Where do "Rights" come from?

[Dragline]

But this interpretation doesn't explain how we can talk about things like "state's rights." How can a state have rights? How can we even talk about issues like state's rights vs. federal government rights without raising an eyebrow unless we are all just implicitly assuming that rights aren't fundamentally different than laws?

The use of the term "states rights" is just marketing tool for a point of view, like "right-to-work" laws.

Since the word/idea of "rights" has a positive connotation, people try to graft that word into their arguments for the purpose of labeling. It's similar to the modern and now ubiquitous use of the terms "job-creating"/"job-destroying", which are also attached as spin labels to any favored/disfavored course of action.

Debates about "states rights" are really just discussions about federalism and what roles the federal and state governments ought to play in that system. There are no rights involved in the "god-given rights" sense of the word.

[BRUTE]

in contrast, there seem many contracts that function just fine without being imbued with inalienability - mortgages, leasing contracts, work contracts. marriage contracts are imbued with a different type of "beyond transactional" or "beyond win-win" spirit.

brute supposes it is mostly mindset and culture. in some culture where the right to bear alcohol in public is a 200 year tradition, but nobody cares about guns, that might be seen as less than self-evident.

insofar, the requirement for certain contracts to be mystified is maybe not inherent, but still exists due to the momentum of culture and tradition.

[ThisDinosaur]

@Brute
Well, partly what we are arguing about is whether rights are myths at all. I argue that they are; as in, they are fictional and predicated on a specific understanding of the world where metaphysical things are real.

@Dragline
So that definition of rights to mean laws (or a set of rules for making new laws) is a red herring. Its worth noting that the two are being confused pretty consistently in this debate. That might be partly my fault. I said rights are an illusion, and that they are set up by a governing body. Maybe I should have said a set of rights represent an opinion, and laws are written down and enforced based on the opinions of the local governing body.

You made the connection in your WEIRDing article between justice, rights, and rule-based ethics. The idea that morality is universal does strike me as relevant to this discussion. We now know that people judge an act as moral or immoral based on their gut feeling about it, and then justify that feeling with reason/system 2. Likewise, I submit that people judge what is fair and just based on their gut reaction to it, and pick a set of universal rights that explain why they are correct.

Rights aren't universal and no set of rights can be said to be "correct" in the same way the speed of light in a vacuum is correct.

[BRUTE]

are any humans here actually arguing for the inherent/self-evident/<god|natural>-given nature of rights? doesn't seem that way to brute, most seem to believe in some variation of why they're practical.

[ThisDinosaur]

Well I suggested that they arent real if they can be taken away and got a lot of push back for that. Could be all semantics, but its taking quite a bit to sort out the source of the disagreement.

[Dragline]

"Rights" as myth or narrative was one of Harari's points or themes in "Sapiens." Which led him to his "three forms of humanism", only one of which -- liberal humanism -- includes a focus or preference on individual rights. The others, "social humanism" and "evolutionary humanism" are concerned with perfecting societies and the human race at the expense of individualism. (I gotch yer commies and eugenecist nazis rightch 'ere.)

What Harari missed is what Nietszche picked up upon about Western society's obsession with victimhood and restoring/creating individual "equalness", which N correctly attributed to the influence of Christianity. Many others picked up that line of thought.

I agree that rights are more a product of belief than anything else. (Count me one of those liberal Christians.) But like money, such beliefs have proven to be quite useful in structuring a society that most modern people would prefer to live in over the two other options that Harari identified.

It's like that quote from Churchill that representative democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

[IlliniDave]

are any humans here actually arguing for the inherent/self-evident/<god|natural>-given nature of rights? doesn't seem that way to brute, most seem to believe in some variation of why they're practical.

I think they are essentially natural--like I said above, they are just freedoms that we aren't asked to surrender to be part of a society. Without the society/it's government, we would have even more freedoms and hence more "rights". That society/government do not take away a freedom, does not mean they created it. Now, is there a list of freedoms that some higher power (supernatural, intellectual, whatever) has deemed that a society/government should not suppress? Different cultures seem to come up with their own customs on that front, as clearly not all freedoms are inherently good, and others are inconvenient for those trying to herd the cats.

[BRUTE]

natural in the sense that a human alone on an island can shoot a gun in any direction without causing any other humans trouble? brute could go along with that. rights/freedoms in a literal meaning, degrees of freedom to act.

[IlliniDave]

Yeah, more or less. He can say what he wants, believe what he wants, relieve himself where he wants, sleep where he wants, take what he wants, arm himself any way he wants, kill/eat whatever he wants, all that. Living in a social setting with rules and enforcement (unless he is a supreme ruler of some sort) those activities begin to be restricted.

[GandK]

I agree that rights are a moral construct, and further posit that "rights" (receiving from individuals/society) is only half of the real discussion in these two threads... "responsibilities" (giving to individuals/society) is the other half. And there are some incredible machinations going on to avoid all reference to the latter construct. The majority of each side in American society is reluctant to acknowledge that either individuals (Left) or groups (Right) even have responsibilities, because as soon as you do that, you find yourself admitting that YOU (either individually or collectively) ought to be doing something different in light of injustice. Probably something uncomfortable, too. And who the hell wants to do that? So we stay in the "rights" discussion lane, and the whole thing can remain theoretical.

[Campitor]

I agree that rights are a moral construct, and further posit that "rights" (receiving from individuals/society) is only half of the real discussion in these two threads... "responsibilities" (giving to individuals/society) is the other half. And there are some incredible machinations going on to avoid all reference to the latter construct. The majority of each side in American society is reluctant to acknowledge that either individuals (Left) or groups (Right) even have responsibilities, because as soon as you do that, you find yourself admitting that YOU (either individually or collectively) ought to be doing something different in light of injustice. Probably something uncomfortable, too. And who the hell wants to do that? So we stay in the "rights" discussion lane, and the whole thing can remain theoretical.

1) Responsibility and what it means is subjective.

2) I dispute your assertion that there are incredible machinations to avoid responsibility by American Society regardless of "Left" or "Right" affiliation. The left is constantly harping about responsibilities and how it's best served by equal outcomes via forced redistribution of capital. And the Right is constantly harping about responsibility and how its best achieved by equal access to opportunity via free market systems. I believe there has to be a common sense compromise between both systems which MUST include personal accountability by the recipients of the solution as well as concrete objectives in order to measure progress so unsuccessful programs can be eliminated instead of being open ended programs that waste tax payer money.

3) You should probably start a "Responsibility" thread.

[Riggerjack]

The majority of each side in American society is reluctant to acknowledge that either individuals (Left) or groups (Right) even have responsibilities, because as soon as you do that, you find yourself admitting that YOU (either individually or collectively) ought to be doing something different in light of injustice. Probably something uncomfortable, too. And who the hell wants to do that? So we stay in the "rights" discussion lane, and the whole thing can remain theoretical.

3) You should probably start a "Responsibility" thread.

Maybe it is just me, but I don't see the difference between rights and responsibilities. How can I be free to make a mess, and you be responsible to clean it up? In that situation, either I am not free, or you are not responsible.

Maybe this is where I differ from the strawman libertarian so many choose to argue with when I speak. I believe freedom is responsibility. The sharply divided lines of a simple libertarian model frees me BECAUSE of all the parts of life I am not responsible for, but also in that my responsibilities are not shared.

If I choose not to dig a well, but setup a water catchment system, that is all on me. I am responsible for my water quality and quantity, thus free to choose my best solution. If I am free to choose my best option, but the community is on the hook for making up my shortages, I am beholden to the community (not free) and eventually the community will decide to restrict water options (not free) or the community will decide to stop backingme up (not responsible).

How would a world where freedom not be connected to responsibility even work? I suspect this only exists in the rhetoric of political speeches.

[Dragline]

How would a world where freedom not be connected to responsibility even work? I suspect this only exists in the rhetoric of political speeches.

Well, yes, these "lone human" or desert island scenarios are largely just theoretical constructs that never existed except as exceptions to the rule, lone wolf/survivor Hollywood movies notwithstanding. Human beings have always existed in communities as long as there have been humans. Lone humans did not have a very good survival rate, and getting banished from the group was often effectively a death sentence.

Thus, the "group model" should be assumed to be the more factually accurate starting point for this analysis. In such a model, responsibilities to the group (to avoid getting banished or beaten) and "role-based rights" would be the base of understanding, not any presumed individual rights in a vacuum.

A good place to start is actually "Chimpanzee Politics" (de Waal), which probably more accurately reflects the human starting point than any lone actor scenario (and Newt Gingrich had people read to understand the US Congress). Essentially, the actors carve out roles for themselves and their allies that carry certain responsibilities and "rights" within the group. And such things change as alliances change. Not a very scalable model on its own, which most likely is what led to all sorts of rules/responsibilities and options (rights) about who should or be allowed to do what and when. After a mimetic rivalry and a founding murder or two to get the ordered society on firmer footing (Cain and Abel, Romulus and Remus, Zeus and Cronos . . .)

In the rights-built-on-lone wolf scenarios, the rights are invariably deemed bestowed on individuals by God or Nature. See F. Bastiat, "The Law" for the typical formulation: "What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property." This does not account for how societies actually evolved.

[IlliniDave]

The purpose of protecting freedom is to allow a person every opportunity to fulfill responsibility. One of the difficulties we have is the government taking over more-and-more responsibility for what individuals were once responsible for. So we have a population of people with a lot of freedom and disproportionately little responsibility--much like the life many know as teenagers. In the long run that gradually erodes freedom by taking away the "need" for it, i.e., the need for the gov't to tolerate it.

[Riggerjack]

Well, yes, these "lone human" or desert island scenarios are largely just theoretical constructs that never existed except as exceptions to the rule, lone wolf/survivor Hollywood movies notwithstanding.

Is what I meant by

Maybe this is where I differ from the strawman libertarian so many choose to argue with when I speak.

