What Constitutes a "Right?"

[JBeukema]

I see you're still as big a fool as ever, no matter what name you use

 

[Intense]

Yes, we created the tools. Thank you. The world exists, but I think it was Chomsky who said, "the map is not the territory."

We still have not addressed the question of which came first: society or rights. I think we need a solid definition of society before we can do that.

You still fail to recognize that Rights existed before Society. I do think that there is treatment for your condition. You need to change your diaper first.

If you claim that rights existed before human society then explain your argument, it would be interesting to discuss it.

You have the Natural Right of Self Preservation. You have The Right to Reason. You have the Right to Apply Conscience. You have the Right, to possess material things. You have a Right to Seek Nourishment. Rights have boundaries, they are not limitless, actions have consequences. Had you been abandoned as a baby and raised by wolves, you would still reason, you would still have character, you would still lay natural claim to things. Action to some extent can extend Right. All of this a a part of Society, or separate from society, or in spite of society.

It is my position that the denial of natural right is a means to totalitarian control. By denying Conscience, Self Determination, by subjugating the will of the Individual to the will of the community, by Subjugating the Will of the community to that of The Governing Body, By Subjugating The Government To Your Will as Dictator, You have total Control. The one thing stopping You, Inalienable Right, Through Conscience Recognized, Through Voice, Communicated and Reinforced. The Argument from the Start is Self Control V.S. Statist Control over Every Life. The Statist denies Ultimate Authority in one hand, while Reaching for It with the Other Hand. If Natural Right does not exist, neither can State Rights. Impositions may exist, but not Justification. You would have No Foundation to Justify.

 

[JBeukema]

the ability to reason does not magically produce a 'right to reason'

same applies to your entire first paragraph

there are no 'rights' at all except those granted by the collective

outside of that, there is only liberty, ability, desire, instinct

'rights' are merely limitations placed upon liberty by the individual (personal recognition of 'rights', regardless of whether anyone else enters into a contract granting thew same privileges) and the collective

 

[rubberhead]

the ability to reason does not magically produce a 'right to reason'

same applies to your entire first paragraph

there are no 'rights' at all except those granted by the collective

outside of that, there is only liberty, ability, desire, instinct

'rights' are merely limitations placed upon liberty by the individual (personal recognition of 'rights', regardless of whether anyone else enters into a contract granting thew same privileges) and the collective

OK, Hitler, go back to bed. Wait for "the collective" to call you back to spew some more nonsense. The ability to reason doesn't create the right to reason. The need to reason creates the right to reason. Each person has the right to sustain their own life, regardless of what the collective says (unless they forfeit that right by deliberately taking someone else's life without remorse). Likewise each person has the right to those things that their life and time produce. Otherwise their right to life is meaningless. Once again you're not arguing. You're making unsupported statements that you think are true. I don't think anyone here agrees with you. If you want to be taken seriously, then back up what you are saying with something other than garbage.

 

[JBeukema]

the ability to reason does not magically produce a 'right to reason'

same applies to your entire first paragraph

there are no 'rights' at all except those granted by the collective

outside of that, there is only liberty, ability, desire, instinct

'rights' are merely limitations placed upon liberty by the individual (personal recognition of 'rights', regardless of whether anyone else enters into a contract granting thew same privileges) and the collective

OK, Hitler, go back to bed.

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You just played your last card

Wait for "the collective" to call you back to spew some more nonsense. The ability to reason doesn't create the right to reason. The need to reason creates the right to reason.

Then the need to kill you in order to access your food stores to supply my people with food and the need to rape your woman to continue my society create the right to kill you and rape your woman

Each person has the right to sustain their own life, regardless of what the collective says (unless they forfeit that right by deliberately taking someone else's life without remorse)

If it's a 'natural right', it can't be 'forfeited' because sonmeone else (you) says so- my right to life is intact no matter whom i kill

the collective can only revoke the right to lief if the collective granted it

you lack internal consistency

 

[rubberhead]

the ability to reason does not magically produce a 'right to reason'

same applies to your entire first paragraph

there are no 'rights' at all except those granted by the collective

outside of that, there is only liberty, ability, desire, instinct

'rights' are merely limitations placed upon liberty by the individual (personal recognition of 'rights', regardless of whether anyone else enters into a contract granting thew same privileges) and the collective

OK, Hitler, go back to bed.

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You just played your last card

Wait for "the collective" to call you back to spew some more nonsense. The ability to reason doesn't create the right to reason. The need to reason creates the right to reason.

Then the need to kill you in order to access your food stores to supply my people with food and the need to rape your woman to continue my society create the right to kill you and rape your woman

Each person has the right to sustain their own life, regardless of what the collective says (unless they forfeit that right by deliberately taking someone else's life without remorse)

If it's a 'natural right', it can't be 'forfeited' because sonmeone else (you) says so- my right to life is intact no matter whom i kill

the collective can only revoke the right to lief if the collective granted it

you lack internal consistency

Hitler rose to power and committed crimes against humanity on the wings of claims similar to the ones you're making. So my comparison was actually apropos, however it may have been presented. It's not my last card, I could name any number of collectivist dictators responsible for horrible crimes who think and thought exactly the same nonsense that you are spewing. Slavery was the result of collectivist views like the ones your spouting. Is that something you want to be associated with? Why did slavery cease to exist? Because it was in opposition to the natural rights of all humans. Hitler failed for the same reason. And you have yet to have a chance to fail since you haven't succeeded at convincing one person of your view. I wouldn't expect you to know what I'm talking about though, since you aren't even aware of the glaringly obvious flaws in each and every statement you've made.

 

[Contumacious]

the ability to reason does not magically produce a 'right to reason'

The ability to reason does not magically produce deductive reasoning.

The fact that someone is human does not mean that they will magically use their brain.


.

 

[JBeukema]

The fact that someone is human does not mean that they will magically use their brain.


.

You're certainly evidence of that

Perhaps you can get it through your friend's rubber head that JB is an individualist

 

[Diuretic]

Yes, we created the tools. Thank you. The world exists, but I think it was Chomsky who said, "the map is not the territory."

We still have not addressed the question of which came first: society or rights. I think we need a solid definition of society before we can do that.

Fair enough. I'll perhaps try to kick it off. Humans are animals. We are highly developed as opposed to other animal species but we're still animals. From what I understand our ancestors were social animals (I may have to credit Aristotle with that observation) so our ancestors, I mean before we developed into the particular form we are in today, needed to get on with one another.

I would think that instinct and learned behaviour would have combined to allow our ancestors to get along with each other. For me that's the beginning of human society, living together for mutual support and survival, cooperation on the basis of necessity. Rules worked out in the small family or tribal groupings based on a mix of instinct and learned behaviour (probably trial and error).

Wow... so Aristotle 'observed' that human are biological creatures... Now how is it that you come to conclude that he 'observed' this pre-existing fact of nature; as oppossed to what you would have to conclude was his having 'invented' that fact of nature, using the species of reasoning which determines that human 'invented' natural rights?

See if you can clear that up for us...

Okay - go back and read it again, That should clear it up........for you

 

[Diuretic]

You still fail to recognize that Rights existed before Society. I do think that there is treatment for your condition. You need to change your diaper first.

If you claim that rights existed before human society then explain your argument, it would be interesting to discuss it.

You have the Natural Right of Self Preservation. You have The Right to Reason. You have the Right to Apply Conscience. You have the Right, to possess material things. You have a Right to Seek Nourishment. Rights have boundaries, they are not limitless, actions have consequences. Had you been abandoned as a baby and raised by wolves, you would still reason, you would still have character, you would still lay natural claim to things. Action to some extent can extend Right. All of this a a part of Society, or separate from society, or in spite of society.

It is my position that the denial of natural right is a means to totalitarian control. By denying Conscience, Self Determination, by subjugating the will of the Individual to the will of the community, by Subjugating the Will of the community to that of The Governing Body, By Subjugating The Government To Your Will as Dictator, You have total Control. The one thing stopping You, Inalienable Right, Through Conscience Recognized, Through Voice, Communicated and Reinforced. The Argument from the Start is Self Control V.S. Statist Control over Every Life. The Statist denies Ultimate Authority in one hand, while Reaching for It with the Other Hand. If Natural Right does not exist, neither can State Rights. Impositions may exist, but not Justification. You would have No Foundation to Justify.

This might need severe critique but here goes:

First paragraph. I don't want to sound as if I'm simply contradicting but it will read like it I'm sure. Sometimes I come across that way and it's unfortunate because I can't quite get the tone right – my problem not yours.

