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]

It does, but I'm simply noting that humans just have certain ways of enforcing these rights that are much grander than what other animals do. Other animals don't drop nuclear bombs to end wars.

The problem is that as I'm noting elsewhere, might *does* make right. Things like the Rosewood Massacre came because one side had a massive power imbalance over the other and it stayed with them for a good long time.

I would also note that rights must be fought for and that governments must not stamp on them. And to ban either gay or interracial marriages, for instance, is one example of how a majority of people supported bans on both despite that itself amounting to a huge civil rights violation.

A couple of clarifications:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

My disagreement is with the notion that language creates reality. The Sapir-Worf hypothesis is something I vehemently disagree with, but I also consider the idea of "natural" rights part of the naturalist fallacy.

As I said in my original response, gamma ray bursts are natural, too, but if one of the damn things hits this planet we all die in a matter of seconds. Natural =/= to good. And the reality that might makes right is another example of how =/= to good.

Re: A couple of clarifications:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You're right. You didn't. Blorky did. My mistake. Apologies. Your POV is a bit more reasonable.

And I would note that as the only sapient lifeforms we are remotely capable of dealing with on a compatible basis are humans, our own species, to say something arises from humans in a world where humans have built cities and a common political vocabulary (especially after the 19th Century empires) *is* to make it natural regardless of whether or not orcas or cassowaries do it.

Re: A couple of clarifications:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Look at it this way: our concept of "nature" is a mixture of romantic views derived from Rousseau, Hobbes, and the 19th Century romances that saw humans as force of rationalism in a world where everything else is violent, base, and cruel. Then society went into a turnaround where *humans* were violent, base, and cruel and "natural" objects were serene and rational. The resulting mixture is how we visualize "Nature."

In reality animals are both more intelligent and more adaptable than people ive them credit for.

And in reality, there *are* other sapient lifeforms on the planet but none match us in numbers and the ones most like us are going to be extinct at the end of the century. So if enough humans agree on concepts shaped by our version of intelligence, the concept applies regardless of any validity or lack thereof.