# What are basic human rights?



## Wonky Pundit

Human rights (at least in this discussion) should be considered as completely separate from any nation's laws or anyone's legal rights. 

For example, if you did something to another person or withheld something from them, would people believe that your actions are fundamentally wrong, regardless of what nation you're located in? If the answer is yes, that would be a violation of someone's basic human rights. 

Here's something more literal: people have the right not to be attacked without provocation. 

Obviously there are many more human rights. Which do you consider basic and why?


----------



## midcan5

Rights are impossible to assess once we proceed past certain obvious homilies. Of course we should not attack another without reason, but too often reason hasn't anything to do with behavior. Consider only the utopian idea that the enlightenment would bring forth the end of religious persecution and create a just society based on reason. Then read history. I don't have a lot of time right now, but I'll return, meanwhile I debated rights in link below and include FDR and the universal rights as points of interest.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan.html

*FDR's new bill of rights*

'In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.'

Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Read more: FDR?s Second Bill of Rights

*The universal rights*

'Preamble: Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world'

Human Rights 50th Anniversary / Universal Declaration

'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.'

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights


----------



## TakeAStepBack

> The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
> The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
> The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
> The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
> The right of every family to a decent home;
> The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
> The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
> The right to a good education.
> All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.



You do not have the right to someone elses services or their property.

Jeebus, you're about as bright as a burnt out lightbulb.


----------



## Wonky Pundit

TakeAStepBack said:


> The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
> The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
> The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
> The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
> The right of every family to a decent home;
> The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
> The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
> The right to a good education.
> All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not have the right to someone elses services or their property.
> 
> Jeebus, you're about as bright as a burnt out lightbulb.
Click to expand...


FDR was as bright as a burnt out lightbulb? 

So do you want to enlighten us about what basic human rights are?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wonky Pundit said:


> Human rights (at least in this discussion) should be considered as completely separate from any nation's laws or anyone's legal rights.
> 
> For example, if you did something to another person or withheld something from them, would people believe that your actions are fundamentally wrong, regardless of what nation you're located in? If the answer is yes, that would be a violation of someone's basic human rights.
> 
> Here's something more literal: people have the right not to be attacked without provocation.
> 
> Obviously there are many more human rights. Which do you consider basic and why?



Your example is not a basic right because people have a right not to be attacked even if they provoke the attack.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> Rights are impossible to assess once we proceed past certain obvious homilies. Of course we should not attack another without reason, but too often reason hasn't anything to do with behavior. Consider only the utopian idea that the enlightenment would bring forth the end of religious persecution and create a just society based on reason. Then read history. I don't have a lot of time right now, but I'll return, meanwhile I debated rights in link below and include FDR and the universal rights as points of interest.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan.html
> 
> *FDR's new bill of rights*
> 
> 'In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.'
> 
> Among these are:
> The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
> The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
> The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
> The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
> The right of every family to a decent home;
> The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
> The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
> The right to a good education.
> All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
> 
> Read more: FDR?s Second Bill of Rights
> 
> *The universal rights*
> 
> 'Preamble: Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world'
> 
> Human Rights 50th Anniversary / Universal Declaration
> 
> '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.'
> 
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights



I have some questions about the rights that you posted. Specifically, I want to know how these rights impose on you, personally.

Do they mean that you:


 have to give me a job if I ask you?
oppose the farm bill that requires farmers to hand their crop over to the government?
oppose the government not allowing private companies to compete with the Post Office?
have to allow me to move into your house if I cannot afford a place to live?
have to pay for my medical care if I cannot afford it even if all I want is cosmetic surgery?
that you have to provide for me in my old age if I have never attempted to provide for my own old age? Perhaps you should be forced to provide in home palliative care for me under those circumstances.
that you have to pay for me to take college classes that provide me no way to earn a living?
If you are not willing to allow me to impose on you directly in order to support these rights you really do not consider them rights, and shouldn't resort to posting drivel in order to attempt to appear smarter than you are.


----------



## Sallow

There are no "rights", inherently.

Your rights are defined by whatever government you live under..


----------



## Skull Pilot

Sallow said:


> There are no "rights", inherently.
> 
> Your rights are defined by whatever government you live under..



Our Government is based on unalienable rights inseparable from each person, so they do exist by your reasoning.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Sallow said:


> There are no "rights", inherently.
> 
> Your rights are defined by whatever government you live under..



Yet you supported Obama when he intervened in Libya on the basis of their rights being violated.

Interesting.


----------



## TheOldSchool

The only rights we deserve are the ones we demand and take for ourselves


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Wonky Pundit said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
> The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
> The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
> The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
> The right of every family to a decent home;
> The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
> The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
> The right to a good education.
> All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not have the right to someone elses services or their property.
> 
> Jeebus, you're about as bright as a burnt out lightbulb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR was as bright as a burnt out lightbulb?
> 
> So do you want to enlighten us about what basic human rights are?
Click to expand...


Yes, FDR was a central planning reject that fucked up far more than he ever "fixed".

Basic human rights.

The right to life free of coercion from others.
The right to pursue interests free from coercion.
The right to voluntary exchange without coercion.
The right to private property.


----------



## Cookie

I believe the OP is confusing morals with rights. He wrote: "people have the right not to be attacked without provocation." This is incorrect. It might be morally wrong to physically attack a person with or without provocation, and it might be against the law to do so, it isn't an assault on your inalienable rights. For instance, if I were to verbally attack you without provocation, it would be silly for you to go runny around saying "my inalienable rights were violated!"

To discern the difference, one should ask, "What has God's grace given me?"

God has given us:
#1 - Life. There is no guarantee to quality of life, just life.
#2 - Free will.

That's about it. Our inalienable rights consist not of what others might or might not do to us, but just what we have control over. The only person we have control over is ourselves.

What does the right to life mean? It means we have the right to be alive. This doesn't mean we have the right to medical care to keep us alive or to improve or maintain our quality of life.

What does free will mean? It means we have the right to pursue happiness (no guarantee we'll BE happy, though); we have the right to express ourselves; we have the right to practice a religion (or not); we have the right to be left alone (a right to privacy, to have our own stuff, to travel freely; to not be searched if we're not doing anything wrong, etc); we have a right to determine the destiny of our own lives within our own abilities (a doctor has a right to practice medicine; a business owner has a right to determine how they practice business even if they make an astounding profit or are so bad they fail). We have the right to the products of our own labor.

Now here is an important point that is often forgotten when people talk about inalienable rights. For every inalienable right, there is an associated responsibility or duty. For instance, I have a right to reproduce (have children). However, I have an associated duty to support those children. I have a right to express myself but I have an associated duty to convey accurate information so as to not interfere with someone else's rights (don't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater if there is no fire, don't slander others, etc). I have a right to privacy but if a police officer who is investigating criminal activity sees me sitting in a park where that crime occurred and asks me to identify myself, I have a duty to answer reasonable questions to further the investigation (or eliminate me as a suspect and/or witness).

While I don't have the right to NOT be attacked, I DO have the right to reasonably defend myself if I am attacked. Again, the right to defend myself is balanced by a duty to not exceed the offense. For instance, if someone verbally assaults me, I can verbally defend myself. I can't just up and shoot them.

The right to life has an associated responsibility to take care of myself to the best of my ability. In short, we have a duty to be good citizens.

There are all sorts of concepts that people say are inalienable rights but aren't simply because these "rights" depend on someone else doing something:
* I don't have a right to a job. Instead I have a right to not be discriminated against because of a personal factor that is beyond my control (i.e.: because I'm female or because I'm a different race.)
* I don't have a right to a place to live. Again, I have a right not to be discriminated against, though.
* I don't have a right to medical care or even access to medical care because that requires that someone else decides to become a doctor or open a hospital or - heaven forbid - pay my bill. If all the doctors in the world suddenly decided to not practice medicine, that is their right.

Hope that helps.


----------



## boedicca

Basic human rights all boil down to the same principle:  the right to be left alone.


----------



## Wonky Pundit

Sallow said:


> There are no "rights", inherently.
> 
> Your rights are defined by whatever government you live under..



If that's true, why do people acknowledge that some governments practice "human rights violations" when, according to their own laws, the government is doing nothing illegal?


----------



## Wonky Pundit

Cookie said:


> I believe the OP is confusing morals with rights. He wrote: "people have the right not to be attacked without provocation." This is incorrect. It might be morally wrong to physically attack a person with or without provocation, and it might be against the law to do so, it isn't an assault on your inalienable rights. For instance, if I were to verbally attack you without provocation, it would be silly for you to go runny around saying "my inalienable rights were violated!"
> 
> To discern the difference, one should ask, "What has God's grace given me?"
> 
> God has given us:
> #1 - Life. There is no guarantee to quality of life, just life.
> #2 - Free will.
> 
> That's about it. *Our inalienable rights consist not of what others might or might not do to us, but just what we have control over.* The only person we have control over is ourselves.
> 
> What does the right to life mean? It means we have the right to be alive. This doesn't mean we have the right to medical care to keep us alive or to improve or maintain our quality of life.
> 
> What does free will mean? It means we have the right to pursue happiness (no guarantee we'll BE happy, though); we have the right to express ourselves; we have the right to practice a religion (or not); we have the right to be left alone (a right to privacy, to have our own stuff, to travel freely; to not be searched if we're not doing anything wrong, etc); we have a right to determine the destiny of our own lives within our own abilities (a doctor has a right to practice medicine; a business owner has a right to determine how they practice business even if they make an astounding profit or are so bad they fail). We have the right to the products of our own labor.
> 
> Now here is an important point that is often forgotten when people talk about inalienable rights. For every inalienable right, there is an associated responsibility or duty. For instance, I have a right to reproduce (have children). However, I have an associated duty to support those children. I have a right to express myself but I have an associated duty to convey accurate information so as to not interfere with someone else's rights (don't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater if there is no fire, don't slander others, etc). I have a right to privacy but if a police officer who is investigating criminal activity sees me sitting in a park where that crime occurred and asks me to identify myself, I have a duty to answer reasonable questions to further the investigation (or eliminate me as a suspect and/or witness).
> 
> While I don't have the right to NOT be attacked, I DO have the right to reasonably defend myself if I am attacked. Again, the right to defend myself is balanced by a duty to not exceed the offense. For instance, if someone verbally assaults me, I can verbally defend myself. I can't just up and shoot them.
> 
> The right to life has an associated responsibility to take care of myself to the best of my ability. In short, we have a duty to be good citizens.
> 
> There are all sorts of concepts that people say are inalienable rights but aren't simply because these "rights" depend on someone else doing something:
> * I don't have a right to a job. Instead I have a right to not be discriminated against because of a personal factor that is beyond my control (i.e.: because I'm female or because I'm a different race.)
> * I don't have a right to a place to live. Again, I have a right not to be discriminated against, though.
> * I don't have a right to medical care or even access to medical care because that requires that someone else decides to become a doctor or open a hospital or - heaven forbid - pay my bill. If all the doctors in the world suddenly decided to not practice medicine, that is their right.
> 
> Hope that helps.



So why have people (in many countries) interpreted rights along the philosophy of "Your right to wave your fist around ends where my face begins?"


----------



## Wonky Pundit

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human rights (at least in this discussion) should be considered as completely separate from any nation's laws or anyone's legal rights.
> 
> For example, if you did something to another person or withheld something from them, would people believe that your actions are fundamentally wrong, regardless of what nation you're located in? If the answer is yes, that would be a violation of someone's basic human rights.
> 
> Here's something more literal: people have the right not to be attacked without provocation.
> 
> Obviously there are many more human rights. Which do you consider basic and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your example is not a basic right because people have a right not to be attacked even if they provoke the attack.
Click to expand...


Possibly, but what are you basing that assertion on?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Humans have no "rights" unless they fight for them, pass laws to guarantee them and abide by those laws. 

No human is born with any right unless the humans that came before them fought for those rights.


----------



## dblack

boedicca said:


> Basic human rights all boil down to the same principle:  the right to be left alone.



Indeed. The converse, the 'right' to interfere with others, is what characterizes the bulk of what midcan listed as "FDR's new bill of rights". These kinds of 'rights' are a fundamental perversion of the idea of rights. They are the claim of the bully who would cite his own needs and desires as justification for inflicting violence on others.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

dblack said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basic human rights all boil down to the same principle:  the right to be left alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. The converse, the 'right' to interfere with others, is what characterizes the bulk of what midcan listed as "FDR's new bill of rights". These kinds of 'rights' are a fundamental perversion of the idea of rights. They are the claim of the bully who would cite his own needs and desires as justification for inflicting violence on others.
Click to expand...


Well said.


----------



## boedicca

dblack said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basic human rights all boil down to the same principle:  the right to be left alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. The converse, the 'right' to interfere with others, is what characterizes the bulk of what midcan listed as "FDR's new bill of rights". These kinds of 'rights' are a fundamental perversion of the idea of rights. They are the claim of the bully who would cite his own needs and desires as justification for inflicting violence on others.
Click to expand...




Needs are not Rights.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Luddly Neddite said:


> Humans have no "rights" unless they fight for them, pass laws to guarantee them and abide by those laws.
> 
> No human is born with any right unless the humans that came before them fought for those rights.



So you do not own yourself from birth? You are a material item that must obtain the ability to live through fighting with others.


----------



## Cookie

Wonky Pundit said:


> So why have people (in many countries) interpreted rights along the philosophy of "Your right to wave your fist around ends where my face begins?"



Excuse me? Did you even READ what I wrote. You DO have a right to wave your fist around (free will). If you hit someone else's face, they have a right to defend themselves by hitting you back - or suing you - or some other reasonable reaction that would bring you to your responsibility for interfering when it comes to exercising my free will and pursuit of happiness.

After all, if you hit me in the face - on purpose or accidentally - I am the one who will probably suffer the consequences. You walk away with sore knuckles. I may have to endure time, pain and expense of nose correction surgery or extensive dental procedures.

But then again, you're confused about morals vs laws vs inalienable rights. Not all laws are based on securing our inalienable rights. Some laws are based on the concept of securing civil rights. Oh, I won't go there. If you wonder what civil rights are, you'll just have to do some research on your own.


----------



## Cookie

TakeAStepBack said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans have no "rights" unless they fight for them, pass laws to guarantee them and abide by those laws.
> 
> No human is born with any right unless the humans that came before them fought for those rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you do not own yourself from birth? You are a material item that must obtain the ability to live through fighting with others.
Click to expand...


Indeed, Neddite has hit on what I believe is a key philosophical difference between liberals (progressives?) and conservatives. Progressives believe that "rights" are delivered by a human based source - wars, governments, dictators, popular vote, etc. Conservatives (especially Libertarians) believe that inalienable rights are delivered by only one source ... our Creator.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Cookie said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans have no "rights" unless they fight for them, pass laws to guarantee them and abide by those laws.
> 
> No human is born with any right unless the humans that came before them fought for those rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you do not own yourself from birth? You are a material item that must obtain the ability to live through fighting with others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, Neddite has hit on what I believe is a key philosophical difference between liberals (progressives?) and conservatives. Progressives believe that "rights" are delivered by a human based source - wars, governments, dictators, popular vote, etc. Conservatives (especially Libertarians) believe that inalienable rights are delivered by only one source ... our Creator.
Click to expand...


To some degree I agree. As an agnostic libertarian, I view "creator" in degrees of nature. knowing we're a cognitive being, we can respect each other without intervention. In fact, we're social beings who require it. Violence is antithetical to that reality. So it's usually only the weak in constitution that battle cry about being taken advantage of in a free society.


----------



## dilloduck

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPkd9ZQOtbI]Jerry Butler Only the Strong Survive - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## dblack

Cookie said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans have no "rights" unless they fight for them, pass laws to guarantee them and abide by those laws.
> 
> No human is born with any right unless the humans that came before them fought for those rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you do not own yourself from birth? You are a material item that must obtain the ability to live through fighting with others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, Neddite has hit on what I believe is a key philosophical difference between liberals (progressives?) and conservatives. Progressives believe that "rights" are delivered by a human based source - wars, governments, dictators, popular vote, etc. Conservatives (especially Libertarians) believe that inalienable rights are delivered by only one source ... our Creator.
Click to expand...


Nah.. that whole dispute is really just a matter of semantics. And it has nothing to do with religious belief.

When liberals say that rights are "delivered" by a human based source (government), they're talking about the _protection_ of those rights, not the rights themselves - and in that narrow sense, they are correct. What matters isn't the existence of a right, but your ability to exercise it, and if you can't defend yourself from the thugs, and a government isn't around to defend you from the thugs, your rights are forfeit.

