Are constitutional rights arbitrary?

[Fire]

Are constitutinal rights arbitrary?

What you often see in the philosophy of liberalism is a dialogue that centers around rights. These Rights are present as truths "held to be self evident" established by founding fathers. But why? Lets go back and question our assumptions. Why do we have rights? And in particular, why these rights. Many of the founders of America were slave holders and capitalists.

Why must people on the left keep going back to embracing the rhetoric and assumptions of liberalism? Why a right to free speech, including hate speech or corporate political speech but not a right to not have our air and water polluted? Why not a right to be free from the institution of private property? Exploitation? Why not a right to be educated? to work? to not be left to die because you can't afford healthcare.

Moreover, rights as we understand them are something of a recent development. Noam Chosky talks about this here: Prior to the Warren court, people were routinely thrown in jail for being communists, the government cracked down on union organizers. When it comes to rights, where were those when the Japanese were put in concentration camps or Native Americans were driven off of their homes? What we really see is a contradiction, rights that exist on paper for everyone but are instead used to support the status quo and the rich and powerful. John Adams, one of the very founding fathers that liberals venerate was instrumental in the passage of the Alien and Sedition acts which criminalized the free exercise of speech.

I'm not saying I oppose the bill of rights, but rather I think we should consider what are assumptions are rather than buying in to the tedious ideas of the oppressors that they don't really believe in anyway. While they can be useful as we have to live under a court system, shouldn't the left move away from founder worship and liberal rights

[Fire]

Chomsky video is here v=j3X1zm16u90. The forums won't let me post links.

[L1NKS]

Why must people on the left keep going back to embracing the rhetoric and assumptions of liberalism? Why a right to free speech, including hate speech or corporate political speech but not a right to not have our air and water polluted?
Because all these rights have been won, not granted. Because it was not for a benevolent master, that they were introduced to us. But merely because of a centuries old struggle of oppressed classes all around the world. I would like to argue: Why should we give up those institutions that have only come into existence because of bloodshed and sacrifice? More importantly, I do not see why I should abandon the state, since today this institution is my only access to, what I would call, the inner circle of the ruling classes. I will not deny that this state was designed to work for the benefit of its rulers. However, those rulers were forced by the majority to leave a door open - the servants entry if you like. And this entry I consider a possible cracking point.

[Hexen]

"Constitutional Rights" were written for wealthy white male capitalists which still is today while everyone else below (the productive classes) do not apply and subjected to be treated accordingly.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Howard Zinn has a good passage about this in "A People's History". He argues that property-based rights i.e. capitalist rights are never really contested, maybe the details and maybe when there are conflicts between different propery holders, but not like in the sense that "free speech" is a nebulous concept that keeps getting re-defined.

I wouldn't say bourgoise rights are arbitrary at all, but I would say that they are presented abstractly (as universals when really all rights are social and conditional). Rights connected to capitalist hegemony are unquestioned, legally unchallenged, and are generally the most concretely defined whereas other rights, such as speech and so on are contested and so can be "empty" rights if just left to the legal world to decide and govern - or they can be fought for, expanded, and bolstered by popular movements of various kinds (progressive and reactionary, working class or middle class).

[Hexen]

Howard Zinn has a good passage about this in "A People's History". He argues that property-based rights i.e. capitalist rights are never really contested, maybe the details and maybe when there are conflicts between different propery holders, but not like in the sense that "free speech" is a nebulous concept that keeps getting re-defined.

I wouldn't say bourgoise rights are arbitrary at all, but I would say that they are presented abstractly (as universals when really all rights are social and conditional). Rights connected to capitalist hegemony are unquestioned, legally unchallenged, and are generally the most concretely defined whereas other rights, such as speech and so on are contested and so can be "empty" rights if just left to the legal world to decide and govern - or they can be fought for, expanded, and bolstered by popular movements of various kinds (progressive and reactionary, working class or middle class).

The reason they never go contested is because it's how the system is set up otherwise it wouldn't be capitalism.

[SamEmm]

All rights are arbitrary. They don't really exist. Show me your rights!

Rights exist because people fought for them. Sometimes that comes from below; sometimes that comes from above. It's really as simple as that.

[Hexen]

All rights are arbitrary. They don't really exist. Show me your rights!

Rights exist because people fought for them. Sometimes that comes from below; sometimes that comes from above. It's really as simple as that.

Well actually "Rights" only exist within the bourgeoisie and it was they who fought for them since this is all result from the "Enlightenment" where the bourgeoisie overthrew the feudalist system and transferred to capitalism.

[adipocere]

Are constitutinal rights arbitrary?

They certainly are if you live in an unstable or weak part of the world where your constitution can be suspended and re-written with every new junta.

Insofar as the US is concerned, it's the equivalent to a political Bible. It will continue to be interpreted and translated and updated until it ceases to be beneficial to the ruling class.

If you consider the Constitution to be a document written by victims of particular injustices, then the focus on private property and individual liberties becomes apparent. The authors were not victims of poor education, racial exploitation, nor were they denied whatever passed for healthcare. Apparently they were victims of taxes and persecution for *****ing about taxes. Not much has really changed.

Whatever rights oppressed people gained over time was not something that was won, it was something that was granted to avoid the greater threat of rebellion. Therefore, it's only natural that the nation brandishing it's constitution with the most enthusiasm is also the nation with the most power and least threat both from within and without.

Lyndon B. Johnson put it best in 1964 when he said:
"Fuck your parliament and your constitution. America is an elephant. Cyprus is a flea. Greece is a flea. If these two fleas continue itching the elephant, they may just get whacked good ...We pay a lot of good American dollars to the Greeks, Mr. Ambassador. If your Prime Minister gives me talk about democracy, parliament and constitution, he, his parliament and his constitution may not last long..."

[Philosophos]

there are no rights. there are privileges. if you do something that annoys your government they will take them away without any hasitation and nobody will actually hear about it. Just like the human rights. Have you seen an illegal immigrant actually having on of those? Only if you consider not killing all of them as one...

[Turinbaar]

The fact that the bill of rights includes an amendment to ban alcohol, and then has another amendment amending the previous one, says everything you need to know about the arbitrary nature of system that runs the US.

The very arbitrariness has some advantage though. Imagine a world where the right to slave ownership was absolute and unchallengeable. The abolition of slavery was technically unconstitutional (property was seized by the state without compensation to the owners), and a good thing too.

The important thing to remember though is that the rights in the form of written amendments are essentially an afterthought to the hard labour of, say, physically smashing the slave system. Social agitation is the primary source of rights.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

As far as I'm concerned, you're already born with liberty from your first breath. As long as a State exists, you are only allowed as much freedom as that State will allow you. Whether or not that liberty is encoded on a piece of paper is completely irrelevant to the discussion. You have to actively agitate, struggle, fight for those liberties, whether by politics or by action.
You have to get up on a high place and scream your lungs out to the powers that be. If they still have the ability to feel some sense of shame, then maybe they will cede you your liberties.

And if not....well, then there is no further recourse but through violence.

[AnSyn Blackflag]

Are constitutinal rights arbitrary?

What you often see in the philosophy of liberalism is a dialogue that centers around rights. These Rights are present as truths "held to be self evident" established by founding fathers. But why? Lets go back and question our assumptions. Why do we have rights? And in particular, why these rights. Many of the founders of America were slave holders and capitalists.

Why must people on the left keep going back to embracing the rhetoric and assumptions of liberalism? Why a right to free speech, including hate speech or corporate political speech but not a right to not have our air and water polluted? Why not a right to be free from the institution of private property? Exploitation? Why not a right to be educated? to work? to not be left to die because you can't afford healthcare.

Moreover, rights as we understand them are something of a recent development. Noam Chosky talks about this here: Prior to the Warren court, people were routinely thrown in jail for being communists, the government cracked down on union organizers. When it comes to rights, where were those when the Japanese were put in concentration camps or Native Americans were driven off of their homes? What we really see is a contradiction, rights that exist on paper for everyone but are instead used to support the status quo and the rich and powerful. John Adams, one of the very founding fathers that liberals venerate was instrumental in the passage of the Alien and Sedition acts which criminalized the free exercise of speech.

I'm not saying I oppose the bill of rights, but rather I think we should consider what are assumptions are rather than buying in to the tedious ideas of the oppressors that they don't really believe in anyway. While they can be useful as we have to live under a court system, shouldn't the left move away from founder worship and liberal rights

I will always consider the concepts of the U.S. Bill of Rights to be a good ground work even if it was rather empty coming from rich white slave owners and businessmen.

They even proved to be on the right path of corrective action by abolishing slavery and again during the progressive and civil rights movements.

But as we are nearing the middle of the secnd decade of the 21st century I would chalk it up to a decent effort and say its time to scrap this failed experiment we call Constitutional America. We can keep some of the concepts but the government put in place has to go and they can take their religious fundamentalists, fascists, imperialists, and capitalists with them.

[SamEmm]

Well actually "Rights" only exist within the bourgeoisie and it was they who fought for them since this is all result from the "Enlightenment" where the bourgeoisie overthrew the feudalist system and transferred to capitalism.

Did the bourgeoisie fight for the eight hour day? For union rights? The conception being put forth here is very one-sided and undialectical. The world is more complicated than that.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[SamEmm]

As far as I'm concerned, you're already born with liberty from your first breath.

Where is your liberty? Show me!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[AnSyn Blackflag]

Where is your liberty? Show me!


He is referring to the foundation of the revolutionary mindset which is that we are all born with inherent human rights and we have to fight to regain them from bourgeois systems.

[Hexen]

Did the bourgeoisie fight for the eight hour day? For union rights? The conception being put forth here is very one-sided and undialectical. The world is more complicated than that.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

The Bourgeoisie fought for none of that, they actually fought for to get even more wealthier hence the whole Tax thing.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

He is referring to the foundation of the revolutionary mindset which is that we are all born with inherent human rights and we have to fight to regain them from bourgeois systems.

Exactly.

I have these liberties regardless of whether or not the government chooses to recognize them.

In my view, I'm not fighting to gain freedoms, the bourgeoisie state is fighting me to keep me from exercising them.

[SonofRage]

Exactly.

I have these liberties regardless of whether or not the government chooses to recognize them.

In my view, I'm not fighting to gain freedoms, the bourgeoisie state is fighting me to keep me from exercising them.

That is only an *idea*. It doesn't really exist. Mindset isn't important. What do you *do* for these rights?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[Ose]

He is referring to the foundation of the revolutionary mindset which is that we are all born with inherent human rights and we have to fight to regain them from bourgeois systems.


Exactly.

I have these liberties regardless of whether or not the government chooses to recognize them.

In my view, I'm not fighting to gain freedoms, the bourgeoisie state is fighting me to keep me from exercising them.

Not really. The reason why we struggle for these things is not because we were born with any kind of natural rights, but simply because it is beneficial for us to do so. Freedom from oppression of any kind is not an intrinsic property of humanity; in fact, as a concept it is necessarily contingent on the existence of oppression itself. If no one were oppressed, any talk of 'freedom from oppression' would be meaningless. Rights are not things that exist. Oppression does exist, and we can all agree that we'd be better off without it. That's it.

The 'foundation of the revolutionary mindset' is simply that it is in our interest to fight against the oppression of class society. If anything, the idea of inherent human rights (life, liberty and property, anyone? What a load of shit!) forms part of the basis of the class society in which we live. Enlightenment rhetoric has no place among communists.