Hacker News Reader

Comment by jakeogh | Hacker News Reader

The amendments don't grant rights; they limit government. That's why we call them inalienable rights. You cant "amend away" these things. Of course that doesnt stop power from trying.

Preamble to the (confusingly named) Bill of Rights: The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

View on HN

> The amendments don't grant rights; they limit government.

They limit government by defining, in the fundamental law, rights that are prortected against government encroachment. Those aren't mutually exclusive alternatives, one is the means by which the other is achieved.

> That's why we call them inalienable rights. You cant "amend away" these things.

The quasi-religious belief that there are rights that exist "in nature" prior to law and which all governments are obliged to observe is a popular one -- and was with the founders -- and part of the basis for the use of the term "inalienable right". However, the exact parameters of such "inalienable" rights are far from uniformly agreed even among those who subscribe to the belief that they exist. You absolutely can alter which of the rights that some people believe to be inalienable are protected by a government through amendments; note, for instance, that quite a lot of people from the time of the founding through (and no doubt past) the time when this was, in law, settled at the point of a bayonet by the 13th Amendment, thought that the widely-accepted-as-inalienable right to property included the right to hold human beings -- and particularly for whites to hold blacks -- as personal property.

> You absolutely can alter which of the rights that some people believe to be inalienable are protected by a government through amendments

Yes and no. The point of the "inalienable rights" was that they were given to people by God, and therefore nobody - not king or president, not parliament or congress - has the authority to take them away. They may have the power to declare that we don't have them, but they don't have the legitimate authority to do so.

But now we (as a society) no longer believe in God, and no longer believe that we are made in His image. When that changed, "inalienable rights" (in the original meaning) died - except for those who still believe in God as creator of humans.

The concept of inalienable rights does not require supernatural powers for validation. Saying we have these rights merely by being born human is exactly as logical as relying upon creatures whose existence cannot be proven. Nothing has been taken away by society's turn from mysticism. In fact, I feel that saying my natural right to speak, to defend myself, to live privately as I choose, is much stronger than if it is simply derived from a posited creator. I feel these rights are clearly mine by birth, and they have never been merely granted to me, not even by a currently-favored fairy tale.

> The concept of inalienable rights does not require supernatural powers for validation.

Sure, it can stand as a moral axiom on its own (and, heck, even when it is used in the context of a supernatural power, that's not really a logical validation/justification, simply another element of the story, and they still are independent moral axioms.)

OTOH, it makes the fact that they are moral axioms and not grounded in anything else a bit more obvious than the "God says so" version. Its pretty easy for people to reject bare moral axioms that other people offer.

But why does being born give you the natural right to speak, to defend yourself, and to live privately as you choose? Looking back at the last few thousand years of human history, I see no basis for saying that those are inherent human rights that are yours simply because you were born.

A deist would say that humans inherently have those rights (from God), but that human governments and societies have illegitimately suppressed them. You (I suspect) would also say that human governments and societies have illegitimately suppressed them. But given that humans often have not enjoyed those rights, what basis (other than simply asserting that it is so) do you have for claiming that humans have those rights?

Because you are a human being. Why else? Do you think some people are born as subjects?

> Because you are a human being.

I gather that you find that argument convincing, but I suspect it's because you already accept the conclusion. To someone who does not already accept your conclusion, your argument is not likely to be very convincing.

> Do you think some people are born as subjects?

Yes, they are. Look at history; even look around today. It's not right, it's not moral, but it clearly is true that it happens.

You appear to be confusing having ones natural rights violated with not having them. As if the subject has somehow lost the right to rebel because they are oppressed. Given your initial question of "why does being born give you the natural right" it's hard to understand how on one hand you agree that being a subject is (obviously) not moral but at the same time don't accept the reason that all people have natural rights because humans should have the same natural rights (because as you noted, anything less is not moral). Pointing out that some are oppressed in practice misses the point.

I think I'm confusing you, but I don't think I'm confused.

I agree with you that people have inalienable or natural rights. However, I claim that your position does not give you an adequate basis for believing that. And your position certainly does not give you an adequate basis for persuading anyone who does not already accept it.

Perhaps I expressed this badly in my previous post, but that's what I'm trying to say.

"I agree with you that people have inalienable or natural rights."

Great. So what's your reason?

I'm back with the signers of the Declaration of Independence: "endowed by their Creator". And that's why their inalienable - because nobody has the legitimate authority to supercede His giving of these rights.

Couldn't agree more. I was deliberately avoiding the creator angle, mostly because (I think) it's not necessary to believe in a creator to grok the morality of equal rights (oldmanjay said it better). Perhaps I misunderstood your comment about deists. I sincerely appreciate the discussion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com