NationStates Jolt Archive

Interested in hearing your views on this. In other threads, you have people saying Religion Dictates how one should live, others say it's the Government, some say it's the Constitution and Bill of Rights. There's even mention of the International Bill of Human Rights.

What is your views as to who/what grants you your Rights that you enjoy where you live, and can those rights be removed?

I can only ask to keep it civil, no flaming, and to keep the language as clean as possible.

As for my opinions, the Government can give you your rights and at the same time, they can also take it away.

The constitution of the USA and the American people through the use of government grant me my rights.

Rights can be expanded or removed by ammendments to the constitution or by laws passed by the elected representatives of the people.

Personally I don’t think anyone grants you your rights everyone should be as free as it does not cause undo harm to others. At least as far as civil rights go. But all in all I find the constitution to be a pretty good framework for determination on freedoms.

Government, being no more than men, as such cannot be more than the least of men. Government cannot (or should not) grant rights. Rights are inherent in every human being. It is the duty of governemnt to protect said rights; note however, the difference between a right and a privilege. Privileges are just that: they are given and taken according to the whims of government (i.e., bearing arms and voting are privileges). A right is something that government often infringes on but should not (i.e., the right to life and liberty [freedom, as in not slavery]).

The constitution of the USA and the American people through the use of government grant me my rights.

Rights can be expanded or removed by ammendments to the constitution or by laws passed by the elected representatives of the people.

Wrong answer! The US Constitution is the limitations placed on government. As an American you are born with your rights.

I believe that the Government gives us rights. The Constitution, while important can be amended by the Government. So that rights and freedoms can be redefined and even removed as well as given.

I voted the government does because in reality they do … they say what can and can not be done and they say what the laws are. BUT … THEY should be guided by the constitution and over riding “law” that they are bound by and only in grave circumstances can be changed (well amended)
So in the end my rights should be guided by the constitution through the medium of government … in reality the government is the direct affecter

The US Constitution defines sepcific rights, not grants them. It merely states what you already had as an American citizen, for the benefit of posterity.

Your mom :eek:

Your mom :eek:
If your into bondage … yes lol

Your mom :eek:

Goes to college
(sorry, couldn't resist)

Even though your government may "take away" your rights, you are still endowed with those rights - and you have the right to have them.

Regardless of any law.

This has been a matter of jurisprudence in the SCOTUS. Some will say that they are mentioned in the privileges and immunities language in Article IV. But, just to make sure, it appears that the 14th Amendment was put together just to ensure that the states did not deprive people of their basic rights (what Americans term the Bill of Rights).

The noted Reconstruction historian Eric Foner
recently wrote:

The states, declared Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard, who
guided the Amendment to passage in the Senate, could
no longer infringe on the liberties the Bill of Rights had
secured against federal violation; henceforth, they must
respect `the personal rights guaranteed and secured by
the first eight Amendments.' [Rep. John] Bingham said
much the same thing in the House. Some portions of the
Bill of Rights were of little moment in 1866. But it is
abundantly clear that Republicans wished to give
constitutional sanction to states' obligation to respect
such key provisions as freedom of speech, the right to
bear arms, trial by impartial jury, and protection against
cruel and unusual punishment and unreasonable search
and seizure. The Freedmen's Bureau had already taken
steps to protect these rights, and the Amendment was
deemed necessary, in part, precisely because every
one of them was being systematically violated in the
South in 1866. [Eric Foner, Reconstruction, (New York:
Harper & Row, 1988), 258-9]

The first federal decision to discuss the right to keep and bear arms is
a well-known case though it is not well-known for its relevance to
the Second Amendment: Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). The
goal of the suit was to establish that slaves taken into free states
were thus free. But the issue of whether free blacks were citizens,
and could therefore sue in the Federal courts, had to be resolved
first. To that end, it sought to establish that free blacks were
citizens of the United States. Justice Taney, writing for the
majority, rejected this position:

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were
recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the
right to enter every other State whenever they pleased,
singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and
without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they
pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of
the day or night without molestation, unless they committed
some violation of law for which a white man would be
punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech
in public and in private upon all subjects upon which
its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings
upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms
wherever they went . And all of this would be done
in the face of the subject race of the same color, both
free and slaves, inevitably producing discontent and
insubordination among them, and endangering the
peace and safety of the State.

Justice Taney then held that because of the disruption it would cause
in slave states for free blacks to be citizens of the United States, that
`It is impossible ... that the great men of the slaveholding States, who
took so large a share in framing the Constitution of the United States ...
could have been so forgetful or regardless of their own safety,' in
intending that free blacks be citizens.[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60
U.S. 393, 417 (1857)]

Where did this right `to keep and carry arms' come from? Apparently
from the `privileges and immunities' section of the Constitution; but,
if so, this right pre-existed the Constitution, and could be included
in the Ninth Amendment's protections, as well as the Second
Amendment. Evidence that this right came from the `privileges and
immunities' clause not the Second Amendment, is that Taney called
these rights of citizens even though the language of the Bill of Rights
protects these rights of the people.

Liverbreath']Wrong answer! The US Constitution is the limitations placed on government. As an American you are born with your rights.
The constitution grants me the right to keep and bear arms, the right to worship (or not worship) as I choose, the right to live my life without being subject to arbitrary police searches, the right to a trial, and many others.

Even though your government may "take away" your rights, you are still endowed with those rights - and you have the right to have them.

Regardless of any law.

{snip}

Justice Taney then held that because of the disruption it would cause
in slave states for free blacks to be citizens of the United States, that
`It is impossible ... that the great men of the slaveholding States, who
took so large a share in framing the Constitution of the United States ...
could have been so forgetful or regardless of their own safety,' in
intending that free blacks be citizens.[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60
U.S. 393, 417 (1857)]

Where did this right `to keep and carry arms' come from? Apparently
from the `privileges and immunities' section of the Constitution; but,
if so, this right pre-existed the Constitution, and could be included
in the Ninth Amendment's protections, as well as the Second
Amendment. Evidence that this right came from the `privileges and
immunities' clause not the Second Amendment, is that Taney called
these rights of citizens even though the language of the Bill of Rights
protects these rights of the people.
So, for clarification, you are saying that your rights are given by the Government and Constitution/Bill of Rights?

So, for clarification, you are saying that your rights are given by the Government and Constitution/Bill of Rights?

No, I'm saying that if it's considered a "privilege and immunity", then it is a right that pre-exists the Constitution. You have those rights, even if laws are passed to take them away.

The constitution of the USA and the American people through the use of government grant me my rights.

Rights can be expanded or removed by ammendments to the constitution or by laws passed by the elected representatives of the people.
What he said, only in Canada it's the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canadian Constitution Acts, 1867-1982

Replace the god choice with the universe, and that pretty much sums it up.

Kind of like an existence thing.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights; it enumerates pre-existing ones (and all rights are not merely the ones enumerated)... Rights exist "inherant" to the people.

In hard-text; the government of the United States is specifically limited in its powers to those which the Constitution grant it; even without various rights enumerated in the bill of rights; the Government still does not possess the legal power to infringe upon them.

Rights are granted by prevailing social trends. People who are accustomed to having many rights (such as the American colonists) naturally develop a social structure that includes many inherent rights. However, unders strict authoritarian governments where these same rights may be denied, social structures develop with many less rights. It ultamately comes down to what the people as a whole will stand. This is evidenced by the many civil wars and revolutions throughout the 20th century. The general populus is the origin of rights, and when the "sociatal collective" feels they are too few, they rebel.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights; it enumerates pre-existing ones (and all rights are not merely the ones enumerated)... Rights exist "inherant" to the people.

