Reply
Tue 6 Sep, 2005 02:33 pm
Nobody has rights. Nobody 'has' rights. Nobody can be said to 'have' a right. A right is a claim on another person(s). It is another person who carries the burden of a right. A right is not a possession. A right is not possessed by anyone. A right is an action. When we say 'I have rights', this means no more than that we can appeal to another person(s) to undertake a course of action on our behalf according to the nature of the 'right'.
'Rights' are bad. They villify human nature. 'Rights' pretend to show that there must come a point in human nature where a lack of response to rights causes a moral and spiritual collapse, or some other emotional catastrophe according to the nature of the right. Why is this? Because the stronger my 'demand' for a right, then the greater is my collapse in the face of the denial of the fulfillment of that demand.
(c)
You have incredibly silly ideas.
Setanta wrote:You have incredibly silly ideas.
Sure Setanta, but that is his right.
Yes it is. As it is mine to point it out.
His thesis, such as it is, is predicated upon the "collapse" of the individual in the face of a denial of rights. Were i given a dollar for every time in history in which even just a percieved denial of rights has lead to violent insurrection or revolution, i'd take us all out for a steak dinner at a white table cloth restaurant, and hire a limo to take us there with the left-over cash.
Re: Against 'rights'
John Jones wrote:When we say 'I have rights', this means no more than that we can appeal to another person(s) to undertake a course of action on our behalf according to the nature of the 'right'.
The signatories of the Declaration of Independence had a broader conception of rights, as this excerpt shows:
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
Altering and abolishing a government goes beyond appealing to others to act on behalf of the aggrieved party.
Re: Against 'rights'
yitwail wrote:John Jones wrote:When we say 'I have rights', this means no more than that we can appeal to another person(s) to undertake a course of action on our behalf according to the nature of the 'right'.
The signatories of the Declaration of Independence had a broader conception of rights, as this excerpts shows:
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
Altering and abolishing a government goes beyond appealing to others to act on behalf of the aggrieved party.
Quote: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
This must contain an error. Where it is stated 'it is the Right of the People to alter...', upon whom or what do the people claim this right? I will put it another way: in the above statement of Independence, who is giving the People '.. the right ... to alter...'?
The second Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence reads
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.
In my opinion, the first sentence in the paragraph are as sacred as any words ever written.
Link to the Declaration of Independence
It isn't necessary for anyone to "give" rights to people. They hold their rights to be unalienable conditions of their existence at birth. The notion that people have rights because they have been ceded those rights is puerile at best.
It isn't often I see eye to eye with JJ but I do on this one.You have no rights.Your Mum popped you out and there you were.Ancient Rome,Iceland,Battle of Britain,Tierra del Fuego when Darwin saw it.
All the rest is a Christmas card with Mantovani as background to bring a lump to your throat.
Darwin made his pertinent morphological observations based upon the fauna of the Galapagos Islands, thousands of miles from Tierra del Fuego. The order of Plebs in Rome fought continually against the impositions of the order of Patres, twice abadoning the city in a body in protest, and gaining the concession of the tribunate, the military tribunate, pay for service on campaign in the legions, an expansion of the tribes to prevent dilution of the vote, price controls on grain to prevent profiteering, an end to torture in criminal investigations--that they eventually went down to the military skill and might Lucius Cornelius Sulla doesn't abrogate or erase their perception that they had innate rights which were being trampled upon.
Iceland was settled by Norge barons who left Norway because of what they saw as the impositions of Harald Hårfagre in his drive to unify a nation under his monarcy. A reading of Laxdaela Saga is very illuminative on that point.
Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (or Publius C. Tactitus, as some have it) makes very clear in the Germania that the tribes of ancient central Europe recognized no authority higher than the elective post of Graf, chosen by all adult men and women in time of emergency, and expiring upon the end of the perceived emergency. When the Chattii, Churuscii, Suebii, Treverii, Ubii and other tribes had been crushed between the millstones of the Empire and Gothic migration to the east, they formed a confederation and called themselves Franks, meaning free men.
Any contention that rights are awarded as opposed to innate is just the bluster of reactionary supporters of oligarchy, monarchy and plutocracy.
This is completely silly.
It doesn't matter about the wording. It doesn't matter if other people write down my rights, or a gov't says this or that, or you say I don't have rights.
I could quibble about wording: but why? All that matters is how life is lived. Whether I say 'I have rights' or I simply know it, the fact remains that my life is worth something. That is what 'rights' is all about.
It seems counter-productive to try to prove that 'we do not have rights'.
Why do it?
To prove you are smart?
Seriously, I don't understand why that would be seen as important.
It can logically be argued that we have unlimited rights from birth...
...and that governments are instituted among humans to take away or limit many of those rights in the interests of allowing orderly society to function.
Or Frank, as has already been pointed out:
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 . . .
As you well, know, i'm not buying the creator bit without better evidence than i've yet seen. The basic principle, however, stands on its own.
Quote:Darwin made his pertinent morphological observations based upon the fauna of the Galapagos Islands, thousands of miles from Tierra del Fuego.
Had the writer of that meaninglessness taken the trouble to read Origin he would know that Mr Darwin was ashore in Tierra del Fuego and also had a go at conversing with the naked natives.
Beware of experts in only what they are expert at.
You could argue Einstein didn't know how to put his socks on that way.
Einstein was noted for not zipping his fly when leaving the house. As for Darwin, his essential thesis was not informed by his experience in Tierra del Fuego, which was my point.
Beware of those who claim an expertise in all subjects while exhibiting it in none.
I am simply trying to make the point,as I think JJ was,that to think you have rights,rather than privileges,is to goose up your way of life.
It causes you to have "bear with sore head" syndrome which is bad news.
I have no sore head, especially when you and Mr. Jones provide such a seemingly endless source of mirth. Might i direct you to your comments on the subject of Mr. Jones' acumen in another thread which i'm sure you will recall? To suggest that one has no rights unless they are granted from on high is simply to goose up the notion of monarchy and plutocracy as the natural order--a contention at odds with the historical and anthropological record.
Quote:Beware of those who claim an expertise in all subjects while exhibiting it in none.
Gee-I'm clueless again.
Answer the question for once.I do know I have read Origin and all the biogs I could find.I have the lot upstairs.The statement that because Mr Darwin was in the Galapogos Islands meant that he knew nothing about the natives who he saw on his way there was drivel.And obviously so.
I made no such statement.
Quote: As for Darwin, his essential thesis was not informed by his experience in Tierra del Fuego, which was my point.
Mr Darwin's thesis was informed by everything he ever experienced.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace