It was discussed that we citizens have three natural or in-born rights. These are: life, liberty and property. But at present, do you think that these rights are really retained by the citizens?
These rights are not surrendered to the sovereign and the sovereign cannot take away these natural rights. but at present, I think that the state or the sovereign somehow takes away these rights of ours. They may not take them away absolutely, but they sometimes abuse it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sometimes the state uses its power in such a way that they deny the citizens their right to a good life. Some citizens may be living, but if they live in a miserable way, they are as well dead.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the state should help the citizens have this right and enjoy these rights.
that may be true, but also, as sir pointed out in class: some rights are taken away from some to give to others. He also pointed out that if the sovereign takes away life or liberty, it may be due to a crime. Life and liberty require responsibility.
ReplyDeleteAnd regarding what you pointed out about citizens living a miserable life, its true that the state sometimes abuses its power and leaves the people buried in poverty. But there are also times when the state doesn't have the power to bring them out of poverty. Some causes of poverty are actually self induced i.e. laziness, dependence, lack of interest in education etc.
1. Miserable living is still living I guess, It doesn't block your right to live but it blocks your right to the pursuit of happiness I think.
ReplyDelete2. The state was given authority by the social contract to do things for the general good of the society/community. Thus, the state has the ability to take one's right to live or one's right to liberty (depending on the constitution) but again as Locke emphasized, the state cannot take this rights unjustly, it should prove that your misuse of this rights were affecting the rights of other individuals and in general is harmful to the society. This sort of requirement falls under due process.
3. For me, a good state is a state where people can freely exercise their rights given the condition that these individuals won't interfere with the exercise of the rights of other individuals.
Basically, the state only interferes with these natural rights when you have tampered with someone else's rights, in other words the state won't interfere with them if you yourself had not caused them to do so.
ReplyDeleteThe state may only take away the right to life of his citizens through capital punishment (death penalty) and at the first place the state would not impose this to someone who had not done such a grave crime, and even before you are sentenced with this, it undergoes a due process.
The state may take away your liberty when you are in jail or under parole, and again being in such conditions would be a result of doing something unlawful.
So to sum it all up, the state only tries to protect the rights of everyone, as long as you don't trample with someone else's rights, you retain your rights, and if you do, that's where the state comes in.
I agree that the state, given the right circumstances, takes away these “natural” rights from its citizens. These circumstances arise when there is a third-party harm or when the rights of others are stepped on. The state sends criminals to jails, tells people where they can build their houses (zoning laws), confiscates contrabands, and sentences rapists and murders to die by lethal injection. So, the rights to life, liberty, and property are not absolute and can, in fact, be taken away by the state absolutely (such as in the case of life since it can never be returned).
ReplyDeleteHowever, we must not forget that it is not only the state that takes these rights away. Media censorship, a strong enemy of the right to liberty, is prevalent in society. TV shows which go against the interests of private entities are removed, while those that do the opposite are retained. If there were liberty in the media, we would all have the ability to say anything we want on TV, write about anyone on the newspaper, and publish anything anomalous freely. Let’s also not forget about the Church who, with its influence on the government, has continually blocked any government-supported use of contraception, which tramples on the right to liberty and some people’s right to life (because people can get STDs from unprotected sex).
TO MR ROBLES
ReplyDeleteYOU ARE RIGHT. IT IS NOT ONLY THE STATE THAT CURTAILS OR VIOLATES THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS BUT ALSO PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS LIKE MEDIA, THE CHURCH, ETC.
FN
OO. Sa tingin ko nasa tao pa rin ang natural rights. Yun nga lang, bukod sa may kahati na sila dito, namamaltrato pa at naaabuso.
ReplyDeleteNaalala ko sa isang lecture na huwag aalisan ng pag-aari at asawa ang mga tao para hindi ka nila kamuhian. Pero ngayon, sa tingin ko wala nang mabigat na epekto kung kamuhian man ng tao ang mga namumuno.