NationStates Jolt Archive

In another thread, it has been asserted that an individual only has the rights that the individual's government assigns to them. That all rights are given by government.

The original argument was made in the context of firearms. It went like this;

Only, no, it is not a right. You see, a right is something granted and defended by law. As there is no law in Britain stating a right to own guns ... gun ownership is no right there.

Is this the case? Does one only have the rights given them by the government?

In another thread, it has been asserted that an individual only has the rights that the individual's government assigns to them. That all rights are given by government.

The original argument was made in the context of firearms. It went like this;



Is this the case? Does one only have the rights given them by the government?
In the context of a court of law, I think so.

In another thread, it has been asserted that an individual only has the rights that the individual's government assigns to them. That all rights are given by government.

The original argument was made in the context of firearms. It went like this;



Is this the case? Does one only have the rights given them by the government?

Not quite correct.
Rights are created by society, governments simply write them down and defend them.

In a way yes because the entity that defends rights is government run. I mean look at North Korea, the only right they have is the right to die of starvation in the street. There are rights that are seen as "universal Human rights" but they are only upheld if the government wishes it

Legally speaking, yes. In another sense, we all have basic human rights, regardless of whether the governement we happen to be under respects them or passes laws to the contrary.

I would suggest adding a poll ;)

Chicken and the egg...legally yes, you only have the rights that have been recognised, but that doesn't mean that a new right would not be included because of your case, and it doesn't mean that the government couldn't legislate into existence new legal rights. So rights are in a state of flux, if you are looking at it from a legal angle. Certainly societal shifts influence what rights are added, or taken away, and public pressure certainly has a profound impact both on the legislature, and to a lesser extent, the courts.

Rights aren't 'created' by law in the objective sense...but going into where rights come from, and what they are, is not something I'm willing to do at 9:40am.

In a way yes because the entity that defends rights is government run. I mean look at North Korea, the only right they have is the right to die of starvation in the street. There are rights that are seen as "universal Human rights" but they are only upheld if the government wishes it

Or if the people require it. That is why the people have the right to keep and bear arms. There is no functional difference between a criminal, an invader, or a tyrant--each wants to enjoy the fruit of another's labor without warrant. Like any other natural right, this right must be asserted and defended, that it might not be abrogated.

Well, a poll would be nice - they just leave the post body open for replies while crafting the poll and responses - but how does one add a poll once the thread's been created?

There are rights and then there are legal rights. I believe I have a right to privacy, to freedom of expression, to choose how to live my life, and the right to defend myself. (You could think up more but those are just what I got off the top of my head)

Legally I have the right to remain silent as anything I say can be used against me in a kangeroo court and the right to a state-apointed lawyer who will defend me poorly.

Rights are created by society, governments simply write them down and defend them.

So, no nation has any business decrying China for its human rights abuses, since China chose not to give those rights to its citizens. Therefore, those rights do not exist.

Correct?

Or if the people require it. That is why the people have the right to keep and bear arms. There is no functional difference between a criminal, an invader, or a tyrant--each wants to enjoy the fruit of another's labor without warrant. Like any other natural right, this right must be asserted and defended, that it might not be abrogated.

The right to bear arms is a natural right? Really. :rolleyes:

Natural rights are so subjectively based on the particular culture/beliefs/values of the person or people involved that it is nearly impossible to come up with a universal system of natural law. Hence our convoluted, flawed, and yet useful legal systems. 'Natural law' can be based on religion, on philosophy, or on basic and varying moral values...but just claiming that there exists a 'natural right to bear arms' is really pointless. According to what system of natural law? Certainly not all of them.

In another sense, we all have basic human rights, regardless of whether the governement we happen to be under respects them or passes laws to the contrary.

From where are these "rights" derived?

If not by legislation, where?

And, if these "rights" come from a source other than legislative, then why don't the other "rights?"

Well, a poll would be nice - they just leave the post body open for replies while crafting the poll and responses - but how does one add a poll once the thread's been created?

In thread tools up at the top of the OP.

Human rights are inalienable and no government can take that away from you.

Other rights, however, can be given by the government. but actually I have a different personal view of that.

That's delightfully cynical. But no, rights are deeper than that and not exclusively the domain of the government.

How to put it in an analogy...

Assume you are travelling with a small group of people in a van whilst on holiday, and the driver of the camper van decides he wants to go to a different destination than everyone else. He begins driving there of his own accord without anyone else's consent. Assuming you all paid equally for the trip, that's a breach of your rights as a member of that group, is it not? Simply because the driver has power is not an adequate representation of his or her legitimacy.

It's the same with governments. Simply because the government (or basically any institution) can to some degree give or take rights away does not mean it has the absolute moral authority regarding them.

From where are these "rights" derived?

If not by legislation, where?

And, if these "rights" come from a source other than legislative, then why don't the other "rights?"

I have absolutely no idea. :)

The right to bear arms is a natural right? Really.

Really.

One has the natural right to defend one's self.
One has the natural right to use one's own property in any manner wished, including to provide self defense.
Thus, one has a natural right to bear arms.

Natural rights are so subjectively based on the particular culture/beliefs/values of the person or people involved that it is nearly impossible to come up with a universal system of natural law.

It is quite simple, actually.

In thread tools up at the top of the OP.

Ah-hah!!

Poll forthcoming...

Really.

One has the natural right to defend one's self.
One has the natural right to use one's own property in any manner wished, including to provide self defense.
Thus, one has a natural right to bear arms. You talk about private property as though that is another natural right. Again, you need to understand that you are applying your version of natural law to the rest of the world. Sorry...your version is not actually universal. Maybe that works for you, but it is not necessarily so for everyone. My people did just fine without private property...and in our natural law, humans do not have dominion over all the earth. Now we can argue these systems, compare and contrast them, but we are not going to come to some universal agreement of what natural human rights are (and are not). That's all I'm trying to say...do not claim universality when natural law is a subjective thing.

So, no nation has any business decrying China for its human rights abuses, since China chose not to give those rights to its citizens. Therefore, those rights do not exist.

Correct?

Correct.
What we are decrying is not China breaking it's own laws. What we are trying to achieve is China recognising Human Rights and integrating them into its legal system.

Human rights are inalienable and no government can take that away from you.

Who said?
Where did they come from?

Other rights, however, can be given by the government. but actually I have a different personal view of that.

Again, who said?

How can Man give rights? What gives him the authority?

That's delightfully cynical. But no, rights are deeper than that and not exclusively the domain of the government.

How to put it in an analogy...

Assume you are travelling with a small group of people in a van whilst on holiday, and the driver of the camper van decides he wants to go to a different destination than everyone else. He begins driving there of his own accord without anyone else's consent. Assuming you all paid equally for the trip, that's a breach of your rights as a member of that group, is it not? Simply because the driver has power is not an adequate representation of his or her legitimacy.

It's the same with governments. Simply because the government (or basically any institution) can to some degree give or take rights away does not mean it has the absolute moral authority regarding them.but by forcing the driver to disreguard his/her desires, that's a breach of the drivers rights as well. However, if the driver was given that posistion of driving then with the responsibility, comes the power to choose direction.

Some rights, are granted by powers beyond the Government, the right to live. but the specifics are granted by the Government, The right to Privacy, the Right to Bear Arms, the Right to Free Speech... etc....

Remember, in the U.S. Consititution, it only mentions the Persuit of Happiness, nothing about obtaining Happiness. ;)

EDIT: need a third option. BOTH.

You talk about private property as though that is another natural right.

It is.

My people did just fine without private property...

Rights do not depend upon their exercise to exist.

So, your "people" would have no recourse to another entering one's home and walking off with the prime rib in the fridge?

That's all I'm trying to say...do not claim universality when natural law is a subjective thing.

I do not see it as subjective.

Animals have no dominion over Man.

In another thread, it has been asserted that an individual only has the rights that the individual's government assigns to them. That all rights are given by government.

The original argument was made in the context of firearms. It went like this;



Is this the case? Does one only have the rights given them by the government?

i never saw the arguements of natural rights believers to be all that cojent when i was studying politics at uni. largely because they often require some 'higher power' to give objective moral laws.

i'd say that rights are bestowed by the power, and that power is the government as it has legitimate force over you. however you, and the government, from birth, enter into a social contract for you to obey its laws, and for it to serve its people and only its people.

rights are not natural, but by virtue of being born in, or voluntarily living in a country you are one side of a social contract agreement; and this includes rights. as such, rights are natural to some degree, but only insofar as they are part of a social contract, and are subject to a government's interperetation. that government being democratic, then, is rather a good thing :P

Really.

One has the natural right to defend one's self.
One has the natural right to use one's own property in any manner wished, including to provide self defense.
Thus, one has a natural right to bear arms.

You've made a logic leap there, my friend. Whilst I would agree that one has the natural right to defend one's self, you've assumed that the possession of "arms" as personal property is also a natural right. I argue that there is a line to be crossed where it ceases being a right in the interests of collective security...unless of course, you believe that have the right to possess a nuclear weapon and use it in any manner wished.

Correct.

How about those in African nations forcing female circumcision on young girls?
How about Islam "honor killings?"

These are all just something to go "tsk tsk" over, right?

What we are trying to achieve is China recognising Human Rights and integrating them into its legal system.

Why should they recognize something that does not exist?

EDIT: need a third option. BOTH.

No.

A right is a right. It comes from one source or the other, not both.

Ah-hah!!

Poll forthcoming...

Pffft, no joke option?

Why should they recognize something that does not exist?

Hence the difference of opinion. Hence, why we are trying to get them to recognise those 'rights'.

but by forcing the driver to disreguard his/her desires, that's a breach of the drivers rights as well.

Not explicitly. Ideally, in a democratic society, there is of course the option to discuss and at the very least aim to reach a compromise that benefits everyone involved.

However, if the driver was given that posistion of driving then with the responsibility, comes the power to choose direction.

I'm not denying that they have the power to do so, the question is whether or not it is legitimate to use it against the wishes of the rest of the group.

Is this the case? Does one only have the rights given them by the government?

The government regulates rights for the society. The society 'grants' them.

Where did they come from?


It's inherent in you. You already have it. I personally believe that government is there to smoothen the exercise of your rights as some may conflict with other people's rights.

It's inherent in you. You already have it. I personally believe that government is there to smoothen the exercise of your rights as some may conflict with other people's rights.

If a right is 'inherent', then it must be capable of being 'applied' within or without society...

How does one assure their 'right to life', without the benefit of support? Tigers are unlikely to listen to your reasoned arguments about why you shouldn't be between the peas and potatoes.

No.

A right is a right. It comes from one source or the other, not both.

No, you are talking about different things. There are positive and negative rights that exist as legal constructions, or as moral ones. You have the positive legal right, for example, to apply for a license if you meet certain standards. You have the negative legal right not to have someone smash their car into you. But you can not say necessarily that these are rights that exist inherent in the human state. You seem to want to blend 'natural rights' or some sense of 'universal' rights with legal rights. You can only do this to a limited extent.

Now you can take this from a positivist stance and say, rights are what rights are guaranteed under the law. Or you can take a moralist stance and say what they ought to be. You can introduce your own conception of natural law, how it is expressed in the legal system, and how it may be. But you are not talking about the same thing in every case.

So when someone says, 'right comes from laws' they are correct, just as if you say, 'rights are inherent' is also true. You're just discussing different things is all.

...you've assumed that the possession of "arms" as personal property is also a natural right.

No.

I've argued that one can use property to defend one's self.

If I do not own a weapon, it is very hard for me to use a weapon in self-defense.

But, if I own one, then I can use it to provide self-defense.

I argue that there is a line to be crossed where it ceases being a right in the interests of collective security...

This would be a situation of the basic right being denied, though in part, by the government. Or, society, take your pick.

In the US, we have the Second Amendment guaranteeing that the basic right will not be denied - we just don't live up to the guarantee.

unless of course, you believe that have the right to possess a nuclear weapon and use it in any manner wished.

I do have the right to possess it, but I do not have the right to use it in any manner I wish, just as I do not have the right to use my baseball bat in any manner I wish - say, to smash the windows in your car.

My rights end when they infringe upon those of another.

How about those in African nations forcing female circumcision on young girls?
How about Islam "honor killings?"

These are all just something to go "tsk tsk" over, right?


Do you see anybody doing anything but going "tsk tsk" over them?
They are sovereign countries, and as such free to give themselves whatever law they see fit. All we can do is criticise.


Why should they recognize something that does not exist?

Who said laws don't exist?

Pffft, no joke option?

I'm running payroll as I type - my humor circuits are under-energized...

No.

A right is a right. It comes from one source or the other, not both. the right to life can be considered one granted by nature, but the right to an education is one granted by the government.

Really.

One has the natural right to defend one's self.Up to a point. and that the defense has to be porpotional to the offense, thus that right is defined by law/Government.
One has the natural right to use one's own property in any manner wished, including to provide self defense.wrong, thanks to zoning laws, one cannot use one's property in any manner. also, I cannot put in a nuclear power plant in my home, nor can I boobytrap it with leathal devices. in Nature, you can own what you can defend, but in Civilization, you can own what you can afford. big difference.
Thus, one has a natural right to bear arms.and that natural right only pertains to what nature gives you. thus at most, two arms.



It is quite simple, actually.[/QUOTE]

Hence the difference of opinion. Hence, why we are trying to get them to recognise those 'rights'.

"Opinion?"

Something exists because of "opinion?"

Does the computer you are using to post to this forum exist only because you have the opinion that it does?

If something exists, it does so, regardless of one's opinion.

No.

I've argued that one can use property to defend one's self.

If I do not own a weapon, it is very hard for me to use a weapon in self-defense.

But, if I own one, then I can use it to provide self-defense.



Only if the right is granted to allow that.

Example: one might be 'allowed' to own guns for killing rats. One might be 'allowed' to defend oneself with 'reasonable force'.

One might not be 'allowed' to claim using the gun (which is owned for an express purpose) for defense as 'reasonable' force.

No.

I've argued that one can use property to defend one's self.

If I do not own a weapon, it is very hard for me to use a weapon in self-defense.

But, if I own one, then I can use it to provide self-defense.


In that, you assume that there is a right to own any property you want.
You will find that all countries actually have regulations as to what you can or cannot own.

The government regulates rights for the society. The society 'grants' them.

So, Islamic society grants men the right to honor killings. This is all well and good to you?

If something exists, it does so, regardless of one's opinion.

Only if what you are discussing actually has independent, objective existence.

Rights are intangible concepts, which does not necessarily mean they do not exist objectively...but neither can you claim that something like a right exists regardless of opinion. Exist in what sense exactly?

"Opinion?"

Something exists because of "opinion?"

Does the computer you are using to post to this forum exist only because you have the opinion that it does?

If something exists, it does so, regardless of one's opinion.

Fine. I'll accept that stance if you can physically show me a 'right'.

They are not concrete - they are societal constructs. As such - they are entirely a matter of opinion.

So, Islamic society grants men the right to honor killings. This is all well and good to you?

In the US, children can be put to death. Is this all well and good to you?

Bringing up the various way people can be horrible to one another does nothing to prove your assertation that rights exist objectively and universally.

If a right is 'inherent', then it must be capable of being 'applied' within or without society...

Exactly.

Tigers are unlikely to listen to your reasoned arguments about why you shouldn't be between the peas and potatoes.

Tigers are not bound by rights.

They do not have them, nor are they responsible for them. They are animals. Rights do not apply to animals.

So, Islamic society grants men the right to honor killings. This is all well and good to you?

It doesn't matter how I feel about it - I'm not 'there'.

I do not condone the concept - I believe it should be opposed.. but, clearly, the only way it could be imposed based on my will, would be if I was part of a movement that managed to change the rights granted within that culture.

By the word, or by the sword - that is how rights are granted, exercised, or altered.

If a right is 'inherent', then it must be capable of being 'applied' within or without society...

How does one assure their 'right to life', without the benefit of support? Tigers are unlikely to listen to your reasoned arguments about why you shouldn't be between the peas and potatoes.

When I said inherent, it is already within you. I am actually puzzled why tigers entered the post (or am I just needing new glasses?), but from what I get is that the word I used had profoundly different connotations for you and me. But then, I agree that rights are of use within the societal context, but not without it.

