[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
... You claimed "at least half the people don't hate him"

Right.

I was questioning your assessment of "half".

Got that part but your reasoning didn't hold up.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Who just happened to send representatives to the federal government in Washington. And who sought to extend their influence over the territories to the west. Many historians will argue the Civil War actually began in Kansas. Kansas came to be known as bleeding Kansas as proslavery and free state factions battled for control. Finally, If they weren't part of the US then what did they secede from?

They seceded from a 'union' that was a 'union' in writing but not in spirit.

The south extending their influence to protect their 'rights', no?

[Scientist]

Originally posted by MathewM:
So where again do you hail from Mr. Scientist?

A little town not far away from what most people here call Lake Michigan.

[Scientist]

OK, I'm going to stop arguing about history. I need to read up on this stuff. Political philosophy on the other hand...

[MathewM]

Great men are rarely loved or understood in their times.

Wait until I'm dead.

[MathewM]

Originally posted by Scientist:
A little town not far away from what most people here call Lake Michigan.

So what's with all the "I do not appreciate being called an American...I have no government." crap.

You pay taxes right?

[Scientist]

Originally posted by MathewM:
Great men are rarely loved or understood in their times.

Wait until I'm dead.

Greatness only exists if measured against a set of values. Stalin was great if what you value is the ability to kill your own countrymen. Bush is great (or ok, depending on your expectations) if you value the spread of U.S. influence around the globe. Many people dislike these people because their actions go against what they believe. Even if everyone eventually worships bush as the greatest president ever, it doesn't change the fact that he is currently hated by many because he directly opposed the present values of these people.

[MathewM]

Originally posted by Scientist:
OK, I'm going to stop arguing about history. I need to read up on this stuff. Political philosophy on the other hand...

Needs to be repeated in every thread you post in.

[MathewM]

Originally posted by Scientist:
Drivel that needs not be repeated

Unlike you, I'm proud of my American values and think that it being spread around the world is a good thing.

You're just a student with no real world values or knowledge. Trust me, I was there.

With that said, I'll go ahead and let this thread die as it should.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by MathewM:
So what's with all the "I do not appreciate being called an American...I have no government." crap.

You pay taxes right?

I don't believe in the right of government to rule me. It's sort of like atheism but with the idea of government. I don't like calling it anarchism because I don't care what other people do or believe. I pay taxes only because I am forced to. Oh well. I need to keep an open mind.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by MathewM:
Unlike you, I'm proud of my American values and think that it being spread around the world is a good thing.

You're just a student with no real world values or knowledge. Trust me, I was there.

With that said, I'll go ahead and let this thread die as it should.

Ugh. Do so if it pleases you. I have different values than you and look at the world from multiple angles and viewpoints. This will only increase my knowledge as I am (in theory) better able to relate to a larger range of people. I have values but I don't recognise them as absolutes as you do. Enjoy being ignorant.

[kindbud]

You seem to get a kick out of it...

[quandarry]

it's funny that americans now think the war of northern aggression was all about slavery. i guess they had to give it what they thought was a noble cause. the north didn't give two sh!ts about slavery. in fact many battles were fought on the streets of new york city against conscription, especially after the emancipation proclamation towards the end of the war.

it was all about not letting the confederate states do what the original 13 colonies did nearly a hundred years before...getting rid off an oppressive yoke.

lincoln himself said "if i could keep the nation together without freeing the slaves i would do it...if i could send the slaves back to africa to keep the south i would do it"

the result of his ego:

500,000 american dead

more than the total of all the wars put together since then.

amen.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Right.Got that part but your reasoning didn't hold up.

in what way does it not hold up?

you said half: how can you prove that?

I demonstrated ways in which your reasoning could be faulty...you have not demonstrated any ways in which it could be accurate.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Scientist:
I don't believe in the right of government to rule me. It's sort of like atheism but with the idea of government.

Well...you better hope that this secularist push thorugh the US slows down. Currently, our rights are granted by "our creator". Once that creator is completely removed from all things public, we are then left with the government as sole provider of our rights.

That is when the sh-t hits the fan.

[tie]

Originally posted by MathewM:
Great men are rarely loved or understood in their times.

Wait until I'm dead.

When the only way you can justify a policy is to say, wait fifty years -- then you should be concerned. (Thinking of global warming and environmental destruction in general, science can extend our horizons.) This is also a critique of an argument SimeyTheLimey has made that we won't know if Iraq has been a success or not for twenty years.

Everything Bush has done could have been done much better. Without lying about it for example. Clinton's lies tarnished his presidency and they weren't even on matters of state. Bush's lies and general dishonesty will hurt perceptions of his presidency much more.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Well...you better hope that this secularist push thorugh the US slows down. Currently, our rights are granted by "our creator". Once that creator is completely removed from all things public, we are then left with the government as sole provider of our rights.

No, we're left with a democracy, the rule of law, and the Constitution, which were secular in nature from the beginning and should stay that way. The founders started the "secular push" by divorcing government from religion - it was one of their most important and enduring achievements. Thanks to their "secular push," more people are able to practice more varieties of religion in more churches than ever before, without interference from the government or vice versa. In that respect, it seems to me that it worked out pretty well all around.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by zigzag:
No, we're left with a democracy, the rule of law, and the Constitution, which were secular in nature from the beginning and should stay that way.

Everything you said is true, but I don't think its quite what spacefreak was referring to.

It's a hard thing perhaps for some to themselves 'separate' from government itself, but the idea of 'unalienable rights' granted by a 'creator' and not by a government, nor the individuals that make up that government, is an incredibly powerful and liberating idea. Some people seem to kneejerk over the mention of it, and instantly deride the 'creator' part of it as pushing a specific religion.

It actually has very little to do with the specific practice of any religion, and nothing what-so-ever to do with the government imposing one.

Spacefreak is right in one sense- if we were ever to give up (for whatever insane reason) the idea of our rights being granted by a higher authority, and accept some pabulum that our rights are granted to us by the buffoons that get elected, we'd be up **** creek.

A politician has merely to recognize that they DON'T grant us our rights- they in fact have no business to ever purport to do so. They should of course acknowledge, promote, and enforce our basic rights- but at its core, our system recognizes those rights themselves don't originate at the whim of mere mortal men (which politicians are).

For the record, I think (hope?) that most people who are pushing for a more 'secular' government aren't necessarily opposed to the concept of unalienable rights. One doesn't have to themselves believe in a specific religon's 'higher power' in order to recognize the power of the concept itself. Saying our rights come from a �creator� can be seen merely in the metaphoric sense if one prefers, but the concept is clear- to take such severe power of judgment permanently out of the hands of (corruptible, fallible) humans. We�re incapable of granting �rights� to each other.

Personally I don�t care how people choose to conceive of �unalienable rights granted by a creator�, so long as it never becomes the trendy thing by shallow-thinking people to get rid of the concept on some silly P.C. whim.

So far -although maybe I�ve missed it- I don�t really see much to be concerned about that happening though.

[theolein]

Originally posted by MathewM:
Great men are rarely loved or understood in their times.

Wait until I'm dead.

You do realise what you're setting yourself up for when you make a mindless teenage ego trip comment like that?

[Troll]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Spacefreak is right in one sense- if we were ever to give up (for whatever insane reason) the idea of our rights being granted by a higher authority, and accept some pabulum that our rights are granted to us by the buffoons that get elected, we'd be up **** creek.

The fact that rights aren't granted by God doesn't mean that they must then be granted by Government. In many secular countries the rights derive from the fact that people are human; not from any higher authority. In this context, we don't acquire the rights from someone or something else, the rights are intrinsic to us because we are human. That's also the version set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Scientist:
... The south extending their influence to protect their 'rights', no?

Only if you think there is such a thing as a right to own slaves. No, they weren't protecting their rights. They were protecting their interests.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
in what way does it not hold up?

I already went over it.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by quandarry:
it's funny that americans now think the war of northern aggression was all about slavery...

The southern states seceded because Lincoln was elected president. (They did so before he was even sworn into office.) Lincoln was seen by them to be a closet abolitionist. It was not an unfair characterization. When Lincoln was in Congress he tried to get slavery banned in D.C.

