Rights: those areas of action in which others have an obligation to not interfere.
Rights are a purely social concept, and a specific way of ordering a society. If an individual has a right to act, then they have some sort of (at least moral) claim upon everyone else (since the only actual actors in the world are persons, I don't bother to mention groups) to NOT interfere with that action. And it doesn't matter how much one or a million of them dislike your gay mexican nazi float in the parade. Too damn bad. They have an obligation to not interfere.
Interesting that when one constitutes rights as a moral obligation to be left alone by others that one cannot have conflicting rights. And positive rights are incoherent. And the "unless you interfere with the rights of others" falls out by accident.
The question: do humans have rights (a moral claim not to be interfered with in at least some areas) or not? Not is a legitimate answer...but I know of no other political theory to oppose total government than rights-based theories.
Now...there are disputes about rights...which individual rights do persons have? Almost universally, they begin with life, liberty, fruits of one's labors, property*, self defense, freedom of conscience. Usually religion, speech, congregation, association are also listed explicitly. Lack of freedom of religion, lack of free speech, lack of self-defense are all known to, if infringed, allow all other rights to fail as well. Strong rights to property (claim against governments and others from stealing it, claim against others from preventing you from transfering property to mutual benefit) appears to be the greatest known path to prosperity (for nations) yet discovered.
* please no sophomoric nonsense about property, life as guarantees rather than non-interference claims.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
I have a somewhat different definition of rights.
I believe that rights are not social constructs. I believe that they are those non-physical things, inherent to man, which cannot be abrogated except by force, fraud, or willing consent.
So, you do not have a right to live; but you do have a right to defend your life.
In practical terms, it's a pretty small difference; but in philosophical terms I think it's a pretty big one.
The fundamental right, is the right of ownership of self, and all that extends from it. All rights are predicated on, and proceed from self ownership.
The right to self defense, the right to freedom of conscience, the right to freedom of association; all are predicated on ones ownership of ones self.
Chris,
The trickiness is actually in deriving rights. From conversation, I understand that your philosophical foundation permits you a set of philosophical constructs (such as inherent, non-physical rights) that my metaphysics cannot support.
I do think it's a big difference, though.
Hey Aretae,
Long time no talk.
I'd begin by pushing back against your idea that rights are only attached to individuals. This is a typical libertarian idea, but I think it fails to properly account for the world as it operates. How do you think of the rights of a family? Yes, there are individuals within a family that have rights claims, but the family has unique claims to certain rights as well.
Likewise, with corporate entities (for profit or not for profit). Likewise, with the nation-state. Think of disputes over fishing waters or mineral rights.
Herz,
Do you mean that a family qua family has rights claims against the members of the family? Or that persons in a family have rights claims against others not in said family? I'm unclear.
"Do you mean that a family qua family has rights claims against the members of the family? Or that persons in a family have rights claims against others not in said family? I'm unclear."
Both.
Certainly when thinking of the kids in the family, their individual rights are trumped by the family rights (sorry Emma, you cannot stay up all night talking to your friend using "facetime" on your iPod -- you must go to bed now and your mother and I don't care whether you like it or not).
Also, with respect to others, we can think of families having a claim on society's resources above and beyond someone who doesn't have a family (e.g. via taxes to pay for public schools).
Of course, this messes with your basic idea of rights in the first place, which I was going to do as a next step anyway. I'm not there yet myself -- I tend to agree with you that positive "rights" don't make much sense, but I also don't think governments are just all about rights. So, for example, like a good conservative, I believe in the idea of the common good and the public voting for moral legislation. Not sure how such legislation fits into your rights scheme, but it impacts families (e.g. the right of a family to live in a community free of strip clubs).
Herz,
I assert that rights come from the existence of autonomous, self-maintainable entities, and to the extent that kids aren't, they can't have rights. Same issue with the mentally ill. I don't have the border cases worked out well, but it does handle the problem of rights being unable to conflict.
2. As to whose has the rights, it's the parents, not the family.
3. Family claims on school resources is positive rights, which I thought we already agreed was bogus.
4. Corporations are government creations. They have only privileges assigned by government, not natural rights. By definition of corporation.
Nation states very obviously don't have rights. They have nothing but negotiated agreements.
And so we still have nothing but individual rights for autonomous adults, with perhaps some partial rights for those less autonomous or less adult.
The question is: what scope exists for individual, inalienable rights. Or do you not believe in such a thing. We are all just subjects of the state?
Seeing the fact that rights are in essence a discriminating authority possessed by a person - a discriminating authority which creates assymetrical obligations, that is, restrictions on the freedoms, of others - is a good start.
Rights: those areas of action in which others have an obligation to not interfere.
Does my neighbor's right to non-interference on his property create an obligation on my part to keep my stereo volume low, or does my right to non-interference on my property create an obligation on his part to suck it up and listen to my Metallica? Are those considerations sophomoric nonsense about property?
Interesting that when one constitutes rights as a moral obligation to be left alone by others that one cannot have conflicting rights.
That appears to be straightforwardly false.
The question is: what scope exists for individual, inalienable rights. Or do you not believe in such a thing. We are all just subjects of the state?
Some things are dichotomies and some aren't.
I definitely do not "believe in" - that is, I don't think they represent objective moral truth - the kind of "equal rights" envisioned by liberals and libertarians. But I also don't "believe in" the idea that all are "subjects" of the state, unless we neuter "subjects" to mean something like "yes, governments do actually have limited but legitimate authority". If that is all we mean by "subjects" then yes, we are all (though still not "just") subjects of the government.
More generally, I'd suggest that the small world of possibilities, envisioned by libertarian discourse as a complete enumeration of the possible ways of thinking about moral obligation and authority, does not even begin to approach glimpsing a corner of the shadows on the cave wall of moral reality.
zippy,
I'm far less convinced that there is a middle ground.
Are there inalienable rights that the government has NO business intruding upon...or not. If not, then you concede to the government unlimited power. Can you explain a different path whereby there are no inalienable rights, but the government is not absolute? Which doesn't require that humans / government actors be angels?
It isn't that I concede libertarianism's understanding of rights and assert some middle ground. Libertarianism's (and its close cousin liberalism's) understanding of equal rights, contract, etc - in other words, liberalism's concept of justice and authority - is incoherent.
Zippy,
Earlier I neglected to welcome you to the blog. Welcome.
To confirm: You reject the Locke/Jefferson notion on which the usa is founded: individual rights? Freedom of speech, religion, self defense?
I suspect then that our disagreement will rest rather further up the philosophical chain. But given that you've chosen the monicker you have and I named my new baby Hume in tribute to philosophical brilliance...I suspect we don't have much room to agree there either.
I think I'm going to have to go with Zippy on this little argument (and I was leaning in his direction anyway). It seems like he just cut to the heart of the problem with your definition of rights as "those ares of action in which others have an obligation to not interfere."
There are too many confusing and difficult cases for this to be the final word on rights. After all, even if we accept your definition, and grant that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution granted these Lockean rights, there have been all sorts of court cases (and intellectual effort expended) attempting to figure out just what it means to say "I have a right to free speech".
I also think your distinction between adults and kids is interesting...but then you seem to be saying kids have no rights? So a parent can do what they want to their children and the State should just stay out of the way?
Herz,
Rights are a (the best known) means of organizing a society of independent agents with often conflicting goals, and explaining their responsibilities to one another.
Your assertion that things seem hard do not make the case that I'm even near wrong.
The problem with the constitution is that it doesn't grant rights. It recognizes rights as areas in which the government would be wrong to interfere.
I will grant you that there are a lot of folks (most) who would prefer not to allow folks whose views differ from theirs any freedom of speech...like the AGW folks you reference in your last post. But they're clearly in the wrong, just as they are about restricting the pre-governmental right to bear arms.
To take your example closer to your heart...the fact that John Calvin had a different theological position than the Pope tells us things about people's problems, and very little about the truth.
As to rights of kids...my inclination is not to specify none...but rather a limited set of rights, based on the lack of their being an independent agent.
Rights are incoherent if they conflict. That leads you down the insane "right to medical care" path.
Atetae,
I tend to agree with the Declaration that we are granted by God with certain "unalienable Rights" -- I'm not sure where you think your rights come from. Either way, unfortunately for you, what the Constitution gives it can take away -- if someday the American people decide they no longer want a right to bear arms and pass a Constitutional amendment removing the 2nd Amendment, you would no longer have a right to bear arms according to the U.S. Constitution.
You might want to fight to keep your arms, but the government might want to fight back.
As for the broader question of hard cases -- I don't think you are addressing Zippy's challenge (or mine) adequately. You say, "Rights are incoherent if they conflict."
In response to you I say that rights often conflict. Zippy gave you the example of a right to property that can come into conflict with another. I was thining of free speech, not in the political cases (which is what I think the 1st Amendment was designed to protect) but the other kinds of cases you often read about: yelling fire in a crowded theater, obscenity in public (e.g. San Francisco just banned public nudity -- what if I was a woman who said I wanted to protest topless as a form of political speech to bring attention to issue of breastfeeding in public?)
Rinse and repeat.
Again, there is a whole body of Constitutional law dealing with just the first ten amendments because people can and do disagree about what those "rights" mean and how they work in the real world.
Does all this mean rights don't exist and/or aren't useful to organize society? As I said, I'm not sure I would go as far as Zippy, but it sure seems like they are of limited usefulness when thinking about running a government.
The constitution neither grants nor defines rights.
It enumerates certain pre-existing rights, and limits how government might restrict those rights; while not limiting or disparaging any and all rights that man may possess, enumerated or unenumerated.
It very clearly and directly says so... no matter how much some would like to ignore it.
Chris,
Well said, although as I said to Aretae, as a political document, the rights that are enumerated (for example the fourth amendement - the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures") could in theory be taken away via the amendment process. And even without the amendment process, what that right means, on a practical level, is up to quite a bit of dispute and interpretation.
Herz,
What Chris said. What happened in Soviet Russia and what's happened here is that folks have decided to opt for unlimited government.
Zippy's question is a boring one. Coase proved (2+2=4 proved) that the two are equivalent if side-payements are legal. The important thing is that someone has rights, and the other person can pay for the suppression.
But you still appear to be very confused about rights. What are the rights of a person in Soviet Russia. Are their God-given rights (your term...mine takes much longer) no longer God-given because they are in Russia...or is the government illigetimate? I think option 2 is the only sane one.
Post a Comment