Where Do Rights Come From? - Learn Liberty

[@Garchomp4LiFee]

This is by FAR my favorite video of @LearnLiberty.

[@derekloche7719]

Agreed. They are just a social contracts with others that comes and goes as times change.

[@turtlemonvh]

Great video. This is a source of confusion far too often in a variety of discussions. Thanks for the clear presentation of material.

[@arcad1an292]

Rights for the INDIVIDUAL, because that's the only way to stand against the overwhelming power of the collective.

[@nelsonomicsruns9246]

WISE ARCADIAN if theyre merely INVENTED then they have no meaning and no foundation.

[@alexsanderprogramador]

They are not invented, however, but derived from reason and founded on philosophy.

[@XX-bz1wk]

Yeah but "the collective" is just a bunch of INDIVIDUALS, and if we care about individuals, it stands to reason that we'd care about a LOT of individuals at least as much...

[@arcad1an292]

@A It’s INDIVIDUALS that are assembling.

[@capacityglobe2373]

Wow, this is amazingly worded! Thank you I needed help answering a prompt

[@ElasticGiraffe]

As someone who thinks natural rights are, in fact, incoherent outside a theistic worldview (as I believe with that all rights are granted by legitimate authority), I found this a very fair and balanced overview. :) Regardless of our metaethical presuppositions we each affirm the same foundational social ethic and pursue the same political end, the maximization of liberty, which is one reason why the libertarian philosophy attracts dedicated religious, irreligious, and even anti-religious people.

[@Pedrotheporcupine]

I love learn liberty ads when watching Adam vs the Man. I would actually choose to have learn liberty ads.

[@AspiringChristian]

Personally. I argue that rights come from mans ability to reason and as this ability is within us thru our naturally existing capacity's then rights are inherent. Question: what enabled the origins of the concept of rights? Answer: humankind's ability to reason.

[@nelsonomicsruns9246]

AspiringChristian you just assume Reason exists, that reason is valid, that Man has access to reason and that his use of reason is valid. Where do you get such ideas considering the materialist believes Man is a 'meat machine?' Reason is an imaterial idea that cant exist in a purely material world.

[@LucisFerre1]

"The morally best thing, is that which brings about the greatest good for the greatest number of people". That's daft. Individualism is where the individual and individual rights are the highest priority. Collectivism is where the collective is the highest priority. There will always come about situations in collectivism where the individual, his rights, even human rights, will be sacrificed "for the greater good", which is the "morality" of cannibalism, the "morality" of a totalitarian state.

[@QuadNineEnt]

Can’t help but wonder, who is he looking at off camera? Thanks for another great vid though.

[@CostasKitis]

People have rights implicitly because they have duties also as obligations. How can you expect someone to have a certain amount of their duties and obligations having no rights? ... is a rhetoric of a philosophical question answering one of the causes of having rights and contrasting them oppositely to obligations adding on how can someone tolerate that to be subjected.

[@WilhelmDrake]

John Kuchta - "And if the government deems your property theirs, which they often do will you keep praising these government property rights." The ownership of ALL private property in Canada stems from Crown Land Grants.

[@jamesthomas4693]

Your rights are always there, it's up to you to exercise them. Everything is a negotiation. What are you willing to accept?

[@PeterPicklePatch]

He claims that all that matters is that people agree that there are rights, but many utilitarians reject this and the claim that there are such things are rights to begin with.

[@AmanJohn]

Some may see Utilitarianism and Deontology as "diametrically" opposed, but I don't see it that way at all. If we appeal to metaethical nuances and take a stricter definition of "good" to mean something akin to Plato's "THE Good" then we may find ourselves trying to extract deontological principles in order to maximize "Good" anyway! EITHER way we would have to understand human nature and the natural laws of the universe and "God"...both systems would lend themselves to natural rights.

[@amazingblur3543]

rights are what they don't take away from you

[@derfalschejunge]

I'm sorry, to me it seems saying, that there are rights even though they have not been found out yet WHY they are there, is just as convincing as saying there is a monster in Loch Ness even though it has not been found yet.

[@thebashfulturtle9987]

I'm against utilitarianism because it trumps the individuals rights. It means you can make a lot of people happy, but by making a few people unhappy.

[@AngryKettle]

Best comment, perhaps.

[@AndJamTracksForAll2014]

ethical guidance which derives from what?

[@AlexanderSupertramp142]

Rights come from our creator..

[@Pedrotheporcupine]

in skyrim terms democrats are like imperials, republicans are like stormcloaks and libertarians are like the psigic order... or the gray beards or nevermind

[@Garchomp4LiFee]

Well are we not different from "nature"?

[@izahrawr1246]

If you say natural rights are contract origin, then they never existed, just things agreed upon. They have no genuine moral basis. So, the analogy you gave at the end, is more like.. you can take two cars for work. The first car actually has a motor, the other car doesn't have a motor. The God given rights is the justification that aligns with the car having a motor. The made up, agreed upon, rights is a "justification" that is like the car without a motor.

