Education a right ?

[antagon]

I don't disagree with the Rights that they came up with.

the term natural and the idea of inalienability is that which, indeed, elevates rights beyond our capacity to grant or rescind them. natural in the sense that gravity is natural. we could buck against them, but it doesnt strike them from fact. the idea that governments have no right to obstruct our access to certain 'natural', or as murph nicely termed them, 'sacrosanct', freedoms is what the enlightenment, existentialism the US revolution and our constitution is all about.

I think Sentient man decided what those Rights were, and so I simply disagree where they "came from" thus disagree with those same Men's Premise. That's all, and my position is quite simple and not disprovable. If so, do so logically. Let's see it. Don't forget that just because someone said so, doesn't make it so "in Nature" or otherwise.

that's fine how you want to see things, however, enlightenment thinking put forth the idea that there are rights which needn't be enumerated, and exist with or without this human edict you refer to.

rabbi and yourself feel that violations of rights prove that rights dont exist, ie. not granted the victim by the violator, however, that they could be recognized as violations of rights by a third party (or any of the original players)proves that they do exist, notwithstanding the violation. thats all thats required for a concept like rights to exist: recognition.

if you mean that only sentient man can appreciate or recognize these among most other concepts, then we're pulling on the same end of the rope, but if you think concepts come in and out of existence depending on what sentient men do or say, than youre over there tugging with rabbi, where concepts fail to be so when not understood.

 

[Murf76]

Unalienable rights were said to be unalienable, and made as such, by MEN. Nature does not provide these, neither does God. Men decided upon them, and put them onto paper.

I only said that human beings are capable of a detailed thought process. I didn't say they all engage in it. Clearly... some don't.

Yes, clearly. One believes in something with no evidence, one follows thought and observation.

And what is your "evidence" that Education is a "right"?

See, the problem is... that you've come out on the wrong side of your own equation. Natural Law is a centuries-old philosophy. Robbing citizens of their labor or property just because you want to... is still just robbery.

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you being obtuse for any specific reason? Slavery and women's suffrage.

Are you actually this stupid? Where is slavery limited to black people?

In pre-emancipation America. The Constitution did not protect the unalienable rights of black people in America. The framers claimed that we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights,

but not if you're black.

And a woman's right to vote had to be secured by Constitutional amendment.

In short, the founders and framers were full of shit with their unalienable god-given rights bullshit.

Actually they did.
Please post any evidence that Blacks did not have inalienable rights as whites did.

 

[antagon]

For the logically challenged:

If you must defend against a particular right being taken away, that presupposes that it can in fact be taken away and is therefore by definition, not unalienable.

you can strip the freedom, something which requires defense, but you cant strip the principle by which these rights are entitled humans. rights are but principles, in and of themselves rather useless without defense.

you pretend to present something logical, but you presume that ideas enforce themselves.

 

[The Rabbi]

For the logically challenged:

If you must defend against a particular right being taken away, that presupposes that it can in fact be taken away and is therefore by definition, not unalienable.

you can strip the freedom, something which requires defense, but you cant strip the principle by which these rights are entitled humans. rights are but principles, in and of themselves rather useless without defense.

you pretend to present something logical, but you presume that ideas enforce themselves.

So you admit that "rights" in the abstract are useless?

 

[antagon]

As an aside, the new Iraqi Constitution proclaims healthcare to be a RIGHT.

Would that be an unalienable right? A natural right? A phoney un-American right that no foreigner has any business calling a right because only Americans can decide what are and aren't rights?

eh??

you said it yourself: an enumerated right in the iraqi constitution.

caring for your health and that of others is an unalienable right.

getting institutionalized healthcare for free is, perhaps, one of the constitutional rights iraqis now sport.

i would have thought access to electricity and running water would be higher priorities, but, hey, thats iraq.

seeking and sharing knowledge is an unalienable right.

getting institutionalized education for free is a state-funded benefit for 90-some% of americans.

 

[manifold]

For the logically challenged:

If you must defend against a particular right being taken away, that presupposes that it can in fact be taken away and is therefore by definition, not unalienable.

you can strip the freedom, something which requires defense, but you cant strip the principle by which these rights are entitled humans. rights are but principles, in and of themselves rather useless without defense.

you pretend to present something logical, but you presume that ideas enforce themselves.

The fact that ideas do not enforce themselves is my point.

Glad you managed to figure it out, even if you went about it ass backwards.

