You have no right

[Crunch]

Prominent liberal attorney and former Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz said this weekend that Americans have “no right” to refuse to wear a mask or open their businesses against executive lockdown orders. Additionally, argued Dershowitz, the state has every right to “plunge a needle into your arm” and forcibly vaccinate you when contagious diseases are at issue.

“Let me put it very clearly,” the lawyer said, speaking to podcast host Jason Goodman. “You have no constitutional right to endanger the public and spread the disease, even if you disagree. You have no right not to be vaccinated, you have no right not to wear a mask, you have no right to open up your business.”


“[But] If you refuse to be vaccinated [for a contagious disease], the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm,” Dershowitz continued.

“You have no right to refuse to be vaccinated against a contagious disease,” he said. “Public health, the police power of the Constitution, gives the state the power to compel that. And there are cases in the United States Supreme Court.”

“That’s what a democracy is about,” Dershowitz argued. “If the majority of the people agree and support that, for public health measures, you have to be vaccinated, you have to be vaccinated.”

We believe this? Is democracy about forced medical treatment?

What else can governments do in the name of “public health”?

[Kasandra]

Where did Dershowitz say this? If he actually did said this then it's another example of him being wrong on nearly everything he has said publicly in the past couple of years.

[DonaldD]

No right not to be immunized?  Did he actually say that?  That's just weird.

I can see the argument that, absent taking preventative measures, a person can be constrained in certain ways, e.g., one cannot attend school without up to date vaccinations (absent valid reasons), one's freedom of movement could likewise be constrained, but forcing a medical procedure on somebody is way out there.

The rest of what he said is defensible, if somewhat inartfully expressed.  One certainly does not have a constitutional right to endanger the public and spread the disease, but what does that mean, in practice?

[Fenring]

I'm not so sure what's so outrageous. Examine the premise using the most extreme case - Captain Tripps, where failed containment means extermination of the species. You are telling me that people would have a "right" to refuse vaccination, treatment, or confinement, to preserve the safety of everyone on the planet? But this surely cannot be right, because there is such a thing as martial law for extreme scenarios, which affects your mobility, and I don't see why it shouldn't affect vaccinations as well. The question I would ask is where the line is drawn between a disease being annoying vs being so serious that no dissent can be permitted among the populace.

[Kasandra]

Ah, the Fenring two-step.

I'm not so sure what's so outrageous.

Then you agree that the government has the right to compel you to wear a mask?  If so, I assume the government also has the right to punish you if you don't.  Right?

The question I would ask is where the line is drawn between a disease being annoying vs being so serious that no dissent can be permitted among the populace.

Many states have in fact drawn that line and told citizens that they must wear a mask.  For instance, Trump will visit a Ford plant in Michigan and the State Attorney General stated clearly this morning that wearing a mask is mandatory in that facility.  What should happen if Trump refuses?

[Crunch]

He's not basing it on the most extreme case, he's basing it on COVID.

One example, in the name of public health, Gov Whitmer has decreed a barbershop cannot open but a gay strip club can. Is the "public health" a valid reason for the Gov to capriciously pick and choose what businesses are allowed to operate?

The rest of what he said is defensible, if somewhat inartfully expressed.  One certainly does not have a constitutional right to endanger the public and spread the disease, but what does that mean, in practice?

How about the homeless?

People experiencing homelessness are at an increased vulnerability of being exposed to and/or contracting various infectious diseases. This is because of difficulties related to their experiences of homelessness including: maintaining personal hygiene, obtaining adequate nutrition, staying in crowded and poorly ventilated environments, engaging in sex work, using intravenous (IV) drugs, and transitioning between imprisonment and homelessness. These factors make it more likely for some individuals, compared to the general population, to face problems with their immune systems.

 Is there a "public health" reason to round them up, put them in lockdown? It would seem they have no right to wander the streets and expose the public to the health risks they represent if you follow the Dershowitz argument.

[TheDrake]

I'm not sure about any basis for "mask freedom" since the government already has the power to mandate other clothing.

The vaccinations are defacto for anyone planning to attend a public school, and probably most private schools. Well at least until you have a religious get out of jail free card.

[Fenring]

Ah, the Fenring two-step.

Why bother predicating a reply with an annoying personal comment when I'm posting on-topic and not toward anyone in particular?

I'm not so sure what's so outrageous.

Then you agree that the government has the right to compel you to wear a mask?  If so, I assume the government also has the right to punish you if you don't.  Right?

I think this is better framed as the people in society have a right to defend themselves against others who would bring them harm. Government at its best is operating on behalf of the public; very often it serves other (worse) purposes and must be watched sternly, but it still does have the function of doing for the group what the group is not organized enough to do for itself. To me it's not a question of whether the government has a right to enforce medical safety, but rather whether individuals have a right to put others in direct danger bu refusing medical precautions. And no, I don't really think they do, as even libertarians seem to draw the line that your rights stop where they threaten others or curtail their rights.

The line does have be to drawn, because "you could catch a cold!" should not be sufficient for a hypothetical citizen to say "that person is threatening me! lock them up!" whereas "if that person comes anywhere near me I die" certainly would be. The question would be how serious a given contagion is, which I suppose would have to be the government's determination. In the case of COVID I'm not at all convinced a hard-line solution upfront might not have been better than what we now see. Asian countries with a more authoritarian bent have handled this far better than the West has.

Many states have in fact drawn that line and told citizens that they must wear a mask.  For instance, Trump will visit a Ford plant in Michigan and the State Attorney General stated clearly this morning that wearing a mask is mandatory in that facility.  What should happen if Trump refuses?

I guess he should be refused entry? But really what you're asking here is what happens when powerful people don't play ball. We all know the answer to that - not the same as when the little guy does it.

[Kasandra]

Ah, the Fenring two-step.

Why bother predicating a reply with an annoying personal comment when I'm posting on-topic and not toward anyone in particular?

I'm not so sure what's so outrageous.

Then you agree that the government has the right to compel you to wear a mask?  If so, I assume the government also has the right to punish you if you don't.  Right?

I think this is better framed as the people in society have a right to defend themselves against others who would bring them harm. Government at its best is operating on behalf of the public; very often it serves other (worse) purposes and must be watched sternly, but it still does have the function of doing for the group what the group is not organized enough to do for itself. To me it's not a question of whether the government has a right to enforce medical safety, but rather whether individuals have a right to put others in direct danger bu refusing medical precautions. And no, I don't really think they do, as even libertarians seem to draw the line that your rights stop where they threaten others or curtail their rights.

The line does have be to drawn, because "you could catch a cold!" should not be sufficient for a hypothetical citizen to say "that person is threatening me! lock them up!" whereas "if that person comes anywhere near me I die" certainly would be. The question would be how serious a given contagion is, which I suppose would have to be the government's determination. In the case of COVID I'm not at all convinced a hard-line solution upfront might not have been better than what we now see. Asian countries with a more authoritarian bent have handled this far better than the West has.

A clear and convincing answer, which is what I'm always looking for.

Many states have in fact drawn that line and told citizens that they must wear a mask.  For instance, Trump will visit a Ford plant in Michigan and the State Attorney General stated clearly this morning that wearing a mask is mandatory in that facility.  What should happen if Trump refuses?

I guess he should be refused entry? But really what you're asking here is what happens when powerful people don't play ball. We all know the answer to that - not the same as when the little guy does it.

He's not just a "powerful people".  He's the President who just yesterday threatened to withhold federal money to the state because he doesn't like how we are managing our election process, which is totally ours to control.

[rightleft22]

The exercise of freedom is also the act of setting boundaries. Thus the paradox that we experience freedom within boundaries. - Freedom from <-> Freedom to
- freedom from gun violence - freedom to own guns
- freedom from dangerous drivers - freedom to drive

When it comes to health
- freedom from second hand smoke - freedom to smoke
- freedom from injury, we are asked to wear helmets and seat-belts...  - Freedom to ride bikes, motorcycles, drive cars 

Does the state (the people) have a right to ask everyone to protect themselves if its for the overall good of everyone?

 We the people make those choices and set those boundaries all the time. And we address those choices and move those boundaries through the democratic vote which means you don't always get to be happy about a boundary
but you are asked, as part of the social contract, to work within the boundaries defined. 

Moving boundaries within the framework of boundaries - the smoking and seat belt laws are a good example. I remember the stink about requiring people to wear seat belts and putting rules on where you can smoke... that was going to end the pub business.

We often don't get it right on the first pass but eventually we find the freedom in the balance  of Freedom from <-> Freedom to

[Fenring]

I don't think "freedom from gun violence" is a good example, but overall your point is reasonable. I'm not sure there is a such thing as a "right to not be shot", whereas there is a right to defend yourself or to take steps to take precautions against attack.

[rightleft22]

I don't think "freedom from gun violence" is a good example, but overall your point is reasonable. I'm not sure there is a such thing as a "right to not be shot", whereas there is a right to defend yourself or to take steps to take precautions against attack.

True however the laws we have to protect ourselves from crime and violence are often tied to the idea of gun ownership

[Fenring]

True however the laws we have to protect ourselves from crime and violence are often tied to the idea of gun ownership

Laws, yes, but laws are not rights.

[DonaldD]

I don't think "freedom from gun violence" is a good example

Why not - as opposed to not calling out the "freedom from second hand smoke" or "the freedom from dangerous drivers"?  It would seem to be a distinction without a difference.  It's all freedom from harm caused by others.

That being said, the freedom from second hand smoke doesn't butt up against people's freedom to smoke, per se, but rather the freedom to emit smoke into the atmosphere that other people will breathe.
The freedom from dangerous drivers runs into issues not with people having the freedom to drive, but with the freedom to drive recklessly where others might be affected.
The freedom from gun violence  (probably, the freedom from getting shot) could be triggered by people's freedom to shoot guns in such a way as the bullets could intersect with someone else's bodily integrity.

[TheDeamon]

I don't think "freedom from gun violence" is a good example, but overall your point is reasonable. I'm not sure there is a such thing as a "right to not be shot", whereas there is a right to defend yourself or to take steps to take precautions against attack.

It gets a little awkward on that and comes down to how you want to split that particular hair.

Nobody has "the right to shoot you" unless you are a threat in some quantifiable way. But because they can potentially have such a right, you don't necessarily have a "right not to get shot" as it is conditional on your not being deemed a threat to/by someone.

[rightleft22]

True however the laws we have to protect ourselves from crime and violence are often tied to the idea of gun ownership

Laws, yes, but laws are not rights.

interesting. aren't laws the methods we choose to set the boundaries between the freedom from and freedom to? Can you separate Laws, freedom and rights?

I guess that's were it gets complicated. More so as I think when most people use the word 'freedom' it is almost always in relation to 'freedom to' do/have whatever without paying attention to how that boundary impacts 'freedom from'

[DonaldD]

Nobody has "the right to shoot you" unless you are a threat in some quantifiable way. But because they can potentially have such a right, you don't necessarily have a "right not to get shot" as it is conditional on your not being deemed a threat to/by someone.

This is completely backwards.

One has a very basic right to bodily integrity.  That doesn't mean such a right is absolute, but it does not disappear based on the perceptions of other people (it being "conditional on your not being deemed a threat to/by someone.")

[Fenring]

Laws, yes, but laws are not rights.

interesting. aren't laws the methods we choose to set the boundaries between the freedom from and freedom to? Can you separate Laws, freedom and rights?

Yes. Rights may depend on how you define them; in natural law they are seen as being inherent in us as human beings. The Founding Fathers seemed to have believed in something like this, where we have inalienable rights (i.e. they intrinsically exists whether they are recognized or not). These rights include certain kinds of things, and not others, and they never have to do with implementation.

Freedoms would seem to be a legal specification of how your rights are going to link up with the function of government and with other people. Like, your intrinsic right to free speech would get spelled out as a freedom from the government to suppress your free speech. Colloquially "freedom" often means what it means in Braveheart: "FREEEDOOOOOOM!" Which loosely translates as "we are not your property or slaves." Sometimes it colloquially means "I can do anything I want!" as in, "it's a free country!" This use of 'free' should more properly be called license, since it implies that there's some kind of virtue in doing anything you want. But these are not, I think, technically accurate uses of the term: I think a more strict reading of it is 'lack of something imposed on you', so freedom from tyranny, freedom from speech suppression, etc. But freedoms can also, to whit, be things granted to you, not just expressions of your inherent rights.

Laws is something different: they are the organizational principle of a society. And more specifically, all law (whether people want to admit it or not) is a statement backed up by force: do this or we hurt you. That is a completely separate matter from your rights and freedoms, and has to do with the repercussions of dissenting from the agreed ordering of a society. Laws can include things that have nothing to do with rights or freedoms, and can merely be engineering issues. There is no law that "is" someone's right to something, although it can be the mechanism through which their right is protected - or breached! A law can just as soon infringe on your rights as enforce them.

If a case can be seen where it's clearly necessary and acceptable to create a certain law - like martial law in an emergency - then either we don't have rights that prevent this, or we do have rights and society is by design a failure. I think the former is correct: no one has a 'right' to avoid things the society absolutely needs for its well-being, like a lockdown. This can get murky, because what if someone argues that the society 'absolutely needs' for their free speech to be suppressed? In that case I would argue that they are just incorrect, and that the society would not in fact benefit from that in the long-term.

[TheDeamon]

True however the laws we have to protect ourselves from crime and violence are often tied to the idea of gun ownership

Laws, yes, but laws are not rights.

interesting. aren't laws the methods we choose to set the boundaries between the freedom from and freedom to? Can you separate Laws, freedom and rights?

I guess that's were it gets complicated. More so as I think when most people use the word 'freedom' it is almost always in relation to 'freedom to' do/have whatever without paying attention to how that boundary impacts 'freedom from'

If you subscribe to natural rights, the right exists without respect to what the law says.

All the law can do is attempt to codify what the right entails.

[TheDeamon]

Nobody has "the right to shoot you" unless you are a threat in some quantifiable way. But because they can potentially have such a right, you don't necessarily have a "right not to get shot" as it is conditional on your not being deemed a threat to/by someone.

This is completely backwards.

One has a very basic right to bodily integrity.  That doesn't mean such a right is absolute, but it does not disappear based on the perceptions of other people (it being "conditional on your not being deemed a threat to/by someone.")

