3 ms·

People's rights are a collective agreement of the society, crazy superstitions of the past centuries about "God-given rights" notwithstanding.

by jhgb 5y ago

boomboomsubban 5y ago
That's not the way the US Bill of Rights frames it. It says that purely by existing people have certain rights, and society chooses which ones should be protected and which should be surrendered. By having means of communication, I naturally have the right to free speech. The government can only limit that freedom. It's supposed to be a way of showing that the government is subservient to the citizens, as it does not have the power to grant citizens rights. I doubt it's effective though, as most people seem to think the Constitution grants rights.
- jhgb 5y ago
  > It says that purely by existing people have certain rights Maybe that's just me, but that's way too abstract for me. Have planets and stars always had certain rights purely by existing as well? > and society chooses which ones should be protected Well in that case you could make the case that every single person has every single right anyone could possibly have and the society chooses a subset of these rights as actual laws. I guess this is a way to eat your cake and have it, too, since it makes the difference between my and your view unobservable.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- kube-system 5y ago
  The constitution grants legal rights on the basis that natural rights already exist. You are right that people have rights without the constitution. Other people are right that the constitution grants rights. The confusion is that you are both talking about different types of rights.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    We just fundamentally disagree on whether the Bill of Rights grants people legal rights or restricts the actions the federal government can make. I get that you probably don't think there is a difference, as even I think the difference is largely semantic. I still see it as a difference.
    - kube-system 5y ago
      I recognize the difference between the two -- but those two concepts are not inseparable, the one causes the other. The restrictions that the constitution imposes created a set of legal rights. A law that says "the government can't legally do [x] to me", by definition, creates a legal right that I have "a right not to have the government do [x] to me". They are semantically different in perspective, but causal in relationship.
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        Yeah, I completely understand your point of view. I think if the intention of the Bill of Rights was to grant legal rights they would not have used the language they did. All the talk of "infringement" and "enumeration" make it clear they were going out of their way not to grant rights. If people said "the constitution grants the right for our free speech not to be infringed" I'd probably ignore it. That's not how any discussion goes though. Here's why I think this matters in this instance. By saying the 4th is "just a legal right," you are saying that the Constitution only grants it to certain people and the government can spy on anyone else. But by saying it's only a limitation, there's no qualifier on whose rights they can infringe.

People's rights are a collective agreement of the society, crazy superstitions of the past centuries about "God-given rights" notwithstanding.

by jhgb 5y ago

People's rights are a collective agreement of the society, crazy superstitions of the past centuries about "God-given rights" notwithstanding.

boomboomsubban 5y ago

That's not the way the US Bill of Rights frames it. It says that purely by existing people have certain rights, and society chooses which ones should be protected and which should be surrendered. By having means of communication, I naturally have the right to free speech. The government can only limit that freedom. It's supposed to be a way of showing that the government is subservient to the citizens, as it does not have the power to grant citizens rights. I doubt it's effective though, as most people seem to think the Constitution grants rights.

jhgb 5y ago
> It says that purely by existing people have certain rights Maybe that's just me, but that's way too abstract for me. Have planets and stars always had certain rights purely by existing as well? > and society chooses which ones should be protected Well in that case you could make the case that every single person has every single right anyone could possibly have and the society chooses a subset of these rights as actual laws. I guess this is a way to eat your cake and have it, too, since it makes the difference between my and your view unobservable.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
kube-system 5y ago
The constitution grants legal rights on the basis that natural rights already exist. You are right that people have rights without the constitution. Other people are right that the constitution grants rights. The confusion is that you are both talking about different types of rights.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  We just fundamentally disagree on whether the Bill of Rights grants people legal rights or restricts the actions the federal government can make. I get that you probably don't think there is a difference, as even I think the difference is largely semantic. I still see it as a difference.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    I recognize the difference between the two -- but those two concepts are not inseparable, the one causes the other. The restrictions that the constitution imposes created a set of legal rights. A law that says "the government can't legally do [x] to me", by definition, creates a legal right that I have "a right not to have the government do [x] to me". They are semantically different in perspective, but causal in relationship.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      Yeah, I completely understand your point of view. I think if the intention of the Bill of Rights was to grant legal rights they would not have used the language they did. All the talk of "infringement" and "enumeration" make it clear they were going out of their way not to grant rights. If people said "the constitution grants the right for our free speech not to be infringed" I'd probably ignore it. That's not how any discussion goes though. Here's why I think this matters in this instance. By saying the 4th is "just a legal right," you are saying that the Constitution only grants it to certain people and the government can spy on anyone else. But by saying it's only a limitation, there's no qualifier on whose rights they can infringe.