Source and theory of rights

[Knowing]

I've noticed here in P&N that people have different ideas on rights. Where they come from, how they should be protected, the nature of extant rights and how other rights could be derived from them.

I subscribe to the theory of negative rights and negative liberties. I don't believe that positive rights are possible, and I believe that positive liberties are untenable in the long term.

Tell me how you think rights work.

 

[momeNt]

I believe that all rights flow from self-ownership. It's essentially the same thing as negative liberty I suppose, it just means we follow different schools of thought led by different thinkers.

 

[Vic]

".. every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body had any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his." - John Locke

 

[norseamd]

start here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy

 

[Knowing]

start here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy

That doesn't tell me your political philosophy or it's basis.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I've just learned you have the right to conform to the thinking of the powerful and the masses, otherwise they have the right to destroy you for not thinking like they. That's freedom.

Well someone said it. That's the way it's always been. People ought to have the right to peacefully express themselves, to work, to worship (or not) as they see fit. That ought to be a basic human right. That's not the case. Indeed it's a hated concept that needs apply only to the "right thinking".

Gawd, what an awful species.

 

[Anarchist420]

I've noticed here in P&N that people have different ideas on rights.

welcome to P&N

Where they come from

they are not physical so they dont come from anywhere.

how they should be protected,

The State takes away more rights than it protects because it starts off taking away rights before its head can even attempt to protect them. So the market should be allowed to protect rights at all times.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I've noticed here in P&N that people have different ideas on rights. Where they come from, how they should be protected, the nature of extant rights and how other rights could be derived from them.

I subscribe to the theory of negative rights and negative liberties. I don't believe that positive rights are possible, and I believe that positive liberties are untenable in the long term.

The concept of "rights" is an abstract concept that seeks to provide normative moral guidance to society.

Sadly, people put too much stock in the value of moral rights. It just doesn't work very well in an economic realm because human beings have inherent conflicts of rational selfish interest. If we all lived on deserted islands or if we lived in a magical fantasy world with unlimited and infinite resources then it wouldn't be a problem. However, sadly, we live in a finite world and one man's "right" to a piece of property or "right" to engage in some sort of economic activity could inflict damage on other people.

 

[destey]

Rights seem arbitrary. A person can't put drugs into their body but a man and woman can have sex and create a life with no govt permission (where in other areas you need permission for things as small as a fence or reroofing a house). Aborting the fetus is a decision between a woman and her doctor but drugs deemed illegal. Why is that?

I've seen many children brought up in what I would consider bad environments, causing far more harm than an individual ingesting recreational drugs. In high school I remember seeing a couple kids come in with black eyes from abusive parents. Or how many children get molested, isn't it something like 1 in 5 girls? Or single moms that are unable to support themselves and a child monetarily, placing the burden on society (and IMO a poor upbringing)?

 

[QuantumPion]

Rights seem arbitrary. A person can't put drugs into their body but a man and woman can have sex and create a life with no govt permission (where in other areas you need permission for things as small as a fence or reroofing a house).

Government restrictions are arbitrary, rights are inherent.

 

[momeNt]

The concept of "rights" is an abstract concept that seeks to provide normative moral guidance to society.

Sadly, people put too much stock in the value of moral rights. It just doesn't work very well in an economic realm because human beings have inherent conflicts of rational selfish interest. If we all lived on deserted islands or if we lived in a magical fantasy world with unlimited and infinite resources then it wouldn't be a problem. However, sadly, we live in a finite world and one man's "right" to a piece of property or "right" to engage in some sort of economic activity could inflict damage on other people.

You sound like you prescribe to positive rights. If you think that the fact that I own a piece of land, because through my own self-ownership I cut down trees, fashioned fences, and enclosed a piece of land, I stopped you from owning the land and enjoying its fruits, that you have thus been injured.

Property rights that flow from self-ownership logically require some form of labor to transform the land into an extension of yourself. When this has not been done it is essentially communal property. Many native american tribes shared hunting and fishing land peacefully which is consistent with this view.

If humans overpopulate and some are unable to eat, those that were able to eat did not harm those that couldn't. Competition for resources is a condition of nature.

 

[fskimospy]

I think the difference between positive rights and negative rights is a misnomer. Both confer obligations on others, either by prohibiting them from acting as they wish or by obligating them to act in ways they don't wish.

Rights are simply a set of contractual rules we all agree on, they have no higher source.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Its selective and for the most part, contradictory. And, when called out on it; "herp a derp, am not talkin bout dat ri-aght nao,..."

But, here is a quick summary:
- all authority and power holders are corrupt, unless they are a private corporation. They can do whatever the fuck they want. And, when they circumvent laws (loop holes, etc.), it's the government's fault.
- the government needs to back off of feeding children,.. but, they can continue to give hundreds of millions of dollars to already profitable corporations in corporate subsidies
- jobs being moved overseas is the fault of the government,.. not the corporations that have made such moves (because again, they can do whatever they want)

In short, some of these goons are just that,.. goons. Corporate goons. That praise private corporations that just abuse the shit out of anyone and anything. They can do NO wrong, because the government is fault for their actions. However, when the government does do something to stop these abusive actions (close out loop holes), the bitching and whining on big government kick in.

The goods news, is that it's very apparent. No one is bashful in expressing and showing their contradictions.

 

[QuantumPion]

I think the difference between positive rights and negative rights is a misnomer. Both confer obligations on others, either by prohibiting them from acting as they wish or by obligating them to act in ways they don't wish.

Rights are simply a set of contractual rules we all agree on, they have no higher source.

Rights do not require a higher source, they are inherent based on the fact all humans have a desire to live, work for our own benefit, have self-determination, and recognition that other humans are distinct entities with the same desires.

What makes something a right is that it does not impose an obligation on anyone else. For example, my right to live is mutually exclusive with your desire to kill me. But your desire to kill me is not a right, because it requires me giving up my life. Similarly, I do not have a right to food which is provided by someone else involuntarily. That would be slavery, which requires the worker to give up the right to the proceeds of his labor.

 

[fskimospy]

Rights do not require a higher source, they are inherent based on the fact all humans have a desire to live, work for our own benefit, have self-determination, and recognition that other humans are distinct entities with the same desires.

Those are all things we have agreed on. There is nothing inherent in the right to have or do any of those things. Ask a man trapped in the desert about his right to life. Rights are things created by people, for people, enforced by people.

What makes something a right is that it does not impose an obligation on anyone else. For example, my right to live is mutually exclusive with your desire to kill me. But your desire to kill me is not a right, because it requires me giving up my life. Similarly, I do not have a right to food which is provided by someone else involuntarily. That would be slavery, which requires the worker to give up the right to the proceeds of his labor.

Negative rights impose costs on others all the same. I see no difference between demanding that others behave as you desire by not undertaking actions they wish to and demanding others behave as you desire by undertaking actions you wish then to. Both are imposing constraints on human behavior to serve your interests.

 

[momeNt]

I think the difference between positive rights and negative rights is a misnomer. Both confer obligations on others, either by prohibiting them from acting as they wish or by obligating them to act in ways they don't wish.

Rights are simply a set of contractual rules we all agree on, they have no higher source.

That's not really answering what your particular views on it are. You are just stating what the views are.

It's also not a misnomer. Obligating someone NOT (negative) to do something vs obligating someone TO (positive) do something. Is where it gets its name.

You could call them not-to-do and to-do rights, but that doesn't sound very academic.

 

[fskimospy]

That's not really answering what your particular views on it are. You are just stating what the views are.

It's also not a misnomer. Obligating someone NOT (negative) to do something vs obligating someone TO (positive) do something. Is where it gets its name.

You could call them not-to-do and to-do rights, but that doesn't sound very academic.

I think those terms draw a distinction about rights that obscures what rights actually are. In both ways you compel behavior, just different behaviors.

 

[momeNt]

I think those terms draw a distinction about rights that obscures what rights actually are. In both ways you compel behavior, just different behaviors.

I take it then that you believe in both, and find this thread unnecessarily polarizing. I think some don't believe in both, hence the reason for this thread.

I think the thread just wants opinions, but you don't want to give one! You want to give your opinion on why you won't give one. So I guess that counts.

 

[fskimospy]

I take it then that you believe in both, and find this thread unnecessarily polarizing. I think some don't believe in both, hence the reason for this thread.

I think the thread just wants opinions, but you don't want to give one! You want to give your opinion on why you won't give one. So I guess that counts.

Wait, what? My opinion on the nature of rights was quite clearly stated.

Rights are created by people and all rights incur an obligation of behavior on other people. Inherent in that view of rights is that people drawing distinctions between negative and positive rights miss the point. Rights all work the same way, regardless of being 'positive' or 'negative'.

This is not a thread about "which one is better, negative or positive rights" this was "how do rights work", which my posts have all directly addressed.

 

[momeNt]

Wait, what? My opinion on the nature of rights was quite clearly stated.

Rights are created by people and all rights incur an obligation of behavior on other people. Inherent in that view of rights is that people drawing distinctions between negative and positive rights miss the point. Rights all work the same way, regardless of being 'positive' or 'negative'.

This is not a thread about "which one is better, negative or positive rights" this was "how do rights work", which my posts have all directly addressed.

I'm having trouble with getting your views on rights from an theory/origin standpoint.

I'd like to know how you think a little bit more on this.

Would you mind going into detail about your "ask a man trapped in a desert about his right to life" statement. What does "right to life" mean to you, and how does his being trapped in a desert play into that.

If you don't want to, that's fine too, it's your right after all

 

[fskimospy]

I'm having trouble with getting your views on rights from an theory/origin standpoint.

I'd like to know how you think a little bit more on this.

Would you mind going into detail about your "ask a man trapped in a desert about his right to life" statement. What does "right to life" mean to you, and how does his being trapped in a desert play into that.

If you don't want to, that's fine too, it's your right after all

I think a 'right to life' is the right not to have someone take your life from you. A better example of my thinking would be to ask someone eaten by a bear about their right to life, as that relies upon them being acted on by another living entity. Nature doesn't recognize any of these rights, only people do; that's because rights are a human creation, not something innate.