... lincoln himself said "if i could keep the nation together without freeing the slaves i would do it...if i could send the slaves back to africa to keep the south i would do it"

He also said that slavery was a "montrous evil" and that "there is no reason in the world why the Negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man."

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
The fact that rights aren't granted by God doesn't mean that they must then be granted by Government. In many secular countries the rights derive from the fact that people are human; not from any higher authority. In this context, we don't acquire the rights from someone or something else, the rights are intrinsic to us because we are human. That's also the version set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

. . . which was based rather explicitly on Enlightenment ideas of natural law (not least, the preamble to the American Declaration of Independence).

All you are doing is citing to the secularized version of an older religious concept of individual liberty. That's fine, they aren't in any meaningful way inconsistent. It really doesn't matter whether you want to say: "inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family" (in the words of the Universal Declaration) or another person says "that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" (in the words of the Declaration of Indepedence). The idea comes out as being in practice the same, which is hardly surprising when one was based on the other.

[BRussell]

And the enlightenment was fundamentally a movement towards secular humanism in itself. So I'm not sure what that means for spacefreak's original point.

Anyway, it seems ironic to me that liberals want the Constitution to be more expansively interpreted, whereas the strict constructionist conservatives don't want people to have any inalienable rights unless they're word-for-word written in the Constitution. I don't get that. In the end, liberals want more of our rights to be fundamental human rights, and conservatives want more of our rights to be voted upon. How does that square with the conservative rhetoric that our rights come from God rather than government?

Err, this is all off topic, but, considering where this thread started, that's probably a good thing.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
. . . the idea of 'unalienable rights' granted by a 'creator' and not by a government, nor the individuals that make up that government, is an incredibly powerful and liberating idea. Some people seem to kneejerk over the mention of it, and instantly deride the 'creator' part of it as pushing a specific religion . . .

I agree that the idea of "inalienable rights" is a powerful and important idea. However, this "secularization" thing has been O'Reilly's big theme lately (I like O'Reilly, but sometimes . . . ), and the buzzwords "secular push" and "once that Creator is removed from all things public . . . " strongly implied to me that spacefreak was harping on the same theme, thus my response. But certainly, whether it's from your perspective or Troll's, it's important to be mindful of certain essential rights.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Not to mention that Bush 2000 is a very very different cat than Bush 2004.

Something major must have happened in between those times...

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by BRussell:
And the enlightenment was fundamentally a movement towards secular humanism in itself. So I'm not sure what that means for spacefreak's original point.

Anyway, it seems ironic to me that liberals want the Constitution to be more expansively interpreted, whereas the strict constructionist conservatives don't want people to have any inalienable rights unless they're word-for-word written in the Constitution. I don't get that. In the end, liberals want more of our rights to be fundamental human rights, and conservatives want more of our rights to be voted upon. How does that square with the conservative rhetoric that our rights come from God rather than government?

Err, this is all off topic, but, considering where this thread started, that's probably a good thing.

Interesting post.

I think that some strict conservatives have it all wrong.

The Constitution doesn't spell out the only rights the people have. It spells out the only rights government has. Or rather duties.

A true constructionist should argue that unless a function of federal government is spelled out in the Constitution, it is for the state/local governments to decide...

The Constitution shouldn't be used to limit freedom...

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Scientist:
I don't believe in the right of government to rule me. It's sort of like atheism but with the idea of government. I don't like calling it anarchism because I don't care what other people do or believe. I pay taxes only because I am forced to. Oh well. I need to keep an open mind.

I think there is a group up here in Montana that you might fit in with really well...



P.S. It's ironic that most of these guys suddenly believe in government when they get sick - many of them are on Medicaid.

[christ]

Originally posted by Troll:
The fact that rights aren't granted by God doesn't mean that they must then be granted by Government. In many secular countries the rights derive from the fact that people are human; not from any higher authority. In this context, we don't acquire the rights from someone or something else, the rights are intrinsic to us because we are human. That's also the version set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Damn I hate it when this happens.

I disagree.

Humans have no intrinsic rights. 'Rights' are granted by a society, which may be a Nation , or it may be 'the World' - which is why documents like the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' are required. If the rights were intrinsic, we would not need a Declaration to codify them, nor a society to enforce them.

[The Mick]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Interesting post.

I think that some strict conservatives have it all wrong.

The Constitution doesn't spell out the only rights the people have. It spells out the only rights government has. Or rather duties.

A true constructionist should argue that unless a function of federal government is spelled out in the Constitution, it is for the state/local governments to decide...

The Constitution shouldn't be used to limit freedom...

I love you. <smootch>

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Anyway, it seems ironic to me that liberals want the Constitution to be more expansively interpreted, whereas the strict constructionist conservatives don't want people to have any inalienable rights unless they're word-for-word written in the Constitution. I don't get that. In the end, liberals want more of our rights to be fundamental human rights, and conservatives want more of our rights to be voted upon. How does that square with the conservative rhetoric that our rights come from God rather than government?

It does seem paradoxical at times - a reflection of the fact that in the end, people (including Supreme Court justices) mostly do what suits them and find a way to rationalize it. And while conservatives often seem to contradict themselves, liberals aren't immune from it either - witness some of the more ridiculous "speech codes" and the desire to control what people consume (conservatives oppose sex and drugs, liberals oppose violence and polyunsatured fats . . . ).

I do feel, however, that liberals (and, by extension, Democrats) are on balance more protective of basic individual rights and that's the main reason I tend to vote Democrat even though I don't identify with the party itself or its entire political platform.

[christ]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
The Constitution doesn't spell out the only rights the people have. It spells out the only rights government has. Or rather duties...

I may have this wrong, but doesn't the US Constitution spell out the areas in which presupposed 'Rights' may or may not be infringed in some way by the government?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Interesting post.

I think that some strict conservatives have it all wrong.

The Constitution doesn't spell out the only rights the people have. It spells out the only rights government has. Or rather duties.

A true constructionist should argue that unless a function of federal government is spelled out in the Constitution, it is for the state/local governments to decide...

The Constitution shouldn't be used to limit freedom...

The Constitution doesn't just say what the government can do, the Bill of Rights also says what it can't do. Federalists argued that the Bill of Rights is unnecessary because the negative restrictions are implied. I think that the antifederalists had this issue correctly. It was a good idea to write the limits in, even if, like the Tenth Amendment, it was arguably tautological.

[Wiskedjak]

.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I agree that the idea of "inalienable rights" is a powerful and important idea. However, this "secularization" thing has been O'Reilly's big theme lately (I like O'Reilly, but sometimes . . . ), and the buzzwords "secular push" and "once that Creator is removed from all things public . . . " strongly implied to me that spacefreak was harping on the same theme, thus my response.

Well I personally don't agree with O'Reilly that those that want to remove 'Creator' from all things public, necessarily have it in mind to remove the idea of inalienable rights (was I saying UNalienable? I wonder what rights those are?) from our system.

Until I see absolute proof that they do, I'm not really worried.

Originally posted by christ:
Humans have no intrinsic rights. 'Rights' are granted by a society, which may be a Nation , or it may be 'the World'

This doesn�t make much sense to me, as �society� and a �Nation� and certainly �the World� are just made up of humans. How can humans with no intrinsic rights of their own, �grant� rights to others?

I think you�ve got the concept in reverse- your rights weren�t granted to you by any Constitution, nor some Universal Declaration of Human Rights (or any document such was based on). Your rights ARE intrinsic. Documents really recognize their existence.

Any government you�d probably ever want to live under would probably do well to recognize your intrinsic rights.

By the way, I�ve no problem with any Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It in no way competes with or invalidates our US Declaration or Constitution. Let there be as many worldwide declarations of the same concepts as possible. There are still plenty of nations around the globe that could certainly do well to get with the program.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by quandarry:
it's funny that americans now think the war of northern aggression was all about slavery...

...500,000 american dead

So I guess the President 'lied' about the true reasons for going to war. Maybe we can say it was all illegitimate if there was more than one reason for the war.

By all means, let's defy history's ultimate judgement, and rehash it in the most negative anti-Lincoln light, and not recognize any of the positive benefits (like freeing the slaves).

Hummm... I see a pattern here...

[zigzag]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
This doesn�t make much sense to me, as �society� and a �Nation� and certainly �the World� are just made up of humans. How can humans with no intrinsic rights of their own, �grant� rights to others?

I think you�ve got the concept in reverse- your rights weren�t granted to you by any Constitution, nor some Universal Declaration of Human Rights (or any document such was based on). Your rights ARE intrinsic. Documents really recognize their existence.

My view is that, as humans, we pretty much make it up as we go along. We form societies, governments, etc. that reflect our values. We decide, individually and as a group, what the "intrinsic rights" are. Some societies decide differently than others (I prefer the liberal democratic model, I'm just saying that others have existed). I don't meant to speak for him, but that's how I read christ's post, and I'm inclined to agree with him. We use flowery language like "granted by the Creator" and "natural rights" etc., but in the end it's up to us as mortals to decide what the most important rights are and how to go about protecting them. Those values are expressed through our Constitutions and our (hopefully) representative governments.

[christ]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
This doesn�t make much sense to me, as �society� and a �Nation� and certainly �the World� are just made up of humans. How can humans with no intrinsic rights of their own, �grant� rights to others?

OK - look at 'money'. Humans do not, intrinsically have 'money'. They agree a concept of barter, decide to embody that barter system in stuff, and call that stuff 'money'. They then give this 'money' to each other in exchange for stuff.

'Rights' are much the same. A group of humans get together, agree how they should treat each other, and codify that as a system of 'rights'. Occasionally groups of humans get ideas above their station, and decide that their system of 'rights' is better than their neighbour's system, and decide to impose their system on said neighbour. What we call 'war' then generally results.

How can a 'right' be intrinsic? We don't have a 'right' to breathe, we don't have a 'right' to eat. (let alone 'rights' to happiness, breeding, or other folks property) We die without these things, but they are not ours by right, they are granted to us in certain circumstances by the society that we have created for that purpose.

To take my oft-used example - If a plane crashes on an uninhabited island, and the only survivor is a new-born babe, what 'rights' does that babe have?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by zigzag:
My view is that, as humans, we pretty much make it up as we go along. We form societies, governments, etc. that reflect our values. We decide, individually and as a group, what the "intrinsic rights" are. Some societies decide differently than others (I prefer the liberal democratic model, I'm just saying that others have existed). I don't meant to speak for him, but that's how I read christ's post, and I'm inclined to agree with him. We use flowery language like "granted by the Creator" and "natural rights" etc., but in the end it's up to us as mortals to decide what the most important rights are and how to go about protecting them. Those values are expressed through our Constitutions and our (hopefully) representative governments.

Where I disagree with christ, is in the use of the word 'granted' (IE: by society, or World.)

A society and world can recognize basic rights (or not recognize them), but not �grant� them to begin with.

The flaw in the thinking is obvious- if you think you have the same rights wherever you set foot in the world, based on what societies and governments in particular 'grant' you, you're in for a big shock in many places you may travel.

You can set foot in what amounts to a national concentration camp like North Korea, and your inalienable rights (technically) go with you. You may recognize you have them. Unfortunately, in ACTUAL PRACTICE the government there doesn't, and should you do the wrong thing (like criticize its leader) they'll be very quick to show you just how little respect they have for your 'inalienable' rights.

The point being- their society, their nation, may 'grant' me 'rights' that don't include saying "Kim il is a dipshit!" but those aren't my inalienable rights. Such things aren't ordained by the whims of any society or nation.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by christ:


How can a 'right' be intrinsic? We don't have a 'right' to breathe, we don't have a 'right' to eat. (let alone 'rights' to happiness, breeding, or other folks property) We die without these things, but they are not ours by right, they are granted to us in certain circumstances by the society that we have created for that purpose.

Let's just leave it at: I recognize your intrinsic right, to believe you have no intrinsic rights!

