What Constitutes a "Right?"

[goldcatt]

All right, rubberhead. Although I would probably be somewhat justified to show you, that's not my style so I'll tell you what you wanted to know.
Have you used the rep function yet? On every post there is a little square with a little thumbs up and down in the upper right corner. For a post you like (or really, really do not like), click on that and you can choose whether to add rep to the poster, or subtract it. You can add as many rep points to that poster as you have earned. In your case, that's one. That's pos rep. It's a compliment for a good post, or just something that made you laugh, or whatever you decide to give it for.
When you subtract rep points, you take away half the number of points you have. In your case, I'm not sure if that would work out to one or zero. That's neg rep. It's basically an insult.
Things are a little loose around here, in case you didn't notice. Posters have a very few rules to follow and stuff happens when people are having fun. Like a couple of posters in a thread going off on a tangent, or a jokester coming in and posting cartoons or off-color humor. You need to be a little more flexible if you want to get along. Nobody likes a whiner. Here, they tend to make pinatas out of them. You got lucky you ran into some people who are relatively gentle this time.

You, of course, have the right to be a whining douchebag pinata if that's what you want to be. Your choice. But now you know!

I don't see any thumbs up... I'm not going to use that anyway. It seems kind of layme. Thanks for the tip tho. I had no idea. I'll probably choose to be a whiny douche sometimes, just like anyone else. I was just very interested in the thread, so I was watching it, and then I kept coming back to see these one liner posts that had nothing to do with the thread.

Your choice, just take it as friendly advice which you have every right to take or ignore as you see fit. I'm going to watch my Hogs. Enjoy!

 

[rubberhead]

Yes, this is true. Which is why freedom cannot be absolute for all and still be natural.

Nonsense.

Freedom is absolute, unless the individual agree to waive his right.


.

It is like they are taught to refuse knowledge, deny all evidence, Links, History.

Yes, this is true. Which is why freedom cannot be absolute for all and still be natural.

rubberhead, please elaborate or translate this.

Here's how I look at it. If freedom was absolute for everyone naturally, then there would inevitably be those who were naturally endowed with the right to deprive others of their freedom. How can that be natural?

 

[rubberhead]

There are no restrictions because you never had the right to kill. Killing takes away somebody else's right to their life so how could you possibly have that right in the first place?

There is no Right to Murder.

My right to life implies that I have the right to defend the same.

.

Definitely. If you can't defend your rights, then they're meaningless.

 

[Contumacious]

If something is natural, then you are born with it.

correct'

We certainly cannot agree that people are born with the right to do whatever they want regardless of who it harms and no one can stop them. Wouldn't you say? Hmmmm?

You are misunderstanding the concept of natural rights. I have a right to life, Liberty, property and to pursue happiness and so do you. I have no right to interfere with your rights in any way shape or form.



.

 

[rubberhead]

If something is natural, then you are born with it.

correct'

We certainly cannot agree that people are born with the right to do whatever they want regardless of who it harms and no one can stop them. Wouldn't you say? Hmmmm?

You are misunderstanding the concept of natural rights. I have a right to life, Liberty, property and to pursue happiness and so do you. I have no right to interfere with your rights in any way shape or form.



.

Yeah, you don't really support that though. The way I look at it is that one cannot be born with the natural right to deprive someone else of their natural rights, because that contradicts the concept of natural rights. There are circumstances where a person can deprive another of rights and not be wrong. Namely, in defense of their own rights.

 

[Intense]

Yes, this is true. Which is why freedom cannot be absolute for all and still be natural.

Nonsense.

Freedom is absolute, unless the individual agree to waive his right.


.

Actually you are still free even if you waive your rights. That is, you are free not to honor your agreement to waive your rights. However, the freedom that you naturally have must respect the freedom of others. That's what I believe anyway.

In Islam that could be a death sentence. Here, you may be bound by contract. School and Medical debt stay with you. How old are you?

