|
Post by cenydd on Sept 5, 2013 13:38:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 5, 2013 13:53:44 GMT
There's only one problem.
WW II wasn't about "human rights" but instead was about political aggression. Not one nation fighting against Germany during WW II was motivated by "human rights" and those that believe that it was have been greatly misinformed. The "Holocaust" wasn't ever mentioned as a reason for going to war against Germany and, in fact, the fate of the Jews at the hands of the Germans was mostly ignored until after the war was over.
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Sept 5, 2013 14:02:00 GMT
True, but the European Convention on Civil Rights was drafted after the war in response to such atrocities, so the main point about its drafting is still valid.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Sept 5, 2013 14:15:48 GMT
True, but the European Convention on Civil Rights was drafted after the war in response to such atrocities, so the main point about its drafting is still valid. Except for the part about "those who fought and defeated Hitler" that had nothing whatsoever to do with Human Rights.
BTW I don't believe in "Human Rights" but instead believe in the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" and there is a difference. Many that believe in "Human Rights" advocate the violation of the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" and that is a contradiction. One "Right" cannot violate another "Right" as it would represent a self-contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by fugazi on Nov 1, 2013 0:31:20 GMT
True, but the European Convention on Civil Rights was drafted after the war in response to such atrocities, so the main point about its drafting is still valid. Except for the part about "those who fought and defeated Hitler" that had nothing whatsoever to do with Human Rights.
BTW I don't believe in "Human Rights" but instead believe in the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" and there is a difference. Many that believe in "Human Rights" advocate the violation of the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" and that is a contradiction. One "Right" cannot violate another "Right" as it would represent a self-contradiction.
I would argue that there is no such thing as inalienable rights for any person, inalienable by definition means "not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor.", there is not a single right that cannot or has not been taken away at some point for some reason, even the so called right to life is removed every time a court passes a death sentence, every time a country goes to war and every time a person is killed in self defence. I wrote a very long debate piece on inalienable rights (it got me banned from a certain other forum for pointing out that some people only wanted to derail the topic .. go figure), in conclusion it shows that there is no such thing as inalienable rights.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 1, 2013 3:01:50 GMT
Except for the part about "those who fought and defeated Hitler" that had nothing whatsoever to do with Human Rights.
BTW I don't believe in "Human Rights" but instead believe in the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" and there is a difference. Many that believe in "Human Rights" advocate the violation of the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" and that is a contradiction. One "Right" cannot violate another "Right" as it would represent a self-contradiction. I would argue that there is no such thing as inalienable rights for any person, inalienable by definition means "not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor.", there is not a single right that cannot or has not been taken away at some point for some reason, even the so called right to life is removed every time a court passes a death sentence, every time a country goes to war and every time a person is killed in self defence. I wrote a very long debate piece on inalienable rights (it got me banned from a certain other forum for pointing out that some people only wanted to derail the topic .. go figure), in conclusion it shows that there is no such thing as inalienable rights. Many make the mistake of confusing "inalienable" with "inviolable" and they are not the same. An inalienable right can most certainly be violated. The definition of inalienable (not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor) is accurate but that does not prevent it from being violated and never has. Over time I've developed what I consider to be the most accurate definition, or more accurately the criteria, of an Inalienable Right.
Inalienable Right - That which is inherent in the person which does not infringe upon or violate the inalienable rights of another person(s) and which does impose any obligations upon another person(s).
Originally referred to as "natural" rights in works by people like John Locke the concept or inalienable rights soon followed and was first incorporated in formal law in the Declaration of Independence as "unalienable" rights.
It is somewhat surprising that many Americans don't know that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constitution refers to the "natural" or "inalienable" Right of Citizenship of the Person established by jus soli (Latin - Right of Soil) because all persons have a natural (inalienable) right of citizenship based upon wherever they're born. Citizenship established by Jus Sanguinis (Latin - Right of Blood) cannot be a natural (inalienable) right because it is not inherent in the person as is dependent upon their parent(s) (another person). Citizenship based upon the citizenship of the parent(s) is established by statutory law as opposed to being a natural (inalienable) right of the person.
Exploring the understanding of Inalienable Rights is a very interesting topic for me. It's been over 200 years since the founding of America based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person but realize they knew little about them really. They set us on a course of intellectual pursuit of expanding their limited knowledge of Inalienable Rights just like Sir Isaac Newton set us on a path to understanding physics. For whatever reason we've made great strides in understanding physics but not nearly enough in understanding Inalienable Rights. That is something I constantly explore because there is so much to learn and I find many errors in our assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by fugazi on Nov 1, 2013 9:15:03 GMT
I would argue that there is no such thing as inalienable rights for any person, inalienable by definition means "not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor.", there is not a single right that cannot or has not been taken away at some point for some reason, even the so called right to life is removed every time a court passes a death sentence, every time a country goes to war and every time a person is killed in self defence. I wrote a very long debate piece on inalienable rights (it got me banned from a certain other forum for pointing out that some people only wanted to derail the topic .. go figure), in conclusion it shows that there is no such thing as inalienable rights. Many make the mistake of confusing "inalienable" with "inviolable" and they are not the same. An inalienable right can most certainly be violated. The definition of inalienable (not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor) is accurate but that does not prevent it from being violated and never has. Over time I've developed what I consider to be the most accurate definition, or more accurately the criteria, of an Inalienable Right.
Inalienable Right - That which is inherent in the person which does not infringe upon or violate the inalienable rights of another person(s) and which does impose any obligations upon another person(s).
Originally referred to as "natural" rights in works by people like John Locke the concept or inalienable rights soon followed and was first incorporated in formal law in the Declaration of Independence as "unalienable" rights.
It is somewhat surprising that many Americans don't know that the term "natural born citizen" as used in the US Constitution refers to the "natural" or "inalienable" Right of Citizenship of the Person established by jus soli (Latin - Right of Soil) because all persons have a natural (inalienable) right of citizenship based upon wherever they're born. Citizenship established by Jus Sanguinis (Latin - Right of Blood) cannot be a natural (inalienable) right because it is not inherent in the person as is dependent upon their parent(s) (another person). Citizenship based upon the citizenship of the parent(s) is established by statutory law as opposed to being a natural (inalienable) right of the person.
Exploring the understanding of Inalienable Rights is a very interesting topic for me. It's been over 200 years since the founding of America based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person but realize they knew little about them really. They set us on a course of intellectual pursuit of expanding their limited knowledge of Inalienable Rights just like Sir Isaac Newton set us on a path to understanding physics. For whatever reason we've made great strides in understanding physics but not nearly enough in understanding Inalienable Rights. That is something I constantly explore because there is so much to learn and I find many errors in our assumptions.
Where do these rights stem from? The only "natural" right is one to survive, and even that is subject to disagreement, any other right is one given to us by a "higher" authority and then you enter into the realm of providing evidence for the existence of that "higher" authority, and whether it really does bestow "natural" rights. Rights are pretty much founded on ethical value judgements, which may be empirical or rational. A right is that which confers legitimacy upon an action or a belief. For example, if one has a right to free speech, the act of speaking freely is given legitimacy. This legitimacy derives from whichever authority conferred the right in question. An unalienable right is one that cannot be taken away regardless of person, government or god, to say that when it is taken away is just a violation of that right isn't strictly true .. that implies that the right can be re-instated at some future point, in the case of executions, war and self-defence that is impossible, death is much more than a violation that can be over turned at some point. If another person can take away your right to life, then logically that right is not inalienable.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 1, 2013 14:16:29 GMT
Many make the mistake of confusing "inalienable" with "inviolable" and they are not the same. An inalienable right can most certainly be violated. The definition of inalienable (not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor) is accurate but that does not prevent it from being violated and never has. Over time I've developed what I consider to be the most accurate definition, or more accurately the criteria, of an Inalienable Right.
Inalienable Right - That which is inherent in the person which does not infringe upon or violate the inalienable rights of another person(s) and which does impose any obligations upon another person(s). Where do these rights stem from? The only "natural" right is one to survive, and even that is subject to disagreement, any other right is one given to us by a "higher" authority and then you enter into the realm of providing evidence for the existence of that "higher" authority, and whether it really does bestow "natural" rights. Rights are pretty much founded on ethical value judgements, which may be empirical or rational. A right is that which confers legitimacy upon an action or a belief. For example, if one has a right to free speech, the act of speaking freely is given legitimacy. This legitimacy derives from whichever authority conferred the right in question. An unalienable right is one that cannot be taken away regardless of person, government or god, to say that when it is taken away is just a violation of that right isn't strictly true .. that implies that the right can be re-instated at some future point, in the case of executions, war and self-defence that is impossible, death is much more than a violation that can be over turned at some point. If another person can take away your right to life, then logically that right is not inalienable. You're thinking actually follows the same path that mine did in the past and I can help you with this. We need to build upon what we learn.
Ayn Rand, a person I don't agree with on all conclusions, did make one statement that was absolutely correct when it comes to inalienable rights. There is one inalienable right and from it all others are derived.
The Inalienable Right of Self. The sovereignty of the person as an individual is the origin of all other inalienable rights. That is not "granted" by any higher authority, nor is it established based upon a ethical judgment by others. It refers to a state of being and existence. The person exists as a sovereign entity and it is the simple acceptance of the fact that individual person exists that establishes the first Inalienable Right of the Person. Based upon that foundation then, using the criteria I provided, all other Inalienable Rights can be determined based upon logical deduction.
But your point leads us to another point related to Inalienable Rights. Just as there is a difference between "Inalienable" and "inviolable" there is a difference between and "Inalienable Right" and the "Freedom to Exercise" and Inalienable Right and that is often based upon "ethical value judgments, which maybe empirical or rational." The Right and the Freedom are not the same. Let's follow that path a bit.
As a sovereign individual person I have the Right of Self and that leads me to my Right of Thought. The Right of Thought cannot be infringed upon or violated per se but in a society based upon a foundation of the Inalienable Rights of the Person we grant the Freedom to Exercise the Right of Thought through speech and expression but based upon "ethical value judgments" we limit the Freedom to Exercise the Right of Thought through speed and expression. It is against the law to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater because the "empirical" evidence shows that it will cause panic endangering other persons. We allow a person to lie to others but not in a court of law where perjury would lead to injustices in applications of the law.
In our society we do impose limitations upon the Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right based upon ethical value judgments established by empirical evidence or rational deduction to protect the Rights of other Persons but all such limitations should always be to the least extent pragmatically possible to achieve the greater protection of all persons.
This is where the death penalty on one end and incarceration for victimless crimes on the other end fails based upon an understanding of Inalienable Rights.
Incarceration is a limitation imposed upon the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person. The purpose is to protect the Rights of Persons in society when a person has demonstrated by they actions that they would violate the Rights of other Persons. The person that commits robbery violates the Right of Property of a Person. The person that commits assault and battery violates the Right of Self of another person. The extent of the limitation upon the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Liberty is rationally based upon the threat the person represents and should be to the least extent possible. Some are only limited to being on a "work farm" where they have considerable Freedom to Exercise their Inalienable Right of Liberty because they do not present much of a risk to society while others might have to be restricted to solitary confinement for the most part because they represent a very high risk not just to society but to other inmates as well.
Society can be protected from the threat a person convicted of the most heinous of crimes represents by incarceration without any possibility of parole. It may require incarceration in the highest security prison and perhaps even in solitary confinement but that infringement upon the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Liberty is adequate to protect society and it is the least possible infringement upon the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person to achieve the protections of the Rights of other Persons in society. The death penalty cannot be supported based upon empirical or rational argument as it is unnecessary for the protections of the Inalienable Rights of other Persons.
At the other end of the spectrum is the person convicted of a victimless crime. They represent no threat to the Inalienable Rights of other Persons as they have not violated anyone's Rights by definition. There was no victim and therefore no one is being protected by their incarceration. Because no one's Rights are being protected by the incarceration it fails to meet any empirical or rational argument that would require incarceration (i.e. the limitation upon the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Liberty).
Incarceration as a limitation upon the Freedom to Exercise the Right of Liberty is pragmatically imposed to Protect the Rights of Others. It is based upon the Right of Self-Defense Against Acts of Aggression by another Person. We have a Right to Defend ourselves from Acts of Aggression by other Persons.
Punishment for a crime, whether incarceration or the death penalty, is unrelated to the Protections of our Inalienable Rights and instead represents an Act of Revenge but we, as persons, don't have a Right of Revenge. It cannot be supported by empirical or rational argument because we, as individuals, do not have a Right of Revenge against another Person as that would violate the Inalienable Rights of the other Person because it is an Act of Aggression by us against that other person.
With these examples in hand we can conclude that there is a difference between an "Inalienable Right" (Inherent in the Person established by individual sovereignty) and "Inviolable Right" (protected by statutory law) and the "Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right" (protected and/or limited by statutory law). Each plays an important role in our society as a "Free Nation" founded upon the principle that the expressed (primary) purpose for government to exist was to protect the Person from the violations of their Inalienable Rights by other Persons.
This statement leads us to one final thought. Government only has the authority delegated to it based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person. We cannot logically delegate any "power" to government that we do not possess as Individuals collectively.
Quickly back to incarceration and the death penalty. Based upon our Right of Self Defense we can refrain a person from harming us (i.e. incarcerate them), we can even take their life if need dictates in a direct act of self defense based upon an imminent threat they represent, but we cannot commit the premeditated murder of another person that does not represent an imminent threat to us. Capital punishment is an act of premeditated murder because the person being executed does not represent an imminent threat to anyone.
Great discussion. Please present your next issue because even with what we've covered so far the implications are far reaching and I'd love to cover that.
|
|
|
Post by fugazi on Nov 2, 2013 12:27:40 GMT
Where do these rights stem from? The only "natural" right is one to survive, and even that is subject to disagreement, any other right is one given to us by a "higher" authority and then you enter into the realm of providing evidence for the existence of that "higher" authority, and whether it really does bestow "natural" rights. Rights are pretty much founded on ethical value judgements, which may be empirical or rational. A right is that which confers legitimacy upon an action or a belief. For example, if one has a right to free speech, the act of speaking freely is given legitimacy. This legitimacy derives from whichever authority conferred the right in question. An unalienable right is one that cannot be taken away regardless of person, government or god, to say that when it is taken away is just a violation of that right isn't strictly true .. that implies that the right can be re-instated at some future point, in the case of executions, war and self-defence that is impossible, death is much more than a violation that can be over turned at some point. If another person can take away your right to life, then logically that right is not inalienable. You're thinking actually follows the same path that mine did in the past and I can help you with this. We need to build upon what we learn.
Ayn Rand, a person I don't agree with on all conclusions, did make one statement that was absolutely correct when it comes to inalienable rights. There is one inalienable right and from it all others are derived.
The Inalienable Right of Self. The sovereignty of the person as an individual is the origin of all other inalienable rights. That is not "granted" by any higher authority, nor is it established based upon a ethical judgment by others. It refers to a state of being and existence. The person exists as a sovereign entity and it is the simple acceptance of the fact that individual person exists that establishes the first Inalienable Right of the Person. Based upon that foundation then, using the criteria I provided, all other Inalienable Rights can be determined based upon logical deduction.
But your point leads us to another point related to Inalienable Rights. Just as there is a difference between "Inalienable" and "inviolable" there is a difference between and "Inalienable Right" and the "Freedom to Exercise" and Inalienable Right and that is often based upon "ethical value judgments, which maybe empirical or rational." The Right and the Freedom are not the same. Let's follow that path a bit.
As a sovereign individual person I have the Right of Self and that leads me to my Right of Thought. The Right of Thought cannot be infringed upon or violated per se but in a society based upon a foundation of the Inalienable Rights of the Person we grant the Freedom to Exercise the Right of Thought through speech and expression but based upon "ethical value judgments" we limit the Freedom to Exercise the Right of Thought through speed and expression. It is against the law to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater because the "empirical" evidence shows that it will cause panic endangering other persons. We allow a person to lie to others but not in a court of law where perjury would lead to injustices in applications of the law.
In our society we do impose limitations upon the Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right based upon ethical value judgments established by empirical evidence or rational deduction to protect the Rights of other Persons but all such limitations should always be to the least extent pragmatically possible to achieve the greater protection of all persons.
This is where the death penalty on one end and incarceration for victimless crimes on the other end fails based upon an understanding of Inalienable Rights.
Incarceration is a limitation imposed upon the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person. The purpose is to protect the Rights of Persons in society when a person has demonstrated by they actions that they would violate the Rights of other Persons. The person that commits robbery violates the Right of Property of a Person. The person that commits assault and battery violates the Right of Self of another person. The extent of the limitation upon the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Liberty is rationally based upon the threat the person represents and should be to the least extent possible. Some are only limited to being on a "work farm" where they have considerable Freedom to Exercise their Inalienable Right of Liberty because they do not present much of a risk to society while others might have to be restricted to solitary confinement for the most part because they represent a very high risk not just to society but to other inmates as well.
Society can be protected from the threat a person convicted of the most heinous of crimes represents by incarceration without any possibility of parole. It may require incarceration in the highest security prison and perhaps even in solitary confinement but that infringement upon the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Liberty is adequate to protect society and it is the least possible infringement upon the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person to achieve the protections of the Rights of other Persons in society. The death penalty cannot be supported based upon empirical or rational argument as it is unnecessary for the protections of the Inalienable Rights of other Persons.
At the other end of the spectrum is the person convicted of a victimless crime. They represent no threat to the Inalienable Rights of other Persons as they have not violated anyone's Rights by definition. There was no victim and therefore no one is being protected by their incarceration. Because no one's Rights are being protected by the incarceration it fails to meet any empirical or rational argument that would require incarceration (i.e. the limitation upon the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Liberty).
Incarceration as a limitation upon the Freedom to Exercise the Right of Liberty is pragmatically imposed to Protect the Rights of Others. It is based upon the Right of Self-Defense Against Acts of Aggression by another Person. We have a Right to Defend ourselves from Acts of Aggression by other Persons.
Punishment for a crime, whether incarceration or the death penalty, is unrelated to the Protections of our Inalienable Rights and instead represents an Act of Revenge but we, as persons, don't have a Right of Revenge. It cannot be supported by empirical or rational argument because we, as individuals, do not have a Right of Revenge against another Person as that would violate the Inalienable Rights of the other Person because it is an Act of Aggression by us against that other person.
With these examples in hand we can conclude that there is a difference between an "Inalienable Right" (Inherent in the Person established by individual sovereignty) and "Inviolable Right" (protected by statutory law) and the "Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right" (protected and/or limited by statutory law). Each plays an important role in our society as a "Free Nation" founded upon the principle that the expressed (primary) purpose for government to exist was to protect the Person from the violations of their Inalienable Rights by other Persons. This statement leads us to one final thought. Government only has the authority delegated to it based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person. We cannot logically delegate any "power" to government that we do not possess as Individuals collectively.
Quickly back to incarceration and the death penalty. Based upon our Right of Self Defense we can refrain a person from harming us (i.e. incarcerate them), we can even take their life if need dictates in a direct act of self defense based upon an imminent threat they represent, but we cannot commit the premeditated murder of another person that does not represent an imminent threat to us. Capital punishment is an act of premeditated murder because the person being executed does not represent an imminent threat to anyone.
Great discussion. Please present your next issue because even with what we've covered so far the implications are far reaching and I'd love to cover that.
Lot to cover and think about there, so I'll just cover the parts I can at the moment. "The Inalienable Right of Self" - Would someone not have to have the ability to recognize this right to self in order to claim it, if not then that right is surely being bestowed by others and not by the individual themselves. I can think of occasions where people do lose the right to thoughts, we have cases of brainwashing where people are primed to think in certain way (ie cults) they are still forming the thoughts themselves but have been lead into a certain way of thinking that under other circumstances would seem alien to them, surely this is taking away that right to self and right to thought. I remember reading somewhere once that the only true freedoms are based in anarchy. I do get what you are saying though, that rights are pretty much based on the foundation of what is "best" for the majority and is probably the best compromise we can have in order to have some semblance of "civilized" society, it just kind of gets me going when people say "we have the right to do this" or "the right to say this" etc when in reality they don't.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 2, 2013 13:27:00 GMT
Lot to cover and think about there, so I'll just cover the parts I can at the moment. "The Inalienable Right of Self" - Would someone not have to have the ability to recognize this right to self in order to claim it, if not then that right is surely being bestowed by others and not by the individual themselves. I can think of occasions where people do lose the right to thoughts, we have cases of brainwashing where people are primed to think in certain way (ie cults) they are still forming the thoughts themselves but have been lead into a certain way of thinking that under other circumstances would seem alien to them, surely this is taking away that right to self and right to thought. I remember reading somewhere once that the only true freedoms are based in anarchy. I do get what you are saying though, that rights are pretty much based on the foundation of what is "best" for the majority and is probably the best compromise we can have in order to have some semblance of "civilized" society, it just kind of gets me going when people say "we have the right to do this" or "the right to say this" etc when in reality they don't. A lot to think about related to the Inalienable Rights of the Person is a gross understatement. LOL Think about it this way. The very understanding of Inalienable Rights was fundamentally put forward in political ideology in the 18th Century and embraced formally in the Declaration of Independence. It was in it's infancy then and here we are over 200 years later and, at best, we're barely toddlers in our advancement of understanding.
Does the individual actually have to "know" what Inalienable Rights of the Person are for Inalienable Rights of the Person to exist? Does a person actually have to know what gravity is for gravity to exist? It certainly helps if we know and understand them but that knowledge is not a prerequisite.
Yes, the Right to Thought of the Person can be violated just like the Right to Life of the Person can be violated. As noted an Inalienable Right is not an Inviolable Right.
In a utopian world where the Inalienable Rights of the Person are completely understood and always respected by others and where all individuals live by the absolute principle of "mutual non-aggression" exists then anarchy would exist. Remember that our government was founded upon the real world where people do violate each other's rights and do commit acts of aggression against each other. From a Utopian perspective anarchy provides absolute freedom because no one would act in any manner that would violate the Inalienable Rights of any other Person but Utopia doesn't and will never exist.
With so much to think about, and there are places I've not gone yet, here's one more thing to consider. Our understanding of the Right of Property is greatly flawed although we do have an understanding of how that Right is established but fail to apply it in most cases. Let me provide an example.
The Right of Property is established by the "Labor of the Person" and lacking that we have no Rights related to property.
By what authority does our government that has no Rights grant title to natural resources that are not owned by any person because they are not a product of labor? The gold in the Earth doesn't belong to anyone nor the trees in the forest. We didn't produce either with our labor and we cannot "grant title" to them either directly or indirectly through our government. The concept of the government "granting title" was based upon European Monarchies where the "King" owned everything (that authority was "granted by God" and the King was God's representative based a self-declaration by the King) including the people that were subjects of the King. This "granting of title" was historically related to the monarch granting a position of title to a person and with it was the granting of the lands and resources within a territorial boundary that was under the ownership of the King. The King also had absolute authority to revoke both the title of the person as well as the granted title to lands and the resources.
As I noted when the United State adopted the belief in the Inalienable Rights of the Person as being the foundation for government we were still in our infancy in understanding that. We adopted many beliefs from our European roots that directly conflicted with Inalienable Rights and the granting of title to land and natural resources by government was one of those accepted practices that are in conflict.
Basically land and resources belong to no individual person and are shared by all persons.
We do know and must accept that the use of land and natural resources is a necessity but the idea that the land or resource be "titled" to an individual is flawed. If a person mines gold they are entitled to the "fruits of their labor" but the value of the gold which rightfully cannot belong to any one person. When that gold is mined then its value is shared by all persons because it's a natural resource and not a manmade resource. The "miner" is certainly entitled to a right of property related to the recovery of the gold from the Earth but it must be proportionate to the labor expended to retrieve that gold.
How we would address this pragmatically still needs to be defined but we know the principles upon which to base a pragmatic resolution. There is a paradox between the Right of Property related to natural resources where a pragmatic resolution has yet to be established.
In this same vein I've also questioned the Right of Property related to land as both the Settler that would farm the land and the Nomad that uses it for the gathering of food both have equal Rights related to the use of the land. I don't have an answer to that paradox either but I have identified the question that needs to be answered.
So when the point was made there was a lot to think about I really did laugh because the more I learn and understand the more questions I have and most are not easy to answer. I certainly don't have all the answers but the each step on the road to knowledge begins with a question and I do have questions.
|
|
|
Post by fugazi on Nov 3, 2013 16:53:45 GMT
Lot to cover and think about there, so I'll just cover the parts I can at the moment. "The Inalienable Right of Self" - Would someone not have to have the ability to recognize this right to self in order to claim it, if not then that right is surely being bestowed by others and not by the individual themselves. I can think of occasions where people do lose the right to thoughts, we have cases of brainwashing where people are primed to think in certain way (ie cults) they are still forming the thoughts themselves but have been lead into a certain way of thinking that under other circumstances would seem alien to them, surely this is taking away that right to self and right to thought. I remember reading somewhere once that the only true freedoms are based in anarchy. I do get what you are saying though, that rights are pretty much based on the foundation of what is "best" for the majority and is probably the best compromise we can have in order to have some semblance of "civilized" society, it just kind of gets me going when people say "we have the right to do this" or "the right to say this" etc when in reality they don't. A lot to think about related to the Inalienable Rights of the Person is a gross understatement. LOL Think about it this way. The very understanding of Inalienable Rights was fundamentally put forward in political ideology in the 18th Century and embraced formally in the Declaration of Independence. It was in it's infancy then and here we are over 200 years later and, at best, we're barely toddlers in our advancement of understanding.
Does the individual actually have to "know" what Inalienable Rights of the Person are for Inalienable Rights of the Person to exist? Does a person actually have to know what gravity is for gravity to exist? It certainly helps if we know and understand them but that knowledge is not a prerequisite.
Yes, the Right to Thought of the Person can be violated just like the Right to Life of the Person can be violated. As noted an Inalienable Right is not an Inviolable Right.
In a utopian world where the Inalienable Rights of the Person are completely understood and always respected by others and where all individuals live by the absolute principle of "mutual non-aggression" exists then anarchy would exist. Remember that our government was founded upon the real world where people do violate each other's rights and do commit acts of aggression against each other. From a Utopian perspective anarchy provides absolute freedom because no one would act in any manner that would violate the Inalienable Rights of any other Person but Utopia doesn't and will never exist.
With so much to think about, and there are places I've not gone yet, here's one more thing to consider. Our understanding of the Right of Property is greatly flawed although we do have an understanding of how that Right is established but fail to apply it in most cases. Let me provide an example.
The Right of Property is established by the "Labor of the Person" and lacking that we have no Rights related to property.
By what authority does our government that has no Rights grant title to natural resources that are not owned by any person because they are not a product of labor? The gold in the Earth doesn't belong to anyone nor the trees in the forest. We didn't produce either with our labor and we cannot "grant title" to them either directly or indirectly through our government. The concept of the government "granting title" was based upon European Monarchies where the "King" owned everything (that authority was "granted by God" and the King was God's representative based a self-declaration by the King) including the people that were subjects of the King. This "granting of title" was historically related to the monarch granting a position of title to a person and with it was the granting of the lands and resources within a territorial boundary that was under the ownership of the King. The King also had absolute authority to revoke both the title of the person as well as the granted title to lands and the resources.
As I noted when the United State adopted the belief in the Inalienable Rights of the Person as being the foundation for government we were still in our infancy in understanding that. We adopted many beliefs from our European roots that directly conflicted with Inalienable Rights and the granting of title to land and natural resources by government was one of those accepted practices that are in conflict.
Basically land and resources belong to no individual person and are shared by all persons.
We do know and must accept that the use of land and natural resources is a necessity but the idea that the land or resource be "titled" to an individual is flawed. If a person mines gold they are entitled to the "fruits of their labor" but the value of the gold which rightfully cannot belong to any one person. When that gold is mined then its value is shared by all persons because it's a natural resource and not a manmade resource. The "miner" is certainly entitled to a right of property related to the recovery of the gold from the Earth but it must be proportionate to the labor expended to retrieve that gold.
How we would address this pragmatically still needs to be defined but we know the principles upon which to base a pragmatic resolution. There is a paradox between the Right of Property related to natural resources where a pragmatic resolution has yet to be established.
In this same vein I've also questioned the Right of Property related to land as both the Settler that would farm the land and the Nomad that uses it for the gathering of food both have equal Rights related to the use of the land. I don't have an answer to that paradox either but I have identified the question that needs to be answered.
So when the point was made there was a lot to think about I really did laugh because the more I learn and understand the more questions I have and most are not easy to answer. I certainly don't have all the answers but the each step on the road to knowledge begins with a question and I do have questions.
Got to ask, have you ever seen the Zeitgeist docu-movies? I think you may be falling into a slight trap with your comparison to gravity. gravity is a law of nature it requires no rights to be as it is ie E will always equal MC2, it doesn't have to have right to equal it, it just does. If a person does not know about the right, then logically it has to be bestowed upon them by others .. even by acknowledging this right in others we are by proxy bestowing it upon them, the person may have the individual thoughts of what are their rights, but unless others ackowledge those rights they are pretty meaningless, don't you think? I already had a pretty good knowledge of where certain rights originated, including the right to property - and yet again this conflict that occurs with certain rights finds it's roots in a religious base, that does seem to happen quite a bit as far as rights are concerned. I am still of the opinion that the only right that can almost be seen as inalienable is the right to survive, but even that has a limit.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 3, 2013 18:23:42 GMT
Got to ask, have you ever seen the Zeitgeist docu-movies? I think you may be falling into a slight trap with your comparison to gravity. gravity is a law of nature it requires no rights to be as it is ie E will always equal MC2, it doesn't have to have right to equal it, it just does. If a person does not know about the right, then logically it has to be bestowed upon them by others .. even by acknowledging this right in others we are by proxy bestowing it upon them, the person may have the individual thoughts of what are their rights, but unless others ackowledge those rights they are pretty meaningless, don't you think? I already had a pretty good knowledge of where certain rights originated, including the right to property - and yet again this conflict that occurs with certain rights finds it's roots in a religious base, that does seem to happen quite a bit as far as rights are concerned. I am still of the opinion that the only right that can almost be seen as inalienable is the right to survive, but even that has a limit. I'm unaware of ever seeing any Zeitgeist docu-movies.
The gravity analogy was an analogy and no analogy is prefect. The arguments for "Inalienable" (natural) Rights were that they were self-evident, not bestowed, and that even if the person didn't recognized them as being an "Inalienable Right" that they were an Inalienable Right nonetheless.
For example a person may not know that the Right to Life is an inalienable Right (based upon the Right of Self). That doesn't imply that their lack of knowledge or understanding of the Inalienable Right to Life could be used to rationalize murdering them. They know that murdering someone is wrong even though they don't know why it's wrong. The "Right to Life" that is an Inalienable Right of the Person is self-evident and is not bestowed based upon the knowledge or understanding of Inalienable Rights. We knew murder was wrong long before we understood why murder was wrong.
While we can use intellectual investigation and logical deduction to figure out what is and what is not an Inalienable Right the Right exists regardless of whether it's identified by us or not. The 9th Amendment to the US Constitution acknowledges that we really don't know what all of our Inalienable Rights are as the founders of the United States knew that they could not establish a definitive list of Inalienable Rights to be protected by the US Constitution. They knew that more existed and left it up to future generations to address them if need dictated.
Many of the protections that have since been included by Amendment to the US Constitution addressed violations of Inalienable Rights that were not previously protected. The provisions requiring "equal protection under the law" related to Inalienable Rights of the Person that are all equal. The law cannot treat one person differently than another because Inalienable Rights are identical for all People. "Persons may not be equal" but their "Rights are equal" and it's the Rights as a Person that are being protected under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.
Inalienable Rights have absolutely nothing to do with religious beliefs or opinion of any kind. The criteria for them is devoid of any political or religious opinion.
|
|
|
Post by fugazi on Nov 3, 2013 19:15:22 GMT
Got to ask, have you ever seen the Zeitgeist docu-movies? I think you may be falling into a slight trap with your comparison to gravity. gravity is a law of nature it requires no rights to be as it is ie E will always equal MC2, it doesn't have to have right to equal it, it just does. If a person does not know about the right, then logically it has to be bestowed upon them by others .. even by acknowledging this right in others we are by proxy bestowing it upon them, the person may have the individual thoughts of what are their rights, but unless others ackowledge those rights they are pretty meaningless, don't you think? I already had a pretty good knowledge of where certain rights originated, including the right to property - and yet again this conflict that occurs with certain rights finds it's roots in a religious base, that does seem to happen quite a bit as far as rights are concerned. I am still of the opinion that the only right that can almost be seen as inalienable is the right to survive, but even that has a limit. I'm unaware of ever seeing any Zeitgeist docu-movies.
I can recommend them, even if they don't fit a particular political viewpoint. I asked because a couple of things you mentioned fitted quite well into the ideology of them. How so, how can something that is not recognized, even by the individual, be inalienable right .. rights have to have recognition, either the individual recognizes that right or the majority do. We can certainly say that because we recognize the right in ourselves we assume that all others have the same right . .but that is then us placing the right upon another. But I thought we had agreed that the right to life is not inalienable, based on the definition of what inalienable means, and I didn't say that a person inability to recognize that right gives others the right to kill them. I disagree with you on someone knowing it is wrong to murder another even if they don't know why it is wrong, case to point is people who suffer with extreme autism - one of the most widely acknowledged consequences of autism is a lack of empathy for others, they have no understanding that their actions can hurt or kill another person, that is also apparent in court laws that allow for insanity as a defense against murder charges. I confess to not having a full understanding of your constitution, I have only really studied the parts that relate to the debates I enter into when debating people from the USA. I recognize the natural right to survive and that all other rights are granted from that right, that IMHO doesn't make them inalienable .. I would go so far as to say that even the natural right to survive is not inalienable, it can be removed, after all nature has no morals, it makes no ethical decisions on who or what should survive. I fully understand that in order to have a "civilized" society we have to lay down "rights" for all people .. that in my opinion does not make them inalienable. Perhaps I am being to strict in my definition of inalienable, but based upon it I see no right that is strictly inalienable .. it is one of the reasons I often say that a persons life has only as much value as another places upon it. I disagree and even the for runner to your constitution acknowledges that, the DOI states "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." Throughout history the association of rights has been tied to some form of religious worship to a deity.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 4, 2013 10:39:48 GMT
I disagree and even the for runner to your constitution acknowledges that, the DOI states "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." Throughout history the association of rights has been tied to some form of religious worship to a deity. A good place to start addressing where we were at in our understanding of Inalienable Rights in 1776.
Far more so than today religion played a huge role in the lives of the people at the time. John Locke, often referred to as the Father of Classic Liberalism, framed his arguments for the "natural rights of man" as being granted by "god" but this was not the "religious" god and with good cause. The monarchs ruled under the "divine right of kings" where their power was derived from god and the invocation of the "authority of god" as being the foundation for overturning the power of the crown was a pragmatic necessity in Locke's arguments for the "natural" rights of the person.
Once again though this doesn't relate to a "religious god" but instead to simply "god" as being that unknown creator as the universe. Thomas Jefferson, that penned the Declaration of Independence, is generally regarded as a deist that didn't believe in any organized religion per se although, as today, most politicians were members of churches. The use of the word "creator" as opposed to "god" is actually very significant as it didn't specify "god" but would imply it to those with deep religious convictions. While many even today are of the opinion that their religious god was the creator in a much more literal sense we are the children of the stars and the stars are our creator.
Let us remember though that the understanding of Inalienable Rights was still in it's relative infancy at the time and that the Declaration of Independence was a document presenting an argument for the validity of revolution based upon a philosophical belief. It was presented an argument against the "divine right of kings" and the authority for the argument had to be equal or greater than the authority of the king, that was granted by "god" (according to the king), and the use of the word "creator" was a pragmatic necessity for the argument.
In addressing another issue, the term "self-evident" is used. It is "self-evident" to normal and rational people and not for those with diminished mental capacity or psychosis. Inalienable Rights are not "bestowed" but instead "recognized" by normal rational people regardless of whether they understand them or not.
I don't know where you came up with the belief that the Right to Life is not an Inalienable Right but it was not contained any anything I intended. A person has a Right of Self-Defense against acts of aggression by others and in that capacity might be forced to violate someone else's Right to Life to protect their own or the life of another. It doesn't disparage the Right to Life of the "aggressor" but does rationalize the justification for violating it. In all cases of self-defense the "use of force" should always be to the least extent pragmatically possible though to provide the protections of the Inalienable Right of the Person though.
The key understanding though is that in defense of the Inalienable Rights of the Person any infringements upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person that would violated those Rights should always be to the Least Extent Possible for the Protections of the Right.
For example, a burglar breaks into your home. If you're in the home then it isn't the "property" that they might steal that gives you the authority to threaten them with a firearm or shoot them in self-defense if need dictates. It is the threat they represent to you as a person where they can cause you serious bodily harm or death. That justifies the use of force, or deadly force, in self-defense. If that burglar is fleeing your home they no longer represent a threat to you and "shooting them in the back" cannot be rationally justified. Only if they represent an immediate "threat to your person" can a person use force, or deadly force in the extreme case, to stop them.
|
|
|
Post by fugazi on Nov 4, 2013 19:58:10 GMT
I disagree and even the for runner to your constitution acknowledges that, the DOI states "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." Throughout history the association of rights has been tied to some form of religious worship to a deity. A good place to start addressing where we were at in our understanding of Inalienable Rights in 1776. Far more so than today religion played a huge role in the lives of the people at the time. John Locke, often referred to as the Father of Classic Liberalism, framed his arguments for the "natural rights of man" as being granted by "god" but this was not the "religious" god and with good cause. The monarchs ruled under the "divine right of kings" where their power was derived from god and the invocation of the "authority of god" as being the foundation for overturning the power of the crown was a pragmatic necessity in Locke's arguments for the "natural" rights of the person.
I disagree, in the time frame the writing of the DOI took place those who wrote it were very religious people, the fact that they did not recognize the "divine right of kings" in no way takes away from their own religious beliefs, in fact John Locke was raised in a Puritan family and later became a general liberal Protestant Christian. There is nothing that has changed the initial intent or meaning of the DOI or the constitution that followed on from it, both were and still are IMO based upon religious beliefs .. hence one of the reasons Christian Republicans find do much purchase in using it, of course interpretations have been attached to the "true" meaning, but in essence these are more about finding the arguments to fit the premise. Again we have to look at the mindset of the timeline mentioned and the use of the word creator, yes I agree it was put in place to create some sort of distinction from the "divine right of kings", but in essence it's meaning is the same, if you trace back the origins of the word creator you find it actually means "Supreme Being" c1300 - Creator and given that Atheism was pretty much unknown at that time, one can only come to the conclusion that the "creator" referred to would be the one worshiped by the predominant religion of the time. As time has moved on we have also moved on in our belief system - well most people have - and I feel you are placing a modern interpretation onto something that was never intended to mean what we may see today. Agreed. You make my point for me, it is the classic old item of does a falling tree make a sound if there is no one to hear it, I would suggest that the "self-evident" nature of rights is the same .. if the right cannot be recognized by the individual for themselves then it has to be recognized by others and as such is not strictly "self-evident" ergo it has to be explained. Therefore the right to life is not, and cannot be, inalienable being that inalienable literally means "not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor", if the aggressor has the inalienable right to life and another takes away their life then it cannot be inalienable. The concept of inalienable rights was criticized by Jeremy Bentham and Edmund Burke as groundless. Bentham and Burke, writing in the eighteenth century, claimed that rights arise from the actions of government, or evolve from tradition, and that neither of these can provide anything inalienable. Keeping with shift in thinking in the 19th century, Bentham famously dismissed the idea of natural rights as "nonsense on stilts". The signers of the Declaration of Independence deemed it a "self evident truth" that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Critics, however, could argue that use of the word "Creator" signifies that these rights are based on theological principles, and might question which theological principles those are, or why those theological principles should be accepted by people who do not adhere to the religion from which they are derived. Derivation of inalienable rights from Natural Law can also be criticized on solely philosophical grounds. The is-ought problem of David Hume is the fallacy of deriving normative propositions (how the world ought to be) from naturalistic ones (how the world is) without providing the necessary justification for such a logical jump. Jonathan Wallace claims that the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident" is simply a "more elegant version of 'Because we said so.'" In "The Social Contract," Jean-Jacques Rousseau claims that the existence of inalienable rights is unnecessary for the existence of a constitution or a set of laws and rights. This idea of a social contract – that rights and responsibilities are derived from a consensual contract between the government and the people – is the most widely recognized alternative. Samuel P. Huntington, an American political scientist, wrote that the "inalienable rights" argument from the Declaration of Independence was necessary because "The British were white, Anglo, and Protestant, just as we were. They had to have some other basis on which to justify independence". I am not debating the positive things arising from rights, I am debating that any rights are in fact inalienable, for if they can be removed regardless of the reasoning or circumstances they cannot be inalienable.
|
|