Hacker News Reader

Comment by purplerabbit | Hacker News Reader

I always find it weird when people declare things “are” rights, as rights are things societies create. “Should be a right” seems like a more appropriate framing

View on HN

"we hold these thruths to be self evident"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Slave owning misogynistic violent elitists

Yea, nah

Society advances step by step (or even 2 steps forward, 1 step back). How much are we betting that in 250 years, we'll be considered immoral too?

Probably.

There are. In the constitution, as the court found. There are also reasonable arguments that they are an unavoidable consequence of Human Rights, as described in the declaration of 1789, which is also in the constitution.

The right to privacy is also explicitly in the Code Civil since 1970, in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (both are binding to EU member states).

The declaration creates the right. For example, if I believe everyone has a right to use drugs then my interactions with others will respect that (no calling cops on junkies) and I see others who violate that right (police) as immoral. From my point of view the right already exists, most others just don't respect it.

That’s a simplistic view of rights, and ignores other conceptions of rights like natural rights.

Nuanced, but I don't think you're disagreeing that privacy is a right. Very few people do and most of them would be classified as sociopaths. ex. Zuckerberg, Langley, Altman, et. al. Anti-privacy actions are often immoral, sometimes illegal and almost universally anti-social.

Where did you get that from? I am not referencing privacy at all. I was responding to the parent who basically said that all rights come from society, which is not at all the historical philosophical basis for rights in the US.

Rights are inalienable. You don't grant them by law. You get them when you're born.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com