I know he is a herbivore... you know he is a herbivore... but does HE know it?

[John21652]

Nice post. What you say is that those “natural rights” should be called “natural abilities” and as such calling them “rights” is just another dumb euphemism.

What I say is what I have written. any other interpretation is yours and you seem to grant yourself a wide licence to re-interpret the posts of others. Your use of the phrase “another dumb euphemism” shows a lack of understanding about how people communicate. The term you need to learn to use is ‘aphorism’. Natural Law is more aphorism than euphemism.

But you are wrong. The “natural rights” are meant to be “legal rights”.

Not all natural rights are legal rights. Any right enshrined in law is positive law and that can depend upon the whim of a ruler, a population and its habits and not necessarily based on any objective standard.

The trouble is that using a particular word - in this case “rights” - out of its proper meaning is at the bare minimum - confusing. A “right” which cannot be enforced is not a “right”.

Half this sentence of yours is rather meaningless, even though assumptive. The second half of the sentence poses an interesting question. If I chain you up so you cannot enforce the right to be free, do you lose that right? If that is the case, as your sentence implies, then I can start collecting slaves tomorrow.

When people speak of the “right to life”, they do NOT mean the “ability to live”, they speak about a desire that their life should not be interrupted. And that is not an “ability” any more. It is a requirement.

You are attempting to state the obvious and being tautological in the process. If someone asserts the right to life, it is fairly certain they have at least the desire to live.

You youself use the all important modifier “should have” - which clearly describes an “is not, but should be”.

It might seem like an important ‘modifier’ to you, but it is just a restatement of what rights individuals should have in all the circumstances. Human rights are counterbalanced by human obligations. My right to life is counterbalanced by the obligation upon you to respect my right. Natural Law is based on reciprocity. History is full of examples where reciprocity is not always evident. My last post gave examples. Hence “should have” means “should always have”, but that depends on others adhering to their obligations. get it now?

And since it is not, there are no natural rights, only the desire that there would be. So they are not rights, only desires

There is always the desire for natural rights. Even if all natural rights were denied, the desire would live on. You are attempting to argue from the particular to the general and that doesn’t work.

Besides, not only humans have a basic desire and motivation to live. Every living being has it. With your re-definition you trivialized the concept of “right”. But that is ok. Can’t win’em all.

Oh, what a weird attempt to construe an argument. So what if non-humans have a basic desire and motivation to live? Does that grant all non-humans rights? If so, then please go tell the wolf that the lamb has rights…It is you right here who has attempted to trivialise the meaning of ‘rights’ by again confusing the meaning of Natural Law rights with the law of nature, just as you did in your original post. They are not the same. I suppose you will just keep on attempting to say otherwise, eh?

 

[Spock]

It might seem like an important ‘modifier’ to you, but it is just a restatement of what rights individuals should have in all the circumstances. Human rights are counterbalanced by human obligations.

Ah, that reminds me of a neat sign in the office: “The lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part”. Or, in simpler words: “your need is not my obligation”. If a charging lion runs toward you, you can start to cream: “but I have a right to live”… if he could answer, he would say: “tough luck buddy… you can shove your ‘right’… the only ‘right’ is my power over you. It is called the right of tooth and claw.”

Now, of course I don’t like it, but that is reality. And if I recall correctly, it was God who instituted that ridiculous idea of “free will” where anyone can do what they want, and cheerfully violate your assumed “rights”. There are two kinds of persons. One group is the “wishful thinkers” who believe that they have “inalianable rights”, but that pesky Mother Nature and those evil humans keep violating those “rights”. The other is those who are willing to accept the uncomfortable reality, and try to create legal rights, and enforce them as much as they can.

Now, eventually it might be possible that any attempt to violate those (now codified) laws will be detected beforehand and prevented - as it should be. And in that future society you (or your descendants) will scream about “mind contol” and “brain washing” and decry the loss of that “precious freedom to kill, maim, rape and torture”. How ironic that the believers of “love, peace and goodwill” are on the forefront to defend the “free will” of the rapists and torturers.

On one hand you wish to have “inalinable and inviolate natural rights”, and on the other hand you wish to have “full freedom” - which will violate those “rights”. Have you ever heard about the guy who wanted to have his cake and eat it, too?

 

[FurtherSuntime]

The title is an old joke about two people walking in the wilderness, and they see a charging rhinoceros, and this is what they say to each other… I think it is a proper way to start to address the next nonsensical concept: “natural rights”.

People love to quote the Declaration of Independence and that cutesy slogan about “inalianable rights, among others, the right to life”. As if claiming such a “right” would make it come true. First, the concept of the “right” needs to be established.

A right is a permission from one being to another, from the right-giver to the right-recipient. It allows the recipinet to carry out certain actions without fear of repercussions. The “right” does not have to be explicitly enumerated, it can be implictly understood. Usually the rights are granted by some goverment to its constituents. Since “nature” is not a conscious entity, it cannot “grant” rights.

There is a major aspect of granting those rights: the enforcement of these assumed rights. If a right cannot be enforced, it is not worth the price of the paper it is written on. The goverment (or any right-giver) can assure me that I have a “right to life”, but what does that mean? The rhino in the title is not aware of my “right” to live, if I trespass into its natural habitat. It will simply take my life. A virus is not aware of my “right” to live, it will kill me. A burglar might have heard that I have a “right” to live, but he can ignore it and kill me. And the goverment is simply powerless to prevent it. So I can take that piece of papaer, which enumerates my “rights” and use it as a toilet-paper (assuming it is soft enough) since it is otherwise totally useless. The goverments can enact a law and declare my “natural right” to become a “legal right” - which is the only kind of right that counts. But even in this case it cannot enforce it, it is unable to protect me. So whether a “right” is “natural” or “legal” it does not amount to much - as long as there is no way to enforce it.

The concept of natural rights is nonsense, since there is no one to enforce them. To say that they “should not” be violated is nice, but without enforcing them, it is just another pie-in-the-sky. If we forget about cutesy slogans, and look at the harsh reality, we can see that the world is ruled by power. Whoever has the gun (goverment), can enforce his wish over those who do not have that gun. That is the reality. We may not like it, but that does not change the facts.

If there would be an “inalianable right” to life, then your life would be safe, no one could take it, not a disease, not a charging lion, not a burglar, not even a state sanctioned executioner. Let’s fact it: “rights” are just a pipe-dream. As long as the powers-that-be allow you, you can dream about those “rights”. Once the powers want to take those “rights” away from you, you are S.O.L. (Read this and weep.)

Well then it must be asserted that progress is un-natural…

If a person is in the territory of a hungry aggressive flesh eater, then he is trespassing…

The animal has a natural right to territory and normally does not invade …just like insects who have a natural territory which is their little natural law…which naturally co-ordinates their existence with nature in their “relationship” with nature.

This is all about understanding relationships in self vrs social, its governing rule & stability.

No dignified natural rights equals…no dignified natural progress…no initiative within the individual…no progress…willed departure…no worthy trade…no initiative to defend…no defense…

so the result of no natural right is very .interesting …no natural rights …no natural consequence…survival is natural…survival of the rule eventually collapses reflecting an un-natural approach…

we don’t have the right to go outside and squash a little ant for the heck of it…we know this…an ant has a natural right to live out its little life in a dignified manner…which then again adds to the flourish of humanity.

failure to co-operate with natural rights can only result in failure to survive naturally…which adds up to zero progress and eventually limited survival

natural rights is a representation of the natural need to survive.

the self has a natural right to govern self behavior, in order to flourish which expresses stability.

the relationship between the social and the self is interestingly similar to the self and the in-built
moral compass which affords individualism…man needs his individualism…man cannot live without ego…it is a necessary property in self understood worthy contribution effecting self worth…we are stuck with reason which is reflective and offers choice.

the extension of rule in all applications, of no natural rights… represents a choice to self destruct… that would be un-natural…so thats why its called natural rights

 

[John21652]

Ah, that reminds me of a neat sign in the office: “The lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part”. Or, in simpler words: “your need is not my obligation”.

You reject the notion of “your need is not my obligation”. That, of course, means the concept of “charity”, or "the concept of helping others would not appeal to you. So what are you into ? Hedonism? Every man for himself?

If a charging lion runs toward you, you can start to cream: “but I have a right to live”… if he could answer, he would say: “tough luck buddy… you can shove your ‘right’… the only ‘right’ is my power over you. It is called the right of tooth and claw.”

So you respect the right of “tooth and claw” and the exercise of "power’. In suspect then, you be ok with totalitarianism and you’d think it all nice and ordered. If I chain you up, which, according to you, extinguishes your “right” to freedom, you’d have to accept our fate, according to what you write. Ok, no more complaining about what it is in the world that irks you. You’re a fatalist.

Now, of course I don’t like it, but that is reality. And if I recall correctly, it was God who instituted that ridiculous idea of “free will” where anyone can do what they want, and cheerfully violate your assumed “rights”.

So free will is a 'rediculous idea"!? Well, we know it exists and that it is real, yet you think it is rediculous. I take it if the exercise of free will was to be banned, you’d be Ok with that, for you’d be ridding the world of something rediculous. Just answer me this question - whose free will will we accept when they/it/him attempts to ban free will?

There are two kinds of persons. One group is the “wishful thinkers” who believe that they have “inalianable rights”, but that pesky Mother Nature and those evil humans keep violating those “rights”.

Mother Nature doesn’t violate anything. “She” is a benign, naturally occuring phenomena. You know, the weather and stuff…

The other is those who are willing to accept the uncomfortable reality, and try to create legal rights, and enforce them as much as they can.

Yep, just like the totalitarians of the 20th century. You remember, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and others.

Now, eventually it might be possible that any attempt to violate those (now codified) laws will be detected beforehand and prevented - as it should be. And in that future society you (or your descendants) will scream about “mind contol” and “brain washing” and decry the loss of that “precious freedom to kill, maim, rape and torture”. How ironic that the believers of “love, peace and goodwill” are on the forefront to defend the “free will” of the rapists and torturers.

Oh my, what touturous logic you use. How do you jump from desribing lovers of freedom as being defenders of rape and torture? natural Law creates obligations, as I have explained in earlier posts and yet you conveniently forget this in your diatribe.

On one hand you wish to have “inalinable and inviolate natural rights”, and on the other hand you wish to have “full freedom” - which will violate those “rights”. Have you ever heard about the guy who wanted to have his cake and eat it, too?

It is you who introduced the concept of “full freedom”. Go back a few posts and read where I described Natural Law as invoking obligations and the need for reciprocity. You know, ‘is’ and ‘ought’. Your now convoluted ramblings are bordering on the rediculous. Give it up. You have been buried by the Natural Law.

 

[Spock]

Will answer when I am back from vacation

 

[Spock]

That, of course, means the concept of “charity”, or "the concept of helping others would not appeal to you.

Why not? I help when I feel like it, but not out of obligation. Try to think outside the box.

So you respect the right of “tooth and claw” and the exercise of "power’.

Why don’t you actually read what I say? I said I don’t like it, but reality does not care what I like or dislike. It is a fact of life. Even in our current societies the goverment rules by power. You will see it real fast if you do not pay your taxes. The power and wielding it is there, all you need to do is open your eyes.

So free will is a 'rediculous idea"!?

First, it is not “rediculous”, it is “ridiculous”. Second, from a constructor’s standpoint it is a lousy solution. If a designer of car would give “free will” to his creation, to go as fast as it wants to, or to weer off the road it it strikes its fancy, that car would be very useless. But the point is, if there is “free will” then there are no “inviolable rights”. Capisci?

Go back a few posts and read where I described Natural Law as invoking obligations and the need for reciprocity. You know, ‘is’ and ‘ought’. Your now convoluted ramblings are bordering on the rediculous. Give it up. You have been buried by the Natural Law.

Yes, you described something - which is not the “natural law” as it is usually described. It is asserted that we have a built-in moral compass we are born with, and this supposed “natural law” tells us that sex is only “proper” if it is performed within a marriage, and when it includes the chance of procreation - which is sheer nonsense. There is no built-in moral compass, and has never been. Better face that fact, too.

 

[babylonsfalling]

The title is an old joke about two people walking in the wilderness, and they see a charging rhinoceros, and this is what they say to each other… I think it is a proper way to start to address the next nonsensical concept: “natural rights”.

People love to quote the Declaration of Independence and that cutesy slogan about “inalianable rights, among others, the right to life”. As if claiming such a “right” would make it come true. First, the concept of the “right” needs to be established.

