Hacker News Reader

Comment by somerandomqaguy | Hacker News Reader

No GP but I think they such rights cannot be absolute because the same right can conflict with itself.

Say it's the 18 century with slavery is common. The slave owners are depriving the slaves of liberty and happiness. But the deprivation of the slaves liberty brings the owners happiness.

If you cannot persuade the owners to stop depriving slaves of liberty, then there two options remain.

One, you respect the owners right to happiness. But at the expense of the slave's liberty.

Two, you use force to stop the owners from violating the slaves rights. But in doing so you violate the owners right to happiness.

What's the answer then here if there no options that do not harm someone's unalienable rights?

View on HN

Simple: A man's rights end where another man's rights begin.

To use your example, the slave owner's right to pursuit of happiness ends where the slaves' rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness begin. A would-be slave owner cannot and should not violate another man's (a would-be slave's) right to liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Going back to the subject of marriage, my right to liberty ends where my would-be wife's right to liberty begins and vice versa. Marriage is inevitably a compromise of both our rights to liberty. Thus, I find marriage a violation of human rights.

>To use your example, the slave owner's right to pursuit of happiness ends where the slaves' rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness begin. A would-be slave owner cannot and should not violate another man's (a would-be slave's) right to liberty and pursuit of happiness

Except you've chosen to violate the owners right to happiness by attempting to place limitations on the rights that were so called inalienable. What you think the limit should be and what the slave owner thinks the limit should be differ.

Same right, but in this case brought into conflict by disagreement of interpretations.

Second, what happens when the other side refuses to stop because he believes that your interpretation is wrong? What do you do then?

Two rights colliding is essentially an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. The two can not (should not) violate each other, thus one's rights end where another's begins.

Governments are also tasked with guaranteeing those rights, and those who violate another's rights are deprived of their rights as mandated by laws.

For example, a murderer (violator of another's right to life) is imprisoned (deprived of his right to liberty) and possibly even executed (deprived of his right to life).

You do realize the original quote from Locke was “life, liberty and pursuit of property”?

Yes they can conflict. I chose slavery because it did conflict. 13 States left succeeded from the United States to form the Confederacy to protect slavery at the behest of their own citizens. And the remaining Union disagreed. Violently. The US Civil War was one of the bloodiest in it's history.

Even today. SCOTUS overturning Roe vs Wade and allowing States to prohibit abortions. A difference because of a disagreement on whether or not a human embryo is entitled to be treated as a full human being with all the same rights and responsibilities.

Hence the nuance. You can look at the same document that says these rights, but how they are achieved and what limits there are can differ due to differences in opinion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com