Not explicitly. Ideally, in a democratic society, there is of course the option to discuss and at the very least aim to reach a compromise that benefits everyone involved.and again, to the driver, goes the power to decide direction. who knows, maybe the driver knows a shortcut that no one else does.

the point is in a car, the driver can choose not to listen to the "rights" of the passengers if the driver chooses not to. and if the Car is owned by the driver, then that is more rights to him/her.

even if all the passengers paid for the gas, even if all the passengers contribute something to the journey. and even if all the passengers take their turn at the wheel, the driver has the responsibility to keep the passengers safe.

I'm not denying that they have the power to do so, the question is whether or not it is legitimate to use it against the wishes of the rest of the group.and if the group wants to say, go street racing? or go speeding along the edge of the cliff, rob a bank and use the car as a getaway or do anything dangerous, then it's the DRIVER'S Responsibility to ensure the safty of the passengers, and if it means denying them their "rights", so be it. The driver has to keep the passengers safe, and get them to their destination safe. and sometimes that would mean ignoring the "Rights" of the passengers to ensure their safety.

Thus the Rights of the Passengers are dependant on the driver, just like the rights of the citizens are dependant on the Government.

Tigers are not bound by rights.

They do not have them, nor are they responsible for them. They are animals. Rights do not apply to animals.

Oh they don't? Surely animals have the right to defend themselves from attack, do they not?

You can not discuss the rights of animals in the same way you would discuss the rights of humans...but you can neither simply declare that animals, being animals, have neither rights nor responsibilities. Of course they do. Just not human rights and responsibilities.

Exactly.



Tigers are not bound by rights.

They do not have them, nor are they responsible for them. They are animals. Rights do not apply to animals.

It doesn't matter if the tiger is bound by rights. If I have an 'inherent' right, then it protects me, whether or not there is a society. Since I am obviously not protected FROM the tiger by my rights, I can safely assume that my 'right' to unmolested life, is granted by my society... not by some innate metaphysical prime cause.

This would be a situation of the basic right being denied, though in part, by the government. Or, society, take your pick.

In the US, we have the Second Amendment guaranteeing that the basic right will not be denied - we just don't live up to the guarantee.

...

I do have the right to possess it

No, you don't.

There's a distinction to be made between basic rights and what extends beyond their scope. I think virtually anyone would agree that it is in the best interests of the entire society that every man and his dog does not have a nuclear weapon. Therefore that society has the legitimacy required to limit the basic right. You can defend yourself adequately without a nuclear weapon, so you have no natural right to possess one.

but I do not have the right to use it in any manner I wish, just as I do not have the right to use my baseball bat in any manner I wish - say, to smash the windows in your car.

My rights end when they infringe upon those of another.

Correct. However, our specific example is that of self defence. There comes a point where you can have enough.

When I said inherent, it is already within you. I am actually puzzled why tigers entered the post (or am I just needing new glasses?), but from what I get is that the word I used had profoundly different connotations for you and me. But then, I agree that rights are of use within the societal context, but not without it.

The tigers entered because of the word 'inherent'. That implies that there is something about the right that is built-in to us... but, since these rights cannot be exercised without a society to enforce them, clearly there is nothing truly 'inherent' about them.

The tigers entered because of the word 'inherent'. That implies that there is something about the right that is built-in to us... but, since these rights cannot be exercised without a society to enforce them, clearly there is nothing truly 'inherent' about them.

I sense some disconnect here (or is it just me?). True, it is built-in to us, hence the word 'inherent'. It is inherent in us and we use it in societal situations. However, it is of no use in non-societal situations.

No, you are talking about different things.

No, I am talking about one thing - rights.

One has no "right" to a license. A license is a mark of government approval, not a right.

I have no right to not be hit by a car, just as I have no right to not be offended.

I do have a right to life and others are not within their right to deprive me of that particular right.

and again, to the driver, goes the power to decide direction. who knows, maybe the driver knows a shortcut that no one else does.

the point is in a car, the driver can choose not to listen to the "rights" of the passengers if the driver chooses not to. and if the Car is owned by the driver, then that is more rights to him/her.

even if all the passengers paid for the gas, even if all the passengers contribute something to the journey. and even if all the passengers take their turn at the wheel, the driver has the responsibility to keep the passengers safe.

Ahh, safety is one thing, but what if the driver wants to go to one destination for a frivolous reason and the entire group is in opposition? Just because he has the power to follow through on his ambitions does not mean it is his right to do so.

and if the group wants to say, go street racing? or go speeding along the edge of the cliff, rob a bank and use the car as a getaway or do anything dangerous, then it's the DRIVER'S Responsibility to ensure the safty of the passengers, and if it means denying them their "rights", so be it. The driver has to keep the passengers safe, and get them to their destination safe. and sometimes that would mean ignoring the "Rights" of the passengers to ensure their safety.

Thus the Rights of the Passengers are dependant on the driver, just like the rights of the citizens are dependant on the Government.

Conversely, what if the driver wants to say, go street racing, or speeding along the edge of a cliff or so on? He has the power to do so - why can't he? Why does he need to care about the safety of the passengers? If the driver decides that the passengers don't have a right to safety, is this belief legitimate based simply along him being behind the wheel?

Do you see anybody doing anything but going "tsk tsk" over them?

Inaction does not imply that the behavior is right or proper.

We condemn them - even if we do not back up that condemnation with action. Such condemnation is undeserved, if governments - or societies - grant rights.

They are sovereign countries, and as such free to give themselves whatever law they see fit. All we can do is criticise.

Laws, not rights.

I sense some disconnect here (or is it just me?). True, it is built-in to us, hence the word 'inherent'. It is inherent in us and we use it in societal situations. However, it is of no use in non-societal situations.

Then how can you be so sure it is 'built-in'?

If it only applies in societal circumstances, is it reasonable to assume it has a separate existence?

the right to life can be considered one granted by nature, but the right to an education is one granted by the government.

There is no right to an education. There is a right to LEARN, but not to an education. A right to an education means one must be educated. That means the services of an educator must be provided, even if none wanted the job. Such an appointment would be a violation of the rights of the one being forced to educate.

Thus, no right to be educated.

Up to a point. and that the defense has to be porpotional to the offense, thus that right is defined by law/Government.

Yes. To the point of the need for self-defense being negated. Further force would be infringing upon the rights of the other.

The right is not defined by law/Government, it is restricted.

wrong, thanks to zoning laws, one cannot use one's property in any manner.

Not everywhere has zoning laws. I believe Houston, Texas does not have zoning laws.

However, these laws are, again, examples of the government restricting a right.

Whether for good or ill, it is still a restriction of rights.

and that natural right only pertains to what nature gives you. thus at most, two arms.

Wow.

How original.

Never heard that one before...

Ahh, safety is one thing, safety is a big thing with Rights. Should Rights be taken away because of saftey issues? should Rights be ignored because of security and safety?

and who has that power to suspend and grant rights? the government.

but what if the driver wants to go to one destination for a frivolous reason and the entire group is in opposition? Just because he has the power to follow through on his ambitions does not mean it is his right to do so.he has that right as the driver. that right comes with the posistion of driver.

Conversely, what if the driver wants to say, go street racing, or speeding along the edge of a cliff or so on? He has the power to do so - why can't he? Why does he need to care about the safety of the passengers? If the driver decides that the passengers don't have a right to safety, is this belief legitimate based simply along him being behind the wheel?yes. Because anything happens to the car and to the people is the driver's responsibility. who gets arrested in any high speed chase? The Driver. even if the passengers are egging him on, it's the driver that has the responsibility. think about all the impaired driving incidents that occured, it's the driver that has no reguard to the safty of their passengers. the punnishment is at least a suspension of their ability to drive legally. With the Power, comes the Right and also the Responsibility.

Even if it's a carjacking where the driver is a hostage, initally, the driver is also arrested until the point is made and confirmed that the driver is also a victim. and even then, the driver might be charged (tho it will be dropped) with reckless endangerment or whatever.

There is no right to an education. There is a right to LEARN, but not to an education. A right to an education means one must be educated. That means the services of an educator must be provided, even if none wanted the job. Such an appointment would be a violation of the rights of the one being forced to educate.