But in the strictest existential sense, rights don't depend on any particular agency protecting them. Which is what the conservatives and libertarians are referring to with 'unalienable'. They're not saying some deity grants them to us; they're saying that freedom is our innate state as thinking creatures - and that we remain free as long as no one else violates our freedom.


----------



## dilloduck

OK--How about a theoretical here. Let's pretend that *poof*... no one has any rights to do anything. Would that change our daily activities one iota ? Nope.


----------



## Cookie

Huh? Please to pretend to speak for conservatives or Libertarians. We are referring to INalienable rights (yes, that is spelled correctly) as rights that are incapable (by definition) to be surrendered or transferred.

These rights exist even if someone or some government violates them.


----------



## dilloduck

Cookie said:


> Huh? Please to pretend to speak for conservatives or Libertarians. We are referring to INalienable rights (yes, that is spelled correctly) as rights that are incapable (by definition) to be surrendered or transferred.
> 
> These rights exist even if someone or some government violates them.



rights are an invention of man. Can you show me one ?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wonky Pundit said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human rights (at least in this discussion) should be considered as completely separate from any nation's laws or anyone's legal rights.
> 
> For example, if you did something to another person or withheld something from them, would people believe that your actions are fundamentally wrong, regardless of what nation you're located in? If the answer is yes, that would be a violation of someone's basic human rights.
> 
> Here's something more literal: people have the right not to be attacked without provocation.
> 
> Obviously there are many more human rights. Which do you consider basic and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your example is not a basic right because people have a right not to be attacked even if they provoke the attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Possibly, but what are you basing that assertion on?
Click to expand...


The fact that people have a right not to be attacked.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> OK--How about a theoretical here. Let's pretend that *poof*... no one has any rights to do anything. Would that change our daily activities one iota ? Nope.



Wrong.

If we did not have the right to think for ourselves and make our own choices we would need to be directed by an external agency in order to accomplish anything. That alone proves that anyone who insists that the only rights we have come from the government is wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Cookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Please to pretend to speak for conservatives or Libertarians. We are referring to INalienable rights (yes, that is spelled correctly) as rights that are incapable (by definition) to be surrendered or transferred.
> 
> These rights exist even if someone or some government violates them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rights are an invention of man. Can you show me one ?
Click to expand...


See my previous post, or explain how the government enables me to think.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK--How about a theoretical here. Let's pretend that *poof*... no one has any rights to do anything. Would that change our daily activities one iota ? Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> If we did not have the right to think for ourselves and make our own choices we would need to be directed by an external agency in order to accomplish anything. That alone proves that anyone who insists that the only rights we have come from the government is wrong.
Click to expand...



You can't prevent someone from thinking. Who are you kidding?


----------



## theDoctorisIn

The term "right" is loaded. It's a subjective term, based on morals.

I prefer to think about it in terms of _will_, not _right_.

The world isn't separated into things that I have a "right" to do, and things I don't have a "right" to do. Just things I decide to do, and things I decide not to do.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK--How about a theoretical here. Let's pretend that *poof*... no one has any rights to do anything. Would that change our daily activities one iota ? Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> If we did not have the right to think for ourselves and make our own choices we would need to be directed by an external agency in order to accomplish anything. That alone proves that anyone who insists that the only rights we have come from the government is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prevent someone from thinking. Who are you kidding?
Click to expand...


Then rights are not human concepts, are they?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

theDoctorisIn said:


> The term "right" is loaded. It's a subjective term, based on morals.
> 
> I prefer to think about it in terms of _will_, not _right_.
> 
> The world isn't separated into things that I have a "right" to do, and things I don't have a "right" to do. Just things I decide to do, and things I decide not to do.



Can you explain the fact that I can think for myself if the only rights I have are based on morals?


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Quantum Windbag said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term "right" is loaded. It's a subjective term, based on morals.
> 
> I prefer to think about it in terms of _will_, not _right_.
> 
> The world isn't separated into things that I have a "right" to do, and things I don't have a "right" to do. Just things I decide to do, and things I decide not to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain the fact that I can think for myself if the only rights I have are based on morals?
Click to expand...


My argument is semantic. I don't define your ability to think for yourself as a "right".

The term "right" implies morality, hence the reason I don't like it.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> If we did not have the right to think for ourselves and make our own choices we would need to be directed by an external agency in order to accomplish anything. That alone proves that anyone who insists that the only rights we have come from the government is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prevent someone from thinking. Who are you kidding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then rights are not human concepts, are they?
Click to expand...


Sure they are. Humans thought them up.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Or did they observe them? We certainly thought (being QW's point), but was it a revelation or an observation?


----------



## dilloduck

TakeAStepBack said:


> Or did they observe them? We certainly thought (being QW's point), but was it a revelation or an observation?



I think more of a feeling. What we call rights today make sure we feel ok.


----------



## dilloduck

Wonky Pundit said:


> Human rights (at least in this discussion) should be considered as completely separate from any nation's laws or anyone's legal rights.
> 
> For example, if you did something to another person or withheld something from them, would *people* believe that your actions are fundamentally wrong, regardless of what nation you're located in? If the answer is yes, that would be a violation of someone's basic human rights.
> 
> Here's something more literal: people have the right not to be attacked without provocation.
> 
> Obviously there are many more human rights. Which do you consider basic and why?



Define "people" in this context.


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> Cookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Please to pretend to speak for conservatives or Libertarians. We are referring to INalienable rights (yes, that is spelled correctly) as rights that are incapable (by definition) to be surrendered or transferred.
> 
> These rights exist even if someone or some government violates them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rights are an invention of man. Can you show me one ?
Click to expand...


Can't you see you're _not_ contradicting each other?


----------



## dilloduck

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? Please to pretend to speak for conservatives or Libertarians. We are referring to INalienable rights (yes, that is spelled correctly) as rights that are incapable (by definition) to be surrendered or transferred.
> 
> These rights exist even if someone or some government violates them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rights are an invention of man. Can you show me one ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can't you see you're _not_ contradicting each other?
Click to expand...


It's a communication issue. I was responding to someone else.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Being capable of thought and decision is the definition of consciousness, not a "right".

Cats can think, too.


----------



## dilloduck

theDoctorisIn said:


> Being capable of thought and decision is the definition of consciousness, not a "right".
> 
> Cats can think, too.



I never claimed even thinking was a right. I just said humans came up with the concept of rights by thinking. Interesting subject tho. Almost like a list of things humans are entitled to.


----------



## Cookie

Aaaaaannnnnndddddddd ...

... this thread dies from incomprehensibility.


----------



## dilloduck

Cookie said:


> Aaaaaannnnnndddddddd ...
> 
> ... this thread dies from incomprehensibility.



please feel free to bail out as opposed to trolling


----------



## Luddly Neddite

This conversation makes me wonder why we bothered to fight our Revolution or either of the two "world" wars.


----------



## dilloduck

Luddly Neddite said:


> This conversation makes me wonder why we bothered to fight our Revolution or either of the two "world" wars.



Who is "we" ? Americans or the whole world of humans ?


----------



## theDoctorisIn

dilloduck said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being capable of thought and decision is the definition of consciousness, not a "right".
> 
> Cats can think, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed even thinking was a right. I just said humans came up with the concept of rights by thinking. Interesting subject tho. Almost like a list of things humans are entitled to.
Click to expand...


I think that QW was making that argument, not you. But you're right, it is a very interesting subject.

I agree with your interpretation. "Rights" in the context of what most people think of them of as are nothing more than a list of things we've decided that people are entitled to.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Cookie said:


> Aaaaaannnnnndddddddd ...
> 
> ... this thread dies from incomprehensibility.



Speak for yourself.


----------



## dilloduck

theDoctorisIn said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being capable of thought and decision is the definition of consciousness, not a "right".
> 
> Cats can think, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed even thinking was a right. I just said humans came up with the concept of rights by thinking. Interesting subject tho. Almost like a list of things humans are entitled to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that QW was making that argument, not you. But you're right, it is a very interesting subject.
> 
> I agree with your interpretation. "Rights" in the context of what most people think of them of as are nothing more than a list of things we've decided that people are entitled to.
Click to expand...


A list of rights would be about as close as it gets to a secular version of a Holy Book. A thing that people would cite as some things that needs to be honored and respected. It would be pretty worthless without the framework that included priorities, authorities, etc.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

dilloduck said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed even thinking was a right. I just said humans came up with the concept of rights by thinking. Interesting subject tho. Almost like a list of things humans are entitled to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that QW was making that argument, not you. But you're right, it is a very interesting subject.
> 
> I agree with your interpretation. "Rights" in the context of what most people think of them of as are nothing more than a list of things we've decided that people are entitled to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A list of rights would be about as close as it gets to a secular version of a Holy Book. A thing that people would cite as some things that needs to be honored and respected. It would be pretty worthless without the framework that included priorities, authorities, etc.
Click to expand...


Agreed - and that doesn't even address how we'd be able to agree as to what "rights" to include on the list.


----------



## dblack

theDoctorisIn said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that QW was making that argument, not you. But you're right, it is a very interesting subject.
> 
> I agree with your interpretation. "Rights" in the context of what most people think of them of as are nothing more than a list of things we've decided that people are entitled to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A list of rights would be about as close as it gets to a secular version of a Holy Book. A thing that people would cite as some things that needs to be honored and respected. It would be pretty worthless without the framework that included priorities, authorities, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed - and that doesn't even address how we'd be able to agree as to what "rights" to include on the list.
Click to expand...


Which is why it's not really saying anything. The question 'what are our rights' - is really asking "which of our rights should we protect with government?" And that requires deliberation. I requires us to consider general questions characterizing which rights we will protect with government, and which rights we won't. What principles should guide us in making the call? If we're not addressing those questions, we're not really getting anywhere.


----------



## Cookie

The question was "what are our basic human rights?" In other words, which rights are inalienable. I answered that in a thoughtful and well reasoned post. The seat-of-our-pants philosophers on the board, though, decided to curse the darkness by shooting out all the light bulbs, though.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Cookie said:


> The question was "what are our basic human rights?" In other words, which rights are inalienable. I answered that in a thoughtful and well reasoned post. The seat-of-our-pants philosophers on the board, though, decided to curse the darkness by shooting out all the light bulbs, though.



We are posting in the Philosophy forum, are we not?


----------



## dblack

Cookie said:


> The question was "what are our basic human rights?" In other words, which rights are inalienable. I answered that in a thoughtful and well reasoned post.



Indeed you did! My apologies for missing it the first time around (and thanks for pointing it out). It was a good read and I agreed with most of it.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

dblack said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> A list of rights would be about as close as it gets to a secular version of a Holy Book. A thing that people would cite as some things that needs to be honored and respected. It would be pretty worthless without the framework that included priorities, authorities, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed - and that doesn't even address how we'd be able to agree as to what "rights" to include on the list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why it's not really saying anything. The question 'what are our rights' - is really asking "which of our rights should we protect with government?" And that requires deliberation. I requires us to consider general questions characterizing which rights we will protect with government, and which rights we won't. What principles should guide us in making the call? If we're not addressing those questions, we're not really getting anywhere.
Click to expand...


Where do you expect to "get"?


----------



## dblack

theDoctorisIn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed - and that doesn't even address how we'd be able to agree as to what "rights" to include on the list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why it's not really saying anything. The question 'what are our rights' - is really asking "which of our rights should we protect with government?" And that requires deliberation. I requires us to consider general questions characterizing which rights we will protect with government, and which rights we won't. What principles should guide us in making the call? If we're not addressing those questions, we're not really getting anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you expect to "get"?
Click to expand...


Somewhat closer to a useful answer to the question.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prevent someone from thinking. Who are you kidding?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then rights are not human concepts, are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure they are. Humans thought them up.
Click to expand...


No we didn't, animals enforce them with each other.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

dblack said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why it's not really saying anything. The question 'what are our rights' - is really asking "which of our rights should we protect with government?" And that requires deliberation. I requires us to consider general questions characterizing which rights we will protect with government, and which rights we won't. What principles should guide us in making the call? If we're not addressing those questions, we're not really getting anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you expect to "get"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somewhat closer to a useful answer to the question.
Click to expand...


What is "useful", in this context?

How would we "use" this answer?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

theDoctorisIn said:


> Being capable of thought and decision is the definition of consciousness, not a "right".
> 
> Cats can think, too.



Are you saying you do not have a right to think for yourself?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

theDoctorisIn said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being capable of thought and decision is the definition of consciousness, not a "right".
> 
> Cats can think, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed even thinking was a right. I just said humans came up with the concept of rights by thinking. Interesting subject tho. Almost like a list of things humans are entitled to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that QW was making that argument, not you. But you're right, it is a very interesting subject.
> 
> I agree with your interpretation. "Rights" in the context of what most people think of them of as are nothing more than a list of things we've decided that people are entitled to.
Click to expand...


That is because most people have the ridiculous idea that rights come from government.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Quantum Windbag said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being capable of thought and decision is the definition of consciousness, not a "right".
> 
> Cats can think, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying you do not have a right to think for yourself?
Click to expand...


Yes. I don't have a "right" to think for myself.

I have the ability to think for myself.


----------



## dblack

theDoctorisIn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you expect to "get"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhat closer to a useful answer to the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is "useful", in this context?
> 
> How would we "use" this answer?
Click to expand...


Well, a previous assertion was that our basic human rights is essentially a list of things we're entitled to. But that leaves unanswered the more pressing question of which freedoms belong on that list. The point is to discern general principles which can be used to decide which freedoms are basic human rights.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

dblack said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhat closer to a useful answer to the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is "useful", in this context?
> 
> How would we "use" this answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, a previous assertion was that our basic human rights is essentially a list of things we're entitled to. But that leaves unanswered the more pressing question of which freedoms belong on that list. The point is to discern general principles which can be used to decide which freedoms are basic human rights.
Click to expand...


Perhaps that's _your_ point. It doesn't really interest me as much.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Sallow said:


> There are no "rights", inherently.
> 
> Your rights are defined by whatever government you live under..



One can argue that certain rights are inherent but the sad truth is the ONLY rights you have are those you can enforce or are granted by the State you live in.

That is why the right to be armed is so crucial.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Quantum Windbag said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed even thinking was a right. I just said humans came up with the concept of rights by thinking. Interesting subject tho. Almost like a list of things humans are entitled to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that QW was making that argument, not you. But you're right, it is a very interesting subject.
> 
> I agree with your interpretation. "Rights" in the context of what most people think of them of as are nothing more than a list of things we've decided that people are entitled to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because most people have the ridiculous idea that rights come from government.
Click to expand...


REALITY is that if you can not enforce the supposed right or have it enforced via Government, you do not have said supposed right.

I am sure all those people robbed murdered and violated by Gangs in our inner cities would be interested in how they have rights that preclude that from happening.

The most important "right" one should work towards is the right to self defense and the "right" to own firearms and other weapons.


----------



## dblack

RetiredGySgt said:


> REALITY is that if you can not enforce the supposed right or have it enforced via Government, you do not have said supposed right.





Quantum Windbag said:


> That is because most people have the ridiculous idea that rights come from government.



I hate seeing this. I can't quite drop the observation that these two positions are simply talking past each other. 

When liberals say that rights are meaningless without government, they're not (usually) saying that government _grants_ us our freedoms. They're just looking at it from a pragmatic point of view - they're focused on the question who how your rights will be secured (typically through government). To them, the concept of 'God-given' rights is just so much religious hand waving.

Likewise, when conservatives speak of rights being inalienable (religious people will refer to this as 'God given') they're not making a mystical claim. They're simply noting that freedom is the default state of living humans - and that we remain free up to the point that others would coerce us. In that event our freedom is violated and forfeit. They see the government as, essentially, a servant hired by the people to protect our freedoms - freedoms that we claim as our own; not as something granted to us by government, but something we invoke government to protect.


----------



## dblack

theDoctorisIn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is "useful", in this context?
> 
> How would we "use" this answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, a previous assertion was that our basic human rights is essentially a list of things we're entitled to. But that leaves unanswered the more pressing question of which freedoms belong on that list. The point is to discern general principles which can be used to decide which freedoms are basic human rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps that's _your_ point. It doesn't really interest me as much.
Click to expand...


What interests you about the question?


----------



## theDoctorisIn

dblack said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, a previous assertion was that our basic human rights is essentially a list of things we're entitled to. But that leaves unanswered the more pressing question of which freedoms belong on that list. The point is to discern general principles which can be used to decide which freedoms are basic human rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that's _your_ point. It doesn't really interest me as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What interests you about the question?
Click to expand...


The definition of the term "rights".


----------



## RetiredGySgt

dblack said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALITY is that if you can not enforce the supposed right or have it enforced via Government, you do not have said supposed right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is because most people have the ridiculous idea that rights come from government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate seeing this. I can't quite drop the observation that these two positions are simply talking past each other.
> 
> When liberals say that rights are meaningless without government, they're not (usually) saying that government _grants_ us our freedoms. They're just looking at it from a pragmatic point of view - they're focused on the question who how your rights will be secured (typically through government). To them, the concept of 'God-given' rights is just so much religious hand waving.
> 
> Likewise, when conservatives speak of rights being inalienable (religious people will refer to this as 'God given') they're not making a mystical claim. They're simply noting that freedom is the default state of living humans - and that we remain free up to the point that others would coerce us. At that our freedom is violated and forfeit. They see the government as, essentially, a servant hired by the people to protect our freedoms - freedoms that we claim as our own; not as something granted to us by government, but something we invoke government to protect.
Click to expand...


I am far right in most of my political beliefs. You are ignoring reality when you claim you have a right to anything. Reality is that unless you or some other THING or person, can protect your supposed rights, they simply do not exist. Name any supposed right that is inalienable. And I will explain why that simply is not true with out the force to protect the supposed right.

Do I believe certain rights MUST be granted and protected? Absolutely. Either through my ability to guard it or through the aspics of the Government or group I am a part of.

Go to any Inner City hell hole in this Country especially after dark and see what rights you have with out a cop on the street corner or you being armed.


----------



## dblack

theDoctorisIn said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps that's _your_ point. It doesn't really interest me as much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What interests you about the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The definition of the term "rights".
Click to expand...


Fair enough. Base on the OP intro, I've been posting on the assumption that the topic line was a typo - that it actually meant to ask "What are [our] basic human rights?" rather than "What _are_ basic human rights?". Maybe I presumed too much.


----------



## boedicca

theDoctorisIn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being capable of thought and decision is the definition of consciousness, not a "right".
> 
> Cats can think, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying you do not have a right to think for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. I don't have a "right" to think for myself.
> 
> I have the ability to think for myself.
Click to expand...



You are a very pathetic person.

SRSLY


----------



## theDoctorisIn

boedicca said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying you do not have a right to think for yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I don't have a "right" to think for myself.
> 
> I have the ability to think for myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a very pathetic person.
> 
> SRSLY
Click to expand...


LOL OMG ROLFMAO

Care to contribute anything more than that?


----------



## dblack

RetiredGySgt said:


> I am far right in most of my political beliefs.


ok



> You are ignoring reality when you claim you have a right to anything. Reality is that unless you or some other THING or person, can protect your supposed rights, they simply do not exist.



Well, that's at the heart of the equivocation going on here. You seem to be defining right as a 'protected freedom' - and a 'protected freedom' doesn't exist if someone isn't protecting it. The alternative view is just looking at a 'right' as a freedom. Whether it is protected, or not, is another question. It's really two sides of the same coin. You're just confining the concept of rights to those freedoms we have chosen to protect. The other view is looking at rights as raw freedoms, freedoms that we then choose to protect or not.

Both views end up at the same place, and face the same question: which freedoms should we protect, and why?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

theDoctorisIn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being capable of thought and decision is the definition of consciousness, not a "right".
> 
> Cats can think, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying you do not have a right to think for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. I don't have a "right" to think for myself.
> 
> I have the ability to think for myself.
Click to expand...


You also have the ability to breathe on your own, do you need the government's permission to do that? If the government grants rights where does your ability to live come from?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RetiredGySgt said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that QW was making that argument, not you. But you're right, it is a very interesting subject.
> 
> I agree with your interpretation. "Rights" in the context of what most people think of them of as are nothing more than a list of things we've decided that people are entitled to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because most people have the ridiculous idea that rights come from government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REALITY is that if you can not enforce the supposed right or have it enforced via Government, you do not have said supposed right.
> 
> I am sure all those people robbed murdered and violated by Gangs in our inner cities would be interested in how they have rights that preclude that from happening.
> 
> The most important "right" one should work towards is the right to self defense and the "right" to own firearms and other weapons.
Click to expand...


That is not the reality. You are confusing my ability to defend my rights with the fact that they exist. The fact that governments routinely take people's rights, and that they have to fight for those rights, does not mean that they do not have them. They still have the right to fight for that right, even if everyone in the world disagrees with them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALITY is that if you can not enforce the supposed right or have it enforced via Government, you do not have said supposed right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is because most people have the ridiculous idea that rights come from government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate seeing this. I can't quite drop the observation that these two positions are simply talking past each other.
> 
> When liberals say that rights are meaningless without government, they're not (usually) saying that government _grants_ us our freedoms. They're just looking at it from a pragmatic point of view - they're focused on the question who how your rights will be secured (typically through government). To them, the concept of 'God-given' rights is just so much religious hand waving.
> 
> Likewise, when conservatives speak of rights being inalienable (religious people will refer to this as 'God given') they're not making a mystical claim. They're simply noting that freedom is the default state of living humans - and that we remain free up to the point that others would coerce us. In that event our freedom is violated and forfeit. They see the government as, essentially, a servant hired by the people to protect our freedoms - freedoms that we claim as our own; not as something granted to us by government, but something we invoke government to protect.
Click to expand...


I am not referring to people that argue that the only reason we have rights is because the government protects them. I disagree with those people on a fundamental level, but at least they understand that rights exist outside the government. I am referring to the people who argue that rights only exist when a government hands them out, those people who think governments are fundamental to the entire existence of rights. According to some people you do not have the right to disagree with the government even when it kills people to make room for new parking lots.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

RetiredGySgt said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALITY is that if you can not enforce the supposed right or have it enforced via Government, you do not have said supposed right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is because most people have the ridiculous idea that rights come from government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate seeing this. I can't quite drop the observation that these two positions are simply talking past each other.
> 
> When liberals say that rights are meaningless without government, they're not (usually) saying that government _grants_ us our freedoms. They're just looking at it from a pragmatic point of view - they're focused on the question who how your rights will be secured (typically through government). To them, the concept of 'God-given' rights is just so much religious hand waving.
> 
> Likewise, when conservatives speak of rights being inalienable (religious people will refer to this as 'God given') they're not making a mystical claim. They're simply noting that freedom is the default state of living humans - and that we remain free up to the point that others would coerce us. At that our freedom is violated and forfeit. They see the government as, essentially, a servant hired by the people to protect our freedoms - freedoms that we claim as our own; not as something granted to us by government, but something we invoke government to protect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am far right in most of my political beliefs. You are ignoring reality when you claim you have a right to anything. Reality is that unless you or some other THING or person, can protect your supposed rights, they simply do not exist. Name any supposed right that is inalienable. And I will explain why that simply is not true with out the force to protect the supposed right.
> 
> Do I believe certain rights MUST be granted and protected? Absolutely. Either through my ability to guard it or through the aspics of the Government or group I am a part of.
> 
> Go to any Inner City hell hole in this Country especially after dark and see what rights you have with out a cop on the street corner or you being armed.
Click to expand...


Let me point out that, by saying you can fight for rights, you are actually agreeing with me that rights exist outside of government. Slaves everywhere have the right to fight for freedom even when it is illegal for them to do so. They may choose not to, or die in the process, but the right itself exists even if they do not use it.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Quantum Windbag said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying you do not have a right to think for yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I don't have a "right" to think for myself.
> 
> I have the ability to think for myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You also have the ability to breathe on your own, do you need the government's permission to do that? If the government grants rights where does your ability to live come from?
Click to expand...


"Rights" are _figments_. 

I don't need a _right to free speech_ to speak my mind, just the ability to do so.

I have the _ability_ to live, and I will continue to do so until nature, accident, or another person takes that _ability_ away from me. Whatever the government defines as a "right" at the time won't change that.


----------



## dilloduck

Quantum Windbag said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is because most people have the ridiculous idea that rights come from government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REALITY is that if you can not enforce the supposed right or have it enforced via Government, you do not have said supposed right.
> 
> I am sure all those people robbed murdered and violated by Gangs in our inner cities would be interested in how they have rights that preclude that from happening.
> 
> The most important "right" one should work towards is the right to self defense and the "right" to own firearms and other weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the reality. You are confusing my ability to defend my rights with the fact that they exist. the fact that governments routinely take people's rights, and that they have to fight for those rights, does not mean that they do not have them.
Click to expand...


Government is merely one tool we can use to defend rights if we ever define them. We can defend our own rights or even the rights of family and friends. Others can take away which is probably our most basic right and that is to life. They still remain a human invention and without a definition we don't know if we have the ability to exercise them or if we are being deprived of them in some manner.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

theDoctorisIn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I don't have a "right" to think for myself.
> 
> I have the ability to think for myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also have the ability to breathe on your own, do you need the government's permission to do that? If the government grants rights where does your ability to live come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Rights" are _figments_.
> 
> I don't need a _right to free speech_ to speak my mind, just the ability to do so.
> 
> I have the _ability_ to live, and I will continue to do so until nature, accident, or another person takes that _ability_ away from me. Whatever the government defines as a "right" at the time won't change that.
Click to expand...


Let me get this straight, if the government decided tomorrow that slavery was legal, and the courts agree, and they made you a slave, you would not have any right to fight back.

If you say you agree with that I will call you a liar.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALITY is that if you can not enforce the supposed right or have it enforced via Government, you do not have said supposed right.
> 
> I am sure all those people robbed murdered and violated by Gangs in our inner cities would be interested in how they have rights that preclude that from happening.
> 
> The most important "right" one should work towards is the right to self defense and the "right" to own firearms and other weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the reality. You are confusing my ability to defend my rights with the fact that they exist. the fact that governments routinely take people's rights, and that they have to fight for those rights, does not mean that they do not have them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government is merely one tool we can use to defend rights if we ever define them. We can defend our own rights or even the rights of family and friends. Others can take away which is probably our most basic right and that is to life. They still remain a human invention and without a definition we don't know if we have the ability to exercise them or if we are being deprived of them in some manner.
Click to expand...


The only way government can exist is if it takes away the rights of people. Until you understand that simple truth you really have no idea what government, or rights, really are.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Quantum Windbag said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You also have the ability to breathe on your own, do you need the government's permission to do that? If the government grants rights where does your ability to live come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Rights" are _figments_.
> 
> I don't need a _right to free speech_ to speak my mind, just the ability to do so.
> 
> I have the _ability_ to live, and I will continue to do so until nature, accident, or another person takes that _ability_ away from me. Whatever the government defines as a "right" at the time won't change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight, if the government decided tomorrow that slavery was legal, and the courts agree, and they made you a slave, you would not have any right to fight back.
> 
> If you say you agree with that I will call you a liar.
Click to expand...


If that happened, I would fight as hard and as long as I was able to. I wouldn't need a "right" to do so, I just would do it, until I was free, or I died.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Luddly Neddite said:


> Humans have no "rights" unless they fight for them, pass laws to guarantee them and abide by those laws.
> 
> No human is born with any right unless the humans that came before them fought for those rights.



That is the exact opposite of the premise of our constitution


----------



## midcan5

Life in a republic, aka American democracy, is not a zero sum game my right wing friends. No one is pressuring you to give anyone anything. You agree as a citizen to responsibilities within the framework of our nation. You have ever right to your Walmart wages, your trailer, your ten kids and Friday night bowling. Should you be lucky, you have a right to your split level, two kids, and Friday night cocktail parties by the pool with friends. But maybe 'right' doesn't fit into my less serious reply, maybe instead stop thinking that if another has a decent wage, a good job, that somehow includes you. Consider your broadly useless abstractions such as freedom, free markets, and other such nonsense, then consider FDR's bill of rights as an example of goals that are at least grounded in reality, and goals that worked till the seventies and eighties in America. But again I am busy today so I leave you whiners on the right with this food for thought. I like the quotes. 

Edit of old thread.

Four woman live in two different countries, one country is a democracy and the second a totalitarian nation. The woman believe that they live in nation which grants them certain rights. That value is written into the governing documents of each country. These rights include individual freedom separated from any coercion. One day the two woman from the democracy decide to go on vacation. One woman buys her ticket and gets on a plane to Bermuda. The other woman has limited resources and when she gets to the airport is told she cannot board the plane without sufficient funds. Finally after much dispute she is arrested and thrown into a state jail. 

One day the two woman in the totalitarian state decide to travel abroad. One works in government and gains permission to go to Bermuda. The other woman checks with her local commissioner and is told she cannot travel to Bermuda. Travel to Bermuda is not allowed. She disputes the decision and is soon thrown into a state jail. Two woman exercised their right, two couldn't, yet all held the same value. Each woman had individual rights, yet in each case those rights were dependent on other factors. If our rights are dependent on so many extraneous items, how is it we claim any rights at all? 

My reply below. You answer first. 

What value does a concept of individual rights have if any action at all is dependent on exterior factors? There is no such thing as a right, for in order to have a right certain conditions must be meet. Rights come within a context, without context a right is meaningless fantasy useless except as rhetorical flourish or apologetic rational. 

Who decides when rights collide? 
Did slave owners have the right to own slaves?
Did slaves have rights? 
Do women have the right to control their family decisions?
Do gay people have the right to marry? 
If an unborn child has a right to life does it then have a right to support?
Does a child have a right to proper nutrition? Education?
Do you have the right to impose your religious beliefs on others?
What gives you that right?
Does your labor grant you any rights? 
Does the fact your labor and perks only exist because you live in America grant you special rights? 


"Between equal rights, force decides." Marx

"No one talks more passionately about his rights than he who in the depths of his soul doubts whether he has any." Friedrich Nietzsche 

"A man has a right not to be insulted in front of his children."  President Lyndon Johnson 'the moral necessity of the 1964 Civil Rights Act'

"Rights are just (tastes) emotions without rational thought'  Bentham paraphrase

_


----------



## TakeAStepBack

dblack said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am far right in most of my political beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring reality when you claim you have a right to anything. Reality is that unless you or some other THING or person, can protect your supposed rights, they simply do not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's at the heart of the equivocation going on here. You seem to be defining right as a 'protected freedom' - and a 'protected freedom' doesn't exist if someone isn't protecting it. The alternative view is just looking at a 'right' as a freedom. Whether it is protected, or not, is another question. It's really two sides of the same coin. You're just confining the concept of rights to those freedoms we have chosen to protect. The other view is looking at rights as raw freedoms, freedoms that we then choose to protect or not.
> 
> Both views end up at the same place, and face the same question: which freedoms should we protect, and why?
Click to expand...


And that whole argument goes up in smoke when you acknowledge that individuals protect their own rights whether a third party is involved or not.


----------



## dilloduck

TakeAStepBack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am far right in most of my political beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring reality when you claim you have a right to anything. Reality is that unless you or some other THING or person, can protect your supposed rights, they simply do not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's at the heart of the equivocation going on here. You seem to be defining right as a 'protected freedom' - and a 'protected freedom' doesn't exist if someone isn't protecting it. The alternative view is just looking at a 'right' as a freedom. Whether it is protected, or not, is another question. It's really two sides of the same coin. You're just confining the concept of rights to those freedoms we have chosen to protect. The other view is looking at rights as raw freedoms, freedoms that we then choose to protect or not.
> 
> Both views end up at the same place, and face the same question: which freedoms should we protect, and why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that whole argument goes up in smoke when you acknowledge that individuals protect their own rights whether a third party is involved or not.
Click to expand...


We as individuals can enter into contracts or agreements that define what we are referring here to as basic rights and work together to exercise these rights and remove anything that stands in the way of us exercising these rights. We really don't need to explain where the rights were derived from because we ourselves just invented them and treat them as priorities.
Let say one of the rights that we invent is the right to be free from hunger. In order to benefit from this right we need food. Who is responsible for our food if not ourselves ? If it is not ourselves we are then making someone else responsible for providing us with nourishment. Besides having the right to be free from hunger to we also have the right to force others to provide us with food ?
Again I suggest that any right that depends on others to defend and provide is nothing more than a self declared entitlement. Our right to be free of hunger is a condition that is our individual responsibility to create.


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> Let say one of the rights that we invent is the right to be free from hunger. In order to benefit from this right we need food. Who is responsible for our food if not ourselves ? If it is not ourselves we are then making someone else responsible for providing us with nourishment. Besides having the right to be free from hunger to we also have the right to force others to provide us with food ?
> Again I suggest that *any right that depends on others to defend and provide is nothing more than a self declared entitlement*. Our right to be free of hunger is a condition that is our individual responsibility to create.



Exactly. You're drawing the crucial distinction between inalienable rights and 'self declared entitlements'. The whole point of calling out the protection of inalienable rights (freedoms that exist whether someone 'provides' them for you or not) as the goal of government is meant to distinguish them from entitlements. 

The argument usually turns around efforts to extend the concept of "basic human rights" to include entitlements. But the two concepts are in direct opposition. To the extent that government ensures entitlements, it is violating inalienable rights.


----------



## editec

Human might make human right.

Everything else is pure delusion.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

editec said:


> Human might make human right.
> 
> Everything else is pure delusion.



Nonsense.


----------



## Sallow

Skull Pilot said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no "rights", inherently.
> 
> Your rights are defined by whatever government you live under..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Government is based on unalienable rights inseparable from each person, so they do exist by your reasoning.
Click to expand...


The question of "rights" comes into play after a government establishes itself. And that basically means getting things up and running.

While that is happening those "unalienable" rights generally are meaningless.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Sallow said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no "rights", inherently.
> 
> Your rights are defined by whatever government you live under..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Government is based on unalienable rights inseparable from each person, so they do exist by your reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question of "rights" comes into play after a government establishes itself. And that basically means getting things up and running.
> 
> While that is happening those "unalienable" rights generally are meaningless.
Click to expand...


SO you have no right to life except for when a government, comprised of other humans, tells you so?

So if that group of humans decides that only people blue eyed and blonde haired, above 5 ft.  in.7 can live, everyone else has no right to life and can be exterminated?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Sallow said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no "rights", inherently.
> 
> Your rights are defined by whatever government you live under..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Government is based on unalienable rights inseparable from each person, so they do exist by your reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question of "rights" comes into play after a government establishes itself. And that basically means getting things up and running.
> 
> While that is happening those "unalienable" rights generally are meaningless.
Click to expand...


Actually the concept of unalienable rights predates our constitution and therefore our government.

As you know the term was used in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was written around this concept not the reverse.


----------



## dblack

Sallow said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no "rights", inherently.
> 
> Your rights are defined by whatever government you live under..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Government is based on unalienable rights inseparable from each person, so they do exist by your reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question of "rights" comes into play after a government establishes itself. And that basically means getting things up and running.
> 
> While that is happening those "unalienable" rights generally are meaningless.
Click to expand...


Once again, the point of "unalienable" rights isn't existential. It doesn't matter where such rights 'come from'. It's just a classification to distinguish them from entitlements. Unalienable rights are those freedoms which require no active participation from others. You have the right to free speech, for example, even if no one is listening. A supposed 'right to health care', on the other hand, is different. Without someone to provide you with health care, it's meaningless.

Liberals are preoccupied with how rights will be protected, but that question only matters after we decide what rights to protect in the first place. The 'unalienable' distinction is meant to clarify the kinds of rights government should protect.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

theDoctorisIn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Rights" are _figments_.
> 
> I don't need a _right to free speech_ to speak my mind, just the ability to do so.
> 
> I have the _ability_ to live, and I will continue to do so until nature, accident, or another person takes that _ability_ away from me. Whatever the government defines as a "right" at the time won't change that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight, if the government decided tomorrow that slavery was legal, and the courts agree, and they made you a slave, you would not have any right to fight back.
> 
> If you say you agree with that I will call you a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that happened, I would fight as hard and as long as I was able to. I wouldn't need a "right" to do so, I just would do it, until I was free, or I died.
Click to expand...


You are correct that you wouldn't need the right because you already have it. You were born with it, which is why you are willing to fight, and die, in order to have it.

Thanks for making my point.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Quantum Windbag said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight, if the government decided tomorrow that slavery was legal, and the courts agree, and they made you a slave, you would not have any right to fight back.
> 
> If you say you agree with that I will call you a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that happened, I would fight as hard and as long as I was able to. I wouldn't need a "right" to do so, I just would do it, until I was free, or I died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct that you wouldn't need the right because you already have it. You were born with it, which is why you are willing to fight, and die, in order to have it.
> 
> Thanks for making my point.
Click to expand...


I think a more accurate statement would be that you missed my point.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> Life in a republic, aka American democracy, is not a zero sum game my right wing friends. No one is pressuring you to give anyone anything. You agree as a citizen to responsibilities within the framework of our nation. You have ever right to your Walmart wages, your trailer, your ten kids and Friday night bowling. Should you be lucky, you have a right to your split level, two kids, and Friday night cocktail parties by the pool with friends. But maybe 'right' doesn't fit into my less serious reply, maybe instead stop thinking that if another has a decent wage, a good job, that somehow includes you. Consider your broadly useless abstractions such as freedom, free markets, and other such nonsense, then consider FDR's bill of rights as an example of goals that are at least grounded in reality, and goals that worked till the seventies and eighties in America. But again I am busy today so I leave you whiners on the right with this food for thought. I like the quotes.



You like quotes because you know that when you try to post without them, like you just did, you end up contradicting yourself and sounding like an idiot.

Living in a republic has nothing to do with whatever point you are trying to make. Unless you can show me something that I signed, or verbally agreed to, you cannot argue I agreed to something just because I was born in this country. You would be offended if I told you that you agreed to defend the US, right or wrong, simply because you were born here, stop trying to pretend that me being born here imposes obligations on me, especially when you try to pretend that those obligations don't cost me anything.

In the real world if you have a right to a house someone has to build it. That costs resources, and the end result is that there is zero net gain in utility. The fact that the cost of that house is spread across multiple people while it only benefits one person does not change the fact that it is a zero sum transaction. Unless you understand that you are not basing anything in reality.



midcan5 said:


> Edit of old thread.
> 
> Four woman live in two different countries, one country is a democracy and the second a totalitarian nation. The woman believe that they live in nation which grants them certain rights. That value is written into the governing documents of each country. These rights include individual freedom separated from any coercion. One day the two woman from the democracy decide to go on vacation. One woman buys her ticket and gets on a plane to Bermuda. The other woman has limited resources and when she gets to the airport is told she cannot board the plane without sufficient funds. Finally after much dispute she is arrested and thrown into a state jail.
> 
> One day the two woman in the totalitarian state decide to travel abroad. One works in government and gains permission to go to Bermuda. The other woman checks with her local commissioner and is told she cannot travel to Bermuda. Travel to Bermuda is not allowed. She disputes the decision and is soon thrown into a state jail. Two woman exercised their right, two couldn't, yet all held the same value. Each woman had individual rights, yet in each case those rights were dependent on other factors. If our rights are dependent on so many extraneous items, how is it we claim any rights at all?



What? 

Two women traveled to Bermuda by paying for the service provided in different coin of value to the system they were constrained to work within. The other two women expected other people to hand them things because they, like you, were deluded and believed that life in whatever system they lived in was not a zero sum game. Every single one of the women exercised her rights, even the two that ended up in jail.

Go back to a real school and pay attention.



midcan5 said:


> My reply below. You answer first.
> 
> What value does a concept of individual rights have if any action at all is dependent on exterior factors? There is no such thing as a right, for in order to have a right certain conditions must be meet. Rights come within a context, without context a right is meaningless fantasy useless except as rhetorical flourish or apologetic rational.



Let me get this straight. The two women who ended up in jail because they expected other people to provide services to them did not have rights because they didn't get what they wanted? That is not what rights are about, rights exist outside of economic or political systems, not because of them. The fact that governments exist to deny people rights does not change the fact that people have them.



midcan5 said:


> Who decides when rights collide?
> Did slave owners have the right to own slaves?
> Did slaves have rights?
> Do women have the right to control their family decisions?
> Do gay people have the right to marry?
> If an unborn child has a right to life does it then have a right to support?
> Does a child have a right to proper nutrition? Education?
> Do you have the right to impose your religious beliefs on others?
> What gives you that right?
> Does your labor grant you any rights?
> Does the fact your labor and perks only exist because you live in America grant you special rights?
> 
> 
> "Between equal rights, force decides." Marx
> 
> "No one talks more passionately about his rights than he who in the depths of his soul doubts whether he has any." Friedrich Nietzsche
> 
> "A man has a right not to be insulted in front of his children."  President Lyndon Johnson 'the moral necessity of the 1964 Civil Rights Act'
> 
> "Rights are just (tastes) emotions without rational thought'  Bentham paraphrase
> 
> _



Like I said, you like quotes because it you think it makes you look smart, even though you use quotes that contradict your point.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

editec said:


> Human might make human right.
> 
> Everything else is pure delusion.



That means that I could bring a few friends, move into your house, throw you in a hole in the ground, and let you eat roots and insects, and you would have no grounds to complain about it. since you clearly disagree with that, you really don't believe the drivel you are posting anymore than TheDoctor believes that he doesn't have a right to not be a slave.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Sallow said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no "rights", inherently.
> 
> Your rights are defined by whatever government you live under..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Government is based on unalienable rights inseparable from each person, so they do exist by your reasoning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question of "rights" comes into play after a government establishes itself. And that basically means getting things up and running.
> 
> While that is happening those "unalienable" rights generally are meaningless.
Click to expand...


That would mean that no one in Syria has any rights, and that Obama is wrong for picking sides.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

theDoctorisIn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that happened, I would fight as hard and as long as I was able to. I wouldn't need a "right" to do so, I just would do it, until I was free, or I died.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct that you wouldn't need the right because you already have it. You were born with it, which is why you are willing to fight, and die, in order to have it.
> 
> Thanks for making my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think a more accurate statement would be that you missed my point.
Click to expand...


Your point is that you don't have rights, but intend to fight the government anyway. That makes you a lying sack of shit, insane, or both.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Quantum Windbag said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct that you wouldn't need the right because you already have it. You were born with it, which is why you are willing to fight, and die, in order to have it.
> 
> Thanks for making my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think a more accurate statement would be that you missed my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your point is that you don't have rights, but intend to fight the government anyway. That makes you a lying sack of shit, insane, or both.
Click to expand...


Again, you attach a value to the term "rights" that I do not.

I do not need a "right" to do something to be able to do it. No one would argue that I have the "right" to murder someone, but I certainly have the ability to do so.

"Rights" exist as nothing more than rules created by man that _limit_ ability.


----------



## Wonky Pundit

TakeAStepBack said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not have the right to someone elses services or their property.
> 
> Jeebus, you're about as bright as a burnt out lightbulb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was as bright as a burnt out lightbulb?
> 
> So do you want to enlighten us about what basic human rights are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, FDR was a central planning reject that fucked up far more than he ever "fixed".
> 
> Basic human rights.
> 
> The right to life free of coercion from others.
> The right to pursue interests free from coercion.
> The right to voluntary exchange without coercion.
> The right to private property.
Click to expand...


What do you consider coercion? If you're living under the jurisdiction of ANY government, you're bound to wake up one day and discover that there's a law on the books that requires you to do something that you don't feel like doing that day. (Or that prohibits you from doing something you'd like to do that day.) Is this "coercion?"


----------



## Wonky Pundit

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your example is not a basic right because people have a right not to be attacked even if they provoke the attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly, but what are you basing that assertion on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that people have a right not to be attacked.
Click to expand...


Circular reasoning. 

And if you say "No it isn't" you'll be proving me right.


----------



## Wonky Pundit

dilloduck said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Human rights (at least in this discussion) should be considered as completely separate from any nation's laws or anyone's legal rights.
> 
> For example, if you did something to another person or withheld something from them, would *people* believe that your actions are fundamentally wrong, regardless of what nation you're located in? If the answer is yes, that would be a violation of someone's basic human rights.
> 
> Here's something more literal: people have the right not to be attacked without provocation.
> 
> Obviously there are many more human rights. Which do you consider basic and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define "people" in this context.
Click to expand...


Any collection of random adults, each of whom has been made familiar with your individual situation and can decide for themselves whether your actions are fundamentally right or wrong.


----------



## Wonky Pundit

Luddly Neddite said:


> This conversation makes me wonder why we bothered to fight our Revolution or either of the two "world" wars.



That's an easy one. Money!


----------



## Wonky Pundit

dblack said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> What interests you about the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of the term "rights".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fair enough. Base on the OP intro, I've been posting on the assumption that the topic line was a typo - that it actually meant to ask "What are [our] basic human rights?" rather than "What _are_ basic human rights?". Maybe I presumed too much.
Click to expand...


The headline asks the latter question, and the body of the OP asks both. IMO, both questions are important and worthy of discussion on this thread.


----------



## Wonky Pundit

dilloduck said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's at the heart of the equivocation going on here. You seem to be defining right as a 'protected freedom' - and a 'protected freedom' doesn't exist if someone isn't protecting it. The alternative view is just looking at a 'right' as a freedom. Whether it is protected, or not, is another question. It's really two sides of the same coin. You're just confining the concept of rights to those freedoms we have chosen to protect. The other view is looking at rights as raw freedoms, freedoms that we then choose to protect or not.
> 
> Both views end up at the same place, and face the same question: which freedoms should we protect, and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that whole argument goes up in smoke when you acknowledge that individuals protect their own rights whether a third party is involved or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We as individuals can enter into contracts or agreements that define what we are referring here to as basic rights and work together to exercise these rights and remove anything that stands in the way of us exercising these rights. We really don't need to explain where the rights were derived from because we ourselves just invented them and treat them as priorities.
> Let say one of the rights that we invent is the right to be free from hunger. In order to benefit from this right we need food. Who is responsible for our food if not ourselves ? If it is not ourselves we are then making someone else responsible for providing us with nourishment. Besides having the right to be free from hunger to we also have the right to force others to provide us with food ?
> Again I suggest that any right that depends on others to defend and provide is nothing more than a self declared entitlement. *Our right to be free of hunger is a condition that is our individual responsibility to create.*
Click to expand...


Why does it necessarily have to be an individual responsibility? Why couldn't it, at least in theory, be a collective one?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Wonky Pundit said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was as bright as a burnt out lightbulb?
> 
> So do you want to enlighten us about what basic human rights are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, FDR was a central planning reject that fucked up far more than he ever "fixed".
> 
> Basic human rights.
> 
> The right to life free of coercion from others.
> The right to pursue interests free from coercion.
> The right to voluntary exchange without coercion.
> The right to private property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you consider coercion? If you're living under the jurisdiction of ANY government, you're bound to wake up one day and discover that there's a law on the books that requires you to do something that you don't feel like doing that day. (Or that prohibits you from doing something you'd like to do that day.) Is this "coercion?"
Click to expand...


Yes, that's coercion. And yes, government, by its very existence, is simply a monopoly on the use of force and violence. Similar to, if not identical to, any other protection/extortion racket.


----------



## dblack

Wonky Pundit said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that whole argument goes up in smoke when you acknowledge that individuals protect their own rights whether a third party is involved or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We as individuals can enter into contracts or agreements that define what we are referring here to as basic rights and work together to exercise these rights and remove anything that stands in the way of us exercising these rights. We really don't need to explain where the rights were derived from because we ourselves just invented them and treat them as priorities.
> Let say one of the rights that we invent is the right to be free from hunger. In order to benefit from this right we need food. Who is responsible for our food if not ourselves ? If it is not ourselves we are then making someone else responsible for providing us with nourishment. Besides having the right to be free from hunger to we also have the right to force others to provide us with food ?
> Again I suggest that any right that depends on others to defend and provide is nothing more than a self declared entitlement. *Our right to be free of hunger is a condition that is our individual responsibility to create.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it necessarily have to be an individual responsibility? Why couldn't it, at least in theory, be a collective one?
Click to expand...


Are you asking why we can't ensure entitlements with government, as well as inalienable rights? My answer would be that the two goals contradict each other. In order to ensure entitlements, government must violate our rights.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

theDoctorisIn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think a more accurate statement would be that you missed my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is that you don't have rights, but intend to fight the government anyway. That makes you a lying sack of shit, insane, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you attach a value to the term "rights" that I do not.
> 
> I do not need a "right" to do something to be able to do it. No one would argue that I have the "right" to murder someone, but I certainly have the ability to do so.
> 
> "Rights" exist as nothing more than rules created by man that _limit_ ability.
Click to expand...


Not true. You want to pretend that the word rights doesn't really mean anything, and then insist that you will fight for the thing that you don't want to use the word rights to describe.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wonky Pundit said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly, but what are you basing that assertion on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that people have a right not to be attacked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Circular reasoning.
> 
> And if you say "No it isn't" you'll be proving me right.
Click to expand...


If you want to counter my argument with something other than "Because I don't like the fact that you are right," Feel free.


----------



## Wonky Pundit

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that people have a right not to be attacked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circular reasoning.
> 
> And if you say "No it isn't" you'll be proving me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want to counter my argument with something other than "Because I don't like the fact that you are right," Feel free.
Click to expand...


I already did.