In hard-text; the government of the United States is specifically limited in its powers to those which the Constitution grant it; even without various rights enumerated in the bill of rights; the Government still does not possess the legal power to infringe upon them.So these Pre-exsisting rights are from...?

So these Pre-exsisting rights are from...?

They are inherant..... They are effectively "from" us.... as people, just merely existing...

My point is; the Constitution doesn't "grant" any rights; it defines and enumerates pre-existing ones....

Myself coz i bought it; apart from the fact my mum and dad bought it :(
A paper round dosen't let me buy much but 2 kgs of choc is just the right price! :p

In reality, the government grants and takes away rights. No rights are inalienable in the real world, but good laws can help make them difficult to infringe upon.

The constitution of the USA and the American people through the use of government grant me my rights.

Rights can be expanded or removed by ammendments to the constitution or by laws passed by the elected representatives of the people.

The constitution and the American people grant NO rights. The Constitution restricts the powers of the Government to Ensure rights. In the U.S. we have rights not based on self, nor government, but by fundamental credance. You could say laws take away rights, but that would mean it is impossible to break a law. Our "rights" as they are called are based on a fundamental culture between people. Thus some people think they should make more rights than others, etc etc....

They are inherant..... They are effectively "from" us.... as people, just merely existing...

My point is; the Constitution doesn't "grant" any rights; it defines and enumerates pre-existing ones....but what defines these rights... for instance The Right to Die... The Right to Life... the Right to Security and Protection... and other Freedoms that go far beyond what Nature gives Animals.

Just exsisting gives you the right to life, but it doesn't guarentee it. it mean you automatically have other rights (like to Privacy.)

and Rights differ from country to country. the rights US Citizens enjoy may not be the same rights people in Burma, the Congo, or any other area can enjoy.

Interested in hearing your views on this. In other threads, you have people saying Religion Dictates how one should live, others say it's the Government, some say it's the Constitution and Bill of Rights. There's even mention of the International Bill of Human Rights.

What is your views as to who/what grants you your Rights that you enjoy where you live, and can those rights be removed?

I can only ask to keep it civil, no flaming, and to keep the language as clean as possible.

As for my opinions, the Government can give you your rights and at the same time, they can also take it away.
Rights are not about "dictating" how people should live.

Rights are an agreement between people. Civil rights are granted by a government to its people (people wearing government hats to people wearing people hats). Human rights are granted between one person to another. The documents signed, Bills of Rights, or included in constitutions, are simply the agreement in writing.

Human beings have no rights by birth. We are given rights as part of a contract between person and government. We serve the government by paying taxes and offering our lives if necessary and the government serves us by securing those rights. It is a fair and good decision for the two parties, (after all the government is just an organization for securing communal good). Really I think that most people are too attached to the idea of the rights that they have and the need for more(we already have a good deal).

Well, per definition i do give myself rights, being the souvereign of my country. Ok, me and some million other people, but nonetheless.
As i see it we have all the rights we want per se, but governments curb those. They cant grant you any rights, as they are articifial constructs that serve the express purpose of keeping society intact, by means of setting up rules that everybody has to follow or else.

but what defines these rights... for instance The Right to Die... The Right to Life... the Right to Security and Protection... and other Freedoms that go far beyond what Nature gives Animals.

Just exsisting gives you the right to life, but it doesn't guarentee it. it mean you automatically have other rights (like to Privacy.)

and Rights differ from country to country. the rights US Citizens enjoy may not be the same rights people in Burma, the Congo, or any other area can enjoy.

The right to die and right to life are god-given (or "natural law" if you prefer the difference.) Now this can come into debate when one questions the taking of such a right (for example, capital punishment). When that happens, it is done by the government interpretting the definition of such a right >>with consideration to the safety, well-being and preservation of the whole<< meaning that taking away a mass-murders right to live may be necessary for the safety, well-being and preservation of the whole. Remember though, that these are case-by-case decisions by the Courts, not the Government itself (unless you believe that the Courts base all decisions on the other two branches).

Disclaimer: This post is based on knowledge of, and application to, United States Law.

The right to die and right to life are god-given (or "natural law" if you prefer the difference.) Now this can come into debate when one questions the taking of such a right (for example, capital punishment). When that happens, it is done by the government interpretting the definition of such a right >>with consideration to the safety, well-being and preservation of the whole<< meaning that taking away a mass-murders right to live may be necessary for the safety, well-being and preservation of the whole. Remember though, that these are case-by-case decisions by the Courts, not the Government itself (unless you believe that the Courts base all decisions on the other two branches).

Disclaimer: This post is based on knowledge of, and application to, United States Law.

Well, somewhat. The Courts are the Government; actually being their own independent branch; though are "independent" of the other two (which is different from other forms of governments, where magistrates are governmental servants; as opposed to weilding actual governmental power). Though you're right; they do not base their decisions off of the other two branches; their decisions are based off of the Constitution, first; previous case-law second; legislative laws and treaties third; though can subject present legislation to both case-law and Constitutional Law when case is before them; and things are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Myrth came to me when I was born, waved a hand over my head, and then I became free.

The poll doesn't have enough answers.

As far as my rights...

We, the people, the citizens of this country (whatever country), give the GOVERNMENT the RIGHT to rule us. The Government recieves its legitimacy from us, and so, whatever we, as a people, decide we will not tolerate Government restrictions on is our right.

My answer is basically a mix of "self" (in a plural sense), "other" (sense it isn't really exactly any of your responses), and "historical document."

Historical document aspect of it is not necessarily the Constitution of my country, but more importantly, the writings of John Locke, from whom the founding fathers of the US got most of their ideas.

The right to die and right to life are god-given (or "natural law" if you prefer the difference.) Now this can come into debate when one questions the taking of such a right
If it can be taken away, it's a privilege, not a right.

The only "right" you have is the right to die, and that isn't even something you necessarily control. Regardless of any laws passed, proclamations made, or pulpits pounded, you're going to die eventually. That's about all you can count on, guaranteed.

The government can't grant you the right to Life, because it doesn't have a big barrel of Life sitting in a back room with a clerk pouring it into bottles. It can't grant you the right to Liberty, as long as it has the power to restrict the liberty of even one of its citizens. Yeah, maybe they can't take away your right to Pursue Happiness, but they sure can make it damn difficult.

If you want to call them rights, that's your business ... but they aren't rights, they're privileges. There are no inherent human rights, anywhere, anywhen.

If it can be taken away, it's a privilege, not a right.

The only "right" you have is the right to die, and that isn't even something you necessarily control. Regardless of any laws passed, proclamations made, or pulpits pounded, you're going to die eventually. That's about all you can count on, guaranteed.

The government can't grant you the right to Life, because it doesn't have a big barrel of Life sitting in a back room with a clerk pouring it into bottles. It can't grant you the right to Liberty, as long as it has the power to restrict the liberty of even one of its citizens. Yeah, maybe they can't take away your right to Pursue Happiness, but they sure can make it damn difficult.

If you want to call them rights, that's your business ... but they aren't rights, they're privileges. There are no inherent human rights, anywhere, anywhen.

Hmmmmm.... Wierd, I feel like arguing to that, and agreeing to it at the same time.... That's funny. :S

Power.

Whoever is the most powerful has the capacity to grant and revoke rights as they desire. I view the situation as Humans having the right to do anything at birth - because physical impossibilities excepted, you can do anything anyway, you just have to face the consequences - and some of these rights are sundered for a common security and set of protections. Things along those lines, anyway.

Now, power can be defeated by historical documents/examples, or by rebellion, but imagine if an omnipotent, omniscient being showed up one day. It could dispense whatever it pleased, however it pleased, and there'd be nothing one could do about it. Thus, ultimately, power.

The government can't grant you the right to Life, because it doesn't have a big barrel of Life sitting in a back room with a clerk pouring it into bottles. It can't grant you the right to Liberty, as long as it has the power to restrict the liberty of even one of its citizens. Yeah, maybe they can't take away your right to Pursue Happiness, but they sure can make it damn difficult.

Read my post concerning the rights government does/does not grant you...and such...

Essentially, I'm just not buying the last two points in the quoted text.

The "life" argument however, isn't exactly countered by my earlier post, and I'm somewhat conflicted here...as I partially agree with you, but partially want to dispute it, despite a good argument against it.

If it can be taken away, it's a privilege, not a right.

The only "right" you have is the right to die, and that isn't even something you necessarily control. Regardless of any laws passed, proclamations made, or pulpits pounded, you're going to die eventually. That's about all you can count on, guaranteed.

The government can't grant you the right to Life, because it doesn't have a big barrel of Life sitting in a back room with a clerk pouring it into bottles. It can't grant you the right to Liberty, as long as it has the power to restrict the liberty of even one of its citizens. Yeah, maybe they can't take away your right to Pursue Happiness, but they sure can make it damn difficult.

If you want to call them rights, that's your business ... but they aren't rights, they're privileges. There are no inherent human rights, anywhere, anywhen.

Eeek.

So you'd take even a step further than Hobbes?

"No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"

In all seriousness, this depends entirely on how one defines a right. Almost no one would define "rights" as "only those things you are absolutely guaranteed to recieve."

I clicked self because I believe that rights are derived from the fundamental fact that I am a human being. Call it the divine spark or whatever, but that simple fact endows me with my rights.

Now, things like the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are protections of those rights, but they are not granters of those rights.

The only things that man can have are priveleges. Men only have the right to live if they don't become too harmful to the society. Why say that men have these great rights that come from higher powers and authorities? The governments themselves place requirements on every right, and that is not wrong. If you do not deserve a right/privelege you should not have it. This includes everything, why should the government defer to killers for whatever cause or be patrons to any criminal? Priveleges are government given and only should be given if we are good little boys and girls.

In all seriousness, this depends entirely on how one defines a right. Almost no one would define "rights" as "only those things you are absolutely guaranteed to recieve."
I'm more against the misuse of the word than the concept.

Here in NationStates, all UN nations have the "right" to "free education". Utterly meaningless as stated. What they probably mean is that the government is required to fund education for all citizens up to a given age or qualification. It's not "free", and it's not a "right". It's a privilege granted by the UN, at the expense of member states, that can be taken away with the simple use of the 'Resign from the UN' button.

People misuse the concept of "rights" constantly around here. They go far beyond claiming that they have a right to life, liberty, hope, and other intangibles, and move on into the realm of the tangible. "Housing, food, education, electricity, clean water" among others, and most often claimed as an essential "free" right. Nobody has to pay for anything, not with cash, labor, or service to the State. It's a giant fucking entitlement program.

My opposition to the "rights" crowd is essentially, "You don't have the right to make me support you." That's extending your desires into my actuality, and I won't stand for it. I *do* have the right to resent your intrusion, and I may grant myself the right to act on it.

My argument isn't with the legal or religious interpretation, it's with the morons who see it as the great Gift Basket in the Sky. I'm old enough to have put my share of goodies into the basket, and I'd like to retrieve my share back from the greedy government that grabbed it from me. Go work for your own "rights", just like I did.

Rights are inherent upon birth, society is a constant detrimental force to rights.

Rights are inherent upon birth, society is a constant detrimental force to rights.

Why should the mere act of being born give you anything? A child by itself is only worthy of life but not of any right that requires independence, and I do not see that adults should be worthy of any right unless they have proven worthy of it and above the level of a child.

Furthermore, I believe more in rights of "non-interference." The ethereal things, like rights to life, liberty, ownership of property, the pursuit of happiness and such things.

I don't believe in rights of "entitlement." Where one actually receives a physical object.

The government can't grant you the right to Life, because it doesn't have a big barrel of Life sitting in a back room with a clerk pouring it into bottles. It can't grant you the right to Liberty, as long as it has the power to restrict the liberty of even one of its citizens. Yeah, maybe they can't take away your right to Pursue Happiness, but they sure can make it damn difficult.

If you want to call them rights, that's your business ... but they aren't rights, they're privileges. There are no inherent human rights, anywhere, anywhen.

You are born with the right to life, society must take it from you. You are born with liberty, society must take it away from you. You are free to do whatever you want until society restricts your liberty through punishment.

It is asinine to say that you are only able to live through the grace of society.

You are born with the right to life, society must take it from you. You are born with liberty, society must take it away from you. You are free to do whatever you want until society restricts your liberty through punishment.

It is asinine to say that you are only able to live through the grace of society.
I agree with this.

After all, what happens to a child born outside of society? The child does not inherently die.

Why should the mere act of being born give you anything? A child by itself is only worthy of life but not of any right that requires independence, and I do not see that adults should be worthy of any right unless they have proven worthy of it and above the level of a child.

I am saying that no one is given rights. Rights can only be taken away.

It is only through societal interference, voluntary or otherwise, that rights are taken away. I never said that people deserve rights from birth, only that rights are inherent to them. I feel quite firmly that people should only be given the rights they are willing and able to accept responsibility for.

Rights are not granted. They are to be fought for.

Gifts are granted.

I am saying that no one is given rights. Rights can only be taken away.

It is only through societal interference, voluntary or otherwise, that rights are taken away. I never said that people deserve rights from birth, only that rights are inherent to them. I feel quite firmly that people should only be given the rights they are willing and able to accept responsibility for.

If no one is given rights how do you explain your last sentence. Besides I argue that rights are given by government because not all men are worthy of all rights. We ultimately are allowed to do things by our society so long as those things do not undermine that society that graciously allows us to have rights. I do not wish to argue wording but instead am curious if your ideology is more libertarian or if you are pushing for your a wording and concept more than ideology.

The question is a bit of a misleading one. Where human rights come from is more or less irrelevant, because whether by virtue of God or chance, Man has developed into a rational creature, and by virtue of that rationality, man has certain fundamental rights. The fact that he has these rights is more or less a platitude.

It is a mistake, however, to assume that because he has those rights, and that those rights are "inalienable", as Thomas Jefferson put it, that no rights can ever be negotiated or impinged. That is a complete misinterpretation of Locke's text. What happens when the social contract is set up is not a one-way street where everyone gets free roads, sewage, and electricity while in turn incurring no obligation as libertarians would like you to believe; rather it is one where people agree to give up or set limitations on some of their rights in exchange for government providing them with services that people couldn't get on their own. So long as this process is net beneficial for citizens (i.e. they recieve more benefits than they incur in costs), then not only is that social contract a just one, it is also one they would willingly belong to. So for example, a just social contract might reasonably expect you to give up absolute control over your property, in the form of, say, agreeing not to dump raw sewage on your land where it can form a health hazard, and agreeing to pay some form of taxation on your property or the products thereof, in exchange for the government building a sewage system to deal with that raw sewage and improving the health of all people.

Some rights, however, can never be impinged upon, and all attempts to negotiate along those lines automatically null the Social Contract. If it were part of the Social Contract that the government pays for your education expenses in exchange for shooting you in the head when you turn 55 (so as to keep health and retirement expenses down), for instance, that would automatically be a null Social Contract, because the right to life is non-negotiable. The mistake most libertarians make is to put the right to property in the same category.


I'm more against the misuse of the word than the concept.

Here in NationStates, all UN nations have the "right" to "free education". Utterly meaningless as stated. What they probably mean is that the government is required to fund education for all citizens up to a given age or qualification. It's not "free", and it's not a "right". It's a privilege granted by the UN, at the expense of member states, that can be taken away with the simple use of the 'Resign from the UN' button.

People misuse the concept of "rights" constantly around here. They go far beyond claiming that they have a right to life, liberty, hope, and other intangibles, and move on into the realm of the tangible. "Housing, food, education, electricity, clean water" among others, and most often claimed as an essential "free" right. Nobody has to pay for anything, not with cash, labor, or service to the State. It's a giant fucking entitlement program.

My opposition to the "rights" crowd is essentially, "You don't have the right to make me support you." That's extending your desires into my actuality, and I won't stand for it. I *do* have the right to resent your intrusion, and I may grant myself the right to act on it.

My argument isn't with the legal or religious interpretation, it's with the morons who see it as the great Gift Basket in the Sky. I'm old enough to have put my share of goodies into the basket, and I'd like to retrieve my share back from the greedy government that grabbed it from me. Go work for your own "rights", just like I did.

Not exactly meaningless, Frisbeeteria. What they mean when they say people have a "right" to "free education", they are saying that all valid Social Contracts would have a condition stipulating that people should be educated at state expense, and that under no circumstances should or can this right be invalidated without also invalidating the contract. By claiming it as a right, they are stating merely that it is a non-negotiable feature that government should always provide.

In the larger sense, the Social Contract is something that you effectively sign by remaining in a country and by participating in that country's decision making processes. By engaging in these activities, you make yourself obligated to follow the laws of that country, even those you don't agree with. The whole notion of "what's mine is mine, dammit" just doesn't jive at all with the rule of law within a nation's social contract. If you don't like that, tough nuts.

Xenophobialand, that was a very good point. I can agree to many parts of that idea. After all the government is something we created for our own good. It can of course do evil but in doing so violates our agreement with it. However, if we are the evil ones the government must of course eliminate our lives due to our violation of the social contract.

If no one is given rights how do you explain your last sentence. Besides I argue that rights are given by government because not all men are worthy of all rights. We ultimately are allowed to do things by our society so long as those things do not undermine that society that graciously allows us to have rights. I do not wish to argue wording but instead am curious if your ideology is more libertarian or if you are pushing for your a wording and concept more than ideology.

Well, first off, I did misword that last sentence. It should have said "allowed" not "given". As you said, we are "allowed" to do things by society, we are not given the ability to things by society.

Secondly, you assume societal interference. You assume that rights are only present through the grace of society. That would mean that it would be impossible to act or exist outside of the society, which is not true.

snip

Fantastic post.

Well, first off, I did misword that last sentence. It should have said "allowed" not "given". As you said, we are "allowed" to do things by society, we are not given the ability to things by society.

Secondly, you assume societal interference. You assume that rights are only present through the grace of society. That would mean that it would be impossible to act or exist outside of the society, which is not true.

Well, most of life is not practical outside of the grace of society. So in order to be part of society we must only do the things that are allowed. I see your point but I phrase mine differently as a sign of differing ideology. Your wording is technically more correct than mine. However, it also can be construed to diminish the value of societal order.

The poll doesn't have enough answers.

As far as my rights...

We, the people, the citizens of this country (whatever country), give the GOVERNMENT the RIGHT to rule us. The Government recieves its legitimacy from us, and so, whatever we, as a people, decide we will not tolerate Government restrictions on is our right.which is why I have "other".

and since there really isn't any wrong answer (I hope) I wanted to see people's views as to human rights and who/what grants them/takes them away, no matter what country one lives in.


and I must say, all posts here are very interesting to read.

Well, most of life is not practical outside of the grace of society. So in order to be part of society we must only do the things that are allowed. I see your point but I phrase mine differently as a sign of differing ideology. Your wording is technically more correct than mine. However, it also can be construed to diminish the value of societal order.

You are correct that life is not practical outside of society. It is a brutal life, with ultimate rights and ultimate responsibility. People enter into the social contract out of self-interest (although it is practically forced in modern times), and people agree to let society disallow rights in exchange for accepting responsibilities such as defense and securing markets.

I guess the real difference between how we present our beliefs on rights is sort of hammered out, Vittos Ordination. I can agree with what you say to a certain extent in the manner it is said and I admit that the reason that I do not say the same is in order to emphasize my political and social beliefs. Or at least you have not made any real arguments that oppose my worldview significantly.

I guess the real difference between how we present our beliefs on rights is sort of hammered out, Vittos Ordination. I can agree with what you say to a certain extent in the manner it is said and I admit that the reason that I do not say the same is in order to emphasize my political and social beliefs. Or at least you have not made any real arguments that oppose my worldview significantly.

You are one of those damn commies, aren't you? ;)

But really, I might know the difference, so tell me if I am right. We both feel that the rights of the people are at the mercy of society. However, you see government as a tool that society uses to protect the rights of its citizens, whereas I see government as a tool that society uses to restrict the rights of the citizens.

That, I think, would explain why you see rights as being provided to the people by government, and why I see rights as being taken away by government.

What Jesus gives you the world cannot take.

You are one of those damn commies, aren't you? ;)

But really, I might know the difference, so tell me if I am right. We both feel that the rights of the people are at the mercy of society. However, you see government as a tool that society uses to protect the rights of its citizens, whereas I see government as a tool that society uses to restrict the rights of the citizens.

That, I think, would explain why you see rights as being provided to the people by government, and why I see rights as being taken away by government.

Well, I tend to be authoritarian. I do not care much about rights so long as there is not cruelty(unjust killing and the like). That is why I say rights are priveleges from the state is because the state should only give them to the worthy and deny the unworthy from having many of them(for the safety of everyone). I admit that without society, rights in a way would be maximized but I consider that unfulfilling. So I see rights as being restricted to protect the citizens. I phrase my view differently as to reflect the emphasis on what the state does for society. In a way you could be considered right, I just do not have human rights as central to my societal views.

We gain rights as we evolve as a human race.

Right to live in 100 B.C.? Pfft. Here's a spear, there's the frontline, there's the Romans. Good luck with that.

We gain rights as we evolve as a human race.

Right to live in 100 B.C.? Pfft. Here's a spear, there's the frontline, there's the Romans. Good luck with that.

I kinda agree with that. No matter what "rules" the government places on us, we can rebel. We can fight for them. As a Christian though I could not rightfully do so. I am to follow the Government that God has placed me in.

Well, I tend to be authoritarian. I do not care much about rights so long as there is not cruelty(unjust killing and the like). That is why I say rights are priveleges from the state is because the state should only give them to the worthy and deny the unworthy from having many of them(for the safety of everyone). I admit that without society, rights in a way would be maximized but I consider that unfulfilling. So I see rights as being restricted to protect the citizens. I phrase my view differently as to reflect the emphasis on what the state does for society. In a way you could be considered right, I just do not have human rights as central to my societal views.

Human rights are pretty much the only tenet of my societal views.

Do you believe that safety is more important than freedom? If so, how do you justify that?

Human rights are pretty much the only tenet of my societal views.

Do you believe that safety is more important than freedom? If so, how do you justify that?

Well it is quite simple. I believe that freedom is not necessary to be happy. I also believe that much of what society does actually hampers human progress. I do not believe that consumerism is correct at all, I do not believe that the 2nd amendment is necessary and would at least like to see it stripped back to only large guns that can not be hidden and that are not military grade weapons. I do not believe that premarital sex is a good thing.(I have had 2 cousins get shot-gun marriages and 1 is pregnant without a marriage at all) I do not think that people should be allowed to waste their talent(I am a very intelligent student that in some ways almost slipped through the cracks through poor high-school course selection).
I tend to think that what people need is good self-discipline and good morality and that many societal ills are from the lack.

I tend to think that what people need is good self-discipline and good morality and that many societal ills are from the lack.

You support discipline, not self-discipline.

Let me ask you a question: Why do you support punishing actions that already have detrimental affects? You are supporting a government policy of harming people who are already harming themselves.

Proper discipline can form self discipline. So I am trying to enforce discipline so that self discipline may form. As well I punish those who already are suffering as a means to change the nature of their suffering. To punish with a goal of learning can have positive effects and lead to them learning from their mistakes more completely than before. Besides sometimes the non government punishment is detrimental to all of society such as with the premarital sex. Those people decide to have children and due to their lack of preparation can not take as good care of their children as a person who was already married and had allocated funds towards that goal. (After all fatness can be a punishment for not paying enough attention towards health goals but its effects damage all of society).

Rights are not "granted" by anything or anybody. Rights are a consequence of our status as rational beings. They are simply a part of us from our first breath, like arms or legs. Not only do all human beings have the same rights, no more and no less, regardless of where they live, but any other self-aware sentient creatures in the universe have them too.

Governments and societies are purely instrumental. They exist only to benefit the individuals who make them up. They have no value in and of themselves. Individuals voluntarily associate in society because humans are social creatures and division of labor/trade/warm human contact improves our lives. If we are smart, we will contribute as best we can to our society because we recognize that it is good for us, but only insofar as it is good for us.

I have to admit I'm somewhat...I guess horrified is really the only word for it, at the number of people on this thread who believe that rights are something societies grant and take away. Rights are something we discovered that were always there, like laws of nature. Whether we choose to acknowledge them or not, they always exist. You people who believe rights are a social construction, do you also think that morals and justice are social constructions too? How can you ever say that you have been done a wrong, or stick up for yourself or those you believe in, if there is no justice?

Sorry, that was a rant. But I get frustrated.

By the way, rights cannot be taken away, but they can be lost. He who infringes on the rights of others forfeits his own. This is why it is acceptable to punish wrongdoers.

For anyone who hasn't caught it by now, yes, I am a classical liberal/radical individualist.

I grant myself my rights, however I don't grant my self the right to harm others, that would interfere with their rights. I do however hold the right to defend others and myself, if consented to, or in emergency.

A genie granted me my rights.

He also granted me cheat codes for real life. Such as me being able to get a genie.

I also have the ability to know what women are thinking.

By the way, rights cannot be taken away, but they can be lost. He who infringes on the rights of others forfeits his own. This is why it is acceptable to punish wrongdoers.

For anyone who hasn't caught it by now, yes, I am a classical liberal/radical individualist.

So you're a liberal but you emphasize retribution over rehabilitation?

It is a mistake, however, to assume that because he has those rights, and that those rights are "inalienable", as Thomas Jefferson put it, that no rights can ever be negotiated or impinged. That is a complete misinterpretation of Locke's text. What happens when the social contract is set up is not a one-way street where everyone gets free roads, sewage, and electricity while in turn incurring no obligation as libertarians would like you to believe;


You misunderstand Libertarians, then. We don't believe that people get free anything. We all should pay for what we actually use. There is the responsibility factor.


Some rights, however, can never be impinged upon, and all attempts to negotiate along those lines automatically null the Social Contract. If it were part of the Social Contract that the government pays for your education expenses in exchange for shooting you in the head when you turn 55 (so as to keep health and retirement expenses down), for instance, that would automatically be a null Social Contract, because the right to life is non-negotiable. The mistake most libertarians make is to put the right to property in the same category.


Here is the problem: You're born into the "Social Contract". You never have a choice in that--at least not in today's world. So, force is enacted immediately at birth. That's all "society" really is--several forcing others how to live their lives. If you purchase the land, it IS yours--no one can take it away from you without force (arbitrary law in the US's case). You just say that certain rights are non-negotiable. We believe others aren't.


In the larger sense, the Social Contract is something that you effectively sign by remaining in a country and by participating in that country's decision making processes. By engaging in these activities, you make yourself obligated to follow the laws of that country, even those you don't agree with. The whole notion of "what's mine is mine, dammit" just doesn't jive at all with the rule of law within a nation's social contract. If you don't like that, tough nuts.

Hmm....not a convincing argument. That "legal" bullshit about being silent and agreeing crap just doesn't cut it. You need explicit permission first before doing anything that will affect another. In other words, if you're going to be part of a contract, you have to sign, or at least verbally agree to said contract.

This is a moot concept. There are no such things as "rights". The lable of rights is simply a set of choices that groups of people decide to follow. No human is born with "rights". A hungry predator will not realize a childs "right" to live, it will simply eat it. A thief doesnt see a "right" to own property, he just takes. People dont do certain things because they respect "rights", they do things out of fear of consequence. If your neibhor owns a gun then you respect his "right" to bear arms because you are afraid of getting killed if you try to take it from him. Every human makes choices that benefit themselves, and noone has the power to tell others what to do unless they are willing to enforce those wishes. Noone has the "Right" to do anything unless they have the means to enforce thier actions.
If a person was unable to die, and had the power to injure or kill any other pepole on the planet, then that person would have the "right" to do as he pleased. The illusion of rights is what society is based on, the reality of society is fear tho.

Sagir, Emperor of Successoria
----------------------------
A magician never reveals his tricks.

My battle rifle and my willingness to use it against tyranny.

Rights are not "granted" by anything or anybody. Rights are a consequence of our status as rational beings. They are simply a part of us from our first breath, like arms or legs. Not only do all human beings have the same rights, no more and no less, regardless of where they live, but any other self-aware sentient creatures in the universe have them too.

Governments and societies are purely instrumental. They exist only to benefit the individuals who make them up. They have no value in and of themselves. Individuals voluntarily associate in society because humans are social creatures and division of labor/trade/warm human contact improves our lives. If we are smart, we will contribute as best we can to our society because we recognize that it is good for us, but only insofar as it is good for us.

Good post, you are exactly right.

So you're a liberal but you emphasize retribution over rehabilitation?

I think you are getting your definitions mixed up. A great deal of classic liberals believe that societies role in justice is to protect its members, it is up to the individual to rehabilitate. If they refuse to live by the laws of society they face the consequences of it, if they refuse to change their ways they will continue to have their rights revoked.

If no one is given rights how do you explain your last sentence. Besides I argue that rights are given by government because not all men are worthy of all rights. We ultimately are allowed to do things by our society so long as those things do not undermine that society that graciously allows us to have rights. I do not wish to argue wording but instead am curious if your ideology is more libertarian or if you are pushing for your a wording and concept more than ideology.

I think our barriers are different. Rights exist inherant; and each has possession of them just being in existance. That said, rights aren't restricted, or limited; per se; and restriction for "social" value is not correct (IMHO).... Rights are limited, realistically, by rights.... That is, rights extend as far as the extent of the right of others.

There is no right to murder; because such right would extend over the right to life of another...

There is no right to theft; because such right would extend over the right to property of another...

There is no right to tyranize; because such right would extend over the right to happiness of another...

So "rights" are limited in your possession by the equal rights in possession and inherant of another... And not by the overal "impact" on society... The problem with "Social Rights"; is they are used; in the long run, to impinge upon the rights of people, over a perceived desire of society as a whole... Which is ultimately detrimental; as it eventually leaves society with no rights (since the society is the people; and the people have no rights)... Equal Individual Rights is the Libertarian Perspective.... Where Rights are defined and limited by themselves; and not society...

