| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » More on: "What is a Right?"... |
|
Page 1 of 7 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Doug Bashford... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
in sci.econ, .googlegroups.com
On, 24 Oct 2009(PDT), Immortalist said about:
What is a Right?
[quote]...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
[/quote]
That's very pretty. I like that!
It's wrong, tho.
You seem to be confusing the positive with the normative,
the "is" with the "aught."
Since when can a moral claim stop an immoral man?
A right is a claim that can be backed up by the
strong *right* *arm.* ...by the war club, by the
long sword, by the gun, by a tribe, mob, or government.
We have the origins of two words here:
*right arm* - rights
*arms* - weapons
Many rights can be purchased, such
as land ownership bestows the right to deny
people the right to exist - on your property,
- the right to expel people. Etc...
Many rights can be removed from an individual by a
tribe, mob, government, or other arm, such as by jail
or other law or decree by the owner of the largest right
arm at any given time.
If the owner of the largest right arm at any given time
is also one that endures, it is called stable government
and is applauded by other enduring owners of large arms
and rights.
I don't like that definition, but that's the way it is.
I'd much rather rights were natural or god given, etc,
which indeed I will claim next time I attempt to
overthrow an existing owner and allocator of rights.
(The last thing to mature in cognitive ability seems to
be the ability to distinguish the positive from the normative.
In fact, it seems many people never mature this far.)
[quote]For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from
killing you.
[/quote]
Nope. What prevents that is morality in the moral, fear of
jail in the immoral, amoral and passionate, and my right arm.
............snip
[quote]They are
said to be "negative rights" in that they stipulate things that other
people may not do in their interactions with some individual. Your
right to life says that I may not kill you. My right to liberty says
that you may not enslave me.
[/quote]
Now you are talking about the US Constitution's
Bill of Rights.
The only reason they are called "negative rights"
and such, is because that's the way most were written,
they bestow no rights, they *limit government powers.*
....About the same as: "they *limit government rights.*"
You are talking about paper work, or one government's
definition, not a more universal definition.
Why did they write it that way? Keep in mind,
the U.S. Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional.
One was written to destroy a government, one to
create and hold a government. The constitution could hardly
cite god-given rights if it intended to own and control them.
The Bill of Rights also cites (common law) rights beyond
the enumerated rights.
[quote]
Modern Political Philosophy by Richard Hudelson
[/quote]
- If you scratch a cynic,
- you'll find a defeated idealist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 4:19 am, play... at (no spam) work.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
[quote] in sci.econ, .googlegroups.com
On, 24 Oct 2009(PDT), Immortalist said about:
What is a Right?
...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
That's very pretty. I like that!
It's wrong, tho.
[/quote]
...........remaining non-sense snipped.
Were you hoping that your argument was somehow different to the OP's?
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Doug Bashford wrote
[quote]Immortalist wrote
...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
That's very pretty. I like that!
It's wrong, tho.
You seem to be confusing the positive with the normative, the "is" with the "aught."
[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]Since when can a moral claim stop an immoral man?
[/quote]
Since never.
[quote]A right is a claim that can be backed up by the strong
*right* *arm.* ...by the war club, by the long sword,
by the gun, by a tribe, mob, or government.
[/quote]
A hell of a lot of rights dont need any of that.
[quote]We have the origins of two words here:
*right arm* - rights
*arms* - weapons
[/quote]
That's very pretty. It's wrong, tho.
[quote]Many rights can be purchased, such as land ownership
[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]bestows the right to deny people the right to exist
- on your property, - the right to expel people. Etc...
[/quote]
Nope, just the right to say what happens on that land within limits.
[quote]Many rights can be removed from an individual by a tribe,
mob, government, or other arm, such as by jail or other law or
decree by the owner of the largest right arm at any given time.
[/quote]
It aint about the largest right arm.
[quote]If the owner of the largest right arm at any given time
is also one that endures, it is called stable government
[/quote]
Mindlessly silly, most obviously with banditry and warlords.
[quote]and is applauded by other enduring owners of large arms and rights.
[/quote]
Mindlessly silly, most obviously with banditry and warlords.
