What is a right?

[Miscellaneous]

governments should be evaluated on how well the uphold their end of the social contract (or whether there even is one), not how well they subscribe to your individual idea of abstract norms that appear to be universal but are in fact subjective

the higher power is the state

I almost agree with this, however the cycle; x will evaluate y on y's ability to uphold x's demands seems rather redundant. Although that's politics in a nutshell.


The notion that "rights" exalt or carry any auxiliary meaning besides what is expected due to contract or negotiation is entirely dependent on an impalpable and extant assumption of a universally agreed subjective belief. That assumption can never be reasoned, and so any right stemming from any similar logical progression is just a delusion.

I would even be tempted to go beyond that and question the true nature and dynamics that influence the creation such accepted "rights", including those which have socio-economic implications. No matter how initially axiomatic, no matter how manifested the meaning is in whatever language, there will never be any decorum or truth to the aforementioned right. There will only ever be the conventional interpretation that must be adhered to, because if you read between the lines that is the law. i.e. It is the law to interpret the law as the law intends, and how beautifully autonomous it is.

Concisely; there is no place in society for anything but conventions. That goes for rights, morals, opinions, whatever. That is just the result of our species being naturally sociable.

 

[Myzozoa]

I almost agree with this, however the cycle; x will evaluate y on y's ability to uphold x's demands seems rather redundant. Although that's politics in a nutshell.


The notion that "rights" exalt or carry any auxiliary meaning besides what is expected due to contract or negotiation is entirely dependent on an impalpable and extant assumption of a universally agreed subjective belief. That assumption can never be reasoned, and so any right stemming from any similar logical progression is just a delusion.

I would even be tempted to go beyond that and question the true nature and dynamics that influence the creation such accepted "rights", including those which have socio-economic implications. No matter how initially axiomatic, no matter how manifested the meaning is in whatever language, there will never be any decorum or truth to the aforementioned right. There will only ever be the conventional interpretation that must be adhered to, because if you read between the lines that is the law. i.e. It is the law to interpret the law as the law intends, and how beautifully autonomous it is.

Concisely; there is no place in society for anything but conventions. That goes for rights, morals, opinions, whatever. That is just the result of our species being naturally sociable.

I hardly see how "rights are socially constructed" leads into "the rights that we have should be socially constructed" it's both redundant and false. Especially because as you said most of the laws are already based on it, because we acknowledge subjectivity. If we can recognize them as socially constructed (which is the most important thing), they can be deconstructed and made 'fair' (if you permit my use of the word). The very theory of social constructionism was enough to actually set-off many attempts to deconstruct homosexuality and the intersexed experience such that laws and procedures in some places have changed. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're asserting, but your logical movement doesn't add up for me.

 

[capefeather]

Hipmonlee touched on what I was vaguely trying to say. Adherence to a social contract is great and all, but how do we go about making one? I want to avoid having an entity or a "complicated" social contract that ends up being "sacred" and/or immutable.

I think that the law should be based on democracy, and any process to choose fundamental leaders, laws, etc. should aim to be as close to an accurate democracy as is feasible. By this, I mean that the law should reflect what people basically want out of society, not what they think they want or what someone told them that they want. So voting on everything isn't the best way to go about doing all this, either.

We happen to know a lot already about how vast majorities of people operate, think, etc. We improve how we render decisions by learning more about the psychologies of most people. Maybe I haven't read enough on all this and what I'm saying is actually not even possible, but in any case, I've been talking about collective moral notions rather than personal individual ones. I guess technically I am invoking a personal opinion, but like any social contract, I can't have turtles all the way down...

 

[xenu]

I consider rights to be ad hoc, collective agreements for the preservation of certain freedoms as determined by the society as a whole. If there's an intelligent society without a ruling body to impose or uphold rights, people will, inevitably, develop a set of rights or "unwritten laws" necessary to sustain their way of life, regardless of external/political interference.