10 Oct 06
1 edit
...are universal, all humans share the same rights, regardless of which part of the planet we are born on and regardless of skin colour, hair frizzieness, jooby lips and shoe size. The term individual rights is a redundancy, there is no other type, society is not an entity and cannot possess rights, nor is the state an entity, it cannot possess rights. There are exceptions the main one being, those that do not respect others rights may inturn have some rights removed from them. Also, as much as I hate to admit it, grey areas, the age of consent being one.
...are not conferred on us by society or the state, we have rights as a result of being rational reasoning beings.
A 'right' is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.
Bonus Rand quote to freak the collectivists: "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context."
Ayn Rand
The Right to life:
The grand daddy of all rights, this is not granted to us by the state or our neighbour. This is not to say that others must provide us with the means to life, it means they cannot take our life away. All other rights flow from this.
The Right to liberty.
The Right to acquire property.
The Right to pursue happiness. Does not mean you have a right to happiness, an important distinction. The point I'm trying to make here is that, to exercise a right is to 'act'. You have a right to acquire property (an action), once it's acquired you have it. You have a right to pursue happiness, once you have attained happiness you have it.
The Right to defend any of the above.
No-one has a right to a roof over their head, a bowl of rice, a litre of filtered water, free (aka make someone else pay) health care, a swimming pool etc etc. None of these things are "rights", unless you have entered into a contract with another voluntary party or by your own labour.
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf
10 Oct 06
1 edit
Dear Wajoma,
Welcome to the old debate between ius naturalists and ius positivists
🙂
Just one thing, the problem with ius naturalism is that it has a basic contradiction, a birth defect so to speak: Who says which are those universal, atemporal rights? A church, a person, a humming bird?
The concept of universal rights nowadays is quite an amorphous yet recognizable list only because the world community has supported them quite in a majority fashion, granting them such status as a consequence, and thus gaining recognition thanks to positivism... positivism at its best: The only law is the one obligatory in certain spatial and temporal point due to social organization translated into a functioning State.
Regarding societal rights, on the other hand, they do exist and several Constitutions around the world tend to gather them under a branch studied by Social Law, in parallel to Private and Public Law (the old distinction). They, the social rights, are aimed at foggy yet recognizable groups that are considered fragile or needed for protection by the majority, such as workers, peasants, etc.
As an admirer of the Continental, civil law tradition, I find it difficult to embrace the fuzzy, vague and romantic common law tendency to universalize, yet I recognize its contributions to legal studies.
Nice to exchange ideas with you, mate.
Have a nice day! 🙂
10 Oct 06
Originally posted by SeitseAre you saying that the "continental, civil law tradition" you admire conflicts with the idea of inalienable Rights?
Dear Wajoma,
Welcome to the old debate between ius naturalists and ius positivists
🙂
Just one thing, the problem with ius naturalism is that it has a basic contradiction, a birth defect so to speak: Who says which are those universal, atemporal rights? A church, a person, a humming bird?
The concept of universal right ...[text shortened]... contributions to legal studies.
Nice to exchange ideas with you, mate.
Have a nice day! 🙂
10 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo. Where?
Are you saying that the "continental, civil law tradition" you admire conflicts with the idea of inalienable Rights?
Edit.
Oh, I got it, TY. No, it is not in conflict, yet it tends to since the focus is on fast-paced case advancement of societal changes, instead of the more parsimonious, predictable & thorough pace of the civil system.
Two civil traditions, for example, show that non-conflict:
The Republic recognises and guarantees the inviolable rights of the person, as an individual and in the social groups where human personality is expressed. The Republic expects that the fundamental duties of political, economic and social solidarity be fulfilled.
Italian constitution, article 1
In the Mexican United States all individuals shall be entitled to the privileges and immunities granted by this Constitution. Such privileges and immunities shall not be restricted or suspendedn, but in the cases and under the conditions established by this Constitution itself.
Mexican constitution, article 1
=========================
As you can see, in the first one the State recognises what it is accepted to exist notwithstanding the State. In the second case (a roman-canonic-germanic system), individuals have rights only in the extent and due to the legal recognition of it by the supreme chart.
10 Oct 06
Originally posted by SeitseNot 100% clear on your position:
Dear Wajoma,
Welcome to the old debate between ius naturalists and ius positivists
🙂
Just one thing, the problem with ius naturalism is that it has a basic contradiction, a birth defect so to speak: Who says which are those universal, atemporal rights? A church, a person, a humming bird?
The concept of universal right ...[text shortened]... contributions to legal studies.
Nice to exchange ideas with you, mate.
Have a nice day! 🙂
The problem being the origin of rights? One may well ask the same question of the ius positivists.
As mentioned in the first post, man has rights as a result of what he is, as a result of the nature of humans, what they are i.e rational reasoning beings with the ability to recognise what rights are. Basically what sits on top of his shoulders and what it is capable of.
On universality: This does not rely on the popular opinion of the world community. What is right and wrong does not rest on which idea has the most believers. To say that through some accident of birth a person born on one side of an imaginary line scratched in the dirt (a border between countries) has no right to life if they say bad things about the guvamint is wrong. They have that right, just that some guvamints violate that right.
11 Oct 06
Originally posted by WajomaI fail to see why a collectivist would be 'freaked' by this quote. Of all the bile that Rand has vomited forth, that seems rather benign.
Bonus Rand quote to freak the collectivists: "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context."
Ayn Rand
11 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettDo you have any constructive criticism of the quote, perhaps you have a better definition that is not cut and pasted from dictionary.com.
I fail to see why a collectivist would be 'freaked' by this quote. Of all the bile that Rand has vomited forth, that seems rather benign.
Edit: "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
Ayn Rand
hehe
11 Oct 06
2 edits
Originally posted by WajomaI see your point and value it, as I value any ius naturalist for his/her inspiring views. I define myself as someone who stands right in the middle of both positions, and here is my rationale:
Not 100% clear on your position:
The problem being the origin of rights? One may well ask the same question of the ius positivists.
As mentioned in the first post, man has rights as a result of what he is, as a result of the nature of humans, what they are i.e rational reasoning beings with the ability to recognise what rights are. Basically what sit ...[text shortened]... about the guvamint is wrong. They have that right, just that some guvamints violate that right.
1
I accept that a human being has rights for the sole reason of his/her existence. Rights that are basic and necessary to the extent those rights are inalienable to the concept of human individual and the minimum platform for the survival in harmony of the individual and the individual in society
(Let's not forget that a human is necessarily a societal being and without society there is no human or not for long at least... plus, without the concept of society Law has no meaning as the societal tool it is)
2
Notwithstanding point 1, those rights are only enforceable within the societal creation called State, since there is a sovereign entity that empowered by the constitution (which gathers popular sovereignty and gives OR recognizes those rights to some extent) has the monopoly of force (necessary to keep social harmony) with which it can protect the individuals (population) within a given territory. There you can see the 3 elements of State: Power, people & territory, and a almost perfect circle of rights recognition and defence; specially defence, because if those rights are not defended, then they are just paper
Conclusion I believe in basic human rights we all posses for the sole reason of being human. However, as a realist, I recognize that those rights can be listed nowadays ONLY because there is some sort of a consensus worldwide regarding which rights are those*. PLUS, those rights can ONLY be protected and defended when within a State, there is a recognition and defence of such rights given a specific individual.
* Without this consensus, the question arises again: Who dictates those rights and which ones are they, where do they come from, for what? etc.
12 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseI believe by developing a consistent philosophical system from metaphysics through epistimology and ethics the result is the concept of rights as stated in post one. So much of what is discussed on this board concerns 'rights', which was the idea behind this thread, let's get back to the basics.
I see your point and value it, as I value any ius naturalist for his/her inspiring views. I define myself as someone who stands right in the middle of both positions, and here is my rationale:
[b]1
[i]I accept that a human being has rights for the sole reason of his/her existence. Rights that are basic and necessary to the extent those rights are i ain: Who dictates those rights and which ones are they, where do they come from, for what? etc.[/b]
Through out our lives we must strive to know what is true. There would have been a time in history when the majority believed the world was flat, were they right by sheer weight of numbers.
When a person realises that their highest value is to live life as a human being, then they must realise a corollary of this that his neighbour has the same value.
A person is justified in joining with others to protect their rights (the state) by forming a police force, defence force and judicial system.
12 Oct 06
Originally posted by WajomaAlthough I do not disagreee with this, I think the main breakpoint of the views we are exposing here is the belief in a State as a separate being* who gathers the slice of freedom surrendered by us within any given social contract, and which uses the sum of those delivered wills to elevate to protection sensitive the status of any rights a society considers worth declaring and protecting at any given time and space.
I believe by developing a consistent philosophical system from metaphysics through epistimology and ethics the result is the concept of rights as stated in post one. So much of what is discussed on this board concerns 'rights', which was the idea behind this thread, let's get back to the basics.
Through out our lives we must strive to know what is true. ...[text shortened]... rotect their rights (the state) by forming a police force, defence force and judicial system.
There was a time when societies considered a right to own slaves, for example, and although currently the western world considers such practice a horrific one, contrary to the most basic human rights, it is because the consensus of a given social contract reflected into the State (and the sum of States: the international community) those new values that recognize what you are stating (and I underline recognize).
* Of course it is a fictional person, a fictional being, yet it has all the juridical characteristics of a human being with exception of the civil status (marriage, adoption, etc.)
12 Oct 06
Originally posted by WajomaNope.
...are universal, all humans share the same rights, regardless of which part of the planet we are born on and regardless of skin colour, hair frizzieness, jooby lips and shoe size. The term individual rights is a redundancy, there is no other type, society is not an entity and cannot possess rights, nor is the state an entity, it cannot possess rights. There ...[text shortened]... ur.
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf
Rights are conveyed by whatever society or group you are part of. You have the right to life because you live in a society that says you do.
That there is is a 'Platonic ideal' of absolute rights somewhere is an attractive and appealing idea. God is a similar absolute, appealing concept. But trying to prove that either exists is impossible.
You can BELIEVE in Fundamental Rights or God -- no problem there. But there is no logical argument to compel others to the same belief.
Rather, what you find is that people tend to grant the same rights to one another because it makes life collectively less risky (e.g. I will say you have the right to life if you agree to the same for me).
We arrive at what are known as Fundamental Rights through experience, iteration, and experimentation.
13 Oct 06
Originally posted by SeitseWe are 'victims' of our environment, rather than being controllers?
Pretty much this is it, Wajoma, mate.
You both disagree with the definition "A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others."?
Maybe you could offer another that we can get a grip on. If the above definition is not true we head towards "might is right", which I flatly deny. What is true is not decided by popular opinion or whoever happens to be holding the biggest stick. Enslaving fellow men is never a 'right' or right.
That is what we are looking for, what is right....what is true. We need to take a step back.
Man survives as man by his ability to reason.
Agree/disagree?
14 Oct 06
Originally posted by WajomaPermissio of others
We are 'victims' of our environment, rather than being controllers?
You both disagree with the definition "A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others."?
Maybe you could offer another that we can get a grip on. If the above definition is not true we head towards "might is right", which I flatly deny. What is true is not decided ...[text shortened]... ake a step back.
Man survives as man by his ability to reason.
Agree/disagree?
I must munch that one for a while, because it keeps making some
noise in my head. Perhaps we should take off from a basic premise:
homo homini lupus, 'el hombre es un lobo para el hombre'
which I find hard to translate into English with the same strength but
I guess it would be "man is a wolf to man".
What would you say about it as a departing point?
14 Oct 06
Originally posted by WajomaI'm saying rights are like laws -- they are man-made. You can say, 'this law was passed at such-and-such a time' but the origin of rights is much further back. They come down like an oral tradition. That's why rights are more fundamental but at the same time less specific than laws. Laws are passed to 'flesh out' rights with details and most importantly consequences, which rights don't generally specify.
We are 'victims' of our environment, rather than being controllers?
You both disagree with the definition "A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others."?
Maybe you could offer another that we can get a grip on. If the above definition is not true we head towards "might is right", which I flatly deny. What is true is not decided ...[text shortened]... ake a step back.
Man survives as man by his ability to reason.
Agree/disagree?
The rights that we grant each other represent Truth only indirectly. Take 'the right to life' for example. Every human society accepts this principle in some form because when it is granted, all individually do relatively well. Deviating from this principle means conditions deteriorate -- usually pretty rapidly and everyone eventually suffers.
A majority doesn't decide on rights the way it decides on laws. Rights are from further back -- more of a unanimous consent or a racial wisdom. If a majority passes a law that violates a fundamental right of some of its members, the majority cannot control what will happen. Usually the society will take a downturn as those whose rights are violated stage an internal revolt. The society has to spend so much energy on the internal struggle that it weakens relative to other societies around it.
So in the end, violating what is 'right' IS wrong and has consequences. But it may take time for such consequences to come home to roost.