Some Musings about Rights

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

In Saudi Arabia one has no right to practice any religion other than Islam. In many countries you not only do not have a right to keep and bear arms, you have no right of self defense either.

Nope. The people who live in those God-forsaken places have those rights just like we do, but the weight of their neighbors and/or their government tramples on those rights.

This is not a fact, it is an outlook. Just wanted to make sure that the traditional American outlook, stated by the Declaration of Independence and implemented, to some extent, by the Constitution, was represented in this thread, although others have already asserted it, at least implicitly.

Governments don't grant rights; they recognize them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bosh.
Go over to Saudi and try building a church and see what happens. You know the answer. And then tell me what the difference is between not having a right and not being able to exercise it. There is none.

I realize this is anathema to the "natural rights" crowd. But so far no one has shown what natural rights are, what they consist of, what their parameters are, and how we know all this to begin with. It is a concept originating in the Enlightenment and not found prior to that,nor found in places not touched by the Enlightenment.

 

[5Wire]

Bosh.
Go over to Saudi and try building a church and see what happens. You know the answer. And then tell me what the difference is between not having a right and not being able to exercise it. There is none...

That's what we told George III of England July 4, 1776.

You are free to exercise any right and to live with the consequences.

 

[RAW]

2012

In 2012,during president Obama's second term; all this philosophical verbiage will be ignored and a variety of anti-gun laws will be proposed. Hope I am wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are free to exercise any right and to live with the consequences.

You are free to commit rape, robbery and murder if you are willing to live with the consequences.

 

[5Wire]

You are free to commit rape, robbery and murder if you are willing to live with the consequences.

That's kind of a non argument, Rabbi. You are free to believe you don't have rights and to believe in the tooth fairy, whatever.

 

[johngalt]

Fredrick Hayek (I think) had a good analysis of positive vs negative rights.

Every right you claim is also has an inseparable implied duty on everyone else. For something to truly be a right, every single human being in the world must be able to excercise that right right without the implied duty conflicting with anyone else exercising their rights.

In addition, all human beings must be able to simultaneously exercise ALL of their rights at the same time, without any of the implied duties conflicting with anyone else.

This is only possible if the implied duty is for every one else to do nothing: Everyone has a right to life: the implied duty is for everyone else to not kill you. The right to own property: the implied duty is every one not steal from you. The right to engage in free trade: the implied duty is to not interfere.

All of these implied duties is on everyone to simply leave you alone. That is where the term "negative rights" come from.

Now the right to health care, food, shelter, etc. These are "positive" because they impose a duty one someone to take some kind of positive action: provide the health care, food, shelter, whatever. These implied duty violates the negative right to life, liberty, own property, engage in free trade, etc. Therefor these are not rights at all.

So to determine if something is a right, analyze the implied duty. If the duty is anything other than to leave you alone, it is not a right.

 

[The Rabbi]

That doesnt really work well. I have a right to drive 100mph. The implied duty is for everyone to leave me alone.
I have a right to torture animals. The implied duty is to be left alone.
Etc.
As much as I admire Hayek either you aren't presenting his view well or I am not understanding it or I disagree with it.

That's kind of a non argument, Rabbi.

That;s my point. Having a right implies being able to exercise it freely.

 

[7.62foryou]

As much as I admire Hayek either you aren't presenting his view well or I am not understanding it or I disagree with it.


Rabbi, from reading previous posts I'd say you either don't understanding it or I disagree with it. The latter is of course your right. Driving 100mph on public ways violates others rights to be safe therefore is not a right.. You can however travel at the speed of light on your own property endangering no one, that is your right. The example of torturing animals as a right escapes me completely. If the animal is owned by someone else than their property rights have been violated by the tormentor. You should read the founders writings on rights you may begin to understand.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you're not crashing into anyone how is anyone unsafe?
As for the animals, no it is obvious I mean my own animal. Do I have a right to torture my own animal? IS that a natural right?
I have read the Founder's on rights. I'd suggest others do so as well. They might find it eye opening.

 

[Dennis The B]

That doesnt really work well. I have a right to drive 100mph. The implied duty is for everyone to leave me alone.
I have a right to torture animals. The implied duty is to be left alone.
Etc.
As much as I admire Hayek either you aren't presenting his view well or I am not understanding it or I disagree with it.

You may have the right to drive 100mph on your own property, but you do not have a right to drive 100mph on public roads. You have agreed to limit your speed to those speedss lawfully set by elected authorities. You have agreed to abide by traffic laws by virtue of having a driver's license. A driver' license is not a right. It's a privilege.

You do not have the right to torture animals. Your compact with civil society precludes the mistreatment of non-human animals.

Either you do not understand innate rights, or you have chosen to ignore the concept. You should read The Republic, by Plato; Ethics, by Aristotle; Ethics, by Spinoza; An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, by Locke; or The Social Contract, by Rousseau; among other works of philosophy and western culture.

Please go back and re-read your posts. Your logic is circular, and has no straight-line path to a logical conclusion.

 

[The Rabbi]

I didnt agree to anything. Show me where I signed something agreeing.

My point is that Hayek's definition of rights as given in a post above obviously fails in light of the examples I've cited. There must be more to it than what was written.

And Plato does not mention rights, nor does Aristotle. Nor does the Hebrew Bible nor the Christian bible.
So how do people know that bearing arms is a right but torturing your animals is not a right?

 

[Dennis The B]

I didnt agree to anything. Show me where I signed something agreeing.

My point is that Hayek's definition of rights as given in a post above obviously fails in light of the examples I've cited. There must be more to it than what was written.

And Plato does not mention rights, nor does Aristotle. Nor does the Hebrew Bible nor the Christian bible.
So how do people know that bearing arms is a right but torturing your animals is not a right?

When you get a driver's license, you have signed a document of some type, either the driver's license itself, or an application form. You agreed to abide by traffic laws in effect when you are driving. You have signed a contract with your state government. As such you have ceded any "rights" to drive 100mph.

The word "right" (or "rights") has an innateness that provides the basis for Plato's discussion in "The Republic", and the other works I originally mentioned.

In order reside in a civil society, one must be taught the concept of rights and responsibilities by one's parents and those with which we interface.

I'm not going to repeat my statement on the innateness of rights, and the responsibilities of living in a civil society.

 

[The Rabbi]

When you get a driver's license, you have signed a document of some type, either the driver's license itself, or an application form. You agreed to abide by traffic laws in effect when you are driving. You have signed a contract with your state government. As such you have ceded any "rights" to drive 100mph.

The word "right" (or "rights") has an innateness that provides the basis for Plato's discussion in "The Republic", and the other works I originally mentioned.

In order reside in a civil society, one must be taught the concept of rights and responsibilities by one's parents and those with which we interface.

I'm not going to repeat my statement on the innateness of rights, and the responsibilities of living in a civil society.

Then driving is not a right at all but a privilege. But why isn't it a right?

The word "right" appears nowhere in Plato's Republic. What you seem to be referring to is the idea that each thing has an inherent nature, a concept picked up by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics.
But he doesn't recognize the idea of inherent rights either. Actually Plato in the Apologia seems to say the exact opposite.
But slinging sources that don't support your contention doesn't help your argument any. What your argument is exactly is beyond me. You seem to be saying in the earlier post that some people have rights and society reflects that while others don't, and their society reflects that as well. That is the polar opposite of what the Declaration mentions.

 

[5Wire]

Rabbi is being trollish on this subject. It doesn't make any difference what any of us bring up in the way of accepted definitions, philosophical distinctions, or covenants made by consent of the governed, he'll find a way to discount it. Waste of time. Not a discussion. Ego strokes for the Rabbi what would be called in epistemology, Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Most Rabbis would know the term but not practice the concept. Pretty narcissistic, too.

 

[Dennis The B]

Then driving is not a right at all but a privilege. But why isn't it a right?

...You seem to be saying in the earlier post that some people have rights and society reflects that while others don't, and their society reflects that as well. That is the polar opposite of what the Declaration mentions.

Driving on public roads is a privilege, and not a right. If you wish to build a highway on your property, and drive 100mph, then you may do so as part of your ownership of private property.

I "said" no such thing. I wrote from the outset that rights are inherent in humans. They are not granted by society. Innate rights pre-date society, and they're its foundation. Society may lawfully take away an individual's rights as the result of a that person violating the rights of another or others.

You are stuck on this mis-conception that rights are granted by society. That is not so, and I do not accept your flawed premise.

I haven't strayed one whit from my original rebuttal. You, however, have been all over Hell and half of Georgia in your thoughts, incapable of distinguishing between privilege and right.

Further, you ignore the social contract, which requires the individual to cede a portion of his/her rights in order to maintain civil society.

 

[The Rabbi]

Driving on public roads is a privilege, and not a right. If you wish to build a highway on your property, and drive 100mph, then you may do so as part of your ownership of private property.

I "said" no such thing. I wrote from the outset that rights are inherent in humans. They are not granted by society. Innate rights pre-date society, and they're its foundation. Society may lawfully take away an individual's rights as the result of a that person violating the rights of another or others.

You are stuck on this mis-conception that rights are granted by society. That is not so, and I do not accept your flawed premise.

I haven't strayed one whit from my original rebuttal. You, however, have been all over Hell and half of Georgia in your thoughts, incapable of distinguishing between privilege and right.

Further, you ignore the social contract, which requires the individual to cede a portion of his/her rights in order to maintain civil society.

OK, let's get to the meat of argument, that rights are inherent in human beings.
I disagree. It is patent and obvious that in every culture and society outside of Western Europe and those influenced by it (like ours) that people do not have rights. This is different from, say, intelligence, where we can say that intelligence is inherent in people because we can see evidence of it everywhere.
We do not see evidence of rights, we do not even see evidence that people subscribe to a theory of rights. In fact there was no theory of human rights prior to the Enlightenment. So the entire natural rights idea is simply an artificial construct of Enlightenment philosophers. It is certainly unproven and unprovable.
My premise is not only not flawed, it is the only realistic explanation for what we see around us. Yours otoh is fantastic, relying on tooth fairies and soothsaying while ignoring the evidence we see around us in actual societies.

Rabbi is being trollish on this subject.

So now disagreeing with the sheeple is suddenly trollish? Sorry to intrude reality on your fantasies here. Just don't read the thread. Nothing to see here, move along.

 

[5Wire]

Rabbi posted:

...So now disagreeing with the sheeple is suddenly trollish? Sorry to intrude reality on your fantasies here. Just don't read the thread. Nothing to see here, move along.

Your hubris exposes you, Rabbi, you've confused your opinion with reality. You have no more clue as to what the grand scheme of things, if any, is, just like the rest of us. However, feel free to abdicate your non existent rights in light of your opinion.

If you don't agree that rights are inherent, by all means, be a victim of your own sheeple-like 'reality'. Don't bother to fight city hall.

With regard to ignoring your continued trollish behavior, while you are worthy of being ignored, I'll do as I please. That's not up to you any more than the origin of inalienable rights. You've made this thread about you by being singlemindedly contentious making everyone's argument focus on your unsupported assertions and without addressing points made by other posters. That troll strategy does nothing to resolve a discussion, but almost always results in the troll having the last word.

Help yourself.

By the way, there was no internet before the Enlightenment, either.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you have something to contribute to this discussion? I mean, you haven't posted anything except meaningless attacks on me and my views. You haven't begun to refute any of it. You haven't offered any alternative theories. You haven't done anything.
Nothing obligates you to post on this thread. If you aren't up on rights theories or philosophy or whatever, no need to apologize and no need to post either.

 

[5Wire]

...