Talk to me about rights

[#FF0000]

Rights.

What are they? Where do they come from. Are they natural coming from god or just straight up reason or are all rights essentially legal/social things? Who/what gets rights? Do individuals have rights? Groups? Nations? Animals? Certain individuals? Certain groups? Certain nations? Certain animals? Can they be taken away justly? Should they? If so, when and why?

P. much everything you hear about rights (at least in the states) is more or less about 'yo constitution says this and also natural rights" and for some big dumb reason I never really looked into them. To me rights were always a practical/sorta utilitarian matter -- 'freedom of speech' is useful and beneficial for people and so it is a good thing to have around.

I feel my view of rights is pretty insubstantial though.

So. Let's have a chat about rights.

A rap sesh.

Just us cool kids.

[Leftsolidarity]

I would say an individual creates and trys to enforce what they view as their natural right.

Then society (actually just the ruling class), usually through the state, enforces it's view of rights onto individuals. Hopefully the individuals agree with those rights.

There are no such things as natural rights. All rights come from force. That is why for us to enforce what we view as rights/non-rights it is needed for us to have a state to enforce that (in my view).

That's off the top of my head. If anyone else wants to throw out something cool I think this could be fun.

[Ostrinski]

The concept of rights is indeed a social construct but that does not mean that they are not useful. I think their utility lies in development of bourgeois society, wherein the industrialization that led to enhanced communication and transportation led to an explosion of human relations that facilitated huge improvements in the understanding of society and political science.

The big thinktanks probably eventually got the bright idea that political freedoms would be a good catalyst to a healthy society and after the American experiment with the republic proved successful the idea of rights was expanded upon (standards for what constitutes political freedom being different now from then, of course).

[WanderingCactus]

"Rights" have never really meant much to me. It strikes me as a concept without much content. If we have rights to this or that, who is granting us those rights? God? The ruling class?

[#FF0000]

"Rights" have never really meant much to me. It strikes me as a concept without much content. If we have rights to this or that, who is granting us those rights? God? The ruling class?

What about legal rights?

[Luís Henrique]

"Rights" have never really meant much to me.

Which probably just means yours were never taken away.


It strikes me as a concept without much content. If we have rights to this or that, who is granting us those rights? God? The ruling class?

Two different things, which are inseparable in practice. First, the equilibrium in class struggle, the extent to which the ruling class can impose its rule unto us, versus the extent to which we can resist such rule. Second, the internal logic of the legal system.

Luís Henrique

[Book O'Dead]

You are entitled only to those "rights" that you can defend.

[Left Leanings]

This is what I think.

We humans are sentient creatures, with basic material needs: food, shelter, healthcare etc. If these aren't met, we suffer, or we die.

The generation of people currently in power, who have their hands on the levers of economic power, i.e. capital, have for the first time in human history, the resources, technology, money and personnel, to meet these material needs for the whole of humanity.

What they lack is the political will and moral impetus to do so, cos they are wedded to the archaic mode of production, capitalism.

The resources of the planet ought to belong to each of us equally, and it is wrong that many go without and suffer or die, when it is no longer necessary for them to do so.

This is the fundamental right of us all. And it's a right we will have to fight like fuck for.

[Luís Henrique]

You are entitled only to those "rights" that you can defend.

Meaning that if I can't defend myself from an assassin, I have no right to live?

Luís Henrique

[Book O'Dead]

Meaning that if I can't defend myself from an assassin, I have no right to live?

Luís Henrique

From the assassin's point of view? Yes.

[Luís Henrique]

From the assassin's point of view? Yes.

So you mean that I may have a right from the point of view of John, and yet no such right from the point of view of Peter? Rights are merely opinion of people?

Luís Henrique

[The Jay]

Rights.

What are they? Where do they come from. Are they natural coming from god or just straight up reason or are all rights essentially legal/social things? Who/what gets rights? Do individuals have rights? Groups? Nations? Animals? Certain individuals? Certain groups? Certain nations? Certain animals? Can they be taken away justly? Should they? If so, when and why?

P. much everything you hear about rights (at least in the states) is more or less about 'yo constitution says this and also natural rights" and for some big dumb reason I never really looked into them. To me rights were always a practical/sorta utilitarian matter -- 'freedom of speech' is useful and beneficial for people and so it is a good thing to have around.

I feel my view of rights is pretty insubstantial though.

So. Let's have a chat about rights.

A rap sesh.

Just us cool kids.