 

[Intense]

If something is natural, then you are born with it.

correct'

We certainly cannot agree that people are born with the right to do whatever they want regardless of who it harms and no one can stop them. Wouldn't you say? Hmmmm?

You are misunderstanding the concept of natural rights. I have a right to life, Liberty, property and to pursue happiness and so do you. I have no right to interfere with your rights in any way shape or form.



.

Yeah, you don't really support that though. The way I look at it is that one cannot be born with the natural right to deprive someone else of their natural rights, because that contradicts the concept of natural rights. There are circumstances where a person can deprive another of rights and not be wrong. Namely, in defense of their own rights.

Why are you arguing a false point that has been argued before on this thread. Your argument is false and disingenuous. Natural Rights Exist because Some of Us Recognize a Force more Powerful than Any Government devised by man. Some recognize a Natural order and meaning to creation, whether we are aware or not. Because You are born with Natural Rights does not mean that it is Right to assume that they have no boundaries. This argument is old and retarded. The desire to deprive others makes you a predator, unfit for the civilized society. There is no contradiction. There is lack of reason, as in dealing with a small child. Read up on Locke because He was a Main inspiration of those who formed Our Republic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

Your rights are protected by the government. They exist only in theory if they are not protected.

 

[rubberhead]

Nonsense.

Freedom is absolute, unless the individual agree to waive his right.


.

Actually you are still free even if you waive your rights. That is, you are free not to honor your agreement to waive your rights. However, the freedom that you naturally have must respect the freedom of others. That's what I believe anyway.

In Islam that could be a death sentence. Here, you may be bound by contract. School and Medical debt stay with you. How old are you?

Yeah, the law says that those commitments still hold. However, we're not discussing the law. The law is an expedient expression of rights in the real world. We're talking about natural rights. Even though I have tacitly consented to enter into the social contracts and explicitly consented to countless other contracts, I still have the right not to honor them, however it may damage my reputation or legal standing. I'm 27 years old and I am about $80,000 in debt and jobless, so I have experienced first hand the natural right to dishonor contracts (if only by necessity).

 

[Intense]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

Your rights are protected by the government. They exist only in theory if they are not protected.

Your Rights are Protected by more than the Government, or do you not protect Your Right, even Your Life, and that is besides the point that they are recognized by Government.

 

[rubberhead]

correct'



You are misunderstanding the concept of natural rights. I have a right to life, Liberty, property and to pursue happiness and so do you. I have no right to interfere with your rights in any way shape or form.



.

Yeah, you don't really support that though. The way I look at it is that one cannot be born with the natural right to deprive someone else of their natural rights, because that contradicts the concept of natural rights. There are circumstances where a person can deprive another of rights and not be wrong. Namely, in defense of their own rights.

Why are you arguing a false point that has been argued before on this thread. Your argument is false and disingenuous. Natural Rights Exist because Some of Us Recognize a Force more Powerful than Any Government devised by man. Some recognize a Natural order and meaning to creation, whether we are aware or not. Because You are born with Natural Rights does not mean that it is Right to assume that they have no boundaries. This argument is old and retarded. The desire to deprive others makes you a predator, unfit for the civilized society. There is no contradiction. There is lack of reason, as in dealing with a small child. Read up on Locke because He was a Main inspiration of those who formed Our Republic.

It's not a false point. Locke did not argue why people are equal and independent in the state of nature. I am offering a reason why no one is naturally endowed with a greater share of liberty than any other. I am not assuming that my rights have no boundaries. It almost seems like you are not responding to me because you are arguing the very opposite of what I was saying. Here it is again:

Each person is born with an amount of liberty compatible with an equal amount of liberty for each other person.

Why? Because if one person was born with the right to deprive others of their rights, then that person would be the executor of rights and not nature.

This is a contradiction to the assertion that the rights are natural. I have read Locke's "Second Treatise" and I know that it inspired the founders. If you have been following this thread you would see that I have posted several times on Locke. Like Locke, we're talking about general philosophical principles here (or at least that's what I'm trying to do, because that's how I like to waste my time), we're not talking about any particular government or social contract.

