![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
grundnorm.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsMy last post (unfortunately) descended into bickering about the nature of rights. Two issues arise: first, the nature of rights and how they are assertable; second, whether dominant theories of constitutionalism privilege particular political viewpoint (especially a neo-conservative viewpoint about the role of the State).
The latter point I thought was more appropriate for![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
philosophy and, not wishing to spam the communities with cross-posting, I'll link to it here.
As for the nature of rights question, it's an area far too commonly swamped with absolutist views.
The US Constitutional Fathers (an important note that the US Constitution privileges a particularly white, male, legalistic viewpoint of political interaction) thought that the Constitution was not a source of rights, but an expression of them. The legal positivist strain of constitutional interpretation has (both implicitly and explicitly) rejected that view in favour of viewing the Constitution as a source of rights.
More modern -- but less refined -- views have transfered the nature of rights to bodily ownership (with ownership of labour being an extension of ownership of body).
What would make you change your views about the ontology of rights, or has their worship become the indisputable state religion in America?
The latter point I thought was more appropriate for
philosophy and, not wishing to spam the communities with cross-posting, I'll link to it here.As for the nature of rights question, it's an area far too commonly swamped with absolutist views.
The US Constitutional Fathers (an important note that the US Constitution privileges a particularly white, male, legalistic viewpoint of political interaction) thought that the Constitution was not a source of rights, but an expression of them. The legal positivist strain of constitutional interpretation has (both implicitly and explicitly) rejected that view in favour of viewing the Constitution as a source of rights.
More modern -- but less refined -- views have transfered the nature of rights to bodily ownership (with ownership of labour being an extension of ownership of body).
What would make you change your views about the ontology of rights, or has their worship become the indisputable state religion in America?
(no subject)
Date: 12/9/12 08:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/9/12 09:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/9/12 19:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/9/12 13:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/9/12 23:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/9/12 04:15 (UTC)It may be more accurate to say there are basic and fundamental principles present.
1. The more ambiguous and vague rights, wages, freedom, morals and values are defined the more prone they are towards exploitation and abuse. Its not an absolutist view its a fundamental principle that holds true for the majority if not entirety of recorded history.
The US Constitutional Fathers (an important note that the US Constitution privileges a particularly white, male, legalistic viewpoint of political interaction) thought that the Constitution was not a source of rights, but an expression of them. The legal positivist strain of constitutional interpretation has (both implicitly and explicitly) rejected that view in favour of viewing the Constitution as a source of rights.
The Constitution is both a source and an expression of rights. Suggesting it is not a source of rights tends to confuse interpretation with definition. A judge mis-interpreting the Constitution doesn't imply it isn't a source of rights only that human error and lapses in judgement can deprive a person of their rights as given to them by the Constitution.
Logical positivism is moreso a political & agenda based abstract than a rational one. Given that logcal positivists are a very small minority and their tendency to be the complete opposite of those who defend the Constitution as a source of rights, one might wonder what you base your assertions on.
More modern -- but less refined -- views have transfered the nature of rights to bodily ownership (with ownership of labour being an extension of ownership of body).
I think the term modern in this context is misleading. : X
(no subject)
Date: 13/9/12 04:40 (UTC)http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/06/matt-gurney-ottawa-woman-launches-lamest-discrimination-claim-ever
Severe punishment for this woman would help to change my mind about the ontology of rights.
(no subject)
Date: 14/9/12 01:20 (UTC)physical reality is similar to Stirner's assertion, that rights
are mere mental constructions agreed to by some society
and that the only real rights we can be said to have are those we can
exercise and defend. This being because the society in question
can easily decide to ignore those rights and our rights change. Something
that has occurred in the U.S. steadily since the Constitution was passed, chiefly illustrating
it is not a guarantee of rights from the state. Powerful states in their constant seeking of
greater powers are the greatest threat to maintaining a system of rights, especially those who live marginalized.