What Constitutes a "Right?"

[rubberhead]

On your first point. The concept of a “right” is a human invention. Rights were invented by us to better order social intercourse.

On your second point. I think you've made my first point. The concept of violation of rights can only occur in a social context.

1. I agree that the word "right" is a human invention, but I differ with you on the origin of rights. The function of the word "right" is to describe an emergent property of cooperation between humans and what that entails. Since our survival has come to depend on cooperation for a very long time now, our brains are wired to be naturally equipped to function in a group. That being said we must also realize what we can rightfully expect as an individual. It's this conflict from which the concept that we call a "right" emerges. In this sense, anything that humans talk about is a "human invention." Take physics, for example. It is a human invention, but it describes something that we can all observe.

2. I'm guessing you mean that a violation of rights requires at least two people: the violator and the victim. Without a concept of rights, the victim does not necessarily know that his rights are being violated. I would not call this situation social, but antisocial instead because social in my mind refers to more polite and civil circumstances.

 

[rubberhead]

No. But these were originally John Lock's defense against Totaliarinism, and Jefferson being swayed by the French adaptation, Traded Property for Pursuit of Happiness. Funny how He saw Personal Possession as a Defense against Totalitarianism.

Life, Liberty, and Property. V.S. Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness.

I heard that "property" became "the pursuit of happiness" because Jefferson was worried that slave owners would use the fact that they had a right to their "property" that would give them legal grounds to own slaves.

 

[Contumacious]

However, since the constitution does not define our natural rights, this power is meaningless without the consent of the governed. .

So when Jefferson referred to the rights to Life, Liberty, Property and the pursuit of happiness he was referring to:

A- Canadians

B- Mexicans

C- Germans

D- Martians


Am I close?


.

No. But these were originally John Lock's defense against Totaliarinism, and Jefferson being swayed by the French adaptation, Traded Property for Pursuit of Happiness. Funny how He saw Personal Possession as a Defense against Totalitarianism.

Life, Liberty, and Property. V.S. Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness.

HUH?

So I don't own my body?


So I can pursue happiness but not allow to acquire property?


.

 

[Ame®icano]

So when Jefferson referred to the rights to Life, Liberty, Property and the pursuit of happiness he was referring to:

A- Canadians

B- Mexicans

C- Germans

D- Martians


Am I close?


.

No. But these were originally John Lock's defense against Totaliarinism, and Jefferson being swayed by the French adaptation, Traded Property for Pursuit of Happiness. Funny how He saw Personal Possession as a Defense against Totalitarianism.

Life, Liberty, and Property. V.S. Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness.

HUH?

So I don't own my body?


So I can pursue happiness but not allow to acquire property?


.

Who told you that?

There is a cure. Read.

Try Locke vs. Jefferson

 

[Diuretic]

I think that our freedom is limited by more than just our physical capabilities, even in a natural state. I should say, our defensible freedom is limited as such. But this kind of freedom is where our natural rights come from and that's why I argue it is the natural freedom that we are afforded as human beings.

Let me offer an illustration. Even in the state of nature, if you go around violating others' rights then they eventually form into groups to protect themselves and make sure that you can't do that anymore. This naturally leads to a situation where everyone has an equal amount of liberty and thus no one can deprive any other of any portion of their liberty. Eventually you have groups of people violating other groups of people, but you could see that scenario as a larger scale version of the case of individuals. No matter what there is always a ceiling of anarchy on top of the highest stratum of government. That anarchic layer is where one can be absolutely free. We humans have not lived in that layer since before tribal times and before people began cooperating and communicating, even in the most rudimentary sense.

On your first point. The concept of a “right” is a human invention. Rights were invented by us to better order social intercourse.

On your second point. I think you've made my first point. The concept of violation of rights can only occur in a social context.

Everything You do has consequence. Cause and Effect> When you act wrongly against man or beast, there is consequence. That is Natural Law at work. You have Rights, whether You realize them or not, regardless of them being written down on a piece of paper or not. You have instinct. Instinct is not based on written Law, but Written Law is based in Part on Instinct. In Right and wrong, some behaviors are debatable, some are crystal clear. When You deny Natural Right, Inalienable Right, You deny the Premise for the Foundation of This Country.

Yes humans understand that there is cause and effect. But you injected a moral tone when you mentioned acting "wrongly". That requires judgement of an act. In nature there is no morality - "nature red in tooth and claw". No proof of natural law in that at all.

Instinct is not about rights, it's of itself.

I deny natural law exists. I accept the physical laws of the universe but this business about natural law is nonsense.

 

[Diuretic]

Nonsense.

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


.

I don't think it is. What you might call "absolute freedom" in a social context is licence. It doesn't work in a social context.

In a natural state, that is without a social context, freedom isn't absolute either. Humans are limited by our physicality and circumstances.

So absolute freedom probably doesn't exist.

As for natural rights. I'm with Bentham - "nonsense upon stilts."

The ONLY ones that do not recognize NATURAL RIGHTS are the parasites - they can not stand on their own two feet - they need to be fed. clothed sheltered.


.

There are no natural rights. I've yet to read a decent defence of the concept here. Until then you can blow as hard as you like, it proves nothing.

And don't call children "parasites"

 

[Diuretic]

On your first point. The concept of a “right” is a human invention. Rights were invented by us to better order social intercourse.

On your second point. I think you've made my first point. The concept of violation of rights can only occur in a social context.

1. I agree that the word "right" is a human invention, but I differ with you on the origin of rights. The function of the word "right" is to describe an emergent property of cooperation between humans and what that entails. Since our survival has come to depend on cooperation for a very long time now, our brains are wired to be naturally equipped to function in a group. That being said we must also realize what we can rightfully expect as an individual. It's this conflict from which the concept that we call a "right" emerges. In this sense, anything that humans talk about is a "human invention." Take physics, for example. It is a human invention, but it describes something that we can all observe.

2. I'm guessing you mean that a violation of rights requires at least two people: the violator and the victim. Without a concept of rights, the victim does not necessarily know that his rights are being violated. I would not call this situation social, but antisocial instead because social in my mind refers to more polite and civil circumstances.

For me the origins of rights are in human society which depends (among other things) cooperation. I do hold that rights they are created by humans. In human history there have been those with rights and those without. There are no innate rights. Even what we call “human rights” today were defined and agreed upon in 1948. Not that it matters, plenty of people are denied those rights. But my central point is that there are no innate rights, rights are socially created.

The violation of rights needs a social context. If A is living alone in the wilderness and is attacked and killed by a tiger has A's rights been violated? No, A has been killed by a wild animal. Unfortunate but it happens.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yes humans understand that there is cause and effect. But you injected a moral tone when you mentioned acting "wrongly". That requires judgement of an act. In nature there is no morality - "nature red in tooth and claw". No proof of natural law in that at all.

Instinct is not about rights, it's of itself.

I deny natural law exists. I accept the physical laws of the universe but this business about natural law is nonsense.

When I've argued about inalienable rights with Yanks, the pro-gun lobby bring up that it owning a gun is an inalienable right coming from a god. But who gets to decide what is a right and what isn't is very interesting.....just ask the same people if gays should marry. Right there you'll find where rights stop and start for these "inalienable rights" advocates....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes humans understand that there is cause and effect. But you injected a moral tone when you mentioned acting "wrongly". That requires judgement of an act. In nature there is no morality - "nature red in tooth and claw". No proof of natural law in that at all.

Instinct is not about rights, it's of itself.

I deny natural law exists. I accept the physical laws of the universe but this business about natural law is nonsense.

When I've argued about inalienable rights with Yanks, the pro-gun lobby bring up that it owning a gun is an inalienable right coming from a god. But who gets to decide what is a right and what isn't is very interesting.....just ask the same people if gays should marry. Right there you'll find where rights stop and start for these "inalienable rights" advocates....

Owning a gun is a right. You have the right to buy a gun and you have the right to defend yourself. As for gay marriage, as I've said earlier in this thread I believe, it is up to the private religious institutions to define what marriage is for their religion, not government.

 

[Dr Grump]

Owning a gun is a right. You have the right to buy a gun and you have the right to defend yourself. As for gay marriage, as I've said earlier in this thread I believe, it is up to the private religious institutions to define what marriage is for their religion, not government.

It's a right under your constitution. I would argue the toss whether it is an inalienable right (as in natural)...

As for marriage, why does a religion even have to decide. If I'm gay, and an athiest, why can't I get married? And if you are a whackjob who doesn't like the idea of me getting married, why do you care. None of your business. I'm harming no one. As I said, inalienable rights seem to stop and start there IMO...

 

[Intense]

On your first point. The concept of a “right” is a human invention. Rights were invented by us to better order social intercourse.

On your second point. I think you've made my first point. The concept of violation of rights can only occur in a social context.

Everything You do has consequence. Cause and Effect> When you act wrongly against man or beast, there is consequence. That is Natural Law at work. You have Rights, whether You realize them or not, regardless of them being written down on a piece of paper or not. You have instinct. Instinct is not based on written Law, but Written Law is based in Part on Instinct. In Right and wrong, some behaviors are debatable, some are crystal clear. When You deny Natural Right, Inalienable Right, You deny the Premise for the Foundation of This Country.

Yes humans understand that there is cause and effect. But you injected a moral tone when you mentioned acting "wrongly". That requires judgement of an act. In nature there is no morality - "nature red in tooth and claw". No proof of natural law in that at all.

Instinct is not about rights, it's of itself.

I deny natural law exists. I accept the physical laws of the universe but this business about natural law is nonsense.

Anger, Joy, Happiness, Sorrow, Guilt, Shame, Love, Possessiveness, exist inside you in or outside of Written Law. These Feelings ... help discern right from wrong. You are the one playing with words, denying the origin and cause, of why we even come together in the first place. It is part of Our Nature which You Deny. You deny the Principle, the Root, yet you enjoy the Fruit. Why any Law at all then? What caused it to be and why?

 

[Intense]

I don't think it is. What you might call "absolute freedom" in a social context is licence. It doesn't work in a social context.

In a natural state, that is without a social context, freedom isn't absolute either. Humans are limited by our physicality and circumstances.

So absolute freedom probably doesn't exist.

As for natural rights. I'm with Bentham - "nonsense upon stilts."

The ONLY ones that do not recognize NATURAL RIGHTS are the parasites - they can not stand on their own two feet - they need to be fed. clothed sheltered.


.

There are no natural rights. I've yet to read a decent defence of the concept here. Until then you can blow as hard as you like, it proves nothing.

And don't call children "parasites"

Children are Parasites, generally friendly and Loved, still Parasites.

 

[Intense]

On your first point. The concept of a “right” is a human invention. Rights were invented by us to better order social intercourse.

On your second point. I think you've made my first point. The concept of violation of rights can only occur in a social context.

1. I agree that the word "right" is a human invention, but I differ with you on the origin of rights. The function of the word "right" is to describe an emergent property of cooperation between humans and what that entails. Since our survival has come to depend on cooperation for a very long time now, our brains are wired to be naturally equipped to function in a group. That being said we must also realize what we can rightfully expect as an individual. It's this conflict from which the concept that we call a "right" emerges. In this sense, anything that humans talk about is a "human invention." Take physics, for example. It is a human invention, but it describes something that we can all observe.

2. I'm guessing you mean that a violation of rights requires at least two people: the violator and the victim. Without a concept of rights, the victim does not necessarily know that his rights are being violated. I would not call this situation social, but antisocial instead because social in my mind refers to more polite and civil circumstances.

For me the origins of rights are in human society which depends (among other things) cooperation. I do hold that rights they are created by humans. In human history there have been those with rights and those without. There are no innate rights. Even what we call “human rights” today were defined and agreed upon in 1948. Not that it matters, plenty of people are denied those rights. But my central point is that there are no innate rights, rights are socially created.

The violation of rights needs a social context. If A is living alone in the wilderness and is attacked and killed by a tiger has A's rights been violated? No, A has been killed by a wild animal. Unfortunate but it happens.

Where does Cooperation come from? Isn't it just a Social Concept? If it is made up, how can it exist separate from two or more? How can it be the origin of anything? A Right applies even to the force of one to enforce it. It implies that one has Rights Himself, it also extends outward, that everything should be respected, within reason. That leads to development. Social Contracts come later. Getting close though. Love, Hate, Protection, Strong motivating forces where Good and Evil wrestle it out.

 

[Intense]

Yes humans understand that there is cause and effect. But you injected a moral tone when you mentioned acting "wrongly". That requires judgement of an act. In nature there is no morality - "nature red in tooth and claw". No proof of natural law in that at all.

Instinct is not about rights, it's of itself.

I deny natural law exists. I accept the physical laws of the universe but this business about natural law is nonsense.

When I've argued about inalienable rights with Yanks, the pro-gun lobby bring up that it owning a gun is an inalienable right coming from a god. But who gets to decide what is a right and what isn't is very interesting.....just ask the same people if gays should marry. Right there you'll find where rights stop and start for these "inalienable rights" advocates....

A bit convoluted Dr. Grump. The Right to Self Defense is Inalienable. Our Founders were greatly concerned about Tyranny, The guns were a defense against that. I don't think they would approve of the expansion of Powers. Regarding the Gay Community, my advice is to come up with a different word of your own, come to agreement on it, and proceed from there.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Women did not have the right to vote until the Constitution was amended.

I believe you meant to say that women were arbitrarily and whimsically refused the right of suffrage - NOTHING in the federal constitution prevented them from voting.



.

No I meant to say women did not have the right to vote until the Constitution was amended. The states had the right to deny women the vote. The absence of federal protection for their right to vote enabled the states to do so.

 

[Intense]

I believe you meant to say that women were arbitrarily and whimsically refused the right of suffrage - NOTHING in the federal constitution prevented them from voting.



.

No I meant to say women did not have the right to vote until the Constitution was amended. The states had the right to deny women the vote. The absence of federal protection for their right to vote enabled the states to do so.

The desire to serve Justice is in the Nature of Just Law, It's just that It's not always recognized. Matters of Time and Circumstance, in fact change that, when Injustice is brought to light. We tend to amend. It's slow, but more permanent, than not.

 

[The Rabbi]

Women never had the right to vote. They were granted the right.

 

[Contumacious]

On your first point. The concept of a “right” is a human invention. Rights were invented by us to better order social intercourse.

On your second point. I think you've made my first point. The concept of violation of rights can only occur in a social context.

Everything You do has consequence. Cause and Effect> When you act wrongly against man or beast, there is consequence. That is Natural Law at work. You have Rights, whether You realize them or not, regardless of them being written down on a piece of paper or not. You have instinct. Instinct is not based on written Law, but Written Law is based in Part on Instinct. In Right and wrong, some behaviors are debatable, some are crystal clear. When You deny Natural Right, Inalienable Right, You deny the Premise for the Foundation of This Country.

Yes humans understand that there is cause and effect. But you injected a moral tone when you mentioned acting "wrongly". That requires judgement of an act. In nature there is no morality - "nature red in tooth and claw". No proof of natural law in that at all.

Instinct is not about rights, it's of itself.

I deny natural law exists. I accept the physical laws of the universe but this business about natural law is nonsense.

So whether or not we have any rights depend on ......Obama?

"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... "


Benito Mussolini


.

 

[Contumacious]

Yes humans understand that there is cause and effect. But you injected a moral tone when you mentioned acting "wrongly". That requires judgement of an act. In nature there is no morality - "nature red in tooth and claw". No proof of natural law in that at all.

Instinct is not about rights, it's of itself.

I deny natural law exists. I accept the physical laws of the universe but this business about natural law is nonsense.

When I've argued about inalienable rights with Yanks, the pro-gun lobby bring up that it owning a gun is an inalienable right coming from a god. But who gets to decide what is a right and what isn't is very interesting.....just ask the same people if gays should marry. Right there you'll find where rights stop and start for these "inalienable rights" advocates....

I have a right to bear arms.......you have a right to be a homosexual regardless of what the gun lobby argues.

The federal judiciary was supposed to be the entity which has the authority to settle disputes. Unfortunately , it has been populated by a bunch of son-of-bitches who do not know their ass from a hole in the ground.

.

 

[Contumacious]

The ONLY ones that do not recognize NATURAL RIGHTS are the parasites - they can not stand on their own two feet - they need to be fed. clothed sheltered.


.

There are no natural rights. I've yet to read a decent defence of the concept here. Until then you can blow as hard as you like, it proves nothing.

And don't call children "parasites"

Children are Parasites, generally friendly and Loved, still Parasites.

Children are not parasites - parasites are those motherfuckers who are older than 18, are not working , and are demanding health insurance food stamps are state largesse.


.