 

[Intense]

Actually you are still free even if you waive your rights. That is, you are free not to honor your agreement to waive your rights. However, the freedom that you naturally have must respect the freedom of others. That's what I believe anyway.

In Islam that could be a death sentence. Here, you may be bound by contract. School and Medical debt stay with you. How old are you?

Yeah, the law says that those commitments still hold. However, we're not discussing the law. The law is an expedient expression of rights in the real world. We're talking about natural rights. Even though I have tacitly consented to enter into the social contracts and explicitly consented to countless other contracts, I still have the right not to honor them, however it may damage my reputation or legal standing. I'm 27 years old and I am about $80,000 in debt and jobless, so I have experienced first hand the natural right to dishonor contracts (if only by necessity).

First, don't break faith with your conscience. Second, hide the Credit Card. Third Cause ans Effect is a Part of Natural Law. Everything has Consequence, both good and bad, to what ever level or degree, intended and unintended, those we are aware of and those we are not. We learn as we go. What we forget comes around again.

Any luck with Unemployment Job Training placement? Bankruptcy? Check out Dave Ramsey on Fox Business, He is a great help and sound advisor. I Hope the best for You. Hang in there.

 

[rubberhead]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

Your rights are protected by the government. They exist only in theory if they are not protected.

That's true, but I still have the right to defend them myself. The main question that we're asking here is how far does my right to defend what I see as my 'rights' extend? More precisely, what are my rights? We've already established that the right to defend one's rights is implied by having any rights. Otherwise, rights are truly meaningless.

 

[rubberhead]

In Islam that could be a death sentence. Here, you may be bound by contract. School and Medical debt stay with you. How old are you?

Yeah, the law says that those commitments still hold. However, we're not discussing the law. The law is an expedient expression of rights in the real world. We're talking about natural rights. Even though I have tacitly consented to enter into the social contracts and explicitly consented to countless other contracts, I still have the right not to honor them, however it may damage my reputation or legal standing. I'm 27 years old and I am about $80,000 in debt and jobless, so I have experienced first hand the natural right to dishonor contracts (if only by necessity).

First, don't break faith with your conscience. Second, hide the Credit Card. Third Cause ans Effect is a Part of Natural Law. Everything has Consequence, both good and bad, to what ever level or degree, intended and unintended, those we are aware of and those we are not. We learn as we go. What we forget comes around again.

Any luck with Unemployment Job Training placement? Bankruptcy? Check out Dave Ramsey on Fox Business, He is a great help and sound advisor. I Hope the best for You. Hang in there.

I fully intend to honor my debts when I am reasonably able to do so. Right now it's just not possible. I have learned an important lesson from this unpleasant situation though. The government is the only body that I have given the power to restrict my freedom. And even that contract is limited and renewable, contrary to the Leviathan model.

On the job search note, I have a crappy job lined up for October. Pays well enough and it'll keep me going until November/December when I plan to move to S. Korea to teach English. Turns out I can make more money there than I can here. Not really, actually, but job security here is not what it used to be. Especially for a mathematician with very little experience.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

Your rights are protected by the government. They exist only in theory if they are not protected.

Your Rights are Protected by more than the Government, or do you not protect Your Right, even Your Life, and that is besides the point that they are recognized by Government.

I was answering the OP's questons. Rights are protected/enforced by the government, the government costs money to run, therefore, yes it is required that the government take money through taxation to protect your rights. The police don't come for free, nor do the courts. And where do people seek redress when they believe their rights have been violated? The government.

 

[Intense]

Your rights are protected by the government. They exist only in theory if they are not protected.

Your Rights are Protected by more than the Government, or do you not protect Your Right, even Your Life, and that is besides the point that they are recognized by Government.

I was answering the OP's questons. Rights are protected/enforced by the government, the government costs money to run, therefore, yes it is required that the government take money through taxation to protect your rights. The police don't come for free, nor do the courts. And where do people seek redress when they believe their rights have been violated? The government.

That all true in a sense. What we can't resolve Ourselves, may end up there. When Civil Laws are Broken, Government Responds. We live in a System that is Governed by the Consent of the Governed. What Truly bothers Us We have the Power to Change or Abolish through Legislation or Amendment. Our Courts too play a Role.

 

[Liability]

You're nuts. Without quoting them directly, the Bill of Rights includes freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble peaceably, and the rght to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Of course within that amendment, many laws have been written concerning tangible rights of citizens, but that was the intent.

If a right exists, such as my right to speak my mind, then writing it down as part of a list of things over which the gubmint has no valid say does not create that right. The right pre-existed the writing part.

I have a right to swing my closed fist, too. My right to do so, however, does NOT go so far as the point where I make contact with your nose (or even wheere I get so close to it that I interfere with your right not to be physically threatened by my behavior).

Rights are NOT "all or nothing" constructs.

SOME rights may be absolute or nearly absolute.

Other rights quite a bit less so.

And there is no contradiction in noting as much.

And thus the reason we have laws. You can't use as a defense in a court of law that you had an inalienable "right" to punch someone in the nose because your reading of the Constitution implies that it was an expession of "freedom of speech."

So? Who said that an absurd mis-reading of a litany of explicitly reserved rights can justify unrelated behavior?

 

[MaggieMae]

I have no idea what you're talking about. The 16th amendment gives the federal government the power to institute an income tax. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

Taking from one person to give to another by way of taxes. Not to distort the OP even further, examples would be those who opposed the Iraq war but their taxes went to fund it anyway, but I realize the more current example is taxing everyone for the purpose of health care for all. A direct tax, an income tax, goes directly to my point.

The fact that we have an income tax which theoretically would allow the government to fund something, doesn't mean the government has a right to fund it. The Iraq war and universal healthcare are two examples of this, and just because the government did one wrong thing is no justification to do another.

So then each spending bill should be a separate referrendum? Yeah, I can see that working out well. We'd still be arguing over entry into World War II.

 

[MaggieMae]

You are not always in a crowded room, Maggie. You are not always around other People. Truth Justice, Motive Intent, are always with you, Internally. You have within Your Own Self the Ability to make Responsible Conscious Choice? Do you simply regress because you can? Are You maybe Guided by Principle? What existed first Maggie? The Principle or The Contract?

The problem with your argument is that "principle" isn't always right for everyone, and neither is "the contract." You are trying to confine your own beliefs into a doctrine of fact, when the evidence proves that cannot be done. If we were all clones of mind and body, I could accept your premises, but since humans are wildly diverse, I cannot.

Maggie, Cause and Effect, Consequence Effect us all, we learn and develop through experience. Putting it in writing may help some, but it does not change the outcome when ignored. I'm not trying to sell you anything, I'm simply Justifying Me Personal Right to Decide for Myself, where I am concerned, When I break Civil Law I am accountable, as are you. We came together as a Nation, under the Concept of Governing by the Consent of the Governed, because of the Influence of People like Locke, Jefferson, and Madison. Why do You Justify throwing that away? We make Laws and agree to those Laws, and should they stray too far from Truth and Justice, We as a Whole Body, have the Power to Talk about it, Recognize and Weight the Particulars, Consider Them, and Rectify Either through Legislation or Constitutional Amendment.

Well...I happen to agree. So that can only mean that I've lost track of exactly what your point is. Simply put, people generally at least try to abide by the Golden Rule and our laws are formulated around that.

 

[MaggieMae]

I confess I sailed through much of JB's stuff, as he tends to lace it with insults which deter from his points. Nope, my thoughts have been my own here. Frankly, I think a new thread needs to be started to get people's thoughts on exactly what they mean and/or expect by "freedom." For myself, I'm just as free as I was the day I was born, 66 years ago.

Yeah, I probably should ignore it too, but he's the only one talking about this on a philosophical level. Everyone else seems to be talking about the Constitution of the US, which is inspired by natural rights, but it does not necessarily define or originate them.

Exactly.