Ability is different from a “right.” My ability to do things is constrained by – among other things, by my physicality (I can't bench press 300lbs) and the physical laws of the universe (eg I can't fly like a bird – but as JW might say, I can drink like a fish). Ability is both potential and actual. In action I fulfil potential (as limited by the aforesaid). In a solitary state the only limits to me are those I've mentioned and of course my will. I have no need of the concept of “rights” in that solitary state because I can act.

To your second paragraph. The denial of humanity, of human nature – and here I'm referring not to control of its base instincts but the actual essence of being human – is indeed totalitarian. The denial of human essence can be carried out by totalitarian government and is to be resisted, as you indicate. But the denial of human essence can be authored by other agencies. One of the early arguments against capitalism advanced by Marx was its tendency to alienate the worker from their humanity.

Summing up. Being human means having an ability to act as a human. Being a social being means acting within recognised limits. Being a human social being means having the ability to act as a human within recognised limits. The ability of the human social being to act and to be human and the limits of the ability to act, those which are not physical, are called rights.

 

[JBeukema]

If you assert, D, that 'rights' refers to 'ability and limitations upon liberties', then you just agreed to what I said. And i assert that if that is how one defines 'rights' then the concept of 'rights' as some ephemeral thing which can be infringed is fallacious- you just described abilities and positive rights (my not being 'allowed' to kill you is you positive right to life).

If 'natural rights' are, then ability + positive rights, then to speak of 'natural rights' is meaningless and to appeal to them as some ideal or authority the height of foolishness


As I said, the very concept of 'natural rights' is deeply flawed. so, too, is the rhetoric which accompanies it.

 

[Diuretic]

If you assert, D, that 'rights' refers to 'ability and limitations upon liberties', then you just agreed to what I said. And i assert that if that is how one defines 'rights' then the concept of 'rights' as some ephemeral thing which can be infringed is fallacious- you just described abilities and positive rights (my not being 'allowed' to kill you is you positive right to life).

If 'natural rights' are, then ability + positive rights, then to speak of 'natural rights' is meaningless and to appeal to them as some ideal or authority the height of foolishness


As I said, the very concept of 'natural rights' is deeply flawed. so, too, is the rhetoric which accompanies it.

It was a useful concept. I'm thinking late 18th Century. I'm generalising here but I think that there were no mature liberal democracies in the world around about that time - but as usual I'll be corrected. Over in the American colonies things were stirring. At a time when the concept of God was probably uncontested in society He was pressed into service by a group of progressive thinkers who had a gutsful of British tyranny and, following previous thinkers such as Montesquieu, synthesised Enlightenment thinking to form the intellectual basis of a rebellion. In order to elevate the rebellion from a purely economic reaction to oppressive rule, which may have not ignited all members of the colonies but only those with economic interests to be furthered, the thinkers had to create a broader appeal. They took the concepts from Enlightenment thinkers and made them concrete. They used the concept of God to bolster the courage of the colonists. They appealed to the human essence of the colonists by referring to accepted ideas of natural rights. It worked.

The problem for me though is that nowadays some are locked into that 18th Century mode of thinking. The idea of inalienable rights is likely to fill someone with an inner glow but it can lead to the idea that there are a limited number of inalienable rights, given by God and that there are no others to enjoyed. Plainly that's not the case. So that's my contention. There are no natural rights, there are only rights society creates for it members and society can create rights because they are a social invention.

 

[JBeukema]

I don't question that it was very useful rhetoric in stirring the masses

it's still bollocks, though

There are no natural rights, there are only rights society creates for it members and society can create rights because they are a social invention.

I concur. As I've said elsewhere, I reject the very concept of (natural) 'rights'. There is only liberty and one's own abilities. nature will not protect us through some vague metaphysical 'wrongness' that will prevent others from harming us. We must decide for ourselves to what extent we must be willing to sacrifice our liberties in order to enjoy a peaceful and prosperous society, to what extent we are willing to shed our blood for our liberties, with whom we shall compact to protect our liberties, interests, and personhoods. We must decide whether we will live in a world where liberties are taken from our neighbors and we might be next at any time or whether we will work together to form a world in which all can enjoy their liberties and personal safety for the benefit of all. No gods will protect us and nature is impartial to our suffering. If falls to Man and to every man and woman to work to protect that worth protecting, to fight for that worth fighting for, and to work towards the world in which we wish to live.