[quote]I don't like that definition, but that's the way it is.
[/quote]
Nope. Most obviously with many rights like
the right to life and the right to free speech etc.
[quote]I'd much rather rights were natural or god given,
etc, which indeed I will claim next time I attempt to
overthrow an existing owner and allocator of rights.
(The last thing to mature in cognitive ability seems to be
the ability to distinguish the positive from the normative.
[/quote]
Thats just plain wrong too.
[quote]In fact, it seems many people never mature this far.)
[/quote]
Bogusly loaded language.
[quote]For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from killing you.
Nope. What prevents that is morality in the moral, fear of
jail in the immoral, amoral and passionate, and my right arm.
[/quote]
Nope. Most obviously with many rights like
the right to life and the right to free speech etc.
[quote]They are said to be "negative rights" in that they stipulate
things that other people may not do in their interactions
with some individual. Your right to life says that I may not
kill you. My right to liberty says that you may not enslave me.
Now you are talking about the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.
The only reason they are called "negative rights"
and such, is because that's the way most were written,
they bestow no rights, they *limit government powers.*
...About the same as: "they *limit government rights.*"
You are talking about paper work, or one government's
definition, not a more universal definition.
Why did they write it that way? Keep in mind,
the U.S. Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional.
One was written to destroy a government, one to
create and hold a government. The constitution could hardly
cite god-given rights if it intended to own and control them.
The Bill of Rights also cites (common law) rights beyond
the enumerated rights.
Modern Political Philosophy by Richard Hudelson
- If you scratch a cynic,
- you'll find a defeated idealist.
[/quote]
Even sillier. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Doug Bashford... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Gordge said about:
Re: More on: "What is a Right?"
[quote]On Nov 1, 4:19=A0am, (Doug Bashford) wrote:
=A0On, 24 Oct 2009(PDT), Immortalist said about:
=A0What is a Right?
...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
That's very pretty. =A0I like that!
It's wrong, tho.
..........remaining non-sense snipped.
Were you hoping that your argument was somehow different to the OP's?
MG
[/quote]
Nope. I don't know an OP is.
You and Rod Speed make the same logical argument
as my dog when I step on his tail.
The main difference is, I'm not inclined to pat your head
..
- If you scratch a cynic,
- you'll find a defeated idealist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James A. Donald... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:19:24 GMT, playing at (no spam) work.edu (Doug Bashford)
wrote:
[quote]Since when can a moral claim stop an immoral man?
[/quote]
Morality enables people to cooperate. Thus the immoral man will
usually find himself outnumbered, and very possibly, dead. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tg... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 1:11 pm, Demon Buddha <Nob... at (no spam) no.where> wrote:
[quote]Doug Bashford wrote:
in sci.econ, .googlegroups.com
On, 24 Oct 2009(PDT), Immortalist said about:
What is a Right?
...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
That's very pretty. I like that!
It's wrong, tho.
You seem to be confusing the positive with the normative,
the "is" with the "aught."
Since when can a moral claim stop an immoral man?
A right is a claim that can be backed up by the
strong *right* *arm.* ...by the war club, by the
long sword, by the gun, by a tribe, mob, or government.
We have the origins of two words here:
*right arm* - rights
*arms* - weapons
Um... not quite. I fully agree with everything you write except for
one thing - you confuse with a right and the right to a means. A given
right implies the right to the means of exercising it. My right to my
own life - to preserve it from harm and termination at the hands of
external influences - implies the right to the means of exercise. This
would include instrumentalities such as a knife, my fists, a gun, and so
forth. It also includes behaviors such as shooting someone or simply
running away if possible.
This may seem a subtle distinction, but I feel it is an important one
to be aware of. I believe it is fundamental.
[/quote]
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it means is that the
grantor of the right (the State or State-like jurisdiction) will not
act against you if you can demonstrate that your actions meet certain
criteria.
Likewise, you may have the right to possess weapons, again granted by
the instrumentality of the legal system in your jurisdiction.
[quote]
Many rights can be purchased, such
as land ownership bestows the right to deny
people the right to exist - on your property,
- the right to expel people. Etc...
Not really a purchase of the actual right. The right follows as a
result of the purchase of such land. It is part and parcel of the
condition of one's ownership of a given tract.
[/quote]
There is no 'condition'. Ownership means the ability to deny use of
the thing owned to others. So one does purchase the right because
that's what owning means. Again, depending on specific laws, you will
suffer no consequence from the State or State-like jurisdiction when
you take such action to deny use to others. In some cases the State or
State-like jurisdiction will aid you in that action.
-tg
[quote]
Many rights can be removed from an individual by a
tribe, mob, government, or other arm, such as by jail
or other law or decree by the owner of the largest right
arm at any given time.
No. Rights can never be removed or altered. They are what they are.
They can only be abridged or otherwise violated. In the case of
criminal debt, rights are abridged in accordance with law. While this
can get sticky in pedantic philosophical exchanges, real life demands
this be done. For example, it would probably not work out too well were
violent felons allowed access to firearms.
I don't like that definition, but that's the way it is.
But that isn't really a definition - it is more an observation of
material fact. These are not the same things.
I'd much rather rights were natural or god given, etc,
How do you know that they are not?
which indeed I will claim next time I attempt to
overthrow an existing owner and allocator of rights.
Irrelevant to the circumstance. As you pointed out, relevance lies in
prevailing against an opponent. God given or otherwise, a right means
nothing if one cannot successfully exercise it.
(The last thing to mature in cognitive ability seems to
be the ability to distinguish the positive from the normative.
In fact, it seems many people never mature this far.)
Here we agree.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 9:44 pm, play... at (no spam) work.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
[quote]Nope. I don't know an OP is.
[/quote]
Ewe're a fucking idiot, mortal (the OP original poster) started the
subject on rights calling them a "moral claim" and he refused to
explain the standard he used for moral, which meant his statement that
rights were a moral claim is without meaning, and ewe have contributed
nothing but stupidity.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 3:28 am, tg <tgdenn... at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it means is that the
grantor of the right (the State or State-like jurisdiction) will not
act against you if you can demonstrate that your actions meet certain
criteria.
[/quote]
You ought concern yourself more with giving a meaning to rights - How
does the state determine that "certain criteria"?
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 2:19 am, Coffee's For Closers <Usenet2... at (no spam) THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG>
wrote:
[quote]
There are plenty of situations where immoral people cooperate.
Lynch mobs. Street gangs and mafia. Genocide perpetrators.
Oppressive governments.
OTOH, many immoral people THINK that they are righteous, and that
can contribute to their cooperation.
[/quote]
Exactly, morality without a standard is just a noise when spoken and a
meaningless squiggle when written.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
James A. Donald wrote
[quote](Doug Bashford) wrote
Since when can a moral claim stop an immoral man?
Morality enables people to cooperate. Thus the immoral man
will usually find himself outnumbered, and very possibly, dead.
[/quote]
Try telling that to Madoff. Dont be TOO surprised when he just laughs in your stupid pig ignorant face.
Try telling that to Stalin. Dont be TOO surprised when he just laughs in your stupid pig ignorant face. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Coffee's For Closers... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <7ecte5thrljkpjoeso6thtbhqlv2nt3eeq at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
jamesd at (no spam) echeque.com says...
[quote]On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:19:24 GMT, playing at (no spam) work.edu (Doug Bashford)
wrote:
Since when can a moral claim stop an immoral man?
[/quote]
[quote]Morality enables people to cooperate. Thus the immoral man will
usually find himself outnumbered, and very possibly, dead.
[/quote]
There are plenty of situations where immoral people cooperate.
Lynch mobs. Street gangs and mafia. Genocide perpetrators.
Oppressive governments.
OTOH, many immoral people THINK that they are righteous, and that
can contribute to their cooperation.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| tg... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 5:19 pm, Demon Buddha <Nob... at (no spam) no.where> wrote:
[quote]tg wrote:
This may seem a subtle distinction, but I feel it is an important one
to be aware of. I believe it is fundamental.
No. You may have a right to self-defense, and all it means is that the
grantor of the right (the State or State-like jurisdiction) will not
act against you if you can demonstrate that your actions meet certain
criteria.
States do not grant rights. Nobody does. These are born-in qualities
of humans.
[/quote]
Just like an Immortal Soul, right?
-tg
[quote]
Likewise, you may have the right to possess weapons, again granted by
the instrumentality of the legal system in your jurisdiction.
Again, no. Not granted - either respected and protected, or infringed,
abridged, and thereby violated.
Many rights can be purchased, such
as land ownership bestows the right to deny
people the right to exist - on your property,
- the right to expel people. Etc...
Not really a purchase of the actual right. The right follows as a
result of the purchase of such land. It is part and parcel of the
condition of one's ownership of a given tract.
There is no 'condition'. Ownership means the ability to deny use of
the thing owned to others.
Right. IOW a "condition", i.e., a state of being as opposed to a
"requirement".[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Demon Buddha... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Doug Bashford wrote:
[quote]in sci.econ, .googlegroups.com
On, 24 Oct 2009(PDT), Immortalist said about:
What is a Right?
...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
That's very pretty. I like that!
It's wrong, tho.
You seem to be confusing the positive with the normative,
the "is" with the "aught."
Since when can a moral claim stop an immoral man?
A right is a claim that can be backed up by the
strong *right* *arm.* ...by the war club, by the
long sword, by the gun, by a tribe, mob, or government.
We have the origins of two words here:
*right arm* - rights
*arms* - weapons
[/quote]
Um... not quite. I fully agree with everything you write except for
one thing - you confuse with a right and the right to a means. A given
right implies the right to the means of exercising it. My right to my
own life - to preserve it from harm and termination at the hands of
external influences - implies the right to the means of exercise. This
would include instrumentalities such as a knife, my fists, a gun, and so
forth. It also includes behaviors such as shooting someone or simply
running away if possible.
This may seem a subtle distinction, but I feel it is an important one
to be aware of. I believe it is fundamental.
[quote]
Many rights can be purchased, such
as land ownership bestows the right to deny
people the right to exist - on your property,
- the right to expel people. Etc...
[/quote]
Not really a purchase of the actual right. The right follows as a
result of the purchase of such land. It is part and parcel of the
condition of one's ownership of a given tract.
[quote]
Many rights can be removed from an individual by a
tribe, mob, government, or other arm, such as by jail
or other law or decree by the owner of the largest right
arm at any given time.
[/quote]
No. Rights can never be removed or altered. They are what they are.
They can only be abridged or otherwise violated. In the case of
criminal debt, rights are abridged in accordance with law. While this
can get sticky in pedantic philosophical exchanges, real life demands
this be done. For example, it would probably not work out too well were
violent felons allowed access to firearms.
[quote]I don't like that definition, but that's the way it is.
[/quote]
But that isn't really a definition - it is more an observation of
material fact. These are not the same things.
[quote]I'd much rather rights were natural or god given, etc,
[/quote]
How do you know that they are not?
[quote]which indeed I will claim next time I attempt to
overthrow an existing owner and allocator of rights.
[/quote]
Irrelevant to the circumstance. As you pointed out, relevance lies in
prevailing against an opponent. God given or otherwise, a right means
nothing if one cannot successfully exercise it.
[quote]
(The last thing to mature in cognitive ability seems to
be the ability to distinguish the positive from the normative.
In fact, it seems many people never mature this far.)
[/quote]
Here we agree. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James A. Donald... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 03:46:07 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]James A. Donald wrote
(Doug Bashford) wrote
Since when can a moral claim stop an immoral man?
Morality enables people to cooperate. Thus the immoral man
will usually find himself outnumbered, and very possibly, dead.
Try telling that to Madoff.
[/quote]
Who is now in jail. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
James A. Donald wrote
[quote]Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
James A. Donald wrote
(Doug Bashford) wrote
[/quote]
Thanks for sticking to the traditional attributions.
[quote]Since when can a moral claim stop an immoral man?
Morality enables people to cooperate. Thus the immoral man
will usually find himself outnumbered, and very possibly, dead.
Try telling that to Madoff.
Who is now in jail.
[/quote]
Plenty more just as immoral aint, like Cheney, Paulson etc etc etc. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:25 am
|
|