 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » More on: "What is a Right?"... |
|
Page 2 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Demon Buddha... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
tg wrote:
[quote]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.
[/quote]
States do not grant rights. Nobody does. These are born-in qualities
of humans.
[quote]
Likewise, you may have the right to possess weapons, again granted by
the instrumentality of the legal system in your jurisdiction.
[/quote]
Again, no. Not granted - either respected and protected, or infringed,
abridged, and thereby violated.
[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.
There is no 'condition'. Ownership means the ability to deny use of
the thing owned to others.
[/quote]
Right. IOW a "condition", i.e., a state of being as opposed to a
"requirement". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James A. Donald... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]Morality enables people to cooperate. Thus the
immoral man will usually find himself outnumbered,
and very possibly, dead.
[/quote]
Coffee's For Closers
[quote]There are plenty of situations where immoral people
cooperate. Lynch mobs.
[/quote]
Read up on the contemporary sources about "lynch mobs".
By and large, they were the good guys. They executed
people, mostly white people, on the basis of crimes
committed. Here is how Leland Stanford, who founded
Stanford University and became governor of California,
got his start in politics:
http://www.lathroprush.com/2008-Articles/November/History-PDF/VIGILANTE_JUSTICE.pdf
[quote]Street gangs and mafia.
[/quote]
I don't know about street gangs, but I have often
remarked on the superior manners and decency of mafia as
compared with university professors.
[quote]Genocide perpetrators. Oppressive governments.
[/quote]
Who tend to wind up murdering their supporters and each
other. The vast majority of the North Vietnamese
communist party was executed by the North Vietnamese
Communist party.
These always operate on the basis of substitute
morality, of extremely high, though false and deluded,
moral standards. No one ever massacres the men and the
children in order to steal the cattle and rape the
women. Instead they heroically liquidate the kulaks for
the greater good of the proletariat. When the greater
good of the proletariat fails to eventuate, they
conclude that they are being infiltrated by kulaks or
capitalists or some such, and proceed to execute each
other.
That they have a morality, enables them to cooperate.
That the morality is false and deluded means that this
cooperation has unintended consequences.
As several historians have told us, most infamously
David Chandler, the Khmer Rouge leadership were saints.
Cambodia is largely a flood plain, with most food coming
from land that is regularly under water. Thus if the
central planners were wise and good, centrally planned
agriculture could produce much more food, much more
efficiently, than private agriculture where each peasant
acts without regard for the effects on those downstream
of him, and without knowledge of what peasants upstream
of him are doing.
The Khmer Rouge leadership decided on a program of very
rapid economic development, development by command.
Agriculture and industry based on agriculture would come
first.
To ensure compliance, the Khmer Rouge prohibited
peasants from obtaining food from sources that were
independent of centrally planned water, such as fishing,
fruit trees, and mountain leap rice, and commanded them
to focus on paddy rice, which depends on the flow of
water being controlled, depends on the correct amount of
water being applied at the correct time. They also
issued a flood of very detailed commands about ditches
and dykes to control the flow of water, so that the
correct water would be applied to the rice at the
correct time.
Of course since the central planners issuing these
commands were far away from the water that was flowing,
the mud that had to be moved, and the people that had to
move it, these commands were mostly nonsense.
The unfortunates receiving these commands from the
center found it very difficult to tell the center that
they were screwing up. The high command correctly and
reasonably believed that there were numerous
conspiracies, both internal and foreign sponsored,
seeking to overthrow the high command, and incorrectly
and unreasonably believed that any failure or problem
was a result of the malevolent activities of these
conspiracies.
Thus when someone in the provinces, in command of a few
thousand slaves received a disastrous command the safest
course was to attempt to obey it, no matter what the
likely cost in human lives.
The high command would from time to time shift large
numbers of slaves from one task to another, without
keeping track of how many people were assigned to what,
so they never realized that the number of captives was
diminishing at a disturbing rate.
Because no one dared tell them what was really
happening, they honestly believed that the sacrifices
they commanded were successful and popular, and rapidly
building a new and prosperous Cambodia, when in fact
huge numbers of people were dying, and Cambodia was
collapsing to the stone age.
They intended to do good to people, and honestly
believed they were highly successful in doing so. Like
most similarly saintly do gooders, they intended to do
good to people by confiscating their property, by
enslaving them, and by torturing and killing anyone so
benighted, selfish, and wicked as to stand in the way of
all the good that they intended to do.
When all the good that they intended to do failed to
eventuate, the Khmer Rouge proceeded to execute most of
the Khmer Rouge. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 7:19 am, Demon Buddha <Nob... at (no spam) no.where> wrote:
[quote]
States do not grant rights. Nobody does. These are born-in qualities
of humans.
[/quote]
Only human individuals exist, the human individual can not grant to
another human individual, what that human individual already has, his/
her own life, the right to life can only ever be violated, never
granted.
There is only one basic and fundamental right, its the right to life,
his (man's - the human individual) life, all other so called rights
are a corollary / an ancillary, of that one right. It therefore can
only be the results of your energy (generated by your mind) that you
have a right to.
The food you have a right to, therefore can only be the food that your
energy was used to obtain, e.g. via growing / producing or via
trade.
Those who claim the state grants rights are (1) looking for the excuse
to run away from the flip side of rights, the responibility they come
with and or (2) are the same scum who will, e.g. via the vote, violate
them.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
James A. Donald wrote
[quote]Coffee's For Closers wrote
Morality enables people to cooperate.
Thus the immoral man will usually find himself
outnumbered, and very possibly, dead.
There are plenty of situations where immoral people cooperate. Lynch mobs.
Read up on the contemporary sources about "lynch mobs".
[/quote]
Dont need to.
[quote]By and large, they were the good guys.
[/quote]
Like hell they were. In spades in the south when blacks were the target.
[quote]They executed people, mostly white people,
[/quote]
Another lie with the US.
[quote]on the basis of crimes committed.
[/quote]
In fact on the basis of CLAIMS of crimes committed, another matter entirely.
[quote]Here is how Leland Stanford, who founded Stanford University
and became governor of California, got his start in politics:
http://www.lathroprush.com/2008-Articles/November/History-PDF/VIGILANTE_JUSTICE.pdf
[/quote]
Irrelevant to what the bulk of them were and who the bulk of the corpses were.
[quote]Street gangs and mafia.
I don't know about street gangs,
[/quote]
Or anything else either.
[quote]but I have often remarked on the superior manners and
decency of mafia as compared with university professors.
[/quote]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of a what a terminal
fuckwit you have always been. Not too many university professors
had their opposition gunned down, fuckwit.
[quote]Genocide perpetrators. Oppressive governments.
Who tend to wind up murdering their supporters and each other.
[/quote]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
[quote]The vast majority of the North Vietnamese
communist party was executed by the
North Vietnamese Communist party.
These always operate on the basis of substitute morality,
[/quote]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
[quote]of extremely high, though false and deluded, moral standards.
[/quote]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
[quote]No one ever massacres the men and the children
in order to steal the cattle and rape the women.
[/quote]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
[quote]Instead they heroically liquidate the kulaks
for the greater good of the proletariat.
[/quote]
Have fun explaining what Adolf did to the jews and poles on that basis.
And what Mouseolini did in north africa in spades.
And what the Han chinese did in Tibet in spades.
[quote]When the greater good of the proletariat fails to eventuate,
they conclude that they are being infiltrated by kulaks or
capitalists or some such, and proceed to execute each other.
[/quote]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
That wasnt what Beria or Stalin was about.
[quote]That they have a morality, enables them to cooperate.
That the morality is false and deluded means that this
cooperation has unintended consequences.
[/quote]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
[quote]As several historians have told us, most infamously
David Chandler, the Khmer Rouge leadership were saints.
[/quote]
He's the only fool actually stupid enough to run that mindlessly silly line.
[quote]Cambodia is largely a flood plain, with most food
coming from land that is regularly under water.
[/quote]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
[quote]Thus if the central planners were wise and good, centrally
planned agriculture could produce much more food, much
more efficiently, than private agriculture where each peasant
acts without regard for the effects on those downstream
of him, and without knowledge of what peasants upstream
of him are doing.
[/quote]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
[quote]The Khmer Rouge leadership decided on a program of very
rapid economic development, development by command.
[/quote]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
[quote]Agriculture and industry based on agriculture would come first.
[/quote]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
[quote]To ensure compliance, the Khmer Rouge prohibited
peasants from obtaining food from sources that were
independent of centrally planned water, such as fishing,
fruit trees, and mountain leap rice, and commanded them
to focus on paddy rice, which depends on the flow of
water being controlled, depends on the correct amount of
water being applied at the correct time. They also
issued a flood of very detailed commands about ditches
and dykes to control the flow of water, so that the correct
water would be applied to the rice at the correct time.
[/quote]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been.
[quote]Of course since the central planners issuing these
commands were far away from the water that was flowing,
the mud that had to be moved, and the people that had to
move it, these commands were mostly nonsense.
The unfortunates receiving these commands from
the center found it very difficult to tell the center that
they were screwing up. The high command correctly
and reasonably believed that there were numerous
conspiracies, both internal and foreign sponsored,
seeking to overthrow the high command, and incorrectly
and unreasonably believed that any failure or problem was
a result of the malevolent activities of these conspiracies.
Thus when someone in the provinces, in command of a few
thousand slaves received a disastrous command the safest
course was to attempt to obey it, no matter what the
likely cost in human lives.
The high command would from time to time shift large
numbers of slaves from one task to another, without
keeping track of how many people were assigned to what,
so they never realized that the number of captives was
diminishing at a disturbing rate.
Because no one dared tell them what was really
happening, they honestly believed that the sacrifices
they commanded were successful and popular, and rapidly
building a new and prosperous Cambodia, when in fact
huge numbers of people were dying, and Cambodia was
collapsing to the stone age.
They intended to do good to people, and honestly
believed they were highly successful in doing so. Like
most similarly saintly do gooders, they intended to do
good to people by confiscating their property, by
enslaving them, and by torturing and killing anyone so
benighted, selfish, and wicked as to stand in the way of
all the good that they intended to do.
When all the good that they intended to do failed to
eventuate, the Khmer Rouge proceeded to execute most of
the Khmer Rouge.
[/quote]
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of
a what a terminal fuckwit you have always been. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Les Cargill... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
James A. Donald wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 03:46:07 +1100, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Who is now in jail.
[/quote]
it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
--
Les Cargill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Les Cargill wrote
[quote]James A. Donald wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote
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.
Who is now in jail.
it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
[/quote]
Only in your pathetic little fantasyland.
Pity about Stalin, Paulson, Cheney, etc etc etc.
Dont be TOO surprised when they ALL just laugh in your silly little pig ignorant face. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Doug Bashford... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 02 Nov 2009, Demon Buddha said about:
Re: More on: "What is a Right?"
[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.
[/quote]
I don't know what you are trying to say.
Natural (or god-given) right Vs. power-given right?
[quote]A given
right implies the right to the means of exercising it.
[/quote]
You imply a natural right does not?
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Loosely, of course!
[quote]
This may seem a subtle distinction, but I feel it is an important one
to be aware of. I believe it is fundamental.
[/quote]
Then please expand, I don't get it.
[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.
[/quote]
Your below argument does not support that.
[quote]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]
The label on a can of corn: same-same. You purchased
the label too. The paint on your car: same-same.
A bundled purchase.
With land comes several rights beyond the ownership of
other possesions, as noted. This is a main reason
why land ownership is by far the most controversial
of ownership rights. Many of these rights strip
other's rights, such as free speech, assembly, etc,
that I include as the the right to deny existance
(tresspass).
Another example: In a libertarian world where everything
is privatized, where could you assemble or gather signatures
without getting sombody's permission? Answer: only on YOUR
property. If your ideas are unpopular, you have just been
effectivley silenced.
Now where are your rights?
[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.
[/quote]
They are what they are???
In jail they aint even on a piece of paper.
That's what they *ARE.*
[quote]They can only be abridged or otherwise violated. In the case of
criminal debt, rights are abridged in accordance with law.
[/quote]
That does not disagree with what I've written.
[quote]While this
can get sticky in pedantic philosophical exchanges, real life demands
this be done.
[/quote]
This is hardly a technicality! You said it best:
=== "God given or otherwise, a right means nothing
=== if one cannot successfully exercise it."
"means nothing"
[quote]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.
[/quote]
True enough. Most often.
[quote]
I'd much rather rights were natural or god given, etc,
How do you know that they are not?
