Reddit reviews Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse

We need to be careful whenever we engage in "rights" talk, though (see [Mary Ann Glendon's book on the subject] (http://www.amazon.com/Rights-Talk-Impoverishment-Political-Discourse/dp/0029118239/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1372372374&sr=8-3&keywords=Mary+Ann+Glendon)). We are still feeling our way down a dark corridor on what "expectation of privacy" means in cyberspace, for instance. And it simply won't do to assert an unlimited expectation of privacy...

There is a fantastic book by Mary Ann Glendon called Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse that addresses this issue quite eloquently. If you haven't read it, please do. It is a very important book.

Here it is on Amazon

EDIT: As a preamble to my response, sorry for above, it was ruder than I intended. Too often people blather on with inane/extreme argument, and I get impatient. It wasn't fair of me to respond in such a way.

Honestly, as someone with a PoliSci background, it's debatable (not being a smartass, btw).

Firstly, not just the first 10 are. Im pretty sure everyone has the natural right to NOT be a slave, but that wasn't promised until the 13th.

Depending on perspective, it can be said that only 1, 13, 15, and 19 are. The overall argument being that natural rights refer to those bestowed by God/the universe/and everything. Your personal right to speak, right to belief, right to self-determination, etc. These are your natural rights.

Snarky example: did God make that AK for you, personally? Oh, no? Then it ain't a natural right.

Serious example: goverment is charging you with something and you need representation/want to face your accuser/etc? Government has a regiment of soldiers stashed in your house? (FYI, I believe these are terrible things)

These are legal rights/issues, NOT those bestowed by the universe et all.

Ultimately, no, our amendments are not our natural rights -- they are an early attempt at formally codifying what were believed to be the primary rights of an individual. But, these were heavily determined by the perspectives of those doing the writing--thoughtful, philosophical, industrious, rebellious, white male, land/business owners. Non-whites were all but excluded excluded from our so-called natural rights because they were widely seen as lesser beings in enlightenment thought. The amendments reflect well-meaning, but outdated sentiments. In my opinion, the Bill of Rights is, in many ways, like the Magna Carta. A revolutionary (literally) document that should be treasured for its historical perspectives, but is ultimately useless to the modern world.

On a different note, too often people claim things as rights that are not, in fact, rights. It's an inefficient way to frame arguments. For example, when smoking bans were first discussed: "We should ban smoking in public places because it impacts my right to clean air!" "We should NOT ban smoking in public places because it's my right to smoke where I please!"

This is unhealthy, ineffectual, and is largely responsible for the failures of our current systems. Here is an interesting book on the subject.


This is not an attempt to preach one-sided politics or be obtuse, just an honest reflection.

EDIT 2: Formatting & TL;DR - Founding fathers were pretty cool guys, but they didn't know everything. As a nation we need to learn to accept, and address this.

>Arguments are expected to be supported with reason and data, and not only authority.

Agreed friend!

This:
>"Well, the Bible says...".

Is an absolutely terrible reason to believe in anything.

What's troubling is when my friends claim rights impede social progress and are ridiculed simply because they quote a Christian author.