Submitted by subrosa in Anarchism

Rights are building blocks of governmental, legal and moral systems, made up of enforceable claims and the dividing lines of general categories.

Whether we use positive or negative terms for our claims, rights appear as attempts in law-making: What is right can be enforced and generalized, what can be generalized and enforced is right.

In horizontal relations, I find such claims pretty insulting in their stubborn disregard for contextual particularities and for other options. They can function as threats, but more certainly create barriers for conflict resolution and mutual understanding.

Approaching anarchy, we wouldn't want to need any rights.

9

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

subrosa OP wrote

First go at it. Idk, could be a bit too 'dense', too philosophical.

For something a little more exhaustive, I need to find a way to incorporate this:

Regardless of what rights we supposedly have or don't have, we already can do whatever we want, and we already are inescapably responsible for everything we do.

8

zoom_zip wrote (edited )

this is besides the point but i feel like there are “rights” that people discuss which are legal rights, and then “rights” which people discuss which are things that we think are the right thing to do when interacting with each other. like, just as an example, if i were to say that i think people should have the right to be left alone if they want to be, i’m using the term “rights” but i’m not saying that i think this should be coded in law, or that it is even enforceable (it’s not), or even that i believe in it as an absolute (i don’t). it’s a way of conceptualising a way that i would like to be treated, and think is the right way to treat others. can i stop anyone from breaching that? no, of course not. does it hold any weight outside of my own mind? only with people who share that way of thinking. they’re not absolute fundamental rights as entitlements, but things that we think are right and affect the way we act. maybe that falls under “moral systems”.

8

subrosa OP wrote

"Rights" whithout enforceable claims, absolutes, and appeals to authority may just be expressions of desire: You may want to be left alone, and recognize that others may too.

Now, it's inviting to make room for some 'soft' form of rights when it comes to needs and desires that we recognize as fairly universal, as human (for example). But what it means to be left alone (e.g. I need silence, but don't care if people call me on the phone -- could be the opposite for others), and how to harmonize conflicting needs and desires, that stuff demands we go beyond good and evil, beyond permission and prohibition. The 'right' way in one specific circumstance contradict the 'right' way of another. Generalizations stop being helpful precisely at the point where people start insisting on them irl.

We'll have to abandon "fixed ideas", be real careful with judgements removed from all particularities. Universality in needs and desires should help us be empathetic and responsible, rendering rights unnecessary. And for more unusual scenarios, the best we can do is to stay open to options -- recognize our uncertainty to guard us from locking into "the right way" that messes everything up.

6

fortmis wrote

who was it on raddle who's studying law?

6

tuesday wrote (edited )

i"m studying how to be a paralegal, not a lawyer though. I can maybe clarify things that are with regards to law but nothing I say should be construed as legal advice. it's all just opinion!

disclaimer out of the way: hi!

6

fortmis wrote

haha classic disclaimer lyfe.

I think I was just curious what you thought about all this coming from a law-esque place.

7

tuesday wrote

Yeah I'm not hard to find personal information about so I've got to cover my ass just in case. Monday-Wednesday are my school days so I'll come back to this Thursday. I wouldn't have seen this post otherwise so thanks for pointing it out to me.

6

tuesday wrote

Legally speaking this is almost accurate.

I don't know if I think that rights, legally, are enforceable because they're positioned as freedoms. The government can't restrict your speech or expression, as example (though they absolutely do). Legal rights, for all intents and purposes, are a fantasy.

The premise of rights in a legal sense is that the government is the owner of the land and thus responsible for the people that live on it, legally and morally. This is why even if you own the land you live on you have to pay taxes to your state and whatever other local governments that control the area. Rights as stated in the constitution of the united states of america are guarantees against government intrusion on your life, though as proven by the past two hundred forty something years of jurisprudence, those rights are less inviolate and more open to interpretation and much looser than the constitution would have you believe.

An example of this is the constitutional right against being tried for the same crime twice (double jeopardy) which now means that you can be tried by the state and by the federal government for the same crime because of something called the "separate sovereigns doctrine." This basically positions the state and the federal court systems as two different "sovereign" systems and as such there's no double jeopardy, even if the person is tried with the same charges using the same facts.

The founding fathers were actually super concerned about the rights of people accused of crimes (there are 4 sections in the bill of rights about it) and were willing to risk letting the guilty go free in order to secure the liberty of the innocent. This is why the onus of proving someone's guilt is on the state, rather than on the defendant. A person also has to be found legally guilty (meaning that their guilt is established through means that do not violate the defendant's constitutionally guaranteed rights.) Modern courts care less about the innocent that are jailed and more about the potential that someone get away with a crime.

So rights are legal privileges that the government says are things that they cannot do, but then find ways to do anyway.

4

subrosa OP wrote

Interesting. Rights as a sort of window for controlled opposition, or plausible deniability of 'overreach'. Safety buffer zone for legal order.

6

fortmis wrote

wow this gives my game show version of "double jeopardy" a whole other angle!!

The founding fathers were actually super concerned about the rights of people accused of crimes ... Modern courts care less about the innocent that are jailed and more about the potential that someone get away with a crime.

very interesting!

5

ziq wrote

They can function as threats, but more certainly create barriers for conflict resolution and mutual understanding.

Super important point. Rights are an extension of the class system in that they create divisions between people, especially migrants vs citizens, homeless vs homed, convicts vs non convicts

6