I am not your "old boy"--it is ill-bred at the least to express a familiarity which one has not established. You mention "from class to class," and on that basis, i submit to you that this is indicative of precisely what is wrong with your thesis--the notion that there are different orders of humans which can be adjudged one to be superior to the other. That is a concept which i reject completely. Members of a "class" which once were held to be superior enjoyed benefits for their children's education not available to those not attaining to such a social definition. Therefore, it was superficially apparent that they deserved their elevated station, as they performed better in the arena of competition. However, the playing field was far from level, which since has been recognized, and measures taken to correct that.
A thesis that there is no right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but only that one is so privileged can only inevitably lead at some progression in the past to autocracy. If every civil liberty which the citizen enjoys is said to be a privilege, it had to have been granted to them at some point. Working from the present into the past, one inevitably comes to a juncture at which the right to confer these privileges were granted by an autocratic power, whether singular or plural. Unless one invokes a deity, then one must be able to name, to demonstrate the autocratic power from which the process derives.
I submit that our historical record in the west shows that tribal humans recognized no authority but agreement by consensus. The same may well once have been true among the ancient Chinese, or the Aryan tribes, but we lack a record of this because of their illiteracy in the period to which one would need to refer. Therefore, i submit that authority placed over humans was granted by the aggregate of adults in any polity, and represented a surrender of a portion of their rights.
Unless you are prepared to demonstrate the autocratic power from whence the privileges derive, i see no reason to alter that view.
Setanta wrote-
Quote: Working from the present into the past, one inevitably comes to a juncture at which the right to confer these privileges were granted by an autocratic power, whether singular or plural. Unless one invokes a deity, then one must be able to name, to demonstrate the autocratic power from which the process derives.
Would "might" suffice?What we have now is a development out of that which was a strategy to
increase might and up to now it has worked.You are the only super-power they say which means you have the most might.Tribal humans,what ever we think of them,were certainly weak by our standards and one presumes will vanish from the earth within a few hundred years or possibly less.
I not only think that there will have to be some autocracy in the southern states and beyond but I think it will be impossible to do without it.It may well be temporary and I hope short but when normality returns it will still be there behind the scenes.It is the autocracy of your duly elected President and I would hope that if push comes to shove he will give short shrift to anybody standing on their rights over much.
If I was a resident in New Orleans I would feel very privileged to be rescued,looked after and to live in a society which has the capacity to do that and to stand me on my feet again.I think that those who take such a view,and there will be many I'm sure,will be on their feet faster than those who think they have rights to all the things necessary.
You insist on conflating the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with "privileges" to enjoy the range of conveniences which characterize modern, industrial society.
You haven't answered the question, other than to suggest that some undefined and vague tribal weilder of "might" has conferred such privilege. You continue to ignore the evidence from Tacitus and Livy, and many other sources, that members of tribes do not willingly recognize authority in which they have not acquiesced.
As far as i'm concerned, your references to a superpower and the tragedy in New Orleans are a dodge, by which you hope to deflect a basic question for which you do not have an answer.
Setanta wrote-
Quote:You haven't answered the question, other than to suggest that some undefined and vague tribal weilder of "might" has conferred such privilege. You continue to ignore the evidence from Tacitus and Livy, and many other sources, that members of tribes do not willingly recognize authority in which they have not acquiesced.
First off I don't consider Tacitus and Livy to be unimpeachable sources but I will grant what they say in this case because it is fairly common knowledge that people do not willingly accept a yoke stemming from superior force.If the force is strong enough the unwillingness gradually shifts into a grudging acceptance and on into habits,usages and institutions and hence to a new unity under that yoke which is not only accepted but alternatives might not even be imagined.It may take a long time but that is how nations are formed from smaller units.Is that an answer?
I intended no dodge.I thought they were relevant and topical examples-that's all.
I understood what you meant about institutionalized "might" as the autocratic authority for the grant of privilege. I am pointing out that the original condition, as i appears to me (no appeal to any authority here), was one in which adult members of a tribe were imbued with rights, which spring from the conditions i mentioned several pages back. They are born without reference to someone's authority; they are free to pursue their ends--insofar as their freedom is not either willingly surrendered in consideration of the benefit of the group, nor curtailed by the group; and finally, they pursue their own gratification, their happiness.
When government do not recognize rights, or simply take an attitude that they tolerate such expression by the mass of citizens, they tread the path to tyranny. What you see as a grant of privilege by might, i see as the residue of right in despite of might.
Re: Against 'rights'
John Jones wrote: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)
Do you have a right to voice your opinion? Yes or No ?
No.He has the privilege.If he had the right he could voice his opinion under any possible circumstances including those which constituted authority,the voice of the people in our case,designated harmful and weakening to our society.It follows,logically,that his opinion is considered by the authorities to be harmless.You might say that he has a right to voice harmless and inconsequential opinions.
Does that make sense?
Free speech,as an American judge once said,does not confer the right to shout "Fire!!" in a crowded theatre and risk causing a stampede trampling incident.
Right; a power or privilege belonging to one by law or nature.
Who grants him his privilege and can it be justified?
Privilege; a special right, faver, etc granted to some person or group
Setanta wrote-
Quote: What you see as a grant of privilege by might, i see as the residue of right in despite of might.
.
I can live with that.The question is clarified now on how this residue is dwindling or not.I think it is dwindling and it is a price we pay for all the goodies it provides.So I am admitting there's a price.On the other hand,if we didn't pay the price would we get the goodies.Anybody who can deliver the goodies without paying that price I will listen to.
I like the rights but I like the goodies more.I'm not that keen on swinging through the trees with a bunch of rights.If we cease to freely elect our kings I could change my position but I would keep it to myself.
Amigo-welcome.
If you read the thread you will find we are past your point.We are currently discussing the readings on a gauge and the direction it is moving in and whether or not we are in favour of what we see.
Setanta thinks it bodes ill and I think it might bode ill but I'm not convinced.With 2 or 3% growth every year I'm going to take some convincing.At bottom it is psychological.I'm an optimist.I think we can keep it going.
BUT.
I heard an American economist tonight give 3 alternatives on how to pay for Katrina.One of them was to put it on the deficit and let our grandchildren pay it.Another was to charge each American 2 grand.
Do those unborn grandchildren have the right to have this dumped on them so that the ones living now can avoid the 2 grand dip into their pockets?
I didn't hear the third for laughing.
Americans are so silly. They have all the resources to 'pay' for Katrina, but they are .....idiots?!
Pardon me for being rude, but I think the people should be ashamed for how they are dealing with that situation. It is depressing. I have even heard people referring to those without homes as 'refugees'. WTF?!
Of course they should dig in their pockets now. They should be doing a hell of a lot more than that. They should be seriously re-evalating the entire system they have bowed down to. If Katrina is not a wake-up call, then what will be?
As to how this refers to the current discussion about 'rights' ...well, I'm going off. But I know it ties in somehow. Maybe someone can help to make sense of this loose-knit connection I am making. Far from being upset, I'd be grateful.
thanks
What societies have flourished the most and contributed most to civilization? Free or suppressed?(No need to answer, just a statement)
Two questions are not a statement.Especially when there are 8 words in them that need careful definition.
Do you understand what I am trying to say?
Also, I read all your post and still do not know. Who grants you a privilege and can it be justified?
If there are no rights Does that also mean I can not violate anybodys rights?
Amigo-
There are rights.If people say they have rights then they have rights.All I am saying is that I believe they would be better off in themselves if they thought of them as privileges.Rights seem to me to be something like arms and legs:something one doesn't feel grateful for.I don't see how one could feel grateful for rights and I think a sense of gratitude for all the benefits we have,such as orderly government, would alter the tone of our lives for the better.When rights clash there is no solution whereas a clash of privileges can more readily be negotiated.
Privileges derive from our political systems.
Would you say the American public have a right to lay the cost of Katrina onto the deficit and let their grandchildren pay for it as was suggested on Fox News last night or would you class it as a privilege.
spendius wrote:Come on Joe.Threads are derailed all over the place just like pub conversations are.There are so many examples of it that I'm not sure I can think of a thread of any length where the derailing has not been derailed over and over.
You'll excuse me if I don't encourage that kind of derailing with the same amount of enthusiasm that you seem to display.
spendius wrote:Also I'm not so certain that I have moved into non-philosophical areas and I'm also not so certain that you have not derailed the spirit of JJ's original post
into a purely American setting.
I have only posted in this thread five times (not counting this one). If I have done anything to inject a "purely American setting" into this thread, then it should be easy for you to find and example of that and bring it to my attention. If you can't, then I would strongly suggest that you refrain from posting such baseless innuendoes in the future.
spendius wrote:Which I may also have done of course.It is JJ's thread and I concede to him the privilege of determining whether he considers the thread to have been derailed and if he does by whom.You have just grabbed that privilege for yourself it seems to me.
You are wrong.
To accuse someone of derailing a thread is to demand that irrelevant posts be substituted for relevant ones even though the thread is dead. To this extent, the accusation seems a bit absurd, especially if a rule is made out of it, which some forums have done. I draw attention to the rules only to people obsessed by them, or to those who take advantage of them. I am, overall, very much against rules.
JJ-
Rules do have the advantage of enabling people to restrict the debate to their own satisfaction.
