[labgrade]

We had a good ol' time at TFL with this & it's come up as a mention here as well - that they aren't! Shocking, I tell ya.

I'll say that they are. The caveat that my opposition will use is that for every "over extension" you would do, is a violation of anothers' right.

My counter is that you never had that right to begin with - you're reading too much into what are actual rights.

Let's do it again.

[pax]

Define your terms.

What's a "right"? Don't give me examples; give me a consistent definition.

pax

When we look at the shameless abuse made, in print and on the platform, of controversial expressions with shifting and ambiguous connotations, we may feel it in our hearts to wish that every reader and hearer had been so defensively armored by his education as to be able to cry: “Distinguo.” -- Dorothy Sayers

[tyme]

If there's going to be a serious discussion, I'd like to point out that traditionally (when discussing the Constitution and American rights and liberties), "rights" are things like equal protection and maybe suffrage, and the rest (virtually all of the BoR - can't think of a counterexample) are considered civil liberties.

[labgrade]

Figures the first one would be hard. ;)

First off, I'd start with our basic & Good Ol' Bill of Rights (void where prohibited).

Let's just try that for now. Clearly delineated & no obfuscation (except where we differ on what "arms" are, etc.)

My fave is the "crowded theater" example & I'll 'splain.

Yes, you can mostly certainly yell "fire!" in a crowded theater - if there is a fire. The right is there as is the obligation to warn others of the danger. You'd be stupid not to yell fire - if there was one.

If there's no fire, I'd argue that you never had that right (to yell "fire!"). That would be placing others in unnecessary danger (through the possibility of "stampede" - the whole reason it's brought up so often) & clearly, no one has that "right."

[Justin]

Well, how about this: You're free to do as you like so long as your actions fall within the non-aggression principle.
In other words the non-aggression principle states that it is illicit to initiate or threaten invasive violence against a man or his legitimately owned property.

[bad_dad_brad]

Rights are not absolute. Just look at the history of mankind.

Human Rights must constantly be defended and you can not rely on God to defend them.

America was the first country to really try to define, by law, absolute rights for the common man (at the time, slaves and women excluded of course). But that is all changing, and the "Bill of Rights" is all but a forgotten dream, trampled on by those in power and their pawns (lawyers).

[Justin]

If there's no fire, I'd argue that you never had that right (to yell "fire!"). That would be placing others in unnecessary danger (through the possibility of "stampede" - the whole reason it's brought up so often) & clearly, no one has that "right."

Call me an extremist, but I would go so far as to say that you have the right to yell 'fire!' even in a crowded non-flammable theater.

However, any repurcussions of such an act are your direct responsibility. If by yelling 'fire!' you cause a panic, and someone gets trampled in the ensuing rush, you are responsible for that person's death.

Also, if the rest of the patrons get annoyed with you and decide to pummel you for being an obnoxious twit, that's your fault, too.

So I would argue that individual rights are absolute, but in following that line of thought, one must conclude that you are also absolutely responsible in how you exercise those rights.

[labgrade]

"However, any repurcussions of such an act are your direct responsibility. If by yelling 'fire!' you cause a panic, and someone gets trampled in the ensuing rush, you are responsible for that person's death."

Obviously. But you don't have the right to do that though.

"if the rest of the patrons get annoyed with you and decide to pummel you for being an obnoxious twit ... "

Hey ... enough already - trying to live that one down. ;)

[Preacherman]

I think there are two approaches to this question - what is the ideal situation, and what is the reality?

Ideally, the rights we can all agree on - those defined in the Bill of Rights, for example - should be absolute, with no exceptions. I fully support this view. However, in reality, this has long since ceased to be the case. Our legal system has consistently ruled that the regulation of a right does not necessarily amount to the infringement of that right, unless the regulation(s) is/are so sweeping that it/they amount(s) to an effective denial of that right. Whether we like it or not, that's the reality we live with every day, and if we try to deny it and exercise our rights in defiance of regulations governing them, we will be punished by the courts for doing so.

I've been called all sorts of things for speaking like this, but I challenge anyone to tell me that I'm wrong about the reality of our situation! We can all agree, I think, that that reality is less than satisfactory: but until we convince the nation that this is the case, and elect a government that will undo the damage to our "pure" rights that more than two centuries of litigation and political interference have wrought, we're stuck, I'm afraid... :(

[ctdonath]

You are responsible for the consequences of exercising your rights.

You have the right to free speech - and I have the right to sue you for damages from libel.
You have the right to keep and bear arms - and I have the right to double-tap you if you point that gun at me.

[ctdonath]

The problem with regulation of a right is that it amounts to prior restraint.

I understand the concept: there are some actions which are so likely that social prudence suggests a gov't pre-emptively move against the misuse. Example is the NICS check preventing known criminals from obtaining firearms. Most "reasonable" people agree with such pre-emptive regulation.

Problem is such regulation is anathama to what the Founding Fathers sought: that reasonable people be free to act as they choose, and simply be held accountable for their actions.

Regulation IS infringement - just a form palatable to the majority. It is, indeed, a slippery slope (as "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" has become "the right to keep and bear arms shall be limited to obsolete arms permitted at the whim of the state").

[Art Eatman]

A bit nit-picky, but if one yells "Fire!" in that crowded theater, and there is no fire, then it's an issue of a Right to Lie. Seems to me the founding fathers envisioned that mythical society of mature adults, who would accept responsibility for their decisions and actions. I imagined they assumed nobody would so yell, with the knowledge that retribution would occur.

Seems to me that to look at "reality", we're stuck with the ever-lessening consequences--retribution--for all manner of anti-social actions. The only serious consequences seem to accrue who are guilty of the crime of "I disagree!"--the most egregious, of course, are disagreeing with the War on Drugs and with the tax code. Ergo, the creeping loss of "Original Rights".

If a right is not absolute, it becomes a privilege. Restrictions on rights are indeed prior restraint.

Yes, you have the right to be armed, but your use of the arms must be lawful. If not, consequences and retribution.

That's philosophy, and is the ideal.

The problem is our Brave New World of 300 million, a too-high percentage of whom have no moral code, no political philosophy, no concept of the inherent rights of others.

I don't know how you reconcile the ideal with the reality.

Art

[Chris Rhines]

Rights are absolute, if you insist on using such a concept as rights. A right is a permission to act, which implies the existence of some overseeing authority.

Better to say that the sole moral restriction on human behaivor is the non-aggression principle. More clear that way.

- Chris

[Calmwater]

I consider this a good beginning:


"Natural law and natural rights follow from the nature of man and the world. We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

Natural law has objective, external existence. It follows from the ESS (evolutionary stable strategy) for the use of force that is natural for humans and similar animals. The ability to make moral judgments, the capacity to know good and evil, has immediate evolutionary benefits: just as the capacity to perceive three dimensionally tells me when I am standing on the edge of a cliff, so the capacity to know good and evil tells me if my companions are liable to cut my throat. It evolved in the same way, for the same straightforward and uncomplicated reasons, as our ability to throw rocks accurately."

Natural Law and Natural Rights
By James A. Donald
http://www.jim.com/rights.html

[MitchSchaft]

If rights come from people then they can't be absolute since people are not absolute.
If rights are absolute, then those rights did not come from people.
Think about that one! :neener:

[Chris Rhines]

Uh, I'm thinking about it, but I kind of get stuck on, "People are not absolute." What in the world does that mean?

- Chris

[Chipper]

As a "legal" concept, rights are simply those things to which you; 1) make a claim, and 2) successfully defend against the aggression of another by either or both, reason and force.

I use quotemarks on the word legal to indicate that rights are integrally woven into the concepts of both law and reason which are functions of humans only. In nature and particularly in the animal kingdom or domain of sub-human life, there exists no capacity to reason. There exists only force. We term it the law of the jungle. Survival of the fittest. Since reason does not exist here, no rights are claimed. Indeed, neither can they be claimed. It is a Hobbesean vision of life. A war of all against all with each living being of every species hard at work towards achieving the same goal, that of survival as an individual in order to propagate the species. There is also among some species the socialization among like kind, rearing and training of the young, defense, protection and caring for the young, the ability function as a herd or flock and so on. Among many species also, these things do not exist.

We humans are cursed in that we also are subject to this brutish existence in all of it's diversity. Yet, at the same time we also have the higher faculty of reasoning. It is from this higher ability that we are able to extrapolate from the natural characteristics of a brutish existence choices of will which provide both benefits and consequences and discern the finer details of those choices. We are not bound to genetically controlled behaviour patterns. We are very adept at the concept of cause and effect and have elevated it to the broad categories of science and engineering. By reasoning we are able to work our way through the challenge at hand. We can deal at length with abstract reasoning such as mathematics and art. This and so much more do we have on top of what has already been given by nature in our senses and instincts.

In all of this we have found that brutish force does NOT tend to extend our lives or insure propagation of the species. Neither do we have need to live as opportunists seeking our next meal from whatever other species happens to wander by. Nor are we as squirrels or vermin who are only able to eat now and hoard food for the future. We can plan and take appropriate action to insure our future. We can plant and grow our owns sustenance. We can domesticate and continually breed our own meats. We can design and build many forms of shelter. We can engage in trade and commerce with others of our species. In all of this we have found no need to employ force against others of our kind. Yet, we find that we do need some way to define the limits or extent of inter-relations and interactions with others of our species as we are capable of reasoning and acting according to the products of that reasoning. It is here where discover morals, laws and rights. Our challenge then is to define and discern between these as they each bears a significant and distinct weight in our lives.

Morals are highly individual. They can be understood as personal standards of behaviour arrived at by a blend of both reason and belief that are shown or taught to us from our birth. There origin is from the family and have been passed on throughout all generations with modifications. This is a highly complex mixing that has gone on for generations which leaves no room for a "one size fits all" approach.

Rights are what are OBJECTIVELY common to ALL people. As silly as this might sound because it is so absolutely basic, a person is a living, breathing life. If it exists, it has a right to it's life. If nothing else other than by the fact that it is a life. It has the right to exist freely and independently of all external control and to take those actions necessary to secure it's survival. As each human meets this criteria this right becomes unique in that it stands alone, unassailable in all cultures as the right to life. It is from this right that all others must follow because it is in the exercise of this right that we discover our other rights and the rights of others. In this light then our rights become limits on the extent of our actions in relation to others. This is where we define liberty. It is also where we dicover and define law. We will save those for another thread.

As to the original topic of this thread, we will soon see that rights are absolute in that they are limits within themselves and therefore need no external regulation. The difficulty comes in exercising those rights to their natural boundary. It is this natural boundary that will define both transgression (crossing the boundary) and aggression ( the force employed to cross the boundary).

I look forward to this thread continuing.

Chipper

[ahenry]

Rights are absolute. Whether you decide to exercise it or not, is not. If you do decide to exercise your right, you might have some consequences. The “absoluteness” of a right does not absolve a person of consequences. Sometimes those consequences are good sometimes they are not.


Seems to me that to look at "reality", we're stuck with the ever-lessening consequences--retribution--for all manner of anti-social actions. Preach it brother! ;)

[nualle]

labgrade: the problem with so simple a statement of the question is that, as others have pointed out, each term needs to be defined. Any time I hear a word like "absolute," my attention shifts from the realm of here-and-now and into the realm of perfect forms. bad_dad_brad's objection seems to be that because "absolute" is not here-and-now, it has no existence at all. I disagree, but am reminded of the need to be as clear as possible about what it is we're talking about.

Humans are entirely capable of coming up with the concept of rights because we have intellectual access to the realm of perfect forms. Since rights exist as perfect forms, we need now only to define them. For a right to be a right (that is, to carry moral force against incursion) it has to apply absolutely within the area in which it applies at all. Therefore, "absolute" is part of the definition of "right." There is no separating them.

IMO, only one right exists: the (by definition: absolute) right of self-sovereignty. It has lots of corollaries, among which are those listed in the Bill of Rights.

Back in the realm of here-and-now, history shows how easy (and usual) it is for unethical people to use force to deny other people their rights. This does not render those rights unreal. It's perfectly possible to do wrong (and go on doing wrong for centuries, building up whole systems of cosmology to suit). The argument between those who believe in rights and those who believe differently is probably unreconcilable: the two systems are built on different intuited first principles.

[Zak Smith]

Wrong question?

Several of the definitions of "absolute" are:

1. free from imperfection
2. having no restriction, exception, or qualification
3. POSITIVE, UNQUESTIONABLE
4. being self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships

Also, let me make a distinction between "positive" rights and "negative" rights. A negative right requires no action on the part of anyone else to "satisfy", e.g. the right to not be attacked, to not have your stuff stolen, the right to your body. A positive right would require some positive action on someone else's part to satisfy, e.g. a "right to food", "right to housing", "right to a TV", etc.

Going back to definitions of "absolute", no system of "absolute rights" can exist if it implies some sort of hierarchy of rights, e.g. my right to a free lunch trumps your right to your $100,001st dollar of income, because that implies that the rights have "restrictions, execptions, or qualifications" and they are not "self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships."

Furthermore, no "positive" rights can exist in an "absolute" sense for the same reason (see previous example).

If rights are thought of as axioms in a logical system, from which the morality of any particular action can be determined, then it is possible to define a rights-set that is "perfect" in the sense that it is non contradictory and implies no moral conflicts (dilemmas) within the system, e.g. there will never be a question if it is right or wrong to steal food to survive. Proof that it is possible is simple: I just need to give the example of this system: A person owns his body and the fruits of his labor. Those two rights provide a system in which there are no contradictions as described.

-z

[hd1.]

"Rust never sleeps". Rights require maintenance. There are always erosive forces at work .

[MitchSchaft]

"People are not absolute."

Uhh, people don't live forever.:uhoh:

[B9mmHP]

When it comes to The Bill of Rights, it ought and should be aboslute, but from the second it was signed, the human factor of ignorance, stupidity, greed for power and control, along with other things to numerous to mention came into play and has progressively gotten worse by those that would have it their way.

While browsing trough The Bill of Rights, I wonder if any of it has not been compromised or outright destroyed by the numerous local, state and Federal Governments.

The only Aboslute Rights you have are the ones you make for yourself.:(

[Chris Rhines]

Uhh, people don't live forever. And that has what to do with natural rights? Just asking out of curiosity.

- Chris

[faustulus]

I personally have a problem with the "fire" in the theater example. If I yell fire, you are under no obligation to believe me, in fact you shouldn't until you can make a determination for yourself. I yell fire, you should look around, Do you see smoke? If you are trampled then it is the problem of the one doing the trampling, just like if I shoot you it is my problem not the man who sold me the gun, or the TV show I was watching the night before.
Some people believe in rights and some do not, I believe in God, some do not, I have no proof that God exists, so I go on faith. Same thing with rights. I cannot prove they exist, but I believe it to be so and will fight for them. I also believe rights should be unrestrained. What those rights are is the problem.

[spartacus2002]

Which rights are we talking about?

I think I know the answer (life, liberty, property, and their permutations such as self-defense), but with so many people preaching about so many false rights (right to a job, right to education, etc.) that are actually demands for entitlements, it's important to define them.

Let's keep this thread going -- it's important for us to discuss this topic so we can keep America on track.

[Chipper]

Well, so far we seem to have several definitions and a question concerning what an "absolute person" is. Working out a definiton seems to be more like herding cats with an absolute person.

In all fairness to MitchSchaft, I will assume that the use of the word "absolute" was an attempt to indicate that people are not absolute as in God being absolute, carrying the sense of permanent, immovable, unchangable, solid, stedfast and similar characteristics. In other words, people and their ideas neither form or present a solid or stedfast foundation or basis for rights.

Chipper

[Edward429451]

I think Mitch and Chipper are on the right track with this one.

God is the only absolute. Life came from God so rights come from God. Man can not abrogate what god has given, unless you let them. The original laws (10 commandments) were summarized in the 'common law' laws of which there are two.

1. Keep all contracts you enter into voluntarily.
2. Do not infringe on the rights of others. (this is sweeping.)

If you keep these two laws there is none other. You cannot claim 1st amendment rights to yell fire in a theater because its reasonable to assume that people will unnecessarily panic and possibly be hurt. That would be infringment of others, duh.

If you adhere to Gods principles and truly walk with God, there is no law, only rights. Its only when we walk away from God that things get confusing and need sorted out. Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things will be added unto you.

JMHO.

