Militia question 1

[CFLarsen]

This is exactly the point. Free speech transcends human law.

Free speech is human law.

So far, we have:

1. Rights are natural laws.
   Which is silly. What is the equation for a right? How can we observe the phenomenon?
   
2. Rights are given by God.
   This raises the question: How can those who claim that at the same time deny Creationists equal time?

 

[Kodiak]

Give it up guys.

You can't converse with Claus when he clamps his eyes shut, sticks his finger in his ears, and chants la, la, la, la, la, la, la...

 

[Mercutio]

Except that without such a right, one of two things could take place:

1) People could use force to prevent me from properly defending my life; and/or
2) People could use force against me for whatever reason they wish.

They already can. You call it "violating your rights" or "depriving you of your rights", but what it is called doesn't much matter.

Rights would only be meaningless and circular in a world without force, and that's the element of this you keep ignoring. If we lived in such a world, we would truly be free. We don't live in that world, though, so the only way we can be free is if we had the authority to use force to protect and defend our rights, but for no other purpose.

Hmmm... So we decided, through some compromise, the conditions under which we can and cannot use force to protect our selves and our interests. These would be codified into laws, which set the limits on what we can do. It seems to me that, ideally, these conditions would be determined based on a long-term view of what is best for (as our horizons widen) our selves, families, communities, states, nations, world. We could then point out the reason for such laws, and not be forced into saying "they just are".

We have rules and laws and the like, whether they are built on "rights" or on mutual compromise and enlightened self-interest. The laws are what directly effect us, not the rights on which they are allegedly based. We can see (and you have spoken of here) the process of mutual compromise that went into the creation of our laws...the natural or god-given rights they are based on are a superfluous step, it seems to me.

 

[c0rbin]

Well, everything I have read on the founding fathers suggests that the question of where our rights come from would vary from one to another. They were not a hive mind and like any group of individuals they had a variety of opinoins on every subject.

Oh my goodness! It like they meant that an individual could determine their own course, make their own decisions for their life and the lives of their children.

Is this some sort of fantasy land?!?

</sarcasm>

 

[c0rbin]

Oh, I don't doubt you believe this. But if, historically, the only entities violating one's rights are human (either individually or collectively), does not that imply that functionally speaking, these rights exist at the behest of humans? Tell me when god or nature has taken back these rights--you assume it is theirs to give (and presumably, deny), but the only times I see rights violated, it is by people. In practical terms, then, it is people who give us our rights, and we enjoy them only because others do not impose their will on ours.

(oh, and be careful about saying that the only way a right can be violated is through the application of force--you may or may not be technically correct, but it does sound a bit much like "threat of force", when of course we may manipulate you even easier through reward than through punishment! People line up to give their money to the government...when it is the lottery, instead of taxes...and yes, I understand that the lottery may be seen as an application of force, which is why I said "may or may not be...")

I don't know if anyone else has addressed these points, but I will try.

Look around the globe and find me another creature there on who/which has the abilities that the US FF agreed were "endowed" to humanity.

Speech, Religion, Self Determination, etc.

These are all traits peculiar to humans.

Whether they ulimately come from God or from nature is a matter of discovery (yes, Claus, all evidence points to nature) and is quite immaterial. We are born with these traits and only an act of tyranny can remove them.

 

[c0rbin]

Claus.

If these rights are endowed the people by a divine creator, then those skeptics who agree with that, have a major problem. Because I cannot see how they can refuse e.g. Creationist demands.

The claim that rights are natural laws is just silly.

Claus, you are hung up on the Creator thing and it is a stupid error on your part.

First of all, you don't have any evidence that a "divine creator"does not exist so you cannot, as a skeptic claim one does not exist.

So far the evidence speaks volumes that there is some natural process by which life proliferates this planet. But science does not rule out things that connot be tested by science.

Now please swollow that pill and move on to the next paragraph.

Second, it is immaterial to the point the Founding Fathers were making.

It does not matter from whence these rights came--divine origin or natural law--the point is no human and no government granted them to us (humans). We are born with them.

We are born with them.

When my two year-old says "$hit" it is because he was born with the ability to speak and the freedoms to do so. It is me who tells him that he may not say those words (in front of my mother ).

By extension Thomas Paine(sp?) was born with the ability to write and print and the freedom to write "Give me liberty of give me death." It was his when he first gasped for breath and he knew it--even though he probably didn't know the atomic weights of the elements he was asperating.

King George, and by extension his goverment, was the only thing on the planet that was going to stop him from doing so.

 

[Mercutio]

I don't know if anyone else has addressed these points, but I will try.

Look around the globe and find me another creature there on who/which has the abilities that the US FF agreed were "endowed" to humanity.

Speech, Religion, Self Determination, etc.

These are all traits peculiar to humans.

Whether they ulimately come from God or from nature is a matter of discovery (yes, Claus, all evidence points to nature) and is quite immaterial. We are born with these traits and only an act of tyranny can remove them.

You were born with speech? That is impressive; the folks I know had to be taught. Religion? Born with this? Self Determination I will have to see a definition for; surely you do not doubt that we are heavily influenced by our environments.

But that is not the point. These are abilities, perhaps traits (you use both these words, and I agree)...but "rights"? Are you equating "ability" and "right"? Let us look at your examples. You say we are born with speech--surely, you mean we are born with the capacity, given the proper learning environment, to learn speech. This does, indeed, set us apart from other animals. Likewise we may learn religion, or self-determination (assuming we can define that). But we may also, giventhe proper learning environment, learn to murder. We are born with the capacity to murder just as much as with the capacity to have religion. What makes one a "right", and not the other? (I take it you would not say that just because I have the ability to murder, I have the right to.) Why is it we do not say "I was born with the ability to murder, and only an act of tyranny can remove it"?

Abilities or traits are not the same thing as rights. The more I read this thread, the more obvious it seems that rights are not something inherent in humanity, but a social contract of sorts, a compromise, as Shanek put it, among our individual self-interests. That we call them "god-given" or "natural law" reflects their importance, but not their origin.

 

[Luke T.]

You were born with speech? That is impressive; the folks I know had to be taught.

I'm sorry to hear about their handicap. The folks I know didn't have to be taught to speak. They did have to be taught to speak English, though...

 

[crimresearch]

"The more I read this thread, the more obvious it seems that rights are not something inherent in humanity, but a social contract of sorts, a compromise, as Shanek put it, among our individual self-interests. That we call them "god-given" or "natural law" reflects their importance, but not their origin."

Isn't the social contract (along with it's constructs such as 'rights') something that is inherent in humanity?

When the prevailing construct was one of privilege and royal entitlement, people seemed to have no trouble attributing *that* to divine intent, but if those not born into the nobility want to use their collective power to enjoy certain conditions, that is a woo-woo bunch of nonsense?

 

[Mercutio]

I'm sorry to hear that. The folks I know didn't have to be taught to speak. They had to be taught to speak English.

Really? You know people who developed language in isolation? Evidence please...

 

[Mercutio]

Isn't the social contract (along with it's constructs such as 'rights') something that is inherent in humanity?

Inherent? I don't know. How would one determine that? (serious question--I really don't know, and determining "inherent" seems a difficult thing)

When the prevailing construct was one of privilege and royal entitlement, people seemed to have no trouble attributing *that* to divine intent, but if those not born into the nobility want to use their collective power to enjoy certain conditions, that is a woo-woo bunch of nonsense?

I have no problem saying that the former is woo-woo nonsense...but that was not the topic under discussion.

 

[shanek]

You were born with speech? That is impressive; the folks I know had to be taught.

No, they don't. There are actually psychological findings that speech comes quite naturally. You have to be taught a language, but that's a different matter. People growing up together without being so taught will naturally develop a language of their own.

Religion? Born with this?

Born with the ability to make the decision about what religion to believe in, yes.

Are you equating "ability" and "right"?

I don't know if he is, but I'm not. But capability is an inherent part of rights, being the ability to not only make a decision but to be responsible for its consequences. A bull does not have the right to be in a china shop because there's no way it can act responsibly to avoid damage and to give the shop owner redress for whatever it breaks.

But we may also, giventhe proper learning environment, learn to murder.

Murder is an act of force. You must apply some kind of force to kill someone; again, rights are what you can enjoy in the absence of force. This includes any kind of force you may wish to apply. And so, again, the only kind of force that is justified is that which is necessary to respond to force or the threat of force from others.

 

[c0rbin]

You were born with speech? That is impressive; the folks I know had to be taught. Religion? Born with this? Self Determination I will have to see a definition for; surely you do not doubt that we are heavily influenced by our environments.

Oh, I do not doubt this. But you split fine hairs, Merc--fine for discussion, but immaterial.

The human capacity for self expression exists and we are born to the capacity unlike any other creature on this planet. These foundations are the basis for human spirituality and self determination (life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness).

But that is not the point. These are abilities, perhaps traits (you use both these words, and I agree)...but "rights"? Are you equating "ability" and "right"?

I was not endowed these abilities by a government. I was born with them. No man should be able to curtail my ability to persue life liberty and happiness to the best of my abilities.

Let us look at your examples. You say we are born with speech--surely, you mean we are born with the capacity, given the proper learning environment, to learn speech. This does, indeed, set us apart from other animals.

Yes. And you are free to join PETA and converse with chickens.

(I take it you would not say that just because I have the ability to murder, I have the right to.) Why is it we do not say "I was born with the ability to murder, and only an act of tyranny can remove it"?

Murder curtails another's right to persue life, liberty, and happiness. You or I did not grant someone life. To take it away is a violation of natural law.

Conversely, defending your own life against another is a right.

Libelous speech being against the law holds legal water in the US (I think) because it is expression that infringes the persiut of life, liberty, and happiness.

Abilities or traits are not the same thing as rights. The more I read this thread, the more obvious it seems that rights are not something inherent in humanity, but a social contract of sorts, a compromise, as Shanek put it, among our individual self-interests. That we call them "god-given" or "natural law" reflects their importance, but not their origin.

I hear your opinion and I appreciate you ability to pen it without piss and vinegar or agenda.

I read this thread and I am re-inspired by the bold, forward thinking of those first Americans.

 

[crimresearch]

Inherent? I don't know. How would one determine that? (serious question--I really don't know, and determining "inherent" seems a difficult thing)....

....I have no problem saying that the former is woo-woo nonsense...but that was not the topic under discussion. [/B]

Be more specific...are you doubting that the social contract, and social artifacts exist? Are you saying they came from some external source? (If so which one?)
If they do exist, and they are not externally derived, then how are they *not* inherent?

The tacit acceptance of a monarchist society with its state religion, and assuming privileges to be a logical part of the human condition, while deriding an egalitarian society for its collective 'rights' is very much the topic under discussion, whether the OP wants to admit it or not.

 

[Jocko]

Excuse me, but who has been arguing that rights only come from a government?

Ed outed you pages ago. Keep up, will you?

 

[shanek]

They already can.

Not without a fight.

Hmmm... So we decided, through some compromise, the conditions under which we can and cannot use force to protect our selves and our interests. These would be codified into laws, which set the limits on what we can do.

Or, in other words, "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Government is there to secure these rights. It does not and cannot give them to us. It can, however, violate them just like anyone and anything else can.

The laws are what directly effect us, not the rights on which they are allegedly based.

As far as governments are concerned, yes. In my real life, I decide which of my rights I want to exercise at which times.

 

[Jocko]

Free speech is human law.

Who says? Your monarchy, or your state-santioned mongrel church?

So far, we have:

1. Rights are natural laws.
   Which is silly. What is the equation for a right? How can we observe the phenomenon?

1. 
   
   You're right, there was no gravity until it was measured and quantified mathematcally. This is nearly as dense as your dismissal of the FF on the grounds they understood neither quantum theory nor atomic structure.
   
   

   [*]Rights are given by God.
   This raises the question: How can those who claim that at the same time deny Creationists equal time?

Why not address the real point behind your posturing, Claus? You think any mention of a creator, god, etc. automatically invalidates whatever document it's found in. It the only thing that gives you nihilist jagoffs any joy in life, so embrace it for once.

BTW, how can you be so sure God doesn't exist? Absence of proof, proof of absence, ring any bells? Some skeptic you are. You can't see Pluto, so I suppose it doesn't exist either on those grounds alone.

Actually, the more I read your tripe, the more convinced I am that:

1. God, if He exists, has a sense of humor, and
2. He hated your parents.

 

[shanek]

Really? You know people who developed language in isolation? Evidence please...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6029190/

Deaf children thrown together in a school in Nicaragua without any type of formal instruction invented their own sign language — a sophisticated system that has evolved and grown, researchers say.

Their observations show that children, not adults, are key to the evolution and development of language, the researchers report in Friday’s issue of the journal Science.

“It is the birth of a language,” said Ann Senghas of Columbia University’s Barnard College, who led the study.

Deaf children were isolated and almost never learned formal sign language, Senghas and her international team of collaborators said.

“They didn’t let them go out and socialize. You meet deaf people who are 50, and they really can’t communicate,” Senghas said.

But in 1977, a school for special education opened in Managua, followed four years later by a vocational school. For the first time, deaf children could meet and learn together, and could stay together as they grew up.

No one was there to teach them formal sign language, so they made up their own.

 

[Mercutio]

Oh, I do not doubt this. But you split fine hairs, Merc--fine for discussion, but immaterial.

It's what I do. Sorry.

The human capacity for self expression exists and we are born to the capacity unlike any other creature on this planet. These foundations are the basis for human spirituality and self determination (life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness).


Murder curtails another's right to persue life, liberty, and happiness. You or I did not grant someone life. To take it away is a violation of natural law.

Conversely, defending your own life against another is a right.

Libelous speech being against the law holds legal water in the US (I think) because it is expression that infringes the persiut of life, liberty, and happiness.

See...(sorry, hair-splitting again)..."pursuit of happiness" is what gets me. Suppose killing and eating people is what makes little Jeffrey Dahmer happy. Yes, he infringes on others' rights to do that--but you infringe on his to deny him! If these are god-given or natural "rights", aren't they inviolate? Certainly, we mere humans have to stack one rights violation against another and come to some conclusion (say, that Dahmer's right to pursue happiness loses to other folks' right to life)...It simply seems to me that the "rights" themselves came out of our deliberation of such conflicts of interest, rather than existing in some free form to be endowed into us at birth.

I hear your opinion and I appreciate you ability to pen it without piss and vinegar or agenda.

Thanks.

I read this thread and I am re-inspired by the bold, forward thinking of those first Americans.

I agree whole-heartedly. But I don't hold them as some sort of icon--I see no reason not to challenge the things they thought were true...

 

[Mercutio]

The tacit acceptance of a monarchist society with its state religion, and assuming privileges to be a logical part of the human condition, while deriding an egalitarian society for its collective 'rights' is very much the topic under discussion, whether the OP wants to admit it or not.

I came in late, then--my question was purely aimed at determining the origin of "rights"...at the time I entered the thread, the context was the US.