[ameister14]

>I'm curious what "exist" means here and am very surprised at the "merely".

In a natural state you have all the rights - your rights are theoretically unlimited. Society is what limits them. Society cannot create or remove rights, but it can limit your ability to express or use them.

[handrous]

Ah. I found Locke's Second Treatise very unconvincing, so we probably disagree both on the soundness of the argument-from-nature and what constitutes a right—is a right "real" when merely conceived of, or must it be exercisable in practice, necessitating either highly effective personal power or highly effective power of a society on your behalf, to be, in any sense, real (moreover, what does it mean for a cave-dwelling loner in the state of nature to have freedom of speech, for example? Not much, I'd say—rights aren't even useful or sensible constructs absent society, from what I can tell, and within society they're basically just freedoms we've decided we like a whole lot and want to provide with a powerful label)

[ameister14]

>is a right "real" when merely conceived of, or must it be exercisable in practice, necessitating either highly effective personal power or highly effective power of a society on your behalf, to be, in any sense, real

Yes, it's real when conceived of, just like drugs are legal until there is a law against them. There are limits on exercising one's rights, but that doesn't mean the right itself goes away or as you put it, never existed in the first place.

>moreover, what does it mean for a cave-dwelling loner in the state of nature to have freedom of speech, for example? Not much, I'd say

So rights only exist where they are useful? How about if you don't exercise a particular right, do you still have it?

>rights aren't even useful or sensible constructs absent society, from what I can tell, and within society they're basically just freedoms we've decided we like a whole lot and want to provide with a powerful label

I think it's more that they are freedoms we have recognized exist rather than something society has created. While freedom of speech might not have been particularly useful without a society, you certainly had that freedom before society existed. It's not really possible for society to be the creator of freedom of speech if it existed prior to society.

On the other end, if society collapses and you are again in a state of nature, you again have freedom of speech. So it's really just that society limited your ability to exercise that right, it didn't remove it entirely.

For me part of the importance of inherent rights comes down to an understanding that given societal ability to decide for a person what rights they possess, they will, from time to time, decide that a person possesses no rights at all. If that is actually true, and all rights come from society, then there's no real moral way to rebel against that. Individuals need to have an ability to balance against society and if society is the source of all power as well as all moral standing, there is no possibility for the individual.

If rights exist at all, they must by necessity be inherent to the person and not granted by society.

[MispelledToyota]

Then yes, rights don't exist at all.

What we do have is something else, let's call it "rights(tm)", which are a social construct used to privilege and protect individuality. We use it as a tool when making decisions about how to treat others and what laws are legitimate. They are contestable, and allow the tradeoff to be adjusted based on circumstances and the priorities of societies.

[ameister14]

While I understand your perspective, I disagree with it.

That gives too much power to society and is a foundation for tyranny in my opinion. More, it means slavery without the right to contest it unless that right is provided by the State, which of course it wouldn't be.

Also fundamentally it doesn't make sense because I clearly have the right to do things if I am doing them and nobody is stopping me.

[majormajor]

That's the whole thing, isn't it? Different societies do stop people from doing different sets of things. So "nobody is stopping me" can't be evidence for any "natural" set of rights beyond society, since it would result in wildly different sets of "natural rights" for people in different societies. And a different set outside of a society, where maybe you have the a greater right to light things on fire but a lesser right to not get killed by someone else lighting things on fire.

[ameister14]

Here's the thing; I'm operating in the framework I was responding to, where rights come from the state and must be exercised to be real.

If all rights come from society and I have no rights outside those society grants, and I am able to take an action not explicitly outlined as one I have the right to take by my society, and society does not punish me for doing this in any way - how do I not have the right to do it in the first place?

I believe that government is granted powers by the people. I do not believe that people are granted powers by the government. That's the fundamental difference. People can live without the government, the government cannot live without the people.

That means that if the government is acting against the interests of the people, the people have the right to reform the government.

If power comes from the government instead, the people have no right of reform save that granted by the government. This means that if the government doesn't want to be reformed, the people have no justification for reforming it.

As to your right to light things on fire, being killed by others etc - you have the right to kill other people, especially when they are trying to kill you. You may be killed in response, that can happen. That's the incentive for making a society, so people don't kill or rob you. You make a government and grant it your proxy to act in your stead - so you don't get to kill people anymore, but society will do it for you.

[handrous]

Where this loses me is: 1) I don't think "it's inconvenient" (that is, it empowers tyranny) is a compelling argument for or against the truth of something, and 2) I don't see how this, in fact, affects the practice or existence of tyranny one way or the other. The reason I think it matters is because I think it's harmful when people get really hung up on some set of rights that they believe are proven from a hypothetical argument (as the "state of nature" argument is—often this ends up being heavily centered around individual property rights, as in Locke) and draw a hard line between those and any other liberties that others might like to admit to the ranks of "rights". I don't really think I'm more or less able to defend against tyranny if rights "exist" (huh?) in a "state of nature" that doesn't actually reflect anything like the apparent "natural" state of humanity, which seems to have been communal and societal since, quite likely, before we were H. Sapiens yet.

My practical objection is, in particular:

> More, it means slavery without the right to contest it unless that right is provided by the State, which of course it wouldn't be.

You can contest whatever you want, if you're able. The hypothetical "source" (huh?) of your rights doesn't matter. You can make a moral argument against slavery even if "state of nature" reasoning about rights were 100% for-sure convincing-to-everyone proven to be wrong. It's irrelevant. If someone's contesting slavery and you convince them that the "natural rights" conception is bunk, they can... still contest slavery. It doesn't matter a bit. It's a label to convey that we're very serious about something and think others should take it very seriously, too, and so far as that goes it's useful and important.

[ameister14]

>Where this loses me is: 1) I don't think "it's inconvenient" (that is, it empowers tyranny) is a compelling argument for or against the truth of something

Oh, ok. But what about the part where it exists without society? In the US, for example, our laws are mostly reactionary. It's built on the common law system, and things change over time as they encounter new situations. So rather than creating a law to create the new, the law is created in response to the new.

>2) I don't see how this, in fact, affects the practice or existence of tyranny one way or the other.

Do you not see that in practice or in theory? Because in practice sure, it's hard - the concept of rights stemming from the individual is mostly an enlightenment one and that's only a few hundred years. That said, countries that follow that principle have not had a tyrant lead them for more than a few years over that period either, while countries where rights come from the state have had tyrants or monarchs. That doesn't really prove anything but if you go into the theory, one system supports centralized power and the other supports decentralized power. Which is better for consolidation and control by a smaller group?

>The reason I think it matters is because I think it's harmful when people get really hung up on some set of rights that they believe are proven from a hypothetical argument (as the "state of nature" argument is—often this ends up being heavily centered around individual property rights, as in Locke) and draw a hard line between those and any other liberties that others might like to admit to the ranks of "rights".

Could you make an example? I'd be surprised that someone can be for natural rights and be against say the existence of a right to free expression, for instance.

>You can contest whatever you want, if you're able.

Sure, my point is that it makes you more able. People want to be on the side of justice and morality and it's important to have deep foundations for individual rights to assist in preventing the government from succeeding in its attempts to usurp them. Governments always try to usurp people's rights, but it's harder to do when individuals know it's happening. I think it's better to be suspicious of the government when it increases its own power. If you believe your rights come from your government then when the government limits your potential actions you are less likely to object - you'd sound ridiculous. I believe it's these minor objections that lead to larger movements and allow for change without direct and bloody revolution.

This part, for example: If someone's contesting slavery and you convince them that the "natural rights" conception is bunk, they can... still contest slavery. It doesn't matter a bit.

That's true but if that happens it stays a single person contesting slavery with no real basis in ethics. Why do they want to deprive people of their property in contravention of existing rights and laws? Why not have slavery outright, actually, in that case? What's wrong with it? Is it only wrong because the state currently says so? I don't think so - I think it's wrong for a lot of reasons but at its core, a person owns themselves, always. As a result they cannot be fully owned by another.

[MispelledToyota]

If rights are unlimited, and only their expression can be limited, then it seems like it is a category that excludes nothing and so is basically vacuous.

[ameister14]

It's important when you get into society, though. If we didn't have the right to rule ourselves in all capacities, we would be limited in ability to respond to new situations.

It's also really the only thing that makes sense from an individual rights perspective, given the absence of God.

[majormajor]

> It's also really the only thing that makes sense from an individual rights perspective, given the absence of God.

If someone's going to disagree with someone else on the existence of God, then surely they can disagree with them on the existence of rights (in general or in specifics). And so the concept of rights outside of society consensus is back to being no more use than the concept of God. (That is: it's high use if everyone agrees, but there's nothing forcing everyone to agree, so it all comes down to social negotiation.)