3 ms·
I ctrl+f'd "natural rights" and came up with nothing, which is how I knew from the start this wasn't a very good article on the subject. Look, here is the thin
by arca_vorago 9y ago
I ctrl+f'd "natural rights" and came up with nothing, which is how I knew from the start this wasn't a very good article on the subject.
Look, here is the thing that people have forgotten, or were never taught (due to a failing civics education system):
People have natural rights, independent of any government, and governments are formed among the people in order to protect those rights. The government does not grant rights! It can not take them without due process!
This is the fundamental principle of what I consider real American exceptionalism, and why American government at least in principle is the most free system of government in existence. (despite it's failings to live up those principles often) It's why Christopher Hitchens became an American and called it "the last revolution that stands a chance".
This was the original debate about the Bill of Rights in the first place. That by listing a few important rights the government would then think anything not listed would be allowed for the government to violate. Hence the "right to wear a hat" argument. That's not how things work though, and that's not what our government was founded on.
I'll give you a good example. Locke calls the right to self defense the first natural right. I agree. The second amendment is about defense against a tyrannic government. You could take it away and I would still have a right to bear arms independent of the (theoretically) absent second amendment.
Both parties hate stating this sort of thing out loud though because what they both are is authoritarian. For the conservatives, it would undermine all kinds of their moves like the drug war (unconstitutional abuse of commerce clause, states rights), and the same can be said of the left. This is why I get tired of all the cries anytime someone sees through the bullshit and calls them both equally corrupt, which they are, and are immediately hit with logically fallacious half-retorts of "whataboutism" and other rebuttle du jours.
I swore an oath to the Constitution, and I stand on those principles even when they make me uncomfortable. I'll give you another example. I always thought FDR's New Deal was one of the best things ever, a brilliant move we should seek to emulate in the modern day. When I dug into it though, I have to admit I have seen enough evidence that many of the New Deal policies were unconstitutional that I have an entire reading list prepped just to dig into the matter. So you can see how for someone who really wants more wealth equality how difficult it is to potentially admit minimum wage just might be unconstiutional. At least I am meeting those hard questions head on though, instead of burying my head in the sand.
- kelnos 9y ago> People have natural rights, independent of any government, and governments are formed among the people in order to protect those rights. Not really. We've come up with that fiction because we believe -- and we're probably right -- that it gives us the best chance at living together peacefully and without interfering too much with each people's lives. But it really is a fiction. I personally believe in what you call a person's natural rights, but that's all it is, just a belief. It takes all of us to band together and form structures to enforce and protect those rights for people to be able to enjoy them. > The second amendment is about defense against a tyrannic government. You could take it away and I would still have a right to bear arms independent of the (theoretically) absent second amendment. I mean, sure, if you define "right" in that way, then you can say you have the "right" to literally anything. If the 2nd Amendment were repealed, that imagined "natural right" won't help you much when the government comes and takes your guns away, or jails or kills you for having them when you try to fight back. There is no absolute moral truth here. It's only what we've collectively decided on, and we still have a long way to go before everyone in the world is treated equally and with dignity. We look at the world 500 years ago and think of how uncivilized everything was, and how poorly people treated each other. In another 500 years they'll be saying the same about us, assuming we don't destroy ourselves before then.
- zaroth 9y ago“Natural rights” don’t come naturally. Something is a “natural right” not because laws of physics dictate they are inviolable but because they are essential to humanity and peaceful existence, and every human is born into them. The “natural rights” to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, assembly, association, religion, arms, etc. are the closest we’ve come as a race to “absolute moral truth”.
- jeffgus 9y ago> I mean, sure, if you define "right" in that way, then you can say you have the "right" to literally anything. If? No, that is how rights are defined in the US. As long as a right doesn't violate the right of another person. This is what makes the US unique. The US government doesn't give us rights, we already have them. The constitution grants limited powers to the government. That is why it wouldn't matter of the 2nd amendment disappeared, we already have the right to self-defense. The 2nd just called out that the fact government doesn't have the power to remove that right. If the government moves to take guns away and kills people to do it. In other words, if they try to warp the meaning of our rights, then that is the another reason to be armed.