[/quote]
You said it best:
=== "God given or otherwise, a right means nothing
=== if one cannot successfully exercise it."
If in jail, or at work, or without land or in a world of all
private property, one one cannot successfully exercise
several rights. These are only a few examples.
=== "God given or otherwise, a right means nothing
=== if one cannot successfully exercise it."
"means nothing"
[quote]
which indeed I will claim next time I attempt to
overthrow an existing owner and allocator of rights.
Irrelevant to the circumstance.
[/quote]
....My feeble attempt at humor and to segue into:
"...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."
Keep in mind, neither of those papers are self-evident,
natural, nor god-given, despite the assumptions of many,
or the claims of those pieces of paper themselves.
[quote]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]
Cool!
- If you scratch a cynic,
- you'll find a defeated idealist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Doug Bashford... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Gordge said about:
Re: More on: "What is a Right?"
[quote]You ought concern yourself more with giving a meaning to rights - How
does the state determine that "certain criteria"? > MG
[/quote]
The reason nobody replies to you repetative demands
is that everybody but you speaks English or owns
a dictionary and we can work Google.
You want to talk about words. Educate yourself, and
you can move on up to concepts & stuff.
You really seem kinda silly. Young?
- If you scratch a cynic,
- you'll find a defeated idealist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Doug Bashford... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009, Demon Buddha said about:
Re: More on: "What is a Right?"
[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]
In what part of the body are they located?
Do any non-human things have rights?
Do puppies have a right to not be randomly skinned alive, etc?
What about a forest?
If not, why not?
Expand please.
[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.
[/quote]
Prove it please.
"God given or otherwise, a right means nothing
if one cannot successfully exercise it."
[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]
Rights and land are a bundled purchase, some of those
rights go beyond all other kinds of ownership rights,
as I explained in more detail in another post.
(I'll not repeat it, but that argument is needed.)
Some of those rights are not internationally recognized.
For example, in England, the People retain walk-about
rights in pasture lands. The farmers build gates
to keep their fences from being trampled.
So is America better? Or is England?
And what of my public property rights?
....say on National Forest land?...to build
a bonfire and walk in any direction, and sleep
anywhere, to shoot, without telling or asking
a soul, or mine it or graze livestock
and so on (in most areas)?
No, they are NOT "part and parcel...."
[quote]There is no 'condition'. Ownership means the ability to deny use of
the thing owned to others.
[/quote]
Not always. I mention this simple to deny the
claims of absolutes here. ...Seemingly; magical or
superhuman or god-given powers.
If it's not Absolute, then it's in the paperwork.
....given & enforced by those with power, else that right
exists nowhere but the imagination.
People seem to be confusing the moral bifurcation
"right & wrong," with "rights" & their absence,
which may not always be opposites.
[quote] Right. IOW a "condition", i.e., a state of being as opposed to a
"requirement".
[/quote]
I don't know what you are trying to say there.
- If you scratch a cynic,
- you'll find a defeated idealist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Doug Bashford... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Michael Gordge said about:
Re: More on: "What is a Right?"
[quote]On Nov 3, 7:19=A0am, Demon Buddha <Nob... at (no spam) no.where> wrote:
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 States do not grant rights. =A0Nobody does. =A0These are =
born-in qualities
of humans.
Only human individuals exist,
[/quote]
To whome do you send your taxes?
[quote]the human individual can not grant to another human individual,
what that human individual already has, his/
her own life,
[/quote]
That's seemingly a positive statement.
The thing that prevents this is in which organ?
Or is it outside the body?
How big is it? What color?
[quote]the right to life can only ever be violated, never
granted.
[/quote]
That's seemingly a normitive statement.
You mix the positive and the normitive in the same sentence
and seemingly call them equiv. That would be a logical fallacy.
Care to clarify?
Allow me. Your seemingly a positive statement was intended
as a normitive statement in your guts. However your wording
prevents us from knowing/debating your argument.
Please reword. The below also; same problem. Your bad
wording makes you say silly things.
Clue: stop trying to sound like Moses and Limbaugh.
....that only works among your worshippers.
[quote]There is only one basic and fundamental right, its the right to life,
his (man's - the human individual) life, all other so called rights
are a corollary / an ancillary, of that one right.
[/quote]
Oh brother. Standard Randroidian LP libertarianism.