[nualle]

God is the only absolute. Life came from God so rights come from God.
This works fine for most monotheists. It works not at all for everyone else in the world. Do only those certain monotheists have rights, then? Absurd.

This dead horse has already had its beating; see the previous THR thread:
Where do your rights come from? (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=587)

[Edward429451]

Well either you beleive in God or you dont. If you dont, thats your business. I'm not here tryin to convert anyone. Just answering another mans question. In case you missed it I put in

JMHO

If I touched a nerve with you, there probably an absurd reason why that only you would know.:neener:

They call it conviction where I come from.

[Delmar]

I never looked at the BOR as rights, but as responsibilities to be upheld not only for myself, but for all Americans, wherever, whenever, however it takes.

[nualle]

Edward, why are you yelling? I got your "JMHO" the first time. I was just pointing out the inconsistency in your argument. (Given your reaction, I am forced to reassess your H claim.)

Your argument for the validity of human rights—and they have to be absolute to be rigorously valid—is based on a theology that is not shared by most humans. Either: A) your argument is insufficient to the task of explaining the origin of the rights held by all humans or B) rights are exclusive to those who share that one theology. I find B absurd. If you find my reasoning suspect, I wish you'd point out how rather than :neener: ing at me.

I believe C) human rights flow inevitably from the premise of human equality. No theology required.

[Zak Smith]

I normally avoid religious discussions on TFL/THR, but...

nualle has a good point.

If you are going to base your argument "for" rights on the existence of a certain god, then you need to have proven that that basis is correct. In other words, your argument for rights would only be as strong as your argument for a certain god, theology, or religion.

People have been arguing for or against various religions, including the existence of the Christian God, for a long time. No such proposition of existence has yet passed the rigors of the scientific method, which is the most robust epistemology there is.

-z

[MitchSchaft]

Thank you Chipper and Edward. I always have a hard time getting my ideas across in plain Engrish :o

[Edward429451]

Boy howdy people sure freak out when you mention God. I cant 'prove' the existance of God any more than anyone can 'prove' the existance of rights in any form. Its all conjecture. We could argue for years and not prove anything conclusivly. So we give our opinions. Thats my opinion and beliefs. Why'm I absurd cause I mentioned God without providing proof? That would make us all absurd, eh? No one has proof of anything.

But I digress,

Lets take God out of the equation for the sake of discussion. You're all fond of the written law. The BOR and Constitution was based on the premise of the common law which as noted comes out as two laws;

Keep all contracts entered into voluntarily.
Do not infringe on the rights of others.

If one holds to these two laws, then one would have the right to do any darn thing he/she so pleases so long as they dont cross the line and violate either of these two laws. Period, in my mind. Anyone who would tell you no to this is either (a) A JBT trying to violate YOUR rights or (b) a criminal trying to violate YOUR rights. (Same thing.) If the JBT or Criminal held themselves to the same two laws, they would not try to violate your rights. Any argument against this (theory) could be shown to be a violation of one of the two laws by one or the other of the interested parties.

Bring it on!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------People have been arguing for or against various religions, including the existence of the Christian God, for a long time. No such proposition of existence has yet passed the rigors of the scientific method, which is the most robust epistemology there is.

(Sorry, had to address this) Uhh, Who's epistemology has proven that the scientists are definitivly correct, hmmm? Or have you simply chosen to have faith in and believe in the scientific findings?

[Ken Hagler]

Regarding the rights enumerated in the US Bill of Rights, some are absolute and others are not. Let's look at some examples:

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law" doing various things. There are no qualifications--it does not say, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech except to prohibit the shouting if 'fire' in crowded theaters. The First Amendment is absolute.

The Second Amendment states that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Again, there's no qualification. It does not say "...shall not be infringed except when the government has a compelling interest in doing so." The Second Amendment is also absolute.

But now we come to the (often overlooked) Third Amendment. This one states that "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." This time there is qualification. It gives to cases in which soldiers might be quartered in a house--in time of peace with the owner's consent, or in time of war in accordance with the law. It does not say "No soldier shall be quartered in any house," so the Third Amendment is not absolute.

And the Fourth Amendment is also not absolute. It does not say "The right of the people to be secure...shall not be infringed." Rather, it spells out clearly the circumstances in which that right may be infringed--a warrant issued upon probable cause, etc.

Of course this is all purely theoretical. In practice, the US government routinely ignores the entire Bill of Rights with the exception of the Third Amendment--and would doubtless ignore that one too if quartering soldiers in houses was still done.

[pax]

Another potentially good thread suffering from lack of definitions.

We need to define the word "rights" and all try to use the same definition, or we will never get anywhere useful here. No fun talking past each other, is it?

My definition? I'm of the opinion that most people here are using the word "rights" as an appeal to a moral code of some sort.

So when I hear someone say "I have a right to ________," I think they mean that they believe it is morally wrong for someone else to take away their ability to _____________.

Is that the sense you are using the word? Or does it mean something else?

pax

How many a dispute could have been deflated into a single paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms? -- Aristotle

[Zak Smith]

Keep all contracts entered into voluntarily.
Do not infringe on the rights of others.

If one holds to these two laws, then one would have the right to do any darn thing he/she so pleases so long as they dont cross the line and violate either of these two laws. Period, in my mind. Anyone who would tell you no to this is either (a) A JBT trying to violate YOUR rights or (b) a criminal trying to violate YOUR rights.
First of all, I pretty much agree, except that this explanation leaves a big hole: Without providing a definition of "rights", it allows such disagreements as "I have the right to welfare! No, that's taking my stuff!"

No two legitimate rights can conflict. I.e. "positive" rights cannot exist.

People have been arguing for or against various religions, including the existence of the Christian God, for a long time. No such proposition of existence has yet passed the rigors of the scientific method, which is the most robust epistemology there is.
Uhh, Who's epistemology has proven that the scientists are definitivly correct, hmmm? Or have you simply chosen to have faith in and believe in the scientific findings?


Read carefully. I said, "the scientific method is the most robust epistemology". I didn't say that scientists make no mistakes.

Faith? Not at all. What makes the scientific method epistemology better than all others is that claims made in its framework have: precise meaning; are based solely on reality; and are objectively verifiable.

There's no "well, it's my opinion that X" or "I believe Y". A well-formed (ie, precisely defined) theory can be tested to see if it is in fact true or not, in reality.

-z

[Beer for my Horses]

As a constitutional textualist, I follow the pattern of answering a question by first defining its terms. For this thread we must clearly define the terms absolute and right (American Heritage Dictionary):
"Absolute":
1. Perfect in quality or nature; complete.
2. Not mixed; pure.
3a. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust. b. Unqualified in extent or degree

"Right":
6a. Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.
7. A just or legal claim or title.

"Human Rights":
The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.

I think the discussion should use these basic definitions as a starting point. If I were an editor of the Dictionary, I would personally add to "Human Rights" the right to own private property; the Supreme Court, Constitution, Declaration of Independence would all back me up on that inclusion.

[Beer for my Horses]

Applying the above definitions, it is clear that none of the rights discussed so far are "absolute" or "not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional." The closest right we have to an absolute right would be the right to life, but even that right is subject to restrictions. A person can be deprived of his right to life if given due process and sentenced to the death penalty for murder. The Supreme Court has also ruled, in Roe v. Wade, that a fetus does not have the right to life. Whether the fetus is defined as a "person" for constitutional purposes is another matter, but there is no denying it is a living being. It is certainly justified to deny the right to life of someone who is trying to take your right to life (self defense). There are many cases when rights such as this overlap and a restriction must be applied in order for the Rule of Law to function and prevent anarchy. The only thing worse than the courts interpreting the extent of our rights would be an anarchy of rights where everyone interprets what rights they possess by themselves for themselves.

The rest of the rights discussed so far (whether they are believed to be derived from nature, God, the Constitution, or other source) are also all subject to some types of "restrictions" or "exceptions." Some, imo, are reasonable restrictions but most are not. For example, there are over 20 exceptions to the so called "warrant requirement" of the 4th Amendment.

Thus, applying any reasonable definition of "absolute" leads to the inescapable conclusion that all rights can in some legitimate way be limited by reasonable restrictions or exceptions.

[pax]

Beer,

6a. Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.
I venture to suggest that this definition is inadequate, not least because the question of whether rights originate in law, tradition, or nature is precisely what is at issue.

If rights come from law, then they justly may be removed by law. IOW, you could have a right to liberty unless there were a law which enslaved you because of the color of your skin.

If rights come from tradition, then they justly may be removed by new traditions. IOW, you could have a right to sleep with another consenting adult, until the social pendulum swings back toward more prohibitive rules.

If rights come from nature, then they may not justly be removed unless human nature itself undergoes a fundamental and radical change.

Also, is a right really something that is owed to you by others? Do others have to give a right to you, in order for you to have it?

Corollary, does the gov't have to recognize your right to defend yourself in order for you to have that right? Or do you have that right, whether gov't or others recognize it or not?

pax

Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind. -- Rudyard Kipling

[Edward429451]

Hmmm. I fell kinda like I may have hijacked this thread down a different road than intended, so I tell ya what. I'll make a couple points to clarify my position, then bow out of the thread and let you all continue. OK?


So when I hear someone say "I have a right to ________," I think they mean that they believe it is morally wrong for someone else to take away their ability to _____________.
Is that the sense you are using the word? Or does it mean something else?

Yes, thats the sense that I was using the word. (I'm not touching the argument of the definition of 'morals' which is to do whats expected of you...The gubmint expects me to obey false laws, yet I expected them to not delve into tyranny or abuses...!)

First of all, I pretty much agree, except that this explanation leaves a big hole: Without providing a definition of "rights", it allows such disagreements as "I have the right to welfare! No, that's taking my stuff!"

Hmmm. I think the welfare system was a scam to begin with to foster dependency on the gubmint. If a person does not want to work, then they should not eat, plain & simple. Elderly? Infirm? Thats what family is for. Who wouldnt help their family. Widows? No family, unable to work? Whats their address? I'll go help them. I'll dump so much food & help on em they'll have their proof that God does exist. No one will miss any meals when welfare gets abolished.



No two legitimate rights can conflict. I.e. "positive" rights cannot exist.

I think I agree with this. Give me an example of it happening and I'll try to spot the apparent conflict to show that the rights did not conflict but were worded to make it seem like they conflict. (I have a right to welfare is no good because it infringes on the others rights to the fruit of their labor under duress rather than goodwill of the heart.)



What makes the scientific method epistemology better than all others is that claims made in its framework have: precise meaning; are based solely on reality; and are objectively verifiable.

There's no "well, it's my opinion that X" or "I believe Y". A well-formed (ie, precisely defined) theory can be tested to see if it is in fact true or not, in reality.

Well this is a whole nother thread. Granite for instance. Have you any clue how much dispute is ongoing on the origin of granite? Some theories approaach precise meaning, but none are objectivly verifiable. How about the darwin theory of evolution that they teach as fact but are in fact only (un) educated guesses. What part of Darwins 'well formed precisely defined theory' can be tested to see if it is in fact, a reality?

What part of the theory of liberty can be safely tested?:D

[Beer for my Horses]

I venture to suggest that this definition is inadequate, not least because the question of whether rights originate in law, tradition, or nature is precisely what is at issue.
The definition indicates that "rights" can be derived from any of the three sources. What is at issue in this thread is not the origin of rights, but whether "rights" are absolute.

Also, is a right really something that is owed to you by others? Do others have to give a right to you, in order for you to have it?
If it is a "legal right" then yes, it is owed to you by others. You possess the "right" merely because the law states that you possess it. For example, the right to vote. Others must give you the right to vote and may not obstruct that positive right.

Corollary, does the gov't have to recognize your right to defend yourself in order for you to have that right? Or do you have that right, whether gov't or others recognize it or not?
The government must recognize your right to self defense if you wish to rely on that right in court to excuse the killing of an attacker. The right of self defense has been a long recognized part of our common law and now codified by most states.

It is of course true that in a general sense people have the "right" to do whatever they want, even if it violates a law passed by the government. A more helpful analysis, however, is whether people have a "legal right" to do what they want. This is so because we live under the Rule of Law, and without it we would live under the Rule of Anarchy.

[Edward429451]

Corollary, does the gov't have to recognize your right to defend yourself in order for you to have that right? Or do you have that right, whether gov't or others recognize it or not?

Good question! My (theory) is that rights are like money in the bank that you may not know you have until you make a withdraw. IOW, first you have to perceive that you have the right to______, then once you withdraw it and activate it through the spoken word and pure intent, its an absolute right. Absolute meaning real but not necessarily that it wont be denied or trampled on.

Edited to add: I stand on my faith in the Lord. Everything past the 10 Commandments is tripe filler designed to confuse.

[Chipper]

Let me state unequivocally for the record that I 100% believe that all rights come from God, the Father of my Lord, Jesus Christ.
I do not force this belief of mine on anyone. The acceptance or rejection of God must be each individual's decision. I prefer to think that everyone has the right to go to hell if he so chooses.

Now, to the topic at hand. The framers of the constitution generally (not to a man) believed that the origin and basis of rights was nature. The defining of rights is an act and product of reason. There is no "scientific method" other than perhaps observations of interactions between humans that would even indicate the existence of rights. You can not put a right under a literal microscope. There is no type of litmus test or any other type of test to prove the existence of rights. Rights are a concept. Rights are abstract. We utilize rights rights only because by consensus we have acknowledged their existence and by reason we have defined them and continue to re-define them.

It is by the use of reason that this concept of rights has categorized in our knowledge as belonging to that body of thought that deals with laws and morals as these are the things that work to govern the interactions of humans. This is part of what I attempted to communicate in my first post on this thread. Apparently I missed the mark. Nevertheless, I will stick to my definition of rights which is:As a "legal" concept, rights are simply those things to which you; 1) make a claim, and 2) successfully defend against the aggression of another by either or both, reason and force.


In our country, T. Jefferson and the other signatories to the DoI reached the consensus we had a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This last was originally property but disagreements arose and was changed to happiness which is poor judgment in my NSHO. Nevertheless, it remains that these comprise the basis of our rights. Perhaps these were people were on the right track except for that happiness gag. It is from life that all other rights would emanate. Without life, what is the point of rights? It is only in life that any notion of individual sovereignty would be relevant. Without liberty(the will and ability to act without restraint of coercion to provide what is both needed and wanted by the indiviual)what would life be but mere existence? Liberty then naturally takes us to the pursuit of property and property is what human interaction is based. The ability to gain, hold and maintain, improve or destroy and dispose of property whether our body, the works of our minds, the works of human hands or parcels of earth is what humans spend the greatest portion of their lives expending their time, energies and resources on. Whether these activities are conducted as an individual, a family, a clan, a tribe, a community or any fabricated organizations, it must be realized that it all starts with the individual. From here, the non-aggression principle becomes a guide in defining rights in our interactions but the rights of the individual do remain superior.

In matters of community and governments it must also be remembered that our rights as being natural are antecedent to any and all laws or governments. Though this poses many challenges to how we can organize these institutions of society, it is clear that no society will long endure if due regard is not given the rights of individuals.

Chipper

[Zak Smith]

Chipper,

My comments about epistemology and the scientific method were not meant to be an argument for any particular stance about rights (besides the general inference that any such stance should use it!), but to make the point that basing an argument one wants to be water-tight on a premise that is itself based on a poor espitemology isn't going to be very successful, since that premise can easily be attacked or refuted because of its weak basis.

Regards
Zak

[pax]

This works fine for most monotheists. It works not at all for everyone else in the world. Do only those certain monotheists have rights, then?
Nualle,

You know better than that. Your belief about a thing's origins do not affect the existence of that thing.

If you do not know, or if you choose to reject, the parent who gave you the gene for your pretty brown eyes, would your eyes then cease to exist?

Zak's argument is more cogent, and harder to answer. Zak, I'd recommend reading Plantinga's excellent Warrant books for some beautifully close-reasoned discussion of epistemology. His God and Other Minds is likewise excellent.

pax

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley

[Zak Smith]

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley

Ah, yes, but: "The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading." -- Bertrand Russell
-z

[pax]

The definition indicates that "rights" can be derived from any of the three sources. What is at issue in this thread is not the origin of rights, but whether "rights" are absolute.
Beer,

No, I meant -- by the definition you offered, rights are both absolute (rooted in the very nature of human beings), and not absolute (a matter of legal or societal whim).

But, logically, rights cannot be both absolute and non-absolute. (A cannot be both B and not-B.) This is true unless one is willing to equivocate on basic meanings -- in which case the argument presented has no validity anyway.

Therefore, the offered definition is inadequate for the purpose under discussion.

It is also misleading, for the reasons given above. That definition requires each of us to beg the question by choosing whichever aspect of the definition best suits our own side of the argument ... which puts us right back in the position of having a non-defined term as the basis for our reasoning.

pax

No man means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery and thought is viscous. -- Henry B. Adams

[pax]

Zak,

A witty saying proves nothing. -- Voltaire

pax

:neener:

[pax]

Zak,

On a more serious note. That very thing is the reason I was thinking of Plantinga when I read your post. Plantinga claims that deism can be a properly basic starting point from which to reason, and his arguments for this appear sound to my untrained eye. Not only so, but his writing is lively enough to hold the interest -- if you don't mind having to look up a new word every page or so. :)

pax

In any non-trivial axiomatic system, there are true theorems which cannot be proven. -- Kurt Gödel

[Beer for my Horses]

No, I meant -- by the definition you offered, rights are both absolute (rooted in the very nature of human beings), and not absolute (a matter of legal or societal whim).
That's not at all the definition I offered. Re-read my post. I give several definitions for "right" and "absolute." I conclude that rights, whatever their origin, cannot be absolute because they are not unconditional, and are subject to restrictions and/or exceptions. Just because a certain right might be "rooted in the very nature of human beings" does not mandate that it constitutes an "absolute" right; such rights are still subject to certain restrictions or exceptions. As I posted previously, the most basic right that in your words is "rooted in the very nature of human beings" is the right to life, and even that right is subject to exceptions (see my above post).

[Chipper]

Zak,

My comments were not directed toward you. If you inferred such, then I'll offer my apologies as that was not my intent. I do not think disparagingly of either science or scientists. I do question the motives of those who too easily forget that theories are not yet proven fact just as much as I question believers who accept the traditions and doctrines of men over the commandments of God.

It has been my experience in similar discussions that when religion pops up then, then atheists and agnostics show up then scientists. The difference between believers and non-believers is self-evident. The difference between believers and scientists is generally a lack of understanding. The problem becomes one of these lesser differences clouding the topic at hand.

Threads on this topic are of utmost importance. Quite honestly this entire nation is predicated on the concept of natural rights. It is quite clear that the current scheme of government does not support this premise. This necessarily indicates, if history is any guide, that the scheme of government will change. If we are to have any say what the new scheme will be, and wish to make the transition smoother than it would normally be, it is best that we prepare now by engaging in such discussions. Without a solid foundation of understanding our rights we will not be able to effectively design a new scheme of government which is better suited to preserving those rights.

Chipper

[Freedspeak]

This works fine for most monotheists. It works not at all for everyone else in the world. Do only those certain monotheists have rights, then? Absurd.

Nualle, for the pagans out here we could say from the Gods, and dosen't the rede cover much of the same concepts as the golden rule?

[pax]

Beer,

You make a good point. Have to think about this whole area some more.

I'm going offline for a week or so -- see you all when I get back.

pax

[LawDog]

Are rights absolute?

Of course not.

For a 'right' to be absolute, the exercise of that right must be without restriction.

Note that 'restriction' doesn't read 'governmental restriction'.

Every right has at least, at least, one restriction on it: That right may not be exercised to the degree that it impinges on someone elses rights.

In simpler, more colourful language: Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

That is a restriction, ergo, no right is absolute.

You have the right to worship the deity of your choice, in the manner of your choice ... but not in my living room, and don't even think of human sacrifice, no matter what your holy scribblings demand.

You have the right to peaceably assemble ... you do it on my lawn, and I'll have you run off.

So on and so forth.

LawDog

[Chris Rhines]

LawDog -

You have just illustrated why a few of the most commonly assumed rights are false, and why I'm really becoming disillusioned with the concept of 'rights' in general.

You do not have the right to worship as you please, if you please to do it on LawDog's front lawn.

You don't have the right to free speech, if you are in my apartment.

You don't even have the right to property, if you consider other human beings to be property.

Forget rights.

Instead, think of it this way. You can do anything you like, so long as you act in accordence with the non-aggression principle.

- Chris

[Beer for my Horses]

Instead, think of it this way. You can do anything you like, so long as you act in accordence with the non-aggression principle.
Not always. Why not just stick with the recognition that you can do anything you like, so long as you act in accordance with the law. Our system of government operates based on the Rule of Law, not the rule of the non-aggression principle. The Rule of Law also recognizes "rights" -- while not absolute -- that cannot be infringed by the government. The recent posts discuss the recognition of rights by individuals, which is entirely nebulous.

[labgrade]

Two pages & we're just now starting to get down to the basics.

Good deal.

"In simpler, more colourful language: Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

Exactly, but I never had the right to "punch" your nose in the first place. That's my own definition of my rights limitation.

Mine are still absolute.

[Beer for my Horses]

Mine are still absolute.
You can choose to believe that, but if you exercise your rights "absolutely" -- that is, without recognizing that they are subject to certain exceptions and restrictions -- you will absolutely end up either locked up or owing someone a lot of money.

[Chris Rhines]

Beer -

Why should I obey the law? The law is usually made by idiots, cowards, and venal sadists. Why should I pay any attention to their decrees?

I'll stick with the NAP, thanks.

- Chris

[Beer for my Horses]

Why should I obey the law?
Because, in a general sense, the alternative is anarchy.

[nualle]

Freedspeak: (I see you're a new poster... welcome!)
the rede = the nonaggression principle
and, IMO, they are both refinements of:
the golden rule = Kant's categorical imperative
... so yes, they cover the pretty much the same ground.

Having this sort of statement (the rede/NAP; the golden rule/categorical imperative is too broad to suit) -- a human principle that is so basic that humans who don't assent to it can be considered to be socially defective (antisocial) is all that's required.

Having this human basis, any statement of "from the Gods," just like "from God," is extraneous. Not merely extraneous... any specification past "human" tends to exclude rather than include. Some are atheists. Some are animists whose spiritual landscapes are populated with small characters, none as grand as gods. If rights come from gods, do they miss out?

Chris may be correct that "rights" as a concept is too vague to sustain argument. I still think it's a concept worth working with.

Perhaps the refined statement will help: the rights of innocents are absolute. That is: those who have harmed none cannot rightly be harmed. Thoughts?

[Chris Rhines]

Beer - Exactly. :D

- Chris

[labgrade]

"You can choose to believe that, but if you exercise your rights "absolutely" -- that is, without recognizing that they are subject to certain exceptions and restrictions -- you will absolutely end up either locked up or owing someone a lot of money."

Beer, not at all, but I agree.

My rights are absolute. I certainly don't, & never did have the "right" to infringe upon anothers' anything. That is the restrictions I think you mention. Within that limit though, I have the right to do anything = absolute.

I'm not being an idiot about this, BTW. ;)

If this thought process is "anarchy," so be it. I'd disagree far as the standard definition goes, but you're welcome to what you think that might be.

I'd think that the standard definition is in need of some refinement.

[Edward429451]

Every right has at least, at least, one restriction on it: That right may not be exercised to the degree that it impinges on someone elses rights.

Keep all contracts entered into voluntarily.
Do not infringe on the rights of others.

If one holds to these two laws, then one would have the right to do any darn thing he/she so pleases so long as they dont cross the line and violate either of these two laws.

Same thing reworded. So given no impingement on the rights of others, the logical conclusion is that the right becomes absolute.

Perhaps the refined statement will help: the rights of innocents are absolute. That is: those who have harmed none cannot rightly be harmed. Thoughts?

Exactly. or;

My rights are absolute. I certainly don't, & never did have the "right" to infringe upon anothers' anything. That is the restrictions I think you mention. Within that limit though, I have the right to do anything = absolute

or;


Instead, think of it this way. You can do anything you like, so long as you act in accordence with the non-aggression principle.

also read as #2 of the common law.

Sounds like were all on the same page now.:)

[Freedspeak]

nualle

Perhaps the refined statement will help: the rights of innocents are absolute. That is: those who have harmed none cannot rightly be harmed. Thoughts?


