5 ms·

>I'm curious what "exist" means here and am very surprised at the "merely". In a natural state you have all the rights - your rights are theoretically unlimite

>I'm curious what "exist" means here and am very surprised at the "merely". In a natural state you have all the rights - your rights are theoretically unlimited. Society is what limits them. Society cannot create or remove rights, but it can limit your ability to express or use them.

handrous 5y ago
Ah. I found Locke's Second Treatise very unconvincing, so we probably disagree both on the soundness of the argument-from-nature and what constitutes a right—is a right "real" when merely conceived of, or must it be exercisable in practice, necessitating either highly effective personal power or highly effective power of a society on your behalf, to be, in any sense, real (moreover, what does it mean for a cave-dwelling loner in the state of nature to have freedom of speech, for example? Not much, I'd say—rights aren't even useful or sensible constructs absent society, from what I can tell, and within society they're basically just freedoms we've decided we like a whole lot and want to provide with a powerful label)
- ameister14 5y ago
  >is a right "real" when merely conceived of, or must it be exercisable in practice, necessitating either highly effective personal power or highly effective power of a society on your behalf, to be, in any sense, real Yes, it's real when conceived of, just like drugs are legal until there is a law against them. There are limits on exercising one's rights, but that doesn't mean the right itself goes away or as you put it, never existed in the first place. >moreover, what does it mean for a cave-dwelling loner in the state of nature to have freedom of speech, for example? Not much, I'd say So rights only exist where they are useful? How about if you don't exercise a particular right, do you still have it? >rights aren't even useful or sensible constructs absent society, from what I can tell, and within society they're basically just freedoms we've decided we like a whole lot and want to provide with a powerful label I think it's more that they are freedoms we have recognized exist rather than something society has created. While freedom of speech might not have been particularly useful without a society, you certainly had that freedom before society existed. It's not really possible for society to be the creator of freedom of speech if it existed prior to society. On the other end, if society collapses and you are again in a state of nature, you again have freedom of speech. So it's really just that society limited your ability to exercise that right, it didn't remove it entirely. For me part of the importance of inherent rights comes down to an understanding that given societal ability to decide for a person what rights they possess, they will, from time to time, decide that a person possesses no rights at all. If that is actually true, and all rights come from society, then there's no real moral way to rebel against that. Individuals need to have an ability to balance against society and if society is the source of all power as well as all moral standing, there is no possibility for the individual. If rights exist at all, they must by necessity be inherent to the person and not granted by society.
  - MispelledToyota 5y ago
    Then yes, rights don't exist at all. What we do have is something else, let's call it "rights(tm)", which are a social construct used to privilege and protect individuality. We use it as a tool when making decisions about how to treat others and what laws are legitimate. They are contestable, and allow the tradeoff to be adjusted based on circumstances and the priorities of societies.
    - ameister14 5y ago
      While I understand your perspective, I disagree with it. That gives too much power to society and is a foundation for tyranny in my opinion. More, it means slavery without the right to contest it unless that right is provided by the State, which of course it wouldn't be. Also fundamentally it doesn't make sense because I clearly have the right to do things if I am doing them and nobody is stopping me.
      - majormajor 5y ago
        That's the whole thing, isn't it? Different societies do stop people from doing different sets of things. So "nobody is stopping me" can't be evidence for any "natural" set of rights beyond society, since it would result in wildly different sets of "natural rights" for people in different societies. And a different set outside of a society, where maybe you have the a greater right to light things on fire but a lesser right to not get killed by someone else lighting things on fire.
        ameister14 5y ago
        Here's the thing; I'm operating in the framework I was responding to, where rights come from the state and must be exercised to be real. If all rights come from society and I have no rights outside those society grants, and I am able to take an action not explicitly outlined as one I have the right to take by my society, and society does not punish me for doing this in any way - how do I not have the right to do it in the first place? I believe that government is granted powers by the people. I do not believe that people are granted powers by the government. That's the fundamental difference. People can live without the government, the government cannot live without the people. That means that if the government is acting against the interests of the people, the people have the right to reform the government. If power comes from the government instead, the people have no right of reform save that granted by the government. This means that if the government doesn't want to be reformed, the people have no justification for reforming it. As to your right to light things on fire, being killed by others etc - you have the right to kill other people, especially when they are trying to kill you. You may be killed in response, that can happen. That's the incentive for making a society, so people don't kill or rob you. You make a government and grant it your proxy to act in your stead - so you don't get to kill people anymore, but society will do it for you.
MispelledToyota 5y ago
If rights are unlimited, and only their expression can be limited, then it seems like it is a category that excludes nothing and so is basically vacuous.
- ameister14 5y ago
  It's important when you get into society, though. If we didn't have the right to rule ourselves in all capacities, we would be limited in ability to respond to new situations. It's also really the only thing that makes sense from an individual rights perspective, given the absence of God.
  - majormajor 5y ago
    > It's also really the only thing that makes sense from an individual rights perspective, given the absence of God. If someone's going to disagree with someone else on the existence of God, then surely they can disagree with them on the existence of rights (in general or in specifics). And so the concept of rights outside of society consensus is back to being no more use than the concept of God. (That is: it's high use if everyone agrees, but there's nothing forcing everyone to agree, so it all comes down to social negotiation.)

handrous 5y ago

Ah. I found Locke's Second Treatise very unconvincing, so we probably disagree both on the soundness of the argument-from-nature and what constitutes a right—is a right "real" when merely conceived of, or must it be exercisable in practice, necessitating either highly effective personal power or highly effective power of a society on your behalf, to be, in any sense, real (moreover, what does it mean for a cave-dwelling loner in the state of nature to have freedom of speech, for example? Not much, I'd say—rights aren't even useful or sensible constructs absent society, from what I can tell, and within society they're basically just freedoms we've decided we like a whole lot and want to provide with a powerful label)

ameister14 5y ago
>is a right "real" when merely conceived of, or must it be exercisable in practice, necessitating either highly effective personal power or highly effective power of a society on your behalf, to be, in any sense, real Yes, it's real when conceived of, just like drugs are legal until there is a law against them. There are limits on exercising one's rights, but that doesn't mean the right itself goes away or as you put it, never existed in the first place. >moreover, what does it mean for a cave-dwelling loner in the state of nature to have freedom of speech, for example? Not much, I'd say So rights only exist where they are useful? How about if you don't exercise a particular right, do you still have it? >rights aren't even useful or sensible constructs absent society, from what I can tell, and within society they're basically just freedoms we've decided we like a whole lot and want to provide with a powerful label I think it's more that they are freedoms we have recognized exist rather than something society has created. While freedom of speech might not have been particularly useful without a society, you certainly had that freedom before society existed. It's not really possible for society to be the creator of freedom of speech if it existed prior to society. On the other end, if society collapses and you are again in a state of nature, you again have freedom of speech. So it's really just that society limited your ability to exercise that right, it didn't remove it entirely. For me part of the importance of inherent rights comes down to an understanding that given societal ability to decide for a person what rights they possess, they will, from time to time, decide that a person possesses no rights at all. If that is actually true, and all rights come from society, then there's no real moral way to rebel against that. Individuals need to have an ability to balance against society and if society is the source of all power as well as all moral standing, there is no possibility for the individual. If rights exist at all, they must by necessity be inherent to the person and not granted by society.
- MispelledToyota 5y ago
  Then yes, rights don't exist at all. What we do have is something else, let's call it "rights(tm)", which are a social construct used to privilege and protect individuality. We use it as a tool when making decisions about how to treat others and what laws are legitimate. They are contestable, and allow the tradeoff to be adjusted based on circumstances and the priorities of societies.
  - ameister14 5y ago
    While I understand your perspective, I disagree with it. That gives too much power to society and is a foundation for tyranny in my opinion. More, it means slavery without the right to contest it unless that right is provided by the State, which of course it wouldn't be. Also fundamentally it doesn't make sense because I clearly have the right to do things if I am doing them and nobody is stopping me.
    - majormajor 5y ago
      That's the whole thing, isn't it? Different societies do stop people from doing different sets of things. So "nobody is stopping me" can't be evidence for any "natural" set of rights beyond society, since it would result in wildly different sets of "natural rights" for people in different societies. And a different set outside of a society, where maybe you have the a greater right to light things on fire but a lesser right to not get killed by someone else lighting things on fire.
      - ameister14 5y ago
        Here's the thing; I'm operating in the framework I was responding to, where rights come from the state and must be exercised to be real. If all rights come from society and I have no rights outside those society grants, and I am able to take an action not explicitly outlined as one I have the right to take by my society, and society does not punish me for doing this in any way - how do I not have the right to do it in the first place? I believe that government is granted powers by the people. I do not believe that people are granted powers by the government. That's the fundamental difference. People can live without the government, the government cannot live without the people. That means that if the government is acting against the interests of the people, the people have the right to reform the government. If power comes from the government instead, the people have no right of reform save that granted by the government. This means that if the government doesn't want to be reformed, the people have no justification for reforming it. As to your right to light things on fire, being killed by others etc - you have the right to kill other people, especially when they are trying to kill you. You may be killed in response, that can happen. That's the incentive for making a society, so people don't kill or rob you. You make a government and grant it your proxy to act in your stead - so you don't get to kill people anymore, but society will do it for you.

MispelledToyota 5y ago

If rights are unlimited, and only their expression can be limited, then it seems like it is a category that excludes nothing and so is basically vacuous.

ameister14 5y ago
It's important when you get into society, though. If we didn't have the right to rule ourselves in all capacities, we would be limited in ability to respond to new situations. It's also really the only thing that makes sense from an individual rights perspective, given the absence of God.
- majormajor 5y ago
  > It's also really the only thing that makes sense from an individual rights perspective, given the absence of God. If someone's going to disagree with someone else on the existence of God, then surely they can disagree with them on the existence of rights (in general or in specifics). And so the concept of rights outside of society consensus is back to being no more use than the concept of God. (That is: it's high use if everyone agrees, but there's nothing forcing everyone to agree, so it all comes down to social negotiation.)