[christ]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Where I disagree with christ, is in the use of the word 'granted' (IE: by society, or World.)

A society and world can recognize basic rights (or not recognize them), but not �grant� them to begin with.

The flaw in the thinking is obvious- if you think you have the same rights wherever you set foot in the world, based on what societies and governments in particular 'grant' you, you're in for a big shock in many places you may travel.

You can set foot in what amounts to a national concentration camp like North Korea, and your inalienable rights (technically) go with you. You may recognize you have them. Unfortunately, in ACTUAL PRACTICE the government there doesn't, and should you do the wrong thing (like criticize its leader) they'll be very quick to show you just how little respect they have for your 'inalienable' rights.

The point being- their society, their nation, may 'grant' me 'rights' that don't include saying "Kim il is a dipshit!" but those aren't my inalienable rights. Such things aren't ordained by the whims of any society or nation.

so you say that you disagree that 'rights' are granted by a society, and then go on to give examples of exactly that - 'rights' granted by your society, but not by other societies.

I don't agree with the principal of 'inalienable' rights, as there is no way that these can be granted, what I pointed out was that 'the World' could, if it so chose, and had a society capable of supporting it, get together and agree a 'Universal' set of these 'rights', and grant them to all members of the society (in the case of the world, that would be all humans). As you point out, that is unlikely to happen, and therefore there is no such thing as a 'Universal Right'.

If a society 'recognises' a 'right' as a right, then it is granting that right as applicable in that society. If it recognises it but doesn't grant you it, then it is hardly a 'right' now, is it?

I repeat "Humans have no intrinsic rights." This is not negotiable, it is a fact.

[christ]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Let's just leave it at: I recognize your intrinsic right, to believe you have no intrinsic rights!

So tell me - what are your intrinsic rights?

Name one 'right' that is yours because you are a human, not because your society allows you to have it.

Any one will do.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Where I disagree with christ, is in the use of the word 'granted' (IE: by society, or World.)

A society and world can recognize basic rights (or not recognize them), but not �grant� them to begin with.

The flaw in the thinking is obvious- if you think you have the same rights wherever you set foot in the world, based on what societies and governments in particular 'grant' you, you're in for a big shock in many places you may travel.

You can set foot in what amounts to a national concentration camp like North Korea, and your inalienable rights (technically) go with you. You may recognize you have them. Unfortunately, in ACTUAL PRACTICE the government there doesn't, and should you do the wrong thing (like criticize its leader) they'll be very quick to show you just how little respect they have for your 'inalienable' rights.

The point being- their society, their nation, may 'grant' me 'rights' that don't include saying "Kim il is a dipshit!" but those aren't my inalienable rights. Such things aren't ordained by the whims of any society or nation.

I think I agree with you - I guess my main point is that while I believe that there are basic, intrinsic rights, they aren't "granted" by any third party or entity such as God or government. They either emanate from basic human instinct, or by mutual agreement (the latter often stemming from the former). "God" and government are just manifestations of those values. I guess that puts me somewhere in between you and christ.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by zigzag:
My view is that, as humans, we pretty much make it up as we go along. We form societies, governments, etc. that reflect our values. We decide, individually and as a group, what the "intrinsic rights" are. Some societies decide differently than others (I prefer the liberal democratic model, I'm just saying that others have existed). I don't meant to speak for him, but that's how I read christ's post, and I'm inclined to agree with him. We use flowery language like "granted by the Creator" and "natural rights" etc., but in the end it's up to us as mortals to decide what the most important rights are and how to go about protecting them. Those values are expressed through our Constitutions and our (hopefully) representative governments.

I find the whole concept of 'rights' to be a troublesome one.

I think I agree with you. This is one way I have of seeing the situation, that I find useful.

If a person is alone then what rights does he have? He can do anything that is within his physical capability. So nature and his genes have provided him with the ability to make some choices. But this isn't what most people think of as rights. The concept of rights isn't very useful here because there much you can say to nature to give you more freedom.

