Are There Innate Rights?

[seireikhaan]

To avoid potentially drifting off topic in the gun thread, I am going to ask it here:

Do you feel there are innate human rights that all have, regardless of circumstance? If so, what rights does that entail?

Personally, I feel there is nothing that is an innate right. No one person is born with their "freedom"(however that is defined, exactly). They are born with whatever privileges society has dictated that they should have. Of course, no two societies are exactly alike. Different privileges have been given around the world and at different times in human history. Some would say "self defense", yet that's quite vague in itself. Against whom? What about odd or difficult to predict circumstances? How to define "self defense"? Does someone lose that "innate right" if they attack someone else first and are retaliated upon? How can it be determined when and how they would even lose them if they could? And if they can lose a right, how can it even be innate in the first place?

Another, freedom to worship as one pleases. What if, in order to worship, they must do their best to ensure others do not have the freedom to worship? How can both "rights" cannot be satisfied? Or does the right stop at some point, and if so, how is that decided? And if it can be halted, again, how can it be innate?

Thoughts...?

[Vuk]

People are born with basic rights that should not be infringed on. They can however, lose these rights during the course of their existance by infringing on other's rights. A person has the absolute right to protect his wellbeing and his other innate rights by any means possible IMO. That does not mean that I think people should have nuclear asarnals, grenades, tanks, etc, as those are things used to fight wars, not protect individual freedom. I think that a gun though (automatic or not) is a must to give someone a fair chance to defend their rights, and I think that infringing on a person's rights to defend themselves is a crime. (you here that gun control people! You are criminals! jj) Likewise I think that freedom of speech is a basic right, but when you are marching down the streets and breaking windows, you are infringing on other people's rights so that is a crime as well IMHO. Likewise, when you preach Nazism, Communism, Blackpower, Whitepower, Feminism ( ok, well maybe I was joking about that one :P) you are endangering other people's rights, and there for commiting a crime against others.
In short, no one has the right to infringe on other's rights, but as long as they are not doing that, then they are entitled to basic rights. Sure, it gets hard to interpret things some times, but I think that is a good rule to follow.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You have innate rights, you can lose them when you infringe on others rights. I would agree that we don't have inalienable rights.

You're saying it's hard to determine when someone loses a right, and that it's society that determines that. This is true, but it doesn't mean that the rights aren't innate, and that a society which forces most of the people into slavery isn't taking away their rights.

[Yoyoma1910]

FFFFFRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!



You have whatever rights you are willing to die for. If you're not willing to die for it, it is merely a privilege.

[Furunculus]

i do not believe in inalienable human rights in the UK.

they interfere too much with a far more important concept called justice.

should a serial violent offender be allowed to own arms - no
should a people have a right to revoke another members life - yes

i can see that its a useful concept in those countries where excitable people run around with machetes, or machine-gun civilians into trenches, but it causes more problems than it solves in the UK.

[Yoyoma1910]

i do not believe in inalienable human rights in the UK.

they interfere too much with a far more important concept called justice.

should a serial violent offender be allowed to own arms - no
should a people have a right to revoke another members life - yes

i can see that its a useful concept in those countries where excitable people run around with machetes, or machine-gun civilians into trenches, but it causes more problems than it solves in the UK.

That's why you're still British.

[Strike For The South]

There are no innate rights. They must be constantly fought for and protected

[Rhyfelwyr]

Innate rights don't exist, but its practical for different cultures to form their own ideas of 'human rights' to ensure people get a decent quality of life. They are guidelines, and breaking them isn't the end of the world.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

An extremely difficult question to answer, but I am inclined to agree with this to a certain extent:

There are no innate rights. They must be constantly fought for and protected

[rory_20_uk]

No. All rights are earnt, and therefore can be lost.

[Furunculus]

Innate rights don't exist, but its practical for different cultures to form their own ideas of 'human rights' to ensure people get a decent quality of life.

They are guidelines, and breaking them isn't the end of the world.

doesn't that go rather against the grain of the concept of inalienable human rights as enshrined in law across the world?

i think rights should be guidelines too, to be judged through the prism of justice, as judged by the people.

[Rhyfelwyr]

doesn't that go rather against the grain of the concept of inalienable human rights as enshrined in law across the world?

i think rights should be guidelines too, to be judged through the prism of justice, as judged by the people.

Yes, there's no such thing as inalienable human rights. But generally speaking, its good for people to have rights which are treated like guidelines. However, when they become absolute, things start to get a bit silly.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Inalienable: Inseparable, can't be given or taken away
Innate: Present from birth, natural

Yes?

[Askthepizzaguy]

We are born with innate freedoms and human dignity, and natural rights. These can be trodden upon by another individual or the state, but these things exist and can only be denied to an individual. If they can be denied to an individual, then they must have had those rights to begin with by default.

Not the most scientific argument, but I don't have time to get into a big thing right now. I have another thing down at that other thing that I have to do things in.

