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

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Land re-distribution not being done was the biggest mistake of Reconstruction policy. The USA has paid the price for not doing so ever since.

And it's not so much property these days as it is sheer liquid funds. People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet do own land, but their power arises more from having billions of dollars of cash on hand as opposed to land-ownership. Wealth in land hasn't been a key factor in US culture as a whole since the Battle of Appomattox Courthouse.

Beginning of the end? So Elizabeth II is what? The French did away with their monarchy, but I must have missed when the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha got the French cure for a headache.

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

Sure, their actual power has to do with money. Land is symbolic. Home ownership is the single consistent factor of the "American Dream" that everyone has agreed on since the concept first arose, it's the definitive sign that you have made it in life. You're supposed to buy one if you want a family. And so on. Again, just look how much chaos has come of people who placed value on owning a home, even though they couldn't actually afford it, even though the actual cost of rental would have been in the majority of their cases so very much lower. That it's as inherently meaningful in real power terms as a diamond ring is inherently a conductor of love doesn't change its social role. I'm not disagreeing with you here that that's a bad thing, or that it'd be nice if it wasn't the case, alls I'm saying is the simple fact of the matter is that land ownership is not a recognized universal right, and there's a reason it's not.

Elizabeth II is to all accounts a very nice woman who is called upon on occasion to be driven out and wave in front of news cameras, who has no more actual political power than Bono and little to nothing in common with, say, Henry VIII. Do you think maybe something... changed between then and now?