Rights Poll

[EqualityandFreedom]

What is your position on rights?

[Bud Struggle]

#1 Natural rights are endowed by a creator (or simply exist).

Excellent poll.

[Robert]

Wow, the Almighty is in the lead already. This place is starting to feel like church.

"O Salutaris," anyone?

[NecroCommie]

Rights are taken, never given. You have right only as long as you have the will and the power to defend that right, with violence if necessary. According to some marxist theories true power is derived from the masses, and therefore all societal rights exist only if they are taken by the masses with force. No other kind of rights exist.

I there fore voted for nmbr. 4 Rights are otherwise socially constructed.

[Demogorgon]

They are a social construct. Also a legal one. Realistically your rights are those that you have under the law. There are also rights you should have, but unless the law grants and protects them, they won't get you anywhere.

I think in determining what rights we should have, it is best to take a "common sense" approach as far as possible. History is a pretty good teacher when it comes to that. We can see what happens when people have certain rights and what happens when they don't. On that basis a lot of rights become pretty obvious contenders.

[Nwoye]

Rights are a useless abstraction created as a result of and justification for capitalism.

[Bud Struggle]

Rights are a useless abstraction created as a result of and justification for capitalism.

So there is no absolute right for you to eat or to work or to have a family or live in freedom?

[Black Sheep]

Rights are the result of struggle between the ones who demand them and the ones who refuse to give them.
I.e., woman rights are now (somewhat) in a better situation because of the women's struggle, workers' rights are a result of class struggle.
Thus says Karl.

[NecroCommie]

Rights are the result of struggle between the ones who demand them and the ones who refuse to give them.
I.e., woman rights are now (somewhat) in a better situation because of the women's struggle, workers' rights are a result of class struggle.
Thus says Karl.
Well... yes. That's another way of putting it.

[Bud Struggle]

Rights are the result of struggle between the ones who demand them and the ones who refuse to give them.
I.e., woman rights are now (somewhat) in a better situation because of the women's struggle, workers' rights are a result of class struggle.
Thus says Karl.

And if you loose that struggle you have no rights?

[spiltteeth]

Rights are the result of struggle between the ones who demand them and the ones who refuse to give them.
I.e., woman rights are now (somewhat) in a better situation because of the women's struggle, workers' rights are a result of class struggle.
Thus says Karl.

That's how you procure your rights, but I voted #1, you naturally objectively have them, else those people would not be justified in fighting for them, or only for themselves and would not seek to extend them to others.

In fact, there's an interesting link between faith and those who push for universal human rights.

From Zizek :


A fundamentalist does not believe, he knows it directly. Both liberal-sceptical cynics and fundamentalists share a basic underlying feature: the loss of the ability to believe, in the proper sense of the term. What is unthinkable for them is the groundless decision which installs every authentic belief, a decision which cannot be grounded in the chain of reasons, in positive knowledge. Think of Anne Frank who, in the face of the terrifying depravity of the Nazis, in a true act of credo qua absurdum asserted her belief that there is a divine spark of goodness in every human being, no matter how depraved he or she is. This statement does not concern facts, it is posited as a pure ethical axiom. In the same way, the status of universal human rights is that of a pure belief: they cannot be grounded in our knowledge of human nature, they are an axiom posited by our decision. (The moment one tries to ground universal human rights in our knowledge of humanity, the inevitable conclusion will be that men are fundamentally different, that some have more dignity and wisdom than others.) At its most fundamental, authentic belief does not concern facts, but gives expression to an unconditional ethical commitment.

[Bud Struggle]

That's how you procure your rights, but I voted #1, you naturally objectively have them, else those people would not be justified in fighting for them, or only for themselves and would not seek to extend them to others.

Good point. There seems to be a definite disconnect between the origin of human rights and the method that we use these human rights in the materialist system.

Materially nothing is a "given" as a result of being human. Everything we are of have seems to be a result of the dialectic. A society dictated slavery is just as worthwhile as a society of free individuals. All that's important is that it exists, no other moral justification need apply.

[Demogorgon]

And if you loose that struggle you have no rights?
Well yes. It doesn't mean you shouldn't have them, but quite obviously you do not actually have them.

[Misanthrope]

Rights are a mere concession from rulers to their subjects.

this. Rights are an illusion in capitalism.

[Bud Struggle]

Well yes. It doesn't mean you shouldn't have them, but quite obviously you do not actually have them.

I am seriously at a loss here. The slave owner says he should have slaves, the slaves say he shouldn't--does it then come down to a matter of opinion? Are rights only stating what actually exists or is there something we should be shooting for? And if we are going for something, isn't there a hirearchy of what is good, better, best? And how is that then defined?

Things look pretty grusome for humanity when all we have is your opinion of what is right vrs my opinion of what is right.

[Demogorgon]

I am seriously at a loss here. The slave owner says he should have slaves, the slaves say he shouldn't--does it then come down to a matter of opinion? Are rights only stating what actually exists or is there something we should be shooting for? And if we are going for something, isn't there a hirearchy of what is good, better, best? And how is that then defined?

