If rights, whither from?

[antagon]

again, editec: unalienable rights are different in my opinion to natural rights. the idea of unalienable rights is a sort of wishful thinking the way i see it.

Yeah that's how I see it, too. Individual Rights within society are a TARGET, not a fact

I don't who brought "natural rights" into this debate but it serves no real purpose.

I have no idea what they're supposed to be, these "natural rights"

If rights exist, and they do not arise in the context of society, where do they COME from?

i imagine that i brought natural rights into the debate. who brought inalienable rights into play?

the purpose which i felt natural rights play in a discussion of the origins of rights is to show that they are the concepts which socially enumerated rights are based. they are where these social rights come from, to answer your question thus far. as to defining them, one would have to have heard of the concept coined in the enlightenment and recognized as the basis of modern democratic governments, including our own. i've put forward my definition of them and how that definition is derived, but different from these classical defnitions published by tomas hobbes and john locke in the 17th and 18th centuries.

as to where natural righs come from, i argue that it is a virtue of self-determined action. in turn, self determned action is some product of our wits, perhaps, compared to animals which seem to exibit merely reflexive action. dunno. because we can decide what we want to do, and recognize an entitlement to do so, the social organization required for humanity to thrive must coerce the free will of its constituents, or othrwise seize it forcefully.

to argue that these rights exist by virtue of society is the inverse of this argument. i don't remember, but perhaps seeing that that was the common opinon of many on this thread inspired me to put the record straight in my opinion with an exploration of natural rights.

 

[JBeukema]

as to where natural righs come from, i argue that it is a virtue of self-determined action.

So 'rights' are a 'virtue of' free will?

Will is will. It is evidence of nothing but will.

to argue that these rights exist by virtue of society is the inverse of this argument.

It is shown by rights are granted in the Law itself- laws are granted and revoked all the time. You've shown no evidence of your increasingly-vague 'natural rights'.

You seem totally unable of sticking to a single definition or conception of these ;natural rights', let alone forwarding any evidence of their existence as anything more than an empty rhetorical catchphrase.

 

[editec]

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.

So life is what you're talking about when you refer to your unalienable right?

Hmmmm...okay, I'll grant you that one if that's your definition.

If one is alive, then living until you're dead is your unalienable right.

And this unalienable right is yours until somebody or something alienates it from you by ending your life

Yeah, that almost makes sense if one but suspends all logic and distorts the meaning of words beyond all recognition.

Oh, and while we're about the business of living on the other side of the looking glass, let's all agree that black is white, war is peace and love is hate.

 

[sparky]

Natural and legal rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[editec]

again, editec: unalienable rights are different in my opinion to natural rights. the idea of unalienable rights is a sort of wishful thinking the way i see it.

Yeah that's how I see it, too. Individual Rights within society are a TARGET, not a fact

I don't who brought "natural rights" into this debate but it serves no real purpose.

I have no idea what they're supposed to be, these "natural rights"

If rights exist, and they do not arise in the context of society, where do they COME from?

i imagine that i brought natural rights into the debate. who brought inalienable rights into play?

I thought that the issue of rights as mentioned in the constitution was the origin of this discussion.

However, I see that I was presuming that, and it is was not, infact, the case

If rights, whither from?

1) Do people have rights?

2) If so, where do they come from?

Is there any non-theological argument for human rights?

the purpose which i felt natural rights play in a discussion of the origins of rights is to show that they are the concepts which socially enumerated rights are based.

I guess that making the distinction between natural rights and unalienable rights is where we are having difficulty arriving at a conclusion.

Perhaps we've been debating different things all along.

Natural rights, if I am understanding them according to the way some of your seem to be defining them are nothing but the rights associated with existence.

Seems rather vague concept to me since it grants you basically nothing at all, really.

It is the right granted to all life until it isn't alive.

It is nothing (or perhaps everything) but the statement that life is embued with the nature right to be alive until it isn't.

That's undoubtably true and that "natural right" truly cannot be taken away until it life itself is taken away, I suppose.

they are where these social rights come from, to answer your question thus far.

Seems to me the way we've defined "natural rights" EVERYTHING stems from them.

Seems to me that these "natural rights" are merely a restatement of being and existence.

as to defining them, one would have to have heard of the concept coined in the enlightenment and recognized as the basis of modern democratic governments, including our own. i've put forward my definition of them and how that definition is derived, but different from these classical defnitions published by tomas hobbes and john locke in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Ah, but the enlightment wasn't defining natural rights as being nothing whatever EXCEPT existence.

as to where natural righs come from, i argue that it is a virtue of self-determined action.

Self determined action implies freedom to act.

I would argue that the freedom to act is something that is EASILY denied you.

in turn, self determned action is some product of our wits, perhaps, compared to animals which seem to exibit merely reflexive action dunno.

Nah... Using that definition of natural rights that seems to be evolving in this discussion even one celled animals or plants have NATURAL rights.

because we can decide what we want to do, and recognize an entitlement to do so, the social organization required for humanity to thrive must coerce the free will of its constituents, or othrwise seize it forcefully.

Not a clue what the above means

to argue that these rights exist by virtue of society is the inverse of this argument.

Oh I don't make that argument because I as yet am not on board with the whole natural rights theory.

Not that I don't believe that that which exists doesn't exist, but because its entirely irrelevent to the concept of human rights.

i don't remember, but perhaps seeing that that was the common opinon of many on this thread inspired me to put the record straight in my opinion with an exploration of 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.

So life is what you're talking about when you refer to your unalienable right?

Hmmmm...okay, I'll grant you that one if that's your definition.

If one is alive, then living until you're dead is your unalienable right.

And this unalienable right is yours until somebody or something alienates it from you by ending your life

Yeah, that almost makes sense if one but suspends all logic and distorts the meaning of words beyond all recognition.

Oh, and while we're about the business of living on the other side of the looking glass, let's all agree that black is white, war is peace and love is hate.

Well Sparky.... You either are missing your medication or inserting it in the wrong orifice again. It is not a suppository. While we are on the subject of your inability to comprehend, please stop drinking out of the toilet. That would be so helpful , thanks.

Unalienable Rights, come from the Creator, not Man, not Government. The best we can do, as Individuals, as a society, is recognize them. We grow and develop from a solid foundation, most of us anyway.

There are things one does and fails to do that brings consequence, by God, Nature, Society, Government, through Circumstance, cause and effect. Digest that pea brain.

Unalienable Rights Defined

 

[antagon]

as to where natural righs come from, i argue that it is a virtue of self-determined action.

So 'rights' are a 'virtue of' free will?

Will is will. It is evidence of nothing but will.

free will, beukema, natural rights are a virtue of that. i'm no shrink, but the roots of your inept comprehension skills could be in your attention to detail. such a lack of precision could have afforded you your failures in science and mathematics.

 

[JBeukema]

Main Entry: vir·tue
Pronunciation: \ˈvər-(&#716chü\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English vertu, virtu, from Anglo-French, from Latin virtut-, virtus strength, manliness, virtue, from vir man — more at virile
Date: 13th century
1 a : conformity to a standard of right : morality b : a particular moral excellence
2 plural : an order of angels — see celestial hierarchy
3 : a beneficial quality or power of a thing
4 : manly strength or courage : valor
5 : a commendable quality or trait : merit
6 : a capacity to act : potency
7 : chastity especially in a woman




'natural rights' are a 'quality' or free will?


a 'morality' of free will?


a trait characterizing free will?


You're still just throwing around meaningless rhetoric.


Will you please settle on one line of bullshit and stick with it?


Funny that you claim these metaphysical 'rights' are 'virtue' or something that's at least partially illusory and has been shown to not truly exist, as at least our most immediate decisions are made seconds before we become aware of them.

 

[antagon]

I guess that making the distinction between natural rights and unalienable rights is where we are having difficulty arriving at a conclusion.

Perhaps we've been debating different things all along.

indeed.

otherwise, you have attempted to reduce an already simplified definition to a single word - existence. i'm not sure what the motivation is behind this sort of thing is, but synonyms fail to direcly define eachother quite often. that you've attempted to make such a reduction accounts for this:

as to defining them, one would have to have heard of the concept coined in the enlightenment and recognized as the basis of modern democratic governments, including our own. i've put forward my definition of them and how that definition is derived, but different from these classical defnitions published by tomas hobbes and john locke in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Ah, but the enlightment wasn't defining natural rights as being nothing whatever EXCEPT existence.

the above is an instance of your outlandish redefinition not fitting with historical definitions.