I used "Gods" as a broad brush, from the 'fey' to the 'scientific' beliefs. As to the above it is a good concept and principle to live by, the problem is not all are willing to be accountable/responsible for their actions.

I have the Libertarian view of acountability/ responsability and believe that if we engage in aggressive actions (ie: forcible), then we deserve any response we get from those we try to force. Logical persuassion and agreed upon cooperation works much better with less waste of effort and resources,

Edward429451

You said it most succinctly! Thanks.

[Zander]

If rights come from gods, do they miss out? -- NuallePerhaps you missed [or want to ignore] pax's response. It's still there... :cool:

[Justin]

"if the rest of the patrons get annoyed with you and decide to pummel you for being an obnoxious twit ... "


Hey ... enough already - trying to live that one down. ;)

:confused: Huh?
*Justin goes off to click on the 'Search' function...*
*tappitty tappitty tappitty, "Enhance," tappitty tappitty tappitty, "Enhance"*

Results pop up.
:o
Does anyone have a shoehorn? I seem to have inadvertently placed my keyboard in my mouth...


As to the rights debate, I think that most of us seem to agree that rights are absolute, and that if you infringe on the rights of others that yours then become forfeit. (Ayn Rand actually had a really swell essay on this very topic in her book 'The Virtue of Selfishness.')

As for arguing where rights come from, I don't think it much matters. There are plenty of philosophical paths/outlooks that really come to the same conclusion, regardless of whether you are incredibly devout, or the most outspoken atheist.

As for rights vs. the non-aggression principle, I think that's really a false dichotomy. Once you acknowledge the NAP as legitimate, then it's very easy to derive all true human rights from it. In fact, the NAP can be used as a sort of litmus test of rights. If what you propose is a 'right' doesn't pass the NAP, then it most assuredly is not a true right. (For instance, the 'right' to a job, home, television, etc.)

[Chipper]

Justin,

An excellent summation! Whatever religious or philosophical pathway gets you to the NAP is your business as an individual. It is the NAP that is the point from which humans can live and work in society.

Now that we have reached this point in the discussion, let's move on to defining those rights.

Chipper

[nualle]

Perhaps you missed [or want to ignore] pax's response. It's still there... :cool:
Apparently noone recognizes a rhetorical question anymore.

The (I had hoped) obvious answer to the questions I asked (and, the first time, answered myself with "Absurd!") is "No".

But neither does pax's response satisfy me.
Your belief about a thing's origins do not affect the existence of that thing.
True as far as it goes, but rights as a concept is not equivalent to a genetic heritage like eye color. If you don't believe you have a right, you can't act upon it, even if it really exists.

Let me try to lay this out carefully because there are two things going on here:

Hypothetical constuct:
A) I believe rights exist objectively -- that is, I believe they exist whether anyone believed in them or not.
B) I back up my belief by saying they are a gift from another thing I believe exists objectively, a God.
C) You do not believe in gods and you are not sure about rights.
D) You must reject my support for rights because you don't believe in gods.
E) In lack of any better support, you reject "rights" as a concept.

An atheist or animist might have chosen differently from E. She might have chosen access to "rights" by means of a human origin. But maybe that doesn't occur to her. She doesn't like it, but she can't justify "rights," therefore she rejects them. In so doing, she loses recourse to them. They are as unreal to her now as warp drive—conceivable, but not workable.

But there's a subtler thing going on from B forward... the idea of "objective existence" of any given theological idea. To say that rights predicated on a theology exist whether anyone believes in them (and their accompanying theology) or not is tantamount to saying that that theology is objectively realer than any other. People are free to believe whatever they want, but only this one system is really, really true. The inevitable corollary that all believers in other systems are unfortunately deluded. It's insulting in a well-meaning, unintentional sort of way. Since no theology is any more provable than any other, it terminally begs the question, keeping rights in a limbo of uncertainty.

Personally, I'm willing to entertain the possibility of objective reality of rights predicated on the equality of all humans. Those rights can exist whether people believe in them or not. We know objectively and can demonstrate that humans exist. The only belief anyone needs to have to gain access to rights is one regarding human nature and interrelations (equality). No theology required. People can subsequently have any theological beliefs they want (including none) without endangering their (or anyone else's) access to rights.

[KMKeller]

I'd like to think that rights are absolute because they are are a condition of existence. No existence, no rights making rights existencial. Existence is absolute and those conditions resulting from and directly anchored to existence are by association absolute. Anything attached to existence by the machinations of man are therefore conditional and owing to the doctrine from whence they came.

Some would argue that all things are conditional upon existence and they would be right, but some things are incidental and some things are there when you come into existance. You are born on equal footing with all others and at that moment are no greater or lesser than any other being. It's only when parents, society and civilization begin making determinations for you does that change.

I know I'm rambling here, am I making any sense at all? Help me out here folks. I guess what I'm trying to say is that rights exist beyond cognitive rationalization for the methods to proscribe them... kinda, maybe.

[labgrade]

Some of y'all's loftiness makes my head hurt. ;)

Nonetheless, the discussion is welcomed. From such, I further define my own - I guess.

Thanks for yakin' it out.

[Chipper]

So, from everything stated already it could be surmised that an individual, alone, isolated from other humans has absolute rights. Then that condition of isolation begs the question-what use are rights? It also begs the question-what need of the NAP? It is only in the company, presence, society of other humans that there:
1) exists a need for rights:
2) that those rights are limited due the rights of other people with whom you are in society:
3) exists a need for the NAP:

The NAP is then the guiding principle, the standard, the litmus test from which we define the claims of rights that are objectively and equally common to all people within a society.

Chipper

[KMKeller]

Chipper, beg to diff. The presence of other humans is in no way shape or form necessary for rights to exist, other than parents of course.

Let's take the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How is another person required for any of these? Your right to life exists whether anything is there to formally acknowledge it at all. By your standard, our pal Mowgli has no right to life. Likewise, he would have no right to freedom, or to pursue his own dreams, whether they be gorging on bananas or doing the jitterbug with Baloo. It's what I was trying to get at in my earlier post. Certain rights are there from the moment you come into existence and are universal throughout the living universe. Every animal has the right to defend itself to protect it's life, from another animal, from the cold, from volcanic eruptions, what have you.

[labgrade]

Quick read, chipster. & frankly, I don't have the time to.

My rights have nothing to do with any interaction of a society.

They exist. Period.

That any semblance of a society seems to get their rocks off by limiting them = so sorry & too bad.

Rights exist as they are, regardless of what a society may think of them.

[Beer for my Horses]

Rights are defined by the system of governance that one lives in. Rights may well be absolute if you live on a deserted island or the moon, but they're not absolute (unconditional, without exception) when a human being lives under the Rule of Law. In fact, rights are only meaningful to the extent that they can be enforced. In America, we rely on the Law to enforce our individual rights. On an island of nomads, you'd have to enforce your own individual rights. However, because we choose to live in the U.S. we also subject ourselves to the Rule of Law. As mentioned before, the Rule of Law has carved out exceptions or restrictions to every human right that has been mentioned in this thread. So, in a society that is premised on the Rule of Law, there are simply no "absolute rights."

As for the thought that we are born with absolute rights, it may be an ideal way of thinking about rights, but it makes no difference to a female born in Saudi Arabia who is denied many of the rights we consider fundamental because of the oppressive society she lives in. Does she still have the right of free speech if she can't exercise it? She doesn't have the "right" (ability) to speak freely about politics or other issues because she'll be arrested and punished if she does.

So, I would say to KMKeller and labgrade that it makes all the difference in the world what society of humans you are born into when determining the nautre and scope of your rights. Rights are meaningless unless they can be legally enforced. Our founding fathers created the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court as enforcement mechanisms to protect the rights of individuals. It's not a perfect system, but it's the best one I've seen yet.

[KMKeller]

Does she still have the right of free speech if she can't exercise it?Yep. If a tree falls in the forest, does it make any sound? She is being stripped of that right by an oppressive regime. The right exists whether she can enforce it or not.

[Chipper]

KMKeller,

Rights are of no use if there are no others with whom to interact. No doubt that you would have and they would be absolute simply because there would be no one else around to where you would run up against the natural limits of your rights. My rights end at your nose. Your rights end at mine. This is not about any restrictions society might dream up to suppress your exercise of liberty. It is about acknowledging the fact that your rights end where mine begin.

