6 ms·

"giving people rights" sounds kind of odd. No one has the power to "give" rights to anyone else. Government can confer privileges and protect rights. But righ

by starkd 7y ago

"giving people rights" sounds kind of odd. No one has the power to "give" rights to anyone else. Government can confer privileges and protect rights. But rights themselves are inalienable.

justin66 7y ago
It can also, strangely, discover "inalienable" rights that were previously being... alientated.
dylan604 7y ago
I would add that government can also take away rights whether inalienable or not.
detaro 7y ago
"inalienable rights" exists as a term precisely because not all rights are considered inalienable.
- nybble41 7y ago
  Yes, "inalienable" was the wrong term here. Neither alienable nor inalienable rights come from the government, however. Governments have the power to infringe on people's rights but not the authority to grant them or take them away. Even alienable rights can only be alienated of the individual's own free will.
Icathian 7y ago
This is nice in theory. In practice you can take rights away (obviously) and so protecting them instead is functionally identical to giving them. Mincing words about inalienable rights from the inside of a gulag falls rather flat to me.
- nybble41 7y ago
  > In practice you can take rights away (obviously) You can infringe rights; that's not the same as taking them away. There is a clear difference between having the power to do something and having the right to do it. There is nothing unusual about having the right to do something but lacking sufficient power to accomplish it. A right does not disappear merely because one lacks the power to prevent it from being infringed. As the name implies, rights are fundamentally about right and wrong: they are expressions of how one ought to act, or respond to another's actions. Saying that a right exists is the same as saying that your own actions ought not infringe that right for others. Practicality is irrelevant. The "theory" (or rather, philosophy) you've casually dismissed is the entire point of the exercise. Of course one needs power also, if only for self-defense, but power—or lack thereof—does not dictate right and wrong. Power merely expands the range of options available to you. Your rights—the things that it would be right for you to do—are the same whether you are powerless or omnipotent. So what exactly are your rights? Well, that's for you to decide. Even true omnipotence wouldn't be enough to grant anyone else the power to make that decision for you.
jjgreen 7y ago
I've always found the idea of inalienable rights rather odd, as if they were in some way outside their societal context. If so, where are they located?

by starkd 7y ago

"giving people rights" sounds kind of odd. No one has the power to "give" rights to anyone else. Government can confer privileges and protect rights. But rights themselves are inalienable.

justin66 7y ago

It can also, strangely, discover "inalienable" rights that were previously being... alientated.

dylan604 7y ago

I would add that government can also take away rights whether inalienable or not.

detaro 7y ago

"inalienable rights" exists as a term precisely because not all rights are considered inalienable.

nybble41 7y ago
Yes, "inalienable" was the wrong term here. Neither alienable nor inalienable rights come from the government, however. Governments have the power to infringe on people's rights but not the authority to grant them or take them away. Even alienable rights can only be alienated of the individual's own free will.

Icathian 7y ago

This is nice in theory. In practice you can take rights away (obviously) and so protecting them instead is functionally identical to giving them. Mincing words about inalienable rights from the inside of a gulag falls rather flat to me.

nybble41 7y ago
> In practice you can take rights away (obviously) You can infringe rights; that's not the same as taking them away. There is a clear difference between having the power to do something and having the right to do it. There is nothing unusual about having the right to do something but lacking sufficient power to accomplish it. A right does not disappear merely because one lacks the power to prevent it from being infringed. As the name implies, rights are fundamentally about right and wrong: they are expressions of how one ought to act, or respond to another's actions. Saying that a right exists is the same as saying that your own actions ought not infringe that right for others. Practicality is irrelevant. The "theory" (or rather, philosophy) you've casually dismissed is the entire point of the exercise. Of course one needs power also, if only for self-defense, but power—or lack thereof—does not dictate right and wrong. Power merely expands the range of options available to you. Your rights—the things that it would be right for you to do—are the same whether you are powerless or omnipotent. So what exactly are your rights? Well, that's for you to decide. Even true omnipotence wouldn't be enough to grant anyone else the power to make that decision for you.

jjgreen 7y ago

I've always found the idea of inalienable rights rather odd, as if they were in some way outside their societal context. If so, where are they located?