What Constitutes a "Right?"

[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

.

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

Bwahahahahahahahah


Ask the Davidians


Ask the family Of Elian Gonzalez


Ask the over 2,200,000 inmantes which are unnecessarily incarcerated due to the civil war on drug users


.

 

[Intense]

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

It is not about Hating Government, It is about Fighting Tyranny, they ere not one and the same.

Government by the Consent of the Governed is Welcome. Government that looks at us as Property and Commodity, is Unlawful.

 

[Diuretic]

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....

Exactly. Rights are socially determined.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.


.

No, they depend on what society generally and characteristically considers them to be rights. THat will vary based on time and place.
It sure as heck doesn't depend on the Easter Bunny or The Creator or Barney.

 

[Diuretic]

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?

I'm simply denying that natural law exists because I haven't seen any credible evidence for its existence.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

Cooperation is an instinct. Ever seen a collective grouping of animals cooperating?

 

[Intense]

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.


.

No, they depend on what society generally and characteristically considers them to be rights. THat will vary based on time and place.
It sure as heck doesn't depend on the Easter Bunny or The Creator or Barney.

Those Rights were defined before Society existed. Where is Your Faith.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm simply denying that natural law exists because I haven't seen any credible evidence for its existence.

Nor will you. Whenever I challenge people to explain the source of these rights, what they consist of, their parameters and how we know all this I get met with hostility and called a Nazi.
The truth is there are no natural rights that exist independently of society. They have never been proven, and are unprovable. The societal compact theory explains their existence far better and introduces an obligation on the citizen to fight to protect them.

 

[Diuretic]

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


.

Obama can't make legislation as I understand it, only approve it. So you need to look to your legislators for development and protection of your rights.

 

[Intense]

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.

Cooperation is an instinct. Ever seen a collective grouping of animals cooperating?

They Cooperate Because They Understand Natural Law better than You. You should spend more time at the Zoo.

The Understanding of Cause and Effect, in how it relates to You directly, is an understanding of Natural Law. The Feelings of Guilt, Loss Sadness, Inappropriateness, fear, Anger, Jealousy, are indicators and warning beacons. You get it and deny it in the same breath.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

Membership of any society confers rights. Being a member of a society means being aware of those socially confered rights. Any unreasonable infraction should be resisted.

Rights can't exist outside of society, therefore they aren't a prerequisite for society to be established.

The tiger doesn't have a concept of “rights”, merely instinct and learned behaviour. It acts on those. Those whom it acts against, other animals or humans, are simply being acted against, there is no violation of rights. A human defending themselves from attack from a tiger is not defending their right to stay alive and unharmed, they're actually trying to stay alive and unharmed.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

No decent refutation? Fair enough, your opinion and of course you're entitled to it.

Children as parasites. Go back and read the exchange again.

 

[Intense]

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.

Membership of any society confers rights. Being a member of a society means being aware of those socially confered rights. Any unreasonable infraction should be resisted.

Rights can't exist outside of society, therefore they aren't a prerequisite for society to be established.

The tiger doesn't have a concept of “rights”, merely instinct and learned behaviour. It acts on those. Those whom it acts against, other animals or humans, are simply being acted against, there is no violation of rights. A human defending themselves from attack from a tiger is not defending their right to stay alive and unharmed, they're actually trying to stay alive and unharmed.

It's starting to sink in a little bit.

Tell Us, if it pleases You, What Was Jefferson Saying in the Declaration Of Independence about Inalienable Rights, and how do You View it?

 

[Diuretic]

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.

Cooperation is an instinct. Ever seen a collective grouping of animals cooperating?

They Cooperate Because They Understand Natural Law better than You. You should spend more time at the Zoo.

The Understanding of Cause and Effect, in how it relates to You directly, is an understanding of Natural Law. The Feelings of Guilt, Loss Sadness, Inappropriateness, fear, Anger, Jealousy, are indicators and warning beacons. You get it and deny it in the same breath.

Actually I should nip down to the zoo, haven't been for years

Yes I feel emotions because my brain is working (it needs a bit of help at times but it's pretty functional) and my endocrine system is in tune with my brain, so I feel emotions.

 

[Contumacious]

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.


.

No, they depend on what society generally and characteristically considers them to be rights. THat will vary based on time and place..

Really?


Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


Very interrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrresting.

So , Hitler, the DULY ELECTED FUHRER of the German Society was well within his rights to decimate 6,000,000 Jews. The victims had no right to life, liberty nor to pursue their happiness.

I get your drift.



NOT.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

Membership of any society confers rights. Being a member of a society means being aware of those socially confered rights. Any unreasonable infraction should be resisted.

Rights can't exist outside of society, therefore they aren't a prerequisite for society to be established.

The tiger doesn't have a concept of “rights”, merely instinct and learned behaviour. It acts on those. Those whom it acts against, other animals or humans, are simply being acted against, there is no violation of rights. A human defending themselves from attack from a tiger is not defending their right to stay alive and unharmed, they're actually trying to stay alive and unharmed.

It's starting to sink in a little bit.

Tell Us, if it pleases You, What Was Jefferson Saying in the Declaration Of Independence about Inalienable Rights, and how do You View it?

I don't mind displaying my ignorance from time to time if it will help me cure it, but demonstrating it without reward is too much for me to bear

 

[The Rabbi]

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.


.

No, they depend on what society generally and characteristically considers them to be rights. THat will vary based on time and place..

Really?


Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


Very interrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrresting.

So , Hitler, the DULY ELECTED FUHRER of the German Society was well within his rights to decimate 6,000,000 Jews. The victims had no right to life, liberty nor to pursue their happiness.

I get your drift.



NOT.

The victims obviously had no right to life liberty or pursuit of happiness. You can't do that kind of thing to people who have rights.
You've proven my point, thanks.

 

[Intense]

Cooperation is an instinct. Ever seen a collective grouping of animals cooperating?

They Cooperate Because They Understand Natural Law better than You. You should spend more time at the Zoo.

The Understanding of Cause and Effect, in how it relates to You directly, is an understanding of Natural Law. The Feelings of Guilt, Loss Sadness, Inappropriateness, fear, Anger, Jealousy, are indicators and warning beacons. You get it and deny it in the same breath.

Actually I should nip down to the zoo, haven't been for years

Yes I feel emotions because my brain is working (it needs a bit of help at times but it's pretty functional) and my endocrine system is in tune with my brain, so I feel emotions.

Let Conscience Guide, All these years, and that is still the same.

 

[Ame®icano]

What Constitutes a "Right?"

Nothing "left", I guess.

 

[Intense]

What Constitutes a "Right?"

Nothing "left", I guess.

Did Your Mommy drop you on your head again? This isn't about Left or Right, Unless You make it that. What does the brand of Tyranny matter to the Victim of it?