Peoples' Natural Rights

[robot lenin]

I was chatting to a liberal friend of mine yesterday, and we got to thinking about what everyone's 'natural' rights are. By this I mean the rights that all people inherently have, and that should, therefore, be provided by a welfare state under capitalism.

Now I came up with a long list, but I was wondering whether you agreed? Mine were:

Healthcare
Education (including libraries, museums etc)
Housing
Food and water
Energy
Transport
Security (police force, armed forces etc...NOT OPPRESSIVE)
Fair payment for work
Fire serviceBearing in mind these would be the minimum provided under capitalism, so there would be need for some things (e.g. police) that may be unnecessary under communist/anarchist/whatever other left-wing philosophy you support.

Also, I'm thinking of doing my undergrad dissertation on this, so alternative thoughts are welcomed!!!

[BobKKKindle$]

By this I mean the rights that all people inherently have, and that should, therefore, be provided by a welfare state under capitalism

There is no such thing as an "inherent" right, because rights have no basis in material reality, they are ideas which have been created by human beings, and as such are not absolute, but subject to change. If rights are, as you claim, "natural" then how can we determine what we include within the category of rights?

[robot lenin]

By natural I don't mean 'bestowed upon you by God' or anything like that, merely what a human needs to live a comfortable existence. I know this is hazy.

I don't think rights can necessarily be natural, but I was asking what you would term to be rights--or that would be rights that a person should have. Maybe the use of the term natural was a bit ambiguous, but I don't mean fundamental rights that are given to us by a higher power, I mean things that we, as humans, can construct to protect ourselves and our brothers (and sisters). It is therefore open to interpreation as to what these should be.

But yes, I do agree that my use of terms was wrong. :blushing:

[cyu]

As Emma Goldman said, "Necessity knows no law, and the starving man has a natural right to a share of his neighbor's bread... Ask for work. If they do not give you work, ask for bread. If they do not give you work or bread, then take bread."

Regardless of what rights people supposedly have, survival comes first. If you don't give someone any good legal avenues for survival, then they'll resort to illegal avenues.

The goal is to come up with a system in which nobody will be put in a situation in which they would have to resort to things that neither they nor anyone else wants them to resort to doing.

If a decision affects one person more than everyone else, then that one person should have more say in the decision than everyone else. This is especially important for issues of survival.

[che-Rabbi]

You didn't mention any freedoms. The state should insure intellectual and spiritual freedom. Unless you weren't talking about things like that.

[Renewed Revolution]

Nobody should have the right to wages, since wages are an oppressive capitalistic idea forced upon workers by the bourgeoisie so that they live a life in poverty (wage slavery).


You didn't mention any freedoms. The state should insure intellectual and spiritual freedom. Unless you weren't talking about things like that.

Since when was the state neccessary?

[The Advent of Anarchy]

I've got the two most important rights that should be in effect today:

Absolute freedom of the individual to do as he please as long as he doesn't infringe upon another person's rights.

Economic equality and social equality, for all men are equal.

The State cannot create either one, so it needs to be eliminated.

[Hyacinth]

To quote, the much overused quote, by Bentham: “Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense — nonsense upon stilts.”

Strictly speaking rights, duties, etc. are all social constructs. That is, they only exist insofar as they are enforced in society (where enforcement here can be in non-legal ways as well, provided that most members of the community recognize that you have a certain right, and would punish infringements of that right).

Now, the above is a moot point, since I think what the OP is trying to say is that the enumeration of rights given are what rights (among others) that people *should* have, since clearly, in our present society, most people do not have a right to what has been listed.

[MarxSchmarx]

Strictly speaking rights, duties, etc. are all social constructs. That is, they only exist insofar as they are enforced in society (where enforcement here can be in non-legal ways as well, provided that most members of the community recognize that you have a certain right, and would punish infringements of that right).

Now, the above is a moot point, since I think what the OP is trying to say is that the enumeration of rights given are what rights (among others) that people *should* have, since clearly, in our present society, most people do not have a right to what has been listed.Well, the two are in fact intricately tied. If rights are a social construct, then it behooves us to develop normative standards about them. Take grammar. It is a social construct, and we have heated debates about "proper" and "improper" grammar, and nobody seriously denies the existence (much less value) of grammar.

As far as the list of rights, paraphrasing the advent of anarchy:

A right to everything the individual damned well pleases, so long as it doesn't infringe on this right of others.


If we are to have rights, that is, things or conditions which society gives to an individual, it follows that the normative question of "what rights should we have" already presupposes that society can grant rights, and that rights are meaningful in a social context.

[Hyacinth]

Well, the two are in fact intricately tied. If rights are a social construct, then it behooves us to develop normative standards about them. Take grammar. It is a social construct, and we have heated debates about "proper" and "improper" grammar, and nobody seriously denies the existence (much less value) of grammar.
I wasn’t denying that rights exist, far from it, only that natural rights exist, where this is regarded as rights in some metaphysical sense.


If we are to have rights, that is, things or conditions which society gives to an individual, it follows that the normative question of "what rights should we have" already presupposes that society can grant rights, and that rights are meaningful in a social context.
Indeed; I only maintain talk of rights is only meaningful in this context.

[Hyacinth]

I should elaborate slightly on what I mean.

Consider two ways of interpreting talk of rights (and duties, etc.):

We can say of, for example, women in Saudi Arabia either that: 1) they ought to have more rights, or 2) that their rights are being violated.

When we speak of rights in the first sense we recognize that the women in Saudi Arabia are lacking certain rights, which we think they ought to have. The first is regarding them as social constructs, where, it is the case that some agent A has a right, R, to Φ if (and possibly if and only if) R is in force. Where, for a right to be in force means: a) that the majority of A’s community recognize that has the right to Φ, and b) there are reprocusions to A’s right to Φ being violated.

The above sense makes talk of rights intelligible; we understand what a person means when they said that so-and-so has a right to such-and-such, as well as, we understand what the truth-conditions for right statements are.

Contrast this with the alternative. If we maintain that, as in the above example, women in Saudi Arabia have rights, but merely that these rights are being violated, we are left with a puzzling question: in virtue of what do these women have rights? What does it even mean to say that anyone in Saudi Arabia has rights (apart from the ruling class)? One can’t appeal to legal rights, since, obviously, those are lacking. Likewise social convention offers no recourse to understanding this talk of rights, since women are treated as property by social convention. These rights, if they are to exist, have to exist in some sort of Platonic realm of forms. That is, talk of rights in the second sense is purely metaphysical, and hence nonsensical.

Most people, of course, don’t really sit down and reflect on the implications of their particular phrasing. I suspect that most people, even when they are speaking about rights (and duties) using the second grammatical form don’t really intend to commit themselves to any metaphysics. All they are doing is expressing the normative opinion that people ought to have certain rights.

[robot lenin]

I think many of you are missing my point. I agree, the state should not necessarily exist since it does rob the freedom of the people under it, but my question assumed the existence of a state, and asked what rights people should have within one. The answer to this thought exercise is not mere abolition of the state!!!

[Dust Bunnies]

Well, we cannot say in detail what are the rights of a person. They change, for example, in the 1800s, if Marx made a list of rights, it wouldn't include electricity. the needs of the people change. My list is this: Let the people be free to do whatever as long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights and happiness. Rights are different than services everyone should get.

[MarxSchmarx]

I should elaborate slightly on what I mean.

Consider two ways of interpreting talk of rights (and duties, etc.):

We can say of, for example, women in Saudi Arabia either that: 1) they ought to have more rights, or 2) that their rights are being violated.

When we speak of rights in the first sense we recognize that the women in Saudi Arabia are lacking certain rights, which we think they ought to have. The first is regarding them as social constructs, where, it is the case that some agent A has a right, R, to Φ if (and possibly if and only if) R is in force. Where, for a right to be in force means: a) that the majority of A’s community recognize that has the right to Φ, and b) there are reprocusions to A’s right to Φ being violated.

The above sense makes talk of rights intelligible; we understand what a person means when they said that so-and-so has a right to such-and-such, as well as, we understand what the truth-conditions for right statements are.

Contrast this with the alternative. If we maintain that, as in the above example, women in Saudi Arabia have rights, but merely that these rights are being violated, we are left with a puzzling question: in virtue of what do these women have rights? What does it even mean to say that anyone in Saudi Arabia has rights (apart from the ruling class)? One can’t appeal to legal rights, since, obviously, those are lacking. Likewise social convention offers no recourse to understanding this talk of rights, since women are treated as property by social convention. These rights, if they are to exist, have to exist in some sort of Platonic realm of forms. That is, talk of rights in the second sense is purely metaphysical, and hence nonsensical.

Most people, of course, don’t really sit down and reflect on the implications of their particular phrasing. I suspect that most people, even when they are speaking about rights (and duties) using the second grammatical form don’t really intend to commit themselves to any metaphysics. All they are doing is expressing the normative opinion that people ought to have certain rights.

Your point is well taken, but it's still not obvious to me that a sharp/meaningful distinction exists between "social" and "natural" constructs. Nevertheless I agree with your original point.

I should mention that the particulars of this example are a little off. For example, in re: (a) about the community, why should the "community" of Saudi women be restricted to Saudi nationals, much less those Saudis with authoritarian views, instead of say the entire world, all women, all Arab women,etc... and (b) the repurcussion part is problematic, because arguably by international law the rights of women in question (e.g. the right to work in some jobs) should trump Saudi sovereignty. That this right just so happens to not be enforced by the global ruling class doesn't mean there isn't the reasonable potential for repercussions (e.g., when the rulers of the world decided to turn on Apartheid). Just quibbling ;)

[BurnTheOliveTree]

"Natural rights" aren't real past the boundaries of our imagination. They are not material things, they're social constructs.

Now, that doesn't necessarily make them invalid as rights, but we should not ascribe any metaphysical significance to them. It is much the same with ethics and morality - it is okay to say "I won't murder this woman because it is unethical" so long as you keep in mind that ethics are not real things that we can discover like protons or cancer, they are made up, like laws and social protocols.

-Alex

[MarxSchmarx]

Now, that doesn't necessarily make them invalid as rights, but we should not ascribe any metaphysical significance to them. It is much the same with ethics and morality - it is okay to say "I won't murder this woman because it is unethical" so long as you keep in mind that ethics are not real things that we can discover like protons or cancer, they are made up, like laws and social protocols.

Well I hate to be the idealist gadfly, but why aren't things like "biology" or "physics" that underline our understanding of cancer and protons "made up", while things like jurisprudence or anthropology are are? :laugh:

I think the difference is largely metaphysical. We attribute metaphysical agency to the individuals that make up laws and customs, while we don't do the same for atoms or viruses. I think that view is, in fact, the one that ascribes undue metaphysical significance.

[Saorsa]

I would argue that while rights are, of course, an intellectual construction that have no material basis in objective reality, they are a positive intellectual construction that we should maintain and uphold.

We should challenge the bourgeois notion of "human rights", such as the "right" to possess property (and use it to exploit the labour-power of others), and should instead challenge them with our own platform of rights.

The way I see it, " rights" are the things that we, as revolutionary communists, collectively believe every person deserves to have and should not have taken away from them.

These rights do not exist in some kind of vacuum, just sitting there waiting for us to point at them and say "oh yeah, those are the things that people deserve to have". Instead, we come to the belief in them through practice, through analysing objective reality, and deciding upon the things that humans need to survive, enjoy life and better themselves physically, intellectually and emotionally.

We must also look at this through a revolutionary Marxist framework - e.g. there are cases where these rights do not apply. For example, I assume we can all agree that, operating within the framework I laid out above, humans possess the right to life. You can't just take someones life away from them, that violates their ability to survive, enjoy life and better themselves physically, intellectually and emotionally (obviously).