I am not speaking of governmental limits or restrictions imposed by any external force. Yes, rights are absolute if you exist in a social vacuum however, people do not exist in a social vacuum. Therefore your rights must have limits at the point which the exercise of your rights infringes on another person's rights.

Chipper

[Beer for my Horses]

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make any sound?
Of course it does; what's your point? :confused:

She is being stripped of that right by an oppressive regime.
And being "stripped of that right" means that she no longer possesses it.

The right exists whether she can enforce it or not.
Where does it exist? In her mind? A right unexercised is no right at all.

[Beer for my Horses]

Yes, rights are absolute if you exist in a social vacuum however, people do not exist in a social vacuum. Therefore your rights must have limits at the point which the exercise of your rights infringes on another person's rights.
Indeed. Well put.

[nualle]

And being "stripped of that right" means that she no longer possesses it.
Nope. She still has the right. Each time an officer of her government suppresses her expression of her right, he commits a positive wrong. That's part of the function rights serve: to point out when might is in the wrong.

Where does it exist? In her mind?
It exists in the same place it always did. The same place her life exists. There is no one corporeal location for one's life—it simply is when all the parts are functioning properly, yet it is no less real. In the same way, rights are real without having to be physical, and even when they are denied.

A right unexercised is no right at all.
Several of us disagree.

[KMKeller]

Chipper
Rights are of no use if there are no others with whom to interactSo if Mowgli is walking through the jungle and spots a juicy berry, he has no right to pick it and eat it unless another human is there? I don't buy that for a second.


Beer
And being "stripped of that right" means that she no longer possesses it. WrongO old buddy. It means that the penalty for exercising her right is more detrimental to her general welfare than the exercising of that right would be beneficial.

Where does it exist? In her mind? A right unexercised is no right at all.Maybe she exercises it while she's on the john, or taking a bath, or on a solitary walk. Just because you don't hear it doesn't mean it's not there. And further, if she stands up one day and shouts "No more, the politicians are criminals". Does her right to free speach only exist for that split moment she exercises it? Nope, it was there all along and fear prevented it's use. Fear is the only thing that can prevent the exercise of one's rights. No government can legislate your rights so far into oblivion that you can't exercise them. Fear of reprisal will prevent their use and so will forgetting that they exist.

[KMKeller]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, rights are absolute if you exist in a social vacuum however, people do not exist in a social vacuum. Therefore your rights must have limits at the point which the exercise of your rights infringes on another person's rights.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Indeed. Well put.

Indeed, very well put. And this statement also bolsters the fact that your rights are as absolute as are mine.

[Beer for my Horses]

It means that the penalty for exercising her right is more detrimental to her general welfare than the exercising of that right would be beneficial.
Well, KM, we can agree on one thing based on your above statement, that her right is not absolute (without exception and unconditional) which is what this thread started out to be about.

[Chipper]

KMKeller,

I do not see the disconnect that you claim:
So if Mowgli is walking through the jungle and spots a juicy berry, he has no right to pick it and eat it unless another human is there? I don't buy that for a second.



Do you not understand what is to be in society? If Mowgli is 100% on his own and no one exists or has claims to the lands for hundreds of miles around then yes! Mowgli's rights could be considered absolute. Though he would be the only who thought such if he even gave rights a thought. Why would this be? Because there is no one else around and he would have no real or present need to think about rights, claim rights or exercise rights. When one or more people enter into the picture besides yourself with whom you might possibly interact and claims of property are made (what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours) then rights MUST enter the picture as a means of defining what is his and defending his claim against the possible encroachments of any other person or persons by reason or, failing that, by force as a matter of defense. This would NOT be necessary if other people had not entered the picture.

Chipper

[labgrade]

Puckey, I think, Chipper, if I understand you correctly.

Just because there's some other folk about doesn't degrade any rights I might have. & frankly, their presence might enhance 'em.

Other than that, I don't know what I'm talking about. ;)

[Chipper]

Labgrade,

Puckey?!?!? LOL! I haven't heard that word in quite a while!

You are correct:Just because there's some other folk about doesn't degrade any rights I might have. & frankly, their presence might enhance 'em.


Your rights are NOT degraded. Your rights ARE enhanced. This is because they become clearly defined. They are NOT negatively restricting limits such as having to seek permission from the state to carry your method of self-defense or to beg for tax-free status to preach the gospel as you understand it. These are the actions of an out-of-control nation-state and a society that is afraid of your liberty.

My rights are limited because they end at your nose. If I have the right to travel, I could take the notion to travel right into your house and right on over to your refrigerator and grab a cold one. Then I could turn around and travel back to your living room and grab the remote and change the channel to something I want to watch and plop down in your easy chair. Somehow, I think that you would be real anxious to show me your firearms collection if I did something like that. Then I would say STOP! I have the right to travel and I would travel right on out the door I came in. Though this is an absurd example, it still illustrates that there are natural limits to rights. My rights do NOT allow me to trespass or transgress against your rights.

Let's say that we meet each other on the street in your hometown. We'll say that I suddenly find you to be the most repulsive person I have ever met. Let's say that I start exercising my right to free speech and start sweaing at you. You decide to simply walk from me thinking that I am some sort of lunatic. Then I start to follow you everywhere swearing and insulting you every step of the way. I follow you to the bank, the grocery store, to your workplace, to your home, evrywhere. All the while I am talking trash to you and telling anyone and everyone around you just exactly what I think of you. Now this goes on daily without ceasing. What can you do? If my rights are absolute, there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop me.

Let's say that instead of following you around to swear and such, I instead choose to go out to the woods where no one is around and proceed to rant and rave about you out there where no one can hear me. Do people still exist? Yes. Is my right to free speech absolute? No. Can I execise my right to free speech as much as I want while here in the woods? Yes. Then where is it that my rights are limited? When amongst other people who also have rights. Then what is the limiting factor on my rights? The rights of other people.

I chose these absurd examples to again illustrate that there ARE natural limits to one's rights. Not legislative limits. Not social limits. Natural limits. This is why I say that IF you live in a vacuum (no other person with whom you will ever make contact with throughout your entire life) then your rights ARE absolute. Then again, if you ARE in a vacuum, why would need rights? There would be NO one else to contest what your rights are. There would exist NO need to have or define rights. A baby that plays alone does not contest what is his. It is only when another baby is brought to the first baby that the contest of claims begins. Whether for a toy, for food, for attention a contest will happen between the two to gain what each wants. This contest never ends throughout all of life.

Chipper

[labgrade]

Quickly,

Plenty good Chipster, although I am somehow quite out of reasoning lately.

Let me try though.

You never had the right to plop in my easy chair, or to grab a beer from my 'frigerator. That "right" simply never existed in the first place - without my permission.

Your right to hound me in public sure does/is & I guess I'd just have to live with it - although betcha I could come up with some way to counter it. ;)

My play on this whole thing is that I do have absolute rights = to live, to enjoy .... to express myself completely - to have & to hold - things that are explicitly mine.

That I may cause some consternation to others frankly isn't any of my concern.

That I may infringe upon their own "stuff" certainly is. I don't & never did have that right to do so.

I never had the right to infringe upon anothers'.

& that's the real question asked here.

I do believe that my rights are absolute, but I may never infringe upon anothers'.

Live & let live - & so much more within that, huh?

Chip, thanks. I think it a good idea we hook up sometime.

I firmly believe that if we each have complete freedom, well .... there really wouldn't be so much of a need to have any laws at all .... We would be self-convincing & limiting - that's what good guys do.

Except for those yahoos who would bastardize the system. But that's the crux, huh? (but how much of our system do we have to apply to these bad guys?)

I think our founders started this nation out this way & it was screwed from the git-go by those who wanted to get over it.

[/ramblings] yeah, right. ;)

Things I know to be true are absolute.

But, I have many questions.

Both I know to be very true.

:confused:

[KMKeller]

Well, KM, we can agree on one thing based on your above statement, that her right is not absolute (without exception and unconditional) which is what this thread started out to be about.

I don't agree. Her right IS absolute, her will to enforce it is not. There is a difference.