Things look pretty grusome for humanity when all we have is your opinion of what is right vrs my opinion of what is right.
I'm not talking about normative rights here, because what you should have and what you have are two different things.

I told you the basis on which I think rights should be determined-common sense and historical experience-but where our actual rights differ from that, there is no use in denying it. For instance, we argue about abortion and whether we should have the right to it, but when we come to whether we actually do we can say you have a right to it in the US and do not have a right to it in Brazil. That is just a statement of fact. Depending on your view of abortion, you will think either that you should have the right in both countries or neither, but at present it is different between the two.

Or to put it another way, there is no metaphysical form to go by when it comes to what our rights should be, only our human ability to determine right and wrong, but when the law determines our rights differently to what they should be, while we should endevour to change the law, we can't just say it does not exist.

[MaoTseHelen]

Natural rights simply exist. Whether you're fit to defend yours, however, is another matter.

[Havet]

There is no such thing as natural rights.

I voted: "Rights are a mere concession from rulers to their subjects."

[Demogorgon]

Natural rights simply exist. Whether you're fit to defend yours, however, is another matter.
Where do they exist and what are they made of?

[spiltteeth]

I'm not talking about normative rights here, because what you should have and what you have are two different things.

I told you the basis on which I think rights should be determined-common sense and historical experience-but where our actual rights differ from that, there is no use in denying it. For instance, we argue about abortion and whether we should have the right to it, but when we come to whether we actually do we can say you have a right to it in the US and do not have a right to it in Brazil. That is just a statement of fact. Depending on your view of abortion, you will think either that you should have the right in both countries or neither, but at present it is different between the two.

Or to put it another way, there is no metaphysical form to go by when it comes to what our rights should be, only our human ability to determine right and wrong, but when the law determines our rights differently to what they should be, while we should endevour to change the law, we can't just say it does not exist.

So I'm curious what rights you see history has justified?

[Demogorgon]

So I'm curious what rights you see history has justified?
There are plenty of course. We look at society and history and see what happens when people do and do not have certain rights and can conclude what rights are a good idea based on that. Such rights include really fundamental things like the right to life and to equality regardless of race gender and so on and the attendant right never to be subjected to persecution based on differences.

Beyond that there are all sorts that I think experience shows us are desirable, free speech, the right to Govern ourselves, the right to healthcare, education and social security, the right to privacy, the right to be free from torture, the death penalty and other cruel punishments, the right to bodily integrity, the right to free movement, the right to be treated with dignity, the right to choose our own family structure and so on.

[spiltteeth]

There are plenty of course. We look at society and history and see what happens when people do and do not have certain rights and can conclude what rights are a good idea based on that. Such rights include really fundamental things like the right to life and to equality regardless of race gender and so on and the attendant right never to be subjected to persecution based on differences.

Beyond that there are all sorts that I think experience shows us are desirable, free speech, the right to Govern ourselves, the right to healthcare, education and social security, the right to privacy, the right to be free from torture, the death penalty and other cruel punishments, the right to bodily integrity, the right to free movement, the right to be treated with dignity, the right to choose our own family structure and so on.

That's interesting. I'm not so sure I agree though. I mean, if I have a business and have a lot of power, but it's dependent on other's acquiescing to my will, it seems like a bad idea for those people to have free speech, free movement, cruel punishments and what not.

And a new society may require us to break with past examples of societal organization and the way their rights functioned.

[MaoTseHelen]

Where do they exist and what are they made of?
Rights are yours. They're whatever you deem them to be, they're made by you, and protected by you, or they're not and you lose them. But the responsibility is on you, not some government to 'bestow' it on you like a good child.

[Havet]

Rights are yours. They're whatever you deem them to be, they're made by you, and protected by you, or they're not and you lose them. But the responsibility is on you, not some government to 'bestow' it on you like a good child.

Rights are only a human idea. They don't exist in the natural world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F1Lq1uFcAE

[NecroCommie]

Yeah, the idea of natural rights is proposterous. Ideas can exist, but only as a part of a man-made society. Only if a class chooses to fight for a right, does that particular right have value or existence. For example: the working class has mobilized masses to oppose slavery with terrible force. Therefore that right exists as a battle won in the class struggle. On the other hand we don't have a right to deny the power of state to impose "duties", and that is simply because not enough masses have organized to fight for that right.

[Jazzratt]

I'm surprised at how many people here believe in natural rights. I thought we were meant to be materialists.

[Havet]

I'm surprised at how many people here believe in natural rights. I thought we were meant to be materialists.

I am surprised as well, but then again, there are many OIers who voted here, as well as Communist-Christians (which perhaps believe in God-given rights?)

[Robert]

I'm surprised at how many people here believe in natural rights.

I'm not. Bud and I each voted three times.

[Raúl Duke]

My answer: Rights are a social construct (like a cultural artifact(s))

Although, as mentioned, it's also something that can be easily broken and in class societies are things conceded by those in power. Even then I chose the social construct since I wouldn't know for sure if the concept of "rights" (although perhaps a different set then what we have now) would continue to exist even in (the initial stages of) anarchism and/or class-less societies.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm not. Bud and I each voted three times.
Just recharging my batteries for my next vote! :D But the point remains--I think materialism it is a hard concept to take--and actually the antithisis to most of what Communism promises--that society gives you the material things in life.

Here with no natural rights you only have what you have, what you take. If you are a slave you have no "right" to be anything else unless you take that right or society grants you that right. You have no rights on you own merit as a human being.

BTW this is much different than the American way of thinking where we are "endowed by our Creator" with certain rights, etc.

[Raúl Duke]

I'm surprised at how many people here believe in natural rights. I thought we were meant to be materialists.


That's their problem. The bandwagon doesn't make one right per se.

[The Count]

No rights are guaranteed by nature herself, and those granted by a government are as fallible as the system itself.

[mikelepore]

None of the above.

Rights are the strong preferences of each individual, which the syntax of language causes to seem external to the individual.

[Conquer or Die]

The assertion of a natural right is the assertion of the ability to transcend circumstances and achieve something different, better, more free and responsible. Looking to the stars and creating a moment of contemplation for advancement is perhaps an archaic religious idea; but it's the existence of a reality that people can change, can adapt, can overcome. It is the essence of positive liberty. Communism is the highest form of positive liberty and therefore it's the least doctrinal, most scientific outlook on the world. The goal is not to enforce equality but rather to achieve it.

Option number 1.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I was adrunk and I vated wrong. I chose this Rights are somehow otherwise socially constructed.,

[Decolonize The Left]

Voted Other.

Rights do not exist. In order for a universal/natural/human/inalienable right to exist, it must exist for every individual person, and must exist as such that it cannot be revoked. This is clearly not the case as one has neither negative nor positive rights.
- In order to have a negative right (the right not to be stopped from doing X), one must be able to exercise this right under all circumstances. This is not the case - there is no right which cannot be, and is not frequently, revoked by either other people or a government.
- In order to have a positive right (the ability to do X), one must have the material ability and time to perform the act. This is not the case - for material conditions are not equal and hence no right is universal/human/natural.

'Rights' are clearly a human invention, this is indisputable, and are also clearly non-existent. For if they were existent, you could exercise both your positive and negative rights at any time, and this you cannot do.

- August

[spiltteeth]

Voted Other.

Rights do not exist. In order for a universal/natural/human/inalienable right to exist, it must exist for every individual person, and must exist as such that it cannot be revoked. This is clearly not the case as one has neither negative nor positive rights.
- In order to have a negative right (the right not to be stopped from doing X), one must be able to exercise this right under all circumstances. This is not the case - there is no right which cannot be, and is not frequently, revoked by either other people or a government.
- In order to have a positive right (the ability to do X), one must have the material ability and time to perform the act. This is not the case - for material conditions are not equal and hence no right is universal/human/natural.

'Rights' are clearly a human invention, this is indisputable, and are also clearly non-existent. For if they were existent, you could exercise both your positive and negative rights at any time, and this you cannot do.

- August


Rights are objective. They can never be revoked, only prevented.

[MarxSchmarx]

In order for a universal/natural/human/inalienable right to exist, it must exist for every individual person, and must exist as such that it cannot be revoked. This is clearly not the case as one has neither negative nor positive rights.I think you put a bit too much emphasis on the universality of such rights.

The question in the poll is about "rights", which per se need not be universal. Such a right can exist and be revoked. For instance, classical liberal bourgeois thought holds that while there is a "universal/human/natural right" to, say, life, this doesn't mean that you are immune to getting killed. All it means is that your right is violated, much in the way that some fool asserting 2+4=1 does not mean the rules of arithmetic don't exist.

Now with the case of "inalienable" rights you might have a case using a literal comparison of the terms, but here again, the "inalienable" need not mean that the rights will always be honored - it just means that you have these rights whether they happen to be honored or not.

Now you may ask what use is a right that cannot be honored - and I think you have a point, but if a right is honored at least somewhere, or we are morally committed to ensuring that it be honored everywhere, it rather resembles the categorical imperative in ethics, and in this sense can be said to exist the way social mores and other customs can be said to exist.

[yuon]

I believe that there are rights that should be universal and apply equally to all regardless of gender, sexuality, colour of skin or eyes, or other (generally) immutable characteristic.

However, I recognise that there is no god, or other supernatural being that is granting these rights, and that, if they exist or are enforced at all, are only exist or are enforced by people.

So, I think that there are universal rights, however, they are not "natural" (though I think that many of the so called "natural rights" are good). I don't think they are socially constructed either, though they are socially enforced. Where do they come from then?

These rights come from me, and my conception of what is good. And so, as with ethics generally, these things vary from person to person.

[MarxSchmarx]

I don't think they are socially constructed either, though they are socially enforced.

I'm not quite sure I see/understand the distinction.