 

[G.T.]

that's fine how you want to see things, however, enlightenment thinking put forth the idea that there are rights which needn't be enumerated, and exist with or without this human edict you refer to.
rabbi and yourself feel that violations of rights prove that rights dont exist, ie. not granted the victim by the violator, however, that they could be recognized as violations of rights by a third party (or any of the original players)proves that they do exist, notwithstanding the violation. thats all thats required for a concept like rights to exist: recognition.

if you mean that only sentient man can appreciate or recognize these among most other concepts, then we're pulling on the same end of the rope, but if you think concepts come in and out of existence depending on what sentient men do or say, than youre over there tugging with rabbi, where concepts fail to be so when not understood.

And I disagree with them, based on logic and observation. The rights do need to be enumerated and there's nothing that exists in Nature or reality that suggests otherwise.

 

[Murf76]

For the logically challenged:

If you must defend against a particular right being taken away, that presupposes that it can in fact be taken away and is therefore by definition, not unalienable.

you can strip the freedom, something which requires defense, but you cant strip the principle by which these rights are entitled humans. rights are but principles, in and of themselves rather useless without defense.

you pretend to present something logical, but you presume that ideas enforce themselves.

So you admit that "rights" in the abstract are useless?

This isn't as difficult as you appear to be making it, Rabbi.
Do you, for example, believe that human beings were meant to be free? Whether you invest that freedom with a belief in God or simply as a result of the natural world as it exists... should people be in charge of their own destinies, so long as they are not actively hurting other people?

If your answer is 'yes'... then you have to acknowledge that the principle itself does not cease to exist if people are thrust into bondage.

Think about it.... Without this principle, this "unalienable right", it wouldn't have been wrong to enslave people of African descent in this country. It wouldn't have been something that by necessity needed correction. It's because this "right" is unalienable that Americans, both Black and White, would struggle so to abolish slavery. It was a conflict that DEMANDED resolution by its nature, by its existence. People are discontent in a state of bondage. They will struggle for freedom. Ergo, the struggle for freedom is a natural consequence of bondage.

Sure. The founders kicked the can down the road. And that was a mistake. They sacrificed principle for expediency, and it was a costly error, paid in blood. But our Constitution did include provisions for amendment which allowed it to eventually correct the matter. And as we read through the Bill of Rights, we see the acknowledgment of "unalienable rights" of the "people", not the "white people", not the "male people"... but the "people. It was loaded and ready, waiting for the correction our founders knew would eventually come.

 

[antagon]

For the logically challenged:

If you must defend against a particular right being taken away, that presupposes that it can in fact be taken away and is therefore by definition, not unalienable.

you can strip the freedom, something which requires defense, but you cant strip the principle by which these rights are entitled humans. rights are but principles, in and of themselves rather useless without defense.

you pretend to present something logical, but you presume that ideas enforce themselves.

So you admit that "rights" in the abstract are useless?

rights are always abstract, arent they? rather useless was the 'admission'.

like other concepts, they can have pervasive effect, but require practice and defense. whats the right to bear arms if you dont have a collection? not useless, because you can always start a collection, but rather useless because you havent.

 

[G.T.]

This isn't as difficult as you appear to be making it, Rabbi.
Do you, for example, believe that human beings were meant to be free? Whether you invest that freedom with a belief in God or simply as a result of the natural world as it exists... should people be in charge of their own destinies, so long as they are not actively hurting other people?

If your answer is 'yes'... then you have to acknowledge that the principle itself does not cease to exist if people are thrust into bondage.

Think about it.... Without this principle, this "unalienable right", it wouldn't have been wrong to enslave people of African descent in this country. It wouldn't have been something that by necessity needed correction. It's because this "right" is unalienable that Americans, both Black and White, would struggle so to abolish slavery. It was a conflict that DEMANDED resolution by its nature, by its existence. People are discontent in a state of bondage. They will struggle for freedom. Ergo, the struggle for freedom is a natural consequence of bondage.

Sure. The founders kicked the can down the road. And that was a mistake. They sacrificed principle for expediency, and it was a costly error, paid in blood. But our Constitution did include provisions for amendment which allowed it to eventually correct the matter. And as we read through the Bill of Rights, we see the acknowledgment of "unalienable rights" of the "people", not the "white people", not the "male people"... but the "people. It was loaded and ready, waiting for the correction our founders knew would eventually come.

Believing people should be free ............ matter of fact, believing that our society should guarantee ALL of these said unalienable rights, does not mean that they came from Nature or God.

Do I believe Humans should be free? Sure (although "tru" freedom cannot exist).

Does nature believe this? Hell to the mother fuck no, it doesn't. Nature is survival of the fittest. "Civilization" is practicing RESTRAINT from being one of Nature's animals.

The fact that we "figured it out" (how to coexist/prosper/etc.) does not imply that it's what any Nature or God intended. It simply implies intelligence.

