Hacker News Reader

Comment by fnordfnordfnord | Hacker News Reader

>"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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Granted by, secured by, the effect is the same unless you believe people would enjoy the rights in the absence of something like government (specifically a gov't which effectively protects rights).

View on HN

Agreed. To expound a bit...

There is a perspective/philosophy* in which humans under anarchic/natural-law are born with 100% rights. E.g., if you were washed ashore with a number of ship-wreck-mates on an otherwise uninhabited island, there'd be nothing to stop you from implementing works copyrighted in other lands. Further, there'd be nothing to stop you from violating the terms of any contract or even murdering anyone--you'd have unlimited rights.

But let's say we're wiser than that. When we wash ashore, we all agree that it's in everyone's best interest to avoid killing each-other. Therefore, we each give up a measure of our unlimited rights and grant them to each-other in the form of governmental 'powers'--if someone kills one member of our new tribe, the other members will kill (or otherwise deprive the rights of) the one who initiated the aggression.

In it's ideal form, the government's purpose is to maintain the largest possible sphere of individual rights without allowing individuals to infringe upon the rights of others. It can only exist inasmuch as each individual condones and supports it's actions. To the degree it becomes imbalanced towards one party or another, the aggrieved parties retain the right to withdraw the powers they've delegated--in extreme cases they may fight the other party's government to reclaim their inalienable rights.

With this scenario in mind, imagine that you see me building a sand castle on my side of the beach. You like the design so you copy it on your side of the beach. I'm not flattered by the imitation but you haven't really deprived me of any rights either--I'm still free to do as I wish on my side of the beach. Since I'm not really harmed, I don't have an inalienable right to monopolize the castle's design. In fact, if I storm over to your side of the beach and knock your copy down, I'd be depriving you of the right to make that kind of sand castle should you see fit to do so.

Given such a dispute, the tribe (including yourself) might agree to relinquish the right to manipulate sand in particular ways and create a new governmental power. The creation of this power appeases and incentivizes me to continue voluntarily beautifying the beach with fresh and innovative sculptures and promotes continued peaceful cooperation. This a matter of policy, there are no higher laws or anything set in stone about the validity or duration of my claims, etc.

* I tend to agree with this philosophy but want to take a more objective tack for the sake of the great-grandparent poster.

> Further, there'd be nothing to stop you from violating the terms of any contract or even murdering anyone--you'd have unlimited rights.

There being nothing to stop you doesn't mean it's not a violation of an inalienable right or that I didn't have that right to begin with. The widely held belief is that freedom from murder is a right regardless of whether or not an institution is established to protect it. I believe it follows directly from our ability for higher order abstract thought, particularly our ability to empathize with others. So in some respects, you might say that our ability to empathize is what creates inalienable rights in the first place.

I didn't make it very clear in the parent comment but I don't consider murder to be an inalienable right either. My point was that it could be considered an 'alienable' right, if that makes any sense. I.e., because we ourselves don't want to be murdered and because we want to participate in civilization, we assent to limits on individual liberties--namely those in which individuals would infringe upon the rights of others.

As I think about it now, I would say that our inalienable human rights are derived from the fact that we exist self-aware with the desire and general capacity to assert our rights. I.e., to whatever end or purpose, we wouldn't have those abilities absent some reason. If you're alive, you want to live and you're not hurting anybody else; who's to say that you should be denied that life? If anyone, it's just some other guy who's opinion isn't actually any more important than your own. One might say it should all be self-evident :) .

At any rate, I think we're largely saying the same things.

>There being nothing to stop you doesn't mean it's not a violation of an inalienable right or that I didn't have that right to begin with.

If there is no difference between the inalienable right existing or not existing, then it is a matter of faith to if they exist at all.

Securing rights and granting rights are two completely different things.

They are not completely different things, they are related. How can you claim to have a right without some means of keeping it?

Again, things can be different but related. An unalienable right can exist without being granted (that's the definition, in fact), and it exists whether or not something is in place to protect it. They are not mutually inclusive.

>An unalienable right can exist without being granted (that's the definition, in fact), and it exists whether or not something is in place to protect it.

Would you mind naming an example?

>They are not mutually inclusive.

I have a feeling that this may devolve into an argument over trivia, but I hope not.

The right of freedom from murder. I will grant you that rights in-and-of themselves are abstract and somewhat arbitrary in the grand scheme of things, but they are common enough from society to society that patterns start to emerge and one can start to identify what could be considered to be a universally agreed upon inalienable right. All I'm stating is that my right to live free from murder exists whether or not someone is there to keep me from harm.

It seems that you're trying to argue that freedom from murder is a positive right, in that it necessitates that someone else provide you protection from harm. It is, however, commonly understood as a negative right because it requires inaction from others rather than action. And as such, because universal inaction would be just as good as any active protection by a government, the right of freedom from murder does not require that one exists at all. Therefore, it exists outside of societal constructs and is inalienable.

>The right of freedom from murder.

How are you going to enforce that right after it's been violated?

>It seems that you're trying to argue that freedom from murder is a positive right, in that it necessitates that someone else provide you protection from harm.

I wouldn't say necessitates, but I would predict a lot more murdering absent the expectation of reprisal from your tribe or government.

> And as such, because universal inaction would be just as good as any active protection by a government

It would be better since governments murder people too, and since because universal inaction is universal. So sign me up! We can get started right away. I promise I won't murder you if you'll promise not to murder me. Deal?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com