 

[Contumacious]

I don't question that it was very useful rhetoric in stirring the masses

it's still bollocks, though

There are no natural rights, there are only rights society creates for it members and society can create rights because they are a social invention.

I concur.

I concur. As I've said elsewhere, I reject the very concept of (natural) 'rights'. I believe in the Mossberg 590 Rights:

.

 

[JBeukema]

I reject the very concept of (natural) 'rights'.
.

PROGRESS!


Now there's only one left to educate in this thread!

Damn, this only took two pages at LoR

y'all are slow

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Fair enough. I'll perhaps try to kick it off. Humans are animals. We are highly developed as opposed to other animal species but we're still animals. From what I understand our ancestors were social animals (I may have to credit Aristotle with that observation) so our ancestors, I mean before we developed into the particular form we are in today, needed to get on with one another.

I would think that instinct and learned behaviour would have combined to allow our ancestors to get along with each other. For me that's the beginning of human society, living together for mutual support and survival, cooperation on the basis of necessity. Rules worked out in the small family or tribal groupings based on a mix of instinct and learned behaviour (probably trial and error).

Wow... so Aristotle 'observed' that human are biological creatures... Now how is it that you come to conclude that he 'observed' this pre-existing fact of nature; as oppossed to what you would have to conclude was his having 'invented' that fact of nature, using the species of reasoning which determines that human 'invented' natural rights?

See if you can clear that up for us...

Okay - go back and read it again, That should clear it up........for you

I read it the first time... just prior to using it to refute your position in it's entirety.

That our ancestors discovered certain principles that provided for them to use those discoveries to form societies which assisted them in better assuring their survival, does not correlate to them 'inventing' anything. Those principles existed prior to humanity discovering them... they simply ARE...

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, Hitler, go back to bed.

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You just played your last card

Then the need to kill you in order to access your food stores to supply my people with food and the need to rape your woman to continue my society create the right to kill you and rape your woman

Each person has the right to sustain their own life, regardless of what the collective says (unless they forfeit that right by deliberately taking someone else's life without remorse)

If it's a 'natural right', it can't be 'forfeited' because sonmeone else (you) says so- my right to life is intact no matter whom i kill

the collective can only revoke the right to lief if the collective granted it

you lack internal consistency

Hitler rose to power and committed crimes against humanity on the wings of claims similar to the ones you're making. So my comparison was actually apropos, however it may have been presented. It's not my last card, I could name any number of collectivist dictators responsible for horrible crimes who think and thought exactly the same nonsense that you are spewing. Slavery was the result of collectivist views like the ones your spouting. Is that something you want to be associated with? Why did slavery cease to exist? Because it was in opposition to the natural rights of all humans. Hitler failed for the same reason. And you have yet to have a chance to fail since you haven't succeeded at convincing one person of your view. I wouldn't expect you to know what I'm talking about though, since you aren't even aware of the glaringly obvious flaws in each and every statement you've made.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Of this I am sure.
Hitler piled on to the weakness that was Weimar, where they believed the same tripe about natural rights you do. In fact, Goering said that the Nazi project was to roll back the Enlightenment.
So you are preparing the way for Nazis, Mr Chamberlain Rubberdickhead.

 

[JBeukema]

RIGHTS do not come from GOD.

Oh goody, another baseless assertion from the in-house "centrist" which just never seems to find ANYTHING about America that suits her.

Let's see how she holds up this time...

define 'god'

demonstrate the existence thereof

define 'rights'

demonstrate the existence thereof


demonstrate that 'rights' come from 'god'

Now the purpose for Christ's life was to spare the world what?

apparently, your fairy tales spare you from thought

Now at this point the argument is unhinged from it's reasoning... the premise, which is expressed as truth, is demonstrated as false; thus the following conclusion based upon that premise lacks its foundation rationale; thus stands as irrational.

you really think that?

Nice try Sis...

Why do you hate females so much that you even seek to 'demote' those who oppose you to female status?

Can't get a girlfriend?

Wrong... Human life is an endowment; a gift from the Father...

Demonstrate that you exist and this thing called 'life' is handed you

debunk biology while you're at it

They advanced such as TRUTH... and what's more TRUTH WHICH REQUIRES NO EXPLANATION BECAUSE IT IS SUCH AN OBVIOUS TRUTH,

It was used as an axiom- an assumption upon which rested their rhetoric

that doesn't make it so

Sweet fail Douschebag...

 

[JBeukema]

That our ancestors discovered certain principles that provided for them to use those discoveries to form societies which assisted them in better assuring their survival, does not correlate to them 'inventing' anything. Those principles existed prior to humanity discovering them... they simply ARE.

then you should be able to demonstrate them

 

[Intense]

If you claim that rights existed before human society then explain your argument, it would be interesting to discuss it.

You have the Natural Right of Self Preservation. You have The Right to Reason. You have the Right to Apply Conscience. You have the Right, to possess material things. You have a Right to Seek Nourishment. Rights have boundaries, they are not limitless, actions have consequences. Had you been abandoned as a baby and raised by wolves, you would still reason, you would still have character, you would still lay natural claim to things. Action to some extent can extend Right. All of this a a part of Society, or separate from society, or in spite of society.

It is my position that the denial of natural right is a means to totalitarian control. By denying Conscience, Self Determination, by subjugating the will of the Individual to the will of the community, by Subjugating the Will of the community to that of The Governing Body, By Subjugating The Government To Your Will as Dictator, You have total Control. The one thing stopping You, Inalienable Right, Through Conscience Recognized, Through Voice, Communicated and Reinforced. The Argument from the Start is Self Control V.S. Statist Control over Every Life. The Statist denies Ultimate Authority in one hand, while Reaching for It with the Other Hand. If Natural Right does not exist, neither can State Rights. Impositions may exist, but not Justification. You would have No Foundation to Justify.

This might need severe critique but here goes:

First paragraph. I don't want to sound as if I'm simply contradicting but it will read like it I'm sure. Sometimes I come across that way and it's unfortunate because I can't quite get the tone right – my problem not yours.

Ability is different from a “right.” My ability to do things is constrained by – among other things, by my physicality (I can't bench press 300lbs) and the physical laws of the universe (eg I can't fly like a bird – but as JW might say, I can drink like a fish). Ability is both potential and actual. In action I fulfil potential (as limited by the aforesaid). In a solitary state the only limits to me are those I've mentioned and of course my will. I have no need of the concept of “rights” in that solitary state because I can act.

To your second paragraph. The denial of humanity, of human nature – and here I'm referring not to control of its base instincts but the actual essence of being human – is indeed totalitarian. The denial of human essence can be carried out by totalitarian government and is to be resisted, as you indicate. But the denial of human essence can be authored by other agencies. One of the early arguments against capitalism advanced by Marx was its tendency to alienate the worker from their humanity.

Summing up. Being human means having an ability to act as a human. Being a social being means acting within recognised limits. Being a human social being means having the ability to act as a human within recognised limits. The ability of the human social being to act and to be human and the limits of the ability to act, those which are not physical, are called rights.

Ability is different from a “right.” My ability to do things is constrained by – among other things, by my physicality (I can't bench press 300lbs) and the physical laws of the universe (eg I can't fly like a bird – but as JW might say, I can drink like a fish). Ability is both potential and actual. In action I fulfil potential (as limited by the aforesaid). In a solitary state the only limits to me are those I've mentioned and of course my will. I have no need of the concept of “rights” in that solitary state because I can act.

Whether Action, Possession, there is a General Purpose behind it. The Justification of that Purpose Establishes Right. The Inability to Justify establishes something else. Consciously or Unconsciously, We have a motive that is Judged by an Authority higher than Any Government formed by Man. Cause and Effect, Result, bear witness to the appropriateness of the claim. This is related to Creation, Societies Part in which is Small. Consequence, both intended and unintended, are there in part to teach Right Action and Development. They are there to occupy until ready to move on to the next, each level guarding fundamental Truths. Fight it, remain stagnant, accept it , learn and grow. Forget it, you will encounter it again. Natural Right is Personal And Exact. Locke, Jefferson, Madison, Thoreau, King All got it. Through Conscience they Chose It First. It was more than just words to appease the Masses. It was the Key that Unlocked Every Door. Again 'Memorial and Remonstrance".

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)