Rights are agreed upon rules that are not to be broken and are usually decided upon by the drafting of a constitution. They are subjective in nature but are none-the-less important aspects of society. Where the cultural ideas come from is the material conditions ultimately, so that explains why conceptions of rights change radically with changes in socioeconomic order.

As for whether or not animals have rights, I believe that anything that is self-conscious should be treated with human rights: dolphins, chimps, elephants, ect. I'd even support changing the word from human rights to 'rights of personhood' for that very reason. (I'm probably going to be flamed for that lol.)

[Book O'Dead]

So you mean that I may have a right from the point of view of John, and yet no such right from the point of view of Peter? Rights are merely opinion of people?

Luís Henrique

A little over-simplified, but yes, that's correct.

Unless you want to lapse into the bourgeois conception of rights, wherein all people are endowed with meaningless and unenforceable equal rights simply because the political state decrees it.

What was it Anatole France said? Something like "the beauty of republicanism is that the rich and the poor have an equal right to sleep under a bridge."

[The Jay]

A little over-simplified, but yes, that's correct.

Unless you want to lapse into the bourgeois conception of rights, wherein all people are endowed with meaningless and unenforceable equal rights simply because the political state decrees it.

What was it Anatole France said? Something like "the beauty of republicanism is that the rich and the poor have an equal right to sleep under a bridge."

Natural Rights are indeed foolish, but so is equating rights to opinions. The establishment of rights is a democratic process, not an individual one.

[Book O'Dead]

Natural Rights are indeed foolish, but so is equating rights to opinions. The establishment of rights is a democratic process, not an individual one.

Perhaps the misunderstanding of my viewpoint stems from my acceding to Luis Enrique's sophist question, something like "if someone killed your kids would you favor the death penalty for them?"

I fully understand the premise that political rights are determined by political bodies with political manifestos and declarations and constitutions and what-nots.

But when we speak of rights in the abstract (as, it seems, most have been doing here), we must recognize that our rights--collective and individual--are dependent on our ability to move them from the abstract to the tangible, and that can only happen when we possess the means to enforce them. Otherwise it's just a lot of hot air.

[The Jay]

Perhaps the misunderstanding of my viewpoint stems from my acceding to Luis Enrique's sophist question, something like "if someone killed your kids would you favor the death penalty for them?"

I fully understand the premise that political rights are determined by political bodies with political manifestos and declarations and constitutions and what-nots.

But when we speak of rights in the abstract (as, it seems, most have been doing here), we must recognize that our rights--collective and individual--are dependent on our ability to move them from the abstract to the tangible, and that can only happen when we possess the means to enforce them. Otherwise it's just a lot of hot air.

The fact that they are a democratic endeavor infers that there would be an amount of violence issued by the majority upon an infraction of the majority's position. This should answer your question I believe. What do you think?

[Kitty_Paine]

Rousseau - Discourse on the Origins of Inequality

Honestly this explains natural law and its implications a lot better than I could in my own words. I'm sure a lot of you have already read it but if not it's worth a look.

[The Jay]

Rousseau - Discourse on the Origins of Inequality

Honestly this explains natural law and its implications a lot better than I could in my own words. I'm sure a lot of you have already read it but if not it's worth a look.

Rousseau was an Idealist if I remember.

[Ostrinski]

I don't think it's enough to just call someone an idealist and have that stand as an argument against a whole work. I've been seeing this a lot. Shouldn't we be actually be talking about why their ideas are false instead of just writing them off?

All Enlightenment thinkers were idealists. That was their mode of thinking. You can't just dismiss a whole epoch of philosophy because you don't share their mode of thought.

[The Jay]

I don't think it's enough to just call someone an idealist and have that stand as an argument against a whole work. I've been seeing this a lot. Shouldn't we be actually be talking about why their ideas are false instead of just writing them off

I wasn't dismissing him I was asking a question indirectly. I will give a full answer after I finish cooking though.

[Ostrinski]

It wasn't direct just at you, more toward a trend that I've noticed lately

[Rafiq]

Rights only exist so long as they serve the mode of production.

[Kitty_Paine]

Rousseau was an Idealist if I remember.

Regardless this work isn't idealistic in nature nor do I remember it relying on any idealistic supports or assumptions. So whether you appreciate idealism or not, if memory serves me, this work is mostly free of it.

[Grenzer]

Brospierre is right, something shouldn't be dismissed instantly because it's idealist. That is too often a strawman to ignore making an actual analysis. That said, I haven't seen any particularly useful forms of idealism. Also, it's worth mentioning that Rousseau is extremely fucking idealist. I'm not sure why someone would say otherwise.

