What rights do human beings have?

[Redfish]

What "rights" do human beings have and who gave them out?

Does the constitution define the rights of US citizens?

Do they come from God?

Do they come from some congress or king?

Does every human being have the right to : food, air, water, sex, clothing, housing, free speech, gun ownership, a job, a car, air conditioning, heat, hot water, soap, booze, land,
pets, hair coloring, nail salons, shoes, ------------

just curious what the various posters have to say about the rights of humans and where they come from.

one lesbian poster used the term "fundamental rights" what does that mean?

Read the Declaration of Independence.

I have, what does it say to you about rights?

 

[Michelle420]

Rights are an abstract human concept.

Agreed

Yes, rights are an abstract human concept. So do you agree that gay people do not have some inherent "right" to marry each other? or does a society decide what rights its citizens are to have, or are human rights more basic than that such that they would exist without civilizations or societies.

I am not expecting answers, just want those who claim certain "rights" for certain groups to think about the entire concept of "rights"

Sure social construction decides what rules the group agrees to.

That's why historically in different societies and cultures we had gay marriage, polygamy, no marriage, and all sorts of different sexual lifestyles.

This is why activism is successful, it influences the group think and once the majority is swayed we can get a group agreement and change a law or rule.

It does take time for some social issues that were once not accepted to become accepted.

This is why we are starting to see states legalize pot, and legalize gay marriage, people are ready to accept it.

 

[jwoodie]

We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Truthseeker420]

What "rights" do human beings have and who gave them out?

Does the constitution define the rights of US citizens?

Do they come from God?

Do they come from some congress or king?

Does every human being have the right to : food, air, water, sex, clothing, housing, free speech, gun ownership, a job, a car, air conditioning, heat, hot water, soap, booze, land,
pets, hair coloring, nail salons, shoes, ------------

just curious what the various posters have to say about the rights of humans and where they come from.

one lesbian poster used the term "fundamental rights" what does that mean?

What ever right the person pointing the gun at you gives you...

 

[Redfish]

We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

the key word being "pursuit". happiness is not guaranteed, only that you can pursue it.

 

[konradv]

Has nothing to do with this discussion.

Really? Maybe you should look up the word, too. The founding fathers did not invent democracy.

The founders rejected a democracy in favor of a representative republic. A democracy is nothing but mob rule, as in who ever has the biggest mob, rules.

I other words a republican government is REQUIRED in order for rights to be preserved. Without it we'd just be subject to the biggest mob or strongest individual. To suggest that rights are inherent doesn't jibe with what happens when there's no government to back them up.

 

[Redfish]

Agreed

Yes, rights are an abstract human concept. So do you agree that gay people do not have some inherent "right" to marry each other? or does a society decide what rights its citizens are to have, or are human rights more basic than that such that they would exist without civilizations or societies.

I am not expecting answers, just want those who claim certain "rights" for certain groups to think about the entire concept of "rights"

Sure social construction decides what rules the group agrees to.

That's why historically in different societies and cultures we had gay marriage, polygamy, no marriage, and all sorts of different sexual lifestyles.

This is why activism is successful, it influences the group think and once the majority is swayed we can get a group agreement and change a law or rule.

It does take time for some social issues that were once not accepted to become accepted.

This is why we are starting to see states legalize pot, and legalize gay marriage, people are ready to accept it.

true, and thats as it should be. the majority should decide how the society lives and what rules it follows.

the majority in california have voted down gay marriage twice. shouldn't that be the end of the issue in that state?

 

[Redfish]

Really? Maybe you should look up the word, too. The founding fathers did not invent democracy.

The founders rejected a democracy in favor of a representative republic. A democracy is nothing but mob rule, as in who ever has the biggest mob, rules.

I other words a republican government is REQUIRED in order for rights to be preserved. Without it we'd just be subject to the biggest mob or strongest individual. To suggest that rights are inherent doesn't jibe with what happens when there's no government to back them up.

do the rights of a minority take precedence over the rights of the majority? what is it about the term "majority rules" that gives you a problem?

 

[Michelle420]

Yes, rights are an abstract human concept. So do you agree that gay people do not have some inherent "right" to marry each other? or does a society decide what rights its citizens are to have, or are human rights more basic than that such that they would exist without civilizations or societies.

I am not expecting answers, just want those who claim certain "rights" for certain groups to think about the entire concept of "rights"

Sure social construction decides what rules the group agrees to.