[@LucisFerre1]

Rights are not privileges, & fiat is an arbitrary declaration. I have no idea why you're talking about the money supply. I'm talking about the innate nature of rights, what they can be and what they cannot be by their very nature. For example they must be immutable and not retractable or they wouldn't be rights at all. They would be faux rights, revocable when needed the most.

[@TravLane21]

IMO ....god given rights. Right to defend yourself with means that provide you the ability to not be hurt Right to pursue happiness right of freedom and choice right of religious pursuit/practice right of free speech probably some more but htese come to mind.

[@LucisFerre1]

Rights cannot be granted by any person, 'god' or governing body, because what can be granted can be denied, a contingent nature that contradicts the meaning of "right". Rights are RECOGNIZED, not created. And they're recognized as a matter of context, category and qualification. I have no Mexican citizen rights because I'm not a citizen of Mexico, but I have human rights because I'm human. No one "grants" me rights, I merely qualify or not for certain rights by context.

[@evolvingseeds]

rights are rights because they do no wrong to another being. That's where rights come from. No different from hot coming from cold and cold coming from hot. It's 2 sides of the same coin.

[@nelsonomicsruns9246]

Humans On The Ground youve inserted your moral assumption there using the word "wrong" which implies Right which requires a universal moral law which requires a Universal Moral Law Giver

[@thebashfulturtle9987]

@@nelsonomicsruns9246 what he meant (and I'm pretty sure on this) is that your rights don't effect anyone else i.e. you don't need no one else to grant you those rights.

[@nelsonomicsruns9246]

@@thebashfulturtle9987 then still, where do they come from and what is your philosophical basis for expecting anybody to agree or respect them?

[@thebashfulturtle9987]

@@nelsonomicsruns9246 I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but prepare to suffer the consequences. If you don't believe that humans are born with the right to life, then neither are you, and you forfeit your right to live. Most people want to live, so they believe in the right to life, and they aren't special so everyone gets the right. And as a part of general freedom, you cannot stop anyone else from doing anything that doesn't affect you, because you wouldn't want someone else doing it to you. Unless you WANT someone else to do it to you then by all means, go ahead. If you don't believe me on the rights we have then we won't give then too you. Simple. If you believe you have extra rights that you really don't then we'll use them against you. Simple. Once we find that balance, those are our natural rights.

[@thebashfulturtle9987]

@@nelsonomicsruns9246 and morals are subject. Just because you have all the power in the universe it doesn't make you the most moral, even if you claim to be because morals are subject. God may have the POWER and he may have even created us but what gives him the AUTHORITY to mess with the lives of sentient beings. That makes your life a game bound by whatever laws good sets

[@mrmoody7098]

who is from india . mark your attendance 😁

[@sniperquasi]

ridiculous, 'rights' are an emotive expression originating from our ethical guidelines.

[@LucisFerre1]

[[REAL rights come from the creator of the boundless universe. Even my RIGHT to contract is a Natural right.]] - That which is granted by fiat can be revoked by fiat, which is a direct contradiction of the concept of rights. Rights cannot be prescribed or granted by ANY authoritarian body. Rights come from the fact that you own yourself by right. The alternative is to be owned by someone else, a slave, & slavery cannot be a right, because there cannot be a right to violate rights. Contradiction.

[@nelsonomicsruns9246]

Rights require a granter, such as the 'right to vote.'Natural Rights such as Property require a Creator God to grant them, one who has the authority to do so sitting above and beyond the world in which Man lives. No God = No Natural Rights.

[@thebashfulturtle9987]

Well no, not really. How does God grant us rights? It seems to me we could reason them for ourselves. If God grants us the natural right to life then we wouldn't have murderers, but if God doesn't grant us the natural right to life then by your own reasoning we wouldn't have it, but we somehow reasoned it. The only solution is that god is not the provider of our natural rights.

[@dillpickle2191]

i have the human right to eat, shit and sleep

[@santosscribbles]

second

[@LucisFerre1]

"It's important to remember that people have rights, despite the philosophical disagreement as to why". What a crock of shit. Libertarian cop out. The usual claim that it's "tradition" is likewise a non-reason. You can't say that something is true if you can't support the notion that it is in fact true. The best argument for human rights comes from Objectivism. It comes from the fact that we own ourselves by right, because there is no alternative.

[@adamanderson5055]

Some of the things he claims are rights are privileges. Rights come from God.

[@201Michael]

You have sick leave rights because God gave you the right to have a contract with your employer. We have voting rights because God said to choose leaders from among you and God gave us governments to ensure we have rights. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they 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,

[@kevingp12]

Rights come from God

[@sadplateofbacon]

Rights = temporary privileges.