If rights, whither from?

[JBeukema]

Sure I can. I can take away your every right.

I can kill you as but one dramatic example of how that is done.

You might have a right UNDER THE LAW, QW

You might even have a right that GOD granted you.

But you do not have any right that cannot be taken away from you by any chowderhead with a gun and the will to use it.

Incidently...the distinction you're making between Unalienable and INalienable is wrong, I think/

un·al·ien·a·ble (

n-

l

y

-n

-b

l, -

l

-

-)
adj. Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable:

UNALIENABLE

Pronunciation (US):

Dictionary entry overview: What does unalienable mean?
• UNALIENABLE(adjective)
The adjective UNALIENABLE has 1 sense:
1. incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another

Familiarity information: UNALIENABLE used as an adjective is very rare.


Dictionary entry details

• UNALIENABLE (adjective)


Sense 1unalienable [BACK TO TOP]
Meaning:
Incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another
Synonyms:
inalienable; unalienable
Context example:
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights
Similar:
absolute; infrangible; inviolable (not capable of being violated or infringed)
non-negotiable (cannot be bought or sold)
nontransferable; unassignable; untransferable (incapable of being transferred)
Also:
intrinsic; intrinsical (belonging to a thing by its very nature)

You are confusing possessions with rights, just like those who argue that rights are property.

Who ever claimed rights are possessions? I get the impression you're trying to attack the Libertarian principle of self-ownership without actually comprehending a thing about it.

You can take property from me through force, but nothing you can do will take away my rights.

Demonstrate

Putting me in jail does not take away my freedom

My rights exist because I exist

E.Coli and a flower also exist


ergo, using your argument...

, and there is nothing that anyone can do to change that

There's plenty ways to end your existence.

 

[JBeukema]

Where did antagon disappear to?

 

[rikules]

1) Do people have rights?

2) If so, where do they come from?

Is there any non-theological argument for human rights?

there is no god.

anyone who claims "rights come from god" is wrong.

"rights" come from agreement and consensus

 

[JBeukema]

1) Do people have rights?

2) If so, where do they come from?

Is there any non-theological argument for human rights?

there is no god.

Now that's an interesting statement. How is 'god' being defined and is that a strong assertion (gnostic in nature) or a weak agnostic conclusion?

 

[antagon]

I love dialectics

i assert rights are constant and independent from the society or interaction in which they are employed. i simplify their definition to freedoms to act, and you are right to point out that these freedoms can infringe on those of others. that is why i attribute the boundaries to which rights must be constrained to the social paradigm which employs them. in this sense, rights - the freedom to act in any way - is universal and the use and distribution of those rights within a society or any interaction is specific to that interaction. i propose that given this setup, the rights valued by the parties to the social contract endow the contract with stability when they are maintained, and beset the contract with volatility when they are infringed.

a social contract in and of itself is a bartering of rights, conceding some rights to co-constituents in society, or to the government which is entrusted to organize it. the contract endows this trust. you've pointed out that government's right to exist is imperiled by revolt; isn't this obvious? you specifically state that the destruction of government is a violation of the rights deferred it in the social contract. i observe that volatility will arise from the fact, where you claim absurdity would arise. i don't get it. you contend that a state cannot be a party to a social contract by drawing another semantic distinction of government as a 'being' which can't assume rights from humans. nothing about rights as i understand them precludes an organization from possessing rights. nothing about the powers enumerated to the government in the US constitution can be precluded from being rights under my understanding either.

perhaps you should float an understanding of your own to qualify your argument.

the concept of a functioning society and my references to some 'proper' social contract allude to the fact that we often organize for a reason, and that purpose is often part of the social contract. such a proper social contract should endeavor to strike an equilibrium between its parties, defining which rights are valuable to each party in the contract. these valued rights empower a function (or several functions) more often than not, and the worthiness and priority of this function among the others valued by the society are reflected in the contract as well. as you pointed out, such functions could explicitly involve seizing the liberties of other groups; it could involve fascist action and mob rule. as i've pointed out, not all contracts are proper in this sense.

looking at simple forms of life is a way of probing the universal, constant characteristic of rights.

