If rights, whither from?

[editec]

It sounds like you are attesting that there are inherent rights. Under that guise I would ask what are those rights? Rights differ MASSIVELY depending on when and where you are. Even in present day there are huge differences in what are perceived rights from Americans and other nations particularly eastern nations. If there are inherent rights then they should be able to be identified. More importantly, I believe that the amount and scope of rights INCREASES as society becomes more mature and resources become more available at lesser cost.

No, rights are not inherent but subject to the grater society that creates them and those rights change as time and society pass.

first, i define those rights as the produce of freedom - leave to conduct any of the infinite actions taken by way of self-determination.

where these rights differ so massively is in the context of a social contract which recognizes some of these rights based on a massive variety of values that vary from contract to contract. whichever set of values is upheld, the contract's aim is to restrict other rights or freedoms in exchange for protections or entitlement. this restriction is an agreed forfeiture of freedoms which are taken in by the community or the government, and the forfeited values also differ. in the US, we forfeit rights along the lines of thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, in exchange for protection of our right to free speach, etc.

as to the increase in rights with societal maturity, the very proposal by thinkers in the age of enlightenment, that rights are indeed inherent, and that the social contract which conscripts government ought to be based on agreed protection and exclusion from infringement of certain natural rights is the basis of such mature societies.

i argue that there is an economy of good faith, from which societies profit or take loss, that revolves around the rights available to its constituents in the social contract. simplifying the forces, i characterize them as stability and volatility, in line with john locks righteous rebellion concept, and the decidedly more stable contracts afforded by democracy's facilitation of fluid barter of rights to and from the contract.

i challenge the idea that rights don't predate government or society, because these are the bases of societies altogether.

If one defines anarchy as that state where everyone has natural rights until somebody takes them away, perhaps.

we live in a 'mature' social contract,

True.

but i argue that the goal of such immature ones as slavery and tyranny is to seize and exploit the rights of constituent individuals at the behest of a single individual or oligarchy.

True also

, societies recognize the value in the amassed will (the several natural rights actioned) - initself, the basis our our specie's survival

Confusing, but I think also basically true.

Sorry for the late reply, lots of threads keeping me occupied. I think we basically agree here except on one point. You find that right exist inherently and I believe that what you attribute to rights is actually abilities.

Yup!

What some are calling natural rights are merely what people can do if not impeded from doing so by a greater opposing force.

I find that right do not have meaning outside of the social contract that we have been discussing here as they would essentially be synonymous with ability at that point.

Yes

Instead, when entering a social contract you give up many of those freedoms in exchange FOR rights, those things that society deems protected.

Spot on. But since most of us are born "free" in this scoiety, we have trouble understanding that.

Slaves would have gotten it in a heartbeat.

This is merely a semantics argument though as we seems to see it the same way, I just withhold calling the right until AFTER they have been defined within a social contract.

Yes, this is a semantics argument rather than one that can actually be socially productive.

Completely agree.

The ONLY benefit of having this debate is to wake people up to the fact that RIGHTS are NOT inherent in any meaningful way in the world without the POWER to back them up.

The division here does give a certain meaning though, those things that are defined as rights are never given up or exchanged. In that context we maneuver around the colossal landmine that viewing things the way you have put it gives - the fact that those rights can be exchanged or edited.

There is no living thing that has rights that cannot be edited.

Sooner or later every so called right one can possibly have is edited when your life is edited.

As I stated before, society should always move to giving individuals MORE rights and never less and to that end it is somewhat dangerous to view rights as something that can simply be given away within a social contract.

The current MYTH about unalienable rights is just so much SMOKE being used by people seeking to curtail government.

That's why this myth is being shoved down our throats.

That leads to things like the patriot act, people giving rights up because the need to feel safe, whether or not that safety is real or imagined. Our society today puts special focus on the fact that rights can never be taken away and I believe that is the basis for any government that serves the people.

If the Patriot act isn't a curtailment of our liberty what is?

Liberty isn't the natural order.

It's a GOAL, not a fact.

None of us who live in a civil society are truly free.

 

[Yukon.]

The American Patriot Act is a insult to all living men who believe in freedom, and to those who died fighting for freedom it is disgusting.

I thank God I'm free in Canada where such a law could never pass in our Parliament without forcing an election.

"Free at last, free at last. Thank God above the 49th I'm free." - Yukon, July 1st, 2010

 

[antagon]

please note: antagon must eat, fuck, sleep, excercise and earn a living in addition to philosophizing online.

NOOOOOOO WAAAAAAAYYYY, nobody here sleeps, you can eat at your computer, welfare will pay for your habits and NOBODY here ever gets the chance to fuck so that makes exercise unnecessary!!!

well. part of why i'm on here is that my sleep patterns have gone totally haywire.

welfare for men my age is prison. very regimented meal and exercise times; not my kind of fuckin either. doubt they'll let me at a messageboard.

there is some prophecy in your words, tho. i've already been admonished that USMB is 'not sexy' and i've been annoyed that i had to make a sales call or administer my 'gentlemen's services' when i really wanted to give JB or someone a piece of my mind.

not quite time for poster's anonymous, but i'm working on it.

