What is a right?

[nova]

But a "right" effects the actions of others.

Wiki Human Rights.

Typically, only insofar as they restrict what actions you can take on others. Except for limited circumstances like the right to an attorney, they don't compel you to perform certain actions for others.

"Positive" rights have an inherent paradox in that in order to uphold a "positive" right for one person, you must infringe upon the liberty and/or property rights of another person.

 

[Accountable]

But a "right" effects the actions of others.

Wiki Human Rights.

Does it? My right to mythoughts doesn't require anyone else's action. My right to speak does not require anyone to listen. My right to bear arms doesn't require anyone to provide one for me; it is not a right to free firearms. My right to worship, or not, as I choose doesn't obligate anyone else to pray.

 

[Accountable]

I would say yes. You only have the right to attempt to acqure these things.

Exactly. :nod:

 

[Accountable]

Tough questions...

1. For civil rights that provide for a good working relationship between the gov't and the citizenry I would say yes. For certain "positive" entitlement rights like the USSR used in its founding documents I would say no because the end result was to degrade the relationship between the gov't and the people.

So... yes and no?

There's also the issue that different societies will value rights differently. Something like the right to vote might not be fundamental in say a benevolent monarchy...

True enough. :humm:

2. I don't think either takes priority. You can't use your natural rights to infringe upon another's civil rights and even when the state is using its power to legally and properly restrict your natural rights, they still have to abide by your civil rights.

But one must take priority over the other, if exercising one violates the other. My brain's too tired at the mo to think of a good example. Maybe someone can come up with one.

 

[Minor Axis]

Does it? My right to mythoughts doesn't require anyone else's action. My right to speak does not require anyone to listen. My right to bear arms doesn't require anyone to provide one for me; it is not a right to free firearms. My right to worship, or not, as I choose doesn't obligate anyone else to pray.

Yes it does. Your right to worship requires others to allow you to worship, etc.

 

[Accountable]

Yes it does. Your right to worship requires others to allow you to worship, etc.

Allowing does not require action. Prohibition definitely does, though.

 

[nova]

But one must take priority over the other, if exercising one violates the other. My brain's too tired at the mo to think of a good example. Maybe someone can come up with one.

If I had to pick one, I would have to say civil rights triumph as the only example I can think of where the rights of one citizen trump those of another is the right to attorney. One individuals property rights can be infringed to provide $$ to furnish an attorney for someone who otherwise cannot afford it and liberty rights of attorneys can be infringed by the court ordering them to represent someone.

That also assumes you are in society because obviously if you're on top of a mountain somewhere, civil rights don't hold much meaning...

Yes it does. Your right to worship requires others to allow you to worship, etc.

So you're arguing that a requirement for inaction = a requirement for action? That does not compute to me.

Rights prohibit you from interfering which means you do nothing...

 

[Accountable]

If I had to pick one, I would have to say civil rights triumph as the only example I can think of where the rights of one citizen trump those of another is the right to attorney. One individuals property rights can be infringed to provide $$ to furnish an attorney for someone who otherwise cannot afford it and liberty rights of attorneys can be infringed by the court ordering them to represent someone.

That also assumes you are in society because obviously if you're on top of a mountain somewhere, civil rights don't hold much meaning...

Yes, I'm going on the assumption that we're talking about current society.
So if I understand you, an attorney's rights are superceded by other citizens' right simply by virtue of them choosing to become attorneys? Actually, that has a ring of poetic justice.

Now, as for the conflict between rights: if a right is not primary, can it be fundamental?

 

[ssl]

there is such a thing as conflicting rights?

sheesh, imagine conflicting lefts... or maybe wrongs...

although, i could see conflicting writes...

 

[nova]

Yes, I'm going on the assumption that we're talking about current society.
So if I understand you, an attorney's rights are superceded by other citizens' right simply by virtue of them choosing to become attorneys? Actually, that has a ring of poetic justice.

In a sense yes but only in a limited manner( you can't treat them as slave labor your have to pay them) and their due process rights must still be respected ie only a court of law can force the issue

Now, as for the conflict between rights: if a right is not primary, can it be fundamental?

I don't see why it couldn't be. A rough analogy would be basic math. Addition, subtraction, multiplication and division are all fundamental, but they have a pecking order in the order of operations.

 

[Accountable]

In a sense yes but only in a limited manner( you can't treat them as slave labor your have to pay them) and their due process rights must still be respected ie only a court of law can force the issue

This just came to me. A right to an attorney isn't fndamental in that not everybody gets one. We only have a right to an attorney when charged with a crime. I can't get a civil attorney to sue someone, for instance. I'd love an attorney to help me set up my will, but I don't expect to get one for free. The right only exists under very specific conditions.

 

[nova]

This just came to me. A right to an attorney isn't fndamental in that not everybody gets one. We only have a right to an attorney when charged with a crime. I can't get a civil attorney to sue someone, for instance. I'd love an attorney to help me set up my will, but I don't expect to get one for free. The right only exists under very specific conditions.

Yeah I didn't think about that. Its part of the "maintaining a good relationship with the gov't" angle of civil rights. Providing an attorney puts the citizen on a more equal footing with the gov't in the supposedly fair criminal courts. Outside of that context you don't have the right to an attorney...

 

[Tim]

I understand, but what I'm really looking for is a formula - a set of criteria that we can agree establishes what a right is and is not.

For instance, a right should not obligate another person to action.

A right may not obligate another person to action, but it will impose regulation/restrictions on others.

For instance my right to life will be infringed on if my neighbor across the street is pumping deadly chemicals into the air while burning trash. So there must be regulations and restrictions as to what they are able to do even though it encroaches on their right to do whatever they want on their own property.

A right is absolutely nothing if their aren't proper protections put into place, and these protections/regulations encroach on others rights in some way by there very nature. This is the balancing act we must maintain as long as we live in a society.

 

[nova]

A point I made to someone else once, was that even in a system of anarchy, the rights of the individual still only extend so far. The limit basically being the patience of your neighbors.

In a system of anarchy you sure could use your liberty rights to play blaring obnoxious music at all hours of day and night but only up to the point your neighbors patience wears out and they use their liberty rights to put a bullet in your head ending your right to life.

 

[Tangerine]

i see your point, just will say that without safe water, safe food we perish

But that's not a RIGHT. That's a responsibility you have to yourself.

 

[Accountable]

A right may not obligate another person to action, but it will impose regulation/restrictions on others.

For instance my right to life will be infringed on if my neighbor across the street is pumping deadly chemicals into the air while burning trash. So there must be regulations and restrictions as to what they are able to do even though it encroaches on their right to do whatever they want on their own property.

A right is absolutely nothing if their aren't proper protections put into place, and these protections/regulations encroach on others rights in some way by there very nature. This is the balancing act we must maintain as long as we live in a society.

It is definittely infringing on your right to life, or at least threatening it, because the neighbor is sending pollutants into the air, which is not his property. So the infringement is because his "swinging his fist" didn't stop at the end of your "nose." Similarly, I can't claim as part of my freedom of speech the right to scream directly into your ear.

So,

• a right should not obligate another person to action, and
• a right of inaction is superior to another's right of action.

Good so far?

 

[ssl]

It is definittely infringing on your right to life, or at least threatening it, because the neighbor is sending pollutants into the air, which is not his property. So the infringement is because his "swinging his fist" didn't stop at the end of your "nose." Similarly, I can't claim as part of my freedom of speech the right to scream directly into your ear.

So,

• a right should not obligate another person to action, and
• a right of inaction is superior to another's right of action.

Good so far?

who has the right to property?

 

[darkcgi]

Everyone has a right to exist and persue happiness as long as it doesnt interfere with anyone elses right to exist

 

[Accountable]

who has the right to property?

I believe owning property is the same type of right as the right to bear arms. No one has the right to property, but they do have the right to purchase it and keep it once purchased. That's my take. Eminent domain is a concept whose time is past.

 

[Accountable]

Everyone has a right to exist and persue happiness as long as it doesnt interfere with anyone elses right to exist

When the interference happens, who gets priority? Who decides the priority?

eta: oops. You were just referring to the pursuit of happiness, huh?