Where do "Rights" come from?

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Where do "Rights" come from?

Post by ThisDinosaur »

This is a continuation of a side discussion from "the opposite of poverty is justice" thread. Riggerjack asked me to start a new topic (twice).

To catch up, I said:
ThisDinosaur wrote:The Declaration of Independence says all people are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." Right there is where I call bullshit. Rights are a made up set of rules set up by a governing body.
and
1)The opposite of poverty is wealth
2)wealth = ownership of resources
3)ownership is defined by law
4)law is made by people, not creators
Riggerjack's response:
Riggerjack wrote: Um, so you quoted the declaration of Independence, as BS, because rights come from Kings. Most of the time when you insist that Might makes rights, I just shake my head and move on, but this was just too precious.
and
Yes, I get it, you think majority is the divine right behind Authority. How very Democratic of you.
and
I would restate that as Law is made by Enforcement.
And Campitor added:
Campitor wrote:True rights are natural rights. Rights are natural when they are derived from deeply held instincts and behaviors. These rights would evolve and be subsequently codified into laws. In prehistoric times rights were enforced violently by individuals and in ancient times they were enforced by tribal violence. Today they are enforced with implied violence or economic retribution by the state.
So, where do you stand? Are rights natural, fictional, God-given, something else?
And what's the difference between "Might is Right" and "Law is made by Enforcement?"

Campitor
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Where do "Rights" come from?

Post by Campitor »

And what's the difference between "Might is Right" and "Law is made by Enforcement?"
There is a vast difference between Might is right and Law is made by enforcement. Might is right suggests that strength alone determines what is right even if it conflicts with natural law; it also implies the most violent methods of enforcement are to be used even with the smallest infractions. It's also inferred that no one can really know what is "right" because the whims of the mighty determine at any given moment what right may be.

Law is made by enforcement is basically stating that rights don't exist in a vacuum and must be enforced in order to be worth anything. This method of enforcement infers there is a codified set of laws and procedures for escalating enforcement; this makes it possible for the citizens of the state to know what is lawful and what isn't regardless of any individual opinion. And it sets the expectation of what can occur for any given infraction. Laws can be draconian or they can be sensible depending on the form of government; but enforcement alone will determine if any given law on the books is actually in effect. Case in point illegal immigration - its not much of a law unless its actually enforced.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3178
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Where do "Rights" come from?

Post by Riggerjack »

OK. This is going to take a while. I will try to be thorough.

We need some metaphors here. Since rights derive from enforcement, and enforcement is related to leadership, I'm going to use the metaphors I'm used to thinking in.

Leadership is best described as being like a shepherd. Your goal, is to keep your herd together, safe, fed and prosperous. We will get here around page 2, I expect.

But first, we have to establish a leadership position. For this, think of a playground. We all have experience with unsupervised playgrounds, and that is a good metaphor for an environment where all the rules are made up by the participants.

So. There you are, a kid on the playground, with a strong desire to lead. How do you establish a leadership position? You could stake out the slide, and claim it as your own. Then if some other kid want to ride the slide, he has to reach an agreement with you.

But every kid is a negotiation, and there's lots of toys, so if you are too aggressive, kids will go play on the teeter-totter.

So, your leadership is local to the slide, limited, and inefficient, since it needs to be negotiated and enforced with each kid. What you need is a sidekick. Someone who knows the rules, and will help enforce them.

But... What rules? Those rules you work out with your sidekick. Maybe he helps keep the other kids in a line, and in exchange, he can ride the slide whenever he wants. He gets a bit of leadership, cuz he is teaming up with you to tell other kids what to do, and he gets a bit of order in his universe. In that now he has a position in the group, below you, above others.

I say rights are part of the deal you use to establish the sidekick and anyone under him. Different rights for different people? Happens in every system.

But the slide isn't the only toy, and there will be plenty of kids that don't want to be told what to do. To them, you are just a dickhead hanging out by the slide. That ain't right.

So, first make sure your powerbase, the slide is secure, then go stake out the Merry go round. You have a formula, you just need another sidekick. But not anybody, you need the right kid. Weak enough to accept your leadership, strong enough to enforce your rules.

Does this sound like early civilization yet?

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Where do "Rights" come from?

Post by ThisDinosaur »

@Campitor
How do you reconcile that instincts are "natural" but violence is not? Nature is extremely violent.

@Riggerjack
It does sound like civilization. It also sounds like "might is right" or rephrased, "the mightiest gets to decide what is 'right'."
Might is very real. Might is handcuffs, tasers, prisons with wardens. "Right" is an opinion. The one with the most police batons is the one who's opinion matters.

Campitor
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Where do "Rights" come from?