----------



## Wonky Pundit

dblack said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as individuals can enter into contracts or agreements that define what we are referring here to as basic rights and work together to exercise these rights and remove anything that stands in the way of us exercising these rights. We really don't need to explain where the rights were derived from because we ourselves just invented them and treat them as priorities.
> Let say one of the rights that we invent is the right to be free from hunger. In order to benefit from this right we need food. Who is responsible for our food if not ourselves ? If it is not ourselves we are then making someone else responsible for providing us with nourishment. Besides having the right to be free from hunger to we also have the right to force others to provide us with food ?
> Again I suggest that any right that depends on others to defend and provide is nothing more than a self declared entitlement. *Our right to be free of hunger is a condition that is our individual responsibility to create.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it necessarily have to be an individual responsibility? Why couldn't it, at least in theory, be a collective one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you asking why we can't ensure entitlements with government, as well as inalienable rights? My answer would be that the two goals contradict each other. In order to ensure entitlements, government must violate our rights.
Click to expand...


I think government can ensure both, if not fully then at least at an optimal balance. 

Tell me, which rights MUST a government violate in order to ensure any entitlement?


----------



## Wonky Pundit

TakeAStepBack said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, FDR was a central planning reject that fucked up far more than he ever "fixed".
> 
> Basic human rights.
> 
> The right to life free of coercion from others.
> The right to pursue interests free from coercion.
> The right to voluntary exchange without coercion.
> The right to private property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider coercion? If you're living under the jurisdiction of ANY government, you're bound to wake up one day and discover that there's a law on the books that requires you to do something that you don't feel like doing that day. (Or that prohibits you from doing something you'd like to do that day.) Is this "coercion?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's coercion. And yes, government, by its very existence, is simply a monopoly on the use of force and violence. Similar to, if not identical to, any other protection/extortion racket.
Click to expand...


Then unless you're a criminal, or a hermit on a tropical island that no nation claims, you're going to be coerced by government, just like practically everyone else on the planet. It seems like you hope for rights that can't possibly function in a large community.


----------



## dilloduck

Wonky Pundit said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that whole argument goes up in smoke when you acknowledge that individuals protect their own rights whether a third party is involved or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We as individuals can enter into contracts or agreements that define what we are referring here to as basic rights and work together to exercise these rights and remove anything that stands in the way of us exercising these rights. We really don't need to explain where the rights were derived from because we ourselves just invented them and treat them as priorities.
> Let say one of the rights that we invent is the right to be free from hunger. In order to benefit from this right we need food. Who is responsible for our food if not ourselves ? If it is not ourselves we are then making someone else responsible for providing us with nourishment. Besides having the right to be free from hunger to we also have the right to force others to provide us with food ?
> Again I suggest that any right that depends on others to defend and provide is nothing more than a self declared entitlement. *Our right to be free of hunger is a condition that is our individual responsibility to create.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does it necessarily have to be an individual responsibility? Why couldn't it, at least in theory, be a collective one?
Click to expand...


let me put it this way--if I want to satisfy my right to be fed I'm going to get my own food as opposed to waiting for the collective to do it. Creating a right doesn't ensure any action will be taken.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wonky Pundit said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Circular reasoning.
> 
> And if you say "No it isn't" you'll be proving me right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to counter my argument with something other than "Because I don't like the fact that you are right," Feel free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already did.
Click to expand...


The only response to any of my posts in this thread was this absurd argument that I am arguing in circles. You never once dealt with the simple fact that, even if you provoke me, I do not have the right to assault you. All you have left is pretending you actually did address it, and then hoping I will sputter incoherently.

How's that working?


----------



## dblack

Wonky Pundit said:


> Tell me, which rights MUST a government violate in order to ensure any entitlement?



The most fundamental of all of them: the right to be left alone. Entitlements, by definition, require the service of others. Government can't guarantee an entitlement without forcing someone to provide it.


----------



## Wonky Pundit

dblack said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, which rights MUST a government violate in order to ensure any entitlement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most fundamental of all of them: the right to be left alone. Entitlements, by definition, require the service of others. Government can't guarantee an entitlement without forcing someone to provide it.
Click to expand...


Government can always pay someone to provide the entitlement, which doesn't seem to be the equivalent of "forcing" them.


----------



## Wonky Pundit

dilloduck said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as individuals can enter into contracts or agreements that define what we are referring here to as basic rights and work together to exercise these rights and remove anything that stands in the way of us exercising these rights. We really don't need to explain where the rights were derived from because we ourselves just invented them and treat them as priorities.
> Let say one of the rights that we invent is the right to be free from hunger. In order to benefit from this right we need food. Who is responsible for our food if not ourselves ? If it is not ourselves we are then making someone else responsible for providing us with nourishment. Besides having the right to be free from hunger to we also have the right to force others to provide us with food ?
> Again I suggest that any right that depends on others to defend and provide is nothing more than a self declared entitlement. *Our right to be free of hunger is a condition that is our individual responsibility to create.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it necessarily have to be an individual responsibility? Why couldn't it, at least in theory, be a collective one?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> let me put it this way--i*f I want to satisfy my right to be fed I'm going to get my own food as opposed to waiting for the collective to do it*. Creating a right doesn't ensure any action will be taken.
Click to expand...


That's your choice. It doesn't follow that the collective can't have such responsibility. 

At any rate, the OP has never been about "what rights require action and from whom?" Only what rights are included in the "fundamental" category.


----------



## dilloduck

Wonky Pundit said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it necessarily have to be an individual responsibility? Why couldn't it, at least in theory, be a collective one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> let me put it this way--i*f I want to satisfy my right to be fed I'm going to get my own food as opposed to waiting for the collective to do it*. Creating a right doesn't ensure any action will be taken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's your choice. It doesn't follow that the collective can't have such responsibility.
> 
> At any rate, the OP has never been about "what rights require action and from whom?" Only what rights are included in the "fundamental" category.
Click to expand...


easy answer. None. Humans have no rights whatever UNLESS you wanna add some conditions to the equation.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wonky Pundit said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, which rights MUST a government violate in order to ensure any entitlement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most fundamental of all of them: the right to be left alone. Entitlements, by definition, require the service of others. Government can't guarantee an entitlement without forcing someone to provide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government can always pay someone to provide the entitlement, which doesn't seem to be the equivalent of "forcing" them.
Click to expand...


Do they use magic money for that, or do they get it the normal way, taking it by force from people?


----------



## dblack

Wonky Pundit said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me, which rights MUST a government violate in order to ensure any entitlement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most fundamental of all of them: the right to be left alone. Entitlements, by definition, require the service of others. Government can't guarantee an entitlement without forcing someone to provide it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government can always pay someone to provide the entitlement, which doesn't seem to be the equivalent of "forcing" them.
Click to expand...


LOL

Ok. I thought you were serious.


----------



## boedicca

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most fundamental of all of them: the right to be left alone. Entitlements, by definition, require the service of others. Government can't guarantee an entitlement without forcing someone to provide it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government can always pay someone to provide the entitlement, which doesn't seem to be the equivalent of "forcing" them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they use magic money for that, or do they get it the normal way, taking it by force from people?
Click to expand...



Lectric M'noply Moneys!


----------



## midcan5

Reading the replies it is as if a whole segment of America lives in lalaland, and rights are only about entitlements. Entitlements are variously defined as taxes, welfare, or other assumed distributive policies. Why debate rights at all? There's only one, 'get what you can, when you can, where you can.' A 'you are entitled, you are not' logic that forgets how we arrive at the place we arrive at. The focus of the wingnuts and their partners, the libertarians, is one that can be summed up as a narcissistic worldview that assumes the benefits they possess, aka rights(?), are creations of their own will. It assumes they arrived at this point in time through some magical fantasy in which all of existence came into being with their birth and is examined and justified by their current worldview. Consider that none of them ever build a road, made a car, a computer, or even a garden, and you see that they fail to see their own dependency on what they oddly call a collective. Left alone on a island their ideas would remain as useless as they are in the real world. Their world is a childish social construction of privileged choir boys. 

And of course no one answered my questions? I added a few. 

Who decides when rights collide? 
Did slave owners have the right to own slaves?
Did slaves have rights? 
Do women have the right to control their family decisions?
Do gay people have the right to marry? 
Who defines these rights? 
Do rights change with time? Culture? Religion? 
If an unborn child has a right to life does it then have a right to support?
Isn't intervening in the right to life granting entitlement and creating a right?
If cells have rights think of that the next time you....?
Do the animals have any rights? Explain? 
If rights are fundamental how does a child learn them? 
Does a child have a right to proper nutrition? Education? If no, why?
Does an orphaned child have a right to proper nutrition? Education? If no, why?
Don't rights follow from certain preconditions? 
Do rights fit all humans regardless of age and abilities? 
Do handicapped people have a right to access? Explain?
Do you have the right to impose your religious beliefs on others?
What gives you that right?
Does your labor grant you any rights? 
Is there a right for pornography?
Do you have a right to safe working conditions? Why? 
Does the fact your labor and perks only exist because you live in America grant you any special rights? Or do you consider your rights universal universal rights? 
Consider how many die in America over gun rights?
If a person has a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness does that include more than words?


----------



## dilloduck

midcan5 said:


> Reading the replies it is as if a whole segment of America lives in lalaland, and rights are only about entitlements. Entitlements are variously defined as taxes, welfare, or other assumed distributive policies. Why debate rights at all? There's only one, 'get what you can, when you can, where you can.' A 'you are entitled, you are not' logic that forgets how we arrive at the place we arrive at. The focus of the wingnuts and their partners, the libertarians, is one that can be summed up as a narcissistic worldview that assumes the benefits they possess, aka rights(?), are creations of their own will. It assumes they arrived at this point in time through some magical fantasy in which all of existence came into being with their birth and is examined and justified by their current worldview. Consider that none of them ever build a road, made a car, a computer, or even a garden, and you see that they fail to see their own dependency on what they oddly call a collective. Left alone on a island their ideas would remain as useless as they are in the real world. Their world is a childish social construction of privileged choir boys.
> 
> And of course no one answered my questions? I added a few.
> 
> Who decides when rights collide?
> Did slave owners have the right to own slaves?
> Did slaves have rights?
> Do women have the right to control their family decisions?
> Do gay people have the right to marry?
> Who defines these rights?
> Do rights change with time? Culture? Religion?
> If an unborn child has a right to life does it then have a right to support?
> Isn't intervening in the right to life granting entitlement and creating a right?
> If cells have rights think of that the next time you....?
> Do the animals have any rights? Explain?
> If rights are fundamental how does a child learn them?
> Does a child have a right to proper nutrition? Education? If no, why?
> Does an orphaned child have a right to proper nutrition? Education? If no, why?
> Don't rights follow from certain preconditions?
> Do rights fit all humans regardless of age and abilities?
> Do handicapped people have a right to access? Explain?
> Do you have the right to impose your religious beliefs on others?
> What gives you that right?
> Does your labor grant you any rights?
> Is there a right for pornography?
> Do you have a right to safe working conditions? Why?
> Does the fact your labor and perks only exist because you live in America grant you any special rights? Or do you consider your rights universal universal rights?
> Consider how many die in America over gun rights?
> If a person has a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness does that include more than words?



I answered them all. Humans have no rights.


----------



## westwall

theDoctorisIn said:


> The term "right" is loaded. It's a subjective term, based on morals.
> 
> I prefer to think about it in terms of _will_, not _right_.
> 
> The world isn't separated into things that I have a "right" to do, and things I don't have a "right" to do. Just things I decide to do, and things I decide not to do.







Untrue, Rights are based on ethics, not morals.  Morals change through time, ethics don't.


----------



## MDiver

Basic human rights are a western concept and thus, if you were to go to a communist nation or Islamic nation, basic human rights would differ.  In Islamic nations, your rights extend only as far as Sharia religious law would allow.  If you were in a strictly Communist nation such as North Korea, your rights would be limited to the whim of its dictator.
So, if you say all humans have certain definitive rights, you can only speak of those nations that are in concurrence with your stance.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> Reading the replies it is as if a whole segment of America lives in lalaland, and rights are only about entitlements. Entitlements are variously defined as taxes, welfare, or other assumed distributive policies. Why debate rights at all? There's only one, 'get what you can, when you can, where you can.' A 'you are entitled, you are not' logic that forgets how we arrive at the place we arrive at. The focus of the wingnuts and their partners, the libertarians, is one that can be summed up as a narcissistic worldview that assumes the benefits they possess, aka rights(?), are creations of their own will. It assumes they arrived at this point in time through some magical fantasy in which all of existence came into being with their birth and is examined and justified by their current worldview. Consider that none of them ever build a road, made a car, a computer, or even a garden, and you see that they fail to see their own dependency on what they oddly call a collective. Left alone on a island their ideas would remain as useless as they are in the real world. Their world is a childish social construction of privileged choir boys.
> 
> And of course no one answered my questions? I added a few.



I love the way you accuse people of not answering your questions when you don't even address the points they make. Nonetheless, I will humor you. Once I have you will see why you are better off if people keep ignoring your questions.

Who decides when rights collide? 
How do rights collide? Does my right to criticize the government prevent you from criticizing the government? Is it remotely possible that you assume that my right to shelter conflicts with your right to keep me out of your house? Wouldn't that make the point that I don't actually have a right to shelter?

Did slave owners have the right to own slaves?
Excuse me? Where, other than in your fantasies, has anyone here argued that slavery is a right? Aren't the people you trying to mock the same people that insist that rights do not come from the government? 

Did slaves have rights? 
Yes.

Do women have the right to control their family decisions?
Do men have the right to kill women that disagree with them? 

Do gay people have the right to marry? 
Marriage is a religious rite, not a right. They may sound the same, but they are completely different.

Who defines these rights? 
People do not define rights, rights define people.

Do rights change with time? Culture? Religion? 
No.

If an unborn child has a right to life does it then have a right to support?
What do you mean by support?

Isn't intervening in the right to life granting entitlement and creating a right?
Huh?

If cells have rights think of that the next time you....?
If cells do not have rights think about the next time you piss me off.

Do the animals have any rights? Explain? 
Yes. Rights exist outside of whether we like them or not, and exist as a result of life, so every living thing has rights.

If rights are fundamental how does a child learn them? 
How does a child learn to breathe?

Does a child have a right to proper nutrition? Education? If no, why?
Define proper nutrition and education. 

Does an orphaned child have a right to proper nutrition? Education? If no, why?
Why would rights change because someone else died?

Don't rights follow from certain preconditions? 
Yes, life.

Do rights fit all humans regardless of age and abilities? 
Is there a reason they wouldn't?

Do handicapped people have a right to access? Explain?
Access to what? 

Do you have the right to impose your religious beliefs on others?
Define impose.

What gives you that right?
What right?

Does your labor grant you any rights? 
Does my labor grant you rights? Didn't think so.

Is there a right for pornography?
Define pornography.

Do you have a right to safe working conditions? Why? 
Define safe working conditions.

Does the fact your labor and perks only exist because you live in America grant you any special rights? Or do you consider your rights universal universal rights?
What gives you the idea that my labor would suddenly disappear because of an imaginary line? do you seriously believe that you would live longer simply because you cross something you cannot see?

Consider how many die in America over gun rights?
Consider how many people died, and continue to die, to be free from tyranny. Why are you arguing they have no right to do so?

If a person has a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness does that include more than words?
You are the one that thinks imaginary lines make a difference, you tell me.


----------



## dilloduck

MDiver said:


> Basic human rights are a western concept and thus, if you were to go to a communist nation or Islamic nation, basic human rights would differ.  In Islamic nations, your rights extend only as far as Sharia religious law would allow.  If you were in a strictly Communist nation such as North Korea, your rights would be limited to the whim of its dictator.
> So, if you say all humans have certain definitive rights, you can only speak of those nations that are in concurrence with your stance.



We don't have much choice other than to live with the restrictions that society places on us. We can push the limits but cross the line and you are penalized. So when in Rome..... 
Basic innate rights tho ?  Nada.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term "right" is loaded. It's a subjective term, based on morals.
> 
> I prefer to think about it in terms of _will_, not _right_.
> 
> The world isn't separated into things that I have a "right" to do, and things I don't have a "right" to do. Just things I decide to do, and things I decide not to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue, Rights are based on ethics, not morals.  Morals change through time, ethics don't.
Click to expand...


Damn, that was ignorant.

If you live in a time and place where slavery is legal the proper ethical response to an escaped slave is to call the authorities so they can contact the owner and let him know where to pick up his property. The proper moral response would be to help the slave escape. On the other hand, if you live in a time and place where slavery is legal the proper ethical response would be to call the authorities and report the fact that someone was illegally keeping a slave, the proper moral response would remain the same, help the slave escape.


----------



## westwall

Quantum Windbag said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term "right" is loaded. It's a subjective term, based on morals.
> 
> I prefer to think about it in terms of _will_, not _right_.
> 
> The world isn't separated into things that I have a "right" to do, and things I don't have a "right" to do. Just things I decide to do, and things I decide not to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue, Rights are based on ethics, not morals.  Morals change through time, ethics don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, that was ignorant.
> 
> If you live in a time and place where slavery is legal the proper ethical response to an escaped slave is to call the authorities so they can contact the owner and let him know where to pick up his property. The proper moral response would be to help the slave escape. On the other hand, if you live in a time and place where slavery is legal the proper ethical response would be to call the authorities and report the fact that someone was illegally keeping a slave, the proper moral response would remain the same, help the slave escape.
Click to expand...






Wrong.  It is NEVER ethical to own another person.  It is never ethical to murder someone.
It is never ethical to steal from someone.  The golden rule is the basis of ethics.
It _can_ be morally correct based on your culture however....you know "cultural relativism" and all that.  Ethics don't change, morals do.


----------



## dilloduck

According to Tomas Paul and Linda Elder of the Foundation for Critical Thinking, "most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs and the law", and don't treat ethics as a stand-alone concept.[2] Paul and Elder define ethics as "a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures".[2] The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word ethics is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group or individual."[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics


----------



## dilloduck

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue, Rights are based on ethics, not morals.  Morals change through time, ethics don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, that was ignorant.
> 
> If you live in a time and place where slavery is legal the proper ethical response to an escaped slave is to call the authorities so they can contact the owner and let him know where to pick up his property. The proper moral response would be to help the slave escape. On the other hand, if you live in a time and place where slavery is legal the proper ethical response would be to call the authorities and report the fact that someone was illegally keeping a slave, the proper moral response would remain the same, help the slave escape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It is NEVER ethical to own another person.  It is never ethical to murder someone.
> It is never ethical to steal from someone.  The golden rule is the basis of ethics.
> It _can_ be morally correct based on your culture however....you know "cultural relativism" and all that.  Ethics don't change, morals do.
Click to expand...


Are you claiming absolutes now ?  Who invented these ethics of yours?


----------



## westwall

dilloduck said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, that was ignorant.
> 
> If you live in a time and place where slavery is legal the proper ethical response to an escaped slave is to call the authorities so they can contact the owner and let him know where to pick up his property. The proper moral response would be to help the slave escape. On the other hand, if you live in a time and place where slavery is legal the proper ethical response would be to call the authorities and report the fact that someone was illegally keeping a slave, the proper moral response would remain the same, help the slave escape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It is NEVER ethical to own another person.  It is never ethical to murder someone.
> It is never ethical to steal from someone.  The golden rule is the basis of ethics.
> It _can_ be morally correct based on your culture however....you know "cultural relativism" and all that.  Ethics don't change, morals do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming absolutes now ?  Who invented these ethics of yours?
Click to expand...






Do unto others.........   I'll let you fill in the remainder.  No religion necessary, cavemen probably felt that they would like to be treated like they treated others....

That's your foundation of ethics.


----------



## dilloduck

westwall said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It is NEVER ethical to own another person.  It is never ethical to murder someone.
> It is never ethical to steal from someone.  The golden rule is the basis of ethics.
> It _can_ be morally correct based on your culture however....you know "cultural relativism" and all that.  Ethics don't change, morals do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming absolutes now ?  Who invented these ethics of yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do unto others.........   I'll let you fill in the remainder.  No religion necessary, cavemen probably felt that they would like to be treated like they treated others....
> 
> That's your foundation of ethics.
Click to expand...


I don't buy that for a second. They were too damn busy trying to survive. Cooperating with each other for protection and division of labor was lovely but I bet ya nickel that smartest and the strongest got the most.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue, Rights are based on ethics, not morals.  Morals change through time, ethics don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, that was ignorant.
> 
> If you live in a time and place where slavery is legal the proper ethical response to an escaped slave is to call the authorities so they can contact the owner and let him know where to pick up his property. The proper moral response would be to help the slave escape. On the other hand, if you live in a time and place where slavery is legal the proper ethical response would be to call the authorities and report the fact that someone was illegally keeping a slave, the proper moral response would remain the same, help the slave escape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It is NEVER ethical to own another person.  It is never ethical to murder someone.
> It is never ethical to steal from someone.  The golden rule is the basis of ethics.
> It _can_ be morally correct based on your culture however....you know "cultural relativism" and all that.  Ethics don't change, morals do.
Click to expand...


The ethical man is off the hook because he doesn't own the slave, he is just following the rules, the moral man will do what is right.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dilloduck said:


> According to Tomas Paul and Linda Elder of the Foundation for Critical Thinking, "most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs and the law", and don't treat ethics as a stand-alone concept.[2] Paul and Elder define ethics as "a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures".[2] The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word ethics is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group or individual."[3]
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics



Morals are about the individual, ethics are defined by society.



> The difference between ethics and morals can seem somewhat arbitrary  to many, but there is a basic, albeit subtle, difference. Morals define  personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those  morals are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes  of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs. This  could be national ethics, social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics,  or even family ethics. So while a persons moral code is usually  unchanging, the ethics he or she practices can be other-dependent.
> When considering the difference between ethics and morals, it may be helpful to consider a criminal defense lawyer.  Though the lawyers personal moral code likely finds murder immoral and  reprehensible, ethics demand the accused client be defended as  vigorously as possible, even when the lawyer knows the party is guilty  and that a freed defendant would potentially lead to more crime. Legal ethics  must override personal morals for the greater good of upholding a  justice system in which the accused are given a fair trial and the  prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
> The prosecution and court must also deal with the difference  between ethics and morals. In some cases past actions of the accused  might resonate with the current charge, but are kept out of evidence so  as not to prejudice the jury. In a sense, the prosecutor lies by  omission in representing the case, never revealing the prejudicial  evidence. The same prosecutor, however, would likely find it  reprehensible to fail to tell a friend if her date had a potentially  dangerous or suspect history.



What is the Difference Between Ethics and Morals?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

westwall said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It is NEVER ethical to own another person.  It is never ethical to murder someone.
> It is never ethical to steal from someone.  The golden rule is the basis of ethics.
> It _can_ be morally correct based on your culture however....you know "cultural relativism" and all that.  Ethics don't change, morals do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you claiming absolutes now ?  Who invented these ethics of yours?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do unto others.........   I'll let you fill in the remainder.  No religion necessary, cavemen probably felt that they would like to be treated like they treated others....
> 
> That's your foundation of ethics.
Click to expand...


That is a moral code, not an ethical one. The ethical way to phrase the golden rule would be "Do unto others as society expects them to do unto you."


----------



## dilloduck

Either way---rules to try to manage behavior with. It makes some one the final arbiter of someone else's behavior  and that determines if we are free to do what we feel like doing without being punished. The golden rule is pretty but a far cry from how life really works.


----------



## midcan5

dilloduck said:


> I answered them all. Humans have no rights.



That does not answer any of the questions. Substitute agent and action and tell us how an action of one person is resolved when in conflict with another. Let's assume these agents don't agree with you and they consider their action OK - a right in the simplest sense. (I agree with you on another level)

I like loud music, it calms me, my neighbor likes quiet. Who resolves this rights's conflict. [No simple answers, I can think of them myself.] See link below too. 

===

QW, this is why you never understand my threads or posts, you do what most everyone does, you answer your interpretation of the question not the (my) question. 



> Who decides when rights collide?
> 
> How do rights collide? Does my right to criticize the government prevent you from criticizing the government? Is it remotely possible that you assume that my right to shelter conflicts with your right to keep me out of your house? Wouldn't that make the point that I don't actually have a right to shelter?
> 
> Did slave owners have the right to own slaves?
> Excuse me? Where, other than in your fantasies, has anyone here argued that slavery is a right? Aren't the people you trying to mock the same people that insist that rights do not come from the government?



Where is your right to shelter written?  Sounds like you are big on welfare and entitlements, would not those rights(?) follow too if shelter is a right?  Rights collide constantly, see music example above and link below. 

I asked did they have a 'right,' many argued they did based both on religion and on the assumption that blacks were inferior to whites. Check John C. Calhoun for instance, he argued the southern states had this right. Slaves were to be submissive, similar to women. If slaves had rights, do you really think they would remain slaves? or submissive? 

*No, men do not, but I did not ask that, you did. Not relevant. You did not answer. Your replies are bizarre, 'rights define people?' Where is the magic fountain of rights?  You need to do better you are making little sense here. *

====

I disagree with this dichotomy of morals and ethics. Lawyers can withdraw from cases, but the lawyer's role is to do the best they can for the defendant within the limits of moral guidelines. Do not lie or tamper with evidence, for instance. No defendant is going to say they are guilty, now defend me. The assumption of innocence holds. I may come back to this. 

'On Conflict of Human Rights' >>> http://law.unh.edu/assets/images/uploads/publications/pierce-law-review-vol05-no1-xu-wilson.pdf

Defend the guilty. >>> http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/sith_colloquium_asimow_michael.pdf


----------



## longknife

IMHO, one has the right to live peacefully in one's home doing whatever they wish - as long as it does not negatively affect anyone outside of their home.

One has the right to travel about without fear and the ability to protect themselves from harm.

One has the right to say anything they wish as long as it does not affect the SAFETY of others.

There are many more but this is all I can come up with off the top of my head.


----------



## dblack

longknife said:


> IMHO, one has the right to live peacefully in one's home doing whatever they wish - as long as it does not negatively affect anyone outside of their home.
> 
> One has the right to travel about without fear and the ability to protect themselves from harm.
> 
> One has the right to say anything they wish as long as it does not affect the SAFETY of others.
> 
> There are many more but this is all I can come up with off the top of my head.



That's a good start.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> QW, this is why you never understand my threads or posts, you do what most everyone does, you answer your interpretation of the question not the (my) question.



The reason I do not understand your posts is they are not based in reality. You post about historical facts that are demonstrably false, and never acknowledge that I educated you on the facts. You then post things like this:



midcan5 said:


> Rights are impossible to assess once we proceed  past certain obvious homilies. Of course we should not attack another  without reason, but too often reason hasn't anything to do with  behavior. Consider only the utopian idea that the enlightenment would  bring forth the end of religious persecution and create a just society  based on reason. Then read history. I don't have a lot of time right  now, but I'll return, meanwhile I debated rights in link below and  include FDR and the universal rights as points of interest.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan.html
> 
> *FDR's new bill of rights*
> 
> 'In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident.  We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new  basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless  of station, race, or creed.'
> 
> Among these are:
> The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
> The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
> The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
> The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an  atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by  monopolies at home or abroad;
> The right of every family to a decent home;
> The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
> The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
> The right to a good education.
> All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be  prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new  goals of human happiness and well-being.
> 
> Read more: FDR?s Second Bill of Rights
> 
> *The universal rights*
> 
> 'Preamble: Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal  and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the  foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world'
> 
> Human Rights 50th Anniversary / Universal Declaration
> 
> '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.'
> 
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights


 And then pretend that I support entitlements when I point out the only logical conclusion it is possible to draw if you think that those are rights.

Do you plan on ever learning how to think, or do you want to go to your grave known as the pseudo-intellectual quote master?



midcan5 said:


> Who decides when rights collide?
> 
> How do rights collide? Does my right to criticize the government prevent you from criticizing the government? Is it remotely possible that you assume that my right to shelter conflicts with your right to keep me out of your house? Wouldn't that make the point that I don't actually have a right to shelter?
> 
> Did slave owners have the right to own slaves?
> Excuse me? Where, other than in your fantasies, has anyone here argued that slavery is a right? Aren't the people you trying to mock the same people that insist that rights do not come from the government?
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your right to shelter written?
Click to expand...


That's the fracking point, idiot, no one has a right to shelter. They have a right to obtain shelter through work, or begging, or simply wander around in the elements. They do not have a right to force other people to supply them with shelter, that is slavery.



midcan5 said:


> Sounds like you are big on welfare and entitlements, would not those rights(?) follow too if shelter is a right?  Rights collide constantly, see music example above and link below.



Rights never collide. The music example is not a collision of rights, it is a collision of idiocy. 



midcan5 said:


> I asked did they have a 'right,' many argued they did based both on religion and on the assumption that blacks were inferior to whites. Check John C. Calhoun for instance, he argued the southern states had this right. Slaves were to be submissive, similar to women. If slaves had rights, do you really think they would remain slaves? or submissive?



What you did is assume that someone  attempt to rationalize away the existence of rights somehow justifies you doing the same thing. You then used that argument to ask a question that is not based in reality, and you then expect other people to accept your faulty premise as the truth, and act accordingly.

My refusal to accept a false reality in no way proves I am stupid. You really need to work harder on dealing with the real world, and ask real questions.



midcan5 said:


> *No, men do not, but I did not ask that, you did. Not relevant. You did not answer. Your replies are bizarre, 'rights define people?' Where is the magic fountain of rights?  You need to do better you are making little sense here. *



Who isn't making sense where? Did you tenuous connection to reality completely snap? Are you arguing with the voices in your head? 



midcan5 said:


> I disagree with this dichotomy of morals and ethics. Lawyers can withdraw from cases, but the lawyer's role is to do the best they can for the defendant within the limits of moral guidelines. Do not lie or tamper with evidence, for instance. No defendant is going to say they are guilty, now defend me. The assumption of innocence holds. I may come back to this.



Tough fucking shit. I disagree with the dichotomy of choosing between security and safety, that does not mean that I am going to pretend it is not a real choice, and actually insist that it is possible to make a choice in that area. I just refuse to let other people do it for me. You should go ask a lawyer why it is ethically, and morally, wrong to only defend a client within the limits of his moral guidelines. 

FYI, there would be nothing wrong with a client telling a lawyer he is guilty, and then asking the lawyer to defend him anyway. A rather simple example of this would be a protestor who chains himself to a tree in order to save a spotted owl nest. 

You won't come back to this because you never come back to anything once I have proven that you are wrong.


----------



## midcan5

This discussion is never ending. I think people confuse right with ability rather than actuality, potential rather than reality. Rights are fluid things that change with time and place. This is often the point of departure in discussion. Some imagine rights as natural, I disagree, for rights have changed too much, even during my short existence. And if a right is an entitlement to something, what good is a right if there is no possibility. My questions above still remain unanswered. 


'Right. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process, or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include various freedoms, protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property, civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts, natural rights accepted by civilized societies, human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor, and such American constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. 2) adj. just, fair, correct. (See: civil rights, marital rights)'  right legal definition of right. right synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


"Human rights are based on the principle of respect for the individual. Their fundamental assumption is that each person is a moral and rational being who deserves to be treated with dignity. They are called human rights because they are universal. Whereas nations or specialized groups enjoy specific rights that apply only to them, human rights are the rights to which everyone is entitled&#8212;no matter who they are or where they live&#8212;simply because they are alive.

*Yet many people, when asked to name their rights, will list only freedom of speech and belief and perhaps one or two others. There is no question these are important rights, but the full scope of human rights is very broad. They mean choice and opportunity. They mean the freedom to obtain a job, adopt a career, select a partner of one&#8217;s choice and raise children. They include the right to travel widely and the right to work gainfully without harassment, abuse and threat of arbitrary dismissal. They even embrace the right to leisure.

In ages past, there were no human rights. Then the idea emerged that people should have certain freedoms. And that idea, in the wake of World War II, resulted finally in the document called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the thirty rights to which all people are entitled."* Definition of Human Rights Video | What Are Human Rights? : United for Human Rights


"Human rights are basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, language, or other status.

Human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life, liberty and freedom of expression; and social, cultural and economic rights including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, and the right to work and receive an education.  Human rights are protected and upheld by international and national laws and treaties." Human Rights Basics | Amnesty International USA


----------



## Unkotare

"Human Rights" have become anyone's subjective political view or pet issue. Another term rendered empty and meaningless by repeated abuse.


----------



## dilloduck

Unkotare said:


> "Human Rights" have become anyone's subjective political view or pet issue. Another term rendered empty and meaningless by repeated abuse.



Human rights are a fantasy. We don't have any. You know how folks claim that religion was invented by man and is the "opiate of the masses". Human rights are the secular version of the exact same thing. Nice feel good things to give people a false sense of security.


----------



## dblack

I'm always a little curious about the motivation of claims that "rights are fantasy". Is the aim to discourage people from thinking about government in terms of 'rights'? Is it to convince them that their rights are merely privileges granted to them by government? Do you see something misguided, or perhaps threatening, in the 'human rights' worldview? What is 'myth' do you believe you are dispelling by declaring rights non-existent?