Thus, no right to be educated.

Granted, Right to have access to an education then. :p

Yes. To the point of the need for self-defense being negated. Further force would be infringing upon the rights of the other.and when does that point get reached. after a moment of defending yourself, he's also defending himself, neither one stopping untill the other is either incapacitated or dead.

The right is not defined by law/Government, it is restricted.Restricted, defined and granted within those restrictions.

Not everywhere has zoning laws. I believe Houston, Texas does not have zoning laws.so go and try to live in your place of business. or have a retail store in your home in suburbia. and while Houston may not have zoning laws, other States do.

However, these laws are, again, examples of the government restricting a right.which is their responsiblity. thus they can Restrict 100%, thus taking away a 'Right'. by restricting it, they are also granting Rights by saying what is Allowed.

the natural right, the right to life, is all that nature gives. the others is what the Government gives. that's why I said both.

Only if the right is granted to allow that.

So, Nazi Germany did not violate the rights of the Jews they exterminated? After all, they didn't "grant" them the right to life.

Example: one might be 'allowed' to own guns for killing rats. One might be 'allowed' to defend oneself with 'reasonable force'.

One might not be 'allowed' to claim using the gun (which is owned for an express purpose) for defense as 'reasonable' force.

All restrictions upon the right.

In that, you assume that there is a right to own any property you want.

Only that property which is not owned by another.

If owned by another, only that which is exchanged upon agreeable terms.

You will find that all countries actually have regulations as to what you can or cannot own.

Again, restrictions upon a right.

All restrictions upon the right.and through restrictions, the granted rights are defined and given. your point?

Exist in what sense exactly?

In the same sense that my thoughts exist. Each of us has rights. These are a part of the human condition and not granted by any power of Man.

They are not concrete - they are societal constructs. As such - they are entirely a matter of opinion.

Rights are not tied to society.

Privilege is, but not rights.

So, Nazi Germany did not violate the rights of the Jews they exterminated? After all, they didn't "grant" them the right to life.


Which 'rights'?

I don't think the holocaust was a problem of 'rights'. I think it was a matter of genocide, and 'rights' be damned.

But - in fact - you make my argumnt for me: if there are 'inherent' rights, how could the Third Reich just wander around rounding up and executing Jews, Gypsies, etc all across the globe?

Clearly, their 'inherent' rights meant nothing where there was no ability of their society to express those 'rights'.


All restrictions upon the right.

Only if you assume there is a right being restricted. Another way to view it would be that - under some special circumstances - the 'rights' in question are additionally granted.

Rights are not tied to society.

Privilege is, but not rights.

Opinion.

Show me a 'right' that can be expressed independently of society.

Well there are "rights", and there are "rights", if you know what I mean.

Edit: One of the main problems is the idea that freedoms = rights. Originally they were not meant to be the same thing if you go by a political definition.

In the US, children can be put to death. Is this all well and good to you?

And, you are talking about what, exactly?

Bringing up the various way people can be horrible to one another does nothing to prove your assertation that rights exist objectively and universally.

Certainly it does. If rights are defined by a society, then no one can complain about how a society treats its members. No rights are being violated.

By the argument that society grants rights, then the rights of the US are not the same as the rights of Uganda or North Korea.

But, I hold that rights in the US are the same as rights in Uganda or North Korea.

But, I hold that rights in the US are the same as rights in Uganda or North Korea.

You are welcome to hold that.

Doesn't make it true, but.

It doesn't matter how I feel about it - I'm not 'there'.

Certainly it matters.

I do not condone the concept - I believe it should be opposed..

Why?

It is right and proper, because the woman's rights are defined by the society. So, no one's rights are being violated by the honor killings.

Or, to be closer to the US, the US had legal slavery prior to the Civil War. So, was it proper that negroes had no rights?

Oh they don't? Surely animals have the right to defend themselves from attack, do they not?

No, they do not. Not the RIGHT. They simply do. They are not responsible for the consequences of their acts - except because of a human need for vengeance.

If an animal kills a human - or another animal - it is not murder. Animals do not murder.

Since I am obviously not protected FROM the tiger by my rights, I can safely assume that my 'right' to unmolested life, is granted by my society... not by some innate metaphysical prime cause.

You have no right to be "protected from" anything. No one does.

One does not have the right to rob you; you do not have the right to not be robbed.

You do not have a right to "unmolested life." You simply do not have the right to molest another.

No, they do not. Not the RIGHT. They simply do. They are not responsible for the consequences of their acts - except because of a human need for vengeance.

If an animal kills a human - or another animal - it is not murder. Animals do not murder.

Your opinion. According to my people's natural law, killing an animal without the proper protocols is akin to murder. We however, believe that animals simply are not capable of working against the natural order...only humans can do that. Nonetheless, we do imbue animals with certain rights, including the right not to be unduly disturbed, exploited, or killed for no purpose.

If an animal kills a human - or another animal - it is not murder. Animals do not murder.actually, animals do.
Lions will kill cubs that were sired by another male. they don't do it for food, or for secuity, they do it because the child isn't theirs.

same with male bears, they will kill any cub that they encounter. the same thing happens with sea lions, and other animals in nature.

When an animal kills a human, we don't call it murder, but we rationalize it. but we don't do the same form of rationalization when humans kill other humans.

No, you don't.

Yes, I do.

There's a distinction to be made between basic rights and what extends beyond their scope.

The scope of rights extends to the point where they infringe upon the rights of another.

I think virtually anyone would agree that it is in the best interests of the entire society that every man and his dog does not have a nuclear weapon.

Perhaps. But, this has nothing to do with rights, only the restriction placed upon them for the public good.

Therefore that society has the legitimacy required to limit the basic right.

But, the right is still there, simply restricted.

You can defend yourself adequately without a nuclear weapon,

How do you know?

so you have no natural right to possess one.

If I have the agreeable means of exchange to enjoin in commerce with the owner of a nuclear weapon, then I have the right to conduct that exchange and thus to possess the property in question.

Correct. However, our specific example is that of self defence. There comes a point where you can have enough.

Yes.

The point where my defense becomes offense.

Certainly it matters.


Perhaps you don't understand what I mean. Of course it matters to me what I think. But it doesn't 'matter' in any real sense.


Why?

It is right and proper, because the woman's rights are defined by the society. So, no one's rights are being violated by the honor killings.

Or, to be closer to the US, the US had legal slavery prior to the Civil War. So, was it proper that negroes had no rights?

You are jumbling a lot of things up.

In the society I live in, 'honour killings' are not sanctioned. Thus, in the society I live in, there is no 'right' to perform such an act. In another society, there is such a 'right'.

Whether or not I object to it, doesn't alter whether or not there is a connected 'right'.

So - what could we do? A letter-writing campaign that strikes at the heartstrings of the other society? Or invade them? Either one might change what 'rights' are available - but they do so by 'changing' the nature of the society.

Do I think women should be killed in 'honour killings'? No. But that doesn't change whether or not there is a 'right'.

Similarly - while I think black skin and whit skin are equal, neither skintone has any inherent 'right' to be absolved from subjugation... only whatever 'right' is granted by the society.

Was it 'proper'? I don't think so - but the society that allowed enslavement had a different set of 'rights'.

The scope of rights extends to the point where they infringe upon the rights of another.but this isn't a right given by nature, but one given by the government. Nature has the right to theift, everyday, animals fight for food. ownership is defined by what an animal can take and hold. The Idea that the scope of rights extend to the point where they infringe upon another's rights is a Government granted one. The Right to Privacy and laws protecting property...

In another thread, it has been asserted that an individual only has the rights that the individual's government assigns to them. That all rights are given by government.

The original argument was made in the context of firearms. It went like this;

Quote:
Only, no, it is not a right. You see, a right is something granted and defended by law. As there is no law in Britain stating a right to own guns ... gun ownership is no right there.

Is this the case? Does one only have the rights given them by the government?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they 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, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Certain rights are bestowed by God, and no government has the authority to deny them. Also, governments derive their power by consent of the governed, and can have no power that those they govern are not willing to ceed to them. The people have the power, and the government only has those powers the people are willing to give it. The people in Britain have consented to surrender their right to own firearms, and have given the government the power to punish those that posses firearms contrary to law. The right was not bestowed by their government, nor was it taken away by said government, but they (the people) chose to surrender it.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Governments should not be changed for matters of little importance, but if a government seeks to deny a people their right to alter their manner of government, that people is justified in seeking to abolish said government and establish a new one.

