• 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"???

BenBurch said:
Rights are ALWAYS contingent upon others. They are a pact with others and have no other real existence.
Click to expand...

You would have been correct to say "rights are not perceptual concretes" because that is true. One cannot point to an object or any part of it and identify that as a right. A right is identified as the prerogative to exercise the power you possess to judge what is in your interest and act accordingly. A right is violated when you interfere with another man's ability to do that. Given that, an argument against rights is an argument against the morality of exercising independent judgement and acting accordingly.
 
Reminder! Even the dude who wrote about creator-endowed inalienable rights in the DoI didn't actually believe in them.
 
Taarkin said:
Reminder! Even the dude who wrote about creator-endowed inalienable rights in the DoI didn't actually believe in them.
Click to expand...

An obvious reference to Jefferson's slaves I presume? Rights are a principle to be discovered even if those who discover it refuse to abide by the principle consistently.
 
Robert Prey said:
A "Right" is the room that Nature allows us to go about the business of staying alive. Natural rights cannot be granted by government. We are born with them.
Click to expand...

Not really. Nature doesn't always allow us to go about the business of staying alive. In fact, at some point, all men will die because we are mortals. Rights are a useless claim against nature. Try telling that meteor heading toward us that it is violating your rights.
 
Craig24 said:
An obvious reference to Jefferson's slaves I presume? Rights are a principle to be discovered even if those who discover it refuse to abide by the principle consistently.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think he's referring to the fact that Jefferson was regarded as a Deist, who believed in a non-interfering god, and quite likely was an atheist.

But yes, definitely a hypocrite when it came to the "freedom" thing. But then, they didn't see slaves as human.
 
Craig24 said:
Not really. Nature doesn't always allow us to go about the business of staying alive. In fact, at some point, all men will die because we are mortals. Rights are a useless claim against nature. Try telling that meteor heading toward us that it is violating your rights.
Click to expand...

Oh, but a natural death is part of life.
 
Tricky said:
You're telling me that everyone will always agree on what "natural rights" are? That there will never be any debate (sort of like we're having here)? On what do you base this? Your say-so? That is completely insane.
Click to expand...

There is no debating whither I have a right to life. Ditto Liberty and Property.
 
Robert Prey said:
There is no debating whither I have a right to life. Ditto Liberty and Property.
Click to expand...
Thst's odd. It seems we're debating it right now (and you're losing). But even if you weren't having your butt handed to you on a platter with a sides of crow, hat and humble pie, you cannot possibly deny that it is being debated.

(Well, okay, you can deny it, but you'll look more ridiculous than PeeWee Herman trying to explain what he was doing in that theater.)
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
There is no debating whither I have a right to life. Ditto Liberty and Property.
Click to expand...

That's right - you do not have those rights unless the society in which you live agrees you do and is prepared to recognize them.

Different legal systems - different rights.

Rights, being a legal construct, cannot exist outside of a legal structure. Without societal rules there is no way that your "natural" rights can be enforced other than whatever direct physical force you can bring to bear to do so - your "right" to liberty stops where a stronger person makes you his or her slave, your right to property extends only to that which you can prevent others from taking.

What allows those rights to be recognized and supported is a society that agrees to certain underlying core values (rights) and has a system in place to protect its members and resolve disputes between them that are not simply seeing who is the better fighter.
 
Taarkin said:
Your "right" to property trespasses on my "right" to take your stuff.
It seems were at at loggerheads.
Click to expand...

This provides an opportunity to quote a passage that has become a favorite of mine: "There is no right to a value that another person has to provide." When you understand that rights refer to independent action (an action you alone judge as proper to take and that requires nothing of anyone else), you will understand how a right to property (properly obtained) cannot violate your right to take the stuff other men have because that isn't a right at all.

Permit me to quote from another forum the following brilliant observation:
Now, the question arises how can someone have the 'right' to do something that is not 'right'. All rights derive from the right to life, and the corollary right to act. If one wants to live, then one must take the rational and objectively correct actions to keep and further one's life. But there is an epistemological problem here: who knows enough to decide what is a rational and objectively correct action? There is no such entity as an omniscient and perfectly rational final authority. Everyone is their own judge of what is best for their own life, and that judgement is finite and fallible. The freedom to think has a corollary freedom to act, with one exception. Every man is alone inside his own mind but he shares the world with others; therefore one's freedom to act ends where another's right to life begins. The freedom to do wrong derives from a general freedom to act, which derives from the total freedom to think.


(I thank the man with the screename Grames for this great observation.)
Click to expand...
 
Border Reiver said:
That's right - you do not have those rights unless the society in which you live agrees you do and is prepared to recognize them.
Click to expand...

But this cannot be right because rights do not refer to what anyone permits you to do. It refers to the prerogative to do what you need no permission from others to do. I need no permission to do what requires nothing of you or from you. Ditto in reverse. Do you honestly think that if I physically coerce you that your right to act independently isn't real? You would need to explain that. If you really believe this than you don't know what a right is.

When men of good conscience see black people taken away in chains by their new masters, do you say of such men "they don't have rights" or do you say "because they DO have rights, this is WRONG!!" ??? If you honestly think rights are a mere invention of someone's mind, by what standard do you demand emancipation?
 
It was okay to take all that property from the Native Americans though, because not a one of them could show any deeds or proof of purchase.
 
Craig24 said:
But this cannot be right because rights do not refer to what anyone permits you to do. It refers to the prerogative to do what you need no permission from others to do. I need no permission to do what requires nothing of you or from you. Ditto in reverse. Do you honestly think that if I physically coerce you that your right to act independently isn't real? You would need to explain that. If you really believe this than you don't know what a right is.

When men of good conscience see black people taken away in chains by their new masters, do you say of such men "they don't have rights" or do you say "because they DO have rights, this is WRONG!!" ??? If you honestly think rights are a mere invention of someone's mind, by what standard do you demand emancipation?
Click to expand...

Emancipation only happened because the majority of participating members of society decided they should. Same way women got the vote.

Rights are not inherent. You may notice that rights are different in different countries and have been extended and also limited at different points in history.
 
Robert Prey said:
There is no debating whither I have a right to life. Ditto Liberty and Property.
Click to expand...

Oh i can see what "exciting" turn this thread is going to take. First people are going to keep asking you for any proof that these rights of yours actually exist in some sort of real concrete sense, you will just keep on repeating that these rights are self evident and not up for debate.

The exciting question is now: Who will tire first?
 
Craig24 said:
...snip...
When men of good conscience see black people taken away in chains by their new masters, do you say of such men "they don't have rights" or do you say "because they DO have rights, this is WRONG!!" ??? If you honestly think rights are a mere invention of someone's mind, by what standard do you demand emancipation?
Click to expand...

Because I have decided it is wrong and if I can convince many other people in my society that it is wrong we can make it a wrong for the soceity as a whole. Not at all sure where you were coming from or going to with that observation?
 
Just think about all the "natural" rights we may still have that haven't even been discovered yet. :D
 
Darat said:
Because I have decided it is wrong and if I can convince many other people in my society that it is wrong we can make it a wrong for the soceity as a whole. Not at all sure where you were coming from or going to with that observation?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Men make laws because collectively they have become convinced that the laws they make are a good thing. Constitutional Rights are simply another level of law. Nothing magical or divine or inherent in nature about them whatsoever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom