What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Diuretic]

Do animals have rights? Do plants have rights? Do rocks have rights?

One-liner, sorry!

Some people think animals have rights. I think that we should respect natural in general, if for no other reason than that we depend on it.

I didn't mean to ***** about your one-liners, but when they show no thoughtfulness it makes me think that you have no real interest in the discussion and I was kind of happy that all of the trollers had moved on and we were actually having a real discussion (you know, evidence is presented, considered and agreeable conclusions are reached) about something that I think is becoming especially important.

I don't mind anyone bitching about anything I write, hell I wouldn't post here if I got huffy, I was making a wry remark partly at my own expense. And I can only do my best in terms of thinking, that's another reason I post here. I might not come across as a huge intellect but I learn a lot. I look at USMB like a game of pick-up basketball, no referees and we just have to sort out winning points among ourselves so I try not to see things as win/lose, just playing the game for fun - not that I'm trying to trivialise anything.

 

[The Rabbi]

Could you explain that in English please?

Just because someone denies rights doesn't negate their existence. This is why natural rights are called "natural." Because part of the nature of being human is to have rights and respect those of others, or to expect to be deprived of your rights by whatever structure is in place to protect rights. In some cases the protection is inadequate so there are those who are chronically deprived of rights without recourse. These are unfortunate situations, but should not and do not serve as proof that rights do not exist without government protection.

And just because someone asserts them doesn't mean they do exist.
You are engaging in circular reasoning: natural rights exist because people have natural rights.
It is a non-argument.

 

[rubberhead]

Do animals have rights? Do plants have rights? Do rocks have rights?

One-liner, sorry!

Some people think animals have rights. I think that we should respect natural in general, if for no other reason than that we depend on it.

I didn't mean to ***** about your one-liners, but when they show no thoughtfulness it makes me think that you have no real interest in the discussion and I was kind of happy that all of the trollers had moved on and we were actually having a real discussion (you know, evidence is presented, considered and agreeable conclusions are reached) about something that I think is becoming especially important.

I don't mind anyone bitching about anything I write, hell I wouldn't post here if I got huffy, I was making a wry remark partly at my own expense. And I can only do my best in terms of thinking, that's another reason I post here. I might not come across as a huge intellect but I learn a lot. I look at USMB like a game of pick-up basketball, no referees and we just have to sort out winning points among ourselves so I try not to see things as win/lose, just playing the game for fun - not that I'm trying to trivialise anything.

Don't mention it. The reason I'm posting is because I've noticed that it is increasingly difficult to have these kinds of discussion in person with people that disagree. People in America are beginning to believe more and more that our rights are provided by the government. I believe that this is a very dangerous point of view and will eventually lead to totalitarianism if it becomes dominant.

I'm hoping that I can in some small measure convince people who think that way that they are actually in control, or at the very least to understand more thoroughly that point of view that opposes me. I mean, if the people create the government, then how can we say that the government provides our rights? The answer is that we are moving away from that model to a less legitimate one, and somehow doing so by the will of the people. I venture to guess that this is being allowed to happen because people are being distracted and divided by issues that to me seem of little concern by comparison. We're talking about the issue here.

We all have our role. If you want to be the joker, then . I'm worried about what's happening to my country. I wish more people were.

 

[rubberhead]

Could you explain that in English please?

Just because someone denies rights doesn't negate their existence. This is why natural rights are called "natural." Because part of the nature of being human is to have rights and respect those of others, or to expect to be deprived of your rights by whatever structure is in place to protect rights. In some cases the protection is inadequate so there are those who are chronically deprived of rights without recourse. These are unfortunate situations, but should not and do not serve as proof that rights do not exist without government protection.

And just because someone asserts them doesn't mean they do exist.
You are engaging in circular reasoning: natural rights exist because people have natural rights.
It is a non-argument.

Not so. You need to go back and read the thread if you really believe that. I know you won't, so I'll sum up the arguments that I've made (I hope you'll at least read them before responding):

People have rights because they believe that they do. The next question is:

What rights do people have? Those rights which do not infringe on the rights of others.

Why? Because if some person had the right to decide what the rights of others are, then we can no longer call them natural rights.

What happens when someone violates the rights of another? They forfeit their own to some degree (decided by the apparatus that exists to protect rights)

What is this apparatus that protects rights? It can range from a single person, to a massive, multinational infrastructure, but it arises by the will and consent of the people (otherwise it would violate their rights to consent to be governed).

It's really easy to just say someone is wrong, eh? Much easier than squeezing out an original thought.

 

[rubberhead]

Without rights, society cannot exist and we enter Hobbes' "state of nature" where we are all animals. Only the strongest and most ruthless or the most cowardly and untrustworthy can survive in that state. As intelligent beings we have agreed, prior to organizing into a society, that we do not wish to live in Hobbes' "state of nature". People who did want to live in that state were thankfully pushed to the fringes by those who were willing to respect one another's rights. Why? Because the latter were stronger and more productive than the former and thus had the strength to beat back those who would advocate chaos. In this way we could call the existence of rights to be a principle of cultural evolution.

 

[CommonSensor]

Just because someone denies rights doesn't negate their existence.

That is correct. But it is just as correct to say "Just because someone says rights exist doesn't affirm their existence."

This is why natural rights are called "natural."

ummmm, no! Natural rights are called what they are called because one or more "people" created and defined the phrase to mean something. In this case, to establish rules for human existence. "The Civilization of Man" so to speak.

But they are just words, defined by human beings (not by a God, or any other entity), and they are most certainly meaningless unless one is prepared to defend them.

Because part of the nature of being human is to have rights and respect those of others,

Part of the nature of being human is to have legs, arms, a stomach, feet, and in "most" cases, a head with a brain in it, but in order to have "natural rights" (and have them mean anything at all), they have to be "recognized" and "respected", which requires some kind of "enforcement" mechanism. Otherwise, "natural rights" are just 2 words....[/quote]

-sensored

 

[Diuretic]

Some people think animals have rights. I think that we should respect natural in general, if for no other reason than that we depend on it.

I didn't mean to ***** about your one-liners, but when they show no thoughtfulness it makes me think that you have no real interest in the discussion and I was kind of happy that all of the trollers had moved on and we were actually having a real discussion (you know, evidence is presented, considered and agreeable conclusions are reached) about something that I think is becoming especially important.

I don't mind anyone bitching about anything I write, hell I wouldn't post here if I got huffy, I was making a wry remark partly at my own expense. And I can only do my best in terms of thinking, that's another reason I post here. I might not come across as a huge intellect but I learn a lot. I look at USMB like a game of pick-up basketball, no referees and we just have to sort out winning points among ourselves so I try not to see things as win/lose, just playing the game for fun - not that I'm trying to trivialise anything.

Don't mention it. The reason I'm posting is because I've noticed that it is increasingly difficult to have these kinds of discussion in person with people that disagree. People in America are beginning to believe more and more that our rights are provided by the government. I believe that this is a very dangerous point of view and will eventually lead to totalitarianism if it becomes dominant.

I'm hoping that I can in some small measure convince people who think that way that they are actually in control, or at the very least to understand more thoroughly that point of view that opposes me. I mean, if the people create the government, then how can we say that the government provides our rights? The answer is that we are moving away from that model to a less legitimate one, and somehow doing so by the will of the people. I venture to guess that this is being allowed to happen because people are being distracted and divided by issues that to me seem of little concern by comparison. We're talking about the issue here.

We all have our role. If you want to be the joker, then . I'm worried about what's happening to my country. I wish more people were.

It appears that many in your country are worried, whether or not it's blind panic, susceptibility to propaganda, fear of the dark, dunno, but it's apparently on foot. But that doesn't have much to do with rights does it?

Rights aren't provided by government, they're provided by the legislature and protected by government among others. We're responsible for protecting our own rights of course but those rights are defined by legislation and common law and protected by legislation and common law.

