• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What is a "Right"???

Distracted1 said:
Robert, you seem to be asserting that since the Americas were largely "collectively" owned by different nations (Sioux nation, Cherokee nation, Aztec nation, etc..)prior to European conquest, that they in fact had no legitimate claim to these lands, and no "rights" were violated by the Europeans.
Click to expand...

Of course rights were violated by both sides. But it's difficult to conceive of any individual or collective property ownership by Native Americans who were not much different than nomadic peoples who simply moved from place to place where the food game, agriculture and the weather were favorable without establishing 'ownership" as we know it. Conquest is conquest. But I don't think you could point to a single piece of property any where at any time that was not previously inhabited and subsequently re-inhabited whether by conquest or purchase or simply squatting.
 
DC said:
when your rights are not scured protected and enforced, they are useless, totally useless.
Click to expand...

But if they are ]protected and enforced, then that protection and enforcement is rooted in the ideasphere where there is no protection or enforcement, just the notion of the existence of natural rights.
 
Robert Prey said:
But if they are ]protected and enforced, then that protection and enforcement is rooted in the ideasphere where there is no protection or enforcement, just the notion of the existence of natural rights.
Click to expand...

No. The protection is the physical prevention of rights violations, or in punishments for rights violations after the fact, provided by and rooted in the society one is a part of.
Something existing in the ideasphere doesn't make that thing exist in the real world.

As societies change, so too do individual rights.
 
Robert Prey said:
But if they are ]protected and enforced, then that protection and enforcement is rooted in the ideasphere where there is no protection or enforcement, just the notion of the existence of natural rights.
Click to expand...

No, if they are protected, then said protection is based on the concrete action of the legal system.
 
TjW said:
No. The protection is the physical prevention of rights violations, or in punishments for rights violations after the fact, provided by and rooted in the society one is a part of.
Something existing in the ideasphere doesn't make that thing exist in the real world.

As societies change, so too do individual rights.
Click to expand...


The "Real World" is only rooted in the principles of its ideasphere.
 
Robert Prey said:
The "Real World" is only rooted in the principles of its ideasphere.
Click to expand...

No. The "ideasphere" is only possible if there is a real world for beings with ideas to exist in.

Life is an emergent property of the physical behavior of the universe.
Beings with ideas are an emergent property of life.
The "ideasphere" is an emergent property of beings with ideas.
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
Can you expand that a bit, as I don't understand what you mean.

Thanks. (Not being a smartass - I genuinely do not understand that sentence)
Click to expand...

Example: Why are there laws against, murder, theft, etc? Because of a belief system that tells us such things are wrong because they impinge upon the rights of others. That belief system is a part of the human ideasphere. If we did not hold such beliefs then the law of the jungle would prevail.
 
Robert Prey said:
Example: Why are there laws against, murder, theft, etc? Because of a belief system that tells us such things are wrong because they impinge upon the rights of others. That belief system is a part of the human ideasphere. If we did not hold such beliefs then the law of the jungle would prevail.
Click to expand...

Essentially, you are positing that because of a common underlying belief that certain things are wrong that this is the basis for the legal system.

While absolutely correct that there are common legal prohibitions or social conventions against murder, assault and theft, such prohibitions are highly variable depending on culture for definitions and penalties. For example, there are laws against married women holding property in certain countries, but not in others. Such differences would indicate that the concept of property rights is not universal.
 
It's not at all clear to me that the abhorrence of murder grew from a concept of individual rights. It seems to me that a law against murder would more likely pre-date any systematic codification of social rules defined in terms of rights.
 
Robert Prey said:
Of course rights were violated by both sides. But it's difficult to conceive of any individual or collective property ownership by Native Americans who were not much different than nomadic peoples who simply moved from place to place where the food game, agriculture and the weather were favorable without establishing 'ownership" as we know it. Conquest is conquest. But I don't think you could point to a single piece of property any where at any time that was not previously inhabited and subsequently re-inhabited whether by conquest or purchase or simply squatting.
Click to expand...
I wonder what, then is the criteria for establishing "ownership as we know it".

Conceding your point that at some time all property was taken from someone else by force- how can any current claim to said property be legitimate? It is a stolen good, therefore, by your previously presented arguments it was not properly obtained, and therefore I have no "right" to it Unless I claim that it is mine because I currently hold it- which seems to boil down to a "might makes right" argument.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
It's not at all clear to me that the abhorrence of murder grew from a concept of individual rights. It seems to me that a law against murder would more likely pre-date any systematic codification of social rules defined in terms of rights.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, at various times in history the penalty for the killing of a slave was not that for killing a person, but rather penalties for destroying property - hardly a recognition of a universal right to life.
 
Distracted1 said:
I wonder what, then is the criteria for establishing "ownership as we know it".

Conceding your point that at some time all property was taken from someone else by force- how can any current claim to said property be legitimate? It is a stolen good, therefore, by your previously presented arguments it was not properly obtained, and therefore I have no "right" to it Unless I claim that it is mine because I currently hold it- which seems to boil down to a "might makes right" argument.
Click to expand...

Might does not make right. But once established, the rights of an individual to own property remain the same, whether a citizen of the conquerer or the conquered.
 
Robert Prey said:
Might does not make right. But once established, the rights of an individual to own property remain the same, whether a citizen of the conquerer or the conquered.
Click to expand...

So when a conqueror or thief or murderer gets away with it, he becomes rightful owner of his stolen goods?
 
Robert Prey said:
Might does not make right. But once established, the rights of an individual to own property remain the same, whether a citizen of the conquerer or the conquered.
Click to expand...

You've contradicted yourself here - or else in the face of many real world examples to the contrary are maintaining your position that only individuals can own property.

And before you go down that particular rabbit hole, you may wish to consider such things as military equipment, public buildings, police cars, public lands, corporate holdings, etc.
 
Robert Prey said:
Rights do not have to be "secured" in order to be rights. And, one question at a time,please.
Click to expand...


And this goes back to my earlier observations that you are equivocating wrt the term "right". You are using it to mean "ought/ought not" sometimes and "can/cannot" other times.

It makes for confusing and pointless discussions.
 
Robert Prey said:
Might does not make right. But once established, the rights of an individual to own property remain the same, whether a citizen of the conquerer or the conquered.
Click to expand...
Robert, This seems to contradict your post #290, wherein you claim that rights need not be
"secured" in order to exist. Unless by "secured" you mean something substantially different from "once established".

Care to comment on the apparent discrepancy?
 
Distracted1 said:
Robert, This seems to contradict your post #290, wherein you claim that rights need not be
"secured" in order to exist. Unless by "secured" you mean something substantially different from "once established".

Care to comment on the apparent discrepancy?
Click to expand...
Post #290 was Neuron 4 Synapse D, while this most recent claim was Neuron 7, Synapse B. You can't reasonably expect them to agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom