Originally posted by AcolyteNo because the constitution guarantees our property rights. True socialism deny's property rights. In any "legal" election, socialism can not happen here. Pseudo socialism is another matter, but not true socialism as classically defined, complete with enforcement mechanisms and elimination of multi-party government.
Tony Blair would love that one to appear on a list of fundamental rights!
Seriously though, what if a socialist government is elected? Would you have a right to try to bring it down by any means necessary?
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchicken<smirks at camera> If you don't think i know my rights and that there is nothing you can say or do about that... come and try to take them from me. You might find that they are very real indeed. Besides, somebody like yourself who has never "earned" any rights, wouldn't know one if it bit him in the butt!
All right...thought about this a bit more, and Acolyte has kind of anticipated me. StarValleyWy would have rights being a function of one's experience and preference, which is not usually what people mean when they say 'rights'. S ...[text shortened]... inism or some related idea, he has not addressed the question yet.
Originally posted by ChessNutPerhaps you should reread my post. I completely agree with your statement 'you have no rights if there is no law'.
I'm glad to see that there are a few smart one's in the freethinker's clan. 😉
I'm not confusing anything. You have no rights if there is no law. I think any historians here would differ on the idea that rights are a recent development as well. Rights have been around for quite some time. I would go as far as saying the the animal kingdom may eve ...[text shortened]... you at the same time defining what you SHOULD do? Sorry Rich, I can't agree with your post. 😉
I would not call 'the right of the dominant male to mate with the females' a right, not unless you consider it a bully's right to take lunch money from smaller kids just because he's intimidated them all into submission.
RC asked for a definition of 'rights', and I will try to be more clear:
"Rights" are promises made by a society to it's citizens. Rights may be curtailed or taken away from citizens who fail to obey the laws of the society. Rights are not absolute - they are general principles and frequently conlflict with one another.
Take 'freedom of speech' for example: even in the U.S., where hate speech has been upheld as being protected by the 1st amendment, this right is not absolute. You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater.
I disagree with the notion that rights derive from government intervention in the form of law. This would go on to imply that rights are priveliges granted to citizens by governments, and can therefore be taken away by those same governments if they wish.
Enlightenment thought brought about the notion of "human rights" rather than rights granted by a source of political power, whether it be an elected government, king, or what have you. The notion of human rights is that these are the properties that allow human beings to be what they are (a nebulous definition, at best) and are somehow intrinsic to our existence. The role of government, then is to ensure that these rights are protected and not infringed upon by others, and the government can enact laws to enforce this concept. But the rights are not granted to individuals by the government, only guaranteed by the government.
-mike
Originally posted by legionnaireNot necessarily, I think. It just means laws are a guarantee you can exercise or enjoy your rights. Which, to me seems to be the crux of the matter when you are talking about real-world rights, and not about the concept as such.
I disagree with the notion that rights derive from government intervention in the form of law. This would go on to imply that rights are priveliges granted to citizens by governments, and can therefore be taken away by those same governments if they wish.<snip>
-mike
Concerning rights as a concept, something that seems to set them apart from conventions, norms, laws etc. is exactly that they are inalienable. Laws can be broken, but they can also be changed, amended, even abolished. Rights can only be violated. If that happens, you need laws to govern the ways in which violations are discouraged and rights can be restored.
David
Originally posted by legionnaireOne of the 'laws' of the dialectical chessboard is that one rigourously defines one's terms when one comes out to do battle. While I don't necessarily think you're wrong (and that is immaterial), I think you have failed to do this.
I disagree with the notion that rights derive from government intervention in the form of law. This would go on to imply that rights are priveliges granted to citizens by governments, and can therefore be taken away by those same governments if they wish.
Enlightenment thought brought about the notion of "human rights" rather than rights granted by ...[text shortened]... ts are not granted to individuals by the government, only guaranteed by the government.
-mike
Originally posted by royalchickenRC... ok, i tried to get under your skin a little. to get you to thinking about how stubborn you are being here. Think about this real hard. If you persist in demanding an "impossible" definition of "rights", then in every thread from now on, and in everything you have ever written, you will not be logically allowed to use the word OR THE CONCEPT of "rights". As in "the US violated the right to self government of the people of Iraq." Or "everyone has the right to choose freely whether god exists." Or "It is our right to protest what we perceive as immoral acts by the government". Are you sure that is what you want? Or are you being a bit arbitrary with an abstract concept. The concept of "human rights" should be so self evident, that all the rigourous definitions in the world add not an iota to the meaning. Every human is born with certain rights, the least of which is to not be murdered by their parents. If you don't recognize this "right" then don't ever talk about child abuse or neglect. You have made forfeit your right to do so by lack of recognition. Every human being deserves not to be enslaved. If you don't recognize this "right", then ... what... defective moral compass or what? You tell me, but don't set there and try to argue the obvious into oblivion just to make an obscure point. By the way, I and a lot more RHP'ers are waiting for you to explain what you think "rights" might be or mean or whatever... If anything... but remember... we will hold you to your reply in future.
One of the 'laws' of the dialectical chessboard is that one rigourously defines one's terms when one comes out to do battle. While I don't necessarily think you're wrong (and that is immaterial), I think you have failed to do this.