When it comes to enlightenment philosophy, it's all more or less completely idealist. All of it that I can think of off the top of my head, though there may be some that isn't, seems to pretty obviously serve the interests of the bourgeoisie. That's my problem with the subject of rights. It's an ingenious social construction of the ruling class. They come into power, and they come up with the idea of rights, a social construction that permanently defines the rules.. it's no coincidence, this is by design. It's so that even when their power is decaying and people start to realize that private property is actually highly illogical and inefficient, the bourgeoisie can hit them over the head with "rights" which have been inculcated over a period of centuries.

Rights should be discarded in the traditional sense, and replaced with something more dynamic; but after the revolution, the elimination of antagonistic social relations may mean that rights are no longer really needed anyway.

[NewLeft]

What about the rights based approach to development, it hasn't been too successful in Asia. :confused: The right to food and water have yet to be realized.

[Luís Henrique]

Perhaps the misunderstanding of my viewpoint stems from my acceding to Luis Enrique's sophist question, something like "if someone killed your kids would you favor the death penalty for them?"

This is a complete mischaracterisation of my questions to you.


I fully understand the premise that political rights are determined by political bodies with political manifestos and declarations and constitutions and what-nots.

I don't think you understand that, at all.

Political bodies do not determine political (and civil) rights out of the subjectivity of their members. Indeed, the foolish notions of "natural rights" have historically played a much more important role in the reasoning of political bodies while establishing rights than the subjective wills of said members.


But when we speak of rights in the abstract (as, it seems, most have been doing here), we must recognize that our rights--collective and individual--are dependent on our ability to move them from the abstract to the tangible, and that can only happen when we possess the means to enforce them.

In other words, you are trying to reject the consideration of rights in abstract, which is quite fine; but you are doing the wrong way, exactly because you are not shifting the emphasys from individual subjectivity to political bodies. The means to enforce rights are not down to individuals, but to political bodies also. Which is the reason that even though I may have no means to thwart an assassination attempt, this does not equate to me not having the right to live, nor to the idea that in the point of view of the assassin I have no such right. The only relevant point of view, on this discussion, is that of the political assembly that has put down into law that murder is a crime, thus giving me a right to live.

And what we should be discussing, if we want to discuss rights, is what reasons make political bodies determine political and civil rights the way they do.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Rights only exist so long as they serve the mode of production.

Who determines what serves the mode of production?

Luís Henrique

[MotherCossack]

jolly good....
a juicy discussion if ever i saw one....

you have to look for the bottom line....
what is the worst that has been done to the most unfortunate among us?

and were they afforded any protection from any perceived rights?

i think you will find that ... somewhere in the world,... pretty much all manner of heinous shannanagans has been visited upon the vulnerable and unlucky....at some time.
if you look you will see that nobody can really rely on any rights at all....

the bottom line is that we have constructed a very fragile web around ourselves which looks deceptively like a cosy cocoon but, like clouds in the sky, isnt all that substantial at all.

rights can be here today and gone tomorrow... i reckon.

for instance ... my kids, the kernal, anyway, have grown up believing that they have, written in stone, a long list of rights.
SAYS WHO!!!!!! i ask.
a home.
an education.
reasonable food every day.
a computer at home.
books.
presents.
stationary.
museums.
transport.
clothes.
bedrooms.
and then there is the classic in vagueness....
' but it's against my human rights'....
i think we do that one better in europe.

i have a horrible suspicion that it may not always be thus....

[Rafiq]

Who determines what serves the mode of production?

Luís Henrique

No one does, directly. There are several factors. You have the Bourgeoisie serving capital, and all laws and rights by their will.

But say a Union campaigns to abolish child labor, the Bourgeois are forced to accept this, lest they are overthrown. Now this "right" has to be put in the use of the production process, because without it the current production process ceases to exist. In turn, they hire more workers or build more machines (dead capital).

All of this is part of the mode of production. So, the Bourgeoisie does "control" it, but not freely, "not as they please", if you will.

[Luís Henrique]

No one does, directly. There are several factors. You have the Bourgeoisie serving capital, and all laws and rights by their will.

But say a Union campaigns to abolish child labor, the Bourgeois are forced to accept this, lest they are overthrown. Now this "right" has to be put in the use of the production process, because without it the current production process ceases to exist. In turn, they hire more workers or build more machines (dead capital).

All of this is part of the mode of production. So, the Bourgeoisie does "control" it, but not freely, "not as they please", if you will.

In other words, are you saying that class struggle determines rights?

Luís Henrique

[fabian]

OT

Rights can be defended from several viewpoints. Social contract, utilitarianism, deontological "justice as fairness", justice as a virtue ethic value, or enlightened egoism (in combination with any of these or not), and all of these viewpoins spring from rationalism and classical or analytic philosophy, if you are a nihilist (or relativist) or an ardent supporter of continental "philosophy", then- never mind.

"Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."

Rights to life and bodily integrity are the most important, and are based on the non-aggression axiom. These rights should belong to every member of a sentient species (every human and animal) until they relinquish it by their own decision (in the case of mentally developed, non-intoxicated and unforced humans) or by an attempt to violate anyone else of there rights. Rights to life and bodily integrity should also imply the right not be (slowly) poisoned through food, water and air.

Right to liberty belongs to every rational being. It means the right not to be in any way impeded from acting as one wants except if one tries to violate anyone else's rights. This right should also be connected with rights to proper healthcare and proper education, because if one doesn't have access to healthcare his ability to act as he wills is hampered, and if one doesn't have access to education then it is his ability to be rational is what is hampered.

The right to possessions means that everyone is entitled to the fruits of one's labor, in accordance with what possessions are, as explained by John Locke and Proudhon. This implies the illegitimacy of system of capitalism (whether it be libertarian, social-democratic, or state capitalism), and concepts such as usury, rent, profit, and those additional following from these basic ones (such as absentee landlordship, invenstments, etc).

Also, every nation (defined in the terms of the "daily referendum") should have the right to self-determination, meaning the right to revolt, secede and federate as they will.

[MarxSchmarx]

Political bodies do not determine political (and civil) rights out of the subjectivity of their members. Indeed, the foolish notions of "natural rights" have historically played a much more important role in the reasoning of political bodies while establishing rights than the subjective wills of said members.
...


In other words, you are trying to reject the consideration of rights in abstract, which is quite fine; but you are doing the wrong way, exactly because you are not shifting the emphasys from individual subjectivity to political bodies. The means to enforce rights are not down to individuals, but to political bodies also. Which is the reason that even though I may have no means to thwart an assassination attempt, this does not equate to me not having the right to live, nor to the idea that in the point of view of the assassin I have no such right. The only relevant point of view, on this discussion, is that of the political assembly that has put down into law that murder is a crime, thus giving me a right to live.

And what we should be discussing, if we want to discuss rights, is what reasons make political bodies determine political and civil rights the way they do.

Luís Henrique


Yet "political bodies" are composed of individuals, no? And therefore any activities that they promulgate reflect the subjective experiences of their constituent members, i.e., the "subjectivity of their members". Look at, for example, how most modern judiciaries work. A deference to subjectivity is arguably explicit there. Very often judges ask themselves questions like "would a reasonable person do xyz under such and such conditions".

It may be that such subjectivity is influenced by the material conditions - for example, my subjective experience of seeing a cow move at night is made possible because I wear night vision goggles. Or I may consider a mantra like a "fair day's wage for a fair day's work" to be just, even though it is clealry a bourgeois slogan, reflective of the capitalist era in which we live. But that doesn't mean it isn't subjective.

[Luís Henrique]

Yet "political bodies" are composed of individuals, no? And therefore any activities that they promulgate reflect the subjective experiences of their constituent members, i.e., the "subjectivity of their members".

No, that is a fallacy of division.

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

"rights" can't stop a bullet from going through your skull.

the discourse of "this is my right therefore i will fight for it" as a motor of struggle seems to have emerged with the bourgeosie and its civil society. a lot of the massive working class insurrections used the framework of "rights" to articulate their political aspirations, and indeed, even today, a lot of struggles that are in a certain degree, proletarian in nature, articulate their views with that framework (i.e., democratic rights for example).

it seems to me though, that in order to be able to articulate through that framework, you need to have a certain degree of faith in the institutions and the nature of the state. i imagine, that in a world revolution, the working class will probably make a clean break with the concept of rights and democratism. even today, in the west, where the social relations are dislocating, working class anger has been increasingly channeled into nihilistic rioting, marking a sort of break with liberalism and the state.

are "rights" real? well in a certain degree they are, in the same sense that religion or race is real. are they something one can figure out through pure reason? of course not. the proletariat will probably do away with rights, in the same way it will do away with race, gods, and gender.

