Against 'rights'

A statement from authority on you part, an authority for which i have no reason to assume you possess. You are also ignoring the adjective "essential."

0 Replies

Quote:

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.

Who cares about that.If I read JJ right he,like me,doesn't give a monkey's scratch about being at odds with anything.I work with what's there.The fact that it's great these days is not taken for granted.It's just good fortune.

0 Replies

Life is not terribly "great" for most of humanity. The record is as indifference to your silly reliance upon your "intellect" over data as you are to said record. The evidence is overwhelming that in the primitive condition of mankind, adults were free agents negotiating the surrender of their freedom to act in exchange for the benefits of whatever primitive form of social contract evolved therefrom. Were there no social contract, those physically larger and more imposing than you would be perfectly positioned to exercise their natural right to express their freedom of action by depriving you of your right to life and liberty.

0 Replies

I know.

Don't think I'm not grateful.I'm over the moon.But I still don't think I have any rights.

Apart from going to bed now.And if the cops bust the door down and said I couldn't go to bed I would play it by ear.I wouldn't go banging on about my rights.It would only aggravate the situation.I might argue if they were going to shoot me mind you.

0 Replies

Well, although a recent event has cast some doubt on the proposition, i think you are lagely safe from such an event in England.

No living thing is born because dispensation was granted as from authority. Others might seek to interfer in the birth, but that would not be that act of legitimate authority, but of oppression. Therefore, all living things have the right to life. All living things are free to act in so far as they are able to acheive their ends. Outside authority might intervene, but would only constitute legitimate authority were it the consensually sanctioned authority of the pack or the tribe. Therefore, all living things have the right to freedom. Insofar as the actions of living things tend toward the gratification of their needs, and sometimes their wants, it can as reasonably be posited that they have the right to pursue happiness. Which is precisely why the authors of our Declaration of Independence identified among our unalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

0 Replies

Re: Against 'rights'

John Jones wrote:

Nobody has rights. Nobody 'has' rights. Nobody can be said to 'have' a right.(c)

Some people read so far, then stop.

1. I am not saying that people 'have no rights'. I am saying that nobody can 'have' rights.
2. I am not saying that there are no rights. I am saying that rights are not a possession.
3. I am not saying that other people grant me my rights. I am saying that the burden of a right is borne by those who do not claim a right. When I say 'I have the right' I ALWAYS appeal to someone who can, or could, make a difference regarding what it is that I want to do. Now then, is it always pertinent to make an appeal to rights?

0 Replies

I read your original post, before you edited it, eleven minutes later. As it stands now, you still have made no case. You simply deploy a set of assertions. I deny your assertions. I've already explained the basis of my denial.

It's really bad form, by the way, to edit your post so substantially after people have read it and begun to respond. It shows bad faith, and it implies a lack of coherence in expression.

0 Replies

BM

0 Replies

I would agree with this-

Quote:

It's really bad form, by the way, to edit your post so substantially after people have read it and begun to respond. It shows bad faith, and it implies a lack of coherence in expression.

Editing typing is okay.But I don't claim the right to demand it.It is just "bad form".

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I would agree with this-

Quote:
It's really bad form, by the way, to edit your post so substantially after people have read it and begun to respond. It shows bad faith, and it implies a lack of coherence in expression.

Editing typing is okay.But I don't claim the right to demand it.It is just "bad form".

Hey...why pass up a chance to agree with both Set and Spendius!!! Ya don't get a chance like this often. Twisted Evil

And I will make a small revision also:

It is more than just "bad form." Often...I am not saying necessarily in this case...it is an attempt to deceive.

Set apparently read the original...and I don't know how much or how significantly it was changed....but stuff like that should really be done by a separate, explanatory post. Editing should be used to correct very minor mistakes and typos....particularly if several minutes have passed since the original post was submitted.

0 Replies

Quote:

. Which is precisely why the authors of our Declaration of Independence identified among our unalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I think that the D of I is an ideal type.It is a declaration of intent.It sets a tone.Interpreted literally it would cause chaos.And it had no idea of the type of society we now live in.

My position is not a legal one.I just think that those who claim their "rights" very often get themselves in a tangle.It is more relaxing and conducive to a calm existence to forget about rights and just go with the flow using your own resources to protect your life,liberty and chance of happiness while respecting others.
When I was in the military the barrack room lawyers dropped us all in it on a regular basis until we threw them in the river.Authority looks kindly on my position and that's a fact.I am well aware though of the debt I owe to the other side.
It's a complex matter as the length of the law books makes plain.

0 Replies

Re: Against 'rights'

John Jones wrote:

1. I am not saying that people 'have no rights'. I am saying that nobody can 'have' rights.
2. I am not saying that there are no rights. I am saying that rights are not a possession.

If people do not "have" rights and rights are not possessions, then how can people transfer or sell rights?

For instance, suppose I am an author. Under the law, I have a copyright in the works that I create. I can also sell, give, lend, pledge, bequeath, or otherwise transfer that right to someone else. How can I do all of that if I do not "possess" that copyright?

John Jones wrote:

3. I am not saying that other people grant me my rights. I am saying that the burden of a right is borne by those who do not claim a right. When I say 'I have the right' I ALWAYS appeal to someone who can, or could, make a difference regarding what it is that I want to do. Now then, is it always pertinent to make an appeal to rights?

I'm not sure if this makes any sense. If you're saying that the "burden" of a right is on the person who is the object of the claim of right, then that might make some sense (although I'd like to know what you mean by "burden"). If not, then I have no idea what you're trying to say.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I read your original post, before you edited it, eleven minutes later. As it stands now, you still have made no case. You simply deploy a set of assertions. I deny your assertions. I've already explained the basis of my denial.

It's really bad form, by the way, to edit your post so substantially after people have read it and begun to respond. It shows bad faith, and it implies a lack of coherence in expression.

Let's hope this case of hysteria isn't catching. In case it is, here's how I amended my post in 11 minutes:
Where I wrote:
'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. ,
I originally presented this statement without the term 'human nature'. Inclusion of the phrase 'human nature' did not change the sense but sealed the point I was trying to make. I also made adjustments to the grammar, which I sometimes try to improve or correct irrespective of how long my post has been up.
Also, the grammar in this phrase was improved, with no change of meaning:
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.
So you need not have worried about a substantial change in meaning of my text. This would have been apparant if you had read it slowly. As it is, you saw a rabbit and screamed 'Big Foot!'.

0 Replies

Joe wrote-

Quote:

For instance, suppose I am an author. Under the law, I have a copyright in the works that I create. I can also sell, give, lend, pledge, bequeath, or otherwise transfer that right to someone else. How can I do all of that if I do not "possess" that copyright?

In England a vote in the House of Commons can take all that away and much else.Thus the "possess" is actually a granted privilege which is not a right.

I may have this wrong but during the first days of your crisis the public's "right" to be protected from truck drivers working too long hours was announced to have been rescinded and seemingly by a state official.There may well be a raft of such things.I saw that on Fox.

0 Replies

Nonsense, you also changed the "person" of the second paragraph from third person to first person, and altered that text as well. I indulged in no hysteria, i merely pointed out that you've been less than honest, and have attempted to alter your thesis in the face of criticism. You have now restated you thesis in significantly different terms.

You're dancing, and you display an appalling ineptitude at the exercise, colloquially referred to as "having two left feet."

0 Replies

Re: Against 'rights'

joefromchicago wrote:

If not, then I have no idea what you're trying to say.

That's alright, he doesn't either.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Quote:
. Which is precisely why the authors of our Declaration of Independence identified among our unalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I think that the D of I is an ideal type.It is a declaration of intent.It sets a tone.Interpreted literally it would cause chaos.And it had no idea of the type of society we now live in.

In plain speech--bullshit.

0 Replies

BBB
bm

0 Replies

That's ambiguous.

0 Replies

Maybe a real life answer will help in this discussion.

I recentally got married to my partner. For a long time my relationship with my partner would have been frowned on by society, and was even illegal in most states. Until recently, any kind of legal marriage for us was out of the question.

Love is a basic human right. Who I choose to love is my decision and even the most repressive government can't stop this.

Now, I am very happy that our marriage is now sanctioned by society-- but in a way that is irrelevent. Marriage is more important than what government says or society says or the church says. I would consider myself married to my partner even if the state didn't recognize it.

The fact the State insists that marriages (the most intimate of unions) need its sanction to be legitimate is a taking away of rights. People have been coupling for eons... long before western civilizatoin. When the State got involved, it did so to take away rights that are a part of basic human nature.

Now, what I don't understand is this often heard argument that my rights will "collapse" society. My marriage is based on the way I want to live my life.

The fact that I am free to pursue happiness has not caused any collapse-- moral spritual or otherwise, and does not impact anyone elses rights or freedoms.

0 Replies

Against 'rights'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know