There is no such thing as a "natural" or "unalienable" right

[NatMorton]

Okay, that subject line is a bit extreme, but hey, it was a hook and it got you here.

What I mean is this. Often unalienable or natural rights are cited as a concept to justify all kinds of judicial hijinks. "This is clearly a natural right, so even though it's mentioned no where in the Constitution it must be a Constitutionally protected right, right?" Such laws certainly have meaning and they were a source of inspiration for the freedoms we enjoy today. But in a legal sense, ultimately unalienable and natural rights amount to little more than political poetry. They sound nice but don't mean much.

I say this because at the end of the day the only rights you really enjoy are those your government chooses to protect. Doubt this? Let's pick one, liberty. Fairly uncontroversial as far as unalienable rights go, but do the people of North Korea have it today? Did those in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany? Did African Americans enjoy it in the United States prior to 1865 (or at times after)? An unalienable right means absolutely nothing when you're sitting in a concentration camp having been found guilty of a thought crime.

So are natural rights in anyway meaningful in a legal context?

What say you?

 

[swing_voter]

Yes there is. We explained it in our Declaration of Independence.

 

[rahl]

Yes there is. We explained it in our Declaration of Independence.

the DOI has zero legal weight. Natural rights are a human philosophical construct.

 

[NotreDame]

Okay, that subject line is a bit extreme, but hey, it was a hook and it got you here.

What I mean is this. Often unalienable or natural rights are cited as a concept to justify all kinds of judicial hijinks. "This is clearly a natural right, so even though it's mentioned no where in the Constitution it must be a Constitutionally protected right, right?" Such laws certainly have meaning and they were a source of inspiration for the freedoms we enjoy today. But in a legal sense, ultimately unalienable and natural rights amount to little more than political poetry. They sound nice but don't mean much.

I say this because at the end of the day the only rights you really enjoy are those your government chooses to protect. Doubt this? Let's pick one, liberty. Fairly uncontroversial as far as unalienable rights go, but do the people of North Korea have it today? Did those in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany? Did African Americans enjoy it in the United States prior to 1865 (or at times after)? An unalienable right means absolutely nothing when you're sitting in a concentration camp having been found guilty of a thought crime.

So are natural rights in anyway meaningful in a legal context?

What say you?

Doesn’t this depend on the legal context itself?

For example, the U.S. Constitution is an example of a document birthed in natural rights theory. The document was championed as a liberty and rights protecting document by Federalists and advocates for ratification. Why? Because the federal government was not vested with any power to legislate in the area of their rights.

In other words, when ratified, there was a vast ocean of unenumerated natural rights protected by the Constitutional structure of not vesting to the federal government any legislative or federal power to act in the area of their rights.

That same thinking, of unenumerated natural rights of the people the government cannot infringe upon, formed the content of the 9th Amendment and inspired its creation.

But in a legal sense, ultimately unalienable and natural rights amount to little more than political poetry. They sound nice but don't mean much.

Because you say so? To the framers and founders, those words connoted much. They referred to a vast reservoir of liberty and property rights, and we do have some understanding of just how vast by the common law, writings of Blackstone, Sir Edward Coke, and many others, and illuminated for us by esteemed Randy Barnett in is work, “The Ninth Amendment: It Means What It Says.”

So, to answer your question, it depends on the legal context itself, and the U.S. system of natural rights as limits on state and federal power is reflected in the BOR, 9th Amendment, and the constitutional structure the government isn’t vested with any power over the rights of the people.

 

[NotreDame]

the DOI has zero legal weight. Natural rights are a human philosophical construct.

That they are but the question was whether they are in “anyway meaningful in a legal context” and the correct answer is it depends on the legal context. In the U.S., the answer is yes. See post number 4.

 

[NatMorton]

Yes there is. We explained it in our Declaration of Independence.

Is that document binding law?

 

[NatMorton]

Doesn’t this depend on the legal context itself?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If the legal context doesn't protect a given "natural right," that right has no real meaning in that context.

Because you say so? To the framers and founders, those words connoted much. They referred to a vast reservoir of liberty and property rights, and we do have some understanding of just how vast by the common law, writings of Blackstone, Sir Edward Coke, and many others, and illuminated for us by esteemed Randy Barnett in is work, “The Ninth Amendment: It Means What It Says.”

No, not because I say so, but because the logic of my argument confirms it

Seriously, I'm certainly not saying the concept of natural rights played no part in the formation of our government. They were absolutely fundamental. But you name me the "natural right" that is not protected by a government for its people, and I'll show you a people for whom that natural right has no meaning.

 

[rahl]

That they are but the question was whether they are in “anyway meaningful in a legal context” and the correct answer is it depends on the legal context. In the U.S., the answer is yes. See post number 4.

I can agree with that. Rights are codified in law. They are not universal.

 

[aociswundumho]

I say this because at the end of the day the only rights you really enjoy are those your government chooses to protect. Doubt this? Let's pick one, liberty. Fairly uncontroversial as far as unalienable rights go, but do the people of North Korea have it today? Did those in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany? Did African Americans enjoy it in the United States prior to 1865 (or at times after)? An unalienable right means absolutely nothing when you're sitting in a concentration camp having been found guilty of a thought crime.

