• 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"???

Robert Prey said:
A "society" that sees itself as the giver of rights also sees itself as the taker of rights.
Click to expand...
And we've offered ample examples that that is exactly the way things really are.

[ETA: I still think you're simply getting the idea of "can" and "ought" confused. Or "cannot" and "ought not". I don't think you actually want to defend the position that society simply cannot take away a person's rights. I think you want to argue that in some cases it ought not. And most of us would agree with you. Then we can clear up this abuse of language in referring to inalienable natural rights. I think it's an expression of ideals our society ought respect, but not the actual workings of the universe.]

Anyone who buys into that "might makes right" philosophy has given their Sieg Heil to a potential oppressor.
Click to expand...
Advocating for a social contract and recognizing that rights are social constructs (based on human conventions of some sort, and nothing inherent in the way the universe works) is not buying into "might makes right". In fact, our current social construct is an explicit rejection of "might makes rights" as we have such things as due process, minority rights, etc.

So your arguing against "might makes right" is just a strawman argument. No one has to defend "might makes right" in order to show that your idea of natural rights is not consistent with reality.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
A "society" that sees itself as the giver of rights also sees itself as the taker of rights. Anyone who buys into that "might makes right" philosophy has given their Sieg Heil to a potential oppressor.
Click to expand...

If society doesn't recognize your right to something - vote, own property, go Whereever you want, etc. you will not be allowed to do that activity. It is that simple - if your society says you can't do "x" then you can't do it, regardless of whether you believe you have a right to do so.

A peasant in 12th century England had no right to own land and if he tried to do so would have been forcibly prevented from doing so. A woman who tried to vote prior to 1920 could be prevented from doing so.
 
Robert Prey said:
A "society" that sees itself as the giver of rights also sees itself as the taker of rights. Anyone who buys into that "might makes right" philosophy has given their Sieg Heil to a potential oppressor.
Click to expand...

So you feel we should not buy into allowing "society" to suspend the rights of convicted criminals?
 
That and society, at least in most western democracies, presents itself as the guarantor of said rights through the legal system.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
So you feel we should not buy into allowing "society" to suspend the rights of convicted criminals?
Click to expand...


More sophomoric twaddle. A convicted criminal has by his actions defected from the ideasphere of human rights and entered the realm of "might makes right" which has no protective principles for those who harm the rights of others.
 
Border Reiver said:
If society doesn't recognize your right to something - vote, own property, go Whereever you want, etc. you will not be allowed to do that activity. It is that simple - if your society says you can't do "x" then you can't do it, regardless of whether you believe you have a right to do so.
Click to expand...


Human rights still exist whether governments respect them or not.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
And we've offered ample examples that that is exactly the way things really are.

[ETA: I still think you're simply getting the idea of "can" and "ought" confused. Or "cannot" and "ought not". I don't think you actually want to defend the position that society simply cannot take away a person's rights. I think you want to argue that in some cases it ought not. And most of us would agree with you. Then we can clear up this abuse of language in referring to inalienable natural rights. I think it's an expression of ideals our society ought respect, but not the actual workings of the universe.]


Advocating for a social contract and recognizing that rights are social constructs (based on human conventions of some sort, and nothing inherent in the way the universe works) is not buying into "might makes right". In fact, our current social construct is an explicit rejection of "might makes rights" as we have such things as due process, minority rights, etc.

So your arguing against "might makes right" is just a strawman argument. No one has to defend "might makes right" in order to show that your idea of natural rights is not consistent with reality.
Click to expand...

In a totalitarian state, liberty is not consistent with de facto reality, but human rights still exist even in a totalitarian state -- in fact probably more so than in a state that thinks it is free.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
 
Robert Prey said:
Human rights still exist whether governments respect them or not.
Click to expand...

So when those governments abrogate those rights in stressful situations though that's OK?

Or if a society doesn't have the social construct for a right it still exists?
 
Robert Prey said:
Voting is not a human right.
Click to expand...

But the inability to vote very often means that all the other rights are ignored or cannot be exercised. The inability to exercise some control over the political process very often means that there is no means to assert ANY rights.
 
Robert Prey said:
In a totalitarian state, liberty is not consistent with de facto reality, but human rights still exist even in a totalitarian state -- in fact probably more so than in a state that thinks it is free.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Click to expand...

The concept of "rights" may exist, but a concept and no means to assert the concept makes the issue a moot point.
 
Since 1)rights are "self-evident", it should be really easy to tell if someone has or doesn't have them and 2)murderers don't have rights, it should be REALLY easy to spot murderers. No need for silly investigations or trials: just look at them. If you don't see any rights, then they're a murderer!
 
Robert Prey said:
A convicted criminal has by his actions defected from the ideasphere of human rights and entered the realm of "might makes right" which has no protective principles for those who harm the rights of others.
Click to expand...

So a criminal has voluntarily surrendered his inalienable rights. Who has the right to decide which inalienable rights he loses and when he gets them back again? And who has the right to decide which acts are crimes anyway?
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
So a criminal has voluntarily surrendered his inalienable rights. Who has the right to decide which inalienable rights he loses and when he gets them back again? And who has the right to decide which acts are crimes anyway?
Click to expand...


It matters not who has the de facto right. In the ideasphere of Liberty, all who subscribe to it have a right to it. Those that don't, don't.
 
Border Reiver said:
But the inability to vote very often means that all the other rights are ignored or cannot be exercised. The inability to exercise some control over the political process very often means that there is no means to assert ANY rights.
Click to expand...

Except for the love of liberty we have in our hearts. At least some of us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom