Why do we have fundamental rights? Should we?

Who is to say that we aren't growing entitled when we demand things such as the "right to vote", or when we demand that the NSA stop their snooping? Why is privacy our fundamental right?

We haven't done anything to deserve these rights except exist, so why should these things just be handed to us?

 

I guess the same reason why you have the right to live....whatever reason that may be. With your argument you can essentially question EVERYTHING.

 

Why not question everything? That is the true question. We are led to believe things are the way they are because they are the way they are. This is really a question for a philosopher, rights scholar, or an ethicist and I am none of those things. It would be hard to answer and I am suspect a lot of people would say that it is because. Then you'll ask because why, and they'll respond that they just don't know. It is a seriously deep question that is like talking about the meaning of life.

 

Nothing is our right. There are no universal ethics. We say we have rights because as a society decided that we should.

 

The right to vote isn't really a fundamental right. Same goes to the right to "privacy". I consider there to be two types of fundamental rights: positive and negative. It's neither a positive right (e.g the right to have access to clean water, food, education, etc.), nor is it a negative right (e.g the right NOT randomly murder or be murdered).

 

Well said. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

Social norms. We as humans have an instinctual desire to have a social structure whereby bad things or things we do not like are prevented. Social norms vary very widely, and just come to be. It's a question both sociologists and philosophers have tried to answer conclusively for forever, but probably will never be able to answer well enough to satisfy the infinite regress dilemma that follows.

 

I would say that privacy falls very well under either of your categories.

 

After giving it some thought, I suppose the right to privacy could be considered a negative right.

 

Care to explain? After reading your post the 1st thing I thought was "this must be one stupid/brainwashed person". I just can't understand/comprehend why my privacy is a bad thing.

 

If you've ever studied Immanuel Kant then you should be familiar with his principle, which is often used to justify a fundamental "moral" right. Negative rights, such as the right to privacy one could argue, are rights that protect some form of human freedom or liberty--though I still somewhat disagree. I believe you automatically give up that right when you "sign" the social contract and give your consent to be governed. In doing so, the State has the right and the authority to protect its citizens, even if it means invading people's privacy for the greater good.

 

"For the greater good", that sure sounds like communism to ask me and I was at an understanding that most of the world fought against it. Long live communism I guess!

 

What.....

How is what I said even remotely related to the concept of communism? The "greater good" would actually be utilitarian (greatest happiness for the greatest number), not communistic (which is far more complicated), apart from the fact that communism exists as about a million different things - e.g a political system, a philosophy, etc.

 

I have the feeling that you are taking this somewhat personal, don't. I just wanted to say that it's an illusion that you are protected/safe just because everyone(including you) are being spied on. I'm 100% positive that if you give a lot of power to some group/people then it's just a matter of "when" not "if" it will be missused. I would not feel safe if my government recorded everything I did. Seems like being guilty till proven otherwise.

I don't think this is something that should be argued or debated upon. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that someone accepts being spied on and if someone came up to me on the street and tried to explain that spying is something I have agreed on then I'd tell him to take his deep thinking&spying and shove them up his you know what.

About the "greater good":
Once I got to the end of your post and found "greater good" there I kinda flipped that someone would see spying as a positive thing and automaticly went to the very extremes I guess.

I like my rights and fook the government!

 

I guess I misinterpreted your sarcasm a couple posts above as a personal jab against me >.>

I wasn't arguing/debating for or against the right to people's privacy, though you are now for whatever reason... In this thread I am neither condoning nor condemning it. I merely stated that I believe the right to privacy isn't a fundamental right.

Pretty much everything you just said is argued solely on the basis of your own personal beliefs - not on logic or rationale, though I'm not going to rebut it here because it would just be going further off topic. However, if you want, you can create a new thread about this issue and I'd be happy to further debate it with you there .

 

Assuming you're speaking about Fundamental Rights specific to the U.S. due to the context of your original post:

1. The Right to Vote is not a clear-cut Constitutional right. Although the Constitution hints at it, the only defined right relating to voting is that our House of Representatives and Senate members are elected by the People.
2. I'm not sure where you conceived the idea that we "demand" the right to vote. The only thing we've ever really fought for is universal suffrage in which voters cannot be discriminated against.
3. Technically, your state laws regulate voting more than your federal government.

1. The National Security Agency, or NSA, operates under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense and reports to the Department of National Intelligence.
2. The NSA is a global security agency for the interests of the United States. It monitors potential threats to our nation, both domestic and foreign, among a plethora of other tasks.
3. Executive Order 12333 states the mission of the NSA is to collect "foreign intelligence or counterintelligence", while not "acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of United States persons".
   [*]The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 states the requirements for domestic surveillance operations. Your Fourth (4th) Amendment in the U.S. Constitution protects your privacy. Also, privacy is a fundamental right to those who say it is not - as the constitution recognizes it as such.

1. Fundamental Rights are imprescriptible rights (or derived from the rights God has given us, if you believe in the Almighty) in which we as human beings are born with. The rights are
2. The fundamental rights were extended by the Supreme Court. These rights our constitution enumerates, but is not limited to: The right to interstate travel; The right to intrastate travel; The right to privacy (The right to marriage; The right to procreation; The right to contraception, etc.).
3. The Bill of Right lists our fundamental rights. Which, is highly debatable as the "God-given" rights we so exercise in an unappreciative manner are rights that many other countries simply do not have.

 

Actually, no. Several if your points are incorrect. Direct vote of senators is a very recent revelation, and for the majority or US history wasn't by election. Second this thread is concerning fundamental human rights. The OP has it wrong in the simple fact that voting is not a right. Voting abilities are taken away from felons and can only be granted back via pardon. The government doesn't grant rights, it is supposed to protect them. Theoretically humans have agreed with one another that we all have certain inborn rights that are unalienable from our person. While many have argued and 'philosohized' about these various rights they truly don't exist. It is like fiat currency, everyone just agrees that it is worth whatever is marked on the bill. We have all agreed that since we are rationing beings that we deserve special things and that there are lines that other rationing beings cannot cross when interacting with us.

 

Sounds like you're nitpicking my argument more than anything.

1.) I never said that senators have always been voted in directly. All I stated is that in our Constitution, the only defined right in regards to voting is that our U.S. Senators and House of Representatives are elected by the People.
2.) How is this a recent revelation? The amendment was ratified over a hundred years ago.
3.) You are wrong. Voting is a right. State governments typically control voting within the state, though.

 

Rights can't be taken away through means that aren't the due process of law. Things like the right to religious worship or the right to free speech cannot be abridged, according to the Constitution. Honestly it is still a hotly debated issue still to this day, but most scholars agree that the constitution doesn't specifically enumerate every citizen the right to vote or the right to anything else for that matter. A right that is not enumerated in the affirmative isn't really a right, so it could argue that the constitution doesn't actually guarantee any rights. Through judicial review though it has been interpreted that those rights are guaranteed. It could be an entire thread itself because the constitution only implies what cannot restrict voting, it doesn't give voting rights. It does state that state Representatives would be direct election. It leaves the rest, as you state, to the states themselves to decide.

An interesting article: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...stitution-not-explicit-right-vote-wisconsin-/

The Constitution never hinted at the direct election of senators, it actually was never intended for senators to be directly elected by the people. Considering that over half of the time that our country has been a nation they weren't directly elected means that it is a recent revelation. It wasn't until party tensions rose in the mid-1800's that the idea of allowing the people to elect senators even was relevant.

Rights in theory are not derivative of the Government, as I previously stated. The government doesn't give me the right to speak my free speech, but it does protect someone else if my free speech is false and malicious. Rights, however, can be voluntarily given up. Such as when you sign a non-disclosure agreement when you start employment. You have a right to free speech guaranteed by the government, but once you sign that NDA you no longer have the legal right to talk about what is covered under the NDA. You contractually give up that right. Then you get into contract law and things can get messy.


A rights discussion is a deep debate and has many viewpoints that can be argued. I am arguing mine according to my logic and knowledge, I was just pointing out some flaws in your argument to the OP.

 

What does the Bill of Rights do, then?