Should human rights be left up to majority rule, or are they, should they be intrinsic?

[uppityperson]

I'm not talking rights based on any particular characteristic, but in general. Are Human Rights something that should be based on what society thinks (or voters vote on) but should they be just intrinsic?

Sex, skin color, hair color, creed, sexual identity, size, age, economic status, education, etc etc etc. Are there Human Rights that go beyond any sort of categorizing people by any sort of characteristic? Or should that be left up to a society to determine?

[stray cat]

1. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

of course if guns make one happy then is gun control of any sort forbidden? Do convicted felons ever have to forfeit rights? The generalities are certainly an easy yes - until specifics interfere with safety or other people's rights.

[uppityperson]

4. Is owning guns a Human Right? What human rights do convicted felons forfeit?

Serious questions.

[codjh9]

2. The question shouldn't even have to be asked from our side. Not flamin', just sayin'...

[Dora]

3. I understand what "self-evident" and "certain unalienable Rights" mean

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.

[Karenina]

12. The relevant nouns are capitalized.

Hi Dora! :loveya:

[RufusTFirefly]

5. This question strikes at the heart of the Constitution

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This principle resides in the Constitution explicitly so it cannot simply be overturned by a bare majority vote.

[uppityperson]

6. So does this apply only to the USA?

[Juche]

7. Intrinsic, even the Universal declaration of human rights takes that stance

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

[uppityperson]

8. Thanks for the UN link. eom

[AndrewP]

9. Majority rule should NEVER be the deciding factor

[arcadian]

10. Good point. Is a right a right if it has to be given?

What is the nature of the body that distributes these rights? (insert Holy Grail quote here) Shouldn't they merely exist?

It seems like the U.S. Constitution is with us in an "after the fact" capacity. For instance, I'm sitting here and my rights seem to be largely intact. At the moment, I'm happy and nobody is around. If somebody comes up and kills me, they have most certainly infringed upon my human rights. But what recourse do I have? I'm dead. Laws haven't prevented somebody from killing me though. That is largely the sole purpose of laws, preventative measures for future acts. Laws are enacted to mask the fact that all is uncertain and that we are living in a state of seemingly controlled chaos.

[uppityperson]

11. Is a Human Right the right to not be murdered?

Or is it a right to not be murdered because of a certain characteristic?

So should Human Rights be legislated? Or are laws to guide people in being humane?

[The2ndWheel]

15. The crazy thing about the Constitution is that

it might not even exist if not for multiple violations of intrinsic human rights. Those rights had to be violated to build the foundation to be able to discuss the issue. That's not just about the founding of America, you can go back to Rome and Greece if you want.

So I guess those rights have to be legislated and given by some authority. It doesn't sound as if they are intrinsic.

The way I see it, it's all about the energy. How many slaves are in a barrel of oil? If the authority that legislates rights doesn't have the energy, we don't get the rights.

[FiveGoodMen]

13. We hold these truths to be self-evident...

[baldguy]

14. Human rights are self-evident.

[uppityperson]

16. evening kick for more replies