This is why I think it foolish to surrender the right to own firearms, if the government of Great Britian where some how to become abusive and oppressive to it's people, those people would not have the firepower to contend with the army (if necessary) to regain their freedoms, and could be made to submit to the will of a despot simply because they lacked the power to defend themselves.

Part of the reason I am willing to trust my government, is that government officials still have cause to fear a rebellion of the people. Wereas a disarmed public inspire little fear in those who have power to command armed forces.

All rights are something created by, doled out by, and protected by governments, save one. These rights may be handed down from long tradition, or created anew every morning, but it is the governments of the world that create them. Of course, it is the responsability of governments to provide as many rights as possible for the people they govern, weighing only the most untenable as "not for public consumption". Good governments use the parable of waving hands to determine a persons rights: "Of course you have the right to wave your hands about, until that right interfears with my right not to be slapped in the face."

The only right not provided by Government is the right to overthrow a government that is acting irresponsably and institute a new one.

Granted, Right to have access to an education then.

No. This still uses a term that requires a second party to be involved; the educator. It requires an education process to be in place.

and when does that point get reached. after a moment of defending yourself, he's also defending himself, neither one stopping untill the other is either incapacitated or dead.

As soon as the infringement to your rights is gone, your right to defense is satisfied. Any further force makes you the aggressor and the party in the wrong.

Restricted, defined and granted within those restrictions.

No.

Only restricted.

which is their responsiblity. thus they can Restrict 100%, thus taking away a 'Right'. by restricting it, they are also granting Rights by saying what is Allowed.

Perhaps it is their responsibility, but their acts are still a restriction of rights.

They do not "grant" any rights, because the right is already there. They may, like our Constitution, guarantee the right in some fashion, but they do not grant it.

the natural right, the right to life, is all that nature gives. the others is what the Government gives. that's why I said both.

No.

Nature - in my words, God - gives ALL rights. Government gives none.

If government GAVE rights, then government would be authorized to remove them.

For example, the US government could decide to reinstate slavery and repeal the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.

Would this mean that blacks suddenly have no rights? The government took them away, right? If they have no rights, then they have no recourse to justice.

Why?

Because they have had no violation of their rights.

No. This still uses a term that requires a second party to be involved; the educator. It requires an education process to be in place.and that educator is a teacher, that teacher can be in a facility like a school or homeschooled. can you name any town in the USA where there is NOT an education process available?

As soon as the infringement to your rights is gone, your right to defense is satisfied. Any further force makes you the aggressor and the party in the wrong. which is when? you hitting a person who is hitting you, at what point does the infringment stop? untill one is dead or incompacitated?


No.

Only restricted.and removed. thus goverments can take away rights and thus, can grant rights.

Perhaps it is their responsibility, but their acts are still a restriction of rights.and by not taking it away, they are allowing it, or granting it.

They do not "grant" any rights, because the right is already there. They may, like our Constitution, guarantee the right in some fashion, but they do not grant it.the right to bear arms? the right to privacy? the right to Free Speech? The right to worship whomever/what ever you choose?


Nature - in my words, God - gives ALL rights. Government gives none.

If government GAVE rights, then government would be authorized to remove them.

For example, the US government could decide to reinstate slavery and repeal the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.

Would this mean that blacks suddenly have no rights? The government took them away, right? If they have no rights, then they have no recourse to justice.

Why?because the rights given to them by the 13 - 15th amendments would be removed, reinstating slavery and thus making them once more to the eyes of the government, property. now they can move to Canada and get those rights reinstated by the canadian Goverment. They won't have the right to vote, they won't have the rights afforded citizens of the USA... IF such a thing happened.

Because they have had no violation of their rights.then by your logic, a ban on Gay Marriage is not an infringement on their rights since no religious text anywhere allows for same sex marriage. and nature has no concept of marriage, thus Pro Same Sex Marrage supporters can't argue that "Since it's in nature, it should be allowed"

The right to bear arms is a natural right? Really. :rolleyes:

Natural rights are so subjectively based on the particular culture/beliefs/values of the person or people involved that it is nearly impossible to come up with a universal system of natural law. Hence our convoluted, flawed, and yet useful legal systems. 'Natural law' can be based on religion, on philosophy, or on basic and varying moral values...but just claiming that there exists a 'natural right to bear arms' is really pointless. According to what system of natural law? Certainly not all of them.

Natural law, yes, as in the law of nature. Perhaps you've heard of it. We define the state of nature as the absence of other people--Robinson Crusoe on Thursday, perhaps.

In the state of nature, man has the right to preserve his life by whatever means and with whatever tools are at his disposal. He enjoys absolute liberty (it is The Land of Do-As-You-Please). He may obtain and hold whatever property, in whatever form, suits his needs and/or fancies, to the limit of his ability.

Friday arrives (literally, in Crusoe's case). Now we have, in lieu of the state of nature, society. Now there are constraints of a sort: Crusoe may not deprive Friday, nor Friday Crusoe, life, liberty, or property without consent. However, there is no "authority" to whom Friday or Crusoe may appeal. Therefore, Crusoe and Friday are responsible for the defense of their own respective lives, liberty, and property, and may equip themselves for the task with the most effective means available to them.

If there is a system of belief that would not permit that, he would be a fool who chose to submit himself to it.

Which 'rights'?

The right to life. A right that was not given them by the Nazis.

I don't think the holocaust was a problem of 'rights'. I think it was a matter of genocide, and 'rights' be damned.

It's only genocide if the victims had rights. If they had none, then it was nothing more then disposing of trash.

But - in fact - you make my argumnt for me: if there are 'inherent' rights, how could the Third Reich just wander around rounding up and executing Jews, Gypsies, etc all across the globe?

Easy. By using the force they had to deny and infringe upon the rights of others. But, if government is the source of rights, then the Nazis weren't executing anyone. How does one "execute" a thing?

Clearly, their 'inherent' rights meant nothing where there was no ability of their society to express those 'rights'.

As I said, the Nazis denied them their rights.

Only if you assume there is a right being restricted. Another way to view it would be that - under some special circumstances - the 'rights' in question are additionally granted.

As I see it, all rights are granted merely by virtue of being human. No more are granted since there are no more to be granted.

As part of society, we accept some restrictions upon our rights, but that does not mean we cease to have them. We simply surrender some aspect of exercising them.

Opinion.

Show me a 'right' that can be expressed independently of society.

The right to life.

The right to improve property.

The right to free speech.

The right to pick your nose.

actually, animals do.

No, they don't. When animals kill other animals, it is not murder, it is simply killing.

Lions will kill cubs that were sired by another male. they don't do it for food, or for secuity, they do it because the child isn't theirs.

Still, it's not murder.

When an animal kills a human, we don't call it murder, but we rationalize it.

For a simple reason - it's not murder.

but we don't do the same form of rationalization when humans kill other humans.

If the killing was unjust, then it is for another simple reason - it IS murder.

Your opinion. According to my people's natural law, killing an animal without the proper protocols is akin to murder.

Maybe you consider it "akin," but, you do not consider it murder.

We however, believe that animals simply are not capable of working against the natural order...only humans can do that. Nonetheless, we do imbue animals with certain rights, including the right not to be unduly disturbed, exploited, or killed for no purpose.

They are not rights, if you give them to the animals. They are privileges.

Privileges can be taken away, rights can not.

Denied, yes, but not removed.

but this isn't a right given by nature, but one given by the government.

Again, government's can't give rights.

Nature has the right to theift,

No, it does not.

Theft violates the property rights of the owner.

Does this mean that theft does not occur?

No. It means that, if it occurs, it isn't right.

everyday, animals fight for food. ownership is defined by what an animal can take and hold.

Irrelevant. Animals have no rights.

The Idea that the scope of rights extend to the point where they infringe upon another's rights is a Government granted one.

No, it is not.

The Right to Privacy and laws protecting property...

There is no right to privacy. Enforcing privacy means controlling where another observes. Forcing one to look elsewhere than your direction is an infringement upon their rights.

You have the right to erect a wall between yourself and the observer, but no right to stop them from looking towards you.

The right to life.death penalty which is still used in many countries.
Anti-abortion laws secures the right to life

The right to improve property.BUZZZ! wrong. quality of life is first and formost a responsibility of the individual. nature only provides the life, what you do with it is up to you.

The right to free speech.not every country has that right.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. grants the Right to Free Speech for the USA.

The right to pick your nose.wrong, that is an ability that many enjoy. a person who lost both hands in an accident cannot complain for losing this "right". thus it's not a right.

No, they don't. When animals kill other animals, it is not murder, it is simply killing.and when a human kills another human it's not murder, it's simply killing.

Still, it's not murder.you try it. you kill a child simply for the fact that it's not yours.

For a simple reason - it's not murder. and when a human simply kills another human, it's also not murder but simply killing.

If the killing was unjust, then it is for another simple reason - it IS murder.UNJUST is a HUMAN concept that is born out of a society baised on laws. without those laws and the government system in place to govern society, then it's not murder.

So, no nation has any business decrying China for its human rights abuses, since China chose not to give those rights to its citizens. Therefore, those rights do not exist.
No. Those rights do not exist in China, but they should exist.

and that educator is a teacher, that teacher can be in a facility like a school or homeschooled. can you name any town in the USA where there is NOT an education process available?

It is irrelevant that one may be available. If it were a RIGHT, then if - IF - one were not available, then one would have to be provided.

which is when? you hitting a person who is hitting you, at what point does the infringment stop? untill one is dead or incompacitated?

If the act you are defending against is another hitting you, then the infringement stops when the hitting stops. If continue to use force past this point, then you are now in violation.

and removed. thus goverments can take away rights and thus, can grant rights.

Adding words to what I post does not magically change my assertion.

Governments can not take away or grant rights. They can guarantee or deny them, but they can not grant or remove them.

and by not taking it away, they are allowing it, or granting it.

Hardly. Am I, presently, granting you your right to use your computer because I am allowing it? After all, I'm not taking it away, so I must be granting it.

the right to bear arms? the right to privacy? the right to Free Speech? The right to worship whomever/what ever you choose?[quote]

That's right.

Read the Constitution. These are not granted, they are guaranteed.

[quote]because the rights given to them by the 13 - 15th amendments would be removed, reinstating slavery and thus making them once more to the eyes of the government, property.

Except, they are not property. They have rights. Regardless of any legislation by the government, they have rights.

then by your logic, a ban on Gay Marriage is not an infringement on their rights since no religious text anywhere allows for same sex marriage. and nature has no concept of marriage, thus Pro Same Sex Marrage supporters can't argue that "Since it's in nature, it should be allowed"

Ah - sure.

Marriage is not a right. Marriage requires at least two. If no one can be found to marry one, it is not within the rights of the one to be provided with a partner.

So, marriage is not a right.

One has the right to enter into a contract of marriage, if a willing partner can be found, but there is no right to marriage itself. Merely the right to enter into contract.

No. Those rights do not exist in China, but they should exist.

Then, the cries of "human rights" are without foundation?

Again, government's can't give rights.yes it does.

No, it does not.

Theft violates the property rights of the owner.Ownership is a human concept, apply those concepts to animals (as people do every day) and you will see that human crimes takes place every day. Snakes rob eggs from birds. Animals fight to hold their territory from invaders who want nothing else but to steal their territory, the Mockingbird chick kills it's adopted siblings inorder to survive. Adults tend to kill cubs that are not theirs (it's the mothers who adopt strange cubs.) Species of monkies practice Rape every year, and the abuse is there for all to see. It's only Human Arrogance that someone like you says nature does not commit such crimes.

Does this mean that theft does not occur?
No. It means that, if it occurs, it isn't right.yes, it isn't right. and we as humans have no RIGHT to judge the animals by our standards. but if you want to see the RIGHTS given by nature, then you look at the actions of the animals. there is the RIGHTS given by nature and God.

Irrelevant. Animals have no rights.because you say so? so there should be NO animal treatment laws. since as you say, they have no rights. Beastiality shouldn't be against the law since, as you say, animals have no rights. Animal Cruelty laws are unjust since as you say, animals have no Rights.

yet those rights to be free from abuse, to be cared for by their "owners" are rights given to animals by the HUMAN government.

No, it is not.yes it is. (hey, short terse replies deserve the same.) :p

There is no right to privacy. Enforcing privacy means controlling where another observes. Forcing one to look elsewhere than your direction is an infringement upon their rights.

HIPPA protects the privacy of Patients in hospitals.

the concept of ownership also carries with it the right to privacy.

California's constitution on privacy (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1)


You have the right to erect a wall between yourself and the observer, but no right to stop them from looking towards you.
modern privacy laws (http://www.rbs2.com/privacy.htm)

It is irrelevant that one may be available. If it were a RIGHT, then if - IF - one were not available, then one would have to be provided.and it is provided. the first form of educators are called PARENTS...

now if you are talking about "FORMAL EDUCATION" that too is dependant on country/city/state and thus Government.

If the act you are defending against is another hitting you, then the infringement stops when the hitting stops. If continue to use force past this point, then you are now in violation.and so it's justified when the hitting stops because one is dead. :rolleyes: never mind that the person dead could either be the defender or the attacker.

Adding words to what I post does not magically change my assertion.

Governments can not take away or grant rights. They can guarantee or deny them, but they can not grant or remove them.and leaving out information does not make your post right.

Hardly. Am I, presently, granting you your right to use your computer because I am allowing it? After all, I'm not taking it away, so I must be granting it.you are not the government.

That's right.

Read the Constitution. These are not granted, they are guaranteed.and they are reconized as rights. thus according to the constitution, they are rights that are defined and given. and thus guaranteed.

Except, they are not property. They have rights. Regardless of any legislation by the government, they have rights.not according to what you just said. by reintituting slavery, you lower them to property. to be owned by another. they won't have the RIGHT to vote, they won't have the right to own property, nothing.

Slaves never had those rights.

Ah - sure.

Marriage is not a right. Marriage requires at least two. If no one can be found to marry one, it is not within the rights of the one to be provided with a partner.

So, marriage is not a right.so a right is only defined by it being for ONE person? RIIIGHT :rolleyes:

One has the right to enter into a contract of marriage, if a willing partner can be found, but there is no right to marriage itself. Merely the right to enter into contract.and so the right to gay marrige then is not a fight over moral or equality but then what the government will allow in this form of contract. a Right.

The right to life.

The right to improve property.

The right to free speech.

The right to pick your nose.

None of these actually exist independently of society, though.

If I do not belong to a society, and I encounter a group of people who do not wish to allow me to live, improve my property, speak freely, or root around in my nostrils, then I have no recourse. Whether or not I am part of a society, doesn't adress the issue of whether other people will let me do things - only belonging to a society grants that assurance... that 'right'.

Sure - you could argue that I can speak freely on top of a mountain all alone... but I'd argue that isn't a 'right', it is just an action. I have no 'right' to do it, but, I can do it so long as no one objects - that's not the same as a 'right'.

The right to life. A right that was not given them by the Nazis.


Then they didn't have that 'right'.


It's only genocide if the victims had rights. If they had none, then it was nothing more then disposing of trash.


Don't be silly - genocide is the destrcution of a genepool, it doesn't care about 'rights'.

You could just as easily argue there is no such thing as 'extinction', because, hey, the dinosaurs didn't have codes of laws...


Easy. By using the force they had to deny and infringe upon the rights of others. But, if government is the source of rights, then the Nazis weren't executing anyone. How does one "execute" a thing?


Which government... if the German army ws executing Polish Jews... then surely they were infringing upon the 'rights' allowed to Jews by their society? It just happened, the Germans made a better argument - or, at least, one they could back up betetr with the German warmachine.


As I said, the Nazis denied them their rights.


Or, maybe, they didn't have any 'rights' except those rights allowed to them by their societies... in which case - whether or not the holocaust was bad... whether or not it was genocide - 'rights' were only infringed in as much as the clashing societies allowed.


As I see it, all rights are granted merely by virtue of being human. No more are granted since there are no more to be granted.

