3 ms·
I think the confusion is between rights, and societal privilege, or "legal rights". The waters can be a bit muddied here, and there are various political philos
by AcerbicZero 7y ago
I think the confusion is between rights, and societal privilege, or "legal rights". The waters can be a bit muddied here, and there are various political philosophies here, but most Western nations follow some form of classic natural rights.
So in the context of voting, you have no natural right to vote, because in a state of nature the only authority is your own, and you don't need to vote with yourself. A society comes along, and sets up a governing body, say, democratically, and says "everyone gets to vote!". However, this isn't a right, but instead a privilege, (or perhaps a legal right) which derives its authority from society, which means society can do what it pleases with it.
Natural rights cannot be removed by society, only infringed upon. I.e. you never "lose" your right to life, just because society decides to have you executed. They've just infringed upon it in the worst possible way.
- geggam 7y agoOthers think govt is merely an extension of natural law... Similarly, Sabine notes the position of John Locke in Essay concerning Human Understanding: [Civic power] can have no right except as this is derived from the individual right of each man to protect himself and his property. The legislative and executive power used by government to protect property is nothing except the natural power of each man resigned into the hands of the community…and it is justified merely because it is a better way of protecting natural right than the self-help to which each man is naturally entitled.
- AcerbicZero 7y agoTrue, although the government does not supersede the natural right, it just extends the protection of that right beyond what the individual can do alone. Still, a good call out, thanks!