Why the argument that "rights come from the state" is nonsense

[Rambozo]

From what I've seen, the individuals making this argument are usually misinformed on the subject matter in question.

While it's true that specific legal rights come from the state, such as Constitutional Amendments, and that these can be changed, if one goes through the formal process of doing so. Legal rights are separate and distinct from natural rights, and the two things don't conflict.

Essentially, there are certain intrinsic human qualities which make them worthy of being granted certain legal rights (while rocks, on the other hand, do not possess these qualities, and are not worthy of being granted legal rights).

Meaning that, while a state could choose not to grant humans legal rights, in practice, it would still be morally objectionable, because the intrinsic human qualities would still be objectively the same, whether or not they were being granted legal rights.

If, for example, the South denied black people rights during the Jim Crow era, this would be morally objectionable, and while the state might have the pragmatic power to do so, it wouldn't be right for them to do so - meaning that the laws in question which deny black people rights should be changed.

 

[Grand Mal]

From what I've seen, the individuals making this argument are usually misinformed on the subject matter in question.

While it's true that specific legal rights come from the state, such as Constitutional Amendments, and that these can be changed, if one goes through the formal process of doing so. Legal rights are separate and distinct from natural rights, and the two things don't conflict.

Essentially, there are certain intrinsic human qualities which make them worthy of being granted certain legal rights (while rocks, on the other hand, do not possess these qualities, and are not worthy of being granted legal rights).

Meaning that, while a state could choose not to grant humans legal rights, in practice, it would still be morally objectionable, because the intrinsic human qualities would still be objectively the same, whether or not they were being granted legal rights.

If, for example, the South denied black people rights during the Jim Crow era, this would be morally objectionable, and while the state might have the pragmatic power to do so, it wouldn't be right for them to do so - meaning that the laws in question which deny black people rights should be changed.

You have the right to do anything the government allows you to do. Same as everyone else in the world

 

[ataraxia]

From what I've seen, the individuals making this argument are usually misinformed on the subject matter in question.

While it's true that specific legal rights come from the state, such as Constitutional Amendments, and that these can be changed, if one goes through the formal process of doing so. Legal rights are separate and distinct from natural rights, and the two things don't conflict.

Essentially, there are certain intrinsic human qualities which make them worthy of being granted certain legal rights (while rocks, on the other hand, do not possess these qualities, and are not worthy of being granted legal rights).

Meaning that, while a state could choose not to grant humans legal rights, in practice, it would still be morally objectionable, because the intrinsic human qualities would still be objectively the same, whether or not they were being granted legal rights.

If, for example, the South denied black people rights during the Jim Crow era, this would be morally objectionable, and while the state might have the pragmatic power to do so, it wouldn't be right for them to do so - meaning that the laws in question which deny black people rights should be changed.

There is no such things as rights in nature without government. Out in nature, like in the jungle, without any government to protect your rights, if you ever find yourself in a position of weakness or vulnerability, you don’t even have the right to breathe.

 

[Simpletruther]

There is no such things as rights in nature without government. Out in nature, like in the jungle, without any government to protect your rights, if you ever find yourself in a position of weakness or vulnerability, you don’t even have the right to breathe.

Or good neighbors

 

[ataraxia]

Or good neighbors

Vigilante justice often doesn’t work as well as a formal, robust system of law and order in a society. But agreed, sometimes in the absence of competent government, it’s good to have some good friends/family/neighbors.

 

[Rambozo]

You have the right to do anything the government allows you to do. Same as everyone else in the world

Legally, yes. If one looks at North Korea, for example.

But there are certain, inherent reasons, why the government should grant people equal rights. And shouldn't, for example, allow Jim Crow.

The inherent traits which make people worthy of having rights to begin with don't change, even if the government refuses to establish these rights.

Which is why, for example, even if the government of Nazi Germany decides to put Jews in concentration camps, we can say that this is morally wrong, and that the government should be changed or overthrown.

 

[Rambozo]

There is no such things as rights in nature without government. Out in nature, like in the jungle, without any government to protect your rights, if you ever find yourself in a position of weakness or vulnerability, you don’t even have the right to breathe.

Correct. But there are are certain, inherent things about humans which create the impetus for the government to protect and enforce human rights.

 

[anatta]

Inalienable Rights

billofrightsinstitute.org

natural rights are fundamentally inalienable, meaning they are inherent to all humans, not granted by governments or laws, and thus cannot be taken away or surrendered by human authority. The terms "natural rights" and "inalienable rights" often describe the same concept, where "natural" refers to their divine or inherent source and "inalienable" describes their unbreakable quality

 

[Gordy327]

From what I've seen, the individuals making this argument are usually misinformed on the subject matter in question.

While it's true that specific legal rights come from the state, such as Constitutional Amendments, and that these can be changed, if one goes through the formal process of doing so. Legal rights are separate and distinct from natural rights, and the two things don't conflict.

Essentially, there are certain intrinsic human qualities which make them worthy of being granted certain legal rights (while rocks, on the other hand, do not possess these qualities, and are not worthy of being granted legal rights).

Meaning that, while a state could choose not to grant humans legal rights, in practice, it would still be morally objectionable, because the intrinsic human qualities would still be objectively the same, whether or not they were being granted legal rights.

If, for example, the South denied black people rights during the Jim Crow era, this would be morally objectionable, and while the state might have the pragmatic power to do so, it wouldn't be right for them to do so - meaning that the laws in question which deny black people rights should be changed.

What are "natural rights?"Enumerate them! How are they different from rights granted or recognized by a government?

 

[Rambozo]

What are "natural rights?"Enumerate them! How are they different from rights granted or recognized by a government?

No one needs to enumerate them.

There are simply certain, objective traits about humans which make them worthy of being granted human rights. The difference would be that these objective traits about humans don't change, regardless of what legal rights a government does or doesn't grant.

This is why we grant rights to humans, but not to rocks.

 

[Gordy327]

No one needs to enumerate them.

There are simply certain, objective traits about humans which make them worthy of being granted human rights.

Rhetorical nonsense. That doesn't explain or enumerate these so called "natural rights" or how they differ from government granted rights.

 

[Rambozo]

Rhetorical nonsense. That doesn't explain or enumerate these so called "natural rights" or how they differ from government granted rights.

You don't have to enumerate them.

I would simply argue that the human condition means that humans are inherently worthy of having rights.

A black person, for example, is biologically human, regardless of whether or not a state grants them legal rights. That objective fact remained the same even in the days when slavery was legal.

 

[Gordy327]

You don't have to enumerate them.

I would simply argue that the human condition means that humans are inherently worthy of having rights.

A black person, for example, is biologically human, regardless of whether or not a state grants them legal rights. That objective fact remained the same even in the days when slavery was legal.

More rhetoric and more deflection from the questions. It doesn't explain what "natural rights" are.

 

[TobyOne]

Lol . What nonsense. The government doesn't confer rights. Thats some canadian bs right there. Governments are constrained, not empowered. Except in backward **** pleases like Europe and Canada.

You have the right to do anything the government allows you to do. Same as everyone else in the world

 

[Parker_Chess]

Without a government to secure rights it becomes every man for himself. We would have a society run by gangs and mafia bosses.

 

[Rambozo]

Without a government to secure rights it becomes every man for himself. We would have a society run by gangs and mafia bosses.

Correct.

 

[TobyOne]

If only thats all they did.

Without a government to secure rights it becomes every man for himself. We would have a society run by gangs and mafia bosses.

 

[Gozaburo]

Correct. But there are are certain, inherent things about humans which create the impetus for the government to protect and enforce human rights.

Says who?

 

[Rambozo]

Says who?

Objective reality.

 

[Rambozo]

More rhetoric and more deflection from the questions. It doesn't explain what "natural rights" are.

One doesn't have to enumerate specific natural rights. Documents such as the US Constitution attempt to do that.

The objective reality is, though, that the traits - biological, psychological, and so on, which make humans humans don't change, regardless of whether or not the state chooses to grant legal rights.

Even if Nazi Germany, for example, chooses to dehumanize Jews and put them in concentration camps, the objective biological and psychological realities, and the objective harm which putting them in concentration camps causes don't change. So there would naturally be an impetus for overthrowing such a regime and establishing legal, human rights for Jews.

 

[Gozaburo]

Objective reality.

So if you go to Afghanistan and some fundamentalist lops your head off, that's because they're living in some alternative dimension of reality which does not abide by the rules of the dimensions in other countries?

 

[Rambozo]

So if you go to Afghanistan and some fundamentalist lops your head off, that's because they're living in some alternative dimension of reality which does not abide by the rules of the dimensions in other countries?

Correct.

The biological and psychological traits that make humans humans, and the measurable harm that such things cause humans do not change.

 

[Gozaburo]

The biological and psychological traits that make humans humans, and the measurable harm that such things cause humans do not change.

Can you rephrase this to be literate please.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Without a government to secure rights it becomes every man for himself. We would have a society run by gangs and mafia bosses.

EXAMPLE:

 

[Craig234]

From what I've seen, the individuals making this argument are usually misinformed on the subject matter in question.

While it's true that specific legal rights come from the state, such as Constitutional Amendments, and that these can be changed, if one goes through the formal process of doing so. Legal rights are separate and distinct from natural rights, and the two things don't conflict.

Essentially, there are certain intrinsic human qualities which make them worthy of being granted certain legal rights (while rocks, on the other hand, do not possess these qualities, and are not worthy of being granted legal rights).

Meaning that, while a state could choose not to grant humans legal rights, in practice, it would still be morally objectionable, because the intrinsic human qualities would still be objectively the same, whether or not they were being granted legal rights.

If, for example, the South denied black people rights during the Jim Crow era, this would be morally objectionable, and while the state might have the pragmatic power to do so, it wouldn't be right for them to do so - meaning that the laws in question which deny black people rights should be changed.

However, people decide what they think those 'natural rights' are. And people only have them in practice if the state recognizes them, however morally objectionable it is if they don't. People who vote against rights mostly don't think that's morally objectionable. They didn't in the case of slavery, or abortion, or others. Denying gay people marriage? "Defense of marriage".