I have seen it stated on several occasions, that since a society is easily able to provide a good or service, then people have a right to it.
Naturally, this creates numerous questions.
How can the 'right' be a right, if the prerequisite for the right is a sufficiently advanced society?
If some disaster (or neglect) causes societal disintegration, does the right disappear?  What happens to the people who are depending on society and not themselves, to exercise their right?
What kind of view of rights holds that rights are dependant on the state of society, and is there any validity to the opinion?
To wit:

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe." -- U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, quoted by AP, 11/18/93

I realize that this senator's opinion can be blown off as the whacked out ramblings of a commie lunatic.  However, I am seeing a lot more of the basic underlying concept, as explained prior to the quote.
Other issues which are being perceived as a right by a lot of people is socialized/nationalized/universal healthcare, free education, and others.  These things are seen as rights because the society is sufficiently advanced to be able to provide the service.
This calls into question the nature of a right itself.  We are turning away from the notion of a right as something that every man can do for himself, if nobody inteferes with him.  No longer is a right native to being a human individual, presumably created, but rather it is something to be provided by government because government can provide it.
Why is the concept of rights changing so drastically, and why is everybody embracing it so excitedly?

It's because one universal characteristic of politically (or religiously) heretical movements is the covert redefinition of terms whose meaning was theretofore clear and agreed-upon by all participants in the debate. This is a species of intellectual camouflage; it allows the exponents of novel practices which would otherwise be rejected out of hand to gain or retain a place at the table because they ape the language of the preexisting debate. Thus they speak of a "right to health care" because we don't generally debate the existence of rights but rather the best means of allowing their free exercise. If these fabian stalinists were wedded to linguistic truth, they'd have to talk about "the duty to pay out of your pocket for strangers' abortions, drug treatment, and bunion surgery," and people would laugh them off the public stage. The abuse of language is a deliberate subterfuge [see, e.g., the notorious Sugarman quote about exploiting and compounding public confusion over the difference between full- and semi-auto weapons].

THe concept of entitlements are getting confused with true rights.  The word 'rights' is powerful.  People attach desired entitlements such as medical coverage to the work 'right' to make it OK for other people to pay for it.  From my perspective a "right" has to be something that is within an individual's ability to produce without imparing anyone else's rights at the same time.  The right to self defence is totally different than the right to be defended.  One is real and the other is a fiction for the most part.

I think you should blow her comments off as the ramblings of a commie lunatic. We do.

CW

Can you explain or point me in the right direction to get the background on the "sugarman quote"?

so, it stands to reason then that if a minority of pitbull owners can't control their dogs, then everyone should lose the right to own them?

Somebody leaked, and somebody else published, a leaked memo from Josh Sugarman, head kneepadder at HCI (iirc) containing the quote referred to in this article, re: the 1994 AWB. I confess that I am lazy. You will have to track down the original document yourself. The quote itself, however, is a rare admission of the practice of using confusion and redefinition for tactical advantage. Sugarman admits that support for the AWB was based on the existing (and soon to be exploited) public belief that anyone not a felon could buy a FA M-16 at the local pawn shop for $700.

[b]quote in this article:[/b]

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2185/4_10/55030965/p3/article.jhtml?term=

Jumping threads a bit, aren't we?

Looks that way.  I got no idea what he is talking about.  I think he has some more unread Ayn Rand books he needs to be reading [;)]

Which amendment covers pit bulls? I must have missed that one.

To me, rights are undeniable by their very nature.  God-given, if you will.  I have the right to protect myself from attack.  I have the right to speak freely.  The Constitution guarantees these rights.

What the US has devolved (not evolved, but devolved) to is what we have currently.  Socialism obligates the citizenry to pay for 'rights' which are not rights at all, but privileges.

Actually, I was just referring to the topic, not the cotent of the original post.  And why does it have to be covered in the constitution to be a fundamental right?

Sorry, but this is the real problem. You and we let people get into office that will attack our rights with no consequence to them. These people know they can step all over us and we can or won't do a damn thing about it. I would venture a bet that if a Unintended Consequences senario came around, not one person would do anything about it.

I am sure people didn't and don't really know the real Diane Frankenstein. And that's part of the problem, if people knew the real person, they would probably throw her out of office like they did with Gray Davis. Gray Davis is a mean, tyranical jackass and people still support him. ??? And yes, we here in Michigan have Carl Lenin. Not Levin, LENIN! So I am not throwing stones, we are all getting the shaft because people who are power hungry or control freaks usually end up in politics.

And, rights are different than privledges, at least in my view. Driving on a concrete or black top road is a privledge. Protecting yourself with whatever you want is a right as long as you don't use the weapon to commit a crime like robbery or murder. Killing in self defense is different and I would even go so far to say that the people in Unintended Consequences had the right to kill their elected officials. But I doubt anyone would go so far as to do it. This another reason our country is screwed, people expect things to improve every day. We have a good road, NO we have to make it wider and faster because it's progress, even though we really don't need to improve it based on traffic patterns. Rant off, sorry...

Ding! Ding! Ding! [b]That's the most important thing I've seen on this board in a long time.[/b] Most of the opposition to the BOR at the time of its passage was based on the fear that listing some rights in the BOR would lead to exactly the scenario we have seen played out on this board between libertarians and coercivists: "Show me where the Constitution says you have the right to smoke pot/keep a bulldog/poop in the yard/whatever!" That's why we have the Ninth Amendment, to-wit: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Unfortunately, the same Constitution gave us a Supreme Court which has essentially determined that the Ninth Amendment (as well as the Tenth) is a tautology with no effect on Constitutional jurisprudence - sort of an inside  joke passed on by the Framers to cognoscenti of today.

