I suspect rights as in “I have the right to X, do Y, think Z etc.” are the result of social interaction and as such are neither innate nor natural.
To test my position I am interested to hear from those of you who believe otherwise. Who wants to go first?
(Please note that this is not an invitation to debate pro-life/pro-choice arguments, just the nature of rights in general.)
I believe that rights are socio-political construct. Sorry, can’t think of any counter-position against yours.
so they have no rights? (they = those for whom none are made)
you realize what this means?
Ahh. But you are forgetting–No one gets to be ‘not a member of a society’. Everyone is a member of a society, hence, belongs to a socio-political construct.
Yes, we are people and we, through social consensus/government/etc., decide who has what rights. If all of humanity decided that earthworms have a right to be worshipped by us, then so it would be.
Now, that doesn’t mean that the human concept of “rights” is without function or purpose in society. It is a very important concept, and who we choose to give which rights has a real and profound impact on our society and the quality of our lives. Therefore, there are objective reasons and real arguments to be made about specific rights and who and where they should apply.
Our rights are limited only by the amount of power we possess at a given point in time. I have more rights (I can stay up longer, make more important decisions about myself, etc) than my younger sister can. My parents have given me more personal power over my own life as I get older. I now have the authority, and thus, the right, to decide when I go to bed.
However, I do not have the right to drive after 12:00 AM, since I lack the power to make that decision.
Man will allways use his rights in a manner that he thinks will best benefit himself 
you are all scaring me…
not everybody is given rights in the ‘construct’, as you say. all you’ve said is that everybody needs to obey or rebel.
theres no protection here. a body of people can decide a part of that body has no rights, can be killed, or whatever.
if you had the authority could you decide to doubly charge mexicans for tax money?
Rights are not a stand alone framework, they work with-in certain constructs both natural and man-made. Natural being the defualt of course.
I still fell that there are many natural rights that all humans inherently have. Examples of this include The right to having the authority to think and pusue happiness, etc.
However, all throught history, such rights have been hindered (and in some cases, totally denied) to the people by various governments. Buyt here again, we see how power is directly linked to one’s rights. The less power we have, the less able we are to exercise our rights (both natural and man-made).
But, babe, it is implicit in rights that they are enforceable, that there is an entity, i.e. the government or some form of institution, to enforce it. So, how could we meaningfully say someone has a right to do x, if there is nothing to legitimize it. Each society is different in the way rights are created, taken away, or not made at all. Members of society A may have more rights than members of society B.
Now, within a society, you are saying that some members are not accorded rights. Yes. Children are not accorded rights the same way as adults. In fact, they have lesser rights than the adult members.
But what does this mean? My position is that rights are legal rights. If there is a legal code which gives you the right to something, then you have the right to it. If there is no such code, then you have no rights.
I would question what meaning a “natural” right would have. If someone doesn’t have the right to something, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t give them it. It is immoral to treat people badly, yes. But to say this gives people innate “rights” seems overly confusing.
legitimacy comes from within individuals, inherent.
otherwise, if no rights are written for some people, terror can be run amok on them, and that is perfectly fine.
there is also legitimacy given in the state. but not only that.
yes, and some societies infringe on what i would want to say is an inherent right of people. there is obviously freedom to do that, but not the right, because the natural rights of people trump all state created rights.
ofcourse, natural rights might be a myth that facilitates living on the planet. a necessary lie.
Suppose a dictator changes the law to say, “You no longer have the right to freedom-of-thought. This means you no longer have the right to think ‘X’, ‘Y’, or ‘Z’ thoughts anymore.”.
A stupid illistration, I know. But would you not agree that since no one ever has any ability whatsoever to enfore another’s thoughts…that therefore, thinking whatever we please is our right, and is a right that no one can ever take away?
Perhaps “freedom of thought” is made a right by the very fact that no one can ever “enforce” any ruling on our thoughts.
Such a right is what I call a “Natural right or freedom”. A person, and that person, alone, has complete power over his thoughts (or at the very least, is the only person that has any power over his own thoughts).
just my humble thoughts , anyway… 
What is an unnatural right?
Dunamis
The right to vote is an unnatural right. Unnatural in the sense it is artificial, something made by people. In this case the right to vote cannot exist naturally, it is only within the artifical framework of a political system (generally a democracy) that such a right can be enjoyed.
Our freedom of thought can be overuled by another. Pyschological, surgical and chemical means do exist to control the thoughts of others. As such I don’t think your argument proves rights can be natural.
Furthermore I suspect that there is an important difference between a right and a freedom. Freedoms are types of behaviour that one can reasonably expect of themselves (I am free to think what I like) whereas rights relate more to what we can expect from others. The right to be free from harm, is really the right to not be harmed by others. The right to vote is really the right to have ones voice be counted and respected by others.
Firstly, Monooq, I’m not picking on you, it’s just that you’re the only one who is ardently countering my position (which I thank you for).
Can you state exactly what these natural rights are?
Why do the natural rights of people trump all state created rights and on which authority is this decision based?
If natural rights are a myth why are they a “necessary lie”?
Can you give an example of a right working in a natural construct?
S.M.,
“Unnatural in the sense it is artificial, something made by people.”
People aren’t natural?
Dunamis
People are natural, what people create is artificial.
S.M.
So, when a natural thing creates something it is unnatural.
Dunamis
Oops, my bad. You are right.
You too, Dunamis.
Yes of course, but I think this topic, whilst important to the notion of rights deserves its own thread here