 

[JBeukema]

i think that ability and natural rights are different. the most specific difference is that rights are determined by our will.

If the will determines what rights people have, they are social/positive rights- you have them because it is willed that you have them.

wrong.

You can't have it both ways, genius.

 

[JBeukema]

Yup!

What some are calling natural rights are merely what people can do if not impeded from doing so by a greater opposing force.

Making 'natural rights' a meaningless phrase and appeal to such meaningless an exercise in empty rhetoric.

 

[Intense]

The American Patriot Act is a insult to all living men who believe in freedom, and to those who died fighting for freedom it is disgusting.

I thank God I'm free in Canada where such a law could never pass in our Parliament without forcing an election.

"Free at last, free at last. Thank God above the 49th I'm free." - Yukon, July 1st, 2010

Maybe we should just invade you and change that? We should be done by dinner.

Me thinks we have more rights than you Yukon.

 

[Intense]

Yup!

What some are calling natural rights are merely what people can do if not impeded from doing so by a greater opposing force.

Making 'natural rights' a meaningless phrase and appeal to such meaningless an exercise in empty rhetoric.

When Tyrants rule there are no perceived rights. People revolt, people die, we start again. My observation and question is why do we repeatedly fuck up the simplest concepts? Measuring our achievements against our vulnerabilities, we are pretty spastic when it comes to government control.

 

[antagon]

If the will determines what rights people have, they are social/positive rights- you have them because it is willed that you have them.

wrong.

You can't have it both ways, genius.

and you cant understand anything i've written or has been written about natural rights in the last 400 years.

Making 'natural rights' a meaningless phrase and appeal to such meaningless an exercise in empty rhetoric.

nobody cares what a philosophical simpleton attributes meaning to.

 

[JBeukema]

Still no evidence, I see.

Or are you back to defining them as abilities? Or are you backing away from that again?

Make up your mind.

 

[editec]

Yup!

What some are calling natural rights are merely what people can do if not impeded from doing so by a greater opposing force.

Making 'natural rights' a meaningless phrase and appeal to such meaningless an exercise in empty rhetoric.

I didn't "make" them that, that's basically all they are, Beuk.

Don't blame me, blame the nature of things.

 

[editec]

Yup!

What some are calling natural rights are merely what people can do if not impeded from doing so by a greater opposing force.

Making 'natural rights' a meaningless phrase and appeal to such meaningless an exercise in empty rhetoric.

When Tyrants rule there are no perceived rights. People revolt, people die, we start again. My observation and question is why do we repeatedly fuck up the simplest concepts? Measuring our achievements against our vulnerabilities, we are pretty spastic when it comes to government control.

It's in the nature of government to govern.

And its in the nature of those with power to use it to their advantage.

Hence every society, however noble its origins, inevitably fails.

History is replete with this message, folks.

America is not unique in that pattern.

What you and I are living through is this...

America reached the zenith of it power in our lifetimes.

Now it is on its way down.

This could take generations, and we undoubtably will continue to be a powerful nation, especcially militarily, but the masters are abandoning this vehcile (this nation) and draining it of its economic vitality.

This is, I think, by DESIGN.

England went through the same damned thing, ya know.

And now England is a welfare state.

It didn't fall because it was a welfare state, it became a welfare state because it fell.

 

[antagon]

Still no evidence, I see.

Or are you back to defining them as abilities? Or are you backing away from that again?

Make up your mind.

look, kid, while i've not redefined my take on natural rights for five years or so your abilities argument, your meaning argument, your argument that i am referring exclusively to social contexts are your own contentions. you're supposed to argue those yourself. making up your mind that i've in any way made those claims is not the same as presenting a rebuttal to my shooting down those same claims of yours, severally. not any more convincing than making an ad lapidem dismissal of what i contend to be valid evidence for the components of my theory.

i'm not going to pretend that 'we' are laughing, but speaking for myself, you've demonstrated the wits and argumentation of homer simpson.

 

[editec]

Have we put to rest the absurd argument that somehow we have rights that exist outside the physical universe, yet?

I mean for the fatith based there is no hope of reaching those people.

I mean for those of you who thought the term "unalienable rights" was something more than political hyperbole.

Do we see that it isn't, now?

If we have any rights at all, it's because we DEMAND them, and WE DEFEND them.

Pretty simple, really.

But are those rights unalienable or absolute?

Not a chance.

 

[Intense]

Have we put to rest the absurd argument that somehow we have rights that exist outside the physical universe, yet?

I mean for the fatith based there is no hope of reaching those people.

I mean for those of you who thought the term "unalienable rights" was something more than political hyperbole.

Do we see that it isn't, now?

If we have any rights at all, it's because we DEMAND them, and WE DEFEND them.

Pretty simple, really.