As part of society, we accept some restrictions upon our rights, but that does not mean we cease to have them. We simply surrender some aspect of exercising them.

That's how you see it. I think you are deluded. We gain nothing from being human except that - we are human. Start and finish. Everything else that 'makes up the human condition' is peculiar to cultures, societies and individuals.

and it is provided. the first form of educators are called PARENTS...

One has no right to parents.

and so it's justified when the hitting stops because one is dead.

So, the only resolution is death?

Suppose the attacker doesn't like his victim to defend himself and so stops attacking at the first sign of defense? The attacks stop, and no one dies.

never mind that the person dead could either be the defender or the attacker.

Could be, if the only resolution to all conflict is death of one of the parties.

Roll yer eyes at that one.

and leaving out information does not make your post right.

I am not bound to include that which you supply to my words.

you are not the government.

Don't recall saying I was.

and they are reconized as rights.

Recognition != Grant.

thus according to the constitution, they are rights that are defined and given. and thus guaranteed.

Guaranteed, not given. As I said, read the Constitution.

not according to what you just said. by reintituting slavery, you lower them to property.

That change in status is not allowed to Man. Man may not rightfully enslave another.

Slaves never had those rights.

So, you're a Dred Scott supporter. Heck with that pesky, "all men are created equal." Just false rhetoric.

so a right is only defined by it being for ONE person? RIIIGHT

Exactly. Read Locke.

Love rollin' them eyes, doncha?

and so the right to gay marrige then is not a fight over moral or equality but then what the government will allow in this form of contract. a Right.

Since you missed it the first time, I'll post it again; there is no right to marriage - gay or straight.

None of these actually exist independently of society, though.

If I do not belong to a society, and I encounter a group of people who do not wish to allow me to live, improve my property, speak freely, or root around in my nostrils, then I have no recourse. Whether or not I am part of a society, doesn't adress the issue of whether other people will let me do things - only belonging to a society grants that assurance... that 'right'.

Sure - you could argue that I can speak freely on top of a mountain all alone... but I'd argue that isn't a 'right', it is just an action. I have no 'right' to do it, but, I can do it so long as no one objects - that's not the same as a 'right'.

well put.

yes it does.

No, it can't.

Ownership is a human concept, apply those concepts to animals (as people do every day) and you will see that human crimes takes place every day.

Last I checked, animals weren't humans.

Could you link to the announcement changing that status?

Thanx.

It's only Human Arrogance that someone like you says nature does not commit such crimes.

It is not possible for an animal to commit a crime. Or, a tree, or a rock.

and we as humans have no RIGHT to judge the animals by our standards.

We don't. That's why they have no rights. That's why we eat them and not humans. That's why animals don't have trials.

because you say so?

No, because that's the way it is. Animals don't have rights. That's why we can keep them on leashes, breed them as we like, spay and neuter them, trim their ears and tails to make them fit human wishes, etc., etc., etc.

so there should be NO animal treatment laws.

Never said that. You seem to enjoy inventing words for others.

Just because there are animal cruelty laws, does not mean they have any rights.

Animal Cruelty laws are unjust since as you say, animals have no Rights.

Nope. Not how it works. One could say that animal cruelty laws are unjust because they infringe upon how a human may treat his property. But, it is an infringement we accept as a part of society.

yet those rights to be free from abuse, to be cared for by their "owners" are rights given to animals by the HUMAN government.

No, they are restrictions upon the acts of humans. If one dog rips a leg off another, the aggressive dog is not put on trial. It may be killed because it is dangerous, but there is no trial. Simply an act.

HIPPA protects the privacy of Patients in hospitals.

It's not a right. It's a protection.

the concept of ownership also carries with it the right to privacy.

No, it doesn't. It carries with it the right to be able to put up a wall to block other's view. But, if I live across the street, I can look through your window to my heart's content, and you can't do a thing about it, except close the drapes.

California's constitution on privacy

Laws, not rights.

modern privacy laws

Laws, not rights.

None of these actually exist independently of society, though.

All of them do.

If I do not belong to a society, and I encounter a group of people who do not wish to allow me to live, improve my property, speak freely, or root around in my nostrils, then I have no recourse.

Certainly you do. If they try to use force to stop you, you can use force to defend yourself.

If they succeed, you have not lost the right, merely the free exercise of it.

Sure - you could argue that I can speak freely on top of a mountain all alone... but I'd argue that isn't a 'right', it is just an action. I have no 'right' to do it, but, I can do it so long as no one objects - that's not the same as a 'right'.

This is exactly what defines what a right is; that which you can do if all alone.

One has no right to parents. riiight... everyone has at least one parent. even if that parent is an assigned guardian.

So, the only resolution is death?

Suppose the attacker doesn't like his victim to defend himself and so stops attacking at the first sign of defense? The attacks stop, and no one dies.suppose the defender runs at the first sign of an attack?

I am not bound to include that which you supply to my words.no you are not. which is why I added them.

Don't recall saying I was.by asking if you were denying my rights, by your definition, yes you were calling yourself a governmental entity.

Recognition != Grant.Recognition = Aknowledgement. Aknowledgement without denying approval of = Grant.

Guaranteed, not given. As I said, read the Constitution.Guarantee is a statement that the government is allowing it to happen, thus granting permission.

That change in status is not allowed to Man. Man may not rightfully enslave another.not according to YOUR scenario.

So, you're a Dred Scott supporter. Heck with that pesky, "all men are created equal." Just false rhetoric.so you find yourself on the losing end of an argument and you resort to personal attacks? please say where I said that all men are not created equal?

and what does the birth of a person have to do with the RIGHTS granted by the government who, according to your reference to creation, has no control over the genetic structure of a person?

the only RIGHT nature gives is the opportunity for species survival by any means necessary. anything else are rights given by Goverments.

Exactly. Read Locke.

Love rollin' them eyes, doncha?too bad society isn't about the individual but the group. and Rights are granted by society through their Government.

however, if you are talking about individual ACTIONS and not Rights...

Is this the case? Does one only have the rights given them by the government?

People only have rights in what abilities and priveleges their society grants them. They needn't be provided by government (although that is the status quo) but you don't have them naturally as an individual free of society.

None of these actually exist independently of society, though.

If I do not belong to a society, and I encounter a group of people who do not wish to allow me to live, improve my property, speak freely, or root around in my nostrils, then I have no recourse. Whether or not I am part of a society, doesn't adress the issue of whether other people will let me do things - only belonging to a society grants that assurance... that 'right'.

Sure - you could argue that I can speak freely on top of a mountain all alone... but I'd argue that isn't a 'right', it is just an action. I have no 'right' to do it, but, I can do it so long as no one objects - that's not the same as a 'right'.

Exactly.

Rights are agreements and obligations made between people, they are a relationship between people. They cannot exist without the allowance of those people with whom you interact.

Is this the case? Does one only have the rights given them by the government?
Yes. Rights are a legal construct.

Exactly. Read Locke.
ahh.. here you finally say you're arguing NATURAL RIGHTS and the rest of us are arguing LEGAL RIGHTS.

that explains alot.


which goes back to my saying you're missing a Both option. Nature provides the Natural Rights and the Government provides the Legal Rights.

ahh.. here you finally say you're arguing NATURAL RIGHTS and the rest of us are arguing LEGAL RIGHTS.

that explains alot.


which goes back to my saying you're missing a Both option. Nature provides the Natural Rights and the Government provides the Legal Rights.
The OP's poll allows only two responses:

Either you think all legal rights stem from natural rights, or you deny the existence of natural rights.

I think the denial of natural rights warrants further discussion. I see no evidence for the existence of natural rights at all.

Here's my view:

Natural rights do exist. These are rights that are, as the declaration says, inalienable. Not only can they not be granted, but neither can they be taken, only supressed or remain unexercised by the individual.

While "legal rights" are closer to privaleges.

I don't think the right to bear arms is a natural right, by the way, but any prudent government should make it a legal right.

The OP's poll allows only two responses:

Either you think all legal rights stem from natural rights, or you deny the existence of natural rights.

I think the denial of natural rights warrants further discussion. I see no evidence for the existence of natural rights at all.
I like how you put that.

all legal rights stem from natural rights or you deny the existance of natural rights. as if Legal Rights has to have Natural Rights in order to exsist.

