Thought Police!

Yeah, kinda wears out the scroll wheel a bit.

Well, at least it was on topic, amirite?

You are indeed correct. Carry on.

The problem here, is that we have two very different views on rights.  You say they are "intrinsic things that all people have."

I disagree. Right can be granted by the government and removed by that same group.  I refer you to the US Bill of Rights, State's Rights organizations and a thousand other rights given to the people of the country by their government.

I have to disagree with you here. Our Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it preserves and guarantees pre-existing  individual rights. How do we know this? The Ninth Amendment states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, we have other rights beyond what is expressly stated in the Constitution, and the federal government is not justified in denying us those rights, unless of course we break the law or abuse our rights.  In addition to rights, we also have responsibilities.

Also, the Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The founders believed that human rights were given to us by our creator.  Or at our creation, if you prefer.  If you read through the Bill of Rights, no where does it actually create any rights and give them to us.  They use phrases like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", or "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech" to indicate an already existing right that the government cannot deny you.

Quote from: Ravenwood240 on December 22, 2008, 04:30:21 PM

The problem here, is that we have two very different views on rights.  You say they are "intrinsic things that all people have."

I disagree. Right can be granted by the government and removed by that same group.  I refer you to the US Bill of Rights, State's Rights organizations and a thousand other rights given to the people of the country by their government.

I have to disagree with you here. Our Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it preserves and guarantees pre-existing  individual rights. How do we know this? The Ninth Amendment states:

Quote

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, we have other rights beyond what is expressly stated in the Constitution, and the federal government is not justified in denying us those rights, unless of course we break the law or abuse our rights.  In addition to rights, we also have responsibilities.

Also, the Declaration of Independence states:

Quote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The founders believed that human rights were given to us by our creator.  Or at our creation, if you prefer.  If you read through the Bill of Rights, no where does it actually create any rights and give them to us.  They use phrases like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", or "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech" to indicate an already existing right that the government cannot deny you.

Our Founding Fathers were men of vision.... but they were living in a fantasy world.  The Creator doesn't give anyone any rights.  If he/she/they/whatever did, then all men across the planet would have those same rights.  They don't, because their countries refuse them those rights.

And the ninth amendment says that the government cannot decide to take something else away simply because it is not protected by the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.

Anyone who truly believes that the government of their country can't withhold rights hasn't been reading the paper.  Serbia, China, Tibet... do I really need to go on?  We all know of a hundred or more countries where the people do not have half of the rights people in the US take for granted.

I do not deny that many countries (all actually) take their citizens rights all the time.  Nobody is saying that rights cannot be taken away.  You must fight for the rights that you were born with.  The constitution puts in place checks and balances, and certain protections for civil liberties.  Many are ignored, but that is why we have a judicial system(which admittedly is still imperfect), to allow us a way to fight any injustices against our rights formally.

What I am saying is these rights are implied until they are taken away. Meaning you do not need to first ask anybodies permission to continue living, for example.  It is when someone comes along and attempts to take away your right to live that you can exercise another of your rights that you have had since your creation, the right to self defense, and no, you do not need to ask anybodies permission before acting on that right either (permission is implied unless it is specifically taken away).

Our founding fathers were visionaries, but they were prone to great hypocrisy, Thomas Jefferson was well aware of this.  They were well aware that human beings are not perfect, and the constitution is only what we would expect in an ideal world.  Though a perfect world is impossible, we should always work for improvement when the opportunity arises, the U.S. Bill of Rights is more of a goal that we must fight to meet.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. ---Thomas Jefferson, 1816.

QFT

I do not deny that many countries (all actually) take their citizens rights all the time.  Nobody is saying that rights cannot be taken away.  You must fight for the rights that you were born with.  The constitution puts in place checks and balances, and certain protections for civil liberties.  Many are ignored, but that is why we have a judicial system, which admittedly is still imperfect.

What I am saying is these rights are implied until they are taken away. Meaning you do not need to first ask anybodies permission to continue living, for example.  It is when someone comes along and attempts to take away your right to live that you can exercise another of your rights that you have had since your creation, the right to self defense, and no, you do not need to ask anybodies permission before acting on that right either (permission is implied unless it is specifically taken away).

Our founding fathers were visionaries, but they were prone to great hypocrisy, Thomas Jefferson was well aware of this.  They were well aware that human beings are not perfect, and the constitution is only what we would expect in an ideal world.  Though a perfect world is impossible, we should always work for improvement when the opportunity arises, the U.S. Bill of Rights is more of a goal that we must fight to meet.

Quote

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. ---Thomas Jefferson, 1816.

Born with right implies that people know they can do this or that.  Even in the worst case, people figure out how to have sex, and will struggle to live.

In many societies across the planet the people that have been indoctrinated or simply left uneducated have no idea that they have any right to do anything except what the government tells them.

If you can't use it, it's not a right.  If you don't know about it, you can't exercise it.  That all men are born equal is a great dream, and maybe someday, it will be true.  Here and now, it's a fantasy.

Even nature denies us the right to live.  I don't believe living is a right, just luck.  If it was a right, we'd be nearly immortal.

Even nature denies us the right to live.  I don't believe living is a right, just luck.  If it was a right, we'd be nearly immortal.

Only if your definition of a right is something that can never be taken away.

Only if your definition of a right is something that can never be taken away.

Well, you've got me there.  If that were the case then rights don't exist.  Of course, that could be true. 

Quote from: ragnarr on December 23, 2008, 12:56:40 PM

Only if your definition of a right is something that can never be taken away.

Well, you've got me there.  If that were the case then rights don't exist.  Of course, that could be true. 

Rights do exist, but they are ideas in the minds of men.  As such, they are controlled and manipulated by men.  Generally, people allow the government to define the rights of their country.  Sometimes, they disagree so violently that you have a revolution and then ... oh, yeah, the new government defines the rights of this new incarnation of X country.

Quote from: ragnarr on December 23, 2008, 12:56:40 PM

Only if your definition of a right is something that can never be taken away.

Well, you've got me there.  If that were the case then rights don't exist.  Of course, that could be true. 

Rights are an idea, so I guess you can use any definition you want.  Ideally they are inalienable, as Thomas Jefferson wrote.  The bill of rights is an attempt to assure that ideology, but in reality we are far from it.

My definition of a right is simply the sovereignty to act without the permission of others, permission is implied until it is taken away.  Life is a battle to hang onto our rights.

Understood.  They are ideals.  Wouldn't rights be relative to the individual, though?

Understood.  They are ideals.  Wouldn't rights be relative to the individual, though?

Sure, I suppose different people/governments etc would have different ideas on what is a right and what isn't.  The US Constitution for example, protects the right to keep and bear arms, which stems to the right of self defense, forming militias, and hunting.  Other countries state this is a privilege, even in many U.S. states it is treated as such, and frequently denied.

The terms right and freedom are extremely complex and mailable concepts that require metaphysical discussion, way too much for me to get into...maybe later.

Quote from: Moonlit on December 23, 2008, 12:59:07 PM

Quote from: ragnarr on December 23, 2008, 12:56:40 PM

Only if your definition of a right is something that can never be taken away.

Well, you've got me there.  If that were the case then rights don't exist.  Of course, that could be true. 

Rights do exist, but they are ideas in the minds of people.  As such, they are controlled and manipulated by people.  Generally, people allow the government to define the rights of their country.  Sometimes, they disagree so violently that you have a revolution and then ... oh, yeah, the new government defines the rights of this new incarnation of X country.

Fixed.

I think the real reason this is a confusing issue is we are using the word "right" in different contexts without clearly defining them.

Personally, I would propose a break down like this:

Basic Human Right - essentially something that one "cannot rationally begrudge another person for doing" and while vague, and hard to define, is at the heart of all laws regarding "rights" in general

Legal Right - a legal protection within a society of laws designed to best recognize Basic Human Rights to the best of the ability of the governing consensus. 


For instance, we generally believe people have the basic right to govern themselves - to influence the decisions of the government that governs them.  This general belief comes from some observation of human nature, and may be imperfect, but it is trying to account for something real in human nature. 