----------



## dilloduck

dblack said:


> I'm always a little curious about the motivation of claims that "rights are fantasy". Is the aim to discourage people from thinking about government in terms of 'rights'? Is it to convince them that their rights are merely privileges granted to them by government? Do you see something misguided, or perhaps threatening, in the 'human rights' worldview? What is 'myth' do you believe you are dispelling by declaring rights non-existent?



None of the above. It's simply to restate the truth. Government or no government. What people are referring to as rights is more like a proclamation of things that they want to do without being restricted by any individual or group. Rights are like calling "times out" in a child's game and claiming an exemption from life's realities. Every human "right" is an invention to place a restriction on anything that gets in our way of doing whatever we want.


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> Every human "right" is an invention to place a restriction on anything that gets in our way of doing whatever we want.



Exactly! That's closer to accurate definition of 'rights' than most anything else in this thread. But how is that a 'fantasy'?


----------



## dilloduck

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every human "right" is an invention to place a restriction on anything that gets in our way of doing whatever we want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! That's closer to accurate definition of 'rights' than most anything else in this thread. But how is that a 'fantasy'?
Click to expand...


Because we don't have the power to restrict everything that gets in our way.


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every human "right" is an invention to place a restriction on anything that gets in our way of doing whatever we want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! That's closer to accurate definition of 'rights' than most anything else in this thread. But how is that a 'fantasy'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we don't have the power to restrict everything that gets in our way.
Click to expand...


Whether we have the power to perfectly protect rights has no bearing on whether they exist or not. They exist if we say they do. We protect them if we wish to protect them. How is that a 'fantasy'?

I think I'm just not seeing your point of view at all. Are you focusing on the semantic/origin debate - ie whether rights are 'created' by government or 'god-given'?


----------



## dilloduck

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! That's closer to accurate definition of 'rights' than most anything else in this thread. But how is that a 'fantasy'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because we don't have the power to restrict everything that gets in our way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether we have the power to perfectly protect rights has no bearing on whether they exist or not. They exist if we say they do. We protect them if we wish to protect them. How is that a 'fantasy'?
> 
> I think I'm just not seeing your point of view at all. Are you focusing on the semantic/origin debate - ie whether rights are 'created' by government or 'god-given'?
Click to expand...


The op asked what are basic human rights. My reply is that there are none. That didn't stop us from just inventing some to make us feel better but it still doesn't make them exist. We simply revere them as if they do which causes all kinds of conflicts with reality. Inventing rights is to justify our actions or to justify asking someone else to act  on our behalf.


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because we don't have the power to restrict everything that gets in our way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether we have the power to perfectly protect rights has no bearing on whether they exist or not. They exist if we say they do. We protect them if we wish to protect them. How is that a 'fantasy'?
> 
> I think I'm just not seeing your point of view at all. Are you focusing on the semantic/origin debate - ie whether rights are 'created' by government or 'god-given'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The op asked what are basic human rights. My reply is that there are none. That didn't stop us from just inventing some to make us feel better but it still doesn't make them exist. We simply revere them as if they do which causes all kinds of conflicts with reality. Inventing rights is to justify our actions or to justify asking someone else to act  on our behalf.
Click to expand...


Uh.. ok. I'm still not sure what the point of such an observation would be though. Rights are concepts, inventions in the mind of man, but that doesn't mean they are fantasy, or that they don't exist. Are you saying we shouldn't talk about rights because they're not composed of matter?


----------



## dilloduck

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether we have the power to perfectly protect rights has no bearing on whether they exist or not. They exist if we say they do. We protect them if we wish to protect them. How is that a 'fantasy'?
> 
> I think I'm just not seeing your point of view at all. Are you focusing on the semantic/origin debate - ie whether rights are 'created' by government or 'god-given'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The op asked what are basic human rights. My reply is that there are none. That didn't stop us from just inventing some to make us feel better but it still doesn't make them exist. We simply revere them as if they do which causes all kinds of conflicts with reality. Inventing rights is to justify our actions or to justify asking someone else to act  on our behalf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh.. ok. I'm still not sure what the point of such an observation would be though. Rights are concepts, inventions in the mind of man, but that doesn't mean they are fantasy, or that they don't exist. Are you saying we shouldn't talk about rights because they're not composed of matter?
Click to expand...


No I just think helps to keep in mind that we are trying to do the impossible.  We want security. It's not going to happen. We end up with an imperfect framework. It's the best we can do.


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> The op asked what are basic human rights. My reply is that there are none. That didn't stop us from just inventing some to make us feel better but it still doesn't make them exist. We simply revere them as if they do which causes all kinds of conflicts with reality. Inventing rights is to justify our actions or to justify asking someone else to act  on our behalf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.. ok. I'm still not sure what the point of such an observation would be though. Rights are concepts, inventions in the mind of man, but that doesn't mean they are fantasy, or that they don't exist. Are you saying we shouldn't talk about rights because they're not composed of matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I just think helps to keep in mind that we are trying to do the impossible.  We want security. It's not going to happen. We end up with an imperfect framework. It's the best we can do.
Click to expand...


Yep. No such thing as perfect. Can't argue with that.


----------



## midcan5

dblack said:


> I'm always a little curious about the motivation of claims that "rights are fantasy". Is the aim to discourage people from thinking about government in terms of 'rights'? Is it to convince them that their rights are merely privileges granted to them by government? Do you see something misguided, or perhaps threatening, in the 'human rights' worldview? What is 'myth' do you believe you are dispelling by declaring rights non-existent?



Motivation, whatever that may be, is your assumption, could it just be that certain rights are viewed as ideals rather than fantasy. Free speech (ideal) for instance is considered a right, but how free is speech? Consider libel, hate speech, or pornography as examples where speech rights are restricted. Government's role, if required, is through law and the courts. When outcomes matter, an arbitrator is required. Sound government, respected law, and balanced enforcement are at the heart of stable and just societies. If you can think of some other entity that would provide resolution when rights collide, let us know. 




dilloduck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every human "right" is an invention to place a restriction on anything that gets in our way of doing whatever we want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! That's closer to accurate definition of 'rights' than most anything else in this thread. But how is that a 'fantasy'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we don't have the power to restrict everything that gets in our way.
Click to expand...


Huh! Now we restrict things that get in our way, because? What the heck does that mean? So if a gay person wants to marry they need to remove restrictions which are really rights. Odd way of saying they don't have the right in the first place. Eureka, just consulted my five year old grandson, it seems yes, his parents, often restrict him. Darn, five year olds need to join with you libertarians so they get rid of certain restrictions - yet still have room and board and lots of toys.


----------



## dblack

The biggest impediment to productive discussion of political rights is the confusion over the terms. When conservatives and libertarians talk about rights being inalienable, they're talking about something fundamentally different from, though obviously related to, politically protected rights. 

Inalienable rights are simply by-products of volition. The concept is a commentary on free will. We are born with such freedoms in the same way we are born with the ability to think and decide our own course of action.

Politically protected rights form a subset of the inalienable rights. These are the innate freedoms that we choose to secure with government. This is what liberals are usually talking about when they insist that rights are meaningless without a government to protect them. And given that they are taking about _ protected _ rights, their claim makes sense. 

Each side has an interest in proving that their position contradicts and supplants the other. Liberals believe their view establishes the primacy of government, while conservatives think that the concept of inalienable rights shows that government is superfluous, or at least not a necessary component in securing liberty. But its a foolish argument because the two sides are simply talking past each other. We're making different claims about different concepts.


----------



## Wonky Pundit

dblack said:


> The biggest impediment to productive discussion of political rights is the confusion over the terms. When conservatives and libertarians talk about rights being inalienable, they're talking about something fundamentally different from, though obviously related to, politically protected rights.
> 
> Inalienable rights are simply by-products of volition. The concept is a commentary on free will. We are born with such freedoms in the same way we are born with the ability to think and decide our own course of action.
> 
> Politically protected rights form a subset of the inalienable rights. These are the innate freedoms that we choose to secure with government. This is what liberals are usually talking about when they insist that rights are meaningless without a government to protect them. And given that they are taking about _ protected _ rights, their claim makes sense.
> 
> Each side has an interest in proving that their position contradicts and supplants the other. Liberals believe their view establishes the primacy of government, while conservatives think that the concept of inalienable rights shows that government is superfluous, or at least not a necessary component in securing liberty. But its a foolish argument because the two sides are simply talking past each other. We're making different claims about different concepts.



Inalienable rights and politically protected ones both exist, and they can coexist without any kind of philosophical conflict. One doesn't need to be a liberal or a conservative to understand this.


----------



## Wonky Pundit

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most fundamental of all of them: the right to be left alone. Entitlements, by definition, require the service of others. Government can't guarantee an entitlement without forcing someone to provide it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government can always pay someone to provide the entitlement, which doesn't seem to be the equivalent of "forcing" them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they use magic money for that, or do they get it the normal way, taking it by force from people?
Click to expand...


You're talking past the point. Governments can't exist without "forcing" people to do things, including pay taxes. Entitlements have nothing to do with that fact.


----------



## dblack

Wonky Pundit said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Government can always pay someone to provide the entitlement, which doesn't seem to be the equivalent of "forcing" them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do they use magic money for that, or do they get it the normal way, taking it by force from people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're talking past the point. Governments can't exist without "forcing" people to do things, including pay taxes. Entitlements have nothing to do with that fact.
Click to expand...


The "point" is discerning under what circumstances we sanction government to coerce people. Most everyone agrees that government should protect our rights. 

Advocates of the welfare state have long sought to expand the definition off rights to include entitlements. Rather than argue honestly for a Constitutional expansion of the role of government, they pursue change by playing games with language.


----------



## dilloduck

dblack said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they use magic money for that, or do they get it the normal way, taking it by force from people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking past the point. Governments can't exist without "forcing" people to do things, including pay taxes. Entitlements have nothing to do with that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "point" is discerning under what circumstances we sanction government to coerce people. Most everyone agrees that government should protect our rights.
> 
> Advocates of the welfare state have long sought to expand the definition off rights to include entitlements. Rather than argue honestly for a Constitutional expansion of the role of government, they pursue change by playing games with language.
Click to expand...


and the language starts with the word "rights". It as if the world owes them something for just existing. I for one don't trust the government to protect anything for me. If they wanna help so be it but I'll cover my own 6 thank you very much


----------



## Wonky Pundit

dblack said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they use magic money for that, or do they get it the normal way, taking it by force from people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking past the point. Governments can't exist without "forcing" people to do things, including pay taxes. Entitlements have nothing to do with that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "point" is discerning under what circumstances we sanction government to coerce people. Most everyone agrees that government should protect our rights.
> 
> Advocates of the welfare state have long sought to expand the definition off rights to include entitlements. Rather than argue honestly for a Constitutional expansion of the role of government, they pursue change by playing games with language.
Click to expand...


Coercion isn't the "point" at all, at least not where entitlements are concerned. 

Of course, in any discussion of rights per se, some degree of coercion is required because having the absolute right to do something tends to infringe on the rights of others. (However, your argument about Constitutional expansion is also moot, because nothing in the Constitution proscribes entitlements that the government pays for. Nor is this thread meant to discuss any particular nation or its laws.)


----------



## dilloduck

Wonky Pundit said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking past the point. Governments can't exist without "forcing" people to do things, including pay taxes. Entitlements have nothing to do with that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "point" is discerning under what circumstances we sanction government to coerce people. Most everyone agrees that government should protect our rights.
> 
> Advocates of the welfare state have long sought to expand the definition off rights to include entitlements. Rather than argue honestly for a Constitutional expansion of the role of government, they pursue change by playing games with language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coercion isn't the "point" at all, at least not where entitlements are concerned.
> 
> Of course, in any discussion of rights per se, some degree of coercion is required because having the absolute right to do something tends to infringe on the rights of others. (However, your argument about Constitutional expansion is also moot, because nothing in the Constitution proscribes entitlements that the government pays for. Nor is this thread meant to discuss any particular nation or its laws.)
Click to expand...


Is there something forbidding us from infringing on the so called "rights" of others ?


----------



## Wonky Pundit

dilloduck said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "point" is discerning under what circumstances we sanction government to coerce people. Most everyone agrees that government should protect our rights.
> 
> Advocates of the welfare state have long sought to expand the definition off rights to include entitlements. Rather than argue honestly for a Constitutional expansion of the role of government, they pursue change by playing games with language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coercion isn't the "point" at all, at least not where entitlements are concerned.
> 
> Of course, in any discussion of rights per se, some degree of coercion is required because having the absolute right to do something tends to infringe on the rights of others. (However, your argument about Constitutional expansion is also moot, because nothing in the Constitution proscribes entitlements that the government pays for. Nor is this thread meant to discuss any particular nation or its laws.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there something forbidding us from infringing on the so called "rights" of others ?
Click to expand...


Most societies make you suffer negative consequences for such infringement.


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "point" is discerning under what circumstances we sanction government to coerce people. Most everyone agrees that government should protect our rights.
> 
> Advocates of the welfare state have long sought to expand the definition off rights to include entitlements. Rather than argue honestly for a Constitutional expansion of the role of government, they pursue change by playing games with language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coercion isn't the "point" at all, at least not where entitlements are concerned.
> 
> Of course, in any discussion of rights per se, some degree of coercion is required because having the absolute right to do something tends to infringe on the rights of others. (However, your argument about Constitutional expansion is also moot, because nothing in the Constitution proscribes entitlements that the government pays for. Nor is this thread meant to discuss any particular nation or its laws.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there something forbidding us from infringing on the so called "rights" of others ?
Click to expand...


Well, that's the point of creating government. To prevent that. As you've pointed out, it will never be 100%, but it beats going around fully armed always looking over your back.


----------



## dilloduck

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Coercion isn't the "point" at all, at least not where entitlements are concerned.
> 
> Of course, in any discussion of rights per se, some degree of coercion is required because having the absolute right to do something tends to infringe on the rights of others. (However, your argument about Constitutional expansion is also moot, because nothing in the Constitution proscribes entitlements that the government pays for. Nor is this thread meant to discuss any particular nation or its laws.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there something forbidding us from infringing on the so called "rights" of others ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's the point of creating government. To prevent that. As you've pointed out, it will never be 100%, but it beats going around fully armed always looking over your back.
Click to expand...


so these "right" become necessary in order to stop the dominants from winning ?


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there something forbidding us from infringing on the so called "rights" of others ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's the point of creating government. To prevent that. As you've pointed out, it will never be 100%, but it beats going around fully armed always looking over your back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so these "right" become necessary in order to stop the dominants from winning ?
Click to expand...


I don't understand your question.


----------



## dilloduck

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's the point of creating government. To prevent that. As you've pointed out, it will never be 100%, but it beats going around fully armed always looking over your back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so these "right" become necessary in order to stop the dominants from winning ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand your question.
Click to expand...


Apparently humans invented rights because certain people couldn't compete or take care of themselves


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> so these "right" become necessary in order to stop the dominants from winning ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently humans invented rights because certain people couldn't compete or take care of themselves
Click to expand...


Exactly. They allow people to focus on other endeavors, and let government deal with brute force and violence. Rights are, essentially, smart people getting one over on the bullies.


----------



## Wonky Pundit

dilloduck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> so these "right" become necessary in order to stop the dominants from winning ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand your question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently humans invented rights because certain people couldn't compete or take care of themselves
Click to expand...


Even packs of animals have some rudimentary concept of the rights that various pack members have. In addition, humans tend to fare better in packs/tribes/cities than they do on their own.


----------



## dilloduck

Wonky Pundit said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand your question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently humans invented rights because certain people couldn't compete or take care of themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even packs of animals have some rudimentary concept of the rights that various pack members have. In addition, humans tend to fare better in packs/tribes/cities than they do on their own.
Click to expand...


ya pecking orders. Works well.


----------



## Wonky Pundit

dilloduck said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently humans invented rights because certain people couldn't compete or take care of themselves
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even packs of animals have some rudimentary concept of the rights that various pack members have. In addition, humans tend to fare better in packs/tribes/cities than they do on their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ya pecking orders. Works well.
Click to expand...


Some animals even have the concept of entitlements for other group members. 

When a wolf becomes too old to hunt with the pack, the other pack members bring it food. Reptiles don't do that. (Yes, I'm implying exactly what you think I'm implying.)


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wonky Pundit said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even packs of animals have some rudimentary concept of the rights that various pack members have. In addition, humans tend to fare better in packs/tribes/cities than they do on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ya pecking orders. Works well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some animals even have the concept of entitlements for other group members.
> 
> When a wolf becomes too old to hunt with the pack, the other pack members bring it food. Reptiles don't do that. (Yes, I'm implying exactly what you think I'm implying.)
Click to expand...


