• 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:
Border Reiver said:
No one is a traitor unless properly tried and convicted of treason. If all it takes to start detaining people arbitrarily is the state's suspicion that someone is a traitor, and the state doesn't then have to act in accordance with the law because it's war, you stand to lose all your rights. And by your logic it's all good.
Click to expand...

War is anarchy and chaos and very unfair to a whole lot of innocents.
Click to expand...


Actually, war is the continuation of politics by violence.
 
Robert Prey said:
"Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by the law of a particular political and legal system, and therefore relative to specific cultures and governments...":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
Click to expand...

How can we square this;

"different philosophers and statesmen have designed different lists of what they believe to be natural rights"

with this;

"rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government"
 
Robert Prey said:
DC said:
in some ways it is.

Article 21.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr//QUOTE][

NO. Voting is a legal, not a natural right. And everyone should not have the right to vote. Moreover, the United Nations Declaration of Rights is no valid authority on human rights. Certainly, the so-called right to "favorable remuneration" or for "equal pay for equal work" are not a natural rights. Nor should it be a legal right. Nor does anyone have a natural right to education.
Click to expand...

what then is a valid authority on human rights?
Click to expand...
 
If I declare war on my neighbour, can I then play the drums till he comes back to my door then kill him, sieze his house and car then declare peace and justice all round?
 
Robert Prey said:
The Golden Rule.
Click to expand...

The golden rule suggests that if you are educated, you should support the education of others. Given that you have said there is no right to education, I fear I can not state my conclusions without violating the rules, hence I shall not.
 
Last edited:
Border Reiver said:
I note that you only selected one theory of natural rights - that of Paine.

If a natural right is "universal and inalienable" then you cannot forfeit that right by infringing on the right of others for that which is inalienable cannot be alienated from the holder, nor can it be voluntarily forfeited.


The problem I have with your definition of property rights as a "natural right" is that property rights are highly dependent on culture and society and cannot be said to be universal. Many cultures viewed the ownership of land by individuals as impossible - land belonged to a group or collective, many First Nations in North America worked on this principle, the Highland clans of Scotland (up until the 17th century), etc. If your rights are "natural" then one would expect that they would be interpreted the same way by various cultures and they aren't.

Rights are viewed in different ways by different cultures - Paine's understanding of what a right was, was influenced by the traditional "rights of Englishmen" first laid out in the Magna Carta - then expanded and defined by other acts of Parliament and the King.

As a philosophical construct "natural rights and legal rights" can be separated and looked at as different classes - the reality that we as people who live in the real world deal with is that such a differentiation is pointless. When rights collide it is the legal system of that area that gets to sort the problem out - not nature.
Click to expand...

The real world is the real world. The ideasphere is not of the world.
 
Robert Prey said:
"Everyone" meaning everyone who has not violated the rights of others.
Click to expand...

What if they haven't violated the rights of others? There are cases where DNA evidence has exonerated a convicted murderer.
But if they're executed, they're still dead.
 
jj said:
The golden rule suggests that if you are educated, you should support the education of others. Given that you have said there is no right to education, I fear I can not state my conclusions without violating the rules, hence I shall not.
Click to expand...

If your education teaches that you must be a slave to the benefit of your neighbor, then you have been brainwashed.
 
Distracted1 said:
In an earlier post, you referred to what I assume were the European "conquerers" of North America.

Since I think we both would agree that "conquering" a people that have not attacked you is a violation of their rights as you have presented them, and in a further post you state that those who violate the rights of others forfeit their own. From whence comes the legitimacy of property ownership in North America?

How can I have the "right" to property stolen from someone else?
Click to expand...

Native Americans had no notion of property possession.
 
Rights are the constructs of humanity and the societies in which we live. As is often the case Terry Pratchett can illustrate the point perfectly.

‘All right,’ said Susan. ‘I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need...fantasies to make life bearable.

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE

‘Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little –’

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

‘So we can believe the big ones?’

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

‘They’re not the same at all!’

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET – Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME … SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

‘Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point-‘

MY POINT EXACTLY.
Click to expand...
 
Robert Prey said:
Native Americans had no notion of property possession.
Click to expand...
Demonstrably false.

Now, my earlier claim was that several First Nations had no concept for individual ownership of land - which is not the same thing as having no notion of property. They certainly had notions of group or collective ownership of land or territory, and certain items that required extensive group efforts to make.

The interesting thing here is that you assert that property is a natural right that everyone is entitled to and that such a right is universally understood. If your quoted assertion above is correct, then how is your previously stated assertion correct?
 
Robert Prey said:
If your education teaches that you must be a slave to the benefit of your neighbor, then you have been brainwashed.
Click to expand...

No, my education teaches me that if I work together with my neighbor we get farther then either one of us will on our own and that sometimes we have to give a little to get back.
 
Border Reiver said:
Demonstrably false.

Now, my earlier claim was that several First Nations had no concept for individual ownership of land - which is not the same thing as having no notion of property. They certainly had notions of group or collective ownership of land or territory, and certain items that required extensive group efforts to make.

The interesting thing here is that you assert that property is a natural right that everyone is entitled to and that such a right is universally understood. If your quoted assertion above is correct, then how is your previously stated assertion correct?
Click to expand...

Collective ownership is not ownership.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom