Militia question 1

[Mercutio]

Not without a fight.

Irrelevant. This fight happens with or without "rights".

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.

Yes, I see the word they used. I am looking at the actual situation, though, not the spin. It was in their best interest to give these "rights" the best support they could, so why not god or natural law? If they had said "hey, we think these are a good idea", would people fight and die for them?

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

Unless, of course, they are infringed upon by others, at their whim.

 

[shanek]

Irrelevant. This fight happens with or without "rights".[/b]

No, it doesn't, because if I don't have rights, then I don't have any way of appealing to the government—no police, no court system, etc. These are all things that are in place to protect our rights.

Yes, I see the word they used. I am looking at the actual situation, though, not the spin. It was in their best interest to give these "rights" the best support they could, so why not god or natural law? If they had said "hey, we think these are a good idea", would people fight and die for them?

Support your contention that this is "spin" and not what they genuinely believed.

Unless, of course, they are infringed upon by others, at their whim.

Which is exactly what government is there to protect me from.

 

[Mercutio]

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

Thank you, Shanek, this supports what I was saying. In isolation, these individuals did not learn language. Only in contact with others does language emerge. Yes, they learned "without any type of formal instruction", but the vast majority of any speech and language is learned without formal instruction. It does, however, require a community of speakers. (or "speakers", I suppose, in this case.)

Without interaction, your link mentions, you see 50-yr-olds who cannot communicate.

 

[crimresearch]

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.

OK, within that context, the end of the mercantile system, the protestant reformation, the weakening of colonial imperialism, and various other factors combined to create a moment when the collective use of force against the British crown gave us the ability to declare those rights enumerated in the Constitution...no magic, or divinity involved.
(What was involved was the passage of time, and the occurence of human interaction, for which 'Nature', or 'Providence' et al. seem a standard reference at the time).

So 'rights' are a social artifact, like many others, and as soon as we lack sufficient power over others to retain them, they may go away.

 

[Mercutio]

No, it doesn't, because if I don't have rights, then I don't have any way of appealing to the government—no police, no court system, etc. These are all things that are in place to protect our rights.

Could we (again, genuine question out of ignorance) appeal based on violations of laws, rather than violations of rights? As we now have it, our laws are assumed to be built on rights, but if we build our laws on enlightened self-interest, how is it that they suddenly lose the force of appeal? Why is it that "protecting our rights" is sacred, but "protecting our long-term self interests" (or whatever you choose to base your laws on) is a recipe for chaos?

Support your contention that this is "spin" and not what they genuinely believed.

I don't claim it is not what they believed. What they believed and what is actually the case may differ--surely that is no surprise on this site. They may believe that god or nature gave them rights, but that does not make it so. Of course they would write it that way--and perhaps there is an advantage to a civilization that thinks that way--but that does not make it true.

Which is exactly what government is there to protect me from.

By mutual agreement, with compromise, based on enlightened self-interest? Or based on god-given or natural "rights"? What would the difference be?

 

[Luke T.]

Why is it that "protecting our rights" is sacred, but "protecting our long-term self interests" (or whatever you choose to base your laws on) is a recipe for chaos?

Protecting our rights and protecting our long-term self interests should be the same thing. However, there are those who believe it is in our self-interest to give up our rights.

edited to add examples:

Take away our right to bear arms.

Ban the burning of the American flag.

 

[c0rbin]

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...

Nor would they, I think. Challenge on, and feel free to defend Jeffery Dahmer's right to kill and eat other humans.

In Moscow, bastion of alienating rights they put a bullet in the back of people's heads like his.

Andrei Chikatilo

Here in the US Dahmer was given a state-paid vacation.

I don't know what this has to do with anything, but I would say that we are not born with the right to kill others and eat them. I would say that is something we are forced to do by circumstance or choice or urge.

 

[Cleopatra]

OK, within that context, the end of the mercantile system, the protestant reformation, the weakening of colonial imperialism, and various other factors combined to create a moment when the collective use of force against the British crown gave us the ability to declare those rights enumerated in the Constitution...no magic, or divinity involved.
(What was involved was the passage of time, and the occurence of human interaction, for which 'Nature', or 'Providence' et al. seem a standard reference at the time).

