What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Intense]

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.


.

Lighten up. Just trying to give Diuretic something to itch about.

 

[rubberhead]

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.

Those who have been deprived rights have invariably become aware that their rights were being violated and revolted against the violator. Did they need some outside body to tell them that their rights were being violated. Not in general, no. There may have been someone who realized it first and convinced others, but the fact is people can recognize their rights being violated and furthermore people can recognize the rights of others being violated.

Rights exist as a prerequisite for society. Without rights and the protection of them, any society that follows is a lie at least for some. Rights emerged from the danger that humans cause one another in Hobbes's state of nature (basically everyone is a wild animal). In order to escape that humans were forced to evolve culturally. There were traps in that evolution where the rights of certain groups got ignored or other groups were placed above the masses. More recently, we've seen what I believe is another such evolutionary 'progress trap' where the masses are given more rights then they are actually entitled to. I believe that human beings had a concept of rights as long as we have been cooperating. That concept has been evolving, and I happen to believe that this evolution is not arbitrary. It seems to me to be determined by human desire. By that I don't mean the desire of particular human beings (as you seem to imply), but the common desire of every human being. If our rights were invented and defined by our leaders and we'd all still be living under monarchy, having only the rights bestowed on us by the king. Some people still live under that system, but you'll notice that it requires a greater amount of force to govern that way. That's because it contradicts human nature.

About the tiger: I believe that, in the wild, animals have the right to do whatever they do and if a person goes into the wild without knowing anything about what's living there, then they are rolling the dice. However, if a tiger tries to kill someone, you'd hope that the victim died defending their right to live. As for the tiger violating their right, the tiger was either killing for food or defending it's territory (probably the former). Those are things that I believe tigers have the right to do. I mean, we kill livestock on a massive scale and I don't think that violates their rights. That is, the killing doesn't violate their rights, the horrible conditions under which they are raised notwithstanding. Now, if a tiger wanders into a city and starts mauling people, then people will get together and prevent it from doing that. And they will have every right to do so.

 

[rubberhead]

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"

I haven't heard you provide a decent refutation of any of the decent defenses here. Merely saying that you're right doesn't make you right.

Oh yeah, and children are technically parasites:

2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

 

[The Rabbi]

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"

I haven't heard you provide a decent refutation of any of the decent defenses here. Merely saying that you're right doesn't make you right.

Oh yeah, and children are technically parasites:

2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

You cannot prove there is such a thing as a natural right. And experience from seeing history pretty much confirms there isn't.
And your own definition refutes your own assertion. Children do in fact give useful and proper return.

 

[rubberhead]

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"

I haven't heard you provide a decent refutation of any of the decent defenses here. Merely saying that you're right doesn't make you right.

Oh yeah, and children are technically parasites:

2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

You cannot prove there is such a thing as a natural right. And experience from seeing history pretty much confirms there isn't.
And your own definition refutes your own assertion. Children do in fact give useful and proper return.

Your assertion about children giving useful and proper return is just as unprovable in general as mine that there is such a thing as a natural right.

 

[Intense]

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"

I haven't heard you provide a decent refutation of any of the decent defenses here. Merely saying that you're right doesn't make you right.

Oh yeah, and children are technically parasites:

2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

You cannot prove there is such a thing as a natural right. And experience from seeing history pretty much confirms there isn't.
And your own definition refutes your own assertion. Children do in fact give useful and proper return.

Even Hammurabi's Code, even that reflected on and inserted into the Torah, shows the need for Justice in the Law based on Understanding of what is just. What is acceptable to the Final Judge. Even God was angry at Cain for Slaying Abel.

 

[Contumacious]

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 United States

vs

Susan B Anthony

is an interesting case. She was a gutsy lady. I am glad the amendment was adopted.




Judge HUNT: The Court must insist—the prisoner has been tried according to
the established forms of law.
Miss ANTHONY: Yes, your honor, but by forms of law all made by men,
interpreted by men, administered by men, in favor of men, and against women;
and hence, your honor’s ordered verdict of guilty, against a United States citizen
for the exercise of “that citizen’s right to vote,” simply because that citizen was
a woman and not a man. But, yesterday, the same man-made forms of law
declared it a crime punishable with $1,000 fine and six months’ imprisonment,
for you, or me, or any of us, to give a cup of cold water, a crust of bread, or a
night’s shelter to a panting fugitive as he was tracking his way to Canada. And
every man or woman in whose veins coursed a drop of human sympathy
violated that wicked law, reckless of consequences, and was justified in so
doing. As then the slaves who got their freedom must take it over, or under, or
through the unjust forms of law, precisely so now must women, to get their
right to a voice in this Government, take it; and I have taken mine, and mean to
take it at every possible opportunity.



Judge HUNT: The prisoner will stand up. (Here Miss Anthony arose again.)
The sentence of the Court is that you pay a fine of one hundred dollars and the
costs of the prosecution.
Miss ANTHONY: May it please your honor, I shall never pay a dollar of your
unjust penalty. All the stock in trade I possess is a $10,000 debt, incurred by
publishing my paper—The Revolution—four years ago, the sole object of which
was to educate all women to do precisely as I have done, rebel against your
man-made, unjust, unconstitutional forms of law, that tax, fine, imprison, and
hang women, while they deny them the right of representation in the
Government; and I shall work on with might and main to pay every dollar of
that honest debt, but not a penny shall go to this unjust claim. And I shall
earnestly and persistently continue to urge all women to the practical
recognition of the old revolutionary maxim, that “Resistance to tyranny is
obedience to God.”
Judge HUNT: Madam, the Court will not order you committed until the fine
is paid.


.

 

[rubberhead]

And for all those atheists out there, the principles of justice still hold in the absence of a deity. Unless you don't believe in evolution either. But if that's so... then just what the hell do you believe? If you are a Discordian, then none of this makes any sense or means anything.

Empirical evidence does support my claims laid above, but also my own personal experience as a human being and logical conclusions also support my claims. Think about it. If someone goes about violating your rights, even in the absence of a government, what would you do? It requires indoctrination to defeat this natural human tendency. This means energy must be put into each subject in order to defeat their natural human tendency by a third party (the government). This is not a natural occurrence, it is man-made.

 

[Intense]

And for all those atheists out there, the principles of justice still hold in the absence of a deity. Unless you don't believe in evolution either. But if that's so... then just what the hell do you believe? If you are a Discordian, then none of this makes any sense or means anything.

Empirical evidence does support my claims laid above, but also my own personal experience as a human being and logical conclusions also support my claims. Think about it. If someone goes about violating your rights, even in the absence of a government, what would you do? It requires indoctrination to defeat this natural human tendency. This means energy must be put into each subject in order to defeat their natural human tendency by a third party (the government). This is not a natural occurrence, it is man-made.

Their Enemy is Conscience, The Individual, the Self, I. It is Truly an old struggle.

 

[Contumacious]

Think about it. If someone goes about violating your rights, even in the absence of a government, what would you do?

Da' Persuader

Mossberg 590

.

 

[frazzledgear]

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.

You have no rights.

Rights are something that cannot be taken from you.

You cannot name a single thing that cannot be taken away from you.

Who said rights are something that cannot be taken from you? It means no such thing and what a totally false and phony definition you gave it. Rights are claimed by a people and are not something merely granted by government. Government is just other people and other people cannot GIVE me my rights -they can only respect them or fail to do so. Individuals who fail to respect my rights risk consequences to themselves and the loss of their own rights. Rights can be claimed even under a government that systematically violates those rights -and by doing so, that government then risks consequences to its own existence once a critical mass decides they can no longer tolerate those violations.

When a list of rights are included in a constitution as ours does, it is the people of the country who have claimed these rights -and their inclusion in a constitution is meant to place restrictions on their government to not abridge or violate those rights. The Bill of Rights places no restrictions on other individuals -just restrictions on government. Our Constitution is just a contract between WE THE PEOPLE and the government and while WE THE PEOPLE may change the terms of that contract through amendments that must be voted on and passed overwhelmingly by the majority of the people in at least 2/3 of the states -government may not ever unilaterally decide to change that contract. Our system is OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people -not of, by and for those who seek expanded government power and want to rule. Which is why we also claimed the right to remove government if it fails to abide by this contract -and replace it with one we believe will. If the time ever came that the people decided to put that claim into action, it doesn't mean it would happen easily, without resistance and without bloodshed -or that it would even ultimately be successful. It is a declaration that WE THE PEOPLE can and will remove our own government and replace it with another if and when we deem it necessary -just as already happened in the past.

It depends on the quality of system of government that was either chosen by the people (or was forced upon them) as to whether government was effectively restricted from violating the rights of people and how effectively those restrictions can be enforced. Our founders debated and agonized for years about how to best insure a government that would respect the rights the people of this nation had claimed for themselves. In our system, the founders set up a system of checks-and-balances, putting all three branches of government at slight odds with each other with some overlapping powers as well as distinct powers no other branch had -all in the hopes that if one branch attempted to violate these rights, the other two would act to prevent it. It is not a perfect system because there is no such thing when it comes to human creations and all governments are human creations -but it is recognized by other individuals from around the world to be better than any other system of government created by man -which is why our nation is among the top destinations for those emigrating from their own country along with those nations who chose to emulate our system. No years long waiting list for permission to emigrate to Iran or N. Korea.

Rights written into constitutions are meant to restrict government from violating those rights and when written into state and local laws, it is intended to restrict other individuals from violating those rights - with state and local government acting as the enforcers. "Rights" is a legal term because if a right is violated, abridged, denied or abused there is typically a legal consequence for the individual or entity that violated the right -depending on whether it is individuals or government or both who have been restricted yet violated that right.

You have a right to your life because human beings have CLAIMED such a right and it is a right that has been claimed universally by our species going back thousands of years. Kings, emperors and dictators have tried to claim the lives of the people as belonging to THEM first and therefore they have the greater right to dispose of them as they see fit -but if that right was consistently violated inevitably the people living under such conditions re-claimed their rights and usually in a bloody, violent manner once the people decided reclaiming their rights was more important than the risk to their life. Rights are THAT important to the human condition (you know, the "give me liberty or give me death" kind of importance) which is why rights are claimed -often violently claimed -and not something that can ever be granted by government. Government either respects those rights or not but does not determine those rights. Government is just other people, not some magical institution - and governments have been destroyed all throughout history for refusing to respect the rights of the people living under that government, with one bloody upheaval after another century after century once an existing government is deemed to be no longer tolerable to the people living under it. And that will continue because power corrupts, and it is a fact that those in power in any government constantly seek to expand their powers and control over the people. Which can only happen at the expense of the rights and freedoms of the people. Who will eventually revolt and re-claim their rights once again. The same timeless story fought over and over again by people claiming their rights.

I have certain rights -and while that is supposed to place restrictions on government (which is just other people) with regard to some and places restrictions on other individuals with regard to others - human beings are fallible, error prone, driven to seek power over others, misguided, malevolent and at times just plain evil -and since all humans have free will, other people may CHOOSE to violate those rights anyway. So people try to build in consequences for the violation of rights for those who would otherwise violate those rights. And will continue trying to do so in a peaceful manner until they believe it is no longer possible and then resort to violently doing so.

I have a right to my life, that right is written into state law as well and therefore if you take my life from me, my state will try to insure that you suffer the severe consequences for that violation. You will be stripped of -at a minimum -of your own right of liberty and in my state, risk losing your own right to life. Those severe consequences serve to remind others who would do the same thing that they too would suffer severe consequences for violating someone else's right to their life. The word "rights" isn't a wish list of all the property, services and money we think others should fork over to us at their own expense, and it isn't EVER a guarantee they will never be violated by someone. Rights are that which the people have declared others cannot take from us without risking consequences to themselves. Rights can be taken from you by another human being or by any government (just other people) but that doesn't mean they weren't rights when it happens. Rights are CLAIMED, but others can always find a way to violate those claims. And will. Which is why it is always incumbent upon the people who claimed those rights to safeguard them -or risk losing them.

A right claimed to be a God given right means violation of that right will carry consequences with God -whether there are any manmade consequences for that violation or not. "Human rights" is reserved for those rights our species has claimed for itself for just existing, regardless of the system of govenment we may live under. Additional rights beyond those basic human rights are those claimed by the people for themselves under their particular system of government and may or may not be universally recognized human rights. We have a lot of rights in this country that do not exist in other countries and are not recognized as universal human rights. Just go to Mexico and publicly express a political opinion about a Mexican politician and see what happens.

As for the original point that the word "right" is being tossed around too casually -it certainly is. There is no such thing as a "right" to the services of another human being -no ifs, ands or buts on that one. Once you decide there is, you have become an advocate of slavery. Therefore no such thing as a "right" to healthcare because no one has a right to force any healthcare worker to provide their services to another person if they choose not to do so. They can be fired from their healthcare job if they refuse to do so -but cannot be legally forced to provide that service. Therefore no such thing as a "right" to healthcare whatsoever. It is just another service bought and sold on the market, no different from the service being sold by a car repairman -where those who spent the time to learn the skill may or may not choose to sell their services to others. Just because it is a service that is highly valued by others changes nothing. If suddenly the services of car repairmen were valued just as highly, does it mean government should take it over and declare that service to be a "right" to all? Nearly half the doctors have said in a recent poll that if government takes over healthcare, they will quit and either find another career or retire. The AMA may favor government takeover of healthcare, but the AMA represents just a tiny fraction of doctors -and more than 60% of doctors OPPOSE government takeover of THEIR services. So what next if this "right" is suddenly no longer readily available since those who provide it are no longer willing to sell their services at all as a government slave? Put a gun to their head and force them to do it because some people have insisted they have a "right" to the services of anyone who chose a different career from their own?

 

[The Rabbi]

I haven't heard you provide a decent refutation of any of the decent defenses here. Merely saying that you're right doesn't make you right.

Oh yeah, and children are technically parasites:

2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

You cannot prove there is such a thing as a natural right. And experience from seeing history pretty much confirms there isn't.
And your own definition refutes your own assertion. Children do in fact give useful and proper return.

Your assertion about children giving useful and proper return is just as unprovable in general as mine that there is such a thing as a natural right.

It is not only not unprovable, it is a fact. Children traditionally support parents in their old age. This is why you find less developed societies having so many, and more developed societies having fewer.
And even if they do not support their own parents they are supporting someone's parents through their labor and tax payments.
Your assertion however is contradicted every single day in the pages of any newspaper.

 

[Contumacious]

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"

I haven't heard you provide a decent refutation of any of the decent defenses here. Merely saying that you're right doesn't make you right.

Oh yeah, and children are technically parasites:

2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

You cannot prove there is such a thing as a natural right.

Of course not.

Men were born to be enslaved by others who are astute.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

I haven't heard you provide a decent refutation of any of the decent defenses here. Merely saying that you're right doesn't make you right.

Oh yeah, and children are technically parasites:

2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

You cannot prove there is such a thing as a natural right.

Of course not.

Men were born to be enslaved by others who are astute.

That's certainly the view of Nietsche.
But what does it have to do with natural rights?

 

[Contumacious]

You cannot prove there is such a thing as a natural right.

Of course not.

Men were born to be enslaved by others who are astute.

That's certainly the view of Nietsche.
But what does it have to do with natural rights?

Well Vern, if I don't have a right to life, liberty and property I must wait for a guy named Adolf to tell me what me rights are, right?


.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well Vern, if I don't have a right to life, liberty and property I must wait for a guy named Adolf to tell me what me rights are, right?
.

No, not at all.
Just because you don't have natural rights doesn't mean you don't have rights. It just means the source of those rights is something other than the tooth fairy.
But interesting that you should bring a historical figure who did actually enslave people to argue that there are natural rights that would prevent just that.
Just a little contradictory, n'est pas?

 

[Contumacious]

Well Vern, if I don't have a right to life, liberty and property I must wait for a guy named Adolf to tell me what me rights are, right?
.

No, not at all.
Just because you don't have natural rights doesn't mean you don't have rights. It just means the source of those rights is something other than the tooth fairy.
But interesting that you should bring a historical figure who did actually enslave people to argue that there are natural rights that would prevent just that.
Just a little contradictory, n'est pas?

Look , The Founding Fathers chose Nature's God, but you are free to select:

A) The X Force

B) A Distant Galaxy

C) The Earth's Gravitational force


Just don't tell me that they depend on Obama , ACORN , or the American Socialist Party.


.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Think about it. If someone goes about violating your rights, even in the absence of a government, what would you do?

Da' Persuader

Mossberg 590

.

The reason we HAVE a government is so you don't have to that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ironic that conservatives who hate government will often as not still fight to get the 10 COMMANDMENTS posted in a government building.

 

[rubberhead]

You cannot prove there is such a thing as a natural right. And experience from seeing history pretty much confirms there isn't.
And your own definition refutes your own assertion. Children do in fact give useful and proper return.

Your assertion about children giving useful and proper return is just as unprovable in general as mine that there is such a thing as a natural right.

It is not only not unprovable, it is a fact. Children traditionally support parents in their old age. This is why you find less developed societies having so many, and more developed societies having fewer.
And even if they do not support their own parents they are supporting someone's parents through their labor and tax payments.
Your assertion however is contradicted every single day in the pages of any newspaper.

It's not true in general, though. Traditionally, it may or not be true, but in general you have yet to prove it.