Genuine question because I never understand what people mean when they use that phrase: how is a right fundamental? Does the cold universe assign them to us or do a set of people agree such-and-such are fundamental. If the latter, were the same rights fundamental 20,000 years ago? (Because if they are fundamental, they should stretch back to early man… earlier than even 20,000 years ago)
So for example we have the principle of "freedom of speech", which might be accepted by courts and society as including a right to publish literary works that some deem offensive, but that could be considered a subsidiary or supplementary right which doesn't have the same level of protection.
More relevantly, a society might accept the principle of a "right to privacy", but might not think that grants a "right to privacy from warranted surveillance" or from "warrant-less automated mass surveillance".
Of course there will always be a tension, as rights activists will instinctively claim that denying some specific right is undermining a fundamental right, since they are sure that everyone agrees that the new right is an inherent consequence of that fundamental right, but the government will always claim that its policy doesn't impinge upon any fundamental right and that the specific new right that the activists believe in doesn't need to exist at all.
Contrast these with the rights enumerated e.g., democratic rights (the right to vote), legal rights (freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, right to counsel), mobility rights (right to live in any province and enter and leave Canada).
The rights granted are those that build _a_ society that supports those fundamental freedoms. The fundamental freedoms themselves are not something that exist in support of anything, but are simply accepted as something that stand alone as something we demand of our government.
For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but other countries might have determined their own (additional) set.
I would assume the name "fundamental" was chosen because all other rights derive from them, i.e. if they're taken away from you, you won't be able to preserve the non-fundamental rights.
It works in opposite way. Universal Declaration universally declares nice stuff, but member countries are free to restrict and persecute the freedom of """hate speech""", the freedom of """extremist expression""" et cetera et cetera et cetera
UDoHR is just a words, intellectuals are seduced by words and dismiss the fact UDoHR doesn't works anywhere except (maybe) America
I note that the United States uses “inalienable rights”, meaning ones which can’t be given or taken away.
The only things that can’t be given or taken from me without a lobotomy are my education and internal thoughts and beliefs (that includes things like self-worth and dignity).
A right by its name can be given or taken away. I feel the discussion about fundamental rights is moot as it always depends on the powers that be. In that sense I prefer dane-pgp's explanation of these being more foundational rights.
Your thoughts and beliefs and your actions are what you are and not a right.
There may well be other types of rights that are being discussed here, and much of the confusion in discussions of rights seems to revolve around disagreement on those definitions. It becomes something of a mott-and-bailey tactic, or one of terms expressed and understood quite differently by participants.
Not "fundamental" in the sense of "impossible to deny".
Where fundamental rights are routinely denied, civil society is impossible.
They are inalienable and bestowed by their Creator. I.e. they are part of the innate nature of human beings.
Governments can either protect those rights or abrogate them - it cannot invent them.
And yes, they stretch back to when humans became human. Though it took a while for people to formally recognize them.
"Bestowed by their Creator" starts leaning very heavily on a specific religion's doctrines, and given that there is no religion which is universally adhered to by all persons, dominant in all nations, or indeed acknowleging that "no religion" is the belief of a substantial portion of the population, then regardless of the legacy of the phrase, it's not especially useful in discussion and to me seems to obscure more than it reveals.
Could you choose an alternate phrasing?
As the only person left in the universe (after some cataclysm), you'd be left with obligations but no rights. The obligations would include those that arise from within yourself to prevail and try to survive as best you can. Rights? Well, who would be granting those? The innate bit refers to obligations but not rights.
But they don't. Not even close. Something is fundamentally wrong with communist societies.
I don't think a majority necessarily carries power. The uber rich and intelligence agencies carry far more power than any mass of citizens.
b) Elites exert control by persuasion; they control the discourse, they organize larger movements, &c. There are still limits to what popular opinion will go along with.
c) Intelligence agencies are, in most rich democratic countries, not a major lever of political power. Government economic institutions, police, courts, and the like are much more influential in both day-to-day lives and in shaping popular conceptions of the "rules of the game".
Even breathing — the most basic need — can be argued as not a right but something that the universe requires as a need to live. If breathing and life were “fundamental rights”, then there would be a provision in the laws of nature for them.
What is good for human beings is objectively true as determined by human nature. It is objectively harmful, for example, to starve. It is objectively harmful to cut off one's right arm. It is also objectively harmful to take drugs that frustrate the exercise of reason because this is opposed to being the kind of thing you are, a human being. The same can be said for the misuse of the body and its faculties in various ways. They work against their healthy function and your well-being.
Now, by nature, as I already said, human beings are rational animals, that is, it is our nature to be rational. We are also social animals. Thus, our own flourishing as individual human beings is also social. A society in which justice isn't practiced is no good for the human beings that are a part of it. Justice means that we can make claims, at least under certain conditions. It is of course unjust to make claims upon others that are not warranted, so we must determine what exactly constitutes a just and legitimate claim. This presupposes rationality (you cannot have a claim to what is absurd or evil) and relational (some relations are voluntary, others are not, but the nature of the relationship will inform us of our obligations and claims) and conditioned by other factors (a criminal forfeits certain rights by virtue of having committed an injustice).
I will agree with you, though, that "fundamental rights" is unclear. If they mean something like what I've described, as something that is determined by human nature, then sure, they're fundamental in the sense that they have an objective ground in human nature. But if they are understood as somehow absolute in the sense that a criminal could go around murdering people and still maintain a claim to his own life, then no.