The concept of rights only becomes useful when other people come into the picture. Outsiders have the power to limit, expand or maintain these 'natural' rights. This is the system of 'rights' that is often codified into laws or a cultural or religion or morals. They too can seek to maintain, expand or limit these 'natural' rights. Ideas and compacts about 'rights' are traded through various negotionated. People may give up their right to kill others in exchange for others to give up these 'natural' right as well. The 'natural' rights are also often taken away, either by force or through brainwashing or other means.

Since people are just as much a part of the world as anything else, anything another person can be thought of as a natural constraint on rights. We just deal with them differently because they are easier to control than most other things in nature.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Scientist:
I find the whole concept of 'rights' to be a troublesome one.

I think I agree with you. This is one way I have of seeing the situation, that I find useful.

If a person is alone then what rights does he have? He can do anything that is within his physical capability. So nature and his genes have provided him with the ability to make some choices. But this isn't what most people think of as rights. The concept of rights isn't very useful here because there much you can say to nature to give you more freedom.

The concept of rights only becomes useful when other people come into the picture. Outsiders have the power to limit, expand or maintain these 'natural' rights. This is the system of 'rights' that is often codified into laws or a cultural or religion or morals. They too can seek to maintain, expand or limit these 'natural' rights. Ideas and compacts about 'rights' are traded through various negotionated. People may give up their right to kill others in exchange for others to give up these 'natural' right as well. The 'natural' rights are also often taken away, either by force or through brainwashing or other means.

Since people are just as much a part of the world as anything else, anything another person can be thought of as a natural constraint on rights. We just deal with them differently because they are easier to control than most other things in nature.

What you are talking about is basically Rousseau's state of nature and the Social Contract. Your argument is very similar to his. If this kind of political theory interests you, you might also enjoy John Locke's Two Treatises on Government There is also a later (and very easy to read) work by John Stewart Mill called On Liberty that is well worth looking at.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What you are talking about is basically Rousseau's state of nature and the Social Contract. Your argument is very similar to his. If this kind of political theory interests you, you might also enjoy John Locke's Two Treatises on Government There is also a later (and very easy to read) work by John Stewart Mill called On Liberty that is well worth looking at.

Those documents are also available online, if you don't want buy them, Scientist

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Those documents are also available online, if you don't want buy them, Scientist

You can download ENTIRE BOOKS?

It's illegal, and unethical. It will also make him go crosseyed. I can't imagine wading through Rousseau on a computer screen.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Scientist:
I find the whole concept of 'rights' to be a troublesome one.

I think I agree with you. This is one way I have of seeing the situation, that I find useful.

If a person is alone then what rights does he have? He can do anything that is within his physical capability. So nature and his genes have provided him with the ability to make some choices. But this isn't what most people think of as rights. The concept of rights isn't very useful here because there much you can say to nature to give you more freedom.

The concept of rights only becomes useful when other people come into the picture. Outsiders have the power to limit, expand or maintain these 'natural' rights. This is the system of 'rights' that is often codified into laws or a cultural or religion or morals. They too can seek to maintain, expand or limit these 'natural' rights. Ideas and compacts about 'rights' are traded through various negotionated. People may give up their right to kill others in exchange for others to give up these 'natural' right as well. The 'natural' rights are also often taken away, either by force or through brainwashing or other means.

Since people are just as much a part of the world as anything else, anything another person can be thought of as a natural constraint on rights. We just deal with them differently because they are easier to control than most other things in nature.

Well said. Nature has no regard whatsoever for our supposed "natural" or "intrinsic" or "God-given" rights. Thus christ's baby-on-the-deserted-island example. But as soon as another human enters the picture, the negotiations begin, not just between individuals, but between a single individual's self-interest and conscience. It's just my position that what we think of as "rights" are neither God- nor government-given, but negotiated among and within mortal men. IMO God and government are reflections, not sources.

Thankfully Simey has been able to cite the leading treatises on the subject, which I'm too far gone to remember.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You can download ENTIRE BOOKS?

It's illegal, and unethical. It will also make him go crosseyed. I can't imagine wading through Rousseau on a computer screen.

Illegal? No one is collecting royalties on those particular books anymore. I thought they were public domain. Lots of legit sites have them available.