If you have the right to self defense, you have the right to potentially kill.

If your right to self-dense has been interpreted to mean you have the right to use firearms to defend yourself, then you have to right to shoot people in self defense.

If someone has the right to shoot others in self-defense, then that means people only have the right to not be shot if they are not a threat to others.

Since the right not to be shot is conditional on "not being a threat" (so self-defense/defense of others is invalid) then the right not to be shot/harmed is not absolute, the right to self-defense is.

[Fenring]

I meant something like what TheDeamon just posted, regarding the right not to be shot. I'm not even sure I think "the right to bodily integrity" makes sense. And I mean that literally - I'm not sure it's a coherent concept, putting aside whether it factually is a right or not. It might take an extended debate to get into what the word "integrity" even means. My main concern in adopting that as a maxim is that it could very easily lead to "no one can tell me anything regarding my body!" which is a fashionable sort of position to take right now but I don't think it actually holds water.

[DonaldD]

The right to bodily integrity is probably the most basic human right there is - most other rights evolve from this concept. Even in the declaration of independence, it's right there: the right to life.  Most constitutions make reference to the right to the security of the person.

[Fenring]

The right to bodily integrity is probably the most basic human right there is - most other rights evolve from this concept. Even in the declaration of independence, it's right there: the right to life.  Most constitutions make reference to the right to the security of the person.

Then why call it 'right to bodily integrity' instead of right to life? I suspect (and this is no diss on you) that these kinds of terms get introduced because of the abortion issue, as people want to include 'body autonomy' as being included in that basic right. It's fine to have that debate, but right to life =/= body integrity.

[NobleHunter]

Then why call it 'right to bodily integrity' instead of right to life? I suspect (and this is no diss on you) that these kinds of terms get introduced because of the abortion issue, as people want to include 'body autonomy' as being included in that basic right. It's fine to have that debate, but right to life =/= body integrity.

Bodily integrity also includes keeping all your limbs attached and to refuse medical treatment. While not being killed is important, there's a host of things that can be done to you before getting to that point.

[DonaldD]

The right to bodily integrity is probably the most basic human right there is - most other rights evolve from this concept. Even in the declaration of independence, it's right there: the right to life.  Most constitutions make reference to the right to the security of the person.

Then why call it 'right to bodily integrity' instead of right to life? I suspect (and this is no diss on you) that these kinds of terms get introduced because of the abortion issue, as people want to include 'body autonomy' as being included in that basic right. It's fine to have that debate, but right to life =/= body integrity.

Why'd you ignore "most constitutions" and "the right to the security of the person"?

And as NH mentioned, there is the refusal of medical treatment aspect, the ideas behind habeas corpus in the common law, slavery... the list goes on and on.

[Fenring]

Then why call it 'right to bodily integrity' instead of right to life? I suspect (and this is no diss on you) that these kinds of terms get introduced because of the abortion issue, as people want to include 'body autonomy' as being included in that basic right. It's fine to have that debate, but right to life =/= body integrity.

Bodily integrity also includes keeping all your limbs attached and to refuse medical treatment. While not being killed is important, there's a host of things that can be done to you before getting to that point.

I actually do know pretty much what he meant by "bodily integrity" but that's not the point. I'm talking about rigorously defining it, rather than a hand-wave of 'you know, body stuff.' Because a right isn't just 'blah blah get off my body'; it has to mean something specific or else it means nothing at all. Wanting a loose term that can retroactively have any number of things packaged into it isn't how rights work, that's how laws work. Rights are inalienable - and unchanging. Laws, and how we deal with different situations and technologies, does not involve rights but rather is a question of social engineering and implementation. You can say "don't hack off my limbs" is an obvious part of that right, but philosophically speaking I don't know quite how obvious it is, to say nothing of other features people will want to have lumped into it.

[Fenring]

Why'd you ignore "most constitutions" and "the right to the security of the person"?

Not sure what I was supposed to answer about this phrase. Likewise, 'bodily integrity'=/=security. I mean, these things have to be defined anyhow so out of context of course I can claim they're different but you might be defining them the same. But I don't think that "bodily integrity" actually *does* mean precisely the same thing as "personal security". There is obviously overlap.

[TheDeamon]

The right to bodily integrity is probably the most basic human right there is - most other rights evolve from this concept. Even in the declaration of independence, it's right there: the right to life.  Most constitutions make reference to the right to the security of the person.

I'd tend to say it's somewhat implicit in the whole "right to self defense" if someone threatens your body, you have the right to defend yourself.

Anything beyond that with respect to your person/body? You are on your own.

