Define "rights".

[Mach]

I would be happy to listen to your own definitions since both were YOUR TERMS that YOU INTRODUCED into the discussion so obviously they have some meaning for you.

So you agree that arbitrary systems are useful for describing, if not predicting, reality?

As to what you want to reply to, please reply in whatever way you want about such a "government".

You are in a group of three on a deserted island with plenty of resources, space, etc.
You all decide to form a government.
The other two declare themselves co-rules, and declare you to be their slave.

Can you not, in the English language, with all your mental faculties and supposed "education", tell us NOTHING about such a hypothetical in terms we mortals might understand? I have no qualms personally in claiming such a government would a complete crock of ****, I wouldn't recognize its authority, I would consider it bad morally, ethically, and in any common usage of the term. I would also consider it worth dying to demonstrate.

But you can tell us NOTHING in response? The inability not to respond...if only there was a sexually connotative meaning we could use to describe that behavior.

 

[Mach]

This conflates a right to life with a right to have lived. Not the same thing. Unless you think a right to life is a right to continue living, into the future. In short: we know only things that are alive can have rights. It's quite a jump to then assume that that means things have a right to be alive.

I don't find that you're getting my point (or Green Man's, although it may be slightly different lines of argument).

We're talking about governance of human societies.

In that context, start with a test of absurdity. Let's assume you want government to observe your right to own property. Would you feel that if they agreed to that right, but they insisted that they can kill you at will, that your right to own properly has value? Is it really a right to property in the general way we deem what a "right to something" is? Aside from outright killing you, making that right to own property 100% irrelevant, they could do any number of bad things in between. Threaten your life if you own property alone...or threaten the life of your loved ones unless you give them your property.

Where is this right to property now OldWorldOrder? It's rendered irrelevant because you refuse to accept that to life has primacy.

 

[Green Man]

I have no idea what a JUST government is. Or what a "good" government is. But feel free to define it since they are your terms.

I'd also be interested in your answer. For which words in the English language do you not know the definition, I'd be happy to point you to an appropriate reference.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

I don't find that you're getting my point (or Green Man's, although it may be slightly different lines of argument).

We're talking about governance of human societies.

I'm not talking about governance. I've said this repeatedly. Why do you keep trying to talk about it? I've said this at least a dozen times in this thread.

 

[johndylan1]

From a physiological point of view, one could consider capital punishment,
the state's removal of all of a persons rights.
We as a society, allow the state to remove those individuals who
demonstrate they will not to abide by the rules/laws established.

I guess what I should have said is how do you take away a natural right? The point is this, natural rights are "self evident" and therefore recognized individually, however the grant of the right is a collective grant, via human nature by the creator. To kill one man doesn't kill the right, one must kill all men to kill the right.

 

[haymarket]

So you agree that arbitrary systems are useful for describing, if not predicting, reality?

All I asked you to do was define the terms you introduced into the discussion.

 

[haymarket]

I'd also be interested in your answer. For which words in the English language do you not know the definition, I'd be happy to point you to an appropriate reference.

When I debated for two years in college, when a person introduced terms they normally provided definitions for them.

 

[johndylan1]

The difference is in the word "violate". It's like asking what the difference is between violating a law of physics or a law of physics not existing. Well, there is no difference. We just use the word right when speaking about things with (apparent) self determination.

I can understand that with regard to physics, just not rights. This is because when defined as a natural "justification" for a real or potential act, it is impossible to destroy a natural right (justification) which in the end is a mental construct, not a physical one. Where one is restrained from acting according to the justification, the act is restrained in one particular individual; but the justification for that act which by nature is common to all men and shared collectively remains as evidenced by everyone else's free and real acts. This is why the Idea that you are expressing is flawed.

Now I know you will disagree because we have been round and round with this, but will you mind discussing the error in or objection to my argument dissecting what I have written.

 

[johndylan1]

Simple - the government simply passes a law or makes a declaration if it can do that in the absence of a law that the right in question will no longer the be honored or respected or protected. An example would be the right to vote whcih was granted - and it can then be taken away.

Sorry I should have specified natural, so I'll ask again. This is some what a rhetorical see second point below.
How do you "take away" a Natural right? The distinction between natural Law (the act) and natural right (justification for the act) is in question. Secondly, Removing one's ability to act, violating an individuals right; leaves the right active in 99.9999...% of every one else, it therefore still exists.

 

[haymarket]

Sorry I should have specified natural, so I'll ask again. This is some what a rhetorical see second point below.
How do you "take away" a Natural right? The distinction between natural Law (the act) and natural right (justification for the act) is in question. Secondly, Removing one's ability to act, violating an individuals right; leaves the right active in 99.9999...% of every one else, it therefore still exists.

I see no difference in voting and any other right recognized by the government.

 

[Green Man]

When I debated for two years in college, when a person introduced terms they normally provided definitions for them.

Understood. What terms would you like to be defined for you?

 

[haymarket]

Understood. What terms would you like to be defined for you?

another poster asked questions about a JUST GOVERNMENT and GOOD GOVERNMENT. That poster should define what he means by that.

 

[Green Man]

another poster asked questions about a JUST GOVERNMENT and GOOD GOVERNMENT. That poster should define what he means by that.

I imagine he'd approve of the following definitions. (Hint. Google is your friend)

Just. adj - based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.

Good. adj - to be desired or approved of.

Government. n - the governing body of a nation, state, or community.

 

[johndylan1]

I see no difference in voting and any other right recognized by the government.

I do not see voting as a natural right at all. Natural rights pre exist government, N/A. try again.
How do you "take away" a Natural right? The distinction between natural Law (the act) and natural right (justification for the act) is in question. Secondly, Removing one's ability to act, violating an individuals right; leaves the right active in 99.9999...% of every one else, it therefore still exists.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

I can understand that with regard to physics, just not rights. This is because when defined as a natural "justification" for a real or potential act, it is impossible to destroy a natural right (justification) which in the end is a mental construct, not a physical one. Where one is restrained from acting according to the justification, the act is restrained in one particular individual; but the justification for that act which by nature is common to all men and shared collectively remains as evidenced by everyone else's free and real acts. This is why the Idea that you are expressing is flawed.

If it's impossible to destroy a natural right, how do you deny that literally anything is a natural right?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Are people in this thread now assuming that "morally right and fair" and "desired" have any specific meaning? Jesus titty-****ing Christ.

 

[haymarket]

I imagine he'd approve of the following definitions. (Hint. Google is your friend)

Just. adj - based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.

Good. adj - to be desired or approved of.

Government. n - the governing body of a nation, state, or community.

we shall see.

 

[haymarket]

I do not see voting as a natural right at all. Natural rights pre exist government, N/A. try again.
How do you "take away" a Natural right? The distinction between natural Law (the act) and natural right (justification for the act) is in question. Secondly, Removing one's ability to act, violating an individuals right; leaves the right active in 99.9999...% of every one else, it therefore still exists.

A right is a right is a right. Natural rights are a self imposed belief. The only difference in one right from another is in your own self imposed belief system.

 

[johndylan1]

A right is a right is a right. Natural rights are a self imposed belief.

would you just answer the substance of the question, too tired to dance. I have gout.
The distinction between natural Law (the act) and natural right (justification for the act) is in question. Removing one's ability to act, violating an individuals right; leaves the right active in 99.9999...% of every one else, it therefore still exists.

 

[Green Man]

A right is a right is a right. Natural rights are a self imposed belief. The only difference in one right from another is in your own self imposed belief system.

So what? All rights are an intellectual construct. Natural rights, and all other rights, are a self imposed belief. Are you arguing for one belief system over another belief system?

 

[haymarket]

So what? All rights are an intellectual construct. Natural rights, and all other rights, are a self imposed belief. Are you arguing for one belief system over another belief system?

But I am not arguing that at all. I was the one who said that rights are rights are rights.

 

[haymarket]

would you just answer the substance of the question, too tired to dance. I have gout.
The distinction between natural Law (the act) and natural right (justification for the act) is in question. Removing one's ability to act, violating an individuals right; leaves the right active in 99.9999...% of every one else, it therefore still exists.

Both are merely self imposed beliefs. Rights can indeed be stripped from all people in a nation.

 

[johndylan1]

Both are merely self imposed beliefs. Rights can indeed be stripped from all people in a nation.

With consent? Or just via brutality? What happens when Rosa Parks comes along and asserts the right anyway?

 

[haymarket]

With consent? Or just via brutality? What happens when Rosa Parks comes along and asserts the right anyway?

Rosa Parks came along and asserted what right exactly?

 

[Green Man]

But I am not arguing that at all. I was the one who said that rights are rights are rights.

My bad. I thought you were arguing against the natural rights to life, liberty, and property. I thought you were arguing for a different belief system.