So are natural rights in anyway meaningful in a legal context?

What say you?

You have the right to your property. If your property is robbed from you, then your right to property has been violated - the robbery is not evidence that the right doesn't exist.

Seems to me all you are saying is that governments everywhere violate the rights of the people they rule over, and I would agree.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Okay, that subject line is a bit extreme, but hey, it was a hook and it got you here.

What I mean is this. Often unalienable or natural rights are cited as a concept to justify all kinds of judicial hijinks. "This is clearly a natural right, so even though it's mentioned no where in the Constitution it must be a Constitutionally protected right, right?" Such laws certainly have meaning and they were a source of inspiration for the freedoms we enjoy today. But in a legal sense, ultimately unalienable and natural rights amount to little more than political poetry. They sound nice but don't mean much.

I say this because at the end of the day the only rights you really enjoy are those your government chooses to protect. Doubt this? Let's pick one, liberty. Fairly uncontroversial as far as unalienable rights go, but do the people of North Korea have it today? Did those in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany? Did African Americans enjoy it in the United States prior to 1865 (or at times after)? An unalienable right means absolutely nothing when you're sitting in a concentration camp having been found guilty of a thought crime.

So are natural rights in anyway meaningful in a legal context?

What say you?

I don't know anybody who has claimed that it's impossible for a government to deny someone an inalienable right, just that they shouldn't. You understand the difference, right?

 

[NatMorton]

I don't know anybody who has claimed that it's impossible for a government to deny someone an inalienable right, just that they shouldn't. You understand the difference, right?

Yes, I do. My point is that are not dogma. To matter, a government must a) recognize them and b) protect them. They don't simply "exist."

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Yes, I do. My point is that are not dogma. To matter, a government must a) recognize them and b) protect them. They don't simply "exist."

Has anyone ever claimed otherwise? Who has said the government literally couldn't take someone's rights away? Please, use direct quotes.

 

[MaryP]

the DOI has zero legal weight. Natural rights are a human philosophical construct.

Of course. But it's nice when there are a few fundamental things we can agree on. As a group, I don't think those natural rights do any harm, do you? We humans constructed them and at least in this country, its our job to defend them. It's very true they aren't stated outright in the Constitution, but many of the BoR quite clearly defend them in execution.

 

[rahl]

Of course. But it's nice when there are a few fundamental things we can agree on. As a group, I don't think those natural rights do any harm, do you?

implying they exist as some mystical natural right, implies the existence of some mystical creator which bestowed them. It's silly superstition. Rights are human constructs, and have changed constantly throughout human history. Rights are simply what a society agrees they want, and a government that enforces them.

\We humans constructed them and at least in this country, its our job to defend them. It's very true they aren't stated outright in the Constitution, but many of the BoR quite clearly defend them in execution.

I agree

 

[MaryP]

implying they exist as some mystical natural right, implies the existence of some mystical creator which bestowed them. It's silly superstition. Rights are human constructs, and have changed constantly throughout human history. Rights are simply what a society agrees they want, and a government that enforces them.

I agree

As I already said, of course. Doesn't change their import, to me, anyway.

 

[NatMorton]

Has anyone ever claimed otherwise? Who has said the government literally couldn't take someone's rights away? Please, use direct quotes.

It's related to a debate in another thread where some are arguing that natural rights flit about us like so many butterflies and may be, at any time, snagged with a net more commonly referred to as "the 9th and 10th amendments." Once caught, authorized taxidermists (sometimes called "Supreme Court Justices") may have them flattened, dried, and pinned to a page of the US Constitution enshrining them for all time as newly enumerated rights.

It's all rather charming.

 

[Taylor]

Of course there are natural rights. If someone tries to kill me, I have a natural right to protect myself. Whether or not the government wants to protect that right is utterly irrelevant.

 

[rocket88]

I think yes, you have God-given rights. I also think there are more than are delineated in the Constitution. Right to eat or shelter yourself fir example. Healthcare, imo, is a right. If we covered your very basic medical checkup needs, we would be healthier and gave less need for the big surgeries and expensive drugs. Yes, I am arguing for socialized basic Healthcare. I don't even go to doctors if I can avoid it because of the cost. So I end up in urgent care which is more expensive. How many are like me? I've got a 1000 dollar medical bill for tge ER to tell me I had heartburn. Regular checkups could have told me that, but taking off of work and dropping 50 bucks on a copay isn't my idea of fun.

 

[NatMorton]

Of course there are natural rights. If someone tries to kill me, I have a natural right to protect myself. Whether or not the government wants to protect that right is utterly irrelevant.

It's relevant if that government fails to recognize the "natural right" of self defense and later imprisons you.

 

[NatMorton]

I think yes, you have God-given rights. I also think there are more than are delineated in the Constitution. Right to eat or shelter yourself fir example. Healthcare, imo, is a right. If we covered your very basic medical checkup needs, we would be healthier and gave less need for the big surgeries and expensive drugs. Yes, I am arguing for socialized basic Healthcare. I don't even go to doctors if I can avoid it because of the cost. So I end up in urgent care which is more expensive. How many are like me? I've got a 1000 dollar medical bill for tge ER to tell me I had heartburn. Regular checkups could have told me that, but taking off of work and dropping 50 bucks on a copay isn't my idea of fun.

I don't think you're talking about "rights" there. You're speaking of entitlements.

I have a right do own a gun. That does not mean you're obligated to help fund my purchase of one.

 

[NatMorton]

You have the right to your property. If your property is robbed from you, then your right to property has been violated - the robbery is not evidence that the right doesn't exist.

Seems to me all you are saying is that governments everywhere violate the rights of the people they rule over, and I would agree.

You have that right in Connecticut because, I trust, there are laws that punish those who would steal your property. That is certainly no guarantee from harm, but your property rights have meaning because there is a meaningful disincentive enforced by government.

I am absolutely not looking to flip this thread to a discussion on social justice, but for several weeks this past summer there was a six block area in Seattle dubbed "the autonomous zone" where property rights were effectively suspended. For that period of time, and that place, a "natural right to property" meant essentially nothing. What was yours was also theirs.

 

[aociswundumho]

You have that right in Connecticut because, I trust, there are laws that punish those who would steal your property.

There is no connection between your rights and what the state considers illegal. The US government once enforced slavery - does it follow that white people have the natural right to own black people?

 

[Drawdown]

Okay, that subject line is a bit extreme, but hey, it was a hook and it got you here.

What I mean is this. Often unalienable or natural rights are cited as a concept to justify all kinds of judicial hijinks. "This is clearly a natural right, so even though it's mentioned no where in the Constitution it must be a Constitutionally protected right, right?" Such laws certainly have meaning and they were a source of inspiration for the freedoms we enjoy today. But in a legal sense, ultimately unalienable and natural rights amount to little more than political poetry. They sound nice but don't mean much.

I say this because at the end of the day the only rights you really enjoy are those your government chooses to protect. Doubt this? Let's pick one, liberty. Fairly uncontroversial as far as unalienable rights go, but do the people of North Korea have it today? Did those in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany? Did African Americans enjoy it in the United States prior to 1865 (or at times after)? An unalienable right means absolutely nothing when you're sitting in a concentration camp having been found guilty of a thought crime.

So are natural rights in anyway meaningful in a legal context?

What say you?

You have no more rights than the government allows at any given time. Natural rights do not exist. Power does.

 

[Lursa]

Okay, that subject line is a bit extreme, but hey, it was a hook and it got you here.

What I mean is this. Often unalienable or natural rights are cited as a concept to justify all kinds of judicial hijinks. "This is clearly a natural right, so even though it's mentioned no where in the Constitution it must be a Constitutionally protected right, right?" Such laws certainly have meaning and they were a source of inspiration for the freedoms we enjoy today. But in a legal sense, ultimately unalienable and natural rights amount to little more than political poetry. They sound nice but don't mean much.

I say this because at the end of the day the only rights you really enjoy are those your government chooses to protect. Doubt this? Let's pick one, liberty. Fairly uncontroversial as far as unalienable rights go, but do the people of North Korea have it today? Did those in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany? Did African Americans enjoy it in the United States prior to 1865 (or at times after)? An unalienable right means absolutely nothing when you're sitting in a concentration camp having been found guilty of a thought crime.

So are natural rights in anyway meaningful in a legal context?

What say you?

"Natural rights" are a man-made concept, often used as an end-run around using religious beliefs to justify something. But that concept is still an appeal to a higher authority.

Rights are a man-made concept. If they were 'natural' or biological in origin, why dont other animals have them? If they were 'inherent,' biologists would have found evidence of such.

To answer your last question, it illuminates a philosophical foundation that some of our Founding Fathers used while designing our govt and may prove helpful when originalists try to interpret the Constitution. (See John Locke)

 

[NotreDame]

Seriously, I'm certainly not saying the concept of natural rights played no part in the formation of our government. They were absolutely fundamental.

No, not because I say so, but because the logic of my argument confirms it

Touché. I’m a fan of logical arguments. Our disagreement is going to be about which argument is sound, which argument is strong, which argument is more persuasive.

But you name me the "natural right" that is not protected by a government for its people, and I'll show you a people for whom that natural right has no meaning.

Let me be clear. If natural rights exist, there’s no method or evidence to 1.) show they exist and 2.) know what exactly they are. Your example of liberty trampling NK is an example of even if a natural right to liberty exists, NK isn’t protecting the natural right of liberty. Thus highlighting natural rights, even if they do exist, offer little comfort from governments trampling on them.

But the fact you can find countries whose government and laws aren’t founded upon natural rights philosophy doesn’t change the fact the U.S. was so founded and is reflected in the Constitution and BOR. The notion of limiting government to enumerated powers was done and conceived out of a desire to protect the rights of the people. The 9th Amendment was conceived to assuage the fear an enumeration of some of the rights of the people would imply there were no other rights. The 9th Amendment was birthed as an acknowledgment of unenumerated rights and that those rights were as important as the enumerated rights.