Some animals have more brains than you do.

Sharing food is not an entitlement. Entitlements are defined as government programs, often created by legislation. Feel free to show me the wolf legislature. The best that can be said for wolf government is that might makes right.


----------



## Wonky Pundit

Quantum Windbag said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> ya pecking orders. Works well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some animals even have the concept of entitlements for other group members.
> 
> When a wolf becomes too old to hunt with the pack, the other pack members bring it food. Reptiles don't do that. (Yes, I'm implying exactly what you think I'm implying.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some animals have more brains than you do.
Click to expand...


You're just not one of them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Wonky Pundit said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some animals even have the concept of entitlements for other group members.
> 
> When a wolf becomes too old to hunt with the pack, the other pack members bring it food. Reptiles don't do that. (Yes, I'm implying exactly what you think I'm implying.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some animals have more brains than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just not one of them.
Click to expand...


You would need more brains than you have to know that.


----------



## midcan5

Interesting addendum to discussion. 

'The Danger of Human Rights Proliferation' - 'When Defending Liberty, Less Is More'

Jacob Mchangama and Guglielmo Verdirame

"But there is also a darker agenda behind the expansion of human rights law. Put simply, illiberal states have sought to stretch human rights law to give themselves room to hide behind it. They have even used it to mount political attacks against liberal states. A critical look at the UNs often dysfunctional HRC is illustrative. Although it cannot adopt treaties or pass binding resolutions, the HRC is an important forum for developing new human rights standards and shaping the international human rights discourse. Judged by respect for human rights, its membership covers a wide spectrum, from democracies to tyrannies.

States ranked free in Freedom Houses index tend to take a robust approach to human rights centered on what are called first-generation rights, such as free speech and freedom from torture. Although these countries are not necessarily opposed to what are called second-generation rights, which include quality of life issues such as housing and health, they are frequently skeptical about what are referred to as third-generation rights. This latter category encompasses ill-defined rights that protect collective rather than individual interests and includes the right to development, the right to international solidarity, and the right to peace."

The Danger of Human Rights Proliferation | Foreign Affairs


----------



## dilloduck

midcan5 said:


> Interesting addendum to discussion.
> 
> 'The Danger of Human Rights Proliferation' - 'When Defending Liberty, Less Is More'
> 
> Jacob Mchangama and Guglielmo Verdirame
> 
> "But there is also a darker agenda behind the expansion of human rights law. Put simply, illiberal states have sought to stretch human rights law to give themselves room to hide behind it. They have even used it to mount political attacks against liberal states. A critical look at the UNs often dysfunctional HRC is illustrative. Although it cannot adopt treaties or pass binding resolutions, the HRC is an important forum for developing new human rights standards and shaping the international human rights discourse. Judged by respect for human rights, its membership covers a wide spectrum, from democracies to tyrannies.
> 
> States ranked free in Freedom Houses index tend to take a robust approach to human rights centered on what are called first-generation rights, such as free speech and freedom from torture. Although these countries are not necessarily opposed to what are called second-generation rights, which include quality of life issues such as housing and health, they are frequently skeptical about what are referred to as third-generation rights. This latter category encompasses ill-defined rights that protect collective rather than individual interests and includes the right to development, the right to international solidarity, and the right to peace."
> 
> The Danger of Human Rights Proliferation | Foreign Affairs



Like I said....We don't have any. A manufactured concept to give us the illusion of security. Less is definitely more


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting addendum to discussion.
> 
> 'The Danger of Human Rights Proliferation' - 'When Defending Liberty, Less Is More'
> 
> Jacob Mchangama and Guglielmo Verdirame
> 
> "But there is also a darker agenda behind the expansion of human rights law. Put simply, illiberal states have sought to stretch human rights law to give themselves room to hide behind it. They have even used it to mount political attacks against liberal states. A critical look at the UNs often dysfunctional HRC is illustrative. Although it cannot adopt treaties or pass binding resolutions, the HRC is an important forum for developing new human rights standards and shaping the international human rights discourse. Judged by respect for human rights, its membership covers a wide spectrum, from democracies to tyrannies.
> 
> States ranked free in Freedom Houses index tend to take a robust approach to human rights centered on what are called first-generation rights, such as free speech and freedom from torture. Although these countries are not necessarily opposed to what are called second-generation rights, which include quality of life issues such as housing and health, they are frequently skeptical about what are referred to as third-generation rights. This latter category encompasses ill-defined rights that protect collective rather than individual interests and includes the right to development, the right to international solidarity, and the right to peace."
> 
> The Danger of Human Rights Proliferation | Foreign Affairs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said....We don't have any. A manufactured concept to give us the illusion of security. Less is definitely more
Click to expand...


Freedom is Slavery


----------



## westwall

midcan5 said:


> Interesting addendum to discussion.
> 
> 'The Danger of Human Rights Proliferation' - 'When Defending Liberty, Less Is More'
> 
> Jacob Mchangama and Guglielmo Verdirame
> 
> "But there is also a darker agenda behind the expansion of human rights law. Put simply, illiberal states have sought to stretch human rights law to give themselves room to hide behind it. They have even used it to mount political attacks against liberal states. A critical look at the UNs often dysfunctional HRC is illustrative. Although it cannot adopt treaties or pass binding resolutions, the HRC is an important forum for developing new human rights standards and shaping the international human rights discourse. Judged by respect for human rights, its membership covers a wide spectrum, from democracies to tyrannies.
> 
> States ranked free in Freedom Houses index tend to take a robust approach to human rights centered on what are called first-generation rights, such as free speech and freedom from torture. Although these countries are not necessarily opposed to what are called second-generation rights, which include quality of life issues such as housing and health, they are frequently skeptical about what are referred to as third-generation rights. This latter category encompasses ill-defined rights that protect collective rather than individual interests and includes the right to development, the right to international solidarity, and the right to peace."
> 
> The Danger of Human Rights Proliferation | Foreign Affairs









Only collectivist authoritarians would be concerned about the extension of civil rights to individuals.  Makes them harder to control when they KNOW they have rights.


----------



## dilloduck

westwall said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting addendum to discussion.
> 
> 'The Danger of Human Rights Proliferation' - 'When Defending Liberty, Less Is More'
> 
> Jacob Mchangama and Guglielmo Verdirame
> 
> "But there is also a darker agenda behind the expansion of human rights law. Put simply, illiberal states have sought to stretch human rights law to give themselves room to hide behind it. They have even used it to mount political attacks against liberal states. A critical look at the UNs often dysfunctional HRC is illustrative. Although it cannot adopt treaties or pass binding resolutions, the HRC is an important forum for developing new human rights standards and shaping the international human rights discourse. Judged by respect for human rights, its membership covers a wide spectrum, from democracies to tyrannies.
> 
> States ranked free in Freedom Houses index tend to take a robust approach to human rights centered on what are called first-generation rights, such as free speech and freedom from torture. Although these countries are not necessarily opposed to what are called second-generation rights, which include quality of life issues such as housing and health, they are frequently skeptical about what are referred to as third-generation rights. This latter category encompasses ill-defined rights that protect collective rather than individual interests and includes the right to development, the right to international solidarity, and the right to peace."
> 
> The Danger of Human Rights Proliferation | Foreign Affairs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only collectivist authoritarians would be concerned about the extension of civil rights to individuals.  Makes them harder to control when they KNOW they have rights.
Click to expand...


Depends. If all individuals actually believe that they have rights they spend all of their time fighting each other over them.


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting addendum to discussion.
> 
> 'The Danger of Human Rights Proliferation' - 'When Defending Liberty, Less Is More'
> 
> Jacob Mchangama and Guglielmo Verdirame
> 
> "But there is also a darker agenda behind the expansion of human rights law. Put simply, illiberal states have sought to stretch human rights law to give themselves room to hide behind it. They have even used it to mount political attacks against liberal states. A critical look at the UNs often dysfunctional HRC is illustrative. Although it cannot adopt treaties or pass binding resolutions, the HRC is an important forum for developing new human rights standards and shaping the international human rights discourse. Judged by respect for human rights, its membership covers a wide spectrum, from democracies to tyrannies.
> 
> States ranked free in Freedom Houses index tend to take a robust approach to human rights centered on what are called first-generation rights, such as free speech and freedom from torture. Although these countries are not necessarily opposed to what are called second-generation rights, which include quality of life issues such as housing and health, they are frequently skeptical about what are referred to as third-generation rights. This latter category encompasses ill-defined rights that protect collective rather than individual interests and includes the right to development, the right to international solidarity, and the right to peace."
> 
> The Danger of Human Rights Proliferation | Foreign Affairs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only collectivist authoritarians would be concerned about the extension of civil rights to individuals.  Makes them harder to control when they KNOW they have rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends. If all individuals actually believe that they have rights they spend all of their time fighting each other over them.
Click to expand...


I have to say, your point of view is perplexing. I don't know if I disagree with it or not, because I can't even parse what you're getting at. You seem to be trying to dismiss the idea of political rights, but it's not clear on what grounds, or what your intent is. Why is it important, in your view, to give up on the idea of rights? What will it gain us?


----------



## dilloduck

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only collectivist authoritarians would be concerned about the extension of civil rights to individuals.  Makes them harder to control when they KNOW they have rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends. If all individuals actually believe that they have rights they spend all of their time fighting each other over them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to say, your point of view is perplexing. I don't know if I disagree with it or not, because I can't even parse what you're getting at. You seem to be trying to dismiss the idea of political rights, but it's not clear on what grounds, or what your intent is. Why is it important, in your view, to give up on the idea of rights? What will it gain us?
Click to expand...


Political Rights ?  I'm not even sure what a political right is but I can guarantee you that God or nature didn't come up with that idea. I thought this was about basic human rights.


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends. If all individuals actually believe that they have rights they spend all of their time fighting each other over them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say, your point of view is perplexing. I don't know if I disagree with it or not, because I can't even parse what you're getting at. You seem to be trying to dismiss the idea of political rights, but it's not clear on what grounds, or what your intent is. Why is it important, in your view, to give up on the idea of rights? What will it gain us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Political Rights ?  I'm not even sure what a political right is but I can guarantee you that God or nature didn't come up with that idea. I thought this was about basic human rights.
Click to expand...


Ok, so you're just hung up on the whole origin thing? How does that have any bearing on whether rights are important, or what rights government should protect?

edit: fwiw, a political right is a freedom we protect via government.


----------



## dilloduck

dblack said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say, your point of view is perplexing. I don't know if I disagree with it or not, because I can't even parse what you're getting at. You seem to be trying to dismiss the idea of political rights, but it's not clear on what grounds, or what your intent is. Why is it important, in your view, to give up on the idea of rights? What will it gain us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Rights ?  I'm not even sure what a political right is but I can guarantee you that God or nature didn't come up with that idea. I thought this was about basic human rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're just hung up on the whole origin thing? How does that have any bearing on whether rights are important, or what rights government should protect?
Click to expand...


I'm hung up on reality. Any right that is claimed is an invention of man. No one can honestly claim that we are entitled to anything. If we keep that perspective as we go forward to formulate some guidelines for co existing then we don't go off all half cocked with drama.
Humans decide priorities and make rules to achieve them. Why do we need justification ( which is essentially what rights are ) for out actions. We do what we please until someone comes along and stops us. Today that's usually comes in the form of a government representative. Why would we ask the same people who restrict our "rights" to " protect them ?


----------



## dblack

dilloduck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Political Rights ?  I'm not even sure what a political right is but I can guarantee you that God or nature didn't come up with that idea. I thought this was about basic human rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're just hung up on the whole origin thing? How does that have any bearing on whether rights are important, or what rights government should protect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm hung up on reality. Any right that is claimed is an invention of man. No one can honestly claim that we are entitled to anything. If we keep that perspective as we go forward to formulate some guidelines for co existing then we don't go off all half cocked with drama.
> Humans decide priorities and make rules to achieve them. Why do we need justification ( which is essentially what rights are ) for out actions. We do what we please until someone comes along and stops us. Today that's usually comes in the form of a government representative. Why would we ask the same people who restrict our "rights" to " protect them ?
Click to expand...


Because the purpose of rights is two fold. It's a definition of a fundamental purpose of government, but it's also a limitation on the power of that government. The idea of rights is a stipulation on the concept of sovereignty. We grant government the power to protect us - and to use force to do so - but we limited the scope of that power. We set aside certain freedoms that are non-negotiable and not up to the temporal will of the state. Political rights are more fundamental than laws and harder to change by design. 

So, how would things be better, in your view, if we dispensed with the idea of rights altogether?


----------



## midcan5

A bit of the real world in this discussion of rights.

"Queer critiques of marriage have, in the last two decades, become a part of a well-known political theory critique of rights. According to this critique, rights privatize; rights individualize; rights normalize. Therefore, they undo much of what these theorists regard as most promising about political actionits collective moments, its way of creating public spaces and events, its way of bringing disagreement to the level of perceptionat the very moment that the demands for rights succeed. Perhaps no critic of rights has made this point, regarding gay marriage in particular, so succinctly as Michael Warner. His book The Trouble with Normal shines klieg lights on the conservative impulses and entailments of the fight for same-sex marriage. With critiques like his in mind, many political theorists have come to regard struggles for rights, rather than their achievement, as the setting for genuinely politicalthat is, collective, contested, and powerfulevents."

The Contemporary Condition: Gay Love Conquers All


----------



## dilloduck

midcan5 said:


> A bit of the real world in this discussion of rights.
> 
> "Queer critiques of marriage have, in the last two decades, become a part of a well-known political theory critique of rights. According to this critique, rights privatize; rights individualize; rights normalize. Therefore, they undo much of what these theorists regard as most promising about political actionits collective moments, its way of creating public spaces and events, its way of bringing disagreement to the level of perceptionat the very moment that the demands for rights succeed. Perhaps no critic of rights has made this point, regarding gay marriage in particular, so succinctly as Michael Warner. His book The Trouble with Normal shines klieg lights on the conservative impulses and entailments of the fight for same-sex marriage. With critiques like his in mind, many political theorists have come to regard struggles for rights, rather than their achievement, as the setting for genuinely politicalthat is, collective, contested, and powerfulevents."
> 
> The Contemporary Condition: Gay Love Conquers All



This is more about rights used as a political punch than it is about any basic rights.


----------



## dblack

midcan5 said:


> "According to this critique, rights privatize; rights individualize; rights normalize. Therefore, they undo much of what these theorists regard as most promising about political actionits collective moments, its way of creating public spaces and events, its way of bringing disagreement to the level of perceptionat the very moment that the demands for rights succeed." ...



This is very insightful, and fascinating as a confessional explaining modern liberal antipathy toward the core concept of rights. Rights take our freedom out of the realm of government and make it a personal, individual claim, thus robbing statists of much of their power (as realized through 'collective moments').


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> A bit of the real world in this discussion of rights.
> 
> "Queer critiques of marriage have, in the last two decades, become a part of a well-known political theory critique of rights. According to this critique, rights privatize; rights individualize; rights normalize. Therefore, they undo much of what these theorists regard as most promising about political actionits collective moments, its way of creating public spaces and events, its way of bringing disagreement to the level of perceptionat the very moment that the demands for rights succeed. Perhaps no critic of rights has made this point, regarding gay marriage in particular, so succinctly as Michael Warner. His book The Trouble with Normal shines klieg lights on the conservative impulses and entailments of the fight for same-sex marriage. With critiques like his in mind, many political theorists have come to regard struggles for rights, rather than their achievement, as the setting for genuinely politicalthat is, collective, contested, and powerfulevents."
> 
> The Contemporary Condition: Gay Love Conquers All



When are people going to learn the difference human rights and civil rights?


----------



## Wonky Pundit

dilloduck said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Political Rights ?  I'm not even sure what a political right is but I can guarantee you that God or nature didn't come up with that idea. I thought this was about basic human rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're just hung up on the whole origin thing? How does that have any bearing on whether rights are important, or what rights government should protect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm hung up on reality. Any right that is claimed is an invention of man. *No one can honestly claim that we are entitled to anything. If we keep that perspective as we go forward to formulate some guidelines for co existing then we don't go off all half cocked with drama.*
> Humans decide priorities and make rules to achieve them. Why do we need justification ( which is essentially what rights are ) for out actions. We do what we please until someone comes along and stops us. Today that's usually comes in the form of a government representative. Why would we ask the same people who restrict our "rights" to " protect them ?
Click to expand...


The above two sentences are self-contradictory.
The moment you acknowledge that there is ANY need for "guidelines for co-exsisting," you necessarily have to entitle everyone (or at least some groups of people) to something.


----------

