Lately I've been reading here where writers have designated this or that falsely as a "right", and so, with that in mind ...
... Rights have to do with our behavior toward one another.
There is only one paramount, foundational right: the right to life. This is a state of being right. This right is unalienable, inviolable and absolute, so that only God, who gives this right, can rightly violate this right of another human being.
From the paramount foundational right to life, there emanates the singular secondary right as a result: the right to physical and psychological security of person. This is an existential right. This right is inviolable except when one is in the act of violating this or the foundational right of another.
From the paramount foundational right to life with respect to the singular secondary right of security of person, there emanates the singular tertiary right as a result: the right to freedom of action. This is an activity right. This right is situationally relative and may be abridged, limited or revoked for justified circumstances either personally or collectively.
These are the only three classes of rights that exist. There are no more classes of rights than these.
Behaviors may be reasonably and customarily classified as belonging to one of these three classes of rights, thus making the behavior a "right".
For example, the right of the behavior of self-defense is reasonably and customarily classified under the right of security of person, and that makes the behavior of self-defense a right.
If a person unjustifiably attacks you, threatening your life, you have the right of self-defense to deflect the attack. If the attack is truly life threatening and the attacker is killed in the process, the defender is not liable for violating the attacker's right to life because the attacker was both 1) in the process of violating the defender's foundational right and 2) the defender was executing his secondary level right.
When rights conflict then appeal is thus made to the level of rights involved. In the preceding example, the attacker had no right to make the life-threatening attack and the defender had every right to defend the threat against his life with equal force if necessary. Thus the decision goes to the defender, and the attacker's right of security of person is suspended during the attack and the attacker's appeal to the tertiary right of "freedom of action" is trumped by the defender's appeal to the overriding secondary right of security of person.
Behaviors classified as activity rights present a challenge for resolution when rights are in conflict.
The general rule of resolution is that the foundational right overrides the secondary right which overrides the tertiary right.
For example, a person wants to own a nuclear bomb. The person claims that owning a nuclear bomb is his freedom of action right. However, that freedom of action is not reasonable and customary, so such is not a right. So whether or not the person will be privileged to own a nuke will depend on the government.
However, in another example, a person wishes to own a gun for protection. The person claims that owning a gun is his freedom of action right. Such a behavior is also reasonable and customary, so indeed, owning a gun is a right.
However, freedom of action rights are, by nature, situationally relative, and may be abridged, limited or revoked for justified circumstances, either personally or collectively.
So although gun ownership is a right, the right may be revoked, for example, if the person is justifiably considered a threat to the right of security of person of another individual or people in general. Justifiably deprived of his right to own a gun, that person must find another way to insure his security of person.
Resolution between two conflicting freedom of action rights becomes more complicated.
For example, it is reasonable and customary to allow the right of property owners to build on their land and it is reasonable and customary to allow people the right to drive their cars on the roads.
But if the roads are congested beyond acceptable function, governments may deny property owner "developers" the right to build homes and business buildings on their property and sell them, as such would create additional cars on the road and contribute to the revoking of the right to drive one's car freely without constriction on the road.
Ultimately, however, rights in conflict involving freedom of action rights are resolved by appealing backwards to the secondary and foundational rights which always trump freedom of action rights.
So, for example, though we have freedom of action, if a crime is committed, the criminal may have his freedom of action rights abridged via a stay in the pokey. However, during his stay in prison it is a violation of his right of security of person to be subjected to "beatings" of various natures at Bubba's whim.
All situational abrogation of rights follows this hierarchical appeal to the three classifications of rights.
These are the realities of rights.
... Rights have to do with our behavior toward one another.
There is only one paramount, foundational right: the right to life. This is a state of being right. This right is unalienable, inviolable and absolute, so that only God, who gives this right, can rightly violate this right of another human being.
From the paramount foundational right to life, there emanates the singular secondary right as a result: the right to physical and psychological security of person. This is an existential right. This right is inviolable except when one is in the act of violating this or the foundational right of another.
From the paramount foundational right to life with respect to the singular secondary right of security of person, there emanates the singular tertiary right as a result: the right to freedom of action. This is an activity right. This right is situationally relative and may be abridged, limited or revoked for justified circumstances either personally or collectively.
These are the only three classes of rights that exist. There are no more classes of rights than these.
Behaviors may be reasonably and customarily classified as belonging to one of these three classes of rights, thus making the behavior a "right".
For example, the right of the behavior of self-defense is reasonably and customarily classified under the right of security of person, and that makes the behavior of self-defense a right.
If a person unjustifiably attacks you, threatening your life, you have the right of self-defense to deflect the attack. If the attack is truly life threatening and the attacker is killed in the process, the defender is not liable for violating the attacker's right to life because the attacker was both 1) in the process of violating the defender's foundational right and 2) the defender was executing his secondary level right.
When rights conflict then appeal is thus made to the level of rights involved. In the preceding example, the attacker had no right to make the life-threatening attack and the defender had every right to defend the threat against his life with equal force if necessary. Thus the decision goes to the defender, and the attacker's right of security of person is suspended during the attack and the attacker's appeal to the tertiary right of "freedom of action" is trumped by the defender's appeal to the overriding secondary right of security of person.
Behaviors classified as activity rights present a challenge for resolution when rights are in conflict.
The general rule of resolution is that the foundational right overrides the secondary right which overrides the tertiary right.
For example, a person wants to own a nuclear bomb. The person claims that owning a nuclear bomb is his freedom of action right. However, that freedom of action is not reasonable and customary, so such is not a right. So whether or not the person will be privileged to own a nuke will depend on the government.
However, in another example, a person wishes to own a gun for protection. The person claims that owning a gun is his freedom of action right. Such a behavior is also reasonable and customary, so indeed, owning a gun is a right.
However, freedom of action rights are, by nature, situationally relative, and may be abridged, limited or revoked for justified circumstances, either personally or collectively.
So although gun ownership is a right, the right may be revoked, for example, if the person is justifiably considered a threat to the right of security of person of another individual or people in general. Justifiably deprived of his right to own a gun, that person must find another way to insure his security of person.
Resolution between two conflicting freedom of action rights becomes more complicated.
For example, it is reasonable and customary to allow the right of property owners to build on their land and it is reasonable and customary to allow people the right to drive their cars on the roads.
But if the roads are congested beyond acceptable function, governments may deny property owner "developers" the right to build homes and business buildings on their property and sell them, as such would create additional cars on the road and contribute to the revoking of the right to drive one's car freely without constriction on the road.
Ultimately, however, rights in conflict involving freedom of action rights are resolved by appealing backwards to the secondary and foundational rights which always trump freedom of action rights.
So, for example, though we have freedom of action, if a crime is committed, the criminal may have his freedom of action rights abridged via a stay in the pokey. However, during his stay in prison it is a violation of his right of security of person to be subjected to "beatings" of various natures at Bubba's whim.
All situational abrogation of rights follows this hierarchical appeal to the three classifications of rights.
These are the realities of rights.
