I am sure that the majority of you have understood the topic by its title, but I'll expound upon it for those who may not have. Is it human rights or human privileges? Human rights are qualities that humans are entitled, but who decides those rights and who entitles it?
I agree, Rich. Rights, freedoms and privileges form part of a social compact that connects all citizens to each other and to the state. Pre-Reagan, Americans seemed to be socially cohesive despite occasional and sometimes volatile ideological divides. To be an American seemed to capture the essence of belonging to a greater good as contrasted with some today who see your country as a mere agency for facilitating individualism.
I see human rights or privileges, whatever one chooses to call it, is an outgrowth of human evolution, and a result of consensus among a given group of individuals. So in one country, free health care might be considered a right while in another it may be considered a privilege, and yet in another it might be considered neither. For me, it is just a group of people arriving at a consensus, and, I guess, justifying it or proclaiming it one or the other. In the U.S, some consider education a right, others a privilege, and yet others a waste of time. But, by consensus, it is considered mandatory in most states.
No!.. Freedom and rights are natural to people, and grow out of their families and extended families... Slavery is relatively recent....Before that, people were adopted, or eaten...People have evolved into wage slaves from free men, and while this is a step up from chattel slavery, it is not much progress...In fact, we cannot have much in the way of rights without equality and privilage comes at the price of equality...
I can only relate my personal observations, which is that what are considered rights and privileges vary widely from place to place (even within a country or even within a locality), and it appears, that what are considered rights and/or privileges emanate from consensus agreement. Even the U.S. Constitution was a consensus. Whereby all men are created equal, all mention of slavery was purposely left out in order to gain consensus.
So, from what I can see, it is always by consensus, though some authors/philosophers may right about privileges in order to further their own position. Something I would not resort to, but those who believe in Absolutes, are quite comfortable with it. I just observe life differently.
The gay community supports gay rights.. The religious community support the rights of the religious... The black community supports rights for blacks... Are all these rights they support actually rights...I suppose it depends upon how necessary they find them for their well being...
Yes, Rich, like all human endeavours, the pursuit of rights is chaotic and inconsistent and sustains failures and reversals. It helps, therefore, not to focus too narrowly (and at times an entire lifespan can be too narrow) but zoom back and look at the issue very broadly. There you will see the real measure of our advancement in rights and freedoms.
Yes, I agree. The black community (and other supports) fought for rights in order to hopefully put in place laws that would help their well-being. Of course, there were many who felt that the rights afforded to the black community, took away their "rights" - read: they took away some economic advantage that I had, either at the work, voting booth, etc.
Interestingly, it was the black community that helped pass the gay rights marriage ban in California. So the world turns.
The more I witness, the more I feel that rights and privileges are just created ad hoc depending upon the general winds of the times, and who benefits and who loses. Usually new rights to one group undermines the economic advantage of another.
Some rights are privilages... property rights are not rights at all...People withproperty want to think of it as free and clear, an absolute right...It is not.... All property is a part of the commonwealth, and all property even in private hands should serve a public purpose, and this is usually done by paying taxes... As more of the tax burden has been loaded onto labor, property, which once supported the whole nation has siddled more and more off from under its load until now it does not want to pay anything at all for the protection it gets in the form of rights...Property is a privilage, and people should pay for it...Property is different from true rights in that the only limit on individual rights are the individual rights of another...Your rights limit mine... But there is no limit to property rights...If you have more property you have more rights, so that with more property have more rights and so more power...
I suppose thats your opinion, but the right to own property is indeed prominent in many bills of rights around the world, or was once anyhow. Without that right the others are pretty insignificant. A person dependent on government rations, housing, healthcare, transportation, etc. is a slave.
henry quirk;68530 wrote:"Freedom and rights are natural to people..."
how do you arrive at this?
how are 'freedom' and 'rights' natural?
It is only after civilization that fathers had the sort of power over children that they could sell them into slavery... The natural situation, especially among gentile societies, is for them to value their own, and to defend the lives and rights of their own... The comparison between the Native Americans and the Whites was stark: One said: We beat our horses, but not our children...It was because they knew that society would make those children their equal at some point, and that their lives rested on the good nature and love of their communities... They were surrounded with enemies... They did not want to live with them too...
"...and grow out of their families and extended families..."
i don't see it: families and extended families more often than not are the 'ties that bind', not the method for gaining or ensuring 'freedom' or 'rights'
Certainly... We get our words ethic for custom, or character; both from our communities... But in the ancient world, and even many places today, anyone can be held accountable for the actions of a single individual...It is called group responsibility and it was that which made vengeance such a horror, that it could be visited upon anyone equally, man, woman, or child, guilty or innocent...Primitive Christians in Europe even believed their whole community would be judged as fit or unfit for heaven, and they took confession together...There was total restraint of the individual in his relations with others outside of the community, and total freedom within...Look today..After two thousand years of the reign of the individual, our children may still fear to act as asses at home, but then go out into the community to show their butts... They have no concept of group responsibility or of group honor... And because we do not understand, we cannot comprehend the behavior of the Muslims, or the Afghans, or the Iraqis... Their society is not only a different place from our own, but a different time, and we do not belong there...People who understand the consequences of their behavior are likely to be constrained...Most of our behavior simply has no consequences, but we are not free where we need it most, in our own affairs, in politics, in justice, and in economics... We can act like fools and no one cares... If we stand up like men we will fin ourselves in prison in short order...Compare this to Cu'chulain, the Irish Achilles who would kill people for a slight of honor at the drop of a hat...Now people can spit in our faces, and take all we own, kick us out into the street, make our daughters dress like whores, and act like it; and leave us powerless to remedy any situation when it happens, and we say we are free... Where is the support??? Were do you see freedom with out support for it...No; primitives were not better than us, and no more free from reality; but they were more free in their communities than most of us can imagine...
"Slavery is relatively recent....Before that, people were adopted, or eaten"
i'm certain the guy or gal who became the meal saw little difference between being a meal and being a pack mule
the only difference i can see is that -- as meal -- the individual is irrevocably a one-time resource...