'existence' doesn't satisfy my definition in that i've defined them as leave to act of our free will. it is necessary exist to possess natural rights, but that's certainly not all that's necessary.

hobbes argued that natural rights were as i have, but in Leviathan he qualified them as being exclusive to actions in pursuit of self-preservation. locke qualified them as actions related to his concept of natural law. i dont subscribe to the concept of natural law, and i would say that hobbe's self-preservation qualifier is not neccessary to all freedoms at all.

for that reason, i have stripped these classic definitions of their suprfluous qualifiers, in fact, empowering a more effective analysis of the impact which they have on social interactons, in my opinion.

Not that I don't believe that that which exists doesn't exist, but because its entirely irrelevent to the concept of human rights.

because we can decide what we want to do, and recognize an entitlement to do so, the social organization required for humanity to thrive must coerce the free will of its constituents, or othrwise seize it forcefully.

Not a clue what the above means

social contracts are fundamentally based on an exchange of natual rights as i have defined them. social cooperation and the social contracts which organize it is crucial to our survival. we're not equiped to survive all alone - definately not afforded the planetary domination we exert on earth without our history of social cooperation. lets look at it again:

because we can decide what we want to do, and recognize an entitlement to do so - natural rights - the social organization required for humanity to thrive - social contracts - must coerce the free will of its constituents - by offering the entitlements of cooperation - or othrwise seize it forcefully - like benefitting from the self-determined actions of slaves, for example.

does that offer a clue? this clue is central to understanding mine and enlightenment contentions as to the nature and function of rights in a natural environment or vacuum and in a social contract.

as to human rights, these are recognitions of natural rights which locke in particular argued were essential to protect in a social contract. i consider protections of some of these core rights to be parts of the coercive mechanism of our social contract. that some (or many) consider 'human rights' and 'unalienable rights' to be derived from government iitself indicates that this coersion has worked.

 

[antagon]

3 : a beneficial quality or power of a thing

'natural rights' are a 'quality' or free will?

yes.

You're still just throwing around meaningless rhetoric.

like i said a whle back: nobody cares what a philosophical simpleton ascribes meaning to.

 

[JBeukema]

3 : a beneficial quality or power of a thing

'natural rights' are a 'quality' or free will?

yes.

Main Entry: free will
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
1 : voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention


So 'natural rights' are an attribute of decision?


Do demonstrate, as will itself is evidence only of will.

You're still just throwing around meaningless rhetoric.

like i said a whle back: nobody cares what a philosophical simpleton ascribes meaning to.

[/QUOTE]



You keep floundering around for how many pages now? It's ability, it;s free will, it's not ability, it's an attribute of free will

Why can't you make up your mind?

 

[antagon]

first you'll have to quote me before you claim that i have ever made the inconsistent contentions which you claim. remember? put up or shut up with the bullshit. its as simple as that. you've demonstrated that your grasp of english is so loose that you should sooner question whether or not you understand anything i've contended, rather than feeling confident that i have been inconsistent with my message.

--------------------

exploring the relationship between the concept of natural rights and free will, it would help that you understood a bit of the concept before coming into a discussion on it. failing that in your case, perhaps one-liner definitions fail to make the point that multi-volume tomes like leviathan did for posterity. perhaps i could expound, and perhaps you could absorb a concept longer than a phrase despite your skim-and-multiquote school of philosophy:

i point out that because will is free and determined by individuals, there is a quality or attribute which arises from that circumstance that requires that the actions determined by that free will must appeal to the senses of the individual. rather than ants reacting on instinct to pheromones, humans act on intuition and consideration of inputs. we will choose if and how to act.

to get us to comply with desired actions in the way which ants do instinctively, humans must be coerced or cajoled into action. even if by threat of force, we choose to act. natural rights is a term related to this contrast from actions arising from instinct or autonomously independent from thought, like the beating of our heart. it is related specifically to actions of free will or self-detemined action.