No wonder you want us to define everything!
....you are not aware that words have findable,
real and solid definitions!
(Redefined words is how they control you.)
see:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?safe=off&q=%22orwellian+linguistics%22+libertarian&btnG=Search&sitesearch=
[quote]It therefore can
only be the results of your energy (generated by your mind) that you
have a right to.
[/quote]
Huh?
[quote]
The food you have a right to, therefore can only be the food that your
energy was used to obtain, e.g. via growing / producing or via
trade.
Those who claim the state grants rights are (1) looking for the excuse
to run away from the flip side of rights, the responibility they come
with and or (2) are the same scum who will, e.g. via the vote, violate
them. > MG
[/quote]
You simply give unsupported opinion.
And because you have had your vocabulary redefined
for you by your Randroidian heros, you are unable
to communicate with outsiders. That's how they like it.
Your problem is, (odds are) you never knew the original
(real) definitions, therefore you are not aware of this.
I predict that all you hear people talking about is
nonsense. Gobaly gook. Guess what? -- That's how you
sound to us.
again see:
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?safe=off&q=%22orwellian+linguistics%22+libertarian&btnG=Search&sitesearch=
They have striped you of the second most vital right
of all: communication.
- If you scratch a cynic,
- you'll find a defeated idealist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Demon Buddha... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
tg wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 5:19 pm, Demon Buddha <Nob... at (no spam) no.where> wrote:
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.
Just like an Immortal Soul, right?
[/quote]
I made no mention of any such thing. The rights actually follow very
naturally and reasonably if one accepts the notion of the equivalence of
all people. Notice I did not say "equality". We are NOT equal, which
would imply we were clones. But we are equivalent in a metaphysical
sense - that is, we are of equal value as living beings. To reject this
notion is to open the door to every evil we may be able to conceive and
perhaps a few we haven't yet discovered. If you and I are not of equal
value as beings, then if I possess superior instrumentality there is no
argument you or anyone could make against my making you my slave, or
just killing you for kicks. In such a case, might defines right.
If, OTOH, we accept the simple premise that we are all of equal value
as "units of life" (yes, inadequate, but I cannot find a better term for
the sake of being conversational), then the whole set of inherent and
inalienable human rights evolves from this very naturally. For example,
if you and I are of equal value, which is to say that we are equivalent
- that we are equals as living beings - then I hold no moral authority
to compel you to do anything, nor you me except as we may beforehand
come to agree, such as in an employer/employee relationship. If I
attempt to force you to do something against your will, while I may be
able to materially succeed, I would have done so only by virtue of
superior force and not as the result of any moral imperative. IOW, I
would have violated your rights.
The pure pragmatist may say that this is all irrelevant and from a
certain POV it could well be. But we choose the sorts of lives we want,
generally speaking, and I think I prefer something of principles beyond
that of the instrumentality of pure brute force to be the basis upon
which our lives are governed. I think it makes for better living. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Demon Buddha... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Coffee's For Closers wrote:
[quote]OTOH, many immoral people THINK that they are righteous,
[/quote]
Good point. I have said many times that it is highly unlikely that
uncle Adolph woke up every morning asking himself what new Eville(tm)
might he foist upon the world. He and his cadre seemed to really
believe they were ushering in a golden age for Germany. Roads to hell
and all that... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 8:58 pm, Demon Buddha <Nob... at (no spam) no.where> wrote:
[quote]tg wrote:
On Nov 2, 5:19 pm, Demon Buddha <Nob... at (no spam) no.where> wrote:
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.
Just like an Immortal Soul, right?
I made no mention of any such thing. The rights actually follow very
naturally and reasonably if one accepts the notion of the equivalence of
all people. Notice I did not say "equality". We are NOT equal, which
would imply we were clones. But we are equivalent in a metaphysical
sense - that is, we are of equal value as living beings.
[/quote]
That seems like a religious position to me. Value
implies choice or preference. What is being preferred
over what, and by whom? Assuming value is
meaningful when applied to "us" -- another undefined
element -- what does equality of value mean, the
mysterious evaluator can't decide between some
of "us" and others?
You also neglect to show why rights follow from
this equivalence of value. I don't see any obvious
connection.
[quote]To reject this
notion is to open the door to every evil we may be able to conceive and
perhaps a few we haven't yet discovered. If you and I are not of equal
value as beings, then if I possess superior instrumentality there is no
argument you or anyone could make against my making you my slave, or
just killing you for kicks. In such a case, might defines right.
[/quote]
The primary arguments most animals will make
against being killed or enslaved are violent self-
defense and flight. Neither of these is an appeal
to an abstraction. In fact, abstractions seem
completely powerless in such a case -- if not,
we should observe bacteria invoking them
against the threats of predators.
[quote] If, OTOH, we accept the simple premise that we are all of equal value
as "units of life" (yes, inadequate, but I cannot find a better term for
the sake of being conversational), then the whole set of inherent and
inalienable human rights evolves from this very naturally. For example,
if you and I are of equal value, which is to say that we are equivalent
- that we are equals as living beings - then I hold no moral authority
to compel you to do anything, nor you me except as we may beforehand
come to agree, such as in an employer/employee relationship. If I
attempt to force you to do something against your will, while I may be
able to materially succeed, I would have done so only by virtue of
superior force and not as the result of any moral imperative. IOW, I
would have violated your rights.
[/quote]
So rights emanate from supposed resolutions of contests of
power. But then, so do hierarchy and slavery.
[quote] The pure pragmatist may say that this is all irrelevant and from a
certain POV it could well be. But we choose the sorts of lives we want,
generally speaking, and I think I prefer something of principles beyond
that of the instrumentality of pure brute force to be the basis upon
which our lives are governed. I think it makes for better living.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Immortalist... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 11:19 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.
You seem to be confusing the positive with the normative,
the "is" with the "aught."
[/quote]
The only "aught" is whether you want to become a citizen and give up
some of your rights to be violent to the State or become a drifter.
By consenting to be a member of a community, citizens consent to a
Social Contract. They agree to abide by the decisions of the majority,
because the community is a body which is governed by the majority.
Government by Consent of the Governed.
In essence the social contract theory is an agreement whereby people
accept certain restrictions on them for the benefit of society.
Social contract theory is the view that morality is founded solely on
uniform social agreements that serve the best interests of those who
make the agreement.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/soc-cont.htm
(1) Human rights, or natural rights, are rights which some hold to be
"inalienable" and belonging to all humans, according to (2) natural
law. Such rights are thought, by proponents, to be necessary for
freedom and the maintenance of a "reasonable" quality of life.
1. Natural Rights: political theory that maintains that an individual
enters into society with certain basic rights and that no government
can deny these rights. The modern idea of natural rights grew out of
the ancient and medieval doctrines of natural law , i.e., the belief
that people, as creatures of nature and God, should live their lives
and organize their society on the basis of rules and precepts laid
down by nature or God. With the growth of the idea of individualism,
especially in the 17th cent., natural law doctrines were modified to
stress the fact that individuals, because they are natural beings,
have rights that cannot be violated by anyone or by any society.
Perhaps the most famous formulation of this doctrine is found in the
writings of John Locke . Locke assumed that humans were by nature
rational and good, and that they carried into political society the
same rights they had enjoyed in earlier stages of society, foremost
among them being freedom of worship, the right to a voice in their own
government, and the right of property. Jean Jacques Rousseau attempted
to reconcile the natural rights of the individual with the need for
social unity and cooperation through the idea of the social contract .
The most important elaboration of the idea of natural rights came in
the North American colonies, however, where the writings of Thomas
Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Paine made of the natural rights
theory a powerful justification for revolution. The classic
expressions of natural rights are the English Bill of Rights (1689),
the American Declaration of Independence (1776), the French
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789), the first 10
amendments to the Constitution of the United States (known as the Bill
of Rights, 1791), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the
United Nations (1948).