Post by Campitor »

ThisDinosaur wrote:
Fri May 26, 2017 10:47 am
@Campitor
How do you reconcile that instincts are "natural" but violence is not? Nature is extremely violent.
Nature is extremely violent because it has no other recourse. But sentient beings pick and choose when to be violent - usually when it benefits them most. Example - a spider will cut a wasp out of it's web rather than risk killing it - the ladybug isn't so lucky. Humans never abandoned violence or its right to be employed - we just codified it to generally acceptable parameters. These parameters shift as the culture evolves. Different cultures will have different parameters. Humans are violent all the time - livestock is butchered, babies aborted, murderers put to death, wars started. Modern violence and its right to be exercised is upheld by its codification. Inherent in any right, natural or not, is the expectation that it's execution and protection can be enforced at any given time with aggression. Humans have learned that outright aggression is no longer desirable when mutually assured destruction or harm is in play at the individual or state level.

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Where do "Rights" come from?

Post by ThisDinosaur »

Campitor wrote:Humans have learned that outright aggression is no longer desirable when mutually assured destruction or harm is in play at the individual or state level.
Right, so the decision to restrict violence when other means are preferable is a *pragmatic* decision by rational human beings. The *pretense* of rights, codified in laws, and enforced with threats of violence, is necessary to keep us mostly civil, most of the time. So what do you make of this interaction from the parent thread?
Campitor wrote:In my book the opposite of poverty is self reliance
Campitor wrote:
ThisDinosaur wrote:There is only so self-reliant you can become when you can't really ever own anything without fear it will be taken away. Black americans are more aware than any other group that property rights are an illusion. Its a necessary illusion that holds society together, but still just an illusion.
Sigh - the wealth a.k.a property rights is an illusion narrative meant to placate underachievers and convince them that working hard for $$ has no benefit.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3178
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Where do "Rights" come from?

Post by Riggerjack »

Patience. All I'm trying to do is establish terms, building from the ground up.
It also sounds like "might is right" or rephrased, "the mightiest gets to decide what is 'right'."
Yes and no. The mightiest gets to decide right when he works on his own. Rights enter the equation when he expands, and adopts a sidekick. That is the point when rules, and rights enter the picture.

User avatar
fiby41
Posts: 1610
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:09 am
Location: India
Contact:

Re: Where do "Rights" come from?

Post by fiby41 »

Rights are one component (see also: free will) of a world view. Rights imply privileges and entitlements assured by government and socially to a particular group. 1

However it is not the only worldview. Another is the Dharmic grand narrative which is duties-based. When you discharge your Dharma(duties) you are, in effect, fulfilling someone else's rights and vice versa. It doesn't grant entitlement to unrestrained and unlimited privileges. Instead, it has two components- competency and responsibility– to those privileges. A person became entitled to particular rights only when he is also performing corresponding duties.

Example, a person becomes entitled to the right to life only when he adheres to certain obligations (Samanya Dharma- lit. General/common duties) like non-injury to other people, no intent of murder, a non premediated attempt on others life.

So a criminal who inflicted violence on innocent people (ie. Not in self-defense) forfeits his human rights.

Dharmic narrative ensures that no person takes his/her rights for granted. The rights are stringed to duties, and primacy is given for the performance of these duties. The primacy of duties over rights also makes sure that one does not violate another person’s rights.

1 corollary that follows: 'human' rights is what you get when you run out of Destinies to Manifest.
Last edited by fiby41 on Fri May 26, 2017 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Campitor
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: Where do "Rights" come from?

Post by Campitor »

Right, so the decision to restrict violence when other means are preferable is a *pragmatic* decision by rational human beings. The *pretense* of rights, codified in laws, and enforced with threats of violence, is necessary to keep us mostly civil, most of the time. So what do you make of this interaction from the parent thread?
@thisDinosaur - Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.
In my book the opposite of poverty is self reliance
When all other means of state remediation has failed in regards to the equal enforcement of codified rights that subsequently deprive an individual or group of their ability to exercise the rights in question, they can resort to violence/aggression, indifference, or maximization.

1) Violence/aggression isn't optimal when the outcomes are favorable to the opponent.
2) Indifference is self explanatory in regards to favorable outcomes.
3) Maximization is the best option because you wield the most control over this vector irrespective of the opposing force.

The parent thread is stating that the opposite of poverty is justice, and the main focus of this justice, per the linked Atlantic article, is reparations to African Americans.

I reject this narrative for several reasons:

1) It assumes that African Americans cannot succeed until reparations are made.
2) It assumes that reparations will be forthcoming.
3) It assumes that African Americans are guaranteed success and/or happiness if handed wealth as opposed to earning it.
4) It assumes that all non-slave owning decedents and immigrants will want to contribute to the redistribution of their own wealth to pay for a wrong they had nothing to do with.

ThisDinosaur wrote:
There is only so self-reliant you can become when you can't really ever own anything without fear it will be taken away. Black Americans are more aware than any other group that property rights are an illusion. Its a necessary illusion that holds society together, but still just an illusion.
Campitor wrote:
Sigh - the wealth a.k.a property rights is an illusion narrative meant to placate underachievers and convince them that working hard for $$ has no benefit.
My explanation in this thread reveals what I think of property rights - they are real and they are fungible. Telling African Americans that property rights is an illusion is hurtful and gives underachievers an excuse for not trying. The entire argument within The Atlantic article (The Case for Reparations) hinges on property rights for African Americans - to declare property rights an illusion completely invalidates every point of his argument for reparations.

I understand why Black want reparations. What happened to them in America was heinous, inexcusable, and sickening. But I'd rather teach them how to be self reliant instead of just handing them some money/property. I want to see them take advantage of the current opportunities they do have like studying hard, working hard, saving the money made by their efforts, pooling their resources toward a viable economic strategy. Reparations would be best spent teaching them how to make money via the numerous avenues available today. Teach them how to make a business plan, apply for loan, how to create a favorable credit rating, etc. But handing them a fist full of cash or handing them a house will do nothing to spur future Black achievement because it deprives them of the one thing they didn't get when they were given these properties - the knowledge on how to acquire them which deprives future generations of this vital information.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Where do "Rights" come from?

Post by Dragline »

There is a good discussion about the concept of "rights" as a narrative in Harari's Sapiens.

One of the things that he (and others) have observed that there really were no "rights" as such in traditional agricultural human societies; rather there were roles and values assigned to various human beings depending on their role. Some people like slaves and most women had little value and correspondingly few or no "rights" vis-a-vis the people that ruled. And the ruler usually had the kind of rights we would ordinarily associate with a deity. RJ's description of where rights come from is a scaled down version of this involving a small desert island kind of scenario that is limited in time and the number of people involved. Rights are merely ancillary to roles, and the purpose of roles is to maintain an ordered society.

Fiby's description is also the traditional one of roles and duties being the focus and rights being only ancillary to those duties and roles.

The short answer to where do what we call "rights" come from in Western and most modern societies is that they are are form of secularized Christianity. Christianity holds that all people have "value" (first shall be last, last shall be first, etc.). Hence, the words in the Declaration of Independence, which go back to John Locke, who sets all this forth in his works.

For the tracing of violence from pre-historic Hunter Gatherers through modern industrial societies, you ought to read "War, What is it Good For?" by Ian Morris. But violence as an act is a consequence of more fundamental feature of human beings.

For more on what makes Western, or so-called "WEIRD" cultures, different from the traditional patterns followed by most the world for most of recorded history, including the obsession with the individual (with those "rights") over the group, see http://www.prospectingmimeticfractals.c ... irding-way

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Where do "Rights" come from?

Post by ThisDinosaur »

Campitor wrote:The parent thread is stating that the opposite of poverty is justice, and the main focus of this justice, per the linked Atlantic article, is reparations to African Americans.
I don't think reparations are a good idea. The Atlantic article, however, is full of evidence that rights can be arbitrarily assigned and removed for arbitrary reasons. But who does the assigning of rights is not arbitrary. It is determined by who has the most credible threat of violence, as you said:
1) Violence/aggression isn't optimal when the outcomes are favorable to the opponent
Dragline wrote:
Fri May 26, 2017 1:22 pm
The short answer to where do what we call "rights" come from in Western and most modern societies is that they are are form of secularized Christianity. Christianity holds that all people have "value" (first shall be last, last shall be first, etc.).
And the Judeo Christian tradition can be traced back to the legal codes of the Bronze age middle east. To contrast himself with his corrupt and cruel predecessor, a guy named Urukagina instituted a set of written reforms to prevent abuse of authority, and to appease his subjects. They were incredibly popular and similar laws were adopted by surrounding kingdoms. If the rules were fair enough, the subjects would *allow* the king to rule.

IlliniDave
Posts: 3837
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: Where do "Rights" come from?

Post by IlliniDave »

Rights are just the residual freedoms we don't surrender as a compromise for social living. They sort of exist inherent to and limited by our being. A person living alone on an unknown island has no restriction to freedom and so has rights limited only by her/his abilities. Governance for the sake of successful communal living/relatively peaceful coexistence places restrictions on or eliminates individual freedoms. Those that remain are rights. The sculptor removes material to leave an image, but does not create the marble. Different cultures produce different sculptures, some pretty bleak, some pretty robust.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Where do "Rights" come from?

Post by Dragline »

Ah, but that is not the philosophy behind our modern democratic societies, and particularly the US. The Bill of Rights is based on the notion that the natural state of things is that individuals have "rights" endowed by a Creator or Nature that ought not be interfered with too much. The tension has always been that this concept was generally only honored in the breach.

The erosion of thousands year old traditional norms about "proper roles" and the order of "societal norms" has only occurred in the last few hundred years and only in the context of the industrial and technical revolutions. This is still the central issue/debate behind most of the non-technical further amendments to the Constitution and other relaxations of old norms running from Dredd Scott all the way through gay marriage. Notably, most of these norms are products of agricultural societies that require a high degree of hierarchy and order to be successful on large scale. Industrial/technical societies do not require this and function better with higher degrees of equality and less formalized roles.

But getting back to the main point, the assumption that individual rights "exist" is why the Bill of Rights is written in a very peculiar way -- it does not focus so much on "rights" stated in a positive form, but assumes the individual rights to exist and thus is written in a "thou shalt not" vein like the Ten Commandments. Only the "thou" in the Bill of Rights is the federal government. Almost no other laws are written in this negative way -- instead they are written as authorizations for particular people/entities to do particular things.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Where do "Rights" come from?

Post by BRUTE »

ThisDinosaur wrote:
Fri May 26, 2017 9:24 am
And what's the difference between "Might is Right" and "Law is made by Enforcement?"
might isn't right. might MAKES right. important distinction. clearly, might makes right in the sense that enforcement makes law. it's mostly a pun that makes this a complicated issue.

brute thinks "rights" should just be called "ways humans like to be treated".

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Where do "Rights" come from?

Post by ThisDinosaur »

BRUTE wrote:
Fri May 26, 2017 11:37 pm
brute thinks "rights" should just be called "ways humans like to be treated".
"You can't do that to me! I have [ways I like to be treated]!"

Yeah, there must be a golden rule/empathy component to it. Following Campitor's "natural instincts" logic, several primates have been shown to have a concept of "fairness." They ostracize members of a group who consistently take more than their fair share. So its "ways I like to be treated, so I'll treat you that way so that you reciprocate." The disagreement over what rights someone has could be attributed to varying levels of empathy between individuals, or different preferences about how to be treated. See; libertarian vs. socialist definitions of "fair."

@Dragline, the "thou shalt not"/"Congress shall make no law" I always assumed was a very practical way to write an amendable constitution. Like, you can make new rules as you go along, but they cannot contradict these first ones.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3178
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Where do "Rights" come from?

Post by Riggerjack »

So, rights are simply the agreement between you and your sidekick, codified by writing and tradition. However, they exist solely because they are defended from below. They are advantageous to the top in they define roles, but they are limits to the power of the top. So there will always be pressure from the top to abandon any "rights" that are too inconvenient. If they aren't defended from below, they exist in writing only.

Case in point, the 10th amendment, I believe it was first violated under Hamilton, when he created a national Bank.

Riggerjack
Posts: 3178
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 3:09 am

Re: Where do "Rights" come from?

Post by Riggerjack »

1) Violence/aggression isn't optimal when the outcomes are favorable to the opponent.
It's not that violence is suboptimal, it is the easy solution.

Violence is inefficient. Think mob boss. America, being as settled and civilized as we are, makes an ideal home for organized crime. Yet, top to bottom, what do you have, 5 or 6 levels in the hierarchy? And this is in an ideal environment. Look at warlords in troubled nations. 3 to 4 levels in most cases. More than that is unstable.
.compare that to a corporation or national government, hell, compare it to your city government.

Rights exist simply because they are the most efficient way to extend hierarchy. Our bourgeoisie, their education, and lifetimes of experience and expectations are both the left and right arms of the power structure. They defend their rights, and out of self defense, ours.

ThisDinosaur
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Where do "Rights" come from?

Post by ThisDinosaur »

Riggerjack wrote:
Sun May 28, 2017 10:18 am
So, rights are simply the agreement between you and your sidekick, codified by writing and tradition. However, they exist solely because they are defended from below....
Case in point, the 10th amendment, I believe it was first violated under Hamilton, when he created a national Bank.
The definitions and connotations we are working with matter. In my mind, the "law" is a set of written rules enforced by the reigning authority. "Rights" are ethereal ideas that exist in nature independent of laws. As in, "God-given" and "endowed by the creator." Since I don't believe in gods or creators, I question that the universe has this "rights" thing in it. 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?

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: Where do "Rights" come from?

Post by BRUTE »

are rights a way to turn zero-sum interactions (warlordery/mob wars) into positive-sum games? one of those myths that works if most humans believe them. question is: do they also work if treated as contracts rather than myths passed down by x?

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Where do "Rights" come from?

Post by Dragline »

Probably not, at least as how rights are currently viewed. They would not be "inalienable rights" if they were not imbued with some metaphysical quality but were merely contractual. This is also why some types of contracts are void and unenforceable because they violate public policy -- e.g., contracts for slavery.

Locked