Rights are not "granted" by anything or anybody. Rights are a consequence of our status as rational beings. They are simply a part of us from our first breath, like arms or legs. Not only do all human beings have the same rights, no more and no less, regardless of where they live, but any other self-aware sentient creatures in the universe have them too.

Governments and societies are purely instrumental. They exist only to benefit the individuals who make them up. They have no value in and of themselves. Individuals voluntarily associate in society because humans are social creatures and division of labor/trade/warm human contact improves our lives. If we are smart, we will contribute as best we can to our society because we recognize that it is good for us, but only insofar as it is good for us.

I have to admit I'm somewhat...I guess horrified is really the only word for it, at the number of people on this thread who believe that rights are something societies grant and take away. Rights are something we discovered that were always there, like laws of nature. Whether we choose to acknowledge them or not, they always exist. You people who believe rights are a social construction, do you also think that morals and justice are social constructions too? How can you ever say that you have been done a wrong, or stick up for yourself or those you believe in, if there is no justice?

Sorry, that was a rant. But I get frustrated.

By the way, rights cannot be taken away, but they can be lost. He who infringes on the rights of others forfeits his own. This is why it is acceptable to punish wrongdoers.

For anyone who hasn't caught it by now, yes, I am a classical liberal/radical individualist.so what about things like Abortion (the right to life) should the Governement and society set rules on that? and what of the Right to Die without suffering? then there are the rights to Privacy, ownership, and even certain freedoms that are limited by Laws set in place by Government and Society, should they be ignored and be left to the individual?

There is no right to murder; because such right would extend over the right to life of another...

There is no right to theft; because such right would extend over the right to property of another...

There is no right to tyranize; because such right would extend over the right to happiness of another...

There is actually a right to kill (there is no right to murder) as murder is a socially defined illegal action), that exists outside of society. When certain individuals have shown their inability to exist within society, society has allowed other individuals their right to kill that person.

There has been many occurrences where society has allowed a person or groups of people to tyranize in exchange for prosperity or relative safety.

As individuals we have the right to do anything outside the bounds of society, however, as rational individuals we sacrifice certain rights to others in exchange for society's protection.

Rights are an illusion.

Legally: the constitution (basic law of Germany), which is enforced by the jurisdiction and the police.
Source: society.

The Magna Carta, and by proxy Her Majesty's government.

Rights are an illusion.

Depends on what you understand by "rights". Of course society/laws grant you certain rights, but I agree with you if you want to say that rights are man-made and therefore neither objective nor something humans just have.

I believe all legidimate rights are God given. The freedom to practice them has been frequently violated as a result human sinfulness.

As individuals we have the right to do anything outside the bounds of society, however.

In fact it would be interesting to discuss what exactly means "to have a right".

Depends on what you understand by "rights". Of course society/laws grant you certain rights, but I agree with you if you want to say that rights are man-made and therefore neither objective nor something humans just have.

Precisely. "having inalienable rights" is a very powerless thing if you're in a situation in which one party disregards the validity of those supposed rights. It's fine and good for people to say that they have a right to privacy, but if someone decides to invade their home, then what good are rights? Also, the minute that everyone respects a certain "right", it no longer becomes necessary and vanishes into the realm of "always has been that way". Think of how gay marriage, abortion, and similar issues are poised on the cusp this way.

In fact it would be interesting to discuss what exactly means "to have a right".

I would define a right as "The ability to act in one's self-interest."

I would define a right as "The ability to act in one's self-interest."

Maybe you'll like this definition:

A state of being or action or freedom from the action of others, to which one is inherently entitled.

Maybe you'll like this definition:

A state of being or action or freedom from the action of others, to which one is inherently entitled.

That is a good definition of what I think our rights should be once we have entered into the societal framework, but I believe that our rights exist prior to societal involvement, so that definition is a little off for me.

Specifically, I am not quite sure that we have a right to freedom, whereas we don't have the right to be secure from the actions of others. There is a right to defend oneself, but not to be secluded.

That is a good definition of what I think our rights should be once we have entered into the societal framework, but I believe that our rights exist prior to societal involvement, so that definition is a little off for me.

Specifically, I am not quite sure that we have a right to freedom, whereas we don't have the right to be secure from the actions of others. There is a right to defend oneself, but not to be secluded.

Now were actually talking about specific "rights" though, rather than what the definition of a "right" is, aren't we?

Incidentally, I probably disagree with you about chosing to seclude one's self as being a right. A poorly chosen one perhaps, but probably a right.

Now were actually talking about specific "rights" though, rather than what the definition of a "right" is, aren't we?

I was just pointing out a specific part of your definition that I didn't believe was a right.

Incidentally, I probably disagree with you about chosing to seclude one's self as being a right. A poorly chosen one perhaps, but probably a right.

The right to freedom from the actions of others would require that others didn't have the right to act towards you. You have the right to resist their actions and act in accordance to others and their actions, but I don't think anyone has the right to seclusion.

I was just pointing out a specific part of your definition that I didn't believe was a right.



The right to freedom from the actions of others would require that others didn't have the right to act towards you. You have the right to resist their actions and act in accordance to others and their actions, but I don't think anyone has the right to seclusion.

So, you would argue that I have the right to restrict your freedom in any way that I might have the capacity to do so?

So, you would argue that I have the right to restrict your freedom in any way that I might have the capacity to do so?

Inherently, yes. However, both of us abandoned most of our intrusive rights when we "joined" society, or you could say that those rights were taken away when we were born into society.

Inherently, yes. However, both of us abandoned most of our intrusive rights when we "joined" society, or you could say that those rights were taken away when we were born into society.

So if I chose to exempt myself from society, I retain the right to impose a restriction of freedom upon you?

So if I chose to exempt myself from society, I retain the right to impose a restriction of freedom upon you?

One of the benefits of entering into the social contract is that I enjoy the protection of society. So technically, if you exempted yourself from society, you would lose your protection from my right to restrict your freedom.

One of the benefits of entering into the social contract is that I enjoy the protection of society. So technically, if you exempted yourself from society, you would lose your protection from my right to restrict your freedom.

Which would essentially return the rights issue to a simple survival of the fittest, most powerful, most able to manipulate the environment, would it not?

Which would essentially return the rights issue to a simple survival of the fittest, most powerful, most able to manipulate the environment, would it not?

Yes, you would be in the "State of Nature", as Hobbes called it. Unlimited rights but unlimited responsibility, unlimited freedom but unlimited danger.

The constitution of the USA and the American people through the use of government grant me my rights.

Rights can be expanded or removed by ammendments to the constitution or by laws passed by the elected representatives of the people.

No they can't. The constitution is not a source of rights. It is the government's written gaurantee that they will not violate your rights. That's why they're called rights. To violate them is to commit a wrong. Any entitlement that belongs to a government to give or take away is not a right, it is a privilege.

A government writing down that you have a right is not what gives you your right, any more than a jury saying you commited a crime means you really did it. The system is set up so that, more often than not, the government or the jury lines up with rights or guilt, but one does not make the other so, it can only recognize or ignore.

Well, according to the Irish constitution, I get my rights (or at least my right to property) from natural law while much of the rest of the rights show clear natural law leanings.

My own view is that all members of society, by the fact they are members, should be entitled to certain rights because of the social contract between the government and the people.

Quite frankly, any argument that says people have inalienable rights misses the reality of the situation as these rights can be given and taken by a government. People, however, should have certain rights that cannot be revoked but let us not forget who would give/guarantee these in the end.

Yes, you would be in the "State of Nature", as Hobbes called it. Unlimited rights but unlimited responsibility, unlimited freedom but unlimited danger.

Well, at least you are logically consistant with your position. I have to give you props for that even if I disagree with it.

To quote from the estimable Robert A. Heinlein:

"Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.' ... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

The third 'right'?-- the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives-- but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."

"Rights" are a matter, ultimately, of the Social Contract. "Rights" always reside with the people of a nation, but are utterly dependent upon the willingness of that people to insist, by force if necessary, that those rights be recognized by government.

There are no "rights", only agreements between people. You get lost in a desert you can scream for your right to food, water and shelter till you're blue in the face--they aren't going to materialise for you in anything other than mirage form.

Rights are illusory, and defined by people.

Well, at least you are logically consistant with your position. I have to give you props for that even if I disagree with it.

Thank you.

I have been ironing my thoughts on this topic for a while now, trying to eliminate any jumps in logic.

There are no "rights", only agreements between people. You get lost in a desert you can scream for your right to food, water and shelter till you're blue in the face--they aren't going to materialise for you in anything other than mirage form.

Rights are illusory, and defined by people.

I would say that you are confusing the priveleges and protections of society with rights. While in the desert you have the right to use any food, water, or shelter you come upon or create.

I'll grant you your rights if you grant me mine.

Thank you.

I have been ironing my thoughts on this topic for a while now, trying to eliminate any jumps in logic.

You're welcome. There is definitely a simplicity to your position that makes it pretty logical, but very very dark in its implications IMO.

I would say that you are confusing the priveleges and protections of society with rights. While in the desert you have the right to use any food, water, or shelter you come upon or create.

Unless, of course, some other, more powerful person wanders along and decides to, um, liberate those items from you...

I'll allow you your rights if you allow me mine.

The social contract in one sentence.

You're welcome. There is definitely a simplicity to your position that makes it pretty logical, but very very dark in its implications IMO.

It is rather brutal in the idea that you only have the rights that others allow you to have, but it does provide me with ample motivation to fight for the maximum freedom allowable for society to still function, and I think we can agree that freedom is a good thing.

It is rather brutal in the idea that you only have the rights that others allow you to have, but it does provide me with ample motivation to fight for the maximum freedom allowable for society to still function, and I think we can agree that freedom is a good thing.

Actually, it wasn't so much the idea of having only the rights that others allow me as much as it is the lack of any kind of structure or framework that is above or beyond the failings of selfish humanity as a definer of that to which a person is entitled that seems so dark to me.

But, you're correct that we agree that freedom is a good thing.

Unless, of course, some other, more powerful person wanders along and decides to, um, liberate those items from you...

Exactly, in the natural state, everyone has the right to act in their self-interest up to their natural limits.

Actually, it wasn't so much the idea of having only the rights that others allow me as much as it is the lack of any kind of structure or framework that is above or beyond the failings of selfish humanity as a definer of that to which a person is entitled that seems so dark to me.

This is actually a source of hope for me. When you consider how far humanity has come with the main motivation being selfishness, imagine where we will go as we become more self-sufficient and happier.

This is actually a source of hope for me. When you consider how far humanity has come with the main motivation being selfishness, imagine where we will go as we become more self-sufficient and happier.

I guess that is a matter of world view. I see the selfishness and destructiveness of man increasing rather than decreasing. IMO, given enough time, without Divine intervention, humanity would completely destroy itself and most of the world in the process.

I ultimately see selfishness as an evil. If the money wasted on consumerism was put towards education or capital goods we could do so much more.

I guess that is a matter of world view. I see the selfishness and destructiveness of man increasing rather than decreasing. IMO, given enough time, without Divine intervention, humanity would completely destroy itself and most of the world in the process.

Maybe, either way, I am not too worried about it. I have a hard time seeing a higher presence in the world or in people, so if it is in human nature to destroy itself, I guess it will happen and we can't do much to change it.

Maybe, either way, I am not too worried about it. I have a hard time seeing a higher presence in the world or in people, so if it is in human nature to destroy itself, I guess it will happen and we can't do much to change it.

While you are certainly entitled to your ideology, it seems far to hopeless and discouraging for me to subscribe to it. I much prefer the hope of a world where selfishness and force as a way of life will be done away with and we can live in peace, love and harmony with our Creator and each other.

Maybe, either way, I am not too worried about it. I have a hard time seeing a higher presence in the world or in people, so if it is in human nature to destroy itself, I guess it will happen and we can't do much to change it.

Well, humanity can resist our own nature. We most certainly have a level of self-determination that is not attributed to animals(I mean ants have no "free will"). I think that it is possible to stop our people from destroying themselves and would prefer not to be fatalistic(It makes me so unhappy).

While you are certainly entitled to your ideology, it seems far to hopeless and discouraging for me to subscribe to it. I much prefer the hope of a world where selfishness and force as a way of life will be done away with and we can live in peace, love and harmony with our Creator and each other.

I understand what you are saying, but to counter I would say that I don't see enough rationality in your ideaology to tie my faith to a creator.

I believe that what you see it what you get, and we need to make the best of what we have.

Well, humanity can resist our own nature. We most certainly have a level of self-determination that is not attributed to animals(I mean ants have no "free will"). I think that it is possible to stop our people from destroying themselves and would prefer not to be fatalistic(It makes me so unhappy).

Well, if we can become more altruistic, we will certainly do so as our lives become easier. Let's hope we do it before we destroy ourselves with greed.

Well, if we can become more altruistic, we will certainly do so as our lives become easier. Let's hope we do it before we destroy ourselves with greed.

Hey, I am not an altruist. I am authoritarian. There is a difference(but under a good system the difference can be harder to see because ultimately the best societal good can only be achieved through sacrifice and improving society in a manner that would help everyone).

Hey, I am not an altruist. I am authoritarian. There is a difference(but under a good system the difference can be harder to see because ultimately the best societal good can only be achieved through sacrifice and improving society in a manner that would help everyone).

I never said you were altruistic. However, for humanity to deny their basic nature they must altruistically. I guess that you believe that the citizens should have forced altruism. I believe altruism should come about through their own volition.

I never said you were altruistic. However, for humanity to deny their basic nature they must altruistically. I guess that you believe that the citizens should have forced altruism. I believe altruism should come about through their own volition.

Well, to an authoritarian it is not exactly altruism. It is the idea that helping others is ultimately good for the self. I mean if we eliminated the causes of crime then crime no longer exists and can no longer cause any problems. To deny basic nature is something done by those following an oppressive rule, monks defy basic nature but do so out of loyalty not necessarily altruism. I think that many people are too stupid to be given the choice. Therefore we should teach them altruism so that they would be allies to our cause. The best way to combat evil in my mind is to stomp out the demons around us rather than let them destroy themselves.

You misunderstand Libertarians, then. We don't believe that people get free anything. We all should pay for what we actually use. There is the responsibility factor.

I understand that in the abstract libertarians love to talk about the need for personal responsibility, but in practice, they tend to revert to a kind of NOMTFism (Not On My Tax Form), usually by saying that they didn't use the service enough to justify the cost they have incurred. The problem with this line of reasoning, however, is that it doesn't factor in the unintended benefits that some services produce (People without kids in schools don't benefit directly from those schools, but they do benefit from the lower crime and recidivism rates that having other people's children in schools), nor does it factor in the concept of the "free rider".



Here is the problem: You're born into the "Social Contract". You never have a choice in that--at least not in today's world. So, force is enacted immediately at birth. That's all "society" really is--several forcing others how to live their lives. If you purchase the land, it IS yours--no one can take it away from you without force (arbitrary law in the US's case). You just say that certain rights are non-negotiable. We believe others aren't.

1) Yes, you are born into the "social contract." But according to Locke, you only become obligated to that Social Contract when you take certain actions to affirm the legitemacy of that Social Contract; voting for instance. By voting, you are explicitly stating that you think that the system under which you are living is one you are desirous of living under and one that you believe to be net advantageous to you. If that is the case, then you are then obligated to uphold that contract even if the system itself produces outcomes that you do not agree with or are in the short term disadvantageous. So in effect, by voting, you are for instance agreeing that you will pay taxes even if the result of that vote is that you pay a disproportionate share of those taxes, because you have (by voting) agreed that the system of voting to determine tax distribution is one that is advantageous to you.

2) I am not "saying" that certain rights are non-negotiable. I am making a common-sense point that under no circumstances would you consider a social contract that held the right to life to be a negotiable option to be a valid one or one advantageous to you. By inference, it follows that if I can't consider a social contract that negotiates about the right to life to be advantageous or valid, then under no circumstance can a social contract that holds those rights to be negotiable work.

I can however negotiate about the right to property and control thereof; indeed, negotiation on that point is required for a government to exist at all, since a government with no power to stop you from doing whatever the hell you want with your property is no government at all. Moreover, I already pointed out how giving up the right to absolute control over your property can still be advantageous to you, depending on what the government offers in return. As such, the libertarian credo of absolute control over one's own property simply does not jive with Lockean social contract theory.


Hmm....not a convincing argument. That "legal" bullshit about being silent and agreeing crap just doesn't cut it. You need explicit permission first before doing anything that will affect another. In other words, if you're going to be part of a contract, you have to sign, or at least verbally agree to said contract.

By voting, you are giving explicit permission for the government to affect you, because you are endorsing the legitemacy of the government mechanisms by which it acts (namely: democratic voting processes).

This isn't about legalism, Zaxon. It is about the concept known as "rule of law." You and I would probably both agree that you can't just flout the law any time the law would harm you in some measure, of if you would, you don't really have an understanding of what the state of nature is like (which is the government system you are in effect proposing). If so, then there has to be some act that you take which explicitly says: "I will obey the law, even if it does me harm, because the laws of the land are or have been good to and for me in the aggregate." Voting, in Locke's view, is precisely this act.

I voted for God for several reasons. Mostly because I am a christian and I could never vote for "self" with my beliefs. I believe God created us, so without him we couldn't have rights.

I also believe the governemnt doesn't give rights. Essentually it defines them (or takes them away as the case may be) to benefit someone/something. For example in America we have no right to assault someone else because the government wants to protect other citizens. However, in a socialist nation you don't have the right to criticize the leader because the government wants to keep citizens in check and keep them from overthrowing the government.

Imagine if we were living in a true anarchy. We'd have all kinds of rights, yet no government is there to grant these rights. So, it can't be the governement that gives rights.

I believe Thomas Jefferson said it best, "that all men... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

I understand what you are saying, but to counter I would say that I don't see enough rationality in your ideaology to tie my faith to a creator.

I believe that what you see it what you get, and we need to make the best of what we have.

I guess I see the issue of "rationality" as a relative one. I personal see more rationality in the existance of God as I believe in Him that to believe to the contrary, but I can appreciate that your life experiences haven't led you to the same rational conclusion that my life experiences have led me to. Either way, you are at the very least correct about it being important to make the best of what we have.

I've enjoyed discussing this subject with you. :)

I guess I see the issue of "rationality" as a relative one. I personal see more rationality in the existance of God as I believe in Him that to believe to the contrary, but I can appreciate that your life experiences haven't led you to the same rational conclusion that my life experiences have led me to. Either way, you are at the very least correct about it being important to make the best of what we have.

I've enjoyed discussing this subject with you. :)

I've enjoyed this conversation, too. We seem to have very similar lines of thought, but different viewpoints on life.

You have touched completely on my beliefs on religion as rational thought. I don't believe in God, but I will not reject faith in God can as a reasonable belief as I cannot possibly understand fully your viewpoint and experiences.

I would say that you are confusing the priveleges and protections of society with rights. While in the desert you have the right to use any food, water, or shelter you come upon or create.

What? How is that "exercising a right"? It's just using the resources around you to survive an unpleasant situation. Next you'll be saying breathing air is a right.

...Besides, if the food, water and shelter you came across happened to belong to a nomad who didn't want to share you'd find your statements going out the window pretty quickly.

The Common Law - developed by judges for centuries. It includes fundamental rights such as freedom of expresion, thought and religion etc but isn't written down - just inferred.

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) - ensures that I can sue any public body that infringes my rights without a legitimate aim.

...and numerous other international treaties and domestic legislation. So in short - government. Although they can take away my rights just as easily as they give them.

*snip*

It is about the concept known as "rule of law." You and I would probably both agree that you can't just flout the law any time the law would harm you in some measure,
Yeah dude, thats stopped so many people from smoking dope. They just couldn't flout it no matter how hard they tried. :rolleyes:
or if you would, you don't really have an understanding of what the state of nature is like (which is the government system you are in effect proposing). If so, then there has to be some act that you take which explicitly says: "I will obey the law, even if it does me harm, because the laws of the land are or have been good to and for me in the aggregate."Sooo... I should be plum glad to rot in prison for the rest of my life, for something that simply *SHOULD NOT* be against the law? Thats bullshit. Try to unhorse yourself for a moment and look at it from a less detached perspective. One day the oh-so-noble spirit of law is going to come up and bite you or someone close to you in the ass. Hopefully it won't do much damage.

Voting, in Locke's view, is precisely this act.
And while Locke wrote a lot of neat books, his works don't dictate the terms of my existance. What a bubble burster.

The "spirit of law" as it were, serves only those who wish to control it and taints the spirit of justice. Law sans "spirit of", is how society can ensure or enforce the spirit of justice. For example:

"It would be unjust for me to drive drunk - I am putting the lives of others at risk. Therefore it is illegal."

Unfortunately, the spirit of justice has largely been forgotten. For example:

"It is illegal for me to own a firearm without being blacklisted by the authorities - I'm not really sure why, but the guys who make the laws assure me its for my own good, and I believe them."

There is no absolute truism in paper or speech, though it will be implied as such.
There is no absolute truism in precedent, though it will be implied as such.
There is no absolute truism in belief or faith, though it will be implied as such.
There is no absolute truism in the actions of your conscious and subconcious though you may imply such.
There is no absolute truism in philosophies and ideologies, though it will be implied as such.

There are no Rights, as the concept has no value, there is only actions without value.

This is why I have read the poll and selected nothing.

I voted for other because myself i follow a combination of the 4

What? How is that "exercising a right"? It's just using the resources around you to survive an unpleasant situation. Next you'll be saying breathing air is a right.

Explain why there isn't a right to breath air.

I would even say that various governments have had instances where they revoked the right of people to breath air. The jews in Aushwitz, the Kurds in northern Iraq, or any criminals who have been executed in gas chambers, for example.

...Besides, if the food, water and shelter you came across happened to belong to a nomad who didn't want to share you'd find your statements going out the window pretty quickly.

Actually that helps my argument. Under my argument, while outside the confines of society, you would have the right to take the property from the nomad. However, you also have the chance that you will be made a slave, killed, or starve if you failed or didn't even attempt it.

I choose to follow GOD, and only GOD!

I choose to follow GOD, and only GOD!

Uh, which one? :)