What are basic human rights?

[Quantum Windbag]

There are no "rights", inherently.

Your rights are defined by whatever government you live under..

Our Government is based on unalienable rights inseparable from each person, so they do exist by your reasoning.

The question of "rights" comes into play after a government establishes itself. And that basically means getting things up and running.

While that is happening those "unalienable" rights generally are meaningless.

That would mean that no one in Syria has any rights, and that Obama is wrong for picking sides.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If that happened, I would fight as hard and as long as I was able to. I wouldn't need a "right" to do so, I just would do it, until I was free, or I died.

You are correct that you wouldn't need the right because you already have it. You were born with it, which is why you are willing to fight, and die, in order to have it.

Thanks for making my point.

I think a more accurate statement would be that you missed my point.

Your point is that you don't have rights, but intend to fight the government anyway. That makes you a lying sack of shit, insane, or both.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You are correct that you wouldn't need the right because you already have it. You were born with it, which is why you are willing to fight, and die, in order to have it.

Thanks for making my point.

I think a more accurate statement would be that you missed my point.

Your point is that you don't have rights, but intend to fight the government anyway. That makes you a lying sack of shit, insane, or both.

Again, you attach a value to the term "rights" that I do not.

I do not need a "right" to do something to be able to do it. No one would argue that I have the "right" to murder someone, but I certainly have the ability to do so.

"Rights" exist as nothing more than rules created by man that limit ability.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

You do not have the right to someone elses services or their property.

Jeebus, you're about as bright as a burnt out lightbulb.

FDR was as bright as a burnt out lightbulb?

So do you want to enlighten us about what basic human rights are?

Yes, FDR was a central planning reject that fucked up far more than he ever "fixed".

Basic human rights.

The right to life free of coercion from others.
The right to pursue interests free from coercion.
The right to voluntary exchange without coercion.
The right to private property.

What do you consider coercion? If you're living under the jurisdiction of ANY government, you're bound to wake up one day and discover that there's a law on the books that requires you to do something that you don't feel like doing that day. (Or that prohibits you from doing something you'd like to do that day.) Is this "coercion?"

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Your example is not a basic right because people have a right not to be attacked even if they provoke the attack.

Possibly, but what are you basing that assertion on?

The fact that people have a right not to be attacked.

Circular reasoning.

And if you say "No it isn't" you'll be proving me right.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Human rights (at least in this discussion) should be considered as completely separate from any nation's laws or anyone's legal rights.

For example, if you did something to another person or withheld something from them, would people believe that your actions are fundamentally wrong, regardless of what nation you're located in? If the answer is yes, that would be a violation of someone's basic human rights.

Here's something more literal: people have the right not to be attacked without provocation.

Obviously there are many more human rights. Which do you consider basic and why?

Define "people" in this context.

Any collection of random adults, each of whom has been made familiar with your individual situation and can decide for themselves whether your actions are fundamentally right or wrong.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

This conversation makes me wonder why we bothered to fight our Revolution or either of the two "world" wars.

That's an easy one. Money!

 

[Wonky Pundit]

What interests you about the question?

The definition of the term "rights".

Fair enough. Base on the OP intro, I've been posting on the assumption that the topic line was a typo - that it actually meant to ask "What are [our] basic human rights?" rather than "What are basic human rights?". Maybe I presumed too much.

The headline asks the latter question, and the body of the OP asks both. IMO, both questions are important and worthy of discussion on this thread.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

ok



Well, that's at the heart of the equivocation going on here. You seem to be defining right as a 'protected freedom' - and a 'protected freedom' doesn't exist if someone isn't protecting it. The alternative view is just looking at a 'right' as a freedom. Whether it is protected, or not, is another question. It's really two sides of the same coin. You're just confining the concept of rights to those freedoms we have chosen to protect. The other view is looking at rights as raw freedoms, freedoms that we then choose to protect or not.

Both views end up at the same place, and face the same question: which freedoms should we protect, and why?

And that whole argument goes up in smoke when you acknowledge that individuals protect their own rights whether a third party is involved or not.

We as individuals can enter into contracts or agreements that define what we are referring here to as basic rights and work together to exercise these rights and remove anything that stands in the way of us exercising these rights. We really don't need to explain where the rights were derived from because we ourselves just invented them and treat them as priorities.
Let say one of the rights that we invent is the right to be free from hunger. In order to benefit from this right we need food. Who is responsible for our food if not ourselves ? If it is not ourselves we are then making someone else responsible for providing us with nourishment. Besides having the right to be free from hunger to we also have the right to force others to provide us with food ?
Again I suggest that any right that depends on others to defend and provide is nothing more than a self declared entitlement. Our right to be free of hunger is a condition that is our individual responsibility to create.

Why does it necessarily have to be an individual responsibility? Why couldn't it, at least in theory, be a collective one?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

FDR was as bright as a burnt out lightbulb?

So do you want to enlighten us about what basic human rights are?

Yes, FDR was a central planning reject that fucked up far more than he ever "fixed".

Basic human rights.

The right to life free of coercion from others.
The right to pursue interests free from coercion.
The right to voluntary exchange without coercion.
The right to private property.

What do you consider coercion? If you're living under the jurisdiction of ANY government, you're bound to wake up one day and discover that there's a law on the books that requires you to do something that you don't feel like doing that day. (Or that prohibits you from doing something you'd like to do that day.) Is this "coercion?"

Yes, that's coercion. And yes, government, by its very existence, is simply a monopoly on the use of force and violence. Similar to, if not identical to, any other protection/extortion racket.

 

[dblack]

And that whole argument goes up in smoke when you acknowledge that individuals protect their own rights whether a third party is involved or not.

We as individuals can enter into contracts or agreements that define what we are referring here to as basic rights and work together to exercise these rights and remove anything that stands in the way of us exercising these rights. We really don't need to explain where the rights were derived from because we ourselves just invented them and treat them as priorities.
Let say one of the rights that we invent is the right to be free from hunger. In order to benefit from this right we need food. Who is responsible for our food if not ourselves ? If it is not ourselves we are then making someone else responsible for providing us with nourishment. Besides having the right to be free from hunger to we also have the right to force others to provide us with food ?
Again I suggest that any right that depends on others to defend and provide is nothing more than a self declared entitlement. Our right to be free of hunger is a condition that is our individual responsibility to create.

Why does it necessarily have to be an individual responsibility? Why couldn't it, at least in theory, be a collective one?

Are you asking why we can't ensure entitlements with government, as well as inalienable rights? My answer would be that the two goals contradict each other. In order to ensure entitlements, government must violate our rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think a more accurate statement would be that you missed my point.

Your point is that you don't have rights, but intend to fight the government anyway. That makes you a lying sack of shit, insane, or both.

Again, you attach a value to the term "rights" that I do not.

I do not need a "right" to do something to be able to do it. No one would argue that I have the "right" to murder someone, but I certainly have the ability to do so.

"Rights" exist as nothing more than rules created by man that limit ability.

Not true. You want to pretend that the word rights doesn't really mean anything, and then insist that you will fight for the thing that you don't want to use the word rights to describe.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Possibly, but what are you basing that assertion on?

The fact that people have a right not to be attacked.

Circular reasoning.

And if you say "No it isn't" you'll be proving me right.

If you want to counter my argument with something other than "Because I don't like the fact that you are right," Feel free.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

The fact that people have a right not to be attacked.

Circular reasoning.

And if you say "No it isn't" you'll be proving me right.

If you want to counter my argument with something other than "Because I don't like the fact that you are right," Feel free.

I already did.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

We as individuals can enter into contracts or agreements that define what we are referring here to as basic rights and work together to exercise these rights and remove anything that stands in the way of us exercising these rights. We really don't need to explain where the rights were derived from because we ourselves just invented them and treat them as priorities.
Let say one of the rights that we invent is the right to be free from hunger. In order to benefit from this right we need food. Who is responsible for our food if not ourselves ? If it is not ourselves we are then making someone else responsible for providing us with nourishment. Besides having the right to be free from hunger to we also have the right to force others to provide us with food ?
Again I suggest that any right that depends on others to defend and provide is nothing more than a self declared entitlement. Our right to be free of hunger is a condition that is our individual responsibility to create.

Why does it necessarily have to be an individual responsibility? Why couldn't it, at least in theory, be a collective one?

Are you asking why we can't ensure entitlements with government, as well as inalienable rights? My answer would be that the two goals contradict each other. In order to ensure entitlements, government must violate our rights.

I think government can ensure both, if not fully then at least at an optimal balance.

Tell me, which rights MUST a government violate in order to ensure any entitlement?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Yes, FDR was a central planning reject that fucked up far more than he ever "fixed".

Basic human rights.

The right to life free of coercion from others.
The right to pursue interests free from coercion.
The right to voluntary exchange without coercion.
The right to private property.

What do you consider coercion? If you're living under the jurisdiction of ANY government, you're bound to wake up one day and discover that there's a law on the books that requires you to do something that you don't feel like doing that day. (Or that prohibits you from doing something you'd like to do that day.) Is this "coercion?"

Yes, that's coercion. And yes, government, by its very existence, is simply a monopoly on the use of force and violence. Similar to, if not identical to, any other protection/extortion racket.

Then unless you're a criminal, or a hermit on a tropical island that no nation claims, you're going to be coerced by government, just like practically everyone else on the planet. It seems like you hope for rights that can't possibly function in a large community.

 

[dilloduck]

And that whole argument goes up in smoke when you acknowledge that individuals protect their own rights whether a third party is involved or not.

We as individuals can enter into contracts or agreements that define what we are referring here to as basic rights and work together to exercise these rights and remove anything that stands in the way of us exercising these rights. We really don't need to explain where the rights were derived from because we ourselves just invented them and treat them as priorities.
Let say one of the rights that we invent is the right to be free from hunger. In order to benefit from this right we need food. Who is responsible for our food if not ourselves ? If it is not ourselves we are then making someone else responsible for providing us with nourishment. Besides having the right to be free from hunger to we also have the right to force others to provide us with food ?
Again I suggest that any right that depends on others to defend and provide is nothing more than a self declared entitlement. Our right to be free of hunger is a condition that is our individual responsibility to create.

Why does it necessarily have to be an individual responsibility? Why couldn't it, at least in theory, be a collective one?

let me put it this way--if I want to satisfy my right to be fed I'm going to get my own food as opposed to waiting for the collective to do it. Creating a right doesn't ensure any action will be taken.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Circular reasoning.

And if you say "No it isn't" you'll be proving me right.

If you want to counter my argument with something other than "Because I don't like the fact that you are right," Feel free.

I already did.

The only response to any of my posts in this thread was this absurd argument that I am arguing in circles. You never once dealt with the simple fact that, even if you provoke me, I do not have the right to assault you. All you have left is pretending you actually did address it, and then hoping I will sputter incoherently.

How's that working?

 

[dblack]

Tell me, which rights MUST a government violate in order to ensure any entitlement?

The most fundamental of all of them: the right to be left alone. Entitlements, by definition, require the service of others. Government can't guarantee an entitlement without forcing someone to provide it.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Tell me, which rights MUST a government violate in order to ensure any entitlement?

The most fundamental of all of them: the right to be left alone. Entitlements, by definition, require the service of others. Government can't guarantee an entitlement without forcing someone to provide it.

Government can always pay someone to provide the entitlement, which doesn't seem to be the equivalent of "forcing" them.