[NobleHunter]

I actually do know pretty much what he meant by "bodily integrity" but that's not the point. I'm talking about rigorously defining it, rather than a hand-wave of 'you know, body stuff.' Because a right isn't just 'blah blah get off my body'; it has to mean something specific or else it means nothing at all. Wanting a loose term that can retroactively have any number of things packaged into it isn't how rights work, that's how laws work. Rights are inalienable - and unchanging. Laws, and how we deal with different situations and technologies, does not involve rights but rather is a question of social engineering and implementation. You can say "don't hack off my limbs" is an obvious part of that right, but philosophically speaking I don't know quite how obvious it is, to say nothing of other features people will want to have lumped into it.

Rights might be inalienable and unchanging but that doesn't mean our understanding of them is unchanging.

I would suggest you feel that right is too vague because we can easily justify trespasses against a person's bodily integrity whether for their own good or to protect some other right. There are degrees of violation which ins't true for other rights, such as the right to life. There's not much difference between all dead or just mostly dead.

[TheDeamon]

Bodily integrity also includes keeping all your limbs attached and to refuse medical treatment. While not being killed is important, there's a host of things that can be done to you before getting to that point.

I actually do know pretty much what he meant by "bodily integrity" but that's not the point. I'm talking about rigorously defining it, rather than a hand-wave of 'you know, body stuff.' Because a right isn't just 'blah blah get off my body'; it has to mean something specific or else it means nothing at all. Wanting a loose term that can retroactively have any number of things packaged into it isn't how rights work, that's how laws work. Rights are inalienable - and unchanging. Laws, and how we deal with different situations and technologies, does not involve rights but rather is a question of social engineering and implementation. You can say "don't hack off my limbs" is an obvious part of that right, but philosophically speaking I don't know quite how obvious it is, to say nothing of other features people will want to have lumped into it.

I'd tend to say someone coming at me with intent to hack off my limbs is a pretty clear and compelling self-defense case. At that point I have the right to defend myself from being maimed, and that means I have the right to use any (reasonable) means at my disposal to stop them from achieving that goal.

I don't need any other right except self defense. Most of the "body autonomy" examples can easily be rolled into self-defense arguments. But not all of them, and I guess that's their problem. They can't make a self-defense case for gender reassignments, self-defense only partially works with respect to their desired "right to not get shot" for reasons already covered(as self-defense would instead say they have the right to shoot back).

Self-Defense also doesn't work for justifying a "right to medical care." Although they'll try to shove that under "right to life" under the DoI.

[Fenring]

Rights might be inalienable and unchanging but that doesn't mean our understanding of them is unchanging.

Agreed.

I would suggest you feel that right is too vague because we can easily justify trespasses against a person's bodily integrity whether for their own good or to protect some other right. There are degrees of violation which ins't true for other rights, such as the right to life. There's not much difference between all dead or just mostly dead.

Basically the issue is that philosophically speaking we can't be machine-like about it: we have to sort of 'feel out' which things feel fundamentally wrong to us, and which not. The rights as we know then don't come from stone tablets but from both intuitive understandings and reasoning. So something being unacceptable functionally might imply there's a right somewhere in there, and likewise something feeling unacceptable might be because there's a right being violated. But both require discernment. So it's not like this is easy. So while "it feels icky to have this operation done to me against my will" *might* imply there's a right being violated, it does not necessitate that. At the immediate moment in U.S. culture the prevailing current is trending towards anything that makes you uncomfortable implies your rights are being violated, which is not what the understanding of rights ever was before.

While it may be true that there are degrees of violation, that is orthogonal to the issue of whether something with degrees of ickiness or discomfort implies that rights are being violated. Your feelings about a matter are relevant, but not necessarily indicative of an inherent right. And again, "body integrity" sounds to me like it potentially includes lots of content that may pertain more to comfort or sense of security than to actual rights or security. No one actually has a right to feel secure, which is a funny distinction to make, even though their feeling of insecurity might well be a result of their rights being violated. But it also might not. And actually I'm not even sure it's coherent to say someone has a right to security; security is a result of certain precautions, not a factor relating to motivations. Rights only have to do with motivations. Being in the path of a hurricane isn't a violation of your rights, even though your security is threatened; likewise your coworker having a cold isn't a violation of your rights, even though your security is materially threatened by their presence. And certainly in U.S. commercial culture, someone competing with you in business can *certainly* threaten your security (no income = no health insurance = you die) even though they are not even remotely infringing on your rights; and in this case they're actually trying to take away your income by getting your customers!

[NobleHunter]

I'd tend to say someone coming at me with intent to hack off my limbs is a pretty clear and compelling self-defense case. At that point I have the right to defend myself from being maimed, and that means I have the right to use any (reasonable) means at my disposal to stop them from achieving that goal.

I don't need any other right except self defense. Most of the "body autonomy" examples can easily be rolled into self-defense arguments. But not all of them, and I guess that's their problem. They can't make a self-defense case for gender reassignments, self-defense only partially works with respect to their desired "right to not get shot" for reasons already covered(as self-defense would instead say they have the right to shoot back).

Self-Defense also doesn't work for justifying a "right to medical care." Although they'll try to shove that under "right to life" under the DoI.

How does the right to self-defense give you the right to refuse medical treatment? The doctor isn't trying to hurt you, after all, so there's nothing to defend against.

And doesn't this formulation imply that your rights aren't violated if the injury is inflicted despite the attempt at self-defense? "Sorry the government cut off your hands but you only shot six of the ten cops sent to amputate your thieving limbs. Your rights were not violated."

[Fenring]

How does the right to self-defense give you the right to refuse medical treatment? The doctor isn't trying to hurt you, after all, so there's nothing to defend against.

This may well imply that the right to refuse treatment is really a separate right from the right to protect yourself from attack. That's the question to ask. Lumping them together into 'intuitive' labels like body integrity gains little and risks much, as I suspect that you lose much more data than you gain by doing so.

[Crunch]

How does the right to self-defense give you the right to refuse medical treatment? The doctor isn't trying to hurt you, after all, so there's nothing to defend against.

Does "my body, my choice" not apply?

[wmLambert]

...How does the right to self-defense give you the right to refuse medical treatment? The doctor isn't trying to hurt you, after all, so there's nothing to defend against.

Many religions hold a person's body as a temple and inviolate. The other aspect is that a government may do things that they thunk may be necessary, but must also face the consequences if its decision is shown to be not only wrong, but unConstitutional. On top of that is precedence. If one person is allowed something, then everyone is: the Doctrine of Laches.

[TheDeamon]

Rights might be inalienable and unchanging but that doesn't mean our understanding of them is unchanging.

I would suggest you feel that right is too vague because we can easily justify trespasses against a person's bodily integrity whether for their own good or to protect some other right. There are degrees of violation which ins't true for other rights, such as the right to life. There's not much difference between all dead or just mostly dead.

I think I'm going to iterate on a position I seem to recall staking out on here back around the time the ACA was passed when I said I didn't think Healthcare was "a natural right." I'm pretty sure thinking on what follows will be consistent with my thinking from then, but I'm not going to go try to dig it up.

A Natural Right is something that is inherent to you, and something you can accomplish on your own without needing to impose upon the rights or resources of others against their will. So while in keeping with the recent post walking through how the "right to not get shot" is subservient to the "right to self defense" the "right to life" itself is actually a function of the "right to self defense."

So under Natural Rights, you have a right to life only insofar as you are able to defend it, by whatever form that "defense" may take. This right is also constrained by your not being allowed to infringe on the rights(/resources) of others(in a non-voluntary manner), as they have to right to defend themselves from you in such a case.

Everything else from there is a social construct/contract, and are thus entitlements or legal rights, but they are not "Natural Rights" in that they are somehow inherent to everyone simply for being alive.

Now we can argue about what we want that social construct to look like, and what entitlements we are inclined to grant as an extension of that, but calling something an "inherent right" that isn't one still remains a delusion.

[NobleHunter]

Does "my body, my choice" not apply?

I don't know, upon what right is that slogan based?

This may well imply that the right to refuse treatment is really a separate right from the right to protect yourself from attack. That's the question to ask. Lumping them together into 'intuitive' labels like body integrity gains little and risks much, as I suspect that you lose much more data than you gain by doing so.

I think the reverse is true. There's a lot lost when you split up "bodily integrity" into the right to refuse medical treatment, the right to refuse consent to sex, the right to not be tortured, the right not to be subjected to involuntary body modification, the right not to be maimed, the right not to be sterilized, the right not to be poisoned, etc. Why not combine these into a single concept of bodily integrity or security of the person?

[TheDeamon]

I'd tend to say someone coming at me with intent to hack off my limbs is a pretty clear and compelling self-defense case. At that point I have the right to defend myself from being maimed, and that means I have the right to use any (reasonable) means at my disposal to stop them from achieving that goal.

I don't need any other right except self defense. Most of the "body autonomy" examples can easily be rolled into self-defense arguments. But not all of them, and I guess that's their problem. They can't make a self-defense case for gender reassignments, self-defense only partially works with respect to their desired "right to not get shot" for reasons already covered(as self-defense would instead say they have the right to shoot back).

Self-Defense also doesn't work for justifying a "right to medical care." Although they'll try to shove that under "right to life" under the DoI.

How does the right to self-defense give you the right to refuse medical treatment? The doctor isn't trying to hurt you, after all, so there's nothing to defend against.

And doesn't this formulation imply that your rights aren't violated if the injury is inflicted despite the attempt at self-defense? "Sorry the government cut off your hands but you only shot six of the ten cops sent to amputate your thieving limbs. Your rights were not violated."

First this response will cover some of it:

Many religions hold a person's body as a temple and inviolate. The other aspect is that a government may do things that they thunk may be necessary, but must also face the consequences if its decision is shown to be not only wrong, but unConstitutional. On top of that is precedence. If one person is allowed something, then everyone is: the Doctrine of Laches.

So the "right to self-defense" can be extended to include the 1st Amendment protection surrounding Freedom of Religion(/Belief).

We already have established court rulings supporting the ability to decline medical treatment on religious grounds. As that is established law, then it is logical that someone can argue a right to defend themselves from someone who tries to force a medical treatment upon them.

And doesn't this formulation imply that your rights aren't violated if the injury is inflicted despite the attempt at self-defense? "Sorry the government cut off your hands but you only shot six of the ten cops sent to amputate your thieving limbs. Your rights were not violated."

I don't think you seem to understand how this works, even as the framers intended it to.

If the government is cutting limbs off for unjust reasons, they're tyrannical and you need to right to self-defense in order to protect yourself from the government(and evidently failed in the scenario you outlined).

If the government has a "just" reason for performing the amputation, it is because you've violated somebody else's (natural) rights. In which case your scenario falls apart for other reasons.

[TheDrake]

Everything else from there is a social construct/contract, and are thus entitlements or legal rights, but they are not "Natural Rights" in that they are somehow inherent to everyone simply for being alive.

So most of the fifth Amendment are not natural rights? That's just a social contract. Just trying to understand your distinction.

[NobleHunter]

Bringing up the US Constitution is moving past discussing rights and moving into the realm of law. Especially since the Constitution doesn't enumerate every single right. Nowhere does the Constitution specifically define either a right to self defense or a right to not have your limbs removed.

Furthermore, the right to refuse medical treatment isn't just protected by freedom of belief. You don't need to justify why you don't want your broken bone set, you just have to hold to the refusal until your doctors give up on trying to convince you to stop being a dumbass.

[TheDeamon]

This may well imply that the right to refuse treatment is really a separate right from the right to protect yourself from attack. That's the question to ask. Lumping them together into 'intuitive' labels like body integrity gains little and risks much, as I suspect that you lose much more data than you gain by doing so.

I think the reverse is true. There's a lot lost when you split up "bodily integrity" into the right to refuse medical treatment, the right to refuse consent to sex, the right to not be tortured, the right not to be subjected to involuntary body modification, the right not to be maimed, the right not to be sterilized, the right not to be poisoned, etc. Why not combine these into a single concept of bodily integrity or security of the person?

Lets see:
"The right to refuse consent to sex" - Right of self-defense is directly applicable, obviously violated if it happens anyway.
"The right to not be tortured" - Right of self-defense is directly applicable, obviously violated if it happens anyway.
"The right not to be subjected to involuntary body modification" - Right of self-defense is directly applicable, obviously violated if it happens anyway.
"The right not to be maimed" - Right of self-defense is directly applicable, obviously violated if it happens anyway.
"The right not to be sterilized" - Right of self-defense is directly applicable, obviously violated if it happens anyway.
"The right not to be poisoned" - Right of self-defense is directly applicable, obviously violated if it happens anyway.
"Why not combine these into a single concept of bodily integrity or security of the person?"
I dunno, maybe because the right of self-defense already seems to cover it?

Although I will conceed "The right to refuse medical treatment" can venture into some weird territory, I'm inclined to think a Self-Defense claim can be made there if the person believes the treatment either isn't for their own benefit, or in whatever they consider their own best interests to be(which might be a bit different than continuing to live), although you're going to have a hard time selling the jury on your need to kill the medical staff at the local hospital because they were trying to administer what most would consider a routine treatment. That said, while the use of force to avoid that particular fate may not be deemed reasonable in that case, it could later be litigated in court and found that your rights were violated all the same.

So in this case, the governments role would be to intervene when your ability to exercise the right of self-defense was insufficient for handling whatever the situation at hand was.

[TheDeamon]

Bringing up the US Constitution is moving past discussing rights and moving into the realm of law. Especially since the Constitution doesn't enumerate every single right. Nowhere does the Constitution specifically define either a right to self defense or a right to not have your limbs removed.

The right to bear arms under the 2nd Amerndment is widely held to be indirect recognition of the common law practice of the right of self-defense. More particularly in this case, that it grants US Citizens the ability to use guns in both the act of self-defense and in the collective defense(well regulated militia)

[TheDrake]

Bringing up the US Constitution is moving past discussing rights and moving into the realm of law. Especially since the Constitution doesn't enumerate every single right. Nowhere does the Constitution specifically define either a right to self defense or a right to not have your limbs removed.

Furthermore, the right to refuse medical treatment isn't just protected by freedom of belief. You don't need to justify why you don't want your broken bone set, you just have to hold to the refusal until your doctors give up on trying to convince you to stop being a dumbass.

I'm just using it to explore the idea. So you don't have a natural right to an attourney? That falls into the other category of things people describe as legal rights.

[NobleHunter]

A problem with placing the right to self defense so centrally to a theory of rights is that the natural order of things is that self-defense fails. It seems untenable to base everything on right who's exercise is often futile to the point where people learn not to defend themselves. Whereas the right to life is exercised every moment that one is not killed or freedom of speech every time one speaks. To make such rights secondary to self defense comes very close to making rights conditional on personal capability. Why not have a right to life which one also has the right to defend?

The right to bear arms under the 2nd Amerndment is widely held to be indirect recognition of the common law practice of the right of self-defense. More particularly in this case, that it grants US Citizens the ability to use guns in both the act of self-defense and in the collective defense(well regulated militia)

But it's not right to self-defense, it's enumerating a right beyond that of simple self-defense.

[TheDeamon]

I'm just using it to explore the idea. So you don't have a natural right to an attourney? That falls into the other category of things people describe as legal rights.

50/50, you have the natural right to an attorney, if you're paying for the services. If you're not paying for it, that's "a social contract" thing.

[DonaldD]

The "right to self defense" literally means one has the freedom to act in ways to defend against attacks aimed at the integrity of the self.

It does not mean that the government or the others should be constrained from attacking that self - it just means that if they do, you may resist.

A right to the integrity of the self, on the other hand, is an acceptance that, absent due process, one cannot be deprived of life, liberty or the security of person.  The freedom to defend oneself is an outgrowth of this more general right.

[TheDeamon]

A problem with placing the right to self defense so centrally to a theory of rights is that the natural order of things is that self-defense fails. It seems untenable to base everything on right who's exercise is often futile to the point where people learn not to defend themselves. Whereas the right to life is exercised every moment that one is not killed or freedom of speech every time one speaks. To make such rights secondary to self defense comes very close to making rights conditional on personal capability. Why not have a right to life which one also has the right to defend?

The tendency of self-defense to fail is why you have governments, otherwise you're dealing in anarchy and "rule" such as it may be, by whomever is either the strongest, or has the most allies, many of whom probably number among the strongest even if they're not THE strongest.

But the theory of Natural Rights centering around self-defense as I'm exploring today would seem to hold up fairly well, especially once the "equalizer" of firearms are allowed to come into play with regards to 1 on 1 scenarios. Obviously that still falls apart in 1 on many, but that goes back to why you have a government, to handle the scenarios where the lone individual cannot care for themselves.

Of course, I guess we're putting the cart a little ahead of the horse here.

You have the natural right to self-defense.
You do not have the natural right to have a government. That's a social contract. 

The right to bear arms under the 2nd Amerndment is widely held to be indirect recognition of the common law practice of the right of self-defense. More particularly in this case, that it grants US Citizens the ability to use guns in both the act of self-defense and in the collective defense(well regulated militia)

But it's not right to self-defense, it's enumerating a right beyond that of simple self-defense.

Not going to disagree on that.

[rightleft22]

True however the laws we have to protect ourselves from crime and violence are often tied to the idea of gun ownership

Laws, yes, but laws are not rights.

interesting. aren't laws the methods we choose to set the boundaries between the freedom from and freedom to? Can you separate Laws, freedom and rights?

I guess that's were it gets complicated. More so as I think when most people use the word 'freedom' it is almost always in relation to 'freedom to' do/have whatever without paying attention to how that boundary impacts 'freedom from'

If you subscribe to natural rights, the right exists without respect to what the law says.

All the law can do is attempt to codify what the right entails.

But anytime you exercise freedom you are creating boundaries. how we exercise freedom and create those boundaries are almost always done via law. Where that boundary is placed will also impact ones 'natural rights'. You cannot separate the exercise of freedom from the idea of laws or rights. The are intimately interconnected.

Someone expressing their natural right and exercise of freedom not to have be vaccinated is saying something about where they want the boundary to be set withing the law.
Personal Freedom greater then the collective Freedom.

History has shown that over all we do better individual when we cooperate and so we create laws and boundaries that limit personal freedom while at the same time expand it.
If I can walk down the street and not get sick or attacked I experience the freedom of movement at the cost of agreeing not to attack the person walking towards me.
 

[TheDeamon]

If I can walk down the street and not get sick or attacked I experience the freedom of movement at the cost of agreeing not to attack the person walking towards me.

If you're just walking around attacking people, you're not practicing any natural right. You're practicing "might makes right."

Your right to self-defense would limit you to "defensive acts" only, which means you cannot just go around randomly attacking people because "they looked at you funny" and you "felt threatened" even if some people may try to construe such scenarios.

[NobleHunter]

A Natural Right is something that is inherent to you, and something you can accomplish on your own without needing to impose upon the rights or resources of others against their will. So while in keeping with the recent post walking through how the "right to not get shot" is subservient to the "right to self defense" the "right to life" itself is actually a function of the "right to self defense."

Skipping back up to this to further poke at this construction.

So, given that a infant or a fetus cannot accomplish anything on their own without imposing on the rights or resources of others, they have no natural rights? If parents chose, of their own will, not to feed their children that's just unfortunate?