What are basic human rights?

[TakeAStepBack]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

Possibly, but what are you basing that assertion on?

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

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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]

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 ?

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

 

[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.

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?

 

[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]

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.

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

Then rights are not human concepts, are they?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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]

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?

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]

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?

Then rights are not human concepts, are they?

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]

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.