So 'rights' are a social artifact, like many others, and as soon as we lack sufficient power over others to retain them, they may go away.

Exactly!

My classical education along with my profession have persuaded me over the years that regardless of what the theory of political sciences claims the notion of rights and the laws ( that predates the concept of right) are nothing but a concesus.

I have observed that when the discussion comes to the right to bare arms it takes the form of a religious creed.

Natural rights and Laws have nothing metaphysical in them ( I know you know that I am not addressing you right now I am making a general observation). We must bring the notion of natural rights into the discussion only in their historical context in which it was conceived, just the way you did.

What Shane and others here do make Natural Rights and Laws appear like the Gospel or something equally metaphysical.

Laws and Rights are nothing but the product of a consesus ( not democratic of course) between the members of a society and they exist to meet nothing but the interests and the needs of a specific group of people. BUT since we are talking about human societies, I believe that all of us here will agree that needs change unless some of those needs are kept in life rather " artificially" by political and financial lobbies BUT as somebody who believes in Capitalism I agree that if the market can keep something in life then it's ok. ( Is it really?)

I can accept as an argument that it's too much to extinguish the gun industry . Believe me that I respect this argument more than anything else. BUT appealing in a clerical fashion to some " natural rights" that were granted to us by our ancestors in order to justify the right to bear arms is something that makes me smile.

 

[Mercutio]

Protecting our rights and protecting our long-term self interests should be the same thing. However, there are those who believe it is in our self-interest to give up our rights.

Should be the same thing...I would agree, except that "'rights' endowed by a creator" implies (to me, anyway) that they are sacrosanct, inviolate. "Long-term interest" can be challenged.

edited to add examples:

Take away our right to bear arms.

Ban the burning of the American flag.

I'll stay away from guns for now, as Cleopatra says, that is almost religious. The American flag, though...I think a ban on burning is a terrible idea, but suppose, hypothetically, that there was evidence that a ban would solve all the nation's problems plus leave your breath minty-fresh. "Rights" advocates must still argue against a ban, on principle, no matter what the evidence (perhaps saying "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." I love that quote...but should it go unchallenged? Just because Franklin said it?) In my hypothetical situation, the only bad thing is no more freedom to burn the flag. Without adding to the hypothetical (something like "this only leads to further erosion of rights"--sorry, not in this situation), what is the reason for opposing the ban?

Remember--I do not support such a ban, nor do I think there is evidence that such a ban would improve our society one iota. But...if my hypothetical situation still has you saying "but it is an infringement on my rights, and that is wrong no matter what good it does!", I suggest that this is tantamount to religion. (No, I am not saying that is bad, just saying that your view of rights is based on faith, not on evidence.)

 

[Mercutio]

Nor would they, I think. Challenge on, and feel free to defend Jeffery Dahmer's right to kill and eat other humans.

I don't know what this has to do with anything, but I would say that we are not born with the right to kill others and eat them. I would say that is something we are forced to do by circumstance or choice or urge.

LOL...you may have missed my point. I do not support Dahmer's right to kill and eat, but that is because my notion of "rights" is based on enlightened self-interest and social contract (much better expressed by crimresearch, above). I was using him as an extreme example (ok, a strawman) of an inviolate "right to pursue happiness". I don't think any system of laws based on compromise and long-term self-interest would let Dahmer off the hook.

 

[CFLarsen]

Here in the US Dahmer was given a state-paid vacation.

If you think serving a jail sentence is such a "vacation", why aren't you in jail?

 

[Luke T.]

I have observed that when the discussion comes to the right to bare arms it takes the form of a religious creed.

Bare arms. Heh.

 

[c0rbin]

If you think serving a jail sentence is such a "vacation", why aren't you in jail?

Don't waste your time mis-understanding the subtle sarcasms of my posts. You have questions to respond to.

Denmark's monarchy and State Religion come to mind.

 

[c0rbin]

Thank you, Shanek, this supports what I was saying. In isolation, these individuals did not learn language. Only in contact with others does language emerge. Yes, they learned "without any type of formal instruction", but the vast majority of any speech and language is learned without formal instruction. It does, however, require a community of speakers. (or "speakers", I suppose, in this case.)

Without interaction, your link mentions, you see 50-yr-olds who cannot communicate.

I don't think a person living in complete and total isolation has to worry about his or her natural rights being infringed by anyone.



Does that make your line of questioning moot? Does a person living in complete and total isolation with the capacity for self expression (speech and writing) have freedoms of speech? Where did this freedom come from?

 

[shanek]

Thank you, Shanek, this supports what I was saying. In isolation, these individuals did not learn language. Only in contact with others does language emerge.

No, now, that wasn't what you said. Language has no meaning in isolation. Whom are they supposed to talk to? That's a bogus point.

Yes, they learned "without any type of formal instruction",

They didn't learn the language; they made it up! Language isn't something that some smart guy discovered thousands of years ago. Get a bunch of people together, and even without any form of instruction, they'll create a language all their own. This clearly says that, while languages must be created and learned, speech is, indeed, inherent.

 

[shanek]

Could we (again, genuine question out of ignorance) appeal based on violations of laws, rather than violations of rights? As we now have it, our laws are assumed to be built on rights, but if we build our laws on enlightened self-interest, how is it that they suddenly lose the force of appeal?[/b]

Through many avenues. For example, juries in the mid-19th century refused to convict people accused of violating the Fugitive Slave Act by helping slaves escape. The juries knew full well that the defendants had in fact helped slaves escape to Canada; they didn't care. They thought the law was wrong, and a violation of rights, so they refused to convict.

Why is it that "protecting our rights" is sacred, but "protecting our long-term self interests" (or whatever you choose to base your laws on) is a recipe for chaos?

Because protecting your rights does not involve using force against anyone who isn't initiating force against others. Protecting your long-term self interests does, and that kind of power is very prone to the kind of corruption that Lord Acton warned us about.

 

[CFLarsen]

shanek,

For the second time: What did the moderators say to your report?

 

[shanek]

My classical education along with my profession have persuaded me over the years that regardless of what the theory of political sciences claims the notion of rights and the laws ( that predates the concept of right) are nothing but a concesus.

As long as I have the right to bear arms, no consensus is required.

What Shane and others here do make Natural Rights and Laws appear like the Gospel or something equally metaphysical.

That is absolutely not the case. They're simply a part of you, just like your dreams are.

How is my definition of rights, and its distinction with privileges and powers, not completely objective?

 

[shanek]

Should be the same thing...I would agree, except that "'rights' endowed by a creator" implies (to me, anyway) that they are sacrosanct, inviolate. "Long-term interest" can be challenged.[/b]

Absolutely. And this is why such a system works so well. My rights are unalienable. You can violate them, but you can't really take them from me.

In my hypothetical situation, the only bad thing is no more freedom to burn the flag.

Except that you're ignoring what this would inevitably lead to. Your argument is essentially, "Hitler made the trains run on time." Yeah, maybe, but I don't like where those trains go...

Without adding to the hypothetical (something like "this only leads to further erosion of rights"--sorry, not in this situation),

Uh, yes, in every situation. It always does.

Remember--I do not support such a ban, nor do I think there is evidence that such a ban would improve our society one iota. But...if my hypothetical situation still has you saying "but it is an infringement on my rights, and that is wrong no matter what good it does!", I suggest that this is tantamount to religion.

No, it's tantamount to me saying that I'm a human being and I do not recognize your authority telling me what I can do with my own property.

 

[Mercutio]

As long as I have the right to bear arms, no consensus is required.

It seems to me that it is "as long as I bear arms, no consensus is required." You have said you could act on your rights or not, as you decide. So if you do not exercise your right, the majority wins. Having the right is superfluous--having the gun is what counts.

That is absolutely not the case. They're simply a part of you, just like your dreams are.

How is my definition of rights, and its distinction with privileges and powers, not completely objective?

I am having trouble seeing the difference, in your examples, between having the right to have a gun and simply having the gun without the right to, since another could violate that right.