Then we have the Legal Right to vote, which is based on our government's solution to try to allow people to govern themselves as per our particular flavor of democracy.  That legal right can be taken away, in the case of convicted felons and such.  A resident alien does not have that right in this country, to protect diluting that right of full citizens. 

Even when it comes to the death penalty, the state may execute a person, which can be viewed as a violation of their basic rights, but at the same time it is to protect the basic rights of the public at large from that individual.  (whether or not misguided...different topic)

But the concept of basic rights comes from the simple premise that all men (and women) are created equal, and the tendency in human nature to resist against certain acts of oppression.  I'd go so far as to say taxation without representation appears to be inherently unstable due to qualities inherent in human nature. 


So, you can think of legal rights as a means to try to accommodate our best understanding of what appear to be basic human rights.  A society could say "you have no right to defy the Emperor" but, should the Emperor come up to you and ask you to slit your own throat for his amusement, he shouldn't be surprised if you slit his instead.  If he is, then he has little understanding of human nature, and basic human rights.

as far as legal rights go, i like Mr. King Jr's approach in that it is just to break unjust laws.
just laws are those that the entire group affected is willing to abide by.

there are three basic rights that all just biol down to how much individual societies distribute them.
Human rights (right to life, against torture, ect..)
Political Rights (right to vote, be represented, or hold office, ect...)
and Social Rights (freedom of speech, freedom of the media, ect..)

Also, rights reconised in a group can be taken away if the person transgresses, or is not part of the group.
These can be seen when prisoners are tortured, or people going on death row, or business liscenses revoked.

   I think you've divided political and social rights unnecessarily. I also think you need to elaborate a bit on you're view on the source of these rights. Do they exist as natural laws or are they relitavistic between time and place? Is there any way in which we can determine what the "actual rights" are, and not simply approximate them, if in fact they do exist?

   I think a good discussion on rights and liberties is in Hobbes' Leviathan, in which all men have right to all for the means of self-preservation in the "state of nature." This follows from some Laws of Nature, which I won't get into other than to mention their source is the inherent order of nature (i.e. non-personal god, in a more Spinozian way although Hobbes was undoubtedly a Christian).

   From this state of nature, the only logical course is to form a social contract in which all right is "transmitted" (not really, but that's a technical issue) to an appointed person/assembly to act as Sovereign. This sovereign (Leviathan, mortal god) then provides for the peace and defense of the group, from within and without. This means that the only person/people who holds full right to all is the sovereign, and can excessive that right fully and without recourse.

   The only limitation on the sovereign power is in that he/they can never demand that a citizen submit to death or assault, although he/they can kill citizens but require enough power to do so in the face of struggle. The first major problem with this pragmatically is the obvious, that the sovereign has (almost) absolute power over its citizenry, which brings 1984 to mind quite vividly.

I like hobbes' state of nature, in that people have rights to self-preservation until a social contract is formed.
I do not think that there are any ultimately natural rights to human being, rather constructions of society or the social contract.

also, i seperated social and political rights because i think that the right to affect the social contract (IE government) is different from social rights that are created by means of the social contract. Such as marriage, or due process to give more examples.

If you like social contract theory, you should also look into Rousseau, who wrote...the social contract! lol, the most oft quoted and least understood work of political theory. The biggest problem I find in applying social contract theory is the relativity that it inherently includes. With no source of right other than self-preservation, there is no place in which to question the acts of the sovereign; or like in Rousseau where some can be "forced to be free." Paradoxically there is little recourse to argue against authoritarianism.

that is where matin luthor king steps in, with his ideas of just laws.
the individual has the right and the duty to reform or rebel against the social contract of there are members of the society not willing to abide by it but are forceing it on others.

so, questioning and dispelling the sovereign is justified if the laws of the contract are unjust.

But the problem that comes from that is the legitimacy of rebellion, which must come from the individual and can't be justified outside of himself. This leads right back to the problem of relativism and individualism.

I am unsure of what you said, why must rebellion be justified by the individual?
what are the problems of relativism and individualism?

forgive me, my philosophy is a bit rusty

But the problem that comes from that is the legitimacy of rebellion, which must come from the individual and can't be justified outside of himself. This leads right back to the problem of relativism and individualism.

Legitimacy of rebellion is definitely a very "gray" area - take the issue of secession.  If a region votes in favor of secession, do they have the right to?  How big does that region have to be - does it have to be a whole state, or can it be just one district within a state?  If one person in a neighborhood is against it and has been paying taxes their whole lives in support of their country, and even served in the military, and then is told that because their neighbors see fit to secede - that the nation he's defended and supported will no longer defend him if his neighbors try to "nationalize" his property?  This seems unfair, just as it seems unfair to unilaterally suppress secession. 

It is impossible to respect everyone's basic rights all the time - but I guess I don't see that as the issue.  The way I see it, I would not blame the fellow for violently defending his home, and I wouldn't blame the region for violently defending their right to secede. 

If I was a prison guard walking a condemned prisoner to his execution, I would not blame the guy for trying to kill me and escape - I'd be party to his slaying, and he has a basic right to resist.  At the same time, I have a basic right not to let the guy kill me, and would fight back and try to kill him if he tried. 

Such simple examples are pretty easy to follow, and while more complex examples lead to subjective assessments of the situation, the situation itself is based on some rather universal factors in human nature. 

The concept of basic human rights is subjective in that we don't have a universal way of looking at it, or understanding it, but it's based on some fairly hard to deny universal principles of human nature.

I don't think you can so easily declare "human nature" as a given, Sartre especially would disagree as well as Rousseau. To use the argument of a human nature, you'd have to explain what that really was.

I guess that's reasonable about human nature - but I think a lot of human nature comes from "nature" that goes back a lot farther than just to the "human" factor.  If someone tries to attack you, it is reasonable to expect you to either fight back or attempt to flee - it may not be universal, but it is fairly reasonable, so where does that come from?  Would that not be part of our "nature" to do so?  You can break a human the way you can break a horse, but aren't there some common underlying traits that lead to such reasonable expectations in such situations?

Regarding the concept of basic human rights, I may need to clarify myself a bit:  I don't feel that we have any special "endowed" rights from any creator or such.  When I think of basic human rights, I think of the lowest common denominator of trigger points where, if you push someone, they'll push back.  There is nothing stopping one group of people from oppressing another, but to do so will require strong-arming them, or at least tricking them into thinking they are not being oppressed. 

The core most basic desires of any individual, which generally are to "live in a fashion they feel gives them the best chance to prosper, and hopefully procreate" are fairly universal.  When we have a society that tries to mediate individuals that are at the same time symbiotic and competitive, those are the key drives we try to keep from clashing.  We create the concept of basic human rights which, is inherently subjective, but it's designed to address those drives, which are more or less objective. 

That's pretty much how I define "basic human rights" if that helps clarify at all.

I?ll spin this thread all the way back to the right of individual existence and the basic right to privacy within my own thoughts and ideas.

TO BE. Safe and secure within the integrity of ones own mental states without fear of appraisal or reprisal.

?Bad ?nuff bein? peg?d ?indeterminate genotype mix? as is and I aPut thru their ?sniffer? afor me can flyz."

Would I call it Profiling? Only if I?m in the mood for further abuse of civil liberties and unreasonable demands of time and patience as a law abiding citizen.

So, I say no to any further incursion upon or erosion of our basic right to private thought.

?Don?t want no psy-Ops spoox aGo snoopin? thru what-all in I?s Ideation station, jakflash; jump or no jump!? O aSay , hey!
?Get yer stinkin? paws outta me head, ye damned, dirty humans!!?

Fuck the Thought Police!

?Hey ! Get those trodes away from me Gulliver.?

Whoa, me gotta Go!

Unless you include traits, whether attributed biologically or psychologically, from a majority standpoint as argument for rights or "needs" (which is a fallacy), there are no such things an universal rights. Rights are, and I'm willing to venture always will be, relative and subjective.

Unless you include traits, whether attributed biologically or psychologically, from a majority standpoint as argument for rights or "needs" (which is a fallacy), there are no such things an universal rights. Rights are, and I'm willing to venture always will be, relative and subjective.

That depends on how you define a right.  Though I agree with the person above where there is a difference between a natural right and a legal right.