 

[The Rabbi]

you can strip the freedom, something which requires defense, but you cant strip the principle by which these rights are entitled humans. rights are but principles, in and of themselves rather useless without defense.

you pretend to present something logical, but you presume that ideas enforce themselves.

So you admit that "rights" in the abstract are useless?

This isn't as difficult as you appear to be making it, Rabbi.
Do you, for example, believe that human beings were meant to be free? Whether you invest that freedom with a belief in God or simply as a result of the natural world as it exists... should people be in charge of their own destinies, so long as they are not actively hurting other people?

If your answer is 'yes'... then you have to acknowledge that the principle itself does not cease to exist if people are thrust into bondage.

Think about it.... Without this principle, this "unalienable right", it wouldn't have been wrong to enslave people of African descent in this country. It wouldn't have been something that by necessity needed correction. It's because this "right" is unalienable that Americans, both Black and White, would struggle so to abolish slavery. It was a conflict that DEMANDED resolution by its nature, by its existence. People are discontent in a state of bondage. They will struggle for freedom. Ergo, the struggle for freedom is a natural consequence of bondage.

Sure. The founders kicked the can down the road. And that was a mistake. They sacrificed principle for expediency, and it was a costly error, paid in blood. But our Constitution did include provisions for amendment which allowed it to eventually correct the matter. And as we read through the Bill of Rights, we see the acknowledgment of "unalienable rights" of the "people", not the "white people", not the "male people"... but the "people. It was loaded and ready, waiting for the correction our founders knew would eventually come.

When you ask "were humans meant to be free" your question is flawed. It presupposes a creator. And while personally I'm OK with that, it won't stack up logically.
The better question is, "are people free?" And the answer is no. Slavery was a feature of every society up until Europe post Middle Ages and the U.S. in 1865. It remained a feature of societies in many other places and exists to this day. It is the most natural thing in the world for strong people to enslave weak people. That doesn't make for a "right to enslave" however.

 

[beowolfe]

So you admit that "rights" in the abstract are useless?

This isn't as difficult as you appear to be making it, Rabbi.
Do you, for example, believe that human beings were meant to be free? Whether you invest that freedom with a belief in God or simply as a result of the natural world as it exists... should people be in charge of their own destinies, so long as they are not actively hurting other people?

If your answer is 'yes'... then you have to acknowledge that the principle itself does not cease to exist if people are thrust into bondage.

Think about it.... Without this principle, this "unalienable right", it wouldn't have been wrong to enslave people of African descent in this country. It wouldn't have been something that by necessity needed correction. It's because this "right" is unalienable that Americans, both Black and White, would struggle so to abolish slavery. It was a conflict that DEMANDED resolution by its nature, by its existence. People are discontent in a state of bondage. They will struggle for freedom. Ergo, the struggle for freedom is a natural consequence of bondage.

Sure. The founders kicked the can down the road. And that was a mistake. They sacrificed principle for expediency, and it was a costly error, paid in blood. But our Constitution did include provisions for amendment which allowed it to eventually correct the matter. And as we read through the Bill of Rights, we see the acknowledgment of "unalienable rights" of the "people", not the "white people", not the "male people"... but the "people. It was loaded and ready, waiting for the correction our founders knew would eventually come.

When you ask "were humans meant to be free" your question is flawed. It presupposes a creator. And while personally I'm OK with that, it won't stack up logically.
The better question is, "are people free?" And the answer is no. Slavery was a feature of every society up until Europe post Middle Ages and the U.S. in 1865. It remained a feature of societies in many other places and exists to this day. It is the most natural thing in the world for strong people to enslave weak people. That doesn't make for a "right to enslave" however.

That question doesn't pre-suppose a creator any more than 'were dogs meant to be free'. Whether your presuppose a creator or not, the question can still be valid. And since humans have held humans as slaves from practically the beginning of their time on this planet, I'd have to say that humans were not meant to be free; but have generally evolved to the point that they recognize that freedom is the best condition in which to exist.

 

[G.T.]

That question doesn't pre-suppose a creator any more than 'were dogs meant to be free'. Whether your presuppose a creator or not, the question can still be valid. And since humans have held humans as slaves from practically the beginning of their time on this planet, I'd have to say that humans were not meant to be free; but have generally evolved to the point that they recognize that freedom is the best condition in which to exist.

Umm, yea you're basically wrong. What would "meant" imply? Meant in the question implies Humans having a purpose, i.e. not here by random chance, i.e. a creator.

 

[Murf76]

When you ask "were humans meant to be free" your question is flawed. It presupposes a creator. And while personally I'm OK with that, it won't stack up logically.
The better question is, "are people free?" And the answer is no. Slavery was a feature of every society up until Europe post Middle Ages and the U.S. in 1865. It remained a feature of societies in many other places and exists to this day. It is the most natural thing in the world for strong people to enslave weak people. That doesn't make for a "right to enslave" however.

