What are basic human rights?

[dilloduck]

Either way---rules to try to manage behavior with. It makes some one the final arbiter of someone else's behavior and that determines if we are free to do what we feel like doing without being punished. The golden rule is pretty but a far cry from how life really works.

 

[midcan5]

I answered them all. Humans have no rights.

That does not answer any of the questions. Substitute agent and action and tell us how an action of one person is resolved when in conflict with another. Let's assume these agents don't agree with you and they consider their action OK - a right in the simplest sense. (I agree with you on another level)

I like loud music, it calms me, my neighbor likes quiet. Who resolves this rights's conflict. [No simple answers, I can think of them myself.] See link below too.

===

QW, this is why you never understand my threads or posts, you do what most everyone does, you answer your interpretation of the question not the (my) question.

Who decides when rights collide?

How do rights collide? Does my right to criticize the government prevent you from criticizing the government? Is it remotely possible that you assume that my right to shelter conflicts with your right to keep me out of your house? Wouldn't that make the point that I don't actually have a right to shelter?

Did slave owners have the right to own slaves?
Excuse me? Where, other than in your fantasies, has anyone here argued that slavery is a right? Aren't the people you trying to mock the same people that insist that rights do not come from the government?

Where is your right to shelter written? Sounds like you are big on welfare and entitlements, would not those rights(?) follow too if shelter is a right? Rights collide constantly, see music example above and link below.

I asked did they have a 'right,' many argued they did based both on religion and on the assumption that blacks were inferior to whites. Check John C. Calhoun for instance, he argued the southern states had this right. Slaves were to be submissive, similar to women. If slaves had rights, do you really think they would remain slaves? or submissive?

No, men do not, but I did not ask that, you did. Not relevant. You did not answer. Your replies are bizarre, 'rights define people?' Where is the magic fountain of rights? You need to do better you are making little sense here.

====

I disagree with this dichotomy of morals and ethics. Lawyers can withdraw from cases, but the lawyer's role is to do the best they can for the defendant within the limits of moral guidelines. Do not lie or tamper with evidence, for instance. No defendant is going to say they are guilty, now defend me. The assumption of innocence holds. I may come back to this.

'On Conflict of Human Rights' >>> http://law.unh.edu/assets/images/uploads/publications/pierce-law-review-vol05-no1-xu-wilson.pdf

Defend the guilty. >>> http://www.lsuc.on.ca/media/sith_colloquium_asimow_michael.pdf

 

[longknife]

IMHO, one has the right to live peacefully in one's home doing whatever they wish - as long as it does not negatively affect anyone outside of their home.

One has the right to travel about without fear and the ability to protect themselves from harm.

One has the right to say anything they wish as long as it does not affect the SAFETY of others.

There are many more but this is all I can come up with off the top of my head.

 

[dblack]

IMHO, one has the right to live peacefully in one's home doing whatever they wish - as long as it does not negatively affect anyone outside of their home.

One has the right to travel about without fear and the ability to protect themselves from harm.

One has the right to say anything they wish as long as it does not affect the SAFETY of others.

There are many more but this is all I can come up with off the top of my head.

That's a good start.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW, this is why you never understand my threads or posts, you do what most everyone does, you answer your interpretation of the question not the (my) question.

The reason I do not understand your posts is they are not based in reality. You post about historical facts that are demonstrably false, and never acknowledge that I educated you on the facts. You then post things like this:

Rights are impossible to assess once we proceed past certain obvious homilies. Of course we should not attack another without reason, but too often reason hasn't anything to do with behavior. Consider only the utopian idea that the enlightenment would bring forth the end of religious persecution and create a just society based on reason. Then read history. I don't have a lot of time right now, but I'll return, meanwhile I debated rights in link below and include FDR and the universal rights as points of interest.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/239966-listening-to-paul-ryan.html

FDR's new bill of rights

'In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.'

Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

Read more: FDR?s Second Bill of Rights

The universal rights

'Preamble: Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world'

Human Rights 50th Anniversary / Universal Declaration

'All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.'

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

And then pretend that I support entitlements when I point out the only logical conclusion it is possible to draw if you think that those are rights.

Do you plan on ever learning how to think, or do you want to go to your grave known as the pseudo-intellectual quote master?

Who decides when rights collide?

How do rights collide? Does my right to criticize the government prevent you from criticizing the government? Is it remotely possible that you assume that my right to shelter conflicts with your right to keep me out of your house? Wouldn't that make the point that I don't actually have a right to shelter?