[Os Cangaceiros]

People who buy into the idea of natural rights don't believe that those rights just perpetually exist in all human societies...for example, no conservative liberatarian who believes in the natural rights concept would argue that people's rights were being respected in 1930's Russia. They argue that the natural rights model is the one most condusive to human society, based on how they feel humans "naturally" operate. Roderick Long responded to the 19th century American Egoist claim that "a bullet won't be stopped by 'rights'" by saying that a recipe for food alone won't feed you when you're hungry.

I don't believe in natural rights, but that's their argument. I feel like some people here are misrepresenting it.

[Klaatu]

An individual's rights are logical freedoms. This is because an individual is inherently free.
However, some rights of the individual have to be considered as being flexible when the individual
lives amongst others in a civilized society. For example, I can drive a car as fast as I want to, but
I must obey speed limits when driving on the road with others, especially in heavy traffic.

[Leftsolidarity]

the discourse of "this is my right therefore i will fight for it" as a motor of struggle seems to have emerged with the bourgeosie and its civil society. a lot of the massive working class insurrections used the framework of "rights" to articulate their political aspirations, and indeed, even today, a lot of struggles that are in a certain degree, proletarian in nature, articulate their views with that framework (i.e., democratic rights for example).



I think some of that has to do with trying to bring in members of the working class. We might say, "Healthcare is a human right!" but that doesn't mean that I think rights aren't subjective to whatever the ruling class says it is. It is a way to get the working class to go "Oh, I agree. Why is that not a right of mine?"

Just my view on that.

[MarxSchmarx]

Yet "political bodies" are composed of individuals, no? And therefore any activities that they promulgate reflect the subjective experiences of their constituent members, i.e., the "subjectivity of their members". No, that is a fallacy of division.

Luís Henrique

Show me syllogistically how the reasoning breaks down as applied to "political bodies".

[Luís Henrique]

Show me syllogistically how the reasoning breaks down as applied to "political bodies".

This was your argument:


Yet "political bodies" are composed of individuals, no? And therefore any activities that they promulgate reflect the subjective experiences of their constituent members, i.e., the "subjectivity of their members".

It seems to assume that the assembling has no effect into the individuals, which is false. The activities of political bodies reflect the subjective experiences of their members only through its non-subjective collective work. The result, as a consequence, is not going to be a sum, or an average, of the individual experiences of the members. (Of course, political bodies also reflect many other different things, none of which can simplistically labeled as "subjective" - the class ties of its members, the interests of any groups to which they belong, the dominant ideology of the times, the accumulated juridical knowledge. etc. But that is a different question.)

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

are "rights" real? well in a certain degree they are, in the same sense that religion or race is real. are they something one can figure out through pure reason? of course not. the proletariat will probably do away with rights, in the same way it will do away with race, gods, and gender.

I can't picture what a society like this would even look like. I'm so used to 'rights' being a part of the way things are that I don't really understand how a society would work without them.

[MarxSchmarx]

This was your argument:



Yet "political bodies" are composed of individuals, no? And therefore any activities that they promulgate reflect the subjective experiences of their constituent members, i.e., the "subjectivity of their members". It seems to assume that the assembling has no effect into the individuals, which is false. The activities of political bodies reflect the subjective experiences of their members only through its non-subjective collective work. The result, as a consequence, is not going to be a sum, or an average, of the individual experiences of the members. (Of course, political bodies also reflect many other different things, none of which can simplistically labeled as "subjective" - the class ties of its members, the interests of any groups to which they belong, the dominant ideology of the times, the accumulated juridical knowledge. etc. But that is a different question.)

Luís Henrique

Agreeing to set aside class ties, ideological hegemony etc... for which "subjective/objective" distinctions are unhelpful, we may simply have different definitions of "subjectivity". I would still regard a legislator who changed their mind due to a debate as nevertheless still being no less "subjective", just having a different subjective opinion at one point in time than another. For example, the visual world is blurry to me when I don't have my glasses, and becomes clear when I put on my glasses. But both visions are subjective.

Having said that, I think it is quite rare that deliberative political bodies, at least in modern liberal democracies, function in the way you describe. Most parliamentarians and often judges arrive to their posts with preconceived notions, commitments, etc... and 95% of the time, stick to them. The decision making is often done behind closed doors at most in consultation with people who basically agree with them (e.g., their assistants), and although horse-trading does take place, I see that really is just a matter of reification.

Now some facets of assembling do affect individual behavior - for instance, parliamentary debates are frequently subject to a level of transparency where the politicians chose their words carefully. And true, in some instances deliberation by assembly does lead people to change their minds.

But again, I'm not sure that per se means they're not subjective - it's just that one's subjective experiences have expanded by virtue of being involved in such deliberations.