ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Demand all you want -- but simply demanding them doesn't mean you get them.

I think all the rights you have, you've got by having demanded them -- or by someone else demanding them for you.

What you are trying to do here doesn't follow from that.

But it is cute.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Do you honestly think that a child born with a genetic disposition which will leave him/her with an IQ no higher than 50 -- has been born into this world with the right to live free and decide what he/she will do with his/her life?

Can you consider a child born with those circumstances in any way to be "born equal" to someone born with a silver foot in his mouth? (Or is that "silver spoon?")

This argument rests largely on a misapprehension of the word "equal."

No one, I think, suggests that the term "all men are created equal" means "all men are created equivalent." In the sense it is used, "equal" does not mean "identical in all physical, economic, social, and intellectual respects." Such an misinterpretation is not only unwarranted, it is unfair.

Rather, "equal" means "legally equal." That definition certainly can be defended even in a world where there are babies born into wealthy circumstances while other babies are born into abject poverty.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I have a BIG problem with that. Are you suggesting that your "prudential calculus" is only a means by which you identify rights, as a sort of "Observer's Guide to Inherent Rights"? Or are you saying that the prudential calculus, in some fashion or other, justifies calling something a right?

Excellent question!

I am suggesting the second: that the prudential calculus, in some fashion or other, justifies calling something a right.

joefromchicago wrote:

On the other hand, you cannot base unalienable or inherent rights on a foundation of a prudential calculus unless you identify something in that prudential calculus which is itself unalienable and inherent. Simply saying that this system of rights "works" misses the mark entirely: you must show that your particular system works and is logically necessary. You haven't done that.

I partially disagree. I must show that my particular system will probably work. I haven't done that yet. That is, I haven't yet referenced the predominance of evidence already existent that it works. However, I do not need to show that my particular system is logically NECESSARY. I need only show that it is logically SUFFICIENT.

joefromchicago wrote:

Those are merely practical obstacles, not logical ones.

Again I disagree. those obstacles are both practical AND logical. Granting others rights that will harm me and others if and when exercised, is illogical in that it increases the probability that I and others will suffer thereby (e.g., it is probably a self-destructive act).

joefromchicago wrote:

Now I don't know that I necessarily disagree with that formula, but I strongly disagree with the notion that such a system can be based on inherent rights.

Possibly you are right here. I hesitate to agree because I think that the viability of the system is probably served by ASSUMING that certain rights are INHERENT and shall not ever be candidates for invalidation by any individual or governmental action. Surely, we can debate the question of whether or not a guilty one should forfeit his own security to a particular right in exchange for having violated that same right of an innocent one. Is such forfeiture NECESSARY to preserve the security of that right for the innocent? I don't know IF it is NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT, NECESSARY, or even IF it is SUFFICIENT.

0 Replies

Absolutely not. There are no inherent rights, they are granted by the society or culture under which you live and even those inalienable rights that are granted in the United States can be removed. You go commit a crime and try telling the police you have an inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness and see what they say.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Demand all you want -- but simply demanding them doesn't mean you get them.

I think all the rights you have, you've got by having demanded them -- or by someone else demanding them for you.

What you are trying to do here doesn't follow from that.

But it is cute.

Oh my goodness! Shocked

Your ability to read with understanding has taken what I hope is a temporary down turn. I DEMANDED them. That clearly satisfied one of your NECESSARY conditions for having rights. It did not satisfy the NECESSARY condition for practicing a right. As I stated one must have that right SECURED in order to practice it.

I didn't say yet what it would take to SECURE rights. As you have already been told by me, I will in fact discuss that. It is my current plan to establish a concurrent forum to discuss that when I am ready to do so.

BY THE WAY--Do you still forecast my early flight from this discussion, sport? Laughing

Are you really so naive as to think Razz

the pejorative comments you frequently direct to me personally have any credibility in my eyes? Shocked

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

Absolutely not. There are no inherent rights, they are granted by the society or culture under which you live and even those inalienable rights that are granted in the United States can be removed. You go commit a crime and try telling the police you have an inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness and see what they say.

ABSOLUTELY NOT Question

Your evidence is?

Try real hard to understand this.

Rights can be inalienable even if securing the practice of rights is NOT inalienable.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cephus wrote:
Absolutely not. There are no inherent rights, they are granted by the society or culture under which you live and even those inalienable rights that are granted in the United States can be removed. You go commit a crime and try telling the police you have an inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness and see what they say.

ABSOLUTELY NOT

Your evidence is?

Try real hard to understand this.

Rights can be inalienable even if securing the practice of rights is NOT inalienable.

Which rights would you like to claim are inalienable? All rights can be taken away and no rights are universal, hence none of them simply exist without a social or cultural backdrop. Is life a right? Not in a war. Not when you commit a capital crime. How about liberty? Want to tell that to the warden when you're in prison? Pursuit of happiness? I can think of plenty of things that would make me happy that I have no right to pursue.

So where are these inalienable rights again?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I now predict that this is all heading toward a far-right wing conservative batch of nonsense about how you should be able to own guns if you choose -- that you have a right (it use to be a God given right) to own them -- and that you have a right (it use to be a God given right) to oppose what you consider "pernicious envy" in other humans that somehow erodes your wealth

Frank Apisa wrote:

As I said, I am not interested in establishing the validity of what you see as "my theory." I am merely interested in telling anyone interested, that I see no reason to assume we are endowed with rights.

Oh, yes, I know, I know, Ican. You have been interested in establishing that I have a religion for the last two years. You've even started threads over in ABUZZ which aim toward that -- and have mentioned in dozens of threads your thoughts on that issue.

"I am not interested in establishing the validity of what you see as 'my theory' [of your religion]. I am merely interested in telling anyone interested, that I see no reason to assume you are for real."

Laughing

0 Replies

Ican

You are transparent!

0 Replies

Ican,

Your definition of right reduces the word to an almost meaningless state.

If you claim rights can't be divested then the criteria for them having existed leave much to be desired.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

Which rights would you like to claim are inalienable?

I claim we are born with the inalienable RIGHT to life. When not adequately secured, we risk loss of the opportunity to ENJOY that right.

I have a legal RIGHT to my property and I have the opportunity to ENJOY that RIGHT. If my property were to be stolen, I would not lose my legal RIGHT to my property, but I would lose my opportunity to ENJOY that RIGHT. If adequately secured, my property will be recovered, and I would then again ENJOY my legal RIGHT to my property.

To have a right is not the same thing as to have the opportunity to enjoy that right. One cannot be deprived of an unalienable right, but can be deprived of the opportunity to enjoy that right.

One can be deprived of a legal right that is NOT also an unalienable right, and/or deprived of the opportunity to enjoy a legal right whether it is unalienable or not. A legal right that is not an unalienable right can be taken away by an act of government. An unalienable right cannot be taken away by anyone or anything.

The two million people murdered by Pol Pot possessed the inalienable right to life, but were denied the opportunity to enjoy it. The people who survived Pol Pot's attempt to murder them possess the inalienable right to life AND the opportunity to enjoy it.

If the people murdered did not possess the inalienable right to life, then Pol Pot, having broken no law of his provinces in Cambodia (his laws), did nothing wrong when he murdered two million people. In fact under that circumstance, if you don't have an inalienable right to your life, he could have murdered you and done nothing wrong or reprehensible.

In fact, in a TV interview I watched, Pol Pot unabashedly claimed that he had done nothing wrong since he had not broken the law. You may find a world that embraces that logic tolerable. I do not.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cephus wrote:
Which rights would you like to claim are inalienable?

I claim we are born with the inalienable RIGHT to life. When not adequately secured, we risk loss of the opportunity to ENJOY that right.

If you claim it, back it up. If there is a right to life, why is there a death penalty? Try joining the military and going to war and telling the enemy about your wonderful right to life.

Quote:

I have a legal RIGHT to my property and I have the opportunity to ENJOY that RIGHT. If my property were to be stolen, I would not lose my legal RIGHT to my property, but I would lose my opportunity to ENJOY that RIGHT. If adequately secured, my property will be recovered, and I would then again ENJOY my legal RIGHT to my property.

Then why can your property be taken away from you if you don't pay your taxes? Ever hear of eminent domain? They can just take it away from you, no questions asked. In fact, there are plenty of things that are illegal to own and can be taken away from you if you own them.

So where's the right to property again? It seems that not many people agree with your so-called inalienable rights. In fact, rights that can be taken away are, by definition, NOT INALIENABLE!

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Ican

You are transparent!

Yes, like an open window. What you see is what you get.

I recommend you strive to be so transparent.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Ican,

Your definition of right reduces the word to an almost meaningless state.

If you claim rights can't be divested then the criteria for them having existed leave much to be desired.

Tell me what you desire and I shall endeavor to satisfy your desire.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

So where's the right to property again? In fact, rights that can be taken away are, by definition, NOT INALIENABLE!

True. Go back and reread what I wrote. I explained all that.

With regard to the "not many people comment" you need to launch an objective poll to determine if you are not simply being biased by what is posted here. However, TRUTH IS TRUTH independent of any poll.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Tell me what you desire and I shall endeavor to satisfy your desire.

I'd rather just discuss this if that's ok with you. ;-)

My assertion is that your definition of rights here does nothing to preclude some insane fellow (such as myself) from declaring an inalienable right to have sex with whomever strikes his fancy.

He could then contend that the right is inalienable but just not secured and there seems to be no criteria for these rights (that can be called inalienable while being inherently alienable).

And it therefore makes both right and inalienable meaningless to this discussion, IMO.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

Tell me what you desire and I shall endeavor to satisfy your desire.

I'd rather just discuss this if that's ok with you. ;-)

My assertion is that your definition of rights here does nothing to preclude some insane fellow (such as myself) from declaring an inalienable right to have sex with whomever strikes his fancy.

He could then contend that the right is inalienable but just not secured and there seems to be no criteria for these rights (that can be called inalienable while being inherently alienable).

And it therefore makes both right and inalienable meaningless to this discussion, IMO.

Not really! If you do that, you declare yourself a willing and ready victim of any other fellow like yourself doing exactly the same thing to you that you have declared an inalienable right to do to everyone else. You may or may not survive the day. That may be provide you (insane or not; just because you're insane doesn't mean you're stupid Cool

)with a sufficient reason to not so declare.

If that right were to be secured by government, none of the participants regardless of their Laughing

position

would be guilty of breaking the law. But if that right were not secured, then you might run into some lawful resistance and the consequences of the lawful right of others to self-defense.

My theory presumes enough self-interest on most everyone's part such that few will decide to do that, and fewer still will succeed in getting their newly declared right secured. Yes rapists now decide to do that contrary to the law. They also risk unpleasant consequences. It's your life; use it well :wink:

0 Replies

I never defended the adviseability of the right I used as an example. It is deliberately stupid to make a point. You did not estabilish as your criteria rights that were not stupid.

You go on to talk about rights that are secured by government yet at the same time defend calling rights inalienable based on the separation of the right from it's method of being secured.

But I guess if you are just asking what rights people would like to have (as opposed to what rights are inalienable) it's all good. I oppose the use of the word inalienable.

They are inherently alienable. Even if the right is not secured the right can be forfeited (as you are allowing people to pick and choose their rights) and therefore is alienable.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Even if the right is not secured the right can be forfeited (as you are allowing people to pick and choose their rights) and therefore is alienable.

Incorrect!

I am saying that one is free to declare any right one wants and it thereby becomes inalienable (e.g., kill non-believers).

I am also saying that the declaration of a right is not synonymous with it being perceived by others as warranting the effort to secure it.

I am also saying that one will generally be disinclined to declare a right, which by one's own declaration will grant to every other person on the face of the earth that same right and risk getting many or all one's other more preferred rights desecured (e.g., getting oneself killed as a consequence).

Yes, there are nut cases that choose to do things like that, and make no mistake, they think they have an inalienable right to do it. They'll not live long for they will in the system I propose immediately mark themselves warranting pre-emption and termination as soon as possible by all the non-believers.

0 Replies

Still makes no sense ican. Declaring a right does not make it inalienable. One can change his/her mind and alienate it.

I have said nothing about the advisability of making stupid deeclarations and have sought only to point out that calling something inablienable which can be alienated is odd. Even if we are not talking about securing the rights the rights are 'alienable' because people change their minds, societies evolve etc.

Anywho, it's a logomachy and a silly one. Carry on.

0 Replies

ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know