Requiem for the American Dream

[airdvr 197]

I've been watching this...sobering commentary.

[Croc 0]

For decades the chief business of the United States government has been to wage war. In order to wage war it must have enemies. If there are no enemies, it must create them. Congress, on both sides of the aisle, has been bought to support this cycle. Term limits is our best hope to reclaim the Government.

[Croc 0]

Rights, BTW, are not granted by the Government. Rights are "inalienable" and are secured (or not) by the Government.

[jakee 1,254]

17 minutes ago, Croc said:

Rights, BTW, are not granted by the Government. Rights are "inalienable" and are secured (or not) by the Government.

In real terms, what's the difference?

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

In real terms, what's the difference?

That you don't need a law to tell you you can skydive.  Laws only restrict rights; they do not grant them.

Do you have the right to wear a chicken outfit all day and cluck whenever anyone asks you something?  Yep.  Even though there's no law that says you can.

[Croc 0]

Rights granted by a government would have to be spelled out. Inherent rights would not. For example, the right to bear firearms granted by a constitution would not necessarily include the right to bear weapons of another type. The inherent right would be self defense.

[ryoder 1,384]

The Bill of Rights was added as a restriction on the power of the Federal government.

It does not grant rights at all.

As Bill pointed out, laws only restrict rights.

Those amendments (1-10) were added to appease the anti-Federalists who were worried about the Federal government grabbing too much power. The Federalists thought these rights were self-evident and did not need to be spelled out.

Note that I said the Bill of Rights was a restriction on the Federal government, not the state governments. This was true until after the Civil War when the 14th Amendment was added, explained in the first paragraph here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

That you don't need a law to tell you you can skydive.  Laws only restrict rights; they do not grant them.

Related, but not directly relevant to the statement I'm questioning.

 

When talking about inalienable rights we are discussing ones that are not permitted to be restricted by law, right? Otherwise what's the point of the word? So when talking about whether inalienable rights exist on their own (as Platonic ideals or whatever concept you might use) or are granted by government... what's the actual difference?

Edited January 19, 2019 by jakee

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, Croc said:

Rights granted by a government would have to be spelled out. Inherent rights would not. For example, the right to bear firearms granted by a constitution would not necessarily include the right to bear weapons of another type. The inherent right would be self defense.

Ok, you understand that suddenly this is a very, very different statement to the one I first replied to, yes?

 

For clarity, I take it that you are now saying there are two seperate types of rights, inherent rights and granted rights? Are any of the specfic rights enumerated in the Constitution inherent, or are they all granted?

[jakee 1,254]

33 minutes ago, ryoder said:

The Bill of Rights was added as a restriction on the power of the Federal government.

It does not grant rights at all.

As Bill pointed out, laws only restrict rights.

So again, what's the difference? If it wasn't enumerated by the government it would not be a protected right and the government could restrict it.

 

Quote

Note that I said the Bill of Rights was a restriction on the Federal government, not the state governments.

Then surely at that point they weren't, in practice, rights?

[billvon 2,400]

28 minutes ago, jakee said:

Related, but not directly relevant to the statement I'm questioning.

 

When talking about inalienable rights we are discussing ones that are not permitted to be restricted by law, right? Otherwise what's the point of the word? So when talking about whether inalienable rights exist on their own (as Platonic ideals or whatever concept you might use) or are granted by government... what's the actual difference?

Inalienable rights are rights that cannot be (justly) taken away.  No rights are granted by government in the sort of government we have here; they are merely restricted.

That is the opposite of rights that are granted by government, in which you have only the rights that are listed by the government.

That seems pretty straightforward.  Maybe I am not understanding your question.

 

[billvon 2,400]

23 minutes ago, jakee said:

Then surely at that point they weren't, in practice, rights?

They were rights.  They just weren't described previously.   This has pretty much been the case . . .  forever.  No one needs to know that they have the right to burp - they just do, and unless a government passes a law to restrict that right, they still have it.  No need to pass a law that says "you have the right to burp."  You can, if you want, pass a proclamation that says "people have the right to burp."  It wouldn't mean anything, which is why you don't see many such proclamations.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Inalienable rights are rights that cannot be (justly) taken away.  No rights are granted by government in the sort of government we have here; they are merely restricted.

How do you know what is an inalienable right?

 

Quote

That seems pretty straightforward.  Maybe I am not understanding your question.

Maybe we're talking about different things. 

 

Is your definition of a right strictly limited to "something that is not currently illegal"?

 

If so, is there a difference between it and an inalienable right?

 

If so, the definition above is not what I'm asking about, I'm only asking about inalienable rights.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

They were rights.  They just weren't described previously.   This has pretty much been the case . . .  forever.  No one needs to know that they have the right to burp - they just do, and unless a government passes a law to restrict that right, they still have it.  No need to pass a law that says "you have the right to burp."  You can, if you want, pass a proclamation that says "people have the right to burp."  It wouldn't mean anything, which is why you don't see many such proclamations.

Your analogy is broken. The amendments in the Bill of Rights are not laws that say you can burp. They are decisions by the government that say they cannot make laws that prevent you from burping. You do see the difference, yes?

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

4 hours ago, billvon said:

Inalienable rights are rights that cannot be (justly) taken away.  No rights are granted by government in the sort of government we have here; they are merely restricted.

That is the opposite of rights that are granted by government, in which you have only the rights that are listed by the government.

That seems pretty straightforward.  Maybe I am not understanding your question.

 

To be a bit pedantic, any 'right' that is granted (and controlled, subject to revocation) by the government isn't really a right. It's a privilege.

 

For example, courts have found that there is a right to travel. With certain limitations, the government can't stop me from going to, say, Chicago.

However, driving is a privilege. The government grants me the ability to drive myself. And can take that away. I would still have the right to go to Chicago, but I might have to take a bus. Or walk.

[billvon 2,400]

3 hours ago, jakee said:

Your analogy is broken. The amendments in the Bill of Rights are not laws that say you can burp. They are decisions by the government that say they cannot make laws that prevent you from burping. You do see the difference, yes?

Right.  They do not say you can burp, because you have that right.  You can also put things in a Constitution that say "no future laws can outlaw burping."  Again, it is stated that way because you already have that right.

[billvon 2,400]

38 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

To be a bit pedantic, any 'right' that is granted (and controlled, subject to revocation) by the government isn't really a right. It's a privilege.

 

For example, courts have found that there is a right to travel. With certain limitations, the government can't stop me from going to, say, Chicago.

However, driving is a privilege. The government grants me the ability to drive myself. And can take that away. I would still have the right to go to Chicago, but I might have to take a bus. Or walk.

In our system, yes, they are referred to as privileges to distinguish them from rights.  In my hypothetical example where a government granted you any rights you had, they would be rights - and would be few in number, no more than were listed in government laws.

[jakee 1,254]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

Right.  They do not say you can burp, because you have that right.  You can also put things in a Constitution that say "no future laws can outlaw burping."  Again, it is stated that way because you already have that right.

Great, so that works when your only definition of a right is "something not currently illegal".

 

But I've been really, really clear, several times over, about the fact that I'm replying to the phrase "inalienable rights," ones that cannot be made illegal, and you're not addressing that. 

 

(By the way, does the definition you guys are using mean that the majority of the Miranda rights are actually Miranda privileges?)

[wmw999 2,121]

I guess I see the inalienable rights as being the ones that, at that time, kings would commonly grant selectively. This was an attempt at a new format of country, and they were trying to set the stage that the rights come with being a person, not with being privileged. They can, however, be limited, but only after due consideration by a legislative body (like the limiting of one's freedom of speech in a movie theater). And the linchpin at the time was the imposition of the new tax on tea, with no consideration by any legislative body that the colonists had any input into; they felt as though they didn't have all the rights of Englishmen.

So I guess they are alienable, but only after consideration by a legislative body elected by the people.

Wendy P.

[ryoder 1,384]

5 hours ago, jakee said:

But I've been really, really clear, several times over, about the fact that I'm replying to the phrase "inalienable rights," ones that cannot be made illegal, and you're not addressing that. 

I think the problem is that you are looking for a legal definition of something that has no such definition.

Which rights are "inalienable" is simply the opinion of the speaker.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, ryoder said:

I think the problem is that you are looking for a legal definition of something that has no such definition.

Which rights are "inalienable" is simply the opinion of the speaker.

I'm not looking for a legal definition of inalienable rights. I'm not trying to find out which rights are inalienable.

 

What I'm asking is, when it comes to inalienable rights and what makes them inalienable, whether they are inherent or are given by the government... what's the difference?

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

7 hours ago, jakee said:

Great, so that works when your only definition of a right is "something not currently illegal".

 

But I've been really, really clear, several times over, about the fact that I'm replying to the phrase "inalienable rights," ones that cannot be made illegal, and you're not addressing that. 

 

(By the way, does the definition you guys are using mean that the majority of the Miranda rights are actually Miranda privileges?)

Well, those 'inalienable rights' can be made illegal. It's just that they shouldn't be. One example is free speech. Our 1st A is supposed to guarantee it. But, early in our country's history, the government passed the "Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798."  Which clearly violated the 1st A. While never taken to the Supreme Court, they were one reason that Jefferson won the presidency in 1800.

Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

The idea that Jefferson, Madison and the rest had was that these rights are "God Given". And that for the government to outlaw those rights is wrong. Not that it isn't done. The idea that King George was infringing on those 'inalienable rights' was part of the reason for the American Revolution. 

And the "Miranda Rights" that the cops are supposed to read before any questions are asked are just that. Rights. They've always existed, mainly 5th A against self incrimination. 

The reason the SC decided that the cops have to read them to you is because less educated (poor and minority) people are less likely to know what their rights are and aren't. So wealthy, educated people know to tell the cops "I don't want to say anything until my lawyer is present." While poor and uneducated folks are more likely to succumb to the techniques (lies and intimidation) that cops use in interrogation. The courts have found that for a person to lie to the cops is a crime. For the cops to lie to a suspect is just good technique. 

[jakee 1,254]

10 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

And the "Miranda Rights" that the cops are supposed to read before any questions are asked are just that. Rights. They've always existed, mainly 5th A against self incrimination. 

How is it possible that they've all always existed? The entirety of the criminal justice process is something that is designed and implemented by government. Without the government instituting it, trial by jury doesn't exist - let alone your right to have a lawyer appointed to you for that trial.

 

Under the definitions given above, the 'rights' to have a jury trial, and a lawyer, and all that jazz are not rights at all, they are mere government issued privileges.

[billvon 2,400]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

I'm not looking for a legal definition of inalienable rights. I'm not trying to find out which rights are inalienable.

 

What I'm asking is, when it comes to inalienable rights and what makes them inalienable, whether they are inherent or are given by the government... what's the difference?

Well, as previously mentioned, I don't think there is any legal definition of "inalienable" - and one person could have a different idea of what they are than someone else.

But to the second point, there's a big difference between "additive rights" (i.e. you start with none and the government then gives you some) and "subtractive rights" (i.e. you start with all of them and the government can only take them away.)  Hence while there might be no difference between the right to fart in an additive-right system where the government grants you the right to fart, and the right to fart in a subtractive-right system where the government doesn't say anything on the topic, other rights are affected dramatically - simply because it's impossible to list all the rights you could possibly have.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Well, as previously mentioned, I don't think there is any legal definition of "inalienable" - and one person could have a different idea of what they are than someone else.

Ok, so if we go back to my initial question it's as simple as Croc not actually meaning what he said. That's fine. 

 

My final point there would be that if there are inalienable rights in practice - rights that the government cannot legislate away - it is because the government has defined what those are.

 

Quote

But to the second point, there's a big difference between "additive rights" (i.e. you start with none and the government then gives you some) and "subtractive rights" (i.e. you start with all of them and the government can only take them away.) 

Ok, but you have both. It's not one system or another, it's a mix of both. And on both sides of the divide there are concepts that I would regard as fundamental to the operation of a free society. Then, you'll notice that while you're characterising both types as rights (which I also would), others are characterising only subtractive rights as rights, and additive rights as privileges. Which leaves them, in my opinion, stuck with the conclusion that something as simple as access to a fair judicial system is a privilege and not a right.

 

Basically what I'm saying is there's some lazy philosophy going on.