C'mon, Rabbi. Hang in there, bud. I'm asking you for better thinking than what we can expect of G.T., with his Lions and Antelopes and food chain and whatnot.

What is the natural consequence of thrusting human beings into bondage? What is their natural response to that particular stimuli? What will they invariable do?

The key is predictability, behaving in a way that's natural to humans. If there wasn't a natural, predictable, human response to slavery... then it wouldn't be WRONG to enslave people. It would be nothing more outside the norm than eating, sleeping, and shitting.

 

[G.T.]

When you ask "were humans meant to be free" your question is flawed. It presupposes a creator. And while personally I'm OK with that, it won't stack up logically.
The better question is, "are people free?" And the answer is no. Slavery was a feature of every society up until Europe post Middle Ages and the U.S. in 1865. It remained a feature of societies in many other places and exists to this day. It is the most natural thing in the world for strong people to enslave weak people. That doesn't make for a "right to enslave" however.

C'mon, Rabbi. Hang in there, bud. I'm asking you for better thinking than what we can expect of G.T., with his Lions and Antelopes and food chain and whatnot.

What is the natural consequence of thrusting human beings into bondage? What is their natural response to that particular stimuli? What will they invariable do?

The key is predictability, behaving in a way that's natural to humans. If there wasn't a natural, predictable, human response to slavery... then it wouldn't be WRONG to enslave people. It would be nothing more outside the norm than eating, sleeping, and shitting.

You can keep poking sticks like a fucking 5 year old, it doesn't make you any more right. Your arguments are all fallable, and I've actually been giving you the benefit of the doubt.

You keep adding new elements into your theory because it has errors. Here, you added "predictable." The human response obviously wasn't "Natural" because slavery occured to begin with, dimwit. It was the Civilized that deemed it inappropriate.

You casually dismiss evidence and attempt to smear, but that doesn't work in adult world. Humans were savages. Cannibals. Murderers. Slave Owners. Rapists. If these unalienable rights were granted by God or Nature, what happened to the first part of human history where, you know, they didn't fucking exist?

 

[antagon]

youre over there tugging with rabbi, where concepts fail to be so when not understood.

The rights do need to be enumerated

its only natural that conceiving and documenting every freedom possible would be a task for fools.

life expectancy is a natural suggestion as to why eternal tasks shouldnt be undertaken, perhaps.

by the 17th century, some thinkers settled upon the idea of housing the realm of possible freedoms inside some constraints mostly limited to encroaching on the freedoms of others in society. documents like the constitution would only need to enumerate some of the less obvious or 'extranatural' ones like bearing arms, which they were pretty pissed about at the time. that the governments had little rights to encroach on those of their constituents was the main idea, rather than trying to iterate what the citizens were free to do. to each his own, within the law, there.

 

[G.T.]

youre over there tugging with rabbi, where concepts fail to be so when not understood.

The rights do need to be enumerated

its only natural that conceiving and documenting every freedom possible would be a task for fools.

life expectancy is a natural suggestion as to why eternal tasks shouldnt be undertaken, perhaps.

by the 17th century, some thinkers settled upon the idea of housing the realm of possible freedoms inside some constraints mostly limited to encroaching on the freedoms of others in society. documents like the constitution would only need to enumerate some of the less obvious or 'extranatural' ones like bearing arms, which they were pretty pissed about at the time. that the governments had little rights to encroach on those of their constituents was the main idea, rather than trying to iterate what the citizens were free to do. to each his own, within the law, there.

That thinkers concluded anything does not provide a shred of credibility to Nature or God being the source. The source is because thinking Men said so. That is the source for all Rights, Freedoms, etc....etc.....etc.........

 

[beowolfe]

That question doesn't pre-suppose a creator any more than 'were dogs meant to be free'. Whether your presuppose a creator or not, the question can still be valid. And since humans have held humans as slaves from practically the beginning of their time on this planet, I'd have to say that humans were not meant to be free; but have generally evolved to the point that they recognize that freedom is the best condition in which to exist.

Umm, yea you're basically wrong. What would "meant" imply? Meant in the question implies Humans having a purpose, i.e. not here by random chance, i.e. a creator.

You can interpret it that way if you wish; but that doesn't mean that your interpretation is correct.

 

[G.T.]

Murf can giggle like a seven year old, but the Lion Gazelle analogy stands. THAT is Natural Law.

Civilization requires restraint from Nature's intent. We're hunters and gatherers for fuck's sakes.