What are basic human rights?

[theDoctorisIn]

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"?

Somewhat closer to a useful answer to the question.

What is "useful", in this context?

How would we "use" this answer?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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]

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.

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.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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?

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

I have the ability to think for myself.

 

[dblack]

Where do you expect to "get"?

Somewhat closer to a useful answer to the question.

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.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Somewhat closer to a useful answer to the question.

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.

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

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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]

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.

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.

 

[dblack]

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

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]

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.

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

What interests you about the question?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

What interests you about the question?

The definition of the term "rights".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

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. 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.

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]

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

What interests you about the question?

The definition of the term "rights".

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]

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?

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

I have the ability to think for myself.

You are a very pathetic person.

SRSLY

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

You are a very pathetic person.

SRSLY

LOL OMG ROLFMAO

Care to contribute anything more than that?

 

[dblack]

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]

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?

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?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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. They still have the right to fight for that right, even if everyone in the world disagrees with them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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.

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]

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

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. 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.

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.

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.