Are we doing “rights” right?
“Rights” have their power from a government structure then that’s enforced by us, the people. But the rights we choose to keep ordained by law should still, at the core, be as close to “natural” human rights as we can get. Things like freedom of speech and religion, for instance, make total sense. By nature of being human, everyone is entitled to diversity in opinion and belief. Whether or not the government says so, it’s something that most people in a democratic society believe is morally right, but we use the government then to ensure it is enforced, that everyone is protected in their rights.
If the point, though, is to explicitly label in law the most “natural” of human rights so that they can’t be infringed, why can they be restricted in so many ways? For instance, the fact that the FCC exists is nothing but a seemingly overlooked government structure whose literal only purpose is to censor speech and punish when speech is not censored. Then, as you go through other rights, it gets even more complex.
Obviously the most recent discussions have been about the second amendment. If we take it at face-value, that the government cannot infringe on the right to own a gun, then is it truthfully constitutional to raise purchasing ages to 21? That is infringing on the rights of 18–21 year olds simply on the grounds of their age. If, in this society, 18 makes a legal adult, then they should be able to buy a gun as long as owning a gun is a right. Simple as that.
All this talk about keeping mentally ill people from owning guns and stricter background checks just doesn’t sit right with me as long as owning a gun is considered a right in this country. Even the current restrictions in place, such as felons not being able to own guns even after their sentences, also don’t sit right with me. Being a felon doesn’t mean you are no longer a citizen. It doesn’t mean you are no longer a human.
If rights are meant to defend natural entitlements on the grounds of being a human, why do we let ourselves do all this?
If rights aren’t meant to be so bold, and we instead give the government the power to take them away from some people on the grounds of any discriminatory factor, then why do we bother calling them rights? If we can take rights away from felons or 19 year olds then they were never truly “rights” in the first place.
The right to privacy can be infringed by a warrant, so is it a right to privacy, or is it a privilege that can be lost if wrongdoing needs to be investigated? The right to vote can be infringed by being in prison or even having a past in prison, so is it really a right to vote, or a privilege that can be lost as punishment?
“Rights” are not meant to be taken away, they are meant to be so fundamental that they can’t be infringed upon in any way. If America is doing otherwise, then we aren’t doing “rights” right.
This leads me to think that the only answer which seems to make legal and moral sense to me is a redefinition of a “right” via reconsideration of the Constitution as it stands. The second amendment simply shouldn’t be in place, as only 3 countries in the world consider gun ownership a “right” and it is clear among democratic societies that owning a gun is not something anyone is entitled to by nature of being human, certainly not in the same way that they are entitled to vote and to believe whatever they please. Even America is currently in broad agreement that some restrictions need to be put in place — this really means, though they don’t want to admit it, that the majority of America doesn’t think owning a gun is a natural “right,” since they believe there are grounds on which it should be infringed.
We then need to be thorough — the right to vote is vital to democracy, so it should not be infringed upon, no matter what. The right to free speech means abolishing the FCC. The right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment means abandoning death penalties. But search and seizure? If there’s an exception (i.e. a warrant) then it’s not a right, so it shouldn’t be in our Constitution as one unless we think even suspects of crimes should not lose their right to privacy (I’d be open to that conversation). If not, though, then it’s not a right. It could be labeled a protected “privilege” or whatever else makes it work in the same way that everyone is comfortable with it working now. However we label it, it needs to be separate from a “right” so that “rights” actually mean something.