Legal Rights stem from the Legal system, the government. Natural Rights are rights that a human has that is defined by nature.

the Universal Rights is derived from Natural Rights, but each government can and does use Legal Rights. thus the choice of both. Natural Rights comes from nature and God. Legal Rights come from the Government.

both can exsist, and both can be aknowledged by any individual and both can be followed.

I like how you put that.

all legal rights stem from natural rights or you deny the existance of natural rights. as if Legal Rights has to have Natural Rights in order to exsist.

Legal Rights stem from the Legal system, the government. Natural Rights are rights that a human has that is defined by nature.

the Universal Rights is derived from Natural Rights, but each government can and does use Legal Rights. thus the choice of both. Natural Rights comes from nature and God. Legal Rights come from the Government.

both can exsist, and both can be aknowledged by any individual and both can be followed.

(And it doesn't neccesitate a belief in God)

(And it doesn't neccesitate a belief in God)
Oh yes, of course, but since the poll option included it... :D

Neither option in the poll is really correct IMO. We have whatever human rights we are willing to give to everyone else who is a citizen of our country. I don't think there's any intrinsic rule, stemming from either God or Nature, that says it is wrong to kill, but I certainly don't want to be killed more than I would want to kill, so I would support legislation ensuring that I am not killed. Assuming there is no God and no inherent meaning to life, there is no permanent right or wrong, but simply whatever us as a society and as people consider right or wrong. If the people value liberty over comfort, then they create a limited laissez-faire style of government. If they value comfort over liberty, or believe in populism or value the species over the individual, they create a government that is less restricted in its ability to direct society's activities.

I'm not even sure we have a "natural" or "God-given" right to have our own government. If life does not have an inherent meaning or value, I don't think we're guaranteed to such a right. However, I am certainly glad that we have it.

Subjectively, I believe that humans are entitled to certain rights simply by virtue of being human.

Objectively, I believe that rights are determined solely by a social contract.

Here's my view:

Natural rights do exist. These are rights that are, as the declaration says, inalienable. Not only can they not be granted, but neither can they be taken, only supressed or remain unexercised by the individual.Simply because the Declaration of Independence says it doesn't mean it's true. Bear in mind that the U.S. doesn't use the Declaration as its source of rights, either.

All of them do.


Help, I'm caught in the crushing grip of logic...

Simply saying 'nuh-uh' is not a winning argument.


Certainly you do. If they try to use force to stop you, you can use force to defend yourself.

If they succeed, you have not lost the right, merely the free exercise of it.


Then my 'right' means nothing. You are using the word 'right' as a meaningless symbol - fair enough.


This is exactly what defines what a right is; that which you can do if all alone.

I disagree, and I'm not sure how you defend such a definition.

Amusingly... there could be no sexual or relationship 'rights', no 'rights' referring to family, no 'rights' in any human interaction - if you were correct.

The fact, therefore, that 'rights' are evidently exemplified in (various forms in) various cultures, makes a lie of your assertion.

Subjectively, I believe that humans are entitled to certain rights simply by virtue of being human.

Objectively, I believe that rights are determined solely by a social contract.


Agreed - I want people to have 'rights', I will fight for people to have 'rights'... I would see everyone have equal 'rights'... simply because they are people.

But I am aware that there is no way to demonstrate any 'inherent right'.

Grave wins the thread.

Grave wins the thread.

Really?

Really?

Indeed, especially considering the second-to-last post he made in this thread.

Help, I'm caught in the crushing grip of logic...

You asked for those things that could be doen outside of society. I provided some. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they are invalid.

Then my 'right' means nothing. You are using the word 'right' as a meaningless symbol - fair enough.

All words are symbols that are,in themselves, meaningless. It is up to the human agents involved to apply meaning to words.

I disagree, and I'm not sure how you defend such a definition.

In the same way that Locke does.

Amusingly... there could be no sexual or relationship 'rights', no 'rights' referring to family, no 'rights' in any human interaction - if you were correct.

Yes. Hilarious.

There are no such rights. There are agreements, contracts, a willingness to make one's rights subservient to the will of another for whatever benefit may be considered of value.

But, no rights.

The fact, therefore, that 'rights' are evidently exemplified in (various forms in) various cultures, makes a lie of your assertion.

Well, just as you feel free to dismiss my definition, I am willing to use the same rationale to dismiss yours.

But I am aware that there is no way to demonstrate any 'inherent right'.
A point which negatively impacts the persuasiveness of your argument.

All words are symbols that are,in themselves, meaningless. It is up to the human agents involved to apply meaning to words.

And that is as meaningless a group of words as I have ever read.

He is not saying that the words themselves are meaningless and waiting for human intervention into their purgatory. He means that the concept of "rights", by your definition, is pointless.

By your definition rights are all abilities that one could conceive and exist whether one is able to use them.

The person who is chained to the floor of a dungeon has as many rights as God, as the prisoner is simply stopped from exerting his rights by nature and people.

The person who is chained to the floor of a dungeon has as many rights as God, as the prisoner is simply stopped from exerting his rights by nature and people.

Exactly.

ahh.. here you finally say you're arguing NATURAL RIGHTS and the rest of us are arguing LEGAL RIGHTS.

that explains alot.

I pointed that out to him at the very beginning, but he conveniently ignored it.

Maybe you consider it "akin," but, you do not consider it murder. How the flying fuck would you know? The word we use for 'murder' does not directly translate. Just like our words for crime, guilty etc do not quite translate. So when I say 'akin', unless you want to whip out your credentials as an expert in Cree language and culture, just accept it.



They are not rights, if you give them to the animals. They are privileges.

Privileges can be taken away, rights can not.

Denied, yes, but not removed.Sorry, you can not apply your worldview to ours and say 'this must be so because it would be so in my culture'. No. Sorry. I'm discussing rights, not privileges.

Exactly.

Then it is pointless to speak of them, for they have no value.

They are neither inherently good or inherently bad, and their deliberation is the exact same process of legal rights.

I think we can all agree that the idea of rights as a whole is a concept that provides a model for the formation of society, so what would be the point of a concept that is utterly useless?

the Universal Rights is derived from Natural Rights, but each government can and does use Legal Rights. thus the choice of both. Natural Rights comes from nature and God. Legal Rights come from the Government.


It is quite telling that the Universal Rights are only held by the people when their government allows it.

It is quite telling that the Universal Rights are only held by the people when their government allows it.
when the government "Grants" Rights to people it's not Univeral or Natural, but Legal Rights.

when the government "Grants" Rights to people it's not Univeral or Natural, but Legal Rights.

Exactly.

Maybe when the idea of "universal rights" becomes less of a battle between governments I will believe that natural rights actually exist.

Rights are limited by, and granted, by that which governs. Government determines rights. Without government, we are subject to the acts and will of others. Might does indeed make right.

You asked for those things that could be doen outside of society. I provided some. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they are invalid.


Your entire argument consists of 'because I say so'. I don't accept that argument. It isn't because I don't like it, it's because it's an opinion, not an argument.


All words are symbols that are,in themselves, meaningless. It is up to the human agents involved to apply meaning to words.


And you have decided to carry this to some kind of extreme, by choosing to pretend words mean something other than their meanings?


In the same way that Locke does.


Which is?

Lockes argument, as far as I can tell, consists mainly of "That's how it is.... why? Man, that's freakin obvious..."


Yes. Hilarious.

There are no such rights. There are agreements, contracts, a willingness to make one's rights subservient to the will of another for whatever benefit may be considered of value.


You mean, like all the other rights we've been discussing?

Is it possible you've finally seen how ridiculous your argument is?


But, no rights.


Exactly.


Well, just as you feel free to dismiss my definition, I am willing to use the same rationale to dismiss yours.

I 'dosmiss your definition' only on the grounds that your argument is wishful thinking that flies in the face of all the evidence.

I'm picky like that.

A point which negatively impacts the persuasiveness of your argument.

How?

If I can't prove the existence of the rights, it is hardly logical to assume they exist, but choose to hide.

Exactly.

Maybe when the idea of "universal rights" becomes less of a battle between governments I will believe that natural rights actually exist.

Argument: In a nutshell.

Excellent. Thanks.