makes absolute and total change.