Maybe I'm not spelling this out clearly enough, or maybe you have a cartoon in your head labeled "riggerjack, libertarian". Maybe both.

I used actor/act, individual/community in my post, but honestly, this applies equally in community/community, or individual/individual interactions.

There is no freedom without responsibility. Anyone who says there is, is selling you something.

[Campitor]

I agree that rights come with responsibility even in the lone wolf scenario - no one is going to preserve life, liberty, and property for you which means you have to preserve it via solo efforts - failing that responsibility means death which effectively terminates any rights you may have had anyways.

But how does this square with the scenario where might makes right? There is a disproportionate enjoyment of rights and responsibilities. The Alphas have more rights and less responsibilities while the Betas have more responsibilities and less rights. Responsibilities come from the threat of violence via the state or the individual. Powerful groups often impose their rights on weaker groups while exempting themselves of any responsibility to those groups. Access to rights and the obligation of responsibility is always asymmetric.

[Riggerjack]

But how does this square with the scenario where might makes right? There is a disproportionate enjoyment of rights and responsibilities. The Alphas have more rights and less responsibilities while the Betas have more responsibilities and less rights. Responsibilities come from the threat of violence via the state or the individual. Powerful groups often impose their rights on weaker groups while exempting themselves of any responsibility to those groups. Access to rights and the obligation of responsibility is always asymmetric.

I hear what you are saying, but could you be specific, give us an example?

[classical_Liberal]

...

[Riggerjack]

I chose the playground metaphor because it shows negotiation without rules. I was trying to show that this negotiation is a societal building block.

Then I tried to show how violence undermines stability, and stability is necessary for more leverage. That stable, modern hierarchies are that way because they allow further leverage, more levels of leadership, and that this is exponential.

We all in modern society start out in minor roles at the bottom of whatever hierarchy we join. At the bottom, there is very little or no negotiation. As you gain/demonstrate skills and talents, you start to move up the ladder. How you move and where, are parts of your negotiation. It doesn't matter what the rules are, or how complex the society us, there will always be this negotiation, and it will be between you and your superiors, then you and your peers, and finally between you and your subordinates. The spread between your rewards from above, minus the coats of your rewards to your team, and any reserve to resolve issues with peers is your cut. That is your rights/responsibilities/compensation.

In well established, traditional hierarchies, the spread is tighter, and movement/promotion more scheduled/automatic. In less established hierarchies, there are wider spreads, and movement/promotion is negotiated as well.

Well, yes, these "lone human" or desert island scenarios are largely just theoretical constructs that never existed except as exceptions to the rule, lone wolf/survivor Hollywood movies notwithstanding. Human beings have always existed in communities as long as there have been humans.

I wasn't speaking of "lone human desert island scenarios". Lone humans engaged in negotiations, have probably been alone too long...

However, the vast majority of humans and human history was ALL about these negotiations. Most of the time it was a leader, and his family running their little fiefdom as they saw fit, and kicking taxes up the ladder. Your choices were to fit where they wanted you to, maybe fit where you wanted to, or failing that, flee or stage a coup, entering into negotiations with your lord's master and his household and subjects.

Modern society has enabled more extensive hierarchies by having streamlined negotiated positions. So much so that often, people will move thru multiple positions without negotiations worthy of the word, but packaging a deal doesn't change the fact that it is a deal.

As a good friend put it, "Everyone makes their own deal, even if it is accepting a prewritten contract, you chose it." He was talking about the different ways guys were treated at work in a union job, where we were all theoretically equals, but as with all equality, some were more equal.

[Campitor]

I hear what you are saying, but could you be specific, give us an example?

Crony capitalism - those with money/power can exercise greater privilege over property rights. Google eminent domain abuse. Here's a starter link: Eminent disaster

Maybe I shouldn't join such a heady discussion, but I think this particular statement is wholly untrue. Very few have experienced the true alpha role in society. Very few are born as a Kennedy, or personally achieve any level of great prosperity and influence.

In 2016 there were 540 billionaires in the USA (Forbes). In 2016, there were 9.4 million individuals with net worth between $1 million and $5 million, 1.3 million individuals with net worth between $5 million and $25 million, and 156,000 households with more than $25 million in net worth (CNBC).

Seems like being affluent isn't that hard. Those numbers are not insignificant and the wealth (ERE -cough- ERE) allows you more autonomy (freedom) than is enjoyed by most who haven't figured out how to maximize their rights ala Jacob. Please note that I'm not saying that wealth is unfair but rather it will let you enjoy certain rights to a greater extent like property, trade, and freedom - an asymmetric enjoyment of rights.

And Alpha states are temporary and contextual - one person's Beta is someone else's Alpha. Example - the boss who reams out his/her minimum wage workers for no apparent reason but is completely subservient to his/her spouse or domineering boss. And Alpha status (I use the term loosely) isn't only based on strength or wealth - Charlatans/sociopaths use their intelligence to cheat people all the time - they abuse other's property rights (money,time,resources) for personal gain. Intellectual Capital can create imbalances of rights/freedoms.