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

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

"Pursuit" doesn't imply a lack of competition. You can pursue something all you like without ever having a chance to get it, through any number of obstacles. You're still treating it as a right to ever achieve fundamental happiness, which it's not, and which in a philosophical sense the framers would probably have regarded as impossible. True happiness is what happens when you die and go to Heaven, at best, and lots of them didn't even believe that.

Really the whole concept of a 'pursuit of happiness' as something to be protected on a broad social level is so vague as to be nearly meaningless, which is I think where these wierd interpretations come from. While it's sort of a stance against pure oppression for the sake of oppression, and kinda-sorta-maybe a protection of religion, the primary significance of the term is in what it omits - in the normal expression 'property' was the third article. The context is everything. There's a reason this airy-fairy language stayed in the Declaration didn't get into the Constitution, where it'd be a right the government was actually compelled to uphold. It's mostly a 'screw you' to the ownership claims the crown held over the colonies.

[primroseburrows.livejournal.com]

Really the whole concept of a 'pursuit of happiness' as something to be protected on a broad social level is so vague as to be nearly meaningless

This. Which, I agree, is why it's in the Declaration and not in the constitution.