 

[Diuretic]

Just because someone denies rights doesn't negate their existence. This is why natural rights are called "natural." Because part of the nature of being human is to have rights and respect those of others, or to expect to be deprived of your rights by whatever structure is in place to protect rights. In some cases the protection is inadequate so there are those who are chronically deprived of rights without recourse. These are unfortunate situations, but should not and do not serve as proof that rights do not exist without government protection.

And just because someone asserts them doesn't mean they do exist.
You are engaging in circular reasoning: natural rights exist because people have natural rights.
It is a non-argument.

Not so. You need to go back and read the thread if you really believe that. I know you won't, so I'll sum up the arguments that I've made (I hope you'll at least read them before responding):

People have rights because they believe that they do. The next question is:

What rights do people have? Those rights which do not infringe on the rights of others.

Why? Because if some person had the right to decide what the rights of others are, then we can no longer call them natural rights.

What happens when someone violates the rights of another? They forfeit their own to some degree (decided by the apparatus that exists to protect rights)

What is this apparatus that protects rights? It can range from a single person, to a massive, multinational infrastructure, but it arises by the will and consent of the people (otherwise it would violate their rights to consent to be governed).

It's really easy to just say someone is wrong, eh? Much easier than squeezing out an original thought.

People have rights because they believe that they do – begging the question.

What rights do people have? Those rights which do not infringe on the rights of others. No, that's merely a statement of the limits of rights.

Why? Because if some person had the right to decide what the rights of others are, then we can no longer call them natural rights. Begging the question again.

What happens when someone violates the rights of another? They forfeit their own to some degree (decided by the apparatus that exists to protect rights). The, preventative, protective or corrective mechanism says nothing about the origin of rights.

I still maintain that there are no natural rights, that rights are a social invention. So far I haven't seen anything to dissuade me from that view.

 

[Diuretic]

Without rights, society cannot exist and we enter Hobbes' "state of nature" where we are all animals. Only the strongest and most ruthless or the most cowardly and untrustworthy can survive in that state. As intelligent beings we have agreed, prior to organizing into a society, that we do not wish to live in Hobbes' "state of nature". People who did want to live in that state were thankfully pushed to the fringes by those who were willing to respect one another's rights. Why? Because the latter were stronger and more productive than the former and thus had the strength to beat back those who would advocate chaos. In this way we could call the existence of rights to be a principle of cultural evolution.

Rights are part of the social order, without the concept of rights there can be n o society. I think there's an agreement in there somewhere.

 

[rubberhead]

Without rights, society cannot exist and we enter Hobbes' "state of nature" where we are all animals. Only the strongest and most ruthless or the most cowardly and untrustworthy can survive in that state. As intelligent beings we have agreed, prior to organizing into a society, that we do not wish to live in Hobbes' "state of nature". People who did want to live in that state were thankfully pushed to the fringes by those who were willing to respect one another's rights. Why? Because the latter were stronger and more productive than the former and thus had the strength to beat back those who would advocate chaos. In this way we could call the existence of rights to be a principle of cultural evolution.

Rights are part of the social order, without the concept of rights there can be n o society. I think there's an agreement in there somewhere.

So you agree then that rights precede society? I mean, that's what you just said. Then how can rights be an invention of society? That is just as circular as anything I've said.

 

[Diuretic]

Without rights, society cannot exist and we enter Hobbes' "state of nature" where we are all animals. Only the strongest and most ruthless or the most cowardly and untrustworthy can survive in that state. As intelligent beings we have agreed, prior to organizing into a society, that we do not wish to live in Hobbes' "state of nature". People who did want to live in that state were thankfully pushed to the fringes by those who were willing to respect one another's rights. Why? Because the latter were stronger and more productive than the former and thus had the strength to beat back those who would advocate chaos. In this way we could call the existence of rights to be a principle of cultural evolution.

Rights are part of the social order, without the concept of rights there can be n o society. I think there's an agreement in there somewhere.

So you agree then that rights precede society? I mean, that's what you just said. Then how can rights be an invention of society? That is just as circular as anything I've said.