Did slave owners have the right to own slaves?
Excuse me? Where, other than in your fantasies, has anyone here argued that slavery is a right? Aren't the people you trying to mock the same people that insist that rights do not come from the government?

Where is your right to shelter written?

That's the fracking point, idiot, no one has a right to shelter. They have a right to obtain shelter through work, or begging, or simply wander around in the elements. They do not have a right to force other people to supply them with shelter, that is slavery.

Sounds like you are big on welfare and entitlements, would not those rights(?) follow too if shelter is a right? Rights collide constantly, see music example above and link below.

Rights never collide. The music example is not a collision of rights, it is a collision of idiocy.

I asked did they have a 'right,' many argued they did based both on religion and on the assumption that blacks were inferior to whites. Check John C. Calhoun for instance, he argued the southern states had this right. Slaves were to be submissive, similar to women. If slaves had rights, do you really think they would remain slaves? or submissive?

What you did is assume that someone attempt to rationalize away the existence of rights somehow justifies you doing the same thing. You then used that argument to ask a question that is not based in reality, and you then expect other people to accept your faulty premise as the truth, and act accordingly.

My refusal to accept a false reality in no way proves I am stupid. You really need to work harder on dealing with the real world, and ask real questions.

No, men do not, but I did not ask that, you did. Not relevant. You did not answer. Your replies are bizarre, 'rights define people?' Where is the magic fountain of rights? You need to do better you are making little sense here.

Who isn't making sense where? Did you tenuous connection to reality completely snap? Are you arguing with the voices in your head?

I disagree with this dichotomy of morals and ethics. Lawyers can withdraw from cases, but the lawyer's role is to do the best they can for the defendant within the limits of moral guidelines. Do not lie or tamper with evidence, for instance. No defendant is going to say they are guilty, now defend me. The assumption of innocence holds. I may come back to this.

Tough fucking shit. I disagree with the dichotomy of choosing between security and safety, that does not mean that I am going to pretend it is not a real choice, and actually insist that it is possible to make a choice in that area. I just refuse to let other people do it for me. You should go ask a lawyer why it is ethically, and morally, wrong to only defend a client within the limits of his moral guidelines.

FYI, there would be nothing wrong with a client telling a lawyer he is guilty, and then asking the lawyer to defend him anyway. A rather simple example of this would be a protestor who chains himself to a tree in order to save a spotted owl nest.

You won't come back to this because you never come back to anything once I have proven that you are wrong.

 

[midcan5]

This discussion is never ending. I think people confuse right with ability rather than actuality, potential rather than reality. Rights are fluid things that change with time and place. This is often the point of departure in discussion. Some imagine rights as natural, I disagree, for rights have changed too much, even during my short existence. And if a right is an entitlement to something, what good is a right if there is no possibility. My questions above still remain unanswered.


'Right. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process, or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include various freedoms, protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property, civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts, natural rights accepted by civilized societies, human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor, and such American constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. 2) adj. just, fair, correct. (See: civil rights, marital rights)' right legal definition of right. right synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


"Human rights are based on the principle of respect for the individual. Their fundamental assumption is that each person is a moral and rational being who deserves to be treated with dignity. They are called human rights because they are universal. Whereas nations or specialized groups enjoy specific rights that apply only to them, human rights are the rights to which everyone is entitled—no matter who they are or where they live—simply because they are alive.

Yet many people, when asked to name their rights, will list only freedom of speech and belief and perhaps one or two others. There is no question these are important rights, but the full scope of human rights is very broad. They mean choice and opportunity. They mean the freedom to obtain a job, adopt a career, select a partner of one’s choice and raise children. They include the right to travel widely and the right to work gainfully without harassment, abuse and threat of arbitrary dismissal. They even embrace the right to leisure.

In ages past, there were no human rights. Then the idea emerged that people should have certain freedoms. And that idea, in the wake of World War II, resulted finally in the document called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the thirty rights to which all people are entitled." Definition of Human Rights Video | What Are Human Rights? : United for Human Rights


"Human rights are basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, language, or other status.

Human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life, liberty and freedom of expression; and social, cultural and economic rights including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, and the right to work and receive an education. Human rights are protected and upheld by international and national laws and treaties." Human Rights Basics | Amnesty International USA

 

[Unkotare]

"Human Rights" have become anyone's subjective political view or pet issue. Another term rendered empty and meaningless by repeated abuse.

 

[dilloduck]

"Human Rights" have become anyone's subjective political view or pet issue. Another term rendered empty and meaningless by repeated abuse.