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[Askthepizzaguy]

There is little to no difference between a chainsaw, and automobile, and a simple handgun. They all can result in someone's death.

I do draw the line at assault weapons which aren't used for hunting or self-defense, because they are impractical in those functions. But I think that is an acceptable compromise. I do think there is a huge difference between a handgun, a hunting rifle, and a machine gun.

[CountArach]

There are innalienable human rights, such as a right to live. There are also innate rights that are largely innalienable.

[Yoyoma1910]

Handguns are use in some forms of hunting, such as Alligator.

[Strike For The South]

Handguns are use in some forms of hunting, such as Alligator.

Yup, there're also good for killing bears.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I use handguns to type my name into the side of people's houses and cars. I think it's a form of artistic expression.

[Strike For The South]

I use handguns to type my name into the side of people's houses and cars. I think it's a form of artistic expression.

Considering alligator hunting and having to defend yourself from bears/cougars in the Texas mountains isn't all that uncommon, I fail to see your point.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Considering alligator hunting and having to defend yourself from bears/cougars in the Texas mountains isn't all that uncommon, I fail to see your point.

My point is simply.... THIS!!!!

*runs away*

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I was attempting to make a joke and failed miserably, which means it's still funny, just in a more ironic way.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen,

We have several gun threads currently running. This is not one of them.

It may seem like there exists the inalienable right for a member to bang on about guns, but it's only a privilege. Remember, guns don't derail threads, members do.

Thank you kindly.

[Sigurd]

Inalienable: Inseparable, can't be given or taken away
Innate: Present from birth, natural

Yes?

In my language there are no distinction between the two. It is called "medfødte rettigheter" which is translated directly as: congenital rights.

You have this in your Deceleration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We have something like this:
The constitution builds on a thought that all mankind have congenital rights that no government can interfere with. The individual shall be protected against encroachment. Encroachment can be; detention and imprisonment without law and judgment, or governments taking private possessions without payment.

[Vuk]

My dictionary says that inalienable (unalienable was a mistake on his part :P) means something that comes from birth and is "unassailable" (meaning that they cannot be attacked). Looking at the wording that the framers used (UNLAWFUL imprisonment, etc) I think they were saying that people had rights from birth which SHOULD not be infringed on. Think of it, you have the right to defend yourself from UNLAWFUL and UNREASONABLE imprisonment, punishement, etc. That does not mean that if you broke a law though, that you have the right to 'defend' yourself from being arrested. Likewise, just because you have the right to speak your mind, that is not the same thing as actively organising criminal or militant groups that will infringe on the rights of others, or give you the right to infringe on the rights of others by destroying their property in 'protest'. No one has the right to infringe on someone else's rights, but that does not mean that a murder cannot or should not be arrested or excecuted, because a murderer has no right to 'protect' himself from lawful and just arrest when he has murdered someone.

My

[Sasaki Kojiro]

In my language there are no distinction between the two. It is called "medfødte rettigheter" which is translated directly as: congenital rights.

You have this in your Deceleration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We have something like this:
The constitution builds on a thought that all mankind have congenital rights that no government can interfere with. The individual shall be protected against encroachment. Encroachment can be; detention and imprisonment without law and judgment, or governments taking private possessions without payment.

Well, if you have innate rights, you can lose them when you infringe upon someone else. But if you say they are inalienable then nothing you can do can separate your rights from you. The problem with that statement to me is that you end up saying that people who are in prison still have the right to liberty.

[Vuk]

Well, if you have innate rights, you can lose them when you infringe upon someone else. But if you say they are inalienable then nothing you can do can separate your rights from you. The problem with that statement to me is that you end up saying that people who are in prison still have the right to liberty.

The thing is that right you have is not: liberty. It is: Liberty as you have been lawful and not infringed on other people's rights. While it of course was not worded that way, if you pay attention to the founder's wording, they make it clear that the rights are not meant for breaking the law and infringing on other's rights. They are for the lawful. A criminal still keeps his right to: Liberty as you have been lawful and not infringed on other people's rights, but it just does not apply to him.

[Kralizec]

The thing is that right you have is not: liberty. It is: Liberty as you have been lawful and not infringed on other people's rights. While it of course was not worded that way, if you pay attention to the founder's wording, they make it clear that the rights are not meant for breaking the law and infringing on other's rights. They are for the lawful. A criminal still keeps his right to: Liberty as you have been lawful and not infringed on other people's rights, but it just does not apply to him.

So:
1) everyone has unalienable rights
2) to some the above does not apply?


As for my view:
Freedom, rights etc. are products of civilization and therefore can't be innate or unalienable.

[Furunculus]

not very logical, lol.

[Strike For The South]

If someone wants to take away your rights they can. It happens everyday. You're rights are only there if you can defend them.

The DOI is a great document but means nothing if we can't put our money where our mouth is.