> Nobody has 'rights'. It's an artificial construct.

Whether “rights” are an artificial construct is not germane. A twelve-month lease is an artificial construct, but I have one of those. So is a Twitter account, gender, and my favorite pancake recipe. I have all of these things. I also have rights.

In the context of a certain society, sure. But those are “rights within that society”, just like your lease is “a lease within that society.” (The pancake recipe is a pancake recipe anywhere; whether or not you can get the ingredients is a separate issue.) Having rights enforced by treaty across most of the world doesn’t mean you have rights if you e.g. crash-land your private plane into a North Korean military base. Or if you get hijacked by pirates in international waters.

In both cases, it’s not really some airy universal human rights that’ll protect you; instead, you have “being the subject of a powerful sovereign nation that has made a promise to its citizens to retrieve them from such peril, probably ultimately because of that nation’s perception of your granted rights as a citizen of that country.” (And, if you’re stateless, you don’t even have that—which is a big reason many nations don’t let you renounce citizenship without already being a citizen of somewhere-else.)

And, more to the GP poster’s point, your rights don’t exist if you wander into the wilderness, get chased by a bear, get backed into a corner, and want to convince the bear not to eat you. The bear will not stop because “you have rights”; those are, at their widest, a “human civil-society” thing. At that moment, you need something else. Something negotiated, probably. (Maybe you can throw him a sandwich and leave while he’s distracted? That’s a negotiation.)

And then can be revoked, cancelled, traded, stripped etc.

My point isn't they don't exist as some inalienable thing on their own, they are result of negotiations. Hence the argument that 'rights' are something that can't be debated or negotiated is a mistake.

Declaring something to be artificial is a useless dismissal. Names are artificial, but we don't say that nobody has a name.

> If somebody wanted to kill you - you could fight - or you could become useful to the person with the power to kill you.

This is the "everything is a power struggle view", and a particularly simplified version of it too. Primitive societies added the "establish a norm of revenge or blood feud by your relatives" as another resolution. This developed upwards into "official" retribution from the king as proto-state, and thence into law as we know it today.

> recording of decisions - ie a vote at the end of every thread.

They're not debates with motions and resolutions. If they were, you'd also need a process for "this motion is not well formed or decidable".

Hmm that's what I said.... that 'rights' are an outcome of negotiation, not some inalienable thing not open to negotiation.

The argument for universal rights is not a dismissal of reality, but rather a tool for creating a reality that is better than a harsh state of nature where you have to bargain for your very existence.

That's what I said.... I was replying to somebody that said the 'rights' were how somehow none negotiable - when they are in fact the outcome of negotiations!

Are principles not also a social construct? Would you say that “no one has principles”?

People absolutely do have rights, my government ensures that I do have a right to vote. It may be intangible but that doesn’t mean it’s not real, saying “no one has rights” is at best a platitude, people demonstrably do have rights all over the world.

> People absolutely do have rights, my government ensures that I do have a right to vote.

Except when you are prison ( depending on your country ) or below a certain age.

It's all semantics - back to the meaning of my reply - the person I was replying to suggested that some things are non-negotiable ( like rights ). This is simply not true.

Note I think a system of government with universal 'rights' is a good system. Not dismissing that concept - quite the converse - these exist because people have had an adult negotiation with each other.

>the person I was replying to suggested that some things are non-negotiable ( like rights ). This is simply not true.

Fair enough, I missed this context and I do agree with the statement.

this isn't a hot take. we already live in a society that obligates us to abide by a social contract. so yes people do have rights. it's as real as the fact that you and I speak the same language. looking around and imagining that because some people somewhere sometimes are in breach of contract means that contracts don't exist is stupid. they do. we all signed them and resign them when we use any cooperative produced object (that includes language, science, public roads, etc)

Hmm.. reread the full thread again. I think the mistake here is my lack of clarity about the word 'rights'.

My point was there is no such thing as an inalienable rights. 'Rights' are a negotiated social contract - so it makes no sense to say they are not negotiable!

>negotiated social contract

the bill of rights was ratified December 15, 1791. in what sense is it still being negotiated?

That's basically what the supreme court does. The words remain the same, but the interpretation makes all the difference. Even strict constructionists have to negotiate the acceptance of their view.

Excellent point.

I'm not an expert on the US system, but I believe ratification implies some sort of agreement.

I also believe there is an amendment process - ie it has changed over time and each of those changes is through some sort of democratic process...

So the debate and negotiation still goes on, even if it changes slowly.

The Enlightenment-era view is opposite. According to philosophers of that era like Hobbes, everybody has natural rights. According to Locke, these rights are life (everyone is entitled to live), liberty (everyone can do what they want, unless it conflicts with #1), and property (everyone is entitled to what they create and what they own, unless it conflicts with #1 and #2). We agree to forego and suppress some of our natural rights, enjoying all of the fruits of our labor, imprisoning lawbreakers who haven't broken any of these, allowing killing of people in some circumstances, penalties for certain types of speech, etc., and allow ourselves to be governed for our mutual benefit. Those rights are constantly being re-negotiated (for example: the USA's founding documents specifically enshrine the right to own guns, but there is a national discussion about whether we should continue to have this right. Also, we have historically had freedom of speech, and that has been adjudicated not to include credible threats or speech that would directly and intentionally cause physical or financial harm, according to natural rights #1 and #3, and some would like to adjudicate that further to ban speech that would cause emotional harm) If any group of people disagrees too strongly with the status quo, civil disobedience happens. Civil disobedience is people exercising their natural rights in opposition to the state.

It's important to note that the recognition of natural rights was critical in the argument against monarchy, if this concept of natural rights is eroded or replaced in government, the concept of negotiating rights and/or civil disobedience becomes very different in philosophy, because it would mean that rights are granted by whoever's in charge of the government, rather than being an emergent property of humanity that the people agree to limit for the greater good. If you surrender the concept of natural rights, you lose all of your negotiating power, as citizens.

> If you surrender the concept of natural rights, you lose all of your negotiating power, as citizens.

That's not true; under the constitution of my country, which is a republic, rights are based on the sovereignty of the people.

A more relevant issue is: does it matter? My country didn't transition from a monarchy to a republic because the king was convinced by strong reasoning to abdicate; there was a coup d'état, and he was forced into exile.

I'd agree, the concept of 'universal rights' is useful in the sense you are basically saying 'hey pretty much everyone agrees with this, nothing to see here'. A useful rhetorical tool.

However as you point out - using 'sanctity' type special status cut's both ways - what pretty much every other country sees as sensible action - control of lethal weapons - is blocked in the US, partly by, by pointless debates on 'rights'.

> If you surrender the concept of natural rights, you lose all of your negotiating power, as citizens.

True power comes from collective action - the Baron's ganged up on the king to force the Magna Carta - it wasn't the power of the philosophical argument - that's a cover to allow face saving ( though, of course, face saving is essential to non-violent progress ).