I was a bit confused but then I re-read my post and I can see that I wasn't clear enough. No, I don't think rights precede society, I think that rights are a product of society. I did write, "without the concept of rights there can be no society", meaning that without acknowledgement of the social concept called "rights" there is no society, only (referencing Thatcher here) a collection of individuals in competition with one another.

 

[rubberhead]

It appears that many in your country are worried, whether or not it's blind panic, susceptibility to propaganda, fear of the dark, dunno, but it's apparently on foot. But that doesn't have much to do with rights does it?

Rights aren't provided by government, they're provided by the legislature and protected by government among others. We're responsible for protecting our own rights of course but those rights are defined by legislation and common law and protected by legislation and common law.

I argue that the concept and origin of rights are at the very center of the unrest that exists in my country. Some people believe, as you seem to, that the protection apparatus actually provides the rights, and some believe, as I do, that the people create and consent to being protected by the apparatus that only protects and, in some cases, abridges our rights. The former view gives far too much power to the government and has historically been very dangerous. People may not realize that this is the substance of the debate and go on to make themselves easy targets for criticism. I do not suffer from that affliction, nor do I suffer from the affliction that the government is its own entity whose legitimacy exists independently from the consent of myself and my countrymen.

 

[rubberhead]

I was a bit confused but then I re-read my post and I can see that I wasn't clear enough. No, I don't think rights precede society, I think that rights are a product of society. I did write, "without the concept of rights there can be no society", meaning that without acknowledgement of the social concept called "rights" there is no society, only (referencing Thatcher here) a collection of individuals in competition with one another.

I fail to see how the statement "without acknowledgement of the social concept called "rights" there is no society" does not imply that the concept of rights (obviously invented by people) precedes society. Would you care to elaborate? Preferably in a one line answer.

 

[Diuretic]

It appears that many in your country are worried, whether or not it's blind panic, susceptibility to propaganda, fear of the dark, dunno, but it's apparently on foot. But that doesn't have much to do with rights does it?

Rights aren't provided by government, they're provided by the legislature and protected by government among others. We're responsible for protecting our own rights of course but those rights are defined by legislation and common law and protected by legislation and common law.

I argue that the concept and origin of rights are at the very center of the unrest that exists in my country. Some people believe, as you seem to, that the protection apparatus actually provides the rights, and some believe, as I do, that the people create and consent to being protected by the apparatus that only protects and, in some cases, abridges our rights. The former view gives far too much power to the government and has historically been very dangerous. People may not realize that this is the substance of the debate and go on to make themselves easy targets for criticism. I do not suffer from that affliction, nor do I suffer from the affliction that the government is its own entity whose legitimacy exists independently from the consent of myself and my countrymen.

No, I don't believe the protection apparatus provides the rights, I think I made that clear. Rights are agreed upon, legislated (or acknowledged as emanating from customary law) and mechanisms for the protection of rights are put in place. I see them as separate though.

I agree that government isn't an entity of itself, it's legitimacy in a democracy at least comes from the consent of the governed. A hackneyed phrase but accurate nonetheless.

 

[The Rabbi]

People have rights because they believe that they do – begging the question.

What rights do people have? Those rights which do not infringe on the rights of others. No, that's merely a statement of the limits of rights.

Why? Because if some person had the right to decide what the rights of others are, then we can no longer call them natural rights. Begging the question again.

What happens when someone violates the rights of another? They forfeit their own to some degree (decided by the apparatus that exists to protect rights). The, preventative, protective or corrective mechanism says nothing about the origin of rights.

I still maintain that there are no natural rights, that rights are a social invention. So far I haven't seen anything to dissuade me from that view.

I agree with Diuretic here but will amplify. Stating that people have those rights that don't infringe on others is useless. I have a right to trial by jury. I will have to impose on someone to be a juror. I will have to impose on the taxpayer to fund the process.
What about my right to free practice of religion? That's fine, until I go to practice Santeria and start sacrificing goats on my condo balcony. Then I am interfering with your rights as a homeowner.
Again, merely amplifying: rights issue out of society and reflect generally held beliefs of that society. They are enunciated in both written form (constitutions, laws, and court decisions) and acts (police power). They are certainly subject to change with changing societal values.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[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.

Feelings ofGuilt is a learned behaviour.

 

[Contumacious]

People have rights because they believe that they do – begging the question.

What rights do people have? Those rights which do not infringe on the rights of others. No, that's merely a statement of the limits of rights.

Why? Because if some person had the right to decide what the rights of others are, then we can no longer call them natural rights. Begging the question again.

What happens when someone violates the rights of another? They forfeit their own to some degree (decided by the apparatus that exists to protect rights). The, preventative, protective or corrective mechanism says nothing about the origin of rights.

I still maintain that there are no natural rights, that rights are a social invention. So far I haven't seen anything to dissuade me from that view.

I agree with Diuretic here but will amplify. Stating that people have those rights that don't infringe on others is useless. I have a right to trial by jury. I will have to impose on someone to be a juror.

Nonsense. The Constitution does not mandate that jurors be force to attend. They can be volunteers.

What about my right to free practice of religion? That's fine, until I go to practice Santeria and start sacrificing goats on my condo balcony. Then I am interfering with your rights as a homeowner.

Rights as a condowner are contractual rights - not constitutional.

 

[The Rabbi]

People have rights because they believe that they do – begging the question.

What rights do people have? Those rights which do not infringe on the rights of others. No, that's merely a statement of the limits of rights.

Why? Because if some person had the right to decide what the rights of others are, then we can no longer call them natural rights. Begging the question again.

What happens when someone violates the rights of another? They forfeit their own to some degree (decided by the apparatus that exists to protect rights). The, preventative, protective or corrective mechanism says nothing about the origin of rights.

I still maintain that there are no natural rights, that rights are a social invention. So far I haven't seen anything to dissuade me from that view.

I agree with Diuretic here but will amplify. Stating that people have those rights that don't infringe on others is useless. I have a right to trial by jury. I will have to impose on someone to be a juror.

Nonsense. The Constitution does not mandate that jurors be force to attend. They can be volunteers.

What about my right to free practice of religion? That's fine, until I go to practice Santeria and start sacrificing goats on my condo balcony. Then I am interfering with your rights as a homeowner.

Rights as a condowner are contractual rights - not constitutional.

Can be. But if no one volunteers my right to a jury suggests they can be dragooned into it.
And property rights are constitutional. Don't like the condo example? Make it my next door neighbor.

 

[Intense]

[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.

Feelings ofGuilt is a learned behaviour.

Rationalizing Feelings, or in some cases, false Justification is a learned Behavior.

Guilt is a Warning Mechanism. It may be developed, it may be ignored. It is Born of Conscience, not Society.

 

[Intense]

People have rights because they believe that they do – begging the question.

What rights do people have? Those rights which do not infringe on the rights of others. No, that's merely a statement of the limits of rights.

Why? Because if some person had the right to decide what the rights of others are, then we can no longer call them natural rights. Begging the question again.

What happens when someone violates the rights of another? They forfeit their own to some degree (decided by the apparatus that exists to protect rights). The, preventative, protective or corrective mechanism says nothing about the origin of rights.

I still maintain that there are no natural rights, that rights are a social invention. So far I haven't seen anything to dissuade me from that view.

I agree with Diuretic here but will amplify. Stating that people have those rights that don't infringe on others is useless. I have a right to trial by jury. I will have to impose on someone to be a juror.

Nonsense. The Constitution does not mandate that jurors be force to attend. They can be volunteers.

What about my right to free practice of religion? That's fine, until I go to practice Santeria and start sacrificing goats on my condo balcony. Then I am interfering with your rights as a homeowner.

Rights as a condowner are contractual rights - not constitutional.

You may have a Right by Trial by Jury, under Due Process, should You live so long, that is a Constructed Right by Any Means and Involves Process. It is not a Natural Right in The State of Nature. If You were killed in Self Defense, that could be Justified, and not Murder.