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/n1/natrlrig.asp
2. Natural Law: theory that some laws are basic and fundamental to
human nature and are discoverable by human reason without reference to
specific legislative enactments or judicial decisions. Natural law is
opposed to positive law, which is human-made, conditioned by history,
and subject to continuous change. The concept of natural law
originated with the Greeks and received its most important formulation
in Stoicism . The Stoics believed that the fundamental moral
principles that underlie all the legal systems of different nations
were reducible to the dictates of natural law. This idea became
particularly important in Roman legal theory, which eventually came to
recognize a common code regulating the conduct of all peoples and
existing alongside the individual codes of specific places and times
(see natural rights ). Christian philosophers such as St. Thomas
Aquinas perpetuated this idea, asserting that natural law was common
to all peoples—Christian and non-Christian alike—while adding that
revealed law gave Christians an additional guide for their actions. In
modern times, the theory of natural law became the chief basis for the
development by Hugo Grotius of the theory of international law. In the
17th cent., such philosophers as Spinoza and G. W. von Leibniz
interpreted natural law as the basis of ethics and morality; in the
18th cent. the teachings of Jean Jacques Rousseau , especially as
interpreted during the French Revolution, made natural law a basis for
democratic and egalitarian principles. The influence of natural law
theory declined greatly in the 19th cent. under the impact of
positivism , empiricism , and materialism . In the 20th cent., such
thinkers as Jacques Maritain saw in natural law a necessary
intellectual opposition to totalitarian theories.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/n1/natrllaw.asp
http://www.spectacle.org/0400/natural.html
http://www.libertocracy.com/Librademia/Essays/Government/%5B7-univerdefinlaw.htm
http://jim.com/rights.html
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1206.html
http://www.freecolorado.com/2003/12/naturalrights.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights
[quote]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.)
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.
...........snip
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] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Anarcissie wrote
[quote]Demon Buddha <Nob... at (no spam) no.where> wrote
tg wrote
Demon Buddha <Nob... at (no spam) no.where> wrote
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.
Just like an Immortal Soul, right?
I made no mention of any such thing. The rights actually follow very
naturally and reasonably if one accepts the notion of the equivalence
of all people. Notice I did not say "equality". We are NOT equal, which
would imply we were clones. But we are equivalent in a metaphysical
sense - that is, we are of equal value as living beings.
That seems like a religious position to me.
[/quote]
It isnt. Its more an instinctive gut feeling.
Little kids very quickly develop pretty firm ideas about what is and is not fair
about what they get told to do, or what they end up with, LONG before they
are capable of reasoning or being able to grasp religious concepts etc.
[quote]Value implies choice or preference. What is being preferred over what, and by whom?
[/quote]
Yes, but thats got nothing to do with religion.
[quote]Assuming value is meaningful when applied to "us"
-- another undefined element -- what does equality
of value mean, the mysterious evaluator can't
decide between some of "us" and others?
You also neglect to show why rights follow from this
equivalence of value. I don't see any obvious connection.
[/quote]
It does follow that if you believe you are equivalent in a metaphysical sense
in the sense he is talking about, that individual rights follow from that in the
sense that you have as much right to something as anyone else etc.
[quote]To reject this notion is to open the door to every evil we may be
able to conceive and perhaps a few we haven't yet discovered.
If you and I are not of equal value as beings, then if I possess
superior instrumentality there is no argument you or anyone
could make against my making you my slave, or just killing
you for kicks. In such a case, might defines right.
The primary arguments most animals will make against
being killed or enslaved are violent self-defense and flight.
[/quote]
Its much more complicated than that. And those are instincts, not rights, anyway.
[quote]Neither of these is an appeal to an abstraction.
In fact, abstractions seem completely powerless
in such a case -- if not, we should observe bacteria
invoking them against the threats of predators.
If, OTOH, we accept the simple premise that we are all of equal value
as "units of life" (yes, inadequate, but I cannot find a better term for
the sake of being conversational), then the whole set of inherent and
inalienable human rights evolves from this very naturally. For example,
if you and I are of equal value, which is to say that we are equivalent
- that we are equals as living beings - then I hold no moral authority
to compel you to do anything, nor you me except as we may beforehand
come to agree, such as in an employer/employee relationship. If I
attempt to force you to do something against your will, while I may be
able to materially succeed, I would have done so only by virtue of
superior force and not as the result of any moral imperative. IOW,
I would have violated your rights.
So rights emanate from supposed resolutions of contests of power.
[/quote]
No they dont.
[quote]But then, so do hierarchy and slavery.
The pure pragmatist may say that this is all irrelevant and from a
certain POV it could well be. But we choose the sorts of lives we want,
generally speaking, and I think I prefer something of principles beyond
that of the instrumentality of pure brute force to be the basis upon
which our lives are governed. I think it makes for better living.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:55 am
|
|