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

[primroseburrows.livejournal.com]

But what if the only way to pursue a goal is to violate someone else's pursuit? Or violate a nation's laws? If there is a "right" to pursue happiness, what happens to someone like this?

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

How would you propose to violate someone else's pursuit?

Again, the actual achievability of a goal has no bearing on one's ability to try for it. In no context or meaning does "pursuit" imply an assurance of winning. And pursuing an intangible is not even inherently a physical action or one that must follow a single specific course. I could shoot up some heroin right now and become ecstatically happy, more happy than I've ever been or ever will be, any other accomplishment or act I could ever do would not even compare. You could too. Why don't we all consider getting high a fundamental right? Because happiness is a spiritual accomplishment, not something you do or own. Becoming an astronaut or doing coke off a hooker's tits while speeding in the wrong lane and firing an AK in the air are a kind of fulfillment, they are things that can make you happy for a time, but they are not happiness.

The idea of happiness Jefferson would have regarded as fundamental, to the extent he would have recognized a fundamental happiness, would have been a private spiritual fulfillment you can get any time at home with a good book - or the kind that comes only after you're dead following a life of virtue, depending. This inherently cannot intrude on another's fundamental happiness, and it can't really be taken away from you at all - all you need to be happy is you.