The freedom is that the federal government has only a limited set of rights. The people also are given a set of unalienable rights through constitutional amendments (the Bill of Rights and so on).
Everything else is left up to the middle governments - states and municipalities.
Though the federal government has increased its scope massively since the early days of the country, and in some cases via sketchy interpretations of the Constitution...
That's a view that seem common among extreme libertarians. An opposing view is that no person has any rights other than those that _other people_ agree they have. That latter view is more common among extreme communitarians, that _all_ rights are "given".
I'd say it's arguable whether we are (or should be) moving towards making your position, the first one, true.
But it seems clear that in the natural state of human beings there were no rights (e.g. certainly no complex idea of property), so we are at the vert least transitioning _to_ your position _from_ the latter.
I make no judgment of value, just pointing out you are at best "partially", or "not yet fully", correct.
Point in case, travel a few thousand kilometers in any direction and most likely everyone you meet will disagree on what are your rights - not the least because there you'll be a foreigner. Do you really have inaliable rights as a fact of nature when there's not a single shred of structure to support them?
Even more strikingly clear - were there rights before peoples? Were there human rights before humans? Was there a right to live before life? Rights as an intrinsic part of the natural is impossible in this view.
> That's a view that seem common among extreme libertarians.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
If that is “extreme libertarian” then count me in. The United States was literally founded on this concept. It’s extreme to think of rights any differently, at least if you are an American. ”Extreme” is the idea that rights are gifts from government or from the benevolence of a sovereign. The view of rights as being unalienable is distinctly American; Englishman Thomas Hobbes expounded on this and thusly planted the seeds of the American idea. Such seeds didn’t take root in England at the time as citizens there were subjects of a king, but it was Hobbes that set the wheels of freedom in motion.
Extreme? I suppose it depends on one’s perspective. At the time Hobbes was extreme, but then, as Americans, we might think of any idea contrary to liberty as a extreme.
> The view of rights as being unalienable is distinctly American
That's quite a claim.
> Englishman Thomas Hobbes expounded on this and thusly planted the seeds of the American idea.
John Locke is the usual go-to figure, no?
> Such seeds didn’t take root in England at the time
Are you sure?
“17th-century English philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. In Britain in 1689, the English Bill of Rights and the Scottish Claim of Right each made illegal a range of oppressive governmental actions.[18] Two major revolutions occurred during the 18th century, in the United States (1776) and in France (1789), leading to the United States Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen respectively, both of which articulated certain human rights. Additionally, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 encoded into law a number of fundamental civil rights and civil freedoms.”
I didn't mean that _only_ extremely libertarian (or communitarian) people hold one or the other end of the argument. Just that it it's more common, as these are most likely core concerns for those people
>Even more strikingly clear - were there rights before peoples? Were there human rights before humans? Was there a right to live before life? Rights as an intrinsic part of the natural is impossible in this view.
It’s not that complicated. Might makes right. If an organism has the power to do something, then it can do it. Everything is subject to the forces of their environment. For humans, the societies that created somewhat formal systems of power management seem to have thrived and out survived those societies (or lack of societies) that didn’t.
> A government can take them away and the people can take them back.
An the people (you live nearby) can take them away if they deem you unsightly ... unless goverment first takes away their right to take away your rights. Which governments usually do in sane countries.
In the absence of top down rules, local level 'office politics' thrives making life worse for everybody.
“Voltaire said about God that ‘there is no God, but don’t tell that to my servant, lest he murder me at night’. Hammurabi would have said the same about his principle of hierarchy, and Thomas Jefferson about human rights. Homo sapiens has no natural rights, just as spiders, hyenas and chimpanzees have no natural rights. But don’t tell that to our servants, lest they murder us at night.”
? Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
Sorry, you have it backwards. The people have rights, and the rights are presumed to pre-exist the US constitution. The government has powers delegated to it by the people via the constitution.
The Federalists argued that the Bill of Rights was redundant and unnecessary. The Anti-federalists were more skeptical of human nature, and the ratification of the constitution by several states was contingent on the first congress adding a bill of roghts via amendment.
George Mason, rep of 1st congressional district of Virginia to the first congress, was what we would call the “floor manager” of the bill. It was stonewalled by opponents, and eventually the bill had to be broken into a package of 12 amendments. 11 passed the house and were sent to the states for ratification. 10 were ratified rather quickly and are what we know as the BoR. The 11th was certified as ratified sometime in the 1970’s, I believe.
Everything else is left up to the middle governments - states and municipalities.
Though the federal government has increased its scope massively since the early days of the country, and in some cases via sketchy interpretations of the Constitution...
reply