Human rights are a fantasy. We don't have any. You know how folks claim that religion was invented by man and is the "opiate of the masses". Human rights are the secular version of the exact same thing. Nice feel good things to give people a false sense of security.

 

[dblack]

I'm always a little curious about the motivation of claims that "rights are fantasy". Is the aim to discourage people from thinking about government in terms of 'rights'? Is it to convince them that their rights are merely privileges granted to them by government? Do you see something misguided, or perhaps threatening, in the 'human rights' worldview? What is 'myth' do you believe you are dispelling by declaring rights non-existent?

 

[dilloduck]

I'm always a little curious about the motivation of claims that "rights are fantasy". Is the aim to discourage people from thinking about government in terms of 'rights'? Is it to convince them that their rights are merely privileges granted to them by government? Do you see something misguided, or perhaps threatening, in the 'human rights' worldview? What is 'myth' do you believe you are dispelling by declaring rights non-existent?

None of the above. It's simply to restate the truth. Government or no government. What people are referring to as rights is more like a proclamation of things that they want to do without being restricted by any individual or group. Rights are like calling "times out" in a child's game and claiming an exemption from life's realities. Every human "right" is an invention to place a restriction on anything that gets in our way of doing whatever we want.

 

[dblack]

Every human "right" is an invention to place a restriction on anything that gets in our way of doing whatever we want.

Exactly! That's closer to accurate definition of 'rights' than most anything else in this thread. But how is that a 'fantasy'?

 

[dilloduck]

Every human "right" is an invention to place a restriction on anything that gets in our way of doing whatever we want.

Exactly! That's closer to accurate definition of 'rights' than most anything else in this thread. But how is that a 'fantasy'?

Because we don't have the power to restrict everything that gets in our way.

 

[dblack]

Every human "right" is an invention to place a restriction on anything that gets in our way of doing whatever we want.

Exactly! That's closer to accurate definition of 'rights' than most anything else in this thread. But how is that a 'fantasy'?

Because we don't have the power to restrict everything that gets in our way.

Whether we have the power to perfectly protect rights has no bearing on whether they exist or not. They exist if we say they do. We protect them if we wish to protect them. How is that a 'fantasy'?

I think I'm just not seeing your point of view at all. Are you focusing on the semantic/origin debate - ie whether rights are 'created' by government or 'god-given'?

 

[dilloduck]

Exactly! That's closer to accurate definition of 'rights' than most anything else in this thread. But how is that a 'fantasy'?

Because we don't have the power to restrict everything that gets in our way.

Whether we have the power to perfectly protect rights has no bearing on whether they exist or not. They exist if we say they do. We protect them if we wish to protect them. How is that a 'fantasy'?

I think I'm just not seeing your point of view at all. Are you focusing on the semantic/origin debate - ie whether rights are 'created' by government or 'god-given'?

The op asked what are basic human rights. My reply is that there are none. That didn't stop us from just inventing some to make us feel better but it still doesn't make them exist. We simply revere them as if they do which causes all kinds of conflicts with reality. Inventing rights is to justify our actions or to justify asking someone else to act on our behalf.

 

[dblack]

Because we don't have the power to restrict everything that gets in our way.

Whether we have the power to perfectly protect rights has no bearing on whether they exist or not. They exist if we say they do. We protect them if we wish to protect them. How is that a 'fantasy'?

I think I'm just not seeing your point of view at all. Are you focusing on the semantic/origin debate - ie whether rights are 'created' by government or 'god-given'?

The op asked what are basic human rights. My reply is that there are none. That didn't stop us from just inventing some to make us feel better but it still doesn't make them exist. We simply revere them as if they do which causes all kinds of conflicts with reality. Inventing rights is to justify our actions or to justify asking someone else to act on our behalf.

Uh.. ok. I'm still not sure what the point of such an observation would be though. Rights are concepts, inventions in the mind of man, but that doesn't mean they are fantasy, or that they don't exist. Are you saying we shouldn't talk about rights because they're not composed of matter?

 

[dilloduck]

Whether we have the power to perfectly protect rights has no bearing on whether they exist or not. They exist if we say they do. We protect them if we wish to protect them. How is that a 'fantasy'?

I think I'm just not seeing your point of view at all. Are you focusing on the semantic/origin debate - ie whether rights are 'created' by government or 'god-given'?

The op asked what are basic human rights. My reply is that there are none. That didn't stop us from just inventing some to make us feel better but it still doesn't make them exist. We simply revere them as if they do which causes all kinds of conflicts with reality. Inventing rights is to justify our actions or to justify asking someone else to act on our behalf.

Uh.. ok. I'm still not sure what the point of such an observation would be though. Rights are concepts, inventions in the mind of man, but that doesn't mean they are fantasy, or that they don't exist. Are you saying we shouldn't talk about rights because they're not composed of matter?

No I just think helps to keep in mind that we are trying to do the impossible. We want security. It's not going to happen. We end up with an imperfect framework. It's the best we can do.

 

[dblack]

The op asked what are basic human rights. My reply is that there are none. That didn't stop us from just inventing some to make us feel better but it still doesn't make them exist. We simply revere them as if they do which causes all kinds of conflicts with reality. Inventing rights is to justify our actions or to justify asking someone else to act on our behalf.

Uh.. ok. I'm still not sure what the point of such an observation would be though. Rights are concepts, inventions in the mind of man, but that doesn't mean they are fantasy, or that they don't exist. Are you saying we shouldn't talk about rights because they're not composed of matter?

No I just think helps to keep in mind that we are trying to do the impossible. We want security. It's not going to happen. We end up with an imperfect framework. It's the best we can do.

Yep. No such thing as perfect. Can't argue with that.

 

[midcan5]

I'm always a little curious about the motivation of claims that "rights are fantasy". Is the aim to discourage people from thinking about government in terms of 'rights'? Is it to convince them that their rights are merely privileges granted to them by government? Do you see something misguided, or perhaps threatening, in the 'human rights' worldview? What is 'myth' do you believe you are dispelling by declaring rights non-existent?

Motivation, whatever that may be, is your assumption, could it just be that certain rights are viewed as ideals rather than fantasy. Free speech (ideal) for instance is considered a right, but how free is speech? Consider libel, hate speech, or pornography as examples where speech rights are restricted. Government's role, if required, is through law and the courts. When outcomes matter, an arbitrator is required. Sound government, respected law, and balanced enforcement are at the heart of stable and just societies. If you can think of some other entity that would provide resolution when rights collide, let us know.

Every human "right" is an invention to place a restriction on anything that gets in our way of doing whatever we want.

Exactly! That's closer to accurate definition of 'rights' than most anything else in this thread. But how is that a 'fantasy'?

Because we don't have the power to restrict everything that gets in our way.

Huh! Now we restrict things that get in our way, because? What the heck does that mean? So if a gay person wants to marry they need to remove restrictions which are really rights. Odd way of saying they don't have the right in the first place. Eureka, just consulted my five year old grandson, it seems yes, his parents, often restrict him. Darn, five year olds need to join with you libertarians so they get rid of certain restrictions - yet still have room and board and lots of toys.

 

[dblack]

The biggest impediment to productive discussion of political rights is the confusion over the terms. When conservatives and libertarians talk about rights being inalienable, they're talking about something fundamentally different from, though obviously related to, politically protected rights.

Inalienable rights are simply by-products of volition. The concept is a commentary on free will. We are born with such freedoms in the same way we are born with the ability to think and decide our own course of action.

Politically protected rights form a subset of the inalienable rights. These are the innate freedoms that we choose to secure with government. This is what liberals are usually talking about when they insist that rights are meaningless without a government to protect them. And given that they are taking about protected rights, their claim makes sense.

Each side has an interest in proving that their position contradicts and supplants the other. Liberals believe their view establishes the primacy of government, while conservatives think that the concept of inalienable rights shows that government is superfluous, or at least not a necessary component in securing liberty. But its a foolish argument because the two sides are simply talking past each other. We're making different claims about different concepts.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

The biggest impediment to productive discussion of political rights is the confusion over the terms. When conservatives and libertarians talk about rights being inalienable, they're talking about something fundamentally different from, though obviously related to, politically protected rights.

Inalienable rights are simply by-products of volition. The concept is a commentary on free will. We are born with such freedoms in the same way we are born with the ability to think and decide our own course of action.

Politically protected rights form a subset of the inalienable rights. These are the innate freedoms that we choose to secure with government. This is what liberals are usually talking about when they insist that rights are meaningless without a government to protect them. And given that they are taking about protected rights, their claim makes sense.

Each side has an interest in proving that their position contradicts and supplants the other. Liberals believe their view establishes the primacy of government, while conservatives think that the concept of inalienable rights shows that government is superfluous, or at least not a necessary component in securing liberty. But its a foolish argument because the two sides are simply talking past each other. We're making different claims about different concepts.

Inalienable rights and politically protected ones both exist, and they can coexist without any kind of philosophical conflict. One doesn't need to be a liberal or a conservative to understand this.