A right is a permission from one being to another, from the right-giver to the right-recipient. It allows the recipinet to carry out certain actions without fear of repercussions. The “right” does not have to be explicitly enumerated, it can be implictly understood. Usually the rights are granted by some goverment to its constituents. Since “nature” is not a conscious entity, it cannot “grant” rights.

There is a major aspect of granting those rights: the enforcement of these assumed rights. If a right cannot be enforced, it is not worth the price of the paper it is written on. The goverment (or any right-giver) can assure me that I have a “right to life”, but what does that mean? The rhino in the title is not aware of my “right” to live, if I trespass into its natural habitat. It will simply take my life. A virus is not aware of my “right” to live, it will kill me. A burglar might have heard that I have a “right” to live, but he can ignore it and kill me. And the goverment is simply powerless to prevent it. So I can take that piece of papaer, which enumerates my “rights” and use it as a toilet-paper (assuming it is soft enough) since it is otherwise totally useless. The goverments can enact a law and declare my “natural right” to become a “legal right” - which is the only kind of right that counts. But even in this case it cannot enforce it, it is unable to protect me. So whether a “right” is “natural” or “legal” it does not amount to much - as long as there is no way to enforce it.

The concept of natural rights is nonsense, since there is no one to enforce them. To say that they “should not” be violated is nice, but without enforcing them, it is just another pie-in-the-sky. If we forget about cutesy slogans, and look at the harsh reality, we can see that the world is ruled by power. Whoever has the gun (goverment), can enforce his wish over those who do not have that gun. That is the reality. We may not like it, but that does not change the facts.

If there would be an “inalianable right” to life, then your life would be safe, no one could take it, not a disease, not a charging lion, not a burglar, not even a state sanctioned executioner. Let’s fact it: “rights” are just a pipe-dream. As long as the powers-that-be allow you, you can dream about those “rights”. Once the powers want to take those “rights” away from you, you are S.O.L. (Read this and weep.)

That was a whole lotta typing for a very small point.
Natural rights exist.
The fact that a person can be denied their natural rights doesn’t make natural rights nonexistent.

 

[StarFireKK]

The title is an old joke about two people walking in the wilderness, and they see a charging rhinoceros, and this is what they say to each other… I think it is a proper way to start to address the next nonsensical concept: “natural rights”.

People love to quote the Declaration of Independence and that cutesy slogan about “inalianable rights, among others, the right to life”. As if claiming such a “right” would make it come true. First, the concept of the “right” needs to be established.

A right is a permission from one being to another, from the right-giver to the right-recipient. It allows the recipinet to carry out certain actions without fear of repercussions. The “right” does not have to be explicitly enumerated, it can be implictly understood. Usually the rights are granted by some goverment to its constituents. Since “nature” is not a conscious entity, it cannot “grant” rights.

There is a major aspect of granting those rights: the enforcement of these assumed rights. If a right cannot be enforced, it is not worth the price of the paper it is written on. The goverment (or any right-giver) can assure me that I have a “right to life”, but what does that mean? The rhino in the title is not aware of my “right” to live, if I trespass into its natural habitat. It will simply take my life. A virus is not aware of my “right” to live, it will kill me. A burglar might have heard that I have a “right” to live, but he can ignore it and kill me. And the goverment is simply powerless to prevent it. So I can take that piece of papaer, which enumerates my “rights” and use it as a toilet-paper (assuming it is soft enough) since it is otherwise totally useless. The goverments can enact a law and declare my “natural right” to become a “legal right” - which is the only kind of right that counts. But even in this case it cannot enforce it, it is unable to protect me. So whether a “right” is “natural” or “legal” it does not amount to much - as long as there is no way to enforce it.

The concept of natural rights is nonsense, since there is no one to enforce them. To say that they “should not” be violated is nice, but without enforcing them, it is just another pie-in-the-sky. If we forget about cutesy slogans, and look at the harsh reality, we can see that the world is ruled by power. Whoever has the gun (goverment), can enforce his wish over those who do not have that gun. That is the reality. We may not like it, but that does not change the facts.

If there would be an “inalianable right” to life, then your life would be safe, no one could take it, not a disease, not a charging lion, not a burglar, not even a state sanctioned executioner. Let’s fact it: “rights” are just a pipe-dream. As long as the powers-that-be allow you, you can dream about those “rights”. Once the powers want to take those “rights” away from you, you are S.O.L. (Read this and weep.)

Go read your Hobbes. Hobbes influenced Locke who influenced Jefferson. That is not how ANY of those writers defined “natural rights.”

You don’t get to redefine words at your own leisure and then make up your own rules and say “discuss!”

Historical documents need to be kept in context when you are discussing their phrases. “Natural rights” means a very specific thing to that era of writers.

 

[fhansen]

The title is an old joke about two people walking in the wilderness, and they see a charging rhinoceros, and this is what they say to each other… I think it is a proper way to start to address the next nonsensical concept: “natural rights”.

People love to quote the Declaration of Independence and that cutesy slogan about “inalianable rights, among others, the right to life”. As if claiming such a “right” would make it come true. First, the concept of the “right” needs to be established.

A right is a permission from one being to another, from the right-giver to the right-recipient. It allows the recipinet to carry out certain actions without fear of repercussions. The “right” does not have to be explicitly enumerated, it can be implictly understood. Usually the rights are granted by some goverment to its constituents. Since “nature” is not a conscious entity, it cannot “grant” rights.

There is a major aspect of granting those rights: the enforcement of these assumed rights. If a right cannot be enforced, it is not worth the price of the paper it is written on. The goverment (or any right-giver) can assure me that I have a “right to life”, but what does that mean? The rhino in the title is not aware of my “right” to live, if I trespass into its natural habitat. It will simply take my life. A virus is not aware of my “right” to live, it will kill me. A burglar might have heard that I have a “right” to live, but he can ignore it and kill me. And the goverment is simply powerless to prevent it. So I can take that piece of papaer, which enumerates my “rights” and use it as a toilet-paper (assuming it is soft enough) since it is otherwise totally useless. The goverments can enact a law and declare my “natural right” to become a “legal right” - which is the only kind of right that counts. But even in this case it cannot enforce it, it is unable to protect me. So whether a “right” is “natural” or “legal” it does not amount to much - as long as there is no way to enforce it.

The concept of natural rights is nonsense, since there is no one to enforce them. To say that they “should not” be violated is nice, but without enforcing them, it is just another pie-in-the-sky. If we forget about cutesy slogans, and look at the harsh reality, we can see that the world is ruled by power. Whoever has the gun (goverment), can enforce his wish over those who do not have that gun. That is the reality. We may not like it, but that does not change the facts.

If there would be an “inalianable right” to life, then your life would be safe, no one could take it, not a disease, not a charging lion, not a burglar, not even a state sanctioned executioner. Let’s fact it: “rights” are just a pipe-dream. As long as the powers-that-be allow you, you can dream about those “rights”. Once the powers want to take those “rights” away from you, you are S.O.L. (Read this and weep.)

Yes, there is no one to enforce natural rights. That’s the meaning of the fall-that man denied natural rights to form or determine righteousness for himself; morality thereby becoming relative. The implication is that there are natural rights, but we may or may not recognize and heed them. So we don’t need care what the powers-that-be think; they’re just operating according to their take on right, even if we do care about the harm they may do-in the end they only have a puny temporary power anyway. Sounds like they intimidate you, tho.

 

[Spock]

Natural rights exist.

Where are they codified? Who enforces them?

 

[inocente]

The concept of natural rights is nonsense, since there is no one to enforce them. To say that they “should not” be violated is nice, but without enforcing them, it is just another pie-in-the-sky. If we forget about cutesy slogans, and look at the harsh reality, we can see that the world is ruled by power. Whoever has the gun (goverment), can enforce his wish over those who do not have that gun. That is the reality. We may not like it, but that does not change the facts.

Natural rights aren’t laws of physics, of course they can be violated, what is meant is that violating a right is commonly accepted to be wrong. The concept is fundamental to doing away with the supposed divine rights of royal lines, providing a framework defining the responsibilities and boundaries of the state, of what can and can’t be right in time of war, and so on.

Where are they codified? Who enforces them?

Magna Carta, various national bills of Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, etc., all the national and international law based on them, the International Court of Justice, etc.

 

[tonyrey]

That was a whole lotta typing for a very small point.
Natural rights exist.
The fact that a person can be denied their natural rights doesn’t make natural rights nonexistent.

Indeed! One might as well say truth, liberty, equality, and justice are figments of the imagination. In which case nothing is true or false, no one has liberty, etc…

 

[Spock]

Natural rights aren’t laws of physics, of course they can be violated, what is meant is that violating a right is commonly accepted to be wrong.

Nice pun… but you could have just said - with equal justification - that violating a “right” is commonly considered “left”. The poor word “right” has several meanings: here it means that “an action can be carried out without fear or repercussion”. It has nothing to do with what is “proper, just, or good” or “which direction to go”, or on which side a representative sits in their parliaments. Rights are always granted by the powers-to-be to the others. They do not happen “naturally”. Nature does not care. Nature does not grant one the “right to life”.

The concept is fundamental to doing away with the supposed divine rights of royal lines, providing a framework defining the responsibilities and boundaries of the state, of what can and can’t be right in time of war, and so on.

No arguments here. You said what I did, the “rights” are granted by the goverments.

Magna Carta, various national bills of Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, etc., all the national and international law based on them, the International Court of Justice, etc.

But these are all “artifical rights”, not “natural”. Besides most of them are nothing, but “pie in the sky”, since there is power behind them to enforce them.

 

[inocente]

Nice pun… but you could have just said - with equal justification - that violating a “right” is commonly considered “left”. The poor word “right” has several meanings: here it means that “an action can be carried out without fear or repercussion”. It has nothing to do with what is “proper, just, or good” or “which direction to go”, or on which side a representative sits in their parliaments. Rights are always granted by the powers-to-be to the others. They do not happen “naturally”. Nature does not care. Nature does not grant one the “right to life”.

I don’t understand. We are social animals and natural rights are what we naturally hold to be right, i.e. not artificial, not relative to how we happen to feel today or how we vote, “we hold these truths to be self-evident”. Societies need moral frameworks to prosper, and in the survival of the fittest those which don’t hold UDHR Art 1 to be self-evident tend to fall by the wayside (“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”).

Sure the phrase “natural law” is sometimes used to refer to things which are only self-evident to certain folk and not to the rest of us , and sure no big hand comes out the sky to enforce rights, but isn’t the whole idea that we, individually and collectively, are responsible and unless we enforce them they will be no more than pie in the sky?

Are you saying you don’t like the phrase “natural rights”, or you want to trash the whole lot and replace it with … what?

 

[Spock]

I don’t understand. We are social animals and natural rights are what we naturally hold to be right, i.e. not artificial, not relative to how we happen to feel today or how we vote, “we hold these truths to be self-evident”.

The point is that in different societies and in different times the people and the society might have a very different value system, of what do the consider “self-evident”. Look at two societies: 1) the USA, and 2) Singapore.

The US values individual freedom very highly (at least, mosr people do), while in Singapore the individual freedom does not count for much. They value stability, the value conformity, then even value barbaric, medieval punishment (caning) for very minor transgressions of their draconic system (dropping a chewing gum of a sidewalk). So don’t think that there are “universal ideals” across all societies.

A few hundred years ago no society valued freedom for all its constituents. Freedom and prosperity was reserved for the ruling classes. Even the downtrodden accepted their status, after all the church kept of preaching to be obedient to their divinely established rulers.

Societies need moral frameworks to prosper, and in the survival of the fittest those which don’t hold UDHR Art 1 to be self-evident tend to fall by the wayside (“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”).

Fall to the wayside? No society can expect to prosper “forever”.

Are you saying you don’t like the phrase “natural rights”, or you want to trash the whole lot and replace it with … what?

I am saying that “rights” are social constructs, not something that grow on the trees. In different societies there are different rights.

But, of course, I would be very happy, if there were “natural rights”, all across the land, where no one would be persecuted just because they are different, where everyone would be able to prosper according to their abilities, where there would be no poverty. Where there would be an abundance of goods, so everyone could enjoy food, drinks, shelter, health, etc… Of course it is an excellent goal to work toward such a state of affairs. But let’s not kid ourselves, such a society is a very long way off (if possible at all), and there is nothing “natural” about it.

 

[John21652]

test

 

[John21652]

test

 

[davidv]

The point is that in different societies and in different times the people and the society might have a very different value system, of what do the consider “self-evident”. Look at two societies: 1) the USA, and 2) Singapore.

The US values individual freedom very highly (at least, mosr people do), while in Singapore the individual freedom does not count for much. They value stability, the value conformity, then even value barbaric, medieval punishment (caning) for very minor transgressions of their draconic system (dropping a chewing gum of a sidewalk). So don’t think that there are “universal ideals” across all societies.

A few hundred years ago no society valued freedom for all its constituents. Freedom and prosperity was reserved for the ruling classes. Even the downtrodden accepted their status, after all the church kept of preaching to be obedient to their divinely established rulers.

Fall to the wayside? No society can expect to prosper “forever”.

I am saying that “rights” are social constructs,

How can we know if this (rights are social constructs) is a true statement, rather than your personal opinion?

not something that grow on the trees. In different societies there are different rights.

But, of course, I would be very happy, if there were “natural rights”, all across the land, where no one would be persecuted just because they are different, where everyone would be able to prosper according to their abilities, where there would be no poverty. Where there would be an abundance of goods, so everyone could enjoy food, drinks, shelter, health, etc… Of course it is an excellent goal to work toward such a state of affairs. But let’s not kid ourselves, such a society is a very long way off (if possible at all), and there is nothing “natural” about it.

Why do violations of rights imply there are no rights?

 

[Spock]

How can we know if this (rights are social constructs) is a true statement, rather than your personal opinion?

Just think about it… it is obvious. Look at the US. You have a property. You even have your deed to prove that you OWN that piece of land without liens. You are proclaimed to be the owner of this land. What does ownership mean? That you have the “right” to do with this piece of property whatever you choose to do. Wake up, buddy…

Try to do any of the following:

1. Grow marijuana on you “own” land.
2. Try to give your own property to the communist regime of Cuba.
3. Try to give it away to freindly goverment of Great Britain.
4. Try to make a methadone processing center on it.
5. Try to tell the tax collector, that you are on your own land, and deamnd that he pays you taxes for trespassing…

Amazing! The goverment does not grant you the “rights” to do any of these things (and I could come up with zillions of others). The goverment allows you to play Monopoly with your “property” as long as you are willing play by the (goverment established) rules! You don’t “own” Jack Schitt. You have no rights, unless the goverment grants them, and if the goverment (in its infinite wisdom) wishes to suspend your rights, you are out of luck. Where can you appeal? Who has the guns? That is right… the goverment does. And if you wish to dispute it, your will be charged with treason, and dealt with accordingly.

And the US is the “freest” society on Earth! Makes one shiver…

 

[davidv]

Just think about it… it is obvious. Look at the US. You have a property. You even have your deed to prove that you OWN that piece of land without liens. You are proclaimed to be the owner of this land. What does ownership mean? That you have the “right” to do with this piece of property whatever you choose to do. Wake up, buddy…

Try to do any of the following:

1. Grow marijuana on you “own” land.
2. Try to give your own property to the communist regime of Cuba.
3. Try to give it away to freindly goverment of Great Britain.
4. Try to make a methadone processing center on it.
5. Try to tell the tax collector, that you are on your own land, and deamnd that he pays you taxes for trespassing…

Amazing! The goverment does not grant you the “rights” to do any of these things (and I could come up with zillions of others). The goverment allows you to play Monopoly with your “property” as long as you are willing play by the (goverment established) rules! You don’t “own” Jack Schitt. You have no rights, unless the goverment grants them, and if the goverment (in its infinite wisdom) wishes to suspend your rights, you are out of luck. Where can you appeal? Who has the guns? That is right… the goverment does. And if you wish to dispute it, your will be charged with treason, and dealt with accordingly.

And the US is the “freest” society on Earth! Makes one shiver…

Your anecdote above doesn’t address the point.

It seems to me that you have a very ambigous definition of rights. Is there a hierachy of them? Does every child have a right to live? If not, on what basis? Is it a particular society’s choice?

The evidence of the many addictions afflicting Americans, it can only hypocritically claim to be free. It may be free politically, but many are chained on a short leash to immorality.