What Is A Right?

Reply to whitetrshsoldier, Post 8:

I didn’t have the sense to stop when I was ahead. My main point still stands. Senator Coburn’s question was tailored to trick Ms. Kagan into a reply that he could use to feed the “activist judge” fears of gullible people.

Or, so that he could dutifully inform the concerns of constructionists and originalists.

The reason why it matters whether or not Kagan believes in natural rights is because if she doesn't, then she is free to interpret the words and meaning of the constitution from a different basis, which means she is free to interpret the constitution in contradiction to its foundational basis, as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

The constitution doesn't exist in a vacuum; the Declaration of Independence laid the foundational basis for establishing a new government by asserting that the natural rights (which all humans have) of the British subjects were being violated, and that those rights supercede any man-made law or social contract, which gave us the right to revoke our subjugation to the law imposed by the crown.

Our system of government is based on the concept that human beings have certain unalienable rights regardless of whether or not judges interpret (read: corrupt) the words of the constitution to infringe upon those rights. IOW, how Kagan plans on limiting her interpretation of the constitution, and according to what basis, is certainly important. That she dodged and danced a question that is rather easily answered, IMO, indicates that she not only doesn't believe in natural rights, but also that she doesn't want to say it because it will reveal her activist nature.

The Declaration of Independence, which laid out the basis for the Constitution, asserted natural, or unalienable rights. If Kagan agreed with that, all she had to do was say so. So, we can logically infer that she doesn't believe in natural rights, and so doesn't feel compelled to interpret the constitution as anything other than an invented, subjective code of rules that may or may not apply in modern culture.

A practical example of this is the right to bear arms; if one considers it a natural, unalienable right to arm oneself for protection (pursuit of life and liberty), then legislation which outlaws ordinary citizens from owning and carrying a firearm is clearly unconstitutional. If, however, one doesn't consider it a natural right, but simply a product of the times of our forefathers, then one can interpret the constitution to mean something else now because we live in different times.

Natural rights don't change because of culture and year; subjective, invented rules for living together are subjectve and open to broad interpretation.

Ms Kagan has told us that her job would be to enforce the Constitution and the laws.

No, her job as Supreme Court justice would be interpreting the constitution. The question is, on what basis is she going to be interpreting the constitution? She's clearly not an originalist, because our founding fathers intended that the rights in the constitution be considered unalienable, natural rights.

No hints whatsoever of this oh-so-evil “activist judging”.

I agree, it wasn't a "hint"; she as much as admitted she was going to be an activist judge by avoiding the answer.

Is that not enough? Judging is, as Kagan calls it, a “job” – not a crusade.

And therein lies another fundamental issue; if she believed that a judge is the protector of unalienable rights, then it is much, much more than just a "job".

Is this senate hearing an interview or an inquisition?

Ask Bork and Thomas. BTW, Kagan was all in favor of those "inquisitions", and called them good things. Why should anyone complain when she is given the very treatment she applauded before?

Is it beyond reason to suspect that this excessive interrogation is fueled by a desire for an activist-the-conservative-way judge?

A conservative judge is by definition not an activist judge, if by "conservative" one means "interpret the constitution according to the intent of those who wrote it on the basis that certain rights are unalienable (constructionist/originalist)".

To answer the question at the top of the thread, rights exist independent of what men say, do or write; they are independent of culture and laws that say otherwise, which is how our forefathers assumed the right to revoke the unjust rule of the crown.

If there are no such natural rights that justify our action against England, then our forefathers were just terrorist renegades that stole the colonies from their rightful owner and set up an illegal country; and thus all such acts of theft and social violence are justified, and all violations of law are justified, and the constitution is just a long, rationalized justification for theft and violence, and thus Kagan and other activist judges are free to use their interpretation to pursue the kind of society they think would be best.

Meleagar, you said...
"rights exist independent of what men say, do or write"

Does this statement apply to the holy scriptures as well?
And does that mean that during the time when humans did not yet have the ability to write that they were still privvy to these same natural rights you speak of?

What if we could not even speak to each other, would these rights present themselves within our souls?

The only natural right I can describe is the freedom of action. We have the ability to act, and in any way we wish, wether 'good' or 'bad' is inconsiquential.
I know Mel, I'm evil.
Besides, how are humans expected to 'judge' wether these 'natural rights' have been abused if the system of 'natural rights' transcends man?

I will say that it is only natural that we strive for human 'rights' in our quest for longevity, but if you find your life ending in too short a manner how would a 'natural right' protect you?
Who would you lament to then? Who could enact justice to the circumstances that your life had been victimized by?

I believe it has been said here already, that unless one believes in a 'god' there is no source for 'natural rights' aside from that of the human imagination.

Meleagar, you said...
"rights exist independent of what men say, do or write"

Does this statement apply to the holy scriptures as well?

No. Revealed rights are not natural rights, which is why our founding forefathers did not not use the terminology of biblical commandments. Revealed rights, or rights administered by power (even god), are not natural rights.

And does that mean that during the time when humans did not yet have the ability to write that they were still privvy to these same natural rights you speak of?

All entities with free will are privvy to understanding natural rights.

What if we could not even speak to each other, would these rights present themselves within our souls?

They are written into the fabric of being for all entities with free will, which is why they are referred to as natural rights.

Besides, how are humans expected to 'judge' wether these 'natural rights' have been abused if the system of 'natural rights' transcends man?

Through reasoning that follows from sound axioms.

I will say that it is only natural that we strive for human 'rights' in our quest for longevity, but if you find your life ending in too short a manner how would a 'natural right' protect you?

An understanding of natural rights helps protect you from committing immoral or evil acts. Equivocating natural rights and morality into subjectivist meaninglessness harms the individual by ushering them towards nonexistence.

Who would you lament to then? Who could enact justice to the circumstances that your life had been victimized by?

Individuals with free will cannot be victimized. If one believes that they are being "victimized" by "circumstances", they are not free will entities, and thus have no "rights" other than might makes right - savagery.

I believe it has been said here already, that unless one believes in a 'god' there is no source for 'natural rights' aside from that of the human imagination.

I agree that a god of some sort is necessary for "natural rights" to have any rational meaning.

No. Revealed rights are not natural rights, which is why our founding forefathers did not not use the terminology of biblical commandments. Revealed rights, or rights administered by power (even god), are not natural rights.

So, what sort of rights are they?

All entities with free will are privvy to understanding natural rights.

This assumes that free will exists. This has yet to be established.

They are written into the fabric of being for all entities with free will, which is why they are referred to as natural rights.

How can the natural nature of natural rights be ascertained?
How can we be sure that claims of natural rights come from nature and are not just the subjective equivocation of some people seeking to impose their particular views of morality on the rest of society?

Through reasoning that follows from sound axioms.

Which axioms are these? What makes them sound? What is the reasoning that follows from them?

[/quote]
An understanding of natural rights helps protect you from committing immoral or evil acts. Equivocating natural rights and morality into subjectivist meaninglessness harms the individual by ushering them towards nonexistence.[/quote]

All morality is subjective. It is meaningless to suggest otherwise. Interpretations of natural rights are as much a subjective equivocation as any other system of moral valuation.

If you are suggesting otherwise then it is your burden to convince, to provide an unassailable train of logic reason and evidence that leads inescapably to this conclusion. I should warn you that the prospect of rights as a natural phenomenon has been in play for quite a while in philosophical thought. There are centuries worth of cogent logical and well reasoned arguments on both sides of this question by the greatest philosophers of the ages.

Individuals with free will cannot be victimized. If one believes that they are being "victimized" by "circumstances", they are not free will entities, and thus have no "rights" other than might makes right - savagery.

This leads to a perception that only a very few actually have natural right. Any who can be victimized, who are unable to exercise their free will, have no rights at all except those they gain by might.

This strikes me as a sort of anti-argument for the universal nature of natural right. Those with natural rights will be perplexed that their exercise of natural right creates a situation of continual violent conflict with their victims, intentional or not, whose only recourse to gain rights is the exercise of might.

It seems to me that this notion of natural right exacerbates the struggle for rights more than alleviates it.

I agree that a god of some sort is necessary for "natural rights" to have any rational meaning.

I do not see any sort of god as necessary for the notion of natural rights to seem like a reasonable rational prospect. A good reading of Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Rand and Strauss can accomplish that without any necessity for god.

Historically rights have generally been defined as socially accepted unassailable privileges for the individual, an inherently social phenomenon. In order for something to be a right it must be universally accepted as such, even by those who seek to deny it to others.

Ethnic cleansing exists [in Africa and elsewhere], and yet we all still acknowledge that the Human Right to Life exists, don't we? How about the criminal, who kills another during the commission of a crime. Does he not acknowledge the other person's right to live, and yet still deny it?

Just because the one who seeks to deny the right does so, does not mean that he doesn't recognize it in the first place. It just means he outweighs it's value to him.

What you are claiming is that right is not a social phenomenon after all but something inherent in nature. A claim such as this requires strong evidence, especially if one wishes to deny the seemingly divine nature of such a claim.

The evidence so far is not very convincing. Mere ability does not grant right. What use is a right, no matter how inherent or "natural" if it is not socially acceptable?

It seems to me that this notion of "natural right" is nothing but a concerted effort to secure privileges that are not universally socially acceptable by seeking to direct discussion about rights into a venue that excludes society.

The capacity of government to grant "mere abilities" to people doesn't necessarily grant right either, does it? The criminal could just as easily evade government, and has, and does, while violating man's "conferred" value to another.

So how do you differentiate the two in either situation? Even if "society" guarantees these "abilities", the newly-considered "rights" do not differ from what I consider "Natural Rights" much, do they? I simply consider them natural because I don't need another person to tell me that I have the "ability" to walk wherever I want [liberty], and to eat and drink [utilize property] so that I may live [right to life].

That they may infringe upon my "abilities" is irrelevant when we consider the source of these 'rights'. The only difference lies in the protective element of the issue. In my "natural rights", I consider that the individual first may protect them, then those he contracts with [community], all the way to government.

In contrast, you say that he has absolutely no protected ability to sustain his own life without "society's consent"? I don't quite understand how you come to this conclusion ...

If these "natural rights" ever get established the long history of the social determination of rights will be truncated.

That kind of already happened ... July 4, 1776 [actually it wasn't signed until August 2nd, but you know what I mean] ....

I cannot even wrap my mind around the concept of a "right". Is it simply an ability or a transcendent law? Is impairing someone's ability to "be able" taking away their rights? I am completely baffled by this term so I just picked "no".

I cannot even wrap my mind around the concept of a "right". Is it simply an ability or a transcendent law? Is impairing someone's ability to "be able" taking away their rights? I am completely baffled by this term so I just picked "no".

Zewpals,

Can you comprehend an "ability" or a "liberty"?

A right is simply a power, privilege, or condition of existence to which one has a natural claim [an "ability" or a "liberty", for instance], that is guaranteed by an entity through its utilization of the naturally endowed defense mechanisms it has been created with in order to defend such basic requirements for self-preservation.

A right is simply a power, privilege, or condition of existence to which one has a natural claim [an "ability" or a "liberty", for instance], that is guaranteed by an entity through its utilization of the naturally endowed defense mechanisms it has been created with in order to defend such basic requirements for self-preservation.

Okay, this seems more satisfactory than my comprehension of a "right". Is violence in of itself a right, then? Although it is not used in self-preservation all of the time, it is most likely an evolution of self-preservation, is it not?

A right is simply a power, privilege, or condition of existence to which one has a natural claim [an "ability" or a "liberty", for instance], that is guaranteed by an entity through its utilization of the naturally endowed defense mechanisms it has been created with in order to defend such basic requirements for self-preservation.

Okay, this seems more satisfactory than my comprehension of a "right". Is violence in of itself a right, then? Although it is not used in self-preservation all of the time, it is most likely an evolution of self-preservation, is it not?

I believe that existence is a right. An extension of this right for some species happens to be violence, used for the purpose of self-preservation. But obviously, if a right is guaranteed by an entity through its use for self-preservation, it doesn't logically follow that the same faculty could rightly be utilized for the destruction of another's self-preservation [without justification].

This leads to the ethical question of "who/what's right to life may rightly be violated", such as in eating meat or plants. In my opinion, it's very plain and simple. Rights are violated all of the time, by people across the world, whether they exist as part of society [in Law] or not.

In every instance of one man violating another's right, the decision ultimately comes down to a judgement call; is that person's life worth violating? As Bastiat put it ...

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

So man will violate another's life, whether animal or human, until it becomes more painful for him to do so than not to. And there is the answer to your ethical question.

WE HAVE A TEMPEST IN A TEACUP! That best describes the great fear in the public and in this thread about Elena Kagan possibly turning out to be an “activist judge”.

One of the conservative movement’s most successful scare tactics has been to plant the notion in many people’s minds that “liberal” judicial philosophy is connected with “activism” and "conservative" judicial philosophy with "strict constructionism." They'd have us believe that "liberal activist" and "conservative constructionist" are basically redundancies, and that there simply is no such thing as a conservative activist. This is not true.

Each new era in the courts, when the overall view changes, the judges want to overturn precedents, and so they make many changes to the laws. When the laws more nearly reflect their views they make fewer and fewer changes. History hs shown that the cycle repeats with each change – no matter whether it favors the liberal or conservative cause.

Political Scientist Thomas Keck compiled data showing that the most activist court in history was the late Rehnquist Court.

The Supreme Court confirmation has been called a “sad kabuki dance “ of ritual denial by nominees that they will depart in any way from constitutional prerogatives and that they will “respect the law” and venerate judicial precedents. It isn’t much of an exaggeration to visualize all the justices reading the same Constitution and the same laws and precedents and never applying any judicial philosophy of their own – and never issuing anything but unanimous decisions. Is that what the conservatives want?

Justice Stephen Breyer says: “When the bill of rights was being created Thomas Jefferson was hesitant about creating a document that would bind future generations to his generation's views on morality and values. Also, they're called "Amendments" for a reason. We're supposed to amend them when they don't work anymore!!!! Besides, if we interpeted the Constitution as the founding fathers did we'd still have slavery in this country. Think for yourself!!!!”

Justice Stephen Breyer says: “When the bill of rights was being created Thomas Jefferson was hesitant about creating a document that would bind future generations to his generation's views on morality and values. Also, they're called "Amendments" for a reason. We're supposed to amend them when they don't work anymore!!!! Besides, if we interpeted the Constitution as the founding fathers did we'd still have slavery in this country. Think for yourself!!!!”

Dewey,

The Amendatory process set up by the Constitution is just that; a process requiring the AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION!!!

Judges were never granted the authority to re-write laws as they saw them, but they have effectively taken it upon themselves to do so.

If they wish to deny the tenants upon which our government was founded [i.e. Kagan denying the existence of "Natural Unalienable Rights"] then they ought to try AMENDING the constitution; not exploiting it to reach their own ends, regardless of their "leanings".

WTS,

I very much like your definition of a "right". I will read further into this thread and later join in with this debate.

whitetrshsoldier, When did Kagan deny the existence of 'natural unalienable rights'? I believe she only claimed to be agnostic about their definition unless that were with respect to the documents themselves. Frankly, I think I would've given the same answer--even after reading this thread--because it seems to me there is not agreement on what natural rights come from, or even what they are.

Nowhere have I seen a justification or explanation of where these rights come from, except your own appeal to a human's ability to e.g. defend him/herself. I agree that we have an unalienable ability to communicate and exert our abilities--that is, unalienable unless we're destroyed. But I do not see how this entails, e.g., an ability to bear arms. Obviously any arms we cannot make ourselves can simply be taken away or forbidden. At best, we have an ability to try to obtain tools to defend ourselves with. (And these tools are certainly contingent on availability--how can we have had a right to firearms absent from society, when firearms only exist because of society?)

So I want something more. If you're going to stand by the claim that a natural right cannot be taken away by any social contract (per Juice's claim), the natural rights you've listed cannot just be abilities, because only a few of them are unalienable abilities. And they cannot just be arbitrary; I want to know why they cannot be taken away by a social contract. Only then will I be willing to believe your criticism of Kagan is grounded. Also, I would like someone to clarify whether the "cannot," above, is literal or normative--i.e. is it always unjust to take them away, or is it impossible so long as I exist?

Also, if you disagree with Juice on any part of the definition of natural rights, then your criticism of Kagan is unjustified regardless of your argument's coherence, because in that case Kagan could be legitimately indecisive between your and Juice's conception of natural rights.

