Rights and Responsibilities

[Ana the Ist]

Or if you have children.

Well, again...I think that's another issue. It seems to be more of a discussion of responsibilities of parents...not responsibility inherent within rights themselves.

 

[brightlights]

Well, again...I think that's another issue. It seems to be more of a discussion of responsibilities of parents...not responsibility inherent within rights themselves.

My claim here, though, is that children have certain rights because parents have certain responsibilities.

Do children have a right to education? Only if parents have the responsibility to educate them.
Do children have a right to safety? Only if parents have a responsibility to protect them.
Do children have a right to emotional care? Only if parents have a responsibility to love them.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm well familiar with the idea of the social contract. While it is interesting, I don't think it necessarily describes reality. For starters, there are several rights which we agree we have that may be entirely unaddressed by the government. For example, the right to privacy....its a hazy line not well defined by the law, yet if you asked people, a majority would agree it is a right. Other rights, like the right to remain silent, are expressedly the responsibility of the individual who claims to hold it.

I think privacy can fall under both liberty and property rights. At the same time, we do allow our the government to decide if our privacy rights can be revoked such as in the case of wire taps or a search warrant.

Still another example would be the right to own property. The government has vast books of solely property law. If you wish to protect your right to own property from a thief, you have several options. You can stop them yourself. You can go to the police. You can ignore the crime if you do not value what was taken (this happens more often than you might expect). In each case, it is up to the individual who claims to hold the right to act in a way that defends it. Can you imagine a world where it were the government's responsibility? They would have to send officers door-to-door asking, "hello, do you have any crimes you want us to look in to?"

If there were no laws against theft then you could not go to the police. It would be anarchy where each person takes from others at will. Can you imagine a world where governments did not make laws against theft, or did not enforce laws that forbid theft?

 

[Ana the Ist]

My claim here, though, is that children have certain rights because parents have certain responsibilities.

Do children have a right to education? Only if parents have the responsibility to educate them.
Do children have a right to safety? Only if parents have a responsibility to protect them.
Do children have a right to emotional care? Only if parents have a responsibility to love them.

So then does a parentless child have no rights?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think privacy can fall under both liberty and property rights. At the same time, we do allow our the government to decide if our privacy rights can be revoked such as in the case of wire taps or a search warrant.



If there were no laws against theft then you could not go to the police. It would be anarchy where each person takes from others at will. Can you imagine a world where governments did not make laws against theft, or did not enforce laws that forbid theft?

My point was (and still is) that its incumbent upon the person whose rights were violated to take action to restore their rights. Whether that means going to the police or handling it yourself is irrelevant.

My whole problem with the social contract interpretation of rights is that it implies the government has the final word in deciding rights....it doesn't. That will always remain the decision of the masses. The justice system exists more as a result of the realization that most people don't have the individual resources to defend their rights all the time. It's still up to the individual to protect their own rights as they deem necessary.

 

[Loudmouth]

My whole problem with the social contract interpretation of rights is that it implies the government has the final word in deciding rights....it doesn't.

That's not my understanding of the idea (but please correct me if I am wrong). The people have the final say. If they find that the government is not protecting their rights then they can dissolve the government and start a new one.

There is also the idea that no government is perfect, so it is always a work in progress. We will find flaws in any government. The power of the social contract is that these flaws are addressed because the populace wills it.

The justice system exists more as a result of the realization that most people don't have the individual resources to defend their rights all the time. It's still up to the individual to protect their own rights as they deem necessary.

I understand where you are coming from, but it just doesn't quite jive with how I see things. You seem to be leaning more towards a "might makes right" type of system, or perhaps I am just getting this all wrong. The purpose of government is to protect rights because individuals are not able to do that on their own. An individual is not able to defend itself against the invasion of another nation-state. Individuals were not able to overcome segregation and slavery. It required government action, and government enforcement.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's not my understanding of the idea (but please correct me if I am wrong). The people have the final say. If they find that the government is not protecting their rights then they can dissolve the government and start a new one.

There is also the idea that no government is perfect, so it is always a work in progress. We will find flaws in any government. The power of the social contract is that these flaws are addressed because the populace wills it.



I understand where you are coming from, but it just doesn't quite jive with how I see things. You seem to be leaning more towards a "might makes right" type of system, or perhaps I am just getting this all wrong. The purpose of government is to protect rights because individuals are not able to do that on their own. An individual is not able to defend itself against the invasion of another nation-state. Individuals were not able to overcome segregation and slavery. It required government action, and government enforcement.

Can an individual defend itself from the invasion of another state? No, but like-minded individuals can...the American revolution among others comes to mind. Individuals were not able to overcome segregation and slavery? Are you sure? Let's think of this for a moment...was it the government that pushed for an end to slavery? Did the government push for women's right to vote? How about an end to child labor? The government not only upheld these institutions...in some cases they created them. None of these changes would've happened if individuals had not been willing to fight and possibly die for the rights they felt they had. I understand government likes to take credit for these changes after enough individuals decide they should happen, but that in no way makes them the ones responsible. Exactly who protects rights when its the government who is violating them? Always, always, always the individual.

 

[Loudmouth]

Can an individual defend itself from the invasion of another state? No, but like-minded individuals can...the American revolution among others comes to mind.

Right, so it is a collective pursuit, not an individual one.

Individuals were not able to overcome segregation and slavery? Are you sure? Let's think of this for a moment...was it the government that pushed for an end to slavery? Did the government push for women's right to vote? How about an end to child labor? The government not only upheld these institutions...in some cases they created them. None of these changes would've happened if individuals had not been willing to fight and possibly die for the rights they felt they had.

But fighting was not enough. It required laws to overcome these problems. It required government action. When the first kids walked across the segregation lines they had the National Guard to protect them, as one example.

Little Rock Nine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I understand government likes to take credit for these changes after enough individuals decide they should happen, but that in no way makes them the ones responsible. Exactly who protects rights when its the government who is violating them? Always, always, always the individual.

The government IS the people, so why shouldn't the people take credit.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Right, so it is a collective pursuit, not an individual one.



But fighting was not enough. It required laws to overcome these problems. It required government action. When the first kids walked across the segregation lines they had the National Guard to protect them, as one example.

Little Rock Nine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The government IS the people, so why shouldn't the people take credit.

" Right, so it is a collective pursuit, not an individual one."

My point was it didn't require government...nor agreement of all the people. Your analogy of individual vs a state was a bit unfair to begin with. A fair analogy would be "can an individual defend his home from an invader without the government" to which of course, the answer is yes.

" But fighting was not enough"

I don't think you can say that for sure. Had it failed at Little Rock I think it still would've succeeded elsewhere. Besides, what we're disagreeing on is who is responsible for protecting rights. If you claim it is the government...why was the government enforcing segregation? Why did it require individuals at all? If the government is responsible, then they should've changed the law without any intervention from individuals. That's not how reality works though.

" The government IS the people, so why shouldn't the people take credit?"

Because in the examples you cited, the government was violating the rights of individuals.

The Constitution is a document of negative rights, a list of things the government can't do. Even the justice system has admitted it cannot protect your "rights" from being violated. It doesn't have the resources. I'll have to look it up but I remember a case where someone dialed 911 for emergency help...and it came extremely late. The police responded that they were stretched too thin between emergencies. The courts ruled in the favor of the police....and upheld that ruling.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Another example would be free speech. The government cannot take this from you, but it doesn't protect it either. Suppose you say something your employer doesn't like...you get fired. Except for some very specific situations (discrimination) the court will uphold your firing. Sometimes even those situations won't save your job.

 

[Ana the Ist]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

If this doesn't impress upon you that the government isn't responsible for protecting your rights I'm not sure anything I can say will. It's always upon the individual.

 

[brightlights]

So then does a parentless child have no rights?

Of course they do. That's why we think that abandoning children is so abhorrant.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Of course they do. That's why we think that abandoning children is so abhorrant.

Well then, by that logic, if a parentless child still has rights...then we cannot assert that a child has rights because they have parents with responsibilities...as you stated earlier.

" My claim here, though, is that children have certain rights because parents have certain responsibilities."

 

[brightlights]

Well then, by that logic, if a parentless child still has rights...then we cannot assert that a child has rights because they have parents with responsibilities...as you stated earlier.

Yes we can. The child has rights because the parent has responsibilities. The child is unjustly abandoned because of these same responsibilities. Just because the parents abandon their responsibilities doesn't mean that the responsibilities aren't there anymore. The dead-beat parents don't cease to be responsible.

 

[brightlights]

Let's take it a step further to say that the parents are dead. Does this child still have rights? Only if someone or something else takes responsibility for them. Do they still have a right to be educated? Only if another party like the state or other family is seen as being responsible. Otherwise the right, in itself, is meaningless. If a child has a right to an education, someone must be responsible for educating them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes we can. The child has rights because the parent has responsibilities. The child is unjustly abandoned because of these same responsibilities. Just because the parents abandon their responsibilities doesn't mean that the responsibilities aren't there anymore. The dead-beat parents don't cease to be responsible.

Yea....I'm afraid I don't follow. We don't have to be speaking about dead-beats to refer to non-existent parents. They can simply be dead. So please, explain the responsibilities of a dead person.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let's take it a step further to say that the parents are dead. Does this child still have rights? Only if someone or something else takes responsibility for them. Do they still have a right to be educated? Only if another party like the state or other family is seen as being responsible. Otherwise the right, in itself, is meaningless. If a child has a right to an education, someone must be responsible for educating them.

Well you beat me to my point. I'd say the child has rights because, like everyone else child or no, we've agreed they have rights. But let's suppose that no one is meeting this "right to education"...I'd still have to argue that ultimately the responsibility resides in the individual. The case of the child is unique because the child may have no concept of rights till a certain age....and we've agreed to meet these rights as a society (though it wasn't always so) because its to our benefit as a society. This all ends at adulthood though...because we've agreed that is the point the individual is responsible.

 

[brightlights]

You're talking about responsibility in your description: "we've agreed to meet these rights." Isn't that another way of saying, "we've agreed to take responsibility"?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You're talking about responsibility in your description: "we've agreed to meet these rights." Isn't that another way of saying, "we've agreed to take responsibility"?

Right, in the case of children. I'll admit I hadn't considered that in the OP. Was it your intent to discuss children in the OP?

 

[brightlights]

I want to say that every right has responsibility attached to it. It's easiest to see in the cases of government/citizen relationship and parent/child relationship but I believe it also is true in cases of peer relationships.