However, revolution must come through armed struggle against the capitalist class and it's lackeys, that will inevitably result in communists being forced to kill their enemies, or in other words to deprive them of their right to life. If we rule out killing anyone, our revolution is doomed to failure, as it takes violence to smash through the wall of bourgeois resistance. So therefore, we must either come to the conclusion that humans do not have a right to life (meaning that it's ok to randomly kill someone in the street), or that humans do have a right to life, but it is acceptable to deprive them of this right if it is necessary to the advancement of the socialist revolution.

Thus, there is no such thing as an "inalienable rights." If we accept that, we abandon any ability to change the world in the face of strong resistance.

So we now come to this position - rights are an intellectual construct, that we collectively choose to uphold. Rights are the things that humans need to survive, enjoy life and better themselves physically, intellectually and emotionally. These rights can be broken if the cause of the revolution demands it.

Thoughts on my argument?

[Plagueround]

So we now come to this position - rights are an intellectual construct, that we collectively choose to uphold. Rights are the things that humans need to survive, enjoy life and better themselves physically, intellectually and emotionally. These rights can be broken if the cause of the revolution demands it.

Thoughts on my argument?

If a person denies others the fundamental rights you've outlined, then I would say they forfeit a claim to those rights and would need to be dealt with in an appropriate manner. Therefore, (without reducing this to a sheer semantic argument) you're not necessarily breaking rights that a person has apparently denied as existing or being essential to others.

[Saorsa]

That last sentence was a bit confusing, but I'll do my best to reply... We both

I would respond to that by saying that you are thinking in moralistic, individualistic terms. You're saying that if one person denies another person the right to life, that makes them hypocritical in expecting the same right to be extended to them, and therefore this contradiction is resolved by them forfeiting the right to life. Am I right? :P

Rather than thinking of this as one person vs another person, think of it as one class versus another class, or one ideolody, one view on how the world should be run, versus another.

Basically, you have to look at these two classes, these two ideologies or whatever, and decide upon which one you support as a communist, which one you think is better. Then, you take that side and you support it all the way, only stopping if it reaches a point where it diverges from the socialist road.

Our goal is socialism. Our means is revolutionary struggle, both violent and non-violent depending on the situation. Our end justifies our means.

A basic plank of my philosophy is that anything is justifiable, if it advances the cause of socialism. It is perfectly acceptable, and even applaudable, to deny a counter-revolutionary, an enemy of our cause the rights I set out, if in doing so you move us a step closer to socialism.

To think otherwise is petty-bourgeois moralism.

[Hyacinth]

That last sentence was a bit confusing, but I'll do my best to reply... We both

I would respond to that by saying that you are thinking in moralistic, individualistic terms. You're saying that if one person denies another person the right to life, that makes them hypocritical in expecting the same right to be extended to them, and therefore this contradiction is resolved by them forfeiting the right to life. Am I right? :P

Rather than thinking of this as one person vs another person, think of it as one class versus another class, or one ideolody, one view on how the world should be run, versus another.

Basically, you have to look at these two classes, these two ideologies or whatever, and decide upon which one you support as a communist, which one you think is better. Then, you take that side and you support it all the way, only stopping if it reaches a point where it diverges from the socialist road.

Our goal is socialism. Our means is revolutionary struggle, both violent and non-violent depending on the situation. Our end justifies our means.

A basic plank of my philosophy is that anything is justifiable, if it advances the cause of socialism. It is perfectly acceptable, and even applaudable, to deny a counter-revolutionary, an enemy of our cause the rights I set out, if in doing so you move us a step closer to socialism.

To think otherwise is petty-bourgeois moralism.
Well put, and while I agree with most of what you have said, it is worth adding what Emma Goldman aptly observed:

There is no greater fallacy than the belief that aims and purposes are one thing, while methods and tactics are another, This conception is a potent menace to social regeneration. All human experience teaches that methods and means cannot be separated from the ultimate aim. The means employed become, through individual habit and social practice, part and parcel of the final purpose; they influence it, modify it, and presently the aims and means become identical.Hardly anyone would disagree with the almost platitudinous endorsement of any means provided that it advances the cause of communism (or whatever end a person endorses). The trickier issue is determining whether your means truly further your ends.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Well I hate to be the idealist gadfly, but why aren't things like "biology" or "physics" that underline our understanding of cancer and protons "made up", while things like jurisprudence or anthropology are are?


Because biology and physics rely on discovery as their primary method of obtaining knowledge. They are inferences based on real material things. To a lesser extent anthropology fits this bill too, although it is vaguer than a concrete natural science.

Jurisprudence relies on invention as it's primary method, and not discovery. Judges do not observe a moral in a jar, they make it up. The biologist does observe a disease, the physicist does observe the red shift, and they report back on it, without making anything up, because they have real material things to work with and the judges do not.

Like I said before, the fact that rights are constructs does not invalidate them, but we need to keep in mind that they are ideas rather than things.

-Alex

[Plagueround]

Rather than thinking of this as one person vs another person, think of it as one class versus another class, or one ideolody, one view on how the world should be run, versus another.


I applied my argument as a one on one scenario, but didn't mean for it to only come across as that as it certainly applies to groups, classes, or ideology . You pretty much nailed what I had in mind.

[Mariner's Revenge]

I will repeat what has been said many times before; natural or inalienable rights do not exist. Not only does this lie totally in philosophy, meaning it cannot be proven, but it also says there is a single "right" way of living.

The idea of natural rights were taken from the Iroquois League and as a communal society, the right to property did not exist. Yet, as we all know, the Declaration of Independence claims, with the natural right to property, that not only were the Iroquois wrong, but any communal style of government is wrong because there is no property in those systems.

The same can be applied to right of life. If we look at Fascist Germany, they did not recognize the "natural rights" of Jews and many other groups to advance the stability of the "Aryan" race. And once again, to say that we have a natural right to life says that their style of government is wrong.

Quickly to avoid any accusations, I very strongly disagree with that style of government and would fight against it but I cannot say their style of government is wrong and mine is right because I do not believe in any "correct" style of government or personal philosophy.


Next, this brings us into what "rights" are. Besides unquestionable justifications (I have a right to bear arms = I have an unquestionable justification to bear arms), rights attempt to produce a stable society with respect to certain aspects. Right to life produces stability with respect to being recognized as a person. Right to property produces stability of a capitalistic system because property ownership of all is essential to a successful capitalistic system. Right to bear arms produces stability in terms of self defense. Right to free speech produces stability in sense of everyone having their own opinion. Looking at it in a different perspective, by taking away the rights of blacks you can further the stability of whites as shown in the United States.


So, try to move backward with your discussion. Instead of saying which rights are needed for a society, try to think of what rights produce stability in the society you envision.

[puke on cops]

How does one go about debating that rights don't exist to someone who is a smart, contrarian and a social democrat statist, and saying that you would also rather not get into the same old debate that you have about communism versus capitalism that you have constantly?

[Meridian]

Because biology and physics rely on discovery as their primary method of obtaining knowledge. They are inferences based on real material things. To a lesser extent anthropology fits this bill too, although it is vaguer than a concrete natural science.

Jurisprudence relies on invention as it's primary method, and not discovery. Judges do not observe a moral in a jar, they make it up. The biologist does observe a disease, the physicist does observe the red shift, and they report back on it, without making anything up, because they have real material things to work with and the judges do not.

Like I said before, the fact that rights are constructs does not invalidate them, but we need to keep in mind that they are ideas rather than things

Spoken like a confused scientist.

Morals are never "not real"; if they were they would not exist. They are real the same way communism and capitalism are real. Judges work with real things and animals, humans, when doing their job. They make decisions, conclusions if you will, based on laws and regulations, as well as the investigation of events in question. Nothing about this is "not real".

It is meaningless to say that one "science" is vaguer than another. They are all completely vague. When a biologist makes an observation he makes an abstraction. The same is true for all our understanding of the world. It is just that; an understanding.