That's why historically in different societies and cultures we had gay marriage, polygamy, no marriage, and all sorts of different sexual lifestyles.

This is why activism is successful, it influences the group think and once the majority is swayed we can get a group agreement and change a law or rule.

It does take time for some social issues that were once not accepted to become accepted.

This is why we are starting to see states legalize pot, and legalize gay marriage, people are ready to accept it.

true, and thats as it should be. the majority should decide how the society lives and what rules it follows.

the majority in california have voted down gay marriage twice. shouldn't that be the end of the issue in that state?

Of course in the American culture, the minority is protected by the constitution which was agreed on by the majority.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The founders rejected a democracy in favor of a representative republic. A democracy is nothing but mob rule, as in who ever has the biggest mob, rules.

I other words a republican government is REQUIRED in order for rights to be preserved. Without it we'd just be subject to the biggest mob or strongest individual. To suggest that rights are inherent doesn't jibe with what happens when there's no government to back them up.

do the rights of a minority take precedence over the rights of the majority? what is it about the term "majority rules" that gives you a problem?

Rights belong to individuals. Majority and minority are state constructs developed to keep plebs casting secret ballots for a ruler every few years.

The idea of a majority in statist construct is a myth. Or we'd have no president of the USA right now.

 

[konradv]

The founders rejected a democracy in favor of a representative republic. A democracy is nothing but mob rule, as in who ever has the biggest mob, rules.

I other words a republican government is REQUIRED in order for rights to be preserved. Without it we'd just be subject to the biggest mob or strongest individual. To suggest that rights are inherent doesn't jibe with what happens when there's no government to back them up.

do the rights of a minority take precedence over the rights of the majority? what is it about the term "majority rules" that gives you a problem?

Nothing on the face of it. I was merely commenting that rights are dependent on some force to back them up. We usually call that force government. Absent it, there's nothing natural about rights except your right to sit meekly back and watch me eat your kill, if I'm stronger than you.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I other words a republican government is REQUIRED in order for rights to be preserved. Without it we'd just be subject to the biggest mob or strongest individual. To suggest that rights are inherent doesn't jibe with what happens when there's no government to back them up.

do the rights of a minority take precedence over the rights of the majority? what is it about the term "majority rules" that gives you a problem?

Nothing on the face of it. I was merely commenting that rights are dependent on some force to back them up. We usually call that force government. Absent it, there's nothing natural about rights except your right to sit meekly back and watch me eat your kill, if I'm stronger than you.

This isn't the caveman days, fella. If you come onto my property with the intention of stealing or attempting to do me harm, I'll shoot you in the face. Absent a protection racket or not.

 

[konradv]

do the rights of a minority take precedence over the rights of the majority? what is it about the term "majority rules" that gives you a problem?

Nothing on the face of it. I was merely commenting that rights are dependent on some force to back them up. We usually call that force government. Absent it, there's nothing natural about rights except your right to sit meekly back and watch me eat your kill, if I'm stronger than you.

This isn't the caveman days, fella. If you come onto my property with the intention of stealing or attempting to do me harm, I'll shoot you in the face. Absent a protection racket or not.

You just don't get it, do you? My premise was that I was the stronger one. You're just making my point. If you're the stronger one, you win. It has NOTHING to do with rights.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It does have everything to do with rights. I have the right to defend myself from marauding shit stains that attempt to relieve me of my right to self ownership and property. Stronger has nothing to do with the exercise of that right. "winning or losing" have nothing to do with it. Rights aren't a game of win and lose. Even with your current belloved protection racket people lose fights involving rights violations daily.


So you really have no point.

 

[konradv]

It does have everything to do with rights. I have the right to defend myself from marauding shit stains that attempt to relieve me of my right to self ownership and property. Stronger has nothing to do with the exercise of that right. "winning or losing" have nothing to do with it. Rights aren't a game of win and lose. Even with your current belloved protection racket people lose fights involving rights violations daily.


So you really have no point.

Stronger has everything to do with it. If I'm stronger, your claim of rights are worthless. You're the one with your mind in the caveman days, not me. You claim something that's as ephemeral as who gets the drop on who. That's not rights, that's just nature.

 

[Redfish]

I other words a republican government is REQUIRED in order for rights to be preserved. Without it we'd just be subject to the biggest mob or strongest individual. To suggest that rights are inherent doesn't jibe with what happens when there's no government to back them up.

do the rights of a minority take precedence over the rights of the majority? what is it about the term "majority rules" that gives you a problem?

Rights belong to individuals. Majority and minority are state constructs developed to keep plebs casting secret ballots for a ruler every few years.

The idea of a majority in statist construct is a myth. Or we'd have no president of the USA right now.

we would have a president because he got the majority of the votes, we would have laws because they were passed by a majority of the people or their elected representatives.

what I was saying is that our rights via government are determined by majority vote. I do not have the right to steal your stuff because a majority voted that theft is illegal.

However, if we were living in the forest with no government to enforce rights, I could steal your stuff if I was strong enough or clever enough.

 

[Redfish]

It does have everything to do with rights. I have the right to defend myself from marauding shit stains that attempt to relieve me of my right to self ownership and property. Stronger has nothing to do with the exercise of that right. "winning or losing" have nothing to do with it. Rights aren't a game of win and lose. Even with your current belloved protection racket people lose fights involving rights violations daily.


So you really have no point.

Stronger has everything to do with it. If I'm stronger, your claim of rights are worthless. You're the one with your mind in the caveman days, not me. You claim something that's as ephemeral as who gets the drop on who. That's not rights, that's just nature.

so there is a right of nature that says that the strongest can take from the weakest as long as there is no government to prevent it? I happen to agree with that, but would like your opinion

 

[TakeAStepBack]

do the rights of a minority take precedence over the rights of the majority? what is it about the term "majority rules" that gives you a problem?

Rights belong to individuals. Majority and minority are state constructs developed to keep plebs casting secret ballots for a ruler every few years.

The idea of a majority in statist construct is a myth. Or we'd have no president of the USA right now.

we would have a president because he got the majority of the votes, we would have laws because they were passed by a majority of the people or their elected representatives.

what I was saying is that our rights via government are determined by majority vote. I do not have the right to steal your stuff because a majority voted that theft is illegal.

However, if we were living in the forest with no government to enforce rights, I could steal your stuff if I was strong enough or clever enough.

No, the current president only received a majority of those who voted, not a majority of people. 94 million "voters" abstained for whatever reason was determined by them. The majority did not vote for the president, therefore it was not a majority. It was an illusion of majority constructed by the state apparatus. The true majority voted "no one".

You could steal my stuff now with the current protection racket in place. That does not mean that you have any ethical or moral right to do so. And i would have the ethical and moral right to shoot you in the face if you attempted to violate my right to self ownership and property.

Only if rights are the construct of the state apparatus does this fly, in which case the current protection racket is failing miserably at their role. Because people have their 'legal' "rights" violated all the time. In many cases by the very protection racket you all hold so dearly.

 

[Redfish]

Rights belong to individuals. Majority and minority are state constructs developed to keep plebs casting secret ballots for a ruler every few years.

The idea of a majority in statist construct is a myth. Or we'd have no president of the USA right now.

we would have a president because he got the majority of the votes, we would have laws because they were passed by a majority of the people or their elected representatives.

what I was saying is that our rights via government are determined by majority vote. I do not have the right to steal your stuff because a majority voted that theft is illegal.

However, if we were living in the forest with no government to enforce rights, I could steal your stuff if I was strong enough or clever enough.

No, the current president only received a majority of those who voted, not a majority of people. 94 million "voters" abstained for whatever reason was determined by them. The majority did not vote for the president, therefore it was not a majority. It was an illusion of majority constructed by the state apparatus. The true majority voted "no one".

You could steal my stuff now with the current protection racket in place. That does not mean that you have any ethical or moral right to do so. And i would have the ethical and moral right to shoot you in the face if you attempted to violate my right to self ownership and property.

Only if rights are the construct of the state apparatus does this fly, in which case the current protection racket is failing miserably at their role. Because people have their 'legal' "rights" violated all the time. In many cases by the very protection racket you all hold so dearly.

the voting majority decides who leads us and what laws we follow, if some choose not to have their voices heard then they make themselves subject to the will of others.
not sure what you mean by protection racket, explain.

 

[Agit8r]

For civilization to be justified, people have the right to subsist in a condition as good, or better, than the natural state.

Other specific rights like property and marriage depend on how much a society wants to invest in the positive role of government.