I feel that as StarValleyWy say's your right are intrinsic parts of human nature. Everyone is born with certain beliefs (or in actual facts they develop them as they grow) that there are certain things that all human beings should be allowed to do or should be protected from. These rights, however, are quite dependant on the upbringing of the individual. Despite this all humans consider certain things their rights. This is obviously an individual matter and everyone will hold certain 'rights' more important to themselves than other 'rights'.
On a brief aside. I'm certain that in a 'perfect' socialist world the "enforcement mechanisms and elimination of multi-party goverment" would be unnecessary. I'm not saying that I want a socialist world just that you assume these are parts of socialism when they are not. In a 'perfect' socialist world everyone would agree with the government and these systems wouldn't be needed.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI do apologize to everyone if I am being stubborn, obnoxious, or anal-retentive. I have frequently been accused of being too adept with and dependent on the 'logic phallus' (whatever THAT is). However, I honestly want to know something here. This was suggested to me while commenting on a very thought-provoking post of StarValleyWy's-I was talking about the Constitution's claim that 'we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal'. I thought about what that might mean.
RC... ok, i tried to get under your skin a little. to get you to thinking about how stubborn you are being here. Think about this real hard. If you persist in demanding an "impossible" definition of "rights", then in every thread f ...[text shortened]... thing... but remember... we will hold you to your reply in future.
1. 'Equal' in the sense of 'the same' is absurd in this context and obviously is not what is intended;
2. 'Equal' in the sense of 'one man is substitutable for another' is also not what was intended, because any of the writers of that document would have been unable to defend such a claim
3. Clearly, if one views equal in any kind of way which the above two claims might purport to explain, one must accept that the 'equality of men' is totally contextual.
This led me to the conclusion that the 'equality' they are talking about has to do with certain 'rights'. What they are really talking about is 'everyone has the same rights'. This is why I asked this question, because I was fairly certain that no-one could produce a definition that was really meaningful. I can't. This seems to indicate that, as Acolyte and richjohnson said, albeit in slightly different ways, certain fundamental 'rights' do not exist. It is a hazy concept that sounds nice but is totally unsubstantiated. There is no lofty morally superior position from which one can declare these things, and this explains my "anger" at what legionairre said.
However, I agree practically with what legionairre and StarValleyWy initially provided as explanations (I'm not a fan of genocide, for example), but I wouldn't be calling the concepts they mentioned rights. There exist ways to treat people that are more practical in assuring efficient function of society. I think that we don't need to invoke some ridiculous moralistic position, and call it 'human rights' or just 'rights', and try to treat it as a lofty ethical entity, as legionairre did. Instead, we can invoke a very well-defined concept that I'll call 'courtesy'. This is a strictly pragmatic 'doctrine' (and drop all your prejudices about this word forst) that merely states: choose actions in relating to people that most efficiently further the workings of society. And this can probably be reduced to 'economic' terms at some level, I don't know. But there it is. A pragmatic concept that is well-defined has replaced another concept that we have failed to define. So the outcome is the same.
And thus, SVW, your cookie crumbles. For two reasons. First is that my posterior is pretty well-covered. The only place, in all my nearly 1000 posts, that I have mentioned 'the right to something' (not counting this thread) was in jest.
Second, I can talk about something that pragmatically speaking is the same as rights. I don't need to say "I have a right to free speech", when, in the manner I described before, I can say "It is courteous for society to allow me free speech". I can say "By infringing on their self-government, the US acted towards Iraq in a way that was not courteous". Granted, I'd then have to prove that the US's actions were not the most efficient course to take wrt the whole human race, but I will bet you all of your clothing that I can do this more logically than someone can say "The US violated the human rights of the Iraqi people", because my "courtesy" is well-defined, and I am ready to refer to actual events, political philosophies, etc. The apologist for "rights", if he wishes to submit to logic, is still stuck answering the question I posed at the beginning of this thread.
If you can tell me, logically, why 'human rights' are so self-evident that they deserve a place outside dialectic, you will be my ideal of genius.
SVW, we are due for another game, I'd greatly appreciate it if you sent one over.
Part of the notion of a right is that their existence implies the existence of a moral obligation. To say "Mark has the negative right to life" implies that others are morally obligated not to make attempts on your life. Are you similarly skeptical with regard to the existence of moral obligations?
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenOk... I think I am beginning to get it a little. You know what? I think this is like me an math. I want to say this so it doesn't sound silly. I read your above post 4 times. I concentrated real hard and I know that it has valid content. I just am not capable of understanding it. So, I will study it some more. In the mean while... I think we have a classic case of you being on a different level here. Be patient. Somebody will either define "human rights" or explain why it can't be. I know this seems obvious to you, but trust me... I, at least am struggling with your ideas here.
If you can tell me, logically, why 'human rights' are so self-evident that they deserve a place outside dialectic, you will be my ideal of genius.
Just one thing... if... and i say if... i understood your above post even a little... (Items 1 and 2 on "Equal"😉 I remember the opening arguements of BF Skinner in one of his explanations on "inherent human worth" and it sounded a bit like your first paragraph. That is one scarry (as in frightening) dude.
Originally posted by jimmi tWhy bring it up then if it has no relevency? You seemed to be using it as some sort of "justification" or "explanation" of socialism.
Why do you think I put 'perfect' in inverted comma's. There is no such thing as a 'perfect' world I was just refering to the theory not the actuality.