- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 30,534
- Reaction score
- 10,717
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
You would be wrong on that. Why do you think that dictatorships and China are accused of human rights violations. The rights exist, they aren subjegated by government force, coercion.Then it CANT POSSIBLY be a right. Its an idea.
But if it is a right...wouldnt it be something we all enjoy? Wouldnt it be something that no one could ever take from us?
As an ideal...human/natural rights is a wonderful concept. That concpet assumes everyone is benevolent, moral, and motivated to provide for the greater good.
Rights are natural; the problem lies in enforcing them.
You would be wrong on that. Why do you think that dictatorships and China are accused of human rights violations. The rights exist, they aren subjegated by government force, coercion.
No one can take your rights.
You don't enforce rights, you protect them.Rights are natural; the problem lies in enforcing them.
You get how silly that sounds...correct? Rights are 'natural'...and must be 'enforced'...so if you dont HAVE food water and shelter, who violated your rights?
Nothing silly about the way it sounds. If my speech rights are violated, I fully expect government to step in and enforce said rights. Failure to do so takes rights out of the natural category and places them into the societal construct category.
I'm not going to be able to help you understand the concept of rights, because you are trying to monopolize the discussion to your own constructs. You are missing the point that all humans are born with certain needs and desires and those supercede government, these needs and desires are older than the social contract and law. The purpose of good law isn't to control every facet of human life, rather it is to protect against the worst desires of human nature such as murder, robbery, etc. Anarchy is slightly less desireable than a small government which is much more desireable than a full authoritarian government. You seem to play a nice appeal to authority game, but don't understand that they suppress rights by monopolizing force, they must use that force and coercion to suppress the most natural of rights, not the other way around.Because we have this fantasy governing body that creates this fantasy concept of human rights...a code...a set of definitions. Were it not so then they could not ACCUSE China of violating those human rights.
Sigh...
OK...I will accept your word.
We all have these human rights...basic...decent rights...survival. Food. Water. Shelter. Safety.
People in Rwanda are getting screwed. All the worlds starving...homeless people...thank goodness they ahve their 'rights' to all those things...
Which government?
I believe that anything that can reasonably be done is a natural right. In fact, I believe there is a natural right to murder another person.
The difference in my thinking is that there exist both inalienable rights and alienable rights.
An inalienable right is one that can be freely exercised without restraint or society induced punishment.
An alienable right is one where one cannot freely exercise the right without restriction or society induced punishment.
It is society that dictates which rights are alienable, and which are inalienable.
For example, I still have the natural right to kill someone in a society that alienates that right. I just cannot do so without restiction or society induced punishment.
But nobody can legitimately prevent me from exercising that right, they can only add consequences to my exercising of that right.
Our society primarily sets the boundary between alienable and inalienable rights at those rights rights that do infringe upon the rights of others, and those that do not infringe upon the rights of others, respectively.
But this is not always the case. Our society also alienates some rights that do not infringe upon the rights of others, such as certain types of personal intoxicant intake or certain types of sexual commerce between consenting adults.
But generally, everything is a right, it's just that society seeks to remove the free exercise of certain rights for the greater good. In any society, the impetus for the alienation of certain rights is based on a shared "moral" viewpoint.
The difference in my thinking is that there exist both inalienable rights and alienable rights.
That's because not all rights are natural. The natural rights as argued by Locke or Paine would revolve around concepts of life, liberty, and property. The essentials to existence basically. But there are rights which arise from positive law and social contract as well.
The Martian government.
I would say that all rights are natural, but not all rights are equal.
Good luck with that...I hear their are a purely authoritarian state and dont allow their citizens rights to free speech. And they have ray guns that reduce you to bone and ash...provided that they dont kidnap you and run experiments on your body. I also hear they are extremely vulnerable to the warbling yodel of Slim Whitman...
So...I take it because of your 'Martian Government' answer you get that not all countries view rights the same way...
I wouldn't. Because natural rights revolve around that which cannot be taken. For instance, you have natural ownership of your body. There are rights which come from social contract and rights which come from positive law as well. And these rights are different than natural rights, is how I would put it.
I'm not going to be able to help you understand the concept of rights, because you are trying to monopolize the discussion to your own constructs. You are missing the point that all humans are born with certain needs and desires and those supercede government, these needs and desires are older than the social contract and law. The purpose of good law isn't to control every facet of human life, rather it is to protect against the worst desires of human nature such as murder, robbery, etc. Anarchy is slightly less desireable than a small government which is much more desireable than a full authoritarian government. You seem to play a nice appeal to authority game, but don't understand that they suppress rights by monopolizing force, they must use that force and coercion to suppress the most natural of rights, not the other way around.
Like I said, if government won't enforce your rights, you have no rights.
ummm..you...um...
never mind...that pretty much says it all...
Like I said, if government won't enforce your rights, you have no rights.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?