But are those rights unalienable or absolute?

Not a chance.

There is Spiritual, there is physical. Get over it. Who are you to decree???

You using the word "Hope" seems a bit hypocritical. Reaching people? To what end? To what purpose? There have always been things beyond our understanding, there always will be. Are you seeking to draw undefendable conclusions, or are you so sure of your reason? What is your end? What purpose does it serve to deny God?

When I think of the abuse of Unalienable Rights, I find the reason for all war's. When Unalienable right's are respected, there is equilibrium. When abused, the instinctive urge to retaliate, to remove the offense. When people are treated justly, there is peace, balance. The reason and purpose of the law lags behind the need brought by circumstance. The one is the cause for the other. I think you confuse the two. We prescribe to the Governing by the consent of the governed. Why try so hard to make the governed forget that?

Inalienable Rights are there when asserted. Even by leaving the group, it is evident. It is the forces of creation that govern, by circumstance. Everything is conditional Editic. Nothing is absolute. Life could easily end tomorrow for either of us, by accident, by heart attack. There are no guarantee's. One makes the best of this life, with reason, ability, action. To submit to arbitrary government control, submitting your free will, is your choice to make. Why though, encourage others to submit, against their welfare, to enrich power mongers, is beyond me. I recognize the need for government, I also recognize it's limits, beyond that, it is far from righteous. What comes after this life, it is neither your place or mine to claim with authority. Why should people believing in the life to come bother you in the least? Is it something more than that?

 

[JBeukema]

Inalienable Rights are there when asserted.

If they're not existent unless it's asserted they are...

 

[Intense]

Inalienable Rights are there when asserted.

If they're not existent unless it's asserted they are...

Dormant.

Sometimes It's as simple as changing a diaper, or picking up a stick to defend yourself. One must choose and assert. One has the right to try. To decide. It's up to each of us. One can learn to swim or drown. Survival of the fittest, the thinning out of the herd, are obstacles to overcome. What exactly is guaranteed outcome? Sickness, Disease, Fire Flood, Invasion, Sky Lab falling on your head, there are things beyond our control. That doesn't change the need for balance, fair play. Cause and effect through the social contract, or nature, has to balance. As we all argue over what that balance is, as we change, grow, regress, life goes on. So do we live life through our own eye's or deny what we would otherwise know, and live life through other peoples eye's, enslaved through their expectations of us? If so, to what degree? When is enough, enough?

 

[JBeukema]

If they're dormant, they're present.

Will you people make up your minds?


You assert they're always present but then assert that they don't exist at all until you define the social contract (that is, redefining the nature of human interaction through speech or action) in such a manner as to include such rhetoric as 'natural rights'.

 

[Intense]

If they're dormant, they're present.

Will you people make up your minds?


You assert they're always present but then assert that they don't exist at all until you define the social contract (that is, redefining the nature of human interaction through speech or action) in such a manner as to include such rhetoric as 'natural rights'.

The social contract is part of your dogma, not mine. I have no expectation of others. Play the hand your dealt. If the dealer is shady walk, go into direct competition, if it pleases you. Energy exists be it kinetic, radiant, or conductive. Still it is what it is, whether we label it or not. Do I need permission to use radiant energy? Is it wasted if I choose not to utilize it? That's a matter of perspective and here I will use my own. No it is not wasted because I did not do with it as instructed. There is more to life than doing other peoples bidding.

Rights exist whether utilized or not. I reserve the right to say no. I reserve the right to say yes. I reserve the right to decide later, to change my mind, my taste, my desire. These are Unalienable Rights.

 

[JBeukema]

The social contract is part of your dogma, not mine

Right... are the laws of thermodynamics 'dogma'?

Social Contract is not an ideology. It's not a proposal. It's not a solution or a policy. It's a simple fact. It is an explanation of how humans interact and how their social systems, both formal and informal, take shape, from the underlying rules that govern their interaction to the emergence of government and laws to the rise and fall of States. Recognizing the manner in which people interact is not supporting any given system that might arise from such interactions any more than explaining how the laws of thermodynamics govern the manner in which heat spreads is advocating the lighting of a candle or a bonfire or a church or any other given flame.

Rights exist whether utilized or not.​

Define and demonstrate.

I reserve the right to say no. I reserve the right to say yes. I reserve the right to decide later, to change my mind, my taste, my desire. These are Unalienable Rights

Those are abilities you might or might not have. And you can do nothing later except decay once you are slain. What 'rights' can't be taken from you or denied to you?
​

 

[JBeukema]

Rights cannot be natural, like laws of nature, because nature enforces its laws absolutely, whereas rights are frequently broken. Rights cannot be inalienable, because governments frequently revoke rights. They cannot be God-given, because God originally blessed the rights of monarchy, genocide, polygamy, parental killing of disrespectful children, and other rights no one seriously defends today. Rights cannot be self-evident, because philosophers have been vigorously arguing over them for thousands of years.

Rights are natural, inalienable and self-evident.