Poll: Your Civil/Political/Human Rights (a Poll)

[Bucky]

Last edited Sun Apr 21, 2013, 09:48 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm using DU to independently test a statement made to me in a conversation. So this question is being presented without comment or framing. But please, kick this poll instead of puppies.

[font size="4"]Which statement statement below about your own political and civil rights is most in line with your understanding and political ideology? [/font]

(thanks)

9 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I am radical. Our rights come from nature/creation/god
	0 (0%)
	I am radical. Our rights come from the government/society
	0 (0%)
	I am liberal. Our rights come from nature/creation/god
	3 (33%)
	I am liberal. Our rights come from the government/society
	6 (67%)
	I am moderate. Our rights come from nature/creation/god
	0 (0%)
	I am moderate. Our rights come from the government/society
	0 (0%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[snot]

1. I find the wording confusing.

I believe rights are a fiction that we create, and that some versions work better than others. I happen to prefer the version more or less embodied in the U.S. Constitution, plus a few extras; e.g., I think the right of travel should be made more explicit.

I feel that my position should be considered moderate, but I'm not sure how most other people would view it.

[Zorra]

2. I am a human being, and here's my thoughts on this subject ~

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
~ Thomas Jefferson, 1776

I would have phrased it like this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all human beings are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...

But even as smart and prescient as he was,TJ was still only a man of his own time.

[Bucky]

6. Well, yes...

That's why I'm not happy with this feedback

[ZombieHorde]

3. Rights come from the human imagination.

They don't exist outside of the imagination, so they're strictly imaginary.

Imagination--> communication-->convention-->action. That's I how I view rights.

[Bucky]

9. Hmmm, intriguing.

So would you say that, if it hasn't occurred to the people in a particular society that each person has a right to life, then the authorities can, at will, simply kill an individual if they have a policy that prescribes doing so? I'm thinking about the Mayan human sacrifice rituals and the infant offerings to Baal in the ancient Fertile Crescent. Until someone comes along and says, "no you shouldn't do that," it's no wrong, per se?

If that's the case, then is it wrong only for those who think that way, or for those who live in a society where at least some people think that way, or does it need to become a more widely accepted social norm before "imagination" communicates that right to become conventional?

Does state sponsored murder ever become universally or intrinsically wrong... or will it always be subject to social conventions?

Just curious about your thoughts.

[ZombieHorde]

14. I think right and wrong are emotional reactions to preceived stimuli.

Right and wrong come from the observer, and not the situation or person being observed.

[Yo_Mama]

4. This is an interesting poll

I believe our rights are natural and inherent, but I believe society/government defends those natural rights, or doesn't. Obviously I want it to do so.

I think liberals who believe that our rights come from government/society should rethink. In Saudi Arabia, the government society doesn't treat women equally. If you claim that government or society gives us our rights, then people don't really have any inherent rights. Do liberals believe that if our government says homosexuals don't have the right to marry and black people don't have the right to drink from the same water fountains then that's that? Of course not!

Society always defends rights (or doesn't). Otherwise the weaker ones would have no rights if the stronger ones didn't want them to have them. But I don't think that rights are created by society and the government that a society forms - I think that they can only be defended by that society and/or government.

[Bucky]

10. I (and the Founding Fathers) agree with you.

I'm surprised that so many (right now a majority) of DUers are responding that governments create rights. In my thinking, that's not just a divergent opinion: it's factually wrong.

[RedCappedBandit]

13. Agreed. Thank you.

[Bucky]

5. I'm a little shocked by these results

[DreamGypsy]

7. I think you have constructed the poll poorly...

...by discussing three kinds of Rights that require different answers.

(I am sourcing varies wikipedia and wiktionary pages here.)

The adjective 'civil' implies a property of a citizen.

Origin:
1350–1400; Middle English < Latin cīvīlis, equivalent to cīv ( is ) citizen

and citizenship is a link between a person and a state (or states).

Similarly, 'politics' from Greek politikos "of, for, or relating to citizens"

So, 'Civil and Political rights' accrue from citizenship in a state(s), and a state usually has a governing body (which might consist of a single person) so the government defines and (ideally) ensures (defends) your civil and political rights.

Human rights, on the other hand, are "commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being." They might also be termed "natural rights that accrue from the nature of being human". Clearly the "all (women and) men are...endowed by their creator..." from the Declaration of Independence is describing human rights (and enumerates a few of them, the ones that are 'among these'), where evidently the 'creator' defines (entitles) the rights and 'governments are created among (women and) men to secure these rights". The task of defining human rights has also fallen into the domains of philosophy, religion, ...

The United Nations took a first stab in defining human rights in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then the UN, other public and private Human Rights organizations, governments, citizens, etc. have worked tirelessly to defend (ensure) human rights, but as is abundantly clear to everyone...well, it's not quite happening.



It should be noted that group rights and individual rights are other categories of discussion.



ps: Although I did not research this I expect that, since humans are animals, all animal rights are included among human rights. I sleep much better at night knowing that I will be humanely killed before being eaten.

[Bucky]

8. Interesting. I'd argue that all people are created equal & are endowed with inalienable rights

As you point out, civil and political rights are, by design and semantics, synonyms. So your point can be that I'm talking about two kinds of rights, but not conceivably three kinds.

But what are the differences between civil/political rights on one hand and human rights on the other? I like your definitions.
Civil/political:

accrue from citizenship in a state(s), and a state usually has a governing body (which might consist of a single person) so the government defines and (ideally) ensures (defends) your civil and political rights.

Human:

are "commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being." They might also be termed "natural rights that accrue from the nature of being human".

Of course our federal Constitution makes no such distinction, so if any of these rights come from government, they all do. But as you point out, the root thinking of American founding documents is that they are endowed by the Creator, which in modern times means by the fact of being a human being. The philosophical roots of the Founding Era are solidly grounded in the Enlightenment. And it was that zeitgeist that Jefferson took the money-shot phrase "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

In other words, the whole point of governments, which you argue are the definers of civil/political rights, is to secure the inalienable rights, i.e. the human rights, of people. Civil rights, then, are merely a subset of human rights. That is, they exist within (and inalienable from) every human being, even if, as on too many occasions, the governments of the world deny and impinge on those rights. Those rights still exist.

This is why the Declaration makes no hint of there being more than one kind of right. I merely used the three adjectives as a way of being inclusive. I don't see any concrete way that, say, the right to speak my mind or to know what crimes I'm accused of or to have a vote in my government is a human right, but not a civil right--or vice versa. The terms strike me as entirely interchangeable.

On the other hand, my thinking is open to persuasion here. I may well could be missing something, if you want to offer specific definitions that make those distinctions.

[sarisataka]

11. I believe our rights

are inherent. Whether they are recognized or abrogated is dependent on the government or society.

[SmileyRose]

12. human rights from god/nature - civil rights from gov.

[Bucky]

16. Does that include the right to vote or freedom from gov't discrimination?

Those seem like civil rights, having to do with a person's relationship with their own government. If you're right, then doesn't than mean that, say, the grandfather clauses and separate-but-equal public access laws in the Jim Crow South were completely valid under the Constitution? After all, if the government gives people their civil rights (rather than government existing solely to protect nature-given inherent rights) doesn't that empower government to select who it gives rights to? Doesn't that mean that claims about equality and equal treatment under the law are things that a government is free to deny to some?

Intellectually, you've reinforced the same arguments used for racial segregation.

[SmileyRose]

17. WTF?

Wow. Just wow.

[Bucky]

18. Sorry, but the "wow just wow" comes from people who think gov't "gives" people their rights

That is the basis for most of the oppression in the world. A careful read of what I wrote will show you I'm not saying you yourself would approve of racial discrimination. What I'm saying is that the view that gov't is the source of any rights is the basis for any government denying people their rights.

If you're a DUer, I think it's obvious that you favor equal rights for all. But I think we should be aware of our democracy's philosophical underpinnings.

The correct view is that all rights of human beings are intrinsic and inalienable. It doesn't matter if they're called human or civil rights; they're still the rights that people have that governments should not deny them. The only job of government, the only reason for the existence of government, is to protect and ensure those rights. It does not grant and it should not be allowed to take away any rights without due process of law.

I remain shocked at the number of DUers who don't get that. It's the basis for the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

It's also the basis for FDR's Four Freedoms, the Civil Rights Movement, the Nonviolence Resistance movements in India and the United States, the UN Declaration on Human Rights, and the French Revolution's Declaration on the Rights of Man. They work for us; we don't work for them.

[Egalitarian Thug]

15. .

[pampango]

19. I would have voted for: "We are born with rights, but governments often take them away."

I suppose I could accept "Our rights come from the government/society" if we tweaked it to "Our natural rights are only usable if government/society does not take them away." That acknowledges government/society's role in the actual use of our rights without giving it credit for their existence.

[Bucky]

20. Yeah, but you gotta admit its sobering nearly half those answering said "comes from gov't"

interestingly only liberals, not radicals, said "government gives us our rights."

That really bothers me.

[pampango]

21. It is surprising. Not sure what to make of it unless it's something like

"government gives us our rights - by not taking away those that we naturally have."

[jazzimov]

22. Both.

Technically, Civil Rights are proscribed by the ruling mores - whether imposed by some governmental entity or simply by social mores. Regardless, these "rights" should be designed to reflect "fairness" - which is a right given by Nature, as evidenced by various lab experiments with various apes.

And most of my political beliefs are Far-Left: according to Political Compass I am to the left of Ghandi. However, I am pragmatic enough to realize that beliefs are not shared by all or that they are "perfect", and therefore I am willing to accept a more Centrist Compromise.