[intercom]  paging mr steve-in-VA, mr steve-in-va, we have a case of seditious comments in general discussion, thread "fundamental rights".   Oh, DF is here, cancel that. [/intercom] [;D] oh, IBTL  [:D]

And thus, you've found the other half of the puzzle.
Why are new rights being perceived/created when the entire government is subverting the old rights as fast as they can?  Nearly every single right that appears in the BoR has been weakened by a law, SCOTUS ruling or arbitrary action by a government agency.
Both the weakening/destruction of the enumerated rights, and the creation of new rights, are because of ONE thing: the advanced state of society.
Are we just bored with the old ones?
What rights can you come up with that DOES NOT depend on the intervention of a third party?
What rights can you come up with that does not presuppose the existance of a certain level of technology?
What rights can you come up with that does not presuppose a certain stage of a society?
What rights can you come up with that presupposes ONLY that you exist?
What are you going to call a 'right' that requires something other than what you were born with?  For certain, any right that needs what you don't have, or what somebody else has or knows, does not resemble any conventional notion of rights.
How do you square such problematic concepts?

So if it's not explicitly permitted, it's prohibited?

What is a "right"? How does society define it and can we change it? Is a "right" something in the legal realm or in the moral or ethical one. Are "rights" limited to those laid down years ago or can new "rights" develop over time? Aren't all "rights" in existence because society "is easily able to provide" them? Is a "right" any less of a "right" because society might have to pay for it? Does anyone have a "right" to something just because they are able to afford it?

Questions, questions, questions![:D]

Here's a simple litmus test to determine whether or not something is a "right":

If [i]action[/i] is required in order for an entitlement to exist, then it IS NOT a right.  

If only [i]inaction[/i] is required, then it IS a right.

For example, health care requires that someone produce it ([i]action[/i] - NOT a "right").

The ability to simply live your life unimpeded requires only that others leave you alone ([i]inaction[/i] - a RIGHT, specifically the right to life).

I've considered this test from many angles, and found it to be solid.  Can anyone refute it?

Edited to add this link:  [url=http://www.capitalism.org/faq/rights.htm]What are rights?[/url]

What "right" do you have to say that? [:D]




[devil]

Guys, public opinion does indeed affect policy decisions, including SCOTUS rulings.  This is fact, not conjecture.

I know a gentleman with a Ph.D. in political science who's expertise is in public opinion.  One of the major studies he has done is correlating public opinion with SCOTUS rulings over the last 150 years.  The data greatly support the conclusion that PO has and does continue to affect such decisions.

Hence, if the Lobs continue to beat on guns and the Second Amendment (which we know they will), at some point SCOTUS will reflect the public's reaction to this.

Saf but true guys.  Unless there is a way to turn the tide, eventually we'll lose.  Right now the political climate is pretty gun friendly.  However, that's not a victory nor have we "gained back ground."  We've just slowed the progress of the Libs a little.

CMOS

The concept in question is one of near-satanic deceit. The "old" rights by design restrict the power of the government, the collective, and the majority as opposed to the individual. The new "rights," by equally deliberate design increase the power of, and general dependence upon, the government, the collective, and the majority as opposed to the individual. The new "rights" always take one more bite from liberty than is necessary. You qualify for a tax-funded retirement dole, but you must submit to lifelong monitoring of your place of residence, your income, and your earnings - it is not enough that you present proof of participation at age 65 to collect your checks. You qualify for public assistance with prescription drug costs, but you are forbidden to purchase private insurance  to defray your out-of-pocket costs. You must be dependent, and you must be monitored.

The current process is not susceptible of squaring or rational reconciliation with the old rules, because it is in every way foreign to the order it replaces. The creation of new "rights" is a grotesque charade whose purpose is more the destruction of the ancient rights of free men than the satisfaction of any universal need. It sails under the false flag of old and trusted words; it dresses the decrepit whore of coerced collectivism in the fetching silk of robust and rosy-cheeked liberty; it conceals the bland insipidity of government grits with a thin but gamey gravy stewed down from the bones of our freedom.

Howvere we may conceive government, it is in the end an assembly of men, of organisms. Like all of creation, it bears the mark of its maker. It is in the nature of men to gather power. It is therefore in the nature of the governments they make to do likewise. It is for this reason that the tree of liberty must from time to time be watered . . . .

I like polls!  I like pie!  [}:D]
1) right -- (an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature; "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"; "Certain rights can never be granted to the government but must be kept in the hands of the people"- Eleanor Roosevelt; "a right is not something that somebody gives you; it is something that nobody can take away").  A right is a right simply because you are a living human being.

2) I don't know how 'society' defines it.
3) Moral Realm.
4) HOW can new rights develop?  The definition of rights seems to prohibit development of new rights.  SOMETHING may develop, but I don't think you can properly call it a 'right'.
5) No.  A right is something that only YOU can provide for yourself.  Do you need society to provide for your free speech?  Do you need society to help you worship freely?  Do you need society to provide for your right to bear arms?  I have more.
6) Yes.  If somebody needs society to help exercise their rights, how can it fairly be called a right?  What if society fails them?  How does that affect their right?  Do they not have the right, if society fails to provide?

DF, as stated in the link I posted above, society does not define rights, but the concept of rights is only valid in the context of living in a society.  If I'm alone on an island, the concept of rights does not apply.

True.  I had a further comment, but it is too late to find the proper words [BD]

I think this guy should be the next governer of Florida  [:D]