Just because the one who seeks to deny the right does so, does not mean that he doesn't recognize it in the first place. It just means he outweighs it's value to him.

This points directly to the problem with claiming that individual rights do not come from society. The individual is free to do anything and everything. The bank robber, murderer, genocidal maniac can always claim that his individual right to survival is greater than anyone else's, even whole other races of people, just because he perceives (rightly or wrongly) that they are a threat to his own survival.

It is a recipe for mayhem.

The capacity of government to grant "mere abilities" to people doesn't necessarily grant right either, does it? The criminal could just as easily evade government, and has, and does, while violating man's "conferred" value to another.

Yes, this happens all the time but most criminals know they violated societies rules and even admit it and express remorse. The one's who do not are those with their own particular notion of rights and that does not include any input by society.

So how do you differentiate the two in either situation? Even if "society" guarantees these "abilities", the newly-considered "rights" do not differ from what I consider "Natural Rights" much, do they? I simply consider them natural because I don't need another person to tell me that I have the "ability" to walk wherever I want [liberty], and to eat and drink [utilize property] so that I may live [right to life].

That they may infringe upon my "abilities" is irrelevant when we consider the source of these 'rights'. The only difference lies in the protective element of the issue. In my "natural rights", I consider that the individual first may protect them, then those he contracts with [community], all the way to government.

In contrast, you say that he has absolutely no protected ability to sustain his own life without "society's consent"? I don't quite understand how you come to this conclusion ...

Well, we have already discussed this point in great depth in the other thread but to recap.

Your position is that rights arise spontaneously from somewhere and so did humans. My position is that humans have been social creatures since before they became human and it is from this social context that rights arise.

That kind of already happened ... July 4, 1776 [actually it wasn't signed until August 2nd, but you know what I mean] ....

Well, revolutionaries need to make strong claims. When you consider how many of those signers were slaveholders it is obvious that even they did not believe the rhetoric. They were, as usual, parading about a bunch of lies to inflame the populace who they would later try to disenfranchise.

If they wish to deny the tenants upon which our government was founded [i.e. Kagan denying the existence of "Natural Unalienable Rights"] then they ought to try AMENDING the constitution; not exploiting it to reach their own ends, regardless of their "leanings".

There is no mention of natural or unalienable rights in the US Constitution. There is in the Declaration of Independence which, while an important document in US history, has absolutely no legal bearing on the US, its Constitution or any other matter concerning the governing of the country.

Kagan will make an oath to uphold the present US Constitution as written and amended and is forbidden to extend that oath to include any extraneous or previous documents. Kagan, being a keen reader, did the right thing.

This points directly to the problem with claiming that individual rights do not come from society. The individual is free to do anything and everything. The bank robber, murderer, genocidal maniac can always claim that his individual right to survival is greater than anyone else's, even whole other races of people, just because he perceives (rightly or wrongly) that they are a threat to his own survival.

It is a recipe for mayhem.

Unrealist42,

If you admit that the individual is "free" to do anything and everything, you are inherently acknowledging that they have the right to provide for their own self-preservation naturally. Regardless of the violation of other's rights, this is a pure admission of the "natural" existence of a being's "right" to defend itself, regardless of the method, or the potential for "mayhem".

Of course, I agree that once we move into political theory and a the realms of civil society, these "rights" need to be mutually recognized and respected in order for rational beings to progress ....

Yes, this happens all the time but most criminals know they violated societies rules and even admit it and express remorse. The one's who do not are those with their own particular notion of rights and that does not include any input by society.

And we consider those who completely disregard the "right to life" of others sociopathic, psycopathic, or otherwise psychologically deranged in general, do we not? Might there be a reason that we regard those who ignore these "natural rights" as "mentally or psychiatrically" deficient?

Your position is that rights arise spontaneously from somewhere and so did humans. My position is that humans have been social creatures since before they became human and it is from this social context that rights arise.

This does not answer the lingering question, though. Is the creature that defends its own life from death or destruction at the hands of another dependent upon a writ of treaties or specifically construed documents? Or is it obviously just his "ability", as you would consider it, despite any consideration of the consensus of society?

You posited that if these "'natural rights' ever get established the long history of the social determination of rights will be truncated". I responded that it has already occurred. Revolutionary or not, it is historically documented that these events have transpired, and that this "long history of the social determination of rights" only further diminished [and in some cases abolished] legalized slavery, the legitimized abuse of labor, and other social issues that I think both you and I would consider unjust.

There is no mention of natural or unalienable rights in the US Constitution. There is in the Declaration of Independence which, while an important document in US history, has absolutely no legal bearing on the US, its Constitution or any other matter concerning the governing of the country.

Kagan will make an oath to uphold the present US Constitution as written and amended and is forbidden to extend that oath to include any extraneous or previous documents. Kagan, being a keen reader, did the right thing.

The history and decisions of the Supreme Court would disagree with your consensus on this issue, I believe, as they have referenced the supremacy of rights that predate "society's dictates" and prevail over the Constitution time and time again. The earliest example might be Calder v. Bull [1798], in which the majority opinion stated, among other things, that;

There are then but two rights, in which the subject can be viewed: 1st. If the Legislature pursue the authority delegated to them, their acts are valid...they exercise the discretion vested in them by the people, to whom alone they are responsible for the faithful discharge of their trust... 2nd. If they transgress the boundaries of that authority, their acts are invalid...they violate a fundamental law, which must be our guide, whenever we are called upon as judges to determine the validity of a legislative act

Of course there are several dozen other cases in which the Court [in it's earliest, most direct and likely most accurate interpertation] that I could refer you to. But I think you get the point. The Constitution was founded on the premise of our basic rights existing independent of the dictates of men conferring the most obvious of "abilities" or "opportunities" upon other men.

Recall my analogy of most people's expectation of a man's response to a threat to his life; will he attempt to preserve it "naturally", or will he wait for other men to establish a doctrine by which he may act?
______________________________________________________________________________________________

whitetrshsoldier, When did Kagan deny the existence of 'natural unalienable rights'? I believe she only claimed to be agnostic about their definition unless that were with respect to the documents themselves. Frankly, I think I would've given the same answer--even after reading this thread--because it seems to me there is not agreement on what natural rights come from, or even what they are.

Alun,

You're partially correct in that she didn't deny our natural rights. Her exact words were;

To be honest with you, I don't have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution.

She claimed that she did not have a view. I guess that's claiming agnosticism, but I would argue that stating you have no view on the matter is equivalent to insisting that you have no belief in the same. That is my subjective interpretation, though.

Nowhere have I seen a justification or explanation of where these rights come from, except your own appeal to a human's ability to e.g. defend him/herself. I agree that we have an unalienable ability to communicate and exert our abilities--that is, unalienable unless we're destroyed. But I do not see how this entails, e.g., an ability to bear arms. Obviously any arms we cannot make ourselves can simply be taken away or forbidden. At best, we have an ability to try to obtain tools to defend ourselves with. (And these tools are certainly contingent on availability--how can we have had a right to firearms absent from society, when firearms only exist because of society?)

The right to live is inherent in existence itself. If you agree that we have an unalienable "ability" for self-preservation, then I think that's an admission of the existence of "natural rights" in and of itself.

For example, if you acccept that a man [or any being] has a right to defend his/it's life from destruction regardless of the predication of such an "ability" by other entities, then I think you would agree that his right is "natural" [i.e. existent independent of decree].

So I want something more. If you're going to stand by the claim that a natural right cannot be taken away by any social contract (per Juice's claim), the natural rights you've listed cannot just be abilities, because only a few of them are unalienable abilities. And they cannot just be arbitrary; I want to know why they cannot be taken away by a social contract. Only then will I be willing to believe your criticism of Kagan is grounded. Also, I would like someone to clarify whether the "cannot," above, is literal or normative--i.e. is it always unjust to take them away, or is it impossible so long as I exist?

I've consistently asserted that rights are very often infringed.

A right is not an assurance of anything inviolable in and of itself; rather, it's merely an affirmation of the claim that an entity has an unalienable ability to defend with full justification [whether morally, ethically, socially, or otherwise] its innate "abilities" and "opportunities" from infringement by others.

Having said that, no social contract can deny me of my veracious and legitimate defense of my irreverent right to life. This is why the recognition of "Natural Rights" is so vital to any civil society.