What Is A Right?

[whitetrshsoldier]

This is a follow-on from another post - What Are Human Rights, and Where Do They Come From?. The intent of this post is to clarify the underlying principle of the other post; and that is, what is a right?

How do you Define a Right?

There has been quite a bit of debate regarding the origination of rights in my interactions with others. In fact, during Senate Judiciary Confirmation hearings the other day, there was an exchange between a Senator and potential Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan ...

[Juice]

Needless to say that I was beside myself with incredulity when I heard Kagan's comments since she was promoted, by the powers that be, as being a person of high intelligence or at least as intelligent as the rest of Obama's administration, and leave no doubt that she will be a part of OB's administration or at least its ideology for years to come.

I agree with your, WTS, definition but would add that the term "rights" is limiting since it is posited here as a single term. "Rights"- are either legal, social, moral or entitlements. These factors are all determined, granted or adjudicated by others or specifically a government.

But, the question to Kagan was well directed as "natural" rights", termed "inalienable" in the US Constitution, and further described in the "Declaration of Independence", which I define as the condition by which the individual lives "free from force, without having to exert force to live according to his will and ability".

I view this definition as the primary moral axiom. Now if an old salt such as myself can come up with some worded expression, whether right or wrong, to that question then how come the former Dean of Harvard and Clinton legal aid could not. If she would have just answered the question to her best ability I would have accepted her answer. I mean what could be a wrong answer here unless she is going to say those rights, expressly, given by government.

I must be a freakin genius.

Remember, a right given is a right that can be taken away.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

[wanabe]

[whitetrshsoldier]

[Dewey]

I’m surprised that the political sophisticates in this discussion don’t see what was so obvious to Elena Kagan and led her to answer as she did. The senator was trying to extract her personal views on natural rights so that he could pull out and use the conservative bug-a-boo about activist judges and their personal views.

Matthew Faraci’s article (which he deceptively titles “Kagan Downplays Declaration of Independence”) omits this explanation by Kagan: “I believe that the Constitution is an extraordinary document, and I am not saying that I do not believe there are not rights preexisting the Constitution and the laws, but my job as a justice is to enforce the Constitution and the laws.”

Food for soldierly thought. Why are we so lax in our military enlistments? We accept our servicemen and women on the basis of a scanty promise to support and defend the Constitution against its enemies. We need to grill them about their personal beliefs – whom they have a natural right to fight or refuse to fight, and so forth..

[wanabe]

I'm not saying your definition of rights is bad(contradictory in some logic) inherently whitetrshsoldier. For the sake of communication with others however, the common definition of rights should be used. That sates: rights are dependent on human sociopolitical ideas, not nature.

Freedom, in any sense of the word better describes the idea you are trying to convey: "as a power, privilege, or condition of existence to which one has a natural claim". Freedom is a natural occurrence, that happened long before any right was even conceived of.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For the record, I think Kagan answered the questions quite well.
_________________
The Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, And Help All Others To Do So. Fear is weakness leaving the mind.

[Juice]

The question posed to Kagan by Sen. Coburn (R) started out as question of gun ownership as a "natural right". That line of questioning led into a discussion of "natural rights".

WTS posits the question of "rights" to which I make a distinction between those and "natural rights", as was posed to Kagan mentioned in the OP, being the inalienable right to be free from force without exerting force as I have described. I made a distinction between "rights" and "natural rights".

[whitetrshsoldier]

[wanabe]

[Dewey]

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.

I went on from there to mistakenly cite an omission by your source and finished up with a pathetic attempt at satire. Sorry.

Ms Kagan has told us that her job would be to enforce the Constitution and the laws. No its, ands, or buts whatsoever! No hints whatsoever of this oh-so-evil “activist judging”. Is that not enough? Judging is, as Kagan calls it, a “job” – not a crusade. Is this senate hearing an interview or an inquisition? Is it beyond reason to suspect that this excessive interrogation is fueled by a desire for an activist-the-conservative-way judge?

[Alun]

I do not even know what the word 'right' is supposed to mean independent of social contracts.

whitetrshsoldier, you seem to be using the word as a synonym for 'ability.' I.e. I have a natural right to life because I have the natural ability to protect my life. I don't see what there is to gain in such redundancy.

I interpret the 'rights' of the Declaration of Independence to be couched in the nature of social interaction, not the nature of an individual. That is, there is no way for a stable social interaction to develop when people do not recognize one another's right to life. But that's the extent to which I am comfortable with the idea of natural rights.
__________________________________________________

Juice, I do not see how an interpretive disagreement with you entails lacking intelligence, as you accuse Kagan of. Especially considering that you haven't answered the question given to Kagan either: It was a yes or no question, except the term of interest "fundamental right" is poorly defined. Also,

[Unrealist42]

[Juice]

The same type of questions were posed to Sotomayor who emphatically stated her support and understanding, as per the Constitution, for the second amendment , who then went on to provide a descent vote to that very same question presented before the court last week.

Kagan's job is not to "enforce" but to interpret "intent" of the founders who applied the constitutionality of laws which would affect those entities within the United States.

Once she stated that the Constitution is a living, breathing document which should be interpreted for modern times she should have automatically been relieved from the process of her confirmation.

Alun-As I stated the line of questioning stemmed from questions of gun ownership to "fundamental" right, to "natural" rights. As a person being vetted for the supreme court under the assumption that, that person has attained a modicum of understanding to be so considered for that position then it would or should stand to reason that, that individual can ascertain the import of the question and answer it succinctly, taking into account all relevant considerations.

A person has a "natural", "fundamental", "unalienable" right to be free from force and part of the guarantor that he should so be by owning a firearm then this was the question posed to Kagan and this is the question she should have answered, as it is so relevant as per the second amendment, one to which the government has tried and tried again to depress.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.

An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis

Fight the illusion!

[wanabe]

[Intuitiv3infid3l]

Right: An insurance/protection given to a collective group of people that sacrifices the potential for happiness due to inequality (getting to exploit people if they didn't have the right) out of fear of one's own interest being harmed.

The more Rights a society has, the more advanced it is and the better off everybody is. Perfection lies in equality. When the scale is on balance the world will be at peace. Let this Libra guide the world to that path.