natural rights have been defined for 300+ years as freedom of will, drawing on the characteristic of freedom, rather than to will itself. while the older definitions of which i am aware include some qualifications ascribing specific aims and moral values to the actions which constitute natural rights, i have stripped these qualifiers in my definition, arguing that they were not necessary to the concept.

the term, rather than being meaningless rhetoric by your inept appraisal, was the basis of a philosophical reassessment of society's nature. revised from your vision - where rights are derived from government - to the concept as i see it - where rights are exploited and impaired by government. this enlightenment gave rise to modern democracy. like the democracies of antiquity, such constituents as yourself, who demonstrate massive deficits of capacity and willingness for thought, could empower government with control of your natural rights sufficient to bring about a dark age. is this so cyclical?

 

[JBeukema]

I showed it repeatedly over the past 17 pages.

Your faith is threatened, rendering you incapable of honesty.

 

[JBeukema]

natural rights have been defined for 300+ years as freedom of will, drawing on the characteristic of freedom, rather than to will itself.

So 'rights' are just a 'freedom ' to an illusory will?

So you have freedom to will to be free?

Very comforting to the slave. Now that you've once again rendered your 'rights' meaningless and now shown that appealing to them means absolutely nothing, since you've no 'right' to be in a state of liberty, only to wish (will) to be in a state of liberty, I wonder why it took you 17 pages to finally settle on this crap.

the term, rather than being meaningless rhetoric by your inept appraisal, was the basis of a philosophical reassessment of society's nature.

The nature of society is as it has always been, the product of social contract, formed by mutual interests, class antagonisms, and the will and abilities of the actors to mould the society and its norms, ethics, laws,m and machinations to their wishes.

 

[antagon]

you could demonstrate that it isn't your faith that is imperiled in this discussion by puting up evidence that i have made contradictory contentions, or shutting up about the matter.

------------------------

within your summary of society, there are wide variances as to how these interactions are understood and the implications of that understanding. do you claim that society has been the same throughout history in line with your claim that the nature of it has been?

------------------------

Very comforting to the slave. Now that you've once again rendered your 'rights' meaningless and now shown that appealing to them means absolutely nothing, since you've no 'right' to be in a state of liberty, only to wish (will) to be in a state of liberty, I wonder why it took you 17 pages to finally settle on this crap.

again, dummy, you'll have to argue your own contentions, rather than attribute them to me. that you feel there is room to conclude the above from what i've ever written is only a testiment to your inability to comprehend basic concepts in english. in light of that, as i've said before, you're too stupid to lay a credible attribution of meaning to anything. you are too ignorant to note that regardless of comfort, slaves still act of their will - even under threat of force as i had explained. our self-determined actions are naturally inseperable from ourselves and must be appealed to - the inverse of what you have concluded above.

could you be that stupid as to get concepts written in plain english 180 degrees wrong?

 

[editec]

Thus far no one has come even remotely close to proving the existence of unalienaable rights, folks.

We've swerves all over the place even attempting to define what these rights are (or even if they exist) and thus far we failed miserably to do that, too.

What is a RIGHT?

Merely asserting that something exists, doesn't make it so.

Appealing to some supposed authority on the subject that something exists doesn't rise to the leve of proof, either.

Show me a RIGHT in this world.

Define it IN THIS WORLD.

Appeals to one's deeply held religious believes are worthless in this discussion.

This discussion is reality based, not otherworld based.

Yes, there IS a difference, even if one is a believer.

 

[Intense]

Wow, the free expression of Ideas, Thought, Reason, in your case, lack of reason, ability, justification, none of that really exists at all. You are a figment of the dark side of my imagination. Thats it! Nobody has any natural right to anything either because we do not exist, or because the government doesn't recognize us at all, is that it? All good originates from the Party, outside of the Party is the great void. If it can't be explained or taxed, or controlled it will be denied. There is party7 think where all is arbitrary to it's relation to the bug up the leader's ass, and all else we will refuse to recognize!!!

Or... There is that which we think, imagine, dream, say, do, that bears consequence, both good and bad, to what ever variable and degree, from, God, Nature, Society, and Government. Hmmm....

I'll go with the second view. Should your head ever find it's way out of your ass, give it some thought.

 

[JBeukema]

you could demonstrate that it isn't your faith that is imperiled in this discussion by puting up evidence that i have made contradictory contentions, or shutting up about the matter.

Did it every time you redefined your bullshit over the last 17 pages. Not gonna waste my time going through it all again. It's all there.

within your summary of society, there are wide variances as to how these interactions are understood and the implications of that understanding.

Yep. Ever take a gander at our political process or read a history book?

as i've said before, you're too stupid to lay a credible attribution of meaning to anything.

Name-calling only highlights your inability to make a coherent argument, especially in light of your ever-changing definitions.

you are too ignorant to note that regardless of comfort, slaves still act of their will

Right, which explains why I've explained that very fact time and again here on USMB in repeated discussions regarding the social contract.

Now, you were supposed to be sticking to one definition of these 'natural rights' and producing some evidence of their existence.

- even under threat of force as i had explained. our self-determined actions are naturally inseperable from ourselves and must be appealed to - the inverse of what you have concluded above.

Your actions must be appealed to? When? For what? What subject are you on now?

 

[JBeukema]

Thus far no one has come even remotely close to proving the existence of unalienaable rights, folks.

We've swerves all over the place even attempting to define what these rights are (or even if they exist) and thus far we failed miserably to do that, too.

What is a RIGHT?

Merely asserting that something exists, doesn't make it so.

Appealing to some supposed authority on the subject that something exists doesn't rise to the leve of proof, either.

Show me a RIGHT in this world.

Define it IN THIS WORLD.

Appeals to one's deeply held religious believes are worthless in this discussion.

This discussion is reality based, not otherworld based.

Yes, there IS a difference, even if one is a believer.

Wow, the free expression of Ideas, Thought, Reason, in your case, lack of reason, ability, justification, none of that really exists at all. You are a figment of the dark side of my imagination. Thats it! Nobody has any natural right to anything either because we do not exist, or because the government doesn't recognize us at all, is that it? All good originates from the Party, outside of the Party is the great void. If it can't be explained or taxed, or controlled it will be denied. There is party7 think where all is arbitrary to it's relation to the bug up the leader's ass, and all else we will refuse to recognize!!!

Or... There is that which we think, imagine, dream, say, do, that bears consequence, both good and bad, to what ever variable and degree, from, God, Nature, Society, and Government. Hmmm....

I'll go with the second view. Should your head ever find it's way out of your ass, give it some thought.

Translation: 'I cannot meet ed's challange and I'm not honest enough to simply admit that'.

 

[Intense]

Thus far no one has come even remotely close to proving the existence of unalienaable rights, folks.

We've swerves all over the place even attempting to define what these rights are (or even if they exist) and thus far we failed miserably to do that, too.

What is a RIGHT?

Merely asserting that something exists, doesn't make it so.

Appealing to some supposed authority on the subject that something exists doesn't rise to the leve of proof, either.

Show me a RIGHT in this world.

Define it IN THIS WORLD.

Appeals to one's deeply held religious believes are worthless in this discussion.

This discussion is reality based, not otherworld based.

Yes, there IS a difference, even if one is a believer.

Wow, the free expression of Ideas, Thought, Reason, in your case, lack of reason, ability, justification, none of that really exists at all. You are a figment of the dark side of my imagination. Thats it! Nobody has any natural right to anything either because we do not exist, or because the government doesn't recognize us at all, is that it? All good originates from the Party, outside of the Party is the great void. If it can't be explained or taxed, or controlled it will be denied. There is party7 think where all is arbitrary to it's relation to the bug up the leader's ass, and all else we will refuse to recognize!!!

Or... There is that which we think, imagine, dream, say, do, that bears consequence, both good and bad, to what ever variable and degree, from, God, Nature, Society, and Government. Hmmm....

I'll go with the second view. Should your head ever find it's way out of your ass, give it some thought.

Translation: 'I cannot meet ed's challange and I'm not honest enough to simply admit that'.

Translation, either we accept or reject Conscience.

Why is it so important for the Totalitarian Statist to accept that there are forces and powers beyond the authority of the State?