Do laws and legislation equal "rights?"?

I don’t think that the concept of rights really means what most people think it means. People seem to think that if something is a right, then it is like a god given right. It belongs to them no matter what.

In fact, rights are given by us. Societies. The only thing that is a right is a thing that we are all committed to guaranteeing for everyone else in the society. So when we guarantee free speech, it really isn’t something we can count on unless everyone is willing to stand up for it. Usually, people aren’t willing to stand up for all speech, and thus rights get limited.

Laws and legislation (same thing) are supposed to be applied equally. So if we pass a law that gives poor people certain benefits under certain circumstances, then we should all have a right to those benefits under those circumstances. But the government doesn’t treat people fairly all the time, and the government is made up of individuals who are not all as smart as we would hope they would be, and thus, some people who should get the benefit, are denied it. They can sue, if they can find someone to represent them, and they might win. But it isn’t really a right, because we don’t all have equal access to the resources we need to make sure we have our rights.

It’s not unusual for the law, but not justice, to be served.

If something has the status of a right, then we consider that it can’t be taken away by the law, and that it is the obligation of the law to guarantee that right. The policies regarding gays in the military are just that: policies. The administration could reverse its decision tomorrow, and nothing could be done about it.

A society ultimately determines what it wants to elevate to the status of a right. Until that happens, then policies will come and go.

Nice @burntbonez. But the laws are the under girding for all the rights were supposed to have, even if if they’re unfairly enforced, right?

But it takes a law for something to become a right, right @thorninmud?

@Dutchess_III Yes, it has to be enshrined by law in the governing principles of the society.

No. we assert that we have rights in the constitution, but that is just an assertion. Rights do not actually exist on their own. They only exist if people work together to guarantee them.

We have a right to liberty. A right not to be killed. Yet in order to guarantee the right not to be killed, we need a police fore, an investigative force and an army, and we still end up with people being killed. Do you see what I’m saying? Rights are like wishes. Things we hope we all have. But to make them happen, we have to work hard, and even then, we don’t always succeed. I’m sure you can think of thousands or millions of examples of situations where people have not gotten the rights that our constitution supposedly guarantees.

Some information re: natural rights vs legal rights (it’s from Wikipedia but it adds to the thought and discussion):

“Natural rights are rights which are “natural” in the sense of “not artificial, not man-made”, as in rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can’t be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. They’re sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights.
Legal rights, in contrast, are based on a society’s customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures. An example of a legal right is the right to vote of citizens. Citizenship, itself, is often considered as the basis for having legal rights, and has been defined as the “right to have rights”. Legal rights are sometimes called civil rights or statutory rights and are culturally and politically relative since they depend on a specific societal context to have meaning.”

No, to me, the rights are already there, but the laws have to be enacted to protect our rights against people who would try to take them away. It is not possible for someone to be found guilty in a court of law if what they do is not against any written law.

California has recently found out that it is only considered a misdemeanor for criminals to cut off their GPS bands, and the state doesn’t have enough money or room to incarcerate them.

Having a GPS band is the same as a get out of jail free card, and they are mostly sex offenders.

Deontic logic, human nature and godly edicts don’t impress me. No. There is no such thing as a natural right. “Natural” is a term people use when they want everyone else to believe it is beyond human control. When it comes to human relationships, the only thing that matters is our own control.

I don’t believe there is any such thing as “natural rights’ either. The rights we have given ourselves are ultimately based on compassion and logic, not right or wrong. Simply put, the more people that feel something is “right” and “logical” the better the chances there will be a law enacted to enforce that majority of thought. And..that gives us “rights.”

I like this

I do not believe that there is such a thing as “rights”.
You can pointlessly philosophise all day long, but the fact remains that for all practical purposes, “rights” are nothing more than privileges granted by those in power and they can take them away as simply as by a judge’s decree.

A right is a moral condition that allows you to act alone, without interference, in the pursuit your selfish interests as they regard survival and happiness. It exists even in the absence of government.
Legislative “rights” are merely perks granted to a constituency in exchange for their political support.

Bill Joy says civilization is the agreement to not use power.
To participate in civilization we each have to yield some portion of all the possible actions, for our mutual benefit.
In that context you have a reasonable expectation of benefit, safety and support by being in the tribe. Being a citizen, with it’s rights and obligations to oblige everyone else’s rights. You have an expectation to rights in that context.

So, to simplify:

Might makes rights?

@rojo
No. Might can protect rights, and it can also encroach upon them. Might also may grant special privileges and dress them up in noble words, like rights.
Rights exist because you are alive, you are mortal, you possess a reasoning consciousness, and you have volition. The concept rights precedes any concept associated with legislation.

@josie You seem to be using the word “rights” the way I would use the word “principle.”

Well there are inalienable rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) and there are statutory rights like the right to vote and the right to a fair trial and stuff like that.

@burntbonez good point, and in many ways rights ARE principals. As I said above, rights come about because of basic compassion and decency. Principals are based on those same things, but on an individual basis. Principals don’t always have the law behind them, sweeping across the board. “Rights” do.

@dabbler What makes those rights “inalienable?” If they were a part of the human condition, everyone in the world would have them. But they are not. We want them to be part of the “American” condition, and so we put them in our constitution. But it says, “we hold these rights to be inalienable” and that means the inalienability of the rights is dependent on the “we” doing the holding. If we don’t hold them well, Americans won’t have those rights.

So American rights are contingent on American society’s ability to protect those rights and guarantee them to all of us. I would say we have a pretty spotty record on that front. We do better than many countries, but not all, and we always are denying rights to Americans for many spurious reasons. That’s why we need lawyers.

@Dutchess_III A principal runs a school. A principle (ple) is an idea that is the basis for other ideas.

Sry bout that @burntbonez. Thanks.