Exactly, many of them slave owners.
Well, there is the Declaration of Human Rights.
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html
Articles 22 through 26 are ones I would appreciate having, but alas, those seem to be limited mostly to the rent seeking class, and not to people that actually have to earning a wage.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Anyway, these are not constitutional rights, and I’m sure they aren’t binding. And they sure as hell wouldn’t apply to anyone in the USA, because that might cut into company profits.
I wish we lived in a better country sometimes.
Not all rights are found in the Constitution. For instance, most workers have the right to a minimum wage.
Very true, the 9th specifically points this out. Which is how we got the Right to Privacy.
Not really a right. It’s just a law. Look at waitresses, they don’t get it.
It’s a law that establishes a right for most workers. Not all.
Just as not all rights are found in the Constitution, not all rights are universal. For example felons don’t necessarily have a right to vote or bear arms.
Rights can’t be repealed. They could repeal minimum wage tomorrow if they had the votes.
Edit: Mind you, that may vary from state to state. I’m sure min wage IS a right in some states, just not most of them.
Haha what? No right is absolute. Your right to bear arms could be repealed the moment enough voters decided to get rid of the Second Amendment. It’s a higher bar than getting rid of the minimum wage, but it can still be done.
Sure, but that’s a big difference.
Anything that can be destroyed by a legislative vote isn’t a right, because rights are specifically things that the government can’t deny you.
The Second Amendment can be destroyed by a series of legislative votes.
https://www.chronicle.com/blognetwork/edgeofthewest/2013/12/31/right-vs-law/
Rights – in the constitutional sense – are not created by the laws. They exist independently, and the laws are there to protect them, not to establish them.
I think we’re at the point of semantics, but we are talking about legalese, so really it’s all semantics.
Yes, there are people, like the author of the article, who believe that rights are created by God (or are otherwise found in an invisible supernatural realm). I find that position very difficult to prove, in fact not much easier than trying to prove what God wants you to do.
Operationally, there is no difference between a right that “isn’t protected” and a right that simply doesn’t exist. Legally, the only rights you have are those written into law.
Rights are inherent, not given. But that doesn’t mean they can’t be abrogated by a superior force. The right still exists, its just being suppressed by the guy with the bigger club.
Oooo, are we gonna do an argument over natural rights vs legal rights? Hang on, I gotta make some popcorn.
Does a 16 year old have an inherent right to vote that is suppressed by the US government, or do they have no right to vote at all? And how do you tell?
What better place than the stupid thread?
Here’s a simple way to conceptualize this:
A “right” is an expression of how we think things should be. These rights can gain legal status in a bunch of ways, such as by being enshrined in a Constitution or other statement of law. They can also exist as aspirations of what the law should be, even if the law does not currently contain such protections or is not currently interpreted as containing such protections.
Declaring something a “right” is a statement of value, and often a call to action to protect that right.
The rest is all semantics.
I’m with magnet here.
Rights granted by laws are the same as rights granted by the Constitution.
And while we may have the belief that some rights are inherent, this is really just a matter of personal opinion. It doesn’t actually matter until codified by law, because rights only actually matter if you can defend them. Rights that cannot be defended don’t matter.
There are essentially two types of “rights”. One is an abstract notion, which exists only as a concept to discuss. The other is an actual thing which is enforced by realworld power, and affects our lives. The first can become the second, but it’s not a real factor until it is.
That is, our notion of what rights people should have can influence how we cause our government to behave. It can influence what the government creates as a set of rights, enforced by the power of the government. But the notion of “inherent rights” is meaningless outside of the context of that.
I was specifically speaking to natural rights. I think the term “rights” is poorly used when speaking to legal rights.
I don’t know that anyone, 16 or 60, has a “right” to vote, in the natural sense. To self-determination, sure, but not to the determination of anyone else’s lives. Those aren’t what I would call rights at all. Maybe privileges?
Does a 16 year old have an inherent right to property that is suppressed by their parents via the US government, or do they have no right to property at all? And how do you tell?
Where is the right to life codified in law? Do we have it?