• 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, 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...

No. discrepancy.
 
Chaos said:
So when a conqueror or thief or murderer gets away with it, he becomes rightful owner of his stolen goods?
Click to expand...

Cross out the words "thief" and "Murderer" and "stolen". Once a conqueror makes a conquest and controls it, that government is the defacto government. But the rights of individuals still exist, whether secured or not.
 
Robert Prey said:
Cross out the words "thief" and "Murderer" and "stolen". Once a conqueror makes a conquest and controls it, that government is the defacto government. But the rights of individuals still exist, whether secured or not.
Click to expand...
let me propose a hypothetical to better understand.

Say the Canadians invade the U.S. and successfully subdue it- creating the new nation "Amerida". The Canadians force me from my home, and sell it to one of their soldiers at a low rate as a reward for service.

Under your theory of rights, which of us has a right to the property- the soldier who purchased it legally, or me who was forced out?
 
Robert Prey said:
No. discrepancy.
Click to expand...


If the defacto government of your area does not recognize your right to "x", and you have no means of otherwise compelling the recognition of "x", said "x" does not exist. The right to "x" only exists if society accepts that it does.
 
Chaos said:
So when a conqueror or thief or murderer gets away with it, he becomes rightful owner of his stolen goods?
Click to expand...

Robert Prey said:
Cross out the words "thief" and "Murderer" and "stolen". Once a conqueror makes a conquest and controls it, that government is the defacto government. But the rights of individuals still exist, whether secured or not.
Click to expand...

Trying to work out why this should be so, I can only infer that this is because conquerors are the goodies and thieves and murderers are the baddies. Is that it?

Who gets to decide whether killing someone else for their stuff is murder or conquest?
 
Distracted1 said:
let me propose a hypothetical to better understand.

Say the Canadians invade the U.S. and successfully subdue it- creating the new nation "Amerida". The Canadians force me from my home, and sell it to one of their soldiers at a low rate as a reward for service.

Under your theory of rights, which of us has a right to the property- the soldier who purchased it legally, or me who was forced out?
Click to expand...


I can get behind this - being one of those who may be eligible to purchase your home after the successful application of Defense Scheme No.1. Before I do so I need some further information - is it in a good neighbourhood? Easy access to schools, grocery stores and public transit? Have you recently installed a new furnace, energy efficient windows or AC? Are you on city water, or a well?

If you behave yourself I may be in need of someone for light housekeeping and maintenance. :D
 
Border Reiver said:
If the defacto government of your area does not recognize your right to "x", and you have no means of otherwise compelling the recognition of "x", said "x" does not exist. The right to "x" only exists if society accepts that it does.
Click to expand...

NO. Human rights exist whether a government respects them or not.
 
Distracted1 said:
let me propose a hypothetical to better understand.

Say the Canadians invade the U.S. and successfully subdue it- creating the new nation "Amerida". The Canadians force me from my home, and sell it to one of their soldiers at a low rate as a reward for service.

Under your theory of rights, which of us has a right to the property- the soldier who purchased it legally, or me who was forced out?
Click to expand...

Both. But the defacto government will award it to the soldier.
 
Robert Prey said:
Both. But the defacto government will award it to the soldier.
Click to expand...

Now, because an unsubstantiated statement does nothing to further discussion, an explanation for my previous post.

The purpose of a legal system is to ensure that a balance is achieved between competing rights. In the case of the US citizen (Distracted1), dispossessed from his house by the brutal Canadian Government so that it can be awarded to a fine upstanding Canadian Soldier as a reward for gallant services (me) there are two competing property rights - Distracted1's and my own.

Distracted1 brings his complaint that, as the registered property owner pursuant to US law, he should be allowed to resume ownership of the property and that I should make way. I counter that the property had been abandoned during the victorious advance of our army and that any interest Distracted1 may have had ceased to exist at that point and that I now have possession of this lovely property, now being used in a manner consistent with Canadain society, as opposed to the American usages Distracted1 was putting it to. The judicial decision maker then looks at whose arguments are more compelling given the legal framework, and decides accordingly.

This can be decided outside of a legal framework, but that then becomes me asserting that my right trumps Distracted1's because I have the C7A2, the Browning 9mm and a battery of 105mm howitzers backing up my claim and all Distracted1 has is the ideasphere.
 
Robert Prey said:
NO. Human rights exist whether a government respects them or not.
Click to expand...

But, you cannot expect different societies to interpret those rights in the same way.

For example, in the US you have the right to keep and bear arms and in some cases can openly carry a pistol. Cross the border into Canada and while citizens can own pistols for use on ranges you cannot carry them while shopping for groceries.
 
Robert Prey said:
Oh, but they most certainly do.
Click to expand...

Explain how a right - which is a legal concept - exists outside of a legal framework.

Looking at your three favs - life, property, and liberty - if there are no definitions and limits on them they have as much relevance to the world we actually live in as the theoretical construct "communism". Define and put your limits on them and lo, a legal system.
 
Border Reiver said:
Explain how a right - which is a legal concept - exists outside of a legal framework.

Looking at your three favs - life, property, and liberty - if there are no definitions and limits on them they have as much relevance to the world we actually live in as the theoretical construct "communism". Define and put your limits on them and lo, a legal system.
Click to expand...


You still fail to understand the distinction between Natural Rights and Legal Rights.
 
Robert Prey said:
You still fail to understand the distinction between Natural Rights and Legal Rights.
Click to expand...

There is no difference.

The philosophers that developed the theory of natural rights did so as a contrast to the so-called "divine rights".

The central concept of the so-called natural rights is that said rights are "not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable." Wiki As we've established time and again, ALL such rights enumerated by the philosophers ARE contingent on laws, customs and beliefs of a society. If they were not, then we would ALL have a consistent understanding of what these so-called natural rights are, etc. Since society's views of what is a right, the limits of said rights are, who can exercise said rights, in case of conflicts between parties whose rights shall be preferred, etc change and evolve over time and are still subject to debate what you are referring to as natural rights - universal and inalienable - cannot exist.
 
Border Reiver said:
There is no difference.

The philosophers that developed the theory of natural rights did so as a contrast to the so-called "divine rights".

The central concept of the so-called natural rights is that said rights are "not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable." Wiki As we've established time and again, ALL such rights enumerated by the philosophers ARE contingent on laws, customs and beliefs of a society. If they were not, then we would ALL have a consistent understanding of what these so-called natural rights are, etc. Since society's views of what is a right, the limits of said rights are, who can exercise said rights, in case of conflicts between parties whose rights shall be preferred, etc change and evolve over time and are still subject to debate what you are referring to as natural rights - universal and inalienable - cannot exist.
Click to expand...

Of course they can, and do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom