The "right" to... whatever!

[Pallas_Athene]

…life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, health care, free education, food, drink, shelter, clothing… whatever? Where are these “rights” codified, into which law book? Who enforces these “rights”?

Anyone can declare a “right to whatever”, but such a declaration is worthless, unless it is enforced. There are no “natural” rights, “nature” does not grant anyone anything. “Rights” are social constructs, granted by the strongest bully on the block… usually the nation states. But even those entities cannot enforce these so-called “rights”. Sometimes they are able to punish those who violate these declared “rights”, but such a retribution is worthless to those whose life was taken by some other party, which does NOT respect those “rights”.

Just think about it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I came across a similar statement in my sister’site law book from when she was in college. It was contrasting Positivism (in the context of Jurisprudence) to Natural Law.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I came across a similar statement in my sister’site law book from when she was in college. It was contrasting Positivism (in the context of Jurisprudence) to Natural Law.

The actual situation is MUCH worse.

Look at one of the famous “rights”, expressed in the Miranda warning: “you have the right to remain silent… etc”. It is a codified “right”, supposedly protected by the rule of law… UNTIL! Until there is a state of emergency, when there is a real or perceived threat to the state… at that moment all the “rights” are out of the window, the prosecutors can and DO engage in torture (waterboarding) and the so-called “rights” have as much significance as a fart in a tornado.

Very sad, but reality does not care about us and our preferences.

 

[Bradski]

But in that example I would suggest that the rights still remain but have been temporarily suspended.

It’s not the case that anyone says: ‘We have a state of emergency, therefore those rights do not now exist’. It would be more accurate to say: ‘We have a state of emergency and that doesn’t change the fact that you have the right to remain silent - we are just going to ignore that right until the situation changes’.

 

[edwest2]

Why the negativity? Each one of us can choose the truth. And yes, in the US, some people just shoot other people for a few dollars. Man’s basic nature has not changed in 2,000 years. Torture wasn’t invented a decade or two ago. And the king sent his spies among the peasants to make sure no one was plotting against him.

Ed

 

[Rhubarb]

I came across a similar statement in my sister’site law book from when she was in college. It was contrasting Positivism (in the context of Jurisprudence) to Natural Law.

The contrast between legal positivism and natural law (in the context of philosophy of law) boils down to how morality plays a part in the legitimacy of the laws of society. The quote (paraphrased) from Dr. King about how an unjust law is no law at all is an example of the natural law approach to justifying human law.

As to the OP, if we’re talking about human laws, where rights come from depend upon one’s theory of jurisprudence. There are certain beliefs in modern western jurisprudence that seem to be widely accepted. The harm principle: that the government can only legitimately interfere with citizen’s autonomy to prevent harm, is one of those beliefs. (I can’t recall anyone that I’ve read that directly refuted this totally)

In terms of trying to establish a jurisprudence, arbitrary fiats are pretty much always called out. Every argument rests on certain assumptions, so there has to be some starting location. Usually the assumptions rest on some prior theory. A religious legal system rests on a divine command theory, for example.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

The contrast between legal positivism and natural law (in the context of philosophy of law) boils down to how morality plays a part in the legitimacy of the laws of society. The quote (paraphrased) from Dr. King about how an unjust law is no law at all is an example of the natural law approach to justifying human law.

As to the OP, if we’re talking about human laws, where rights come from depend upon one’s theory of jurisprudence. There are certain beliefs in modern western jurisprudence that seem to be widely accepted. The harm principle: that the government can only legitimately interfere with citizen’s autonomy to prevent harm, is one of those beliefs. (I can’t recall anyone that I’ve read that directly refuted this totally)

In terms of trying to establish a jurisprudence, arbitrary fiats are pretty much always called out. Every argument rests on certain assumptions, so there has to be some starting location. Usually the assumptions rest on some prior theory. A religious legal system rests on a divine command theory, for example.

Protection of the weak, including women, children, weak and elderly, is something that was rare or non-existent before Christianity in the West. If left to its natural state, the strong prevail. The difference between perceived rights of the Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution is the absence of morality emanating from a Divine edict:

*“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.”

“Article VI - The law is the expression of the general will. All the citizens have the right of contributing personally or through their representatives to its formation.”*

The first is fairly watertight but the second can change according to “general will”. What is missing now in the US is the recourse to the Creator part of the statement and applying the right to life to all human beings. This entails protection of person and property.There are no other special “rights” except what can be articulated by law and enforced by the state, meaning whoever has the most money and clout can get what they want, even if it tramples on the more basic rights of others.

 

[chris62]

[QUOT=Bradski;13453155]But in that example I would suggest that the rights still remain but have been temporarily suspended.

It’s not the case that anyone says: ‘We have a state of emergency, therefore those rights do not now exist’. It would be more accurate to say: ‘We have a state of emergency and that doesn’t change the fact that you have the right to remain silent - we are just going to ignore that right until the situation changes’.

Laughable
but typical of a lot of your posts.
no wonder you have been suspended.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

But in that example I would suggest that the rights still remain but have been temporarily suspended.
It’s not the case that anyone says: ‘We have a state of emergency, therefore those rights do not now exist’. It would be more accurate to say: ‘We have a state of emergency and that doesn’t change the fact that you have the right to remain silent - we are just going to ignore that right until the situation changes’.

Looks to me that the right to communal life trumps individual self-expression. So there is a hierarchy of “rights”.

 

[frangiuliano115]

…life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, health care, free education, food, drink, shelter, clothing… whatever? Where are these “rights” codified, into which law book? Who enforces these “rights”?

Anyone can declare a “right to whatever”, but such a declaration is worthless, unless it is enforced. There are no “natural” rights, “nature” does not grant anyone anything. “Rights” are social constructs, granted by the strongest bully on the block… usually the nation states. But even those entities cannot enforce these so-called “rights”. Sometimes they are able to punish those who violate these declared “rights”, but such a retribution is worthless to those whose life was taken by some other party, which does NOT respect those “rights”.

Just think about it.

Hi PA

I’m just posting so I could be cued in. Don’t know how to find threads!

Don’t have much to add. I could only say that it depends on which right you’re speaking of. I agree with you that nature affords us no rights. But as a civilized people we do want to help each other. But then socialism and communism come in. And I know I don’t like socialism.

So life - okay. But we’re killing fetuses. Do they have the right to live?
Liberty - okay. But are we really free? The govt’s ability to tax us takes away many freedoms, to speak nothing of the others that are slowly fading away.
The pursuit of happiness - okay. But what does this mean anyway? Seems to me we’re an oppressed society with very little freedoms left.

Will be following along with interest.

Fran

 

[inocente]

Bradski;13453155:

But in that example I would suggest that the rights still remain but have been temporarily suspended.

It’s not the case that anyone says: ‘We have a state of emergency, therefore those rights do not now exist’. It would be more accurate to say: ‘We have a state of emergency and that doesn’t change the fact that you have the right to remain silent - we are just going to ignore that right until the situation changes’.

Laughable
but typical of a lot of your posts.
no wonder you have been suspended.

That was childish . And wrong. Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allows nations to derogate (= suspend or modify) applicable rights during a state of emergency.

Where are these “rights” codified, into which law book? Who enforces these “rights”?

See the link above, also the UDHR and regional conventions. Signatory nations build the rights into their laws, which they are responsible for enforcing. There are also regional bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights. The main UN body is the International Court of Justice at the Hague. There are also independent monitoring organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

 

[guanophore]

I’m just posting so I could be cued in. Don’t know how to find threads!

At the top of the thread you will find a link called “thread tools”. One of the tools enables you to “subscribe” to the thread. Or, you can just post and will automatically be subscribed.

You can also use the menu higher up. The “discuss” link will allow you to see all of today’s posts, or all new posts since you were last logged in.

**

Don’t have much to add. I could only say that it depends on which right you’re speaking of. I agree with you that nature affords us no rights. But as a civilized people we do want to help each other. But then socialism and communism come in. And I know I don’t like socialism.**

I think the “rights” that are being described in this thread as “natural” are actually built into us by God as part of our creation. They exist through nature, but their origin is in God. These are “rights” that the catechism describes as belonging to persons because we deserve the dignity of one created in the image and likeness of God.

frangiuliano115:

Seems to me we’re an oppressed society with very little freedoms left.

It certainly seems as though we have very quickly lost the underpinnings of the United States, upon which this country was founded. I think the modern concept of freedom “from” religion as opposed to freedom “of” religion would be very problematic to our founders.

 

[frangiuliano115]

At the top of the thread you will find a link called “thread tools”. One of the tools enables you to “subscribe” to the thread. Or, you can just post and will automatically be subscribed.

You can also use the menu higher up. The “discuss” link will allow you to see all of today’s posts, or all new posts since you were last logged in.

**

I think the “rights” that are being described in this thread as “natural” are actually built into us by God as part of our creation. They exist through nature, but their origin is in God. These are “rights” that the catechism describes as belonging to persons because we deserve the dignity of one created in the image and likeness of God.

It certainly seems as though we have very quickly lost the underpinnings of the United States, upon which this country was founded. I think the modern concept of freedom “from” religion as opposed to freedom “of” religion would be very problematic to our founders.**

Are you speaking of CCC no. 27 and on?

They’re natural and built in by God if you believe in God - not everybody does.

Even people who aren’t believers are part of our civilization and, as such, do also have the rights P.A. is referring to. And which you refer to as given by God since you believe in God.

I agree with your last sentence. That little word “from” and “of” make a big difference, don’t they? Too bad not everybody understands this - or maybe they just don’t want to for their own reasons and agenda.

 

[guanophore]

Are you speaking of CCC no. 27 and on?

They’re natural and built in by God if you believe in God - not everybody does.

I disagree, Fran. I think the CCC is referring to a divinely revealed truth that applies to all of humanity. It is true that those who do not accept this divine revelation may not perceive these qualities as being built in by God, but that does not change the facts.

Even people who aren’t believers are part of our civilization and, as such, do also have the rights P.A. is referring to. And which you refer to as given by God since you believe in God.

I agree with your last sentence. That little word “from” and “of” make a big difference, don’t they? Too bad not everybody understands this - or maybe they just don’t want to for their own reasons and agenda.

There have recently been a number of “anti-religious” activities on every level of government. Recently a city named after Bethlehem was asked to remove the creche from the public square. These types of events illustrate the drastic difference between the “from” and the “of”.

 

[PRmerger]

…life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, health care, free education, food, drink, shelter, clothing… whatever? Where are these “rights” codified, into which law book? Who enforces these “rights”?

Anyone can declare a “right to whatever”, but such a declaration is worthless, unless it is enforced. There are no “natural” rights, “nature” does not grant anyone anything. “Rights” are social constructs, granted by the strongest bully on the block… usually the nation states. But even those entities cannot enforce these so-called “rights”. Sometimes they are able to punish those who violate these declared “rights”, but such a retribution is worthless to those whose life was taken by some other party, which does NOT respect those “rights”.

Just think about it.

The above is nothing but a paean to the need to have a God who has endowed His Creatures with the dignity of being made in His Image.

Without the concept of God, the above questions are indeed unanswerable.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I disagree, Fran. I think the CCC is referring to a divinely revealed truth that applies to all of humanity. It is true that those who do not accept this divine revelation may not perceive these qualities as being built in by God, but that does not change the facts.

There have recently been a number of “anti-religious” activities on every level of government. Recently a city named after Bethlehem was asked to remove the creche from the public square. These types of events illustrate the drastic difference between the “from” and the “of”.

I don’t understand what you’re disagreeing with in your first pp above.
Of course WE believe God has endowed us with these qualities.
But an atheist doesn’t believe in God! So, of course, they can’t believe that HE endowed us with them.

Of course your second pp is very right and is also very alarming to me; the removal of signs of our christian faith, I mean since the founders of our country were christian and until recently this was a christian nation.

Fran

 

[guanophore]

I don’t understand what you’re disagreeing with in your first pp above.
Of course WE believe God has endowed us with these qualities.
But an atheist doesn’t believe in God! So, of course, they can’t believe that HE endowed us with them.

Clearly just another misunderstanding.

Are you speaking of CCC no. 27 and on?

They’re natural and built in by God if you believe in God - not everybody does.

We are endowed with them, whether everyone believes it or not!

How sad, not to have the reassurance of being created in dignity…

 

[frangiuliano115]

Clearly just another misunderstanding.

We are endowed with them, whether everyone believes it or not!

How sad, not to have the reassurance of being created in dignity…

Well, we agree on everything!
Mark it down…

Fran

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Without the concept of God, the above questions are indeed unanswerable.

There are no questions. The OP is simply an analysis.

Now, IF there would be a God, who could declare some rights, and IF that God would enforce those rights, it would be totally different story. But even if there IS a God, he did not declare any rights, and certainly does not enforce those nonexistent “rights”.

---

Of course your second pp is very right and is also very alarming to me; the removal of signs of our christian faith, I mean since the founders of our country were christian and until recently this was a christian nation.

I suspect that you are not acquainted with the Treaty of Tripoli, signed and ratified by the US Senate in 1797. As it says in the Article 11:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

---

I agree with your last sentence. That little word “from” and “of” make a big difference, don’t they? Too bad not everybody understands this - or maybe they just don’t want to for their own reasons and agenda.

You mean that people should be free to profess and practice any and all religions, but they should NOT be allowed to be free of religions? Not too long ago this was the attitude in numerous states (South Carolina was one of them), and it was part of the law that people who do not declare that they are religious were not allowed to hold public office - not even a notary public. (Mind you, it was fine to LIE about their religion… but to be honest about the LACK of religion was not.)

Fortunately this ridiculous law was abolished. Freedom OF religion must include freedom FROM religion.

 

[PRmerger]

There are no questions. The OP is simply an analysis.

Now, IF there would be a God, who could declare some rights, and IF that God would enforce those rights, it would be totally different story. But even if there IS a God, he did not declare any rights, and certainly does not enforce those nonexistent “rights”.

Of course he did declare these rights.

They are found in Catholic Social Justice Teachings.

As far as enforcability, that is certainly demonstrated in natural consequences, as well as eternal consequences.