by separating the human social context which some rights are employed from the 'infinite freedoms' themselves, it is obvious that ants don't recognize a bill of rights approved by their queen as if they were humans. instead, they are ants, and rights work within the context of their colony. through their adaptation of a social structure which accommodates the forces that rights exert in a social context, an ant colony mimics a more complex social system using simpler(?) methods like pheromones. the same can be said of their adaptation of legs to affect movement given gravity and its implications to traction and locomotion. does studying legs and locomotion of ants really constitute a study of gravity? in the same way, your assertion that observing these social adaptations, as you explain evolutionary psychology endeavors to, fails to address the source of the force which societies have adapted to. is it that you insist humanity has conjured rights by way of invention? how do you account for their role in all social paradigms, human or not?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Fail. It is is on you to demonstrate the existence of God, faeiries, aliens, pixies, and unicorns, not upon someone else to demonstrate their non-existence.

If you can't grasp it you need to go back to remedial classes and master elementary logic

Why is it on me to prove God exists? Have I made any such claim anywhere in this thread?

So positive/social rights exist. Nobody doubted that.

You've abandoned the idea of 'natural rights', then?

I have abandoned nothing, you wanted a demonstration that rights exist, I did.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There's plenty ways to end your existence.

Demonstrate

 

[JBeukema]

I love dialectics

i assert rights are constant and independent from the society or interaction in which they are employed. i simplify their definition to freedoms to act, and you are right to point out that these freedoms can infringe on those of others. that is why i attribute the boundaries to which rights must be constrained to the social paradigm which employs them. in this sense, rights - the freedom to act in any way - is universal and the use and distribution of those rights within a society or any interaction is specific to that interaction.

Is not to define rights as freedom not to define rights as social rights and not as natural rights freedom is a concept that hold no meaning outside of the context of human interaction?

a social contract in and of itself is a bartering of rights,

Which would make them social or positive rights as opposed to social rights, yes? You insist that 'natural rights' exist but you keep coming back to rights being social in nature.

you specifically state that the destruction of government is a violation of the rights deferred it in the social contract

Only if the government is perceived as an individual with the same rights as a man. In out own nation, our Constitution is written such that this is is explicitly not the case.

. i observe that volatility will arise from the fact, where you claim absurdity would arise. i don't get it. you contend that a state cannot be a party to a social contract by drawing another semantic distinction of government as a 'being' which can't assume rights from humans.

The government is not a party to the social contract but is rather a product of the social contract of those who form or maintain the system of governance.

nothing about rights as i understand them precludes an organization from possessing rights.

Do organizations possess any rights, or is it that the people who form those organizations have rights? Before you attempt to back your claim by citing different legal privileges and social rights, recall that you've repeatedly asserted that natural rights are possessed. It is these that are the subject of this question.

is it that you insist humanity has conjured rights by way of invention? how do you account for their role in all social paradigms, human or not?

Role in all social paradigms? The lion which kills a rival's cubs and the weasel (or is it a type of mole?) that rapes newborn females to store its sperm in them- and kill all the males- do not seem to recognize any such rights as you describe.

Laws are formalized ethics. Ethics arise from mutual interest and common morality. Morality arises from evolution and instinct and is refined and expanded upon by society in accordance with existing societal norms and ethics and the social contract.

The same processes are at work throughout the animal kingdom. We are different only in that we take it to the level of ethics and laws rather than simple instinct. This is due to our superior intelligence and self-awareness compared to the rest of the animal kingdom.

This is what the evidence tells us. I once again refer to you evolutionary psychology, the 'moral instinct', and reciprocal altruism.

 

[JBeukema]

There's plenty ways to end your existence.

Demonstrate

 

[editec]

Sure I can. I can take away your every right.

I can kill you as but one dramatic example of how that is done.

You might have a right UNDER THE LAW, QW

You might even have a right that GOD granted you.

But you do not have any right that cannot be taken away from you by any chowderhead with a gun and the will to use it.

Incidently...the distinction you're making between Unalienable and INalienable is wrong, I think/

un·al·ien·a·ble (

n-

l

y

-n

-b

l, -

l

-

-)
adj. Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable:

UNALIENABLE

Pronunciation (US):

Dictionary entry overview: What does unalienable mean?
• UNALIENABLE(adjective)
The adjective UNALIENABLE has 1 sense:
1. incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another

Familiarity information: UNALIENABLE used as an adjective is very rare.


Dictionary entry details

• UNALIENABLE (adjective)


Sense 1unalienable [BACK TO TOP]
Meaning:
Incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another
Synonyms:
inalienable; unalienable
Context example:
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights
Similar:
absolute; infrangible; inviolable (not capable of being violated or infringed)
non-negotiable (cannot be bought or sold)
nontransferable; unassignable; untransferable (incapable of being transferred)
Also:
intrinsic; intrinsical (belonging to a thing by its very nature)

You are confusing possessions with rights, just like those who argue that rights are property.

I am confusing nothing.

You can take property from me through force, but nothing you can do will take away my rights.

So you've stated..but not proven

Putting me in jail does not take away my freedom,it just restricts my ability to demonstrate it to the less enlightened.

Imprisonment is freeedom? How Orwellian.

Denying me TV and food does not take away my right to pursue happiness, it just makes it harder for some to find it. Killing me does not take away my right to life, it just takes away my body.

Wondered how long it would take you to try MAGICAL THINKING to prove you case.

My rights exist because I exist, and there is nothing that anyone can do to change that.

One wonders why THOU SHALL NOT KILL is so universally thought to be good advise, then.

All the law does is recognize my rights, it does not give them to me.

A distinction without a difference

The distinction I am making between un and in is just me being nitpicky.

No, actually it's you being wrong.

The DoI uses unalienable, and I like to poke at people who think it says inalienable.

They mean the same thing. I tend to speak English of our era, rather than the English of the late 18th century.

They are interchangeable in English, but I think we should use the one that has historical significance. Feel free to ignore it at will though, you have that right.

Ignore what?

The fact that both words mean the same thing?

I didn't ignore that point, I pointed it out to you.

Your faith that your rights are INalineable or (if you prefer to speak in 18th century English? UNalienable) is based on your faith that your soul exists and that GOD has granted you those inalienable rights even (but not ONLY, which is why we are having this debate, really) after death.

That your soul may be endowed by the creator with inalienable rights may be true in some cosmic sense.

But your earthy body is subject to the visicitudes of earthly outcomes.

I am just humble enough to suggest to you that I am wholly unqualified (and I believe that you are, too) to address the legal nicities of Heavenly law.

Now perhaps when we are in that heavenly sphere, we can discuss what rights you and I have there.

Until that happy time, QW, you and I are pretty much stuck dealing with the world as we find it, not as you and I would like it to be.

The DEAD have no EARTHLY rights.

Pretty simple, really.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There's plenty ways to end your existence.

Demonstrate

Fail.

I am still here.

Try again

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your faith that your rights are INalineable or (if you prefer to speak in 18th century English? UNalienable) is based on your faith that your soul exists and that GOD has granted you those inalienable rights even (but not ONLY, which is why we are having this debate, really) after death.

That your soul may be endowed by the creator with inalienable rights may be true in some cosmic sense.

But your earthy body is subject to the visicitudes of earthly outcomes.

I am just humble enough to suggest to you that I am wholly unqualified (and I believe that you are, too) to address the legal nicities of Heavenly law.

Now perhaps when we are in that heavenly sphere, we can discuss what rights you and I have there.

Until that happy time, QW, you and I are pretty much stuck dealing with the world as we find it, not as you and I would like it to be.

The DEAD have no EARTHLY rights.

Pretty simple, really.

My faith in rights has nothing to do with God, you are assuming facts not in evidence. I will state categorically that I do not have an immortal soul, and neither does anyone else. Some people believe they do, but I believe they are wrong. How can my faith in rights be based on something I do not believe I have?

If you want to discuss my rights with me, feel free. If you want to discuss them with someone who believes that they have a soul, feel free there also, just do not expect that person to be me.

 

[Intense]

1) Do people have rights?

2) If so, where do they come from?

Is there any non-theological argument for human rights?

there is no god.

anyone who claims "rights come from god" is wrong.

"rights" come from agreement and consensus

God I hate consensus.

 

[Intense]

There's plenty ways to end your existence.

Demonstrate

Not necessarily without consequence, Karma, cause and effect.

What comes around goes around. You can either debate that, ignore it, or choose sides.

 

[editec]

i contend that natural rights are a constant by definition.

So there exist 'natural rights'? Rights do not come from society but re either recognized or not recognized by society? Is that pretty much your position?

What are these rights? Can you define them, test for them, demonstrate their existence?

social contracts do indeed vary. the purpose of democracy is to facilitate the reciprocal exchange of rights between government and its constituents

Not quite. Any system in which the government has rights is, imho, doomed to fail as it makes the government some mythical beast- an entity unto itself. That's why the Constitution grants no rights, but only powers and authority to the government. Only people are said to have rights in the Constitution and there is a very good reason for that.



Have they? Is not the slave's acceptance of the status quo, regardless of whether he is happy with it, every bit the same implied consent the terms as any other man? Have not the slaves a social contract amongst themselves which makes it clear they are not in active combat for their freedom- a social contract which can change when the fervor of revolt runs through their veins?

Was it not their decision to accept the terms rather than to raise arms for their liberty, just as the Libertarian grudgingly accepts along with his comrades that they exist within this society? true, they could change those terms of contract into those of open violence, but would that not be exactly that: changing the terms of the contract, a social contract that they are already a part of?


I'd not call it a promise so much as an understanding of the manner in which the parties involved are to behave towards eachother and their relation to one another in the social system, as well as societal ethics, codes of conduct, and the like.

Even in a tyranny, is it not true that the ruled have tacitly agreed that they are accepting-at least for the time being- of the status quo, rather than agreeing to take up arms together? You seem to make the fallacy of approaching the social contract from what you feel it ought to be when in reality it merely describes what is.


these rights are constant. the subjects which interact with them and the basis of that interaction is not relevant.

The subject that interact with the rights is not relevant? Could you clarify that statement, please?

intelligent life seems to pick up on them in more sophisticated ways than simpler critters, but the instinctive fabrics of all social beings' cohabitation reflects this truth. evolutionary existentialists argue that these 'understandings' of natural rights were adapted into the psyche of animals which rely on a social structure for their survival.

I see no signs that ants, which rely on their own social order for survival,. recognize any such rights. Nor bees.

humans understand these rights because of our intellect, but failing that, or in the case of a pack of wolves for example, the paradigm still exists: basic rights which determine volatility or stability of a social group. aren't ants and bacterial colonies subject to this law just as much as we are?

And since we both exist together? Does E.Coli have the same inherent rights as you do? Is it then murder* to kill such a bacterium when it has not harmed you, merely because its existence is not to your liking?



*in the common ethical sense, rather than the legal

where did these rights come from? this is where your attribution to god or other comes in. if gravitation is another constant, but in the context of physics, from where did that come?

So you assert that natural rights are on the same order as the basic forces? What particle carries these rights? Can you show me natural rights as I can show you the effects of gravitation? Can you capture a Right as I can capture a quark or an electron? Can these rights be detected and organized as the three generations of fermions? Tested for like a graviton, captured and converted like a photon?

Perhaps they are conveyed by the Higgs Boson?[/quote]

Yeah that's correct.

Rights, lefts, ups, down lefts charms all kindsa good things.

Higgs Boson musta been the smartest Floundering Father of them all!

 

[editec]

I do have rights. As an example there is no way you can take away my right to pursue happiness.

Sure I can. Lock you up in a basement and give you minimal food and water. You seem to not realize you have no rights, especially when they can be just as easily taken away.

How would that stop me from pursuing happiness? I think it might help, as I would be able to ignore the distractions that make me angry, purge my body of poisons, and loose some weight.

There is no way you can take away my right to pursue happiness.

Yeah right.

Any nitwit with a gun can end that pursuit, eaily enough.

The dead have no rights, sport.

 

[Intense]

Sure I can. Lock you up in a basement and give you minimal food and water. You seem to not realize you have no rights, especially when they can be just as easily taken away.

How would that stop me from pursuing happiness? I think it might help, as I would be able to ignore the distractions that make me angry, purge my body of poisons, and loose some weight.

There is no way you can take away my right to pursue happiness.

Yeah right.

Any nitwit with a gun can end that pursuit, eaily enough.

The dead have no rights, sport.

Neither do convicted felons.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sure I can. Lock you up in a basement and give you minimal food and water. You seem to not realize you have no rights, especially when they can be just as easily taken away.

How would that stop me from pursuing happiness? I think it might help, as I would be able to ignore the distractions that make me angry, purge my body of poisons, and loose some weight.

There is no way you can take away my right to pursue happiness.

Yeah right.

Any nitwit with a gun can end that pursuit, eaily enough.

The dead have no rights, sport.

People keep insisting that is true, I wonder why.

Neither do convicted felons.

Wanna bet?

 

[JBeukema]

How would that stop me from pursuing happiness? I think it might help, as I would be able to ignore the distractions that make me angry, purge my body of poisons, and loose some weight.

There is no way you can take away my right to pursue happiness.

Yeah right.

Any nitwit with a gun can end that pursuit, eaily enough.

The dead have no rights, sport.

Neither do convicted felons.

8th amendment

Prisoners' Rights | American Civil Liberties Union

 

[antagon]

I love dialectics

i assert rights are constant and independent from the society or interaction in which they are employed. i simplify their definition to freedoms to act, and you are right to point out that these freedoms can infringe on those of others. that is why i attribute the boundaries to which rights must be constrained to the social paradigm which employs them. in this sense, rights - the freedom to act in any way - is universal and the use and distribution of those rights within a society or any interaction is specific to that interaction.

Is not to define rights as freedom not to define rights as social rights and not as natural rights freedom is a concept that hold no meaning outside of the context of human interaction?

freedom is only possible outside the context of human interaction. your observation is inverse.

Which would make them social or positive rights as opposed to social rights, yes? You insist that 'natural rights' exist but you keep coming back to rights being social in nature.

rather, i separate the social context of rights from their natural form. i only speak of social context when addressing the role of right within the context of a social contact.

Only if the government is perceived as an individual with the same rights as a man. In out own nation, our Constitution is written such that this is is explicitly not the case.

government is a product of a social contract which, as i'd said, is conferred rights possessed of its constituents. these rights are explicit (chiefly), and aren't the same as those which are retained by its citizens. this falls back to your earlier inverse observation, methinks. when entering a social contract or any natural interaction, an otherwise free man must concede rights to the contract, whether it is with government or individuals. this can be by force or by his own will.

nothing about rights as i understand them precludes an organization from possessing rights.

Do organizations possess any rights, or is it that the people who form those organizations have rights? Before you attempt to back your claim by citing different legal privileges and social rights, recall that you've repeatedly asserted that natural rights are possessed. It is these that are the subject of this question.

nothing about rights as i understand them precludes an organization from possessing rights. the rights are possessed by the organization, and are separate from those rights possessed by those operating it. this understanding, my definition of rights, is based on that of natural rights; it precludes the need to further characterize rights as social, positive, legal, unalienable, inalienable, etc. these are all observations related to how these right pan out in the context of an interaction like a social contract.

is it that you insist humanity has conjured rights by way of invention? how do you account for their role in all social paradigms, human or not?

Role in all social paradigms? The lion which kills a rival's cubs and the weasel (or is it a type of mole?) that rapes newborn females to store its sperm in them- and kill all the males- do not seem to recognize any such rights as you describe.

precisely the point that i'm drawing. you've attributed a necessity to recognize rights within social interactions as a condition of their existence, and i've repeatedly argued that they exist notwithstanding recognition, seizure of advantage, or infringement. drawing a parallel back to gravitation, you argue that an object which ostensibly defies gravity, erradicates the force entirely. perhaps this is the absurdity to which you earlier referred?

I once again refer to you evolutionary psychology, the 'moral instinct', and reciprocal altruism.

once again, i point out that studies of adaptations to environmental characteristics hardly constitute a study of the characteristics themselves.