Is it true that rights can't be granted, only infringed?
First off, this does sounds absurd from my point of view at least. Isn't it the job of a state to exactly define what you can and cannot do, yes? And yet some Anarchists such as 
advocate that yes, this is indeed the case. Where does people get info like this anyway...
advocate that yes, this is indeed the case. Where does people get info like this anyway...Comments142
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
In a democracy the people give themselves rights. Sort of like our national deficient is owed to the people. The government borrows into the citizens future with their own money.
That's true.
It is not true
The only source of rights is the state (society)
A man who believes that the rights are given to him from birth can tell the sharks about it to the sea
The only source of rights is the state (society)
A man who believes that the rights are given to him from birth can tell the sharks about it to the sea
That's true. And yet some people apparently didn't get the memo on that. And I pity them for that really.
Not "some people", but hundreds of millions.
Modern liberal ideology denies the fact that rights have a source
Modern liberal ideology denies the fact that rights have a source
That's true. It's all in your constitutions after all. And only that can define what you can or cannot do.
And this means that the laws of any country are the supreme authority in the matter of determining the rights of its citizens. Thus, the reason for conflict with "insufficiently free" countries disappears. So there is no need to make an exception for Saudi Arabia.
But without the "Saudi" except the free world will lose the meaning of existence.
But without the "Saudi" except the free world will lose the meaning of existence.
To be honest, I'm pretty sure there comes a time when Saudi Arabia as we know it would disappear. It might be a slow process, yes. But it's clear there's stirring in the status quo in a sense.
Time will come - everything will disappear
But the bad disappears into the last turn
So, Saudi Arabia will continue for a very long time
But the bad disappears into the last turn
So, Saudi Arabia will continue for a very long time
View all replies
The US Constitution enumerates rights we have that are protected from government infringement. The US Government is granted limited powers by the Constitution, so there exists no need to "grant" all specific rights that could ever exist. The purpose of the Ninth Amendment is to grant protections for those unspoken rights.
Funny, because many of the same people who say that are quick to say the Constitution is a "living document", thereby justifying their willingness to go against it, in the first place. What incentive does a monopoly on force have to abide by a piece of paper, save by doing the bare minimum that will keep the populace docile so as to restrict their freedoms further?
Many of those who support the living document idea seem to do so under the guise that the text itself can be re-interpreted to meet a changing and evolving society. In truth, this is a misnomer of sorts. Take freedom of speech. Back in 1791, speech was physically limited to the human voice and print (to include handwritten documents). Nothing has to change to support free speech through any other medium, be it radio, telephone, television or the internet. Free speech is free speech, without additional interpretation.
The Constitution is the law that preserves protected rights of the individual. If we as individuals decide to forfeit our rights, then we are just as responsible as those who seek to destroy our freedoms. Our protected right to vote comes with the responsibility of actual voicing our power through the action of placing that vote.
The Constitution is the law that preserves protected rights of the individual. If we as individuals decide to forfeit our rights, then we are just as responsible as those who seek to destroy our freedoms. Our protected right to vote comes with the responsibility of actual voicing our power through the action of placing that vote.
That's true.
Life, Liberty, Persuit of Property
without life you are dead,
without liberty you are a slave,
without the ability to own property you are either a slave or dead.
Christian Anarchists? Seems to be a strange combination of words. I don't see anyplace in Christianity's earliest writings, the New Testament, that advocates anarchy. Quite the opposite, in fact.
This would basically prove that Zachary's philosophy is utter nonsense...
Rights are a social construct, so they must be granted. From there, they may be infringed, but there is no higher power that metes out rights. Like, say, property. Property is only a right as far as it is recognized and policed by a governing body. Without that governing body, property does not exist. Same with any and all other rights; without a government recognizing it, a right is simply something people yell about having while it gets ignored. Now, if enough people get together and yell loud enough, sure, a new right might be recognized; but it definitely wasn't something meted out from on high.
Wrong on all counts.
If rights have to be granted, they cease to be rights entirely, and are instead relegated to the status of being privileges. Also, funny you should mention property rights, because, if memory serves me correctly, you are one of those people that are for alleged women's "rights" by way of abortion under the guise of bodily autonomy. Are you saying if women are restricted in what they can do with their body (assuming it is even is her body to begin with), she ceases to have those rights due to her body no longer being hers, thus justifying what government does to women? I ask that because, that is the logical conclusion from your diatribe. If I were a third-wave feminist, I wouldn't want to be you at the next Women's March.
If rights have to be granted, they cease to be rights entirely, and are instead relegated to the status of being privileges. Also, funny you should mention property rights, because, if memory serves me correctly, you are one of those people that are for alleged women's "rights" by way of abortion under the guise of bodily autonomy. Are you saying if women are restricted in what they can do with their body (assuming it is even is her body to begin with), she ceases to have those rights due to her body no longer being hers, thus justifying what government does to women? I ask that because, that is the logical conclusion from your diatribe. If I were a third-wave feminist, I wouldn't want to be you at the next Women's March.
If rights have to be granted, they cease to be rights entirely, and are instead relegated to the status of being privileges
Name one right that is inherent. ONE. They are all granted, because they are social constructs, not inborn traits.
Are you saying if women are restricted in what they can do with their body (assuming it is even is her body to begin with), she ceases to have those rights due to her body no longer being hers, thus justifying what government does to women?
No, I'm saying that rights are a social construct. It is widely recognized the world over that bodily autonomy is a human right, part of a swath of human rights; and governments, companies, and people have banded together to recognize and enforce it. Without people saying "this is a right", that right does not exist. I defaulted to property because it's an easy example: without any kind of government to back it up, there is no such thing as property, and one can simply grab what they want.
Name one right that is inherent. ONE. They are all granted, because they are social constructs, not inborn traits.
Are you saying if women are restricted in what they can do with their body (assuming it is even is her body to begin with), she ceases to have those rights due to her body no longer being hers, thus justifying what government does to women?
No, I'm saying that rights are a social construct. It is widely recognized the world over that bodily autonomy is a human right, part of a swath of human rights; and governments, companies, and people have banded together to recognize and enforce it. Without people saying "this is a right", that right does not exist. I defaulted to property because it's an easy example: without any kind of government to back it up, there is no such thing as property, and one can simply grab what they want.
Name one right that is inherent. ONE. How about three? Life, Liberty, Property. They all begin with self-ownership. You own your thoughts, your body, and everything that makes you, you. To deny that is to render yourself a slave.
No, I'm saying that rights are a social construct. It is widely recognized the world over that bodily autonomy is a human right, part of a swath of human rights; The Islamic world does not think so, nor does the Chinese regime, nor the North Korean rulers. If consensus and subjective opinions are the criteria, then the Middle Eastern women outside of Israel have no justification for claiming to have rights, at all, thus no reason to fight for them. That is the conclusion any rational person would make from considering rights a social construct. You can't have it both ways. Either they are inherent, or they don't exist by any stretch of the imagination. Period. Make up your mind. Which is it? Opposing sides of a debate frequently say their alleged rights (or, the alleged rights they are defending on someone else's behalf) are the true ones, while the other side does the same. They can't both be correct.
I defaulted to property because it's an easy example: without any kind of government to back it up, there is no such thing as property, and one can simply grab what they want. You say that as if parents do not arbitrate on matters of property between their own offspring on a daily basis. I seriously doubt you would be defending your position on the matter of property if the government were trying to take away something you don't want to let go. If you have to be told by the government that you own your body, you might as well kiss "bodily autonomy" goodbye when the state comes to call.
No, I'm saying that rights are a social construct. It is widely recognized the world over that bodily autonomy is a human right, part of a swath of human rights; The Islamic world does not think so, nor does the Chinese regime, nor the North Korean rulers. If consensus and subjective opinions are the criteria, then the Middle Eastern women outside of Israel have no justification for claiming to have rights, at all, thus no reason to fight for them. That is the conclusion any rational person would make from considering rights a social construct. You can't have it both ways. Either they are inherent, or they don't exist by any stretch of the imagination. Period. Make up your mind. Which is it? Opposing sides of a debate frequently say their alleged rights (or, the alleged rights they are defending on someone else's behalf) are the true ones, while the other side does the same. They can't both be correct.
I defaulted to property because it's an easy example: without any kind of government to back it up, there is no such thing as property, and one can simply grab what they want. You say that as if parents do not arbitrate on matters of property between their own offspring on a daily basis. I seriously doubt you would be defending your position on the matter of property if the government were trying to take away something you don't want to let go. If you have to be told by the government that you own your body, you might as well kiss "bodily autonomy" goodbye when the state comes to call.
Life, Liberty, Property
Oh, let's go with the easy ones. Without a government backing them up, none of these rights exist. Your right to life can be revoked by anyone who doesn't like you, or anything hungry enough to take you down. Your right to liberty can be revoked by anyone who decides to enslave you. And your right to property is just as fragile. All of these rights do not exist without government. These rights are not inherent. They are, thus, granted by a government. Dear fucking god, do you not understand the point? These are social constructs: without a society, they do not exist. Thus, they cannot be inherent.
The Islamic world does not think so, nor does the Chinese regime, nor the North Korean rulers
North Korea also does not believe that life, liberty and property are rights; and ignore them. If rights were inherent, as you believe, they could not be ignored.
If consensus and subjective opinions are the criteria, then the Middle Eastern women outside of Israel have no justification for claiming to have rights, at all, thus no reason to fight for them. That is the conclusion any rational person would make from considering rights a social construct.
Ha! You consider yourself rational after spouting that garbage? There is a global community of people, companies, and governments who believe in these rights, and make efforts to get them recognized and enforced. But you want to conveniently ignore them to make your point, because you don't seem to understand that consensus can mean more than just regional consensus.
You can't have it both ways. Either they are inherent, or they don't exist by any stretch of the imagination.
Both ways? Social constructs exist. The fact that you cannot parse that rights are a social construct and thus, granted by society, does not mean that they don't exist.
You say that as if parents do not arbitrate on matters of property between their own offspring on a daily basis.
You say that as if you still don't understand the point: Without someone enforcing a right to property, that right does not exist. Doesn't mean stuff doesn't exist, but it does mean that it can be freely taken. In this case, that someone is a parent.
I seriously doubt you would be defending your position on the matter of property if the government were trying to take away something you don't want to let go.
Because you're incapable of understanding the point. I might not want to let something go, but I fully understand where my right to property comes from, and how to get it enforced. A right without any kind of backing might as well not exist.
If you have to be told by the government that you own your body, you might as well kiss "bodily autonomy" goodbye when the state comes to call.
Like I said, I fully understand where my rights come from, and how they are enforced. If a government decides that it doesn't want to recognize bodily autonomy as a right, there's multiple avenues I could pursue to change the decision, but without the general consensus of the people, it still wouldn't exist.
Oh, let's go with the easy ones. Without a government backing them up, none of these rights exist. Your right to life can be revoked by anyone who doesn't like you, or anything hungry enough to take you down. Your right to liberty can be revoked by anyone who decides to enslave you. And your right to property is just as fragile. All of these rights do not exist without government. These rights are not inherent. They are, thus, granted by a government. Dear fucking god, do you not understand the point? These are social constructs: without a society, they do not exist. Thus, they cannot be inherent.
The Islamic world does not think so, nor does the Chinese regime, nor the North Korean rulers
North Korea also does not believe that life, liberty and property are rights; and ignore them. If rights were inherent, as you believe, they could not be ignored.
If consensus and subjective opinions are the criteria, then the Middle Eastern women outside of Israel have no justification for claiming to have rights, at all, thus no reason to fight for them. That is the conclusion any rational person would make from considering rights a social construct.
Ha! You consider yourself rational after spouting that garbage? There is a global community of people, companies, and governments who believe in these rights, and make efforts to get them recognized and enforced. But you want to conveniently ignore them to make your point, because you don't seem to understand that consensus can mean more than just regional consensus.
You can't have it both ways. Either they are inherent, or they don't exist by any stretch of the imagination.
Both ways? Social constructs exist. The fact that you cannot parse that rights are a social construct and thus, granted by society, does not mean that they don't exist.
You say that as if parents do not arbitrate on matters of property between their own offspring on a daily basis.
You say that as if you still don't understand the point: Without someone enforcing a right to property, that right does not exist. Doesn't mean stuff doesn't exist, but it does mean that it can be freely taken. In this case, that someone is a parent.
I seriously doubt you would be defending your position on the matter of property if the government were trying to take away something you don't want to let go.
Because you're incapable of understanding the point. I might not want to let something go, but I fully understand where my right to property comes from, and how to get it enforced. A right without any kind of backing might as well not exist.
If you have to be told by the government that you own your body, you might as well kiss "bodily autonomy" goodbye when the state comes to call.
Like I said, I fully understand where my rights come from, and how they are enforced. If a government decides that it doesn't want to recognize bodily autonomy as a right, there's multiple avenues I could pursue to change the decision, but without the general consensus of the people, it still wouldn't exist.
Oh, let's go with the easy ones. Without a government backing them up, none of these rights exist. Why not?
Your right to life can be revoked by anyone who doesn't like you, or anything hungry enough to take you down. No, anyone that kills you INFRINGES upon that right. Big difference.
Your right to liberty can be revoked by anyone who decides to enslave you. Nope. If it is a right, it CANNOT be taken away, only infringed.
And your right to property is just as fragile. How?
All of these rights do not exist without government. These rights are not inherent. They are, thus, granted by a government. Sorry, I don't accept circular reasoning. The fact you did not even touch on my argument by self-ownership is very telling.
Dear fucking god, do you not understand the point? These are social constructs: without a society, they do not exist. Thus, they cannot be inherent. You have yet to explain how they are social constructs. And, techincally, all a society is, is a group of people interacting with each other. No government is needed for that to exist.
North Korea also does not believe that life, liberty and property are rights; and ignore them. If rights were inherent, as you believe, they could not be ignored. The fact that the earth is spherical can be ignored by the Flat Earth Society. Does that make scientific facts a social construct?
Ha! You consider yourself rational after spouting that garbage? Is stating the facts is garbage, what does that make fiction?
There is a global community of people, companies, and governments who believe in these rights, and make efforts to get them recognized and enforced. But, if the Middle East does nto recognize them, all efforts are going to be fruitless without an objective basis for rights to exist in the first place.
But you want to conveniently ignore them to make your point, because you don't seem to understand that consensus can mean more than just regional consensus. No, you're just too dense to see the ramifications of what it means for any form of consensus at all to be the basis. If that were the basis, then nobody from antiquity had any reason to even consider there being rights, nor a reason to fight for any, seeing as individualism as a philosophy took root during the Enlightenment, several thousand years after civlization began.
Both ways? Social constructs exist. The fact that you cannot parse that rights are a social construct and thus, granted by society, does not mean that they don't exist. Repeating yourself won't help you. If you can't explain to me how rights are simply social constructs, you have no case. If you are going to argue that rights are simply social construct, then there is no objective basis for them to be in existence. without that onbjective basis, there is absolutely no basis for them to be in existence at all. Period.
You say that as if you still don't understand the point: Without someone enforcing a right to property, that right does not exist. Why the fuck not?
Because you're incapable of understanding the point. I might not want to let something go, but I fully understand where my right to property comes from, and how to get it enforced. A right without any kind of backing might as well not exist. Yet, you don't explain why a government is necessary in order for rights to exist.
Like I said, I fully understand where my rights come from, and how they are enforced. If a government decides that it doesn't want to recognize bodily autonomy as a right, there's multiple avenues I could pursue to change the decision, but without the general consensus of the people, it still wouldn't exist. Why. fucking. not?
Your right to life can be revoked by anyone who doesn't like you, or anything hungry enough to take you down. No, anyone that kills you INFRINGES upon that right. Big difference.
Your right to liberty can be revoked by anyone who decides to enslave you. Nope. If it is a right, it CANNOT be taken away, only infringed.
And your right to property is just as fragile. How?
All of these rights do not exist without government. These rights are not inherent. They are, thus, granted by a government. Sorry, I don't accept circular reasoning. The fact you did not even touch on my argument by self-ownership is very telling.
Dear fucking god, do you not understand the point? These are social constructs: without a society, they do not exist. Thus, they cannot be inherent. You have yet to explain how they are social constructs. And, techincally, all a society is, is a group of people interacting with each other. No government is needed for that to exist.
North Korea also does not believe that life, liberty and property are rights; and ignore them. If rights were inherent, as you believe, they could not be ignored. The fact that the earth is spherical can be ignored by the Flat Earth Society. Does that make scientific facts a social construct?
Ha! You consider yourself rational after spouting that garbage? Is stating the facts is garbage, what does that make fiction?
There is a global community of people, companies, and governments who believe in these rights, and make efforts to get them recognized and enforced. But, if the Middle East does nto recognize them, all efforts are going to be fruitless without an objective basis for rights to exist in the first place.
But you want to conveniently ignore them to make your point, because you don't seem to understand that consensus can mean more than just regional consensus. No, you're just too dense to see the ramifications of what it means for any form of consensus at all to be the basis. If that were the basis, then nobody from antiquity had any reason to even consider there being rights, nor a reason to fight for any, seeing as individualism as a philosophy took root during the Enlightenment, several thousand years after civlization began.
Both ways? Social constructs exist. The fact that you cannot parse that rights are a social construct and thus, granted by society, does not mean that they don't exist. Repeating yourself won't help you. If you can't explain to me how rights are simply social constructs, you have no case. If you are going to argue that rights are simply social construct, then there is no objective basis for them to be in existence. without that onbjective basis, there is absolutely no basis for them to be in existence at all. Period.
You say that as if you still don't understand the point: Without someone enforcing a right to property, that right does not exist. Why the fuck not?
Because you're incapable of understanding the point. I might not want to let something go, but I fully understand where my right to property comes from, and how to get it enforced. A right without any kind of backing might as well not exist. Yet, you don't explain why a government is necessary in order for rights to exist.
Like I said, I fully understand where my rights come from, and how they are enforced. If a government decides that it doesn't want to recognize bodily autonomy as a right, there's multiple avenues I could pursue to change the decision, but without the general consensus of the people, it still wouldn't exist. Why. fucking. not?
Way to go using his own words against this guy. But then again, he likely finds a way to twist the knife even further...
View all replies