More "Politics as Philosphy " (less math)

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Mrsilence raised an interesting question in the comments on the Gun Control Post last week and I feel that in light of recent discussions about "Getting People To Eat Right" and "The Government Controlling Your Life" it deserves a post of it's own.

The Libertarians, Tea-Partiers, and Threepers, often say that the constitution does not "grant" rights it "secures" them. The idea being, that such our rights are inherent and thus exist independantly of the government.

So the question is... Do you believe in the existence of inherent human rights that exist independently of any political or legal construction?

Why, or why not?

I think that this is one of those issues that tends to get lost in the traditional Left/Right political divide, but is important to adress because it directly influences someone's understaning of, or assumptions regarding more specific political issues.

Personally I agree with policraticus' assesment. I believe in the existence of "inherent human rights" but lack any objective base for this belief, thus making it a matter of faith. Something that tend to get one in trouble on political forums.

Personally I find the alternative's implications frightning. If what rights we do have can be freely taken away it almost becomes preferable to have a system that subjugates individual desires to the will of society as a whole. As someone who believes in free will, such a position seems practically alien to me but I'm interested to hear where the rest of you stand.




PS: I wish a Happy Easter to all those observing it.

Comments

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

I think of the open-endedness of “pursuit of happines” as Jefferson's greatest rhetorical innovation in the Declaration. You don't have a right to happiness—the world doesn't work that way, no institution could promise it—but you have a right to try. It makes a space for both the universal conception of rights and the particularity of different people's needs and goals. Combine pursuit of happiness with liberty and many of the great Bill of Rights protections pop right out: speech, religion, association ....

Yeah, there are opportunities for rights in conflict, but that's inherent in the rights-based conception of political claims whether or not you include “the pursuit of happiness.&rdqou; My liberty to, say, do target practice with my revolver in my apartment is in conflict with my neighbor's life, so we constrain my liberty.

no less true of life and liberty

Freedom of speech, of religion,

It admits that different people care about different things.

[primroseburrows.livejournal.com]

You don't have a right to happiness—the world doesn't work that way, no institution could promise it—but you have a right to try.

And I guess the trying must be within legal means, which makes sense. My argument is still that even in the pursuit of happiness one person could theoretically throw a monkeywrench into another's pursuit, and get into millions of stalemates, both philosophical and literal/legal.

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

Someone preventing your achievement of happiness doesn't stop the pursuit.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

Whoa, sorry that comment was full of cut-and-paste garbage.

Again, I don't think the problem you're pointing to is rooted in “pursuit of happiness,” it's deeper, in rights as the basis of political claims. If your political order is framed in terms of rights, you're going to inevitably be negotiating numerous tricky conflicts between rights.