[Beer for my Horses]

Her right IS absolute, her will to enforce it is not. There is a difference.
The entire thread, but the above quote in particular, has degraded the meaning of fundamental rights (rights we possess that prevent the government or others from taking action to infringe upon them) to a now convolluted definition of "right" that it's something you're able to do, and now according to the above definition, you have to be willing to enforce your own right. You've defined rights right out of existence with these examples. I'll rely on the Bill of Rights to enumerate my legal rights and the courts to enforce them. Our courts, while not perfect, do a much better job of enforcing our rights than your statement that a Saudi woman be required to enforce her own "rights" whatever they may be.

[Beer for my Horses]

My play on this whole thing is that I do have absolute rights = to live
labgrade, I respect your persistence, but how can you have an "absolute" (without exception/unconditional) right to life if the government can rightfully take that right away if you're convicted and sentenced to the death penalty? Your right to life is conditional on you not murdering someone, thus it can not be absolute.

[ahenry]

Yes, rights are absolute if you exist in a social vacuum however, people do not exist in a social vacuum. Therefore your rights must have limits at the point which the exercise of your rights infringes on another person's rights. If I choose to not jump up and down, do I still have the right to jump up and down? If I choose to enter into an agrement with which limits the practice or exercise of a particular right, do I still have that right?


I don't agree. Her right IS absolute, her will to enforce it is not. There is a difference. Absolutely. ;) As I said on the first page of this thread, “Rights are absolute. Whether you decide to exercise it [them] or not, is not.”

[labgrade]

Your right to life is conditional on you not murdering someone, thus it can not be absolute."

Goodness, Beer.

That seems awfully twisted.

Could we agree that I never had a right to murder someone?

My persistence stems from a core belief in some things.

I most certainly never had a "right" to infringe on yours.

[Edward429451]

Lots to think about on this topic. I'v been mulling this over and have come to the realization (I think, correct me if I'm wrong!) that Rights, if existant at all must be absolute or not at all.

i.e., No one can first strike another without violating the NAP or 2nd common law or whatever you want to call it. So when we talk 'absolute rights' were speaking as its a given that no violation (read victim) exists. So if we're in a state of innocence how could anyone else take this innocence to task without violating one or the other of the 2 laws themselves? Once the innocent one has been violated in this manner all bets are off because moral doctrine of defense has been justified.

Summarily, we could say 'Dont tread on me'. This doctrine makes perfect sense. This is not a blank check to because you're Able to do anything, so anything goes, its a given (still) that your behaviour will not even inadvertantly violate anyone else in any way. So keeping that in light, how could any color of law apply to this individual at all, that is innocent of violation? It could not and the innocents rights still exist at the same time. For the 'law' to throw even the first statute at you is an immediate and complete destruction of your rights. To say; "you can 'have the right to _________ if you pay a fee and take the permit..." is total hogwash and bullpucky! This is eminent domain my friends, and is in total opposition to the 2 common laws and any shred of rights that you may possess. Remember, the innocent man with rights has still not violated anyone and this is the only justification that one could rightly give for resistance to the eminent domain machine that exists.

For the legislative establishment to ask people to abide by what they say is right is to subtly ask if they can paint the background in our portrait of liberty (life). (A little leaven leaveneth the whole loaf). There is no conditional rights. Thats the deception! You either have rights or you dont. They keep saying "You'll still have your picture of freedom..." as they paint more of the background. Closer...closer....If you fall for this you have already lost and will soon be painted out of the picture. There is zero room for compromise if rights are to exist. If you are willing to prove that your rights exist by defending them with your life, then that would make them pretty darn absolute in my book. Anything else would be deceptive and distractive from the real issue. So we get to choose, citizen or slave? Bottom line.

Philosophically speaking, of course. :scrutiny: :)

[Beer for my Horses]

For the legislative establishment to ask people to abide by what they say is right is to subtly ask if they can paint the background in our portrait of liberty (life). (A little leaven leaveneth the whole loaf). There is no conditional rights. Thats the deception! You either have rights or you dont. They keep saying "You'll still have your picture of freedom..." as they paint more of the background. Closer...closer....If you fall for this you have already lost and will soon be painted out of the picture.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[Beer for my Horses]

Could we agree that I never had a right to murder someone?
Yes, we can agree. But you also have a right to life, UNLESS you murder someone. That, on its face is an exception to the right to life, meaning that the right to life cannot be absolute. An "absolute" right by definition cannot be subject to conditions, exceptions, or restrictions; it must be unconditional. I don't see why that's so hard for some people to understand.

[Edward429451]

Beer,

What dont you understand about my post you quoted? You pretty much reiterated the crux of it in your reply to Labgrade.

:confused:

[Beer for my Horses]

What dont you understand about my post you quoted?
The entire post.

Honestly, I've followed your other posts, but the last one just left me scratching my head. . .It looks like you're trying to get some kind of funky metaphorical thing going, but it just doesn't get your message across. . . to me anyway. :(

[Edward429451]

Oh. Yeah I hear ya. Sorry if it was a little metaphorical but its kinda hard to discuss this stuff sometimes and be specific about anything cause all the thin skinned ones take offense and start tryin to pick apart the details while losing sight of the big picture (issue). Plus ramblin dont make anything any clearer either.;)

I fail to understand why "some things you shouldnt say", or if you do your 'out of line'. Some things need to be discussed and we should be able to rise above perceived emotional content and keep with the implied doctrine for sake of discussion lest knowledge and wisdom be lost and Oleg's hard work for nothing.

If I were to say; LEO's have no right to releive me of my gun cause I KNOW I have commited no offense...I'm an LEO basher. If I said I try to hold myself to the law of (gasp) God, then I'm intolerant of others beliefs.:rolleyes: We all cant be right.

The big picture is freedom and liberty. They say if we can paint in one law back here in the background that life will be better. They keep painting in new laws to the point that any picture of freedom or liberty is getting mighty hard to distinguish. Guess what? It isnt any better. Its worse. Letting us pay money and sign ourselves into their oppressively conditional subjection is an abomination to the integrity of mankind and nothing less than organized slavery!
What? Put me on the good guy list for a fee? Arent they supposed to be taking the willful violators out of society for us? Oh, they're cycling them back onto the street for their cause. They aint doin their job! The have a copy of the syllabus (Constitution). Clear cut breach of contract. (not the leo's fault, not the legislator's fault, they say its our fault for voting.) I dont buy it. This is NOT a democracy its a republic that originally answered to a higher law than the present administration. So it being my fault supposedly then it shouldnt suprise anyone if I rose above their slavery proposal with a public declaration of non recognizance of statutory law. I am the people, and I answer to God first my conscience second.

Philisophically speaking mr alaphabet man! :neener:

[Chipper]

Labgrade, et al,

I'm glad to see this thread is still alive. Labgrade, yes, it has taxed my reasoning also. I slipped in the property rights thing because I wanted to probe the idea that they might be what you were aiming at.

I think we might have done better if we had defined the extent of what is meant by absolute. In the sense of a king, absolute is whatever he may want or have whatever he wants according to his will. His will trumps all other considerations. That's a little too absolute for me. Perhaps the founders were on to something when they characterized rights as inalienable. We can't be separated from them. In that sense, rights are absolutely ours, that is, we cannot be separated or estranged from them by the acts of governments or other persons. In this sense rights are a matter of absolute property. With this I must agree. In the sense of the king, rights cannot be absolute as to exercise because there are natural limits imposed by the rights of other persons. This is the operation of the NAP.

Beer, I'm simply stumped as to your nick. I have cartoonish visions of a horse at bar with you raising a glass, dancing, carousing and in general trying to defy nature by becoming an ***. Then sort of doing a horsey-stagger on the way home.

Ahenry, If I choose to not jump up and down, do I still have the right to jump up and down? If I choose to enter into an agrement with which limits the practice or exercise of a particular right, do I still have that right?

Yes. You have the right to jump up and down. You do not have the right to do so on my property unless I grant permission. You still retain the right, you simply can't exercise it on my property.

Yes. If you choose to enter an agreement to voluntarily refrain from exercising your rights, you still retain the rights, you simply cannot exercise them according to the terms of the agreement.

Chipper

[ahenry]

Yes. You have the right to jump up and down. You do not have the right to do so on my property unless I grant permission. You still retain the right, you simply can't exercise it on my property. I beg to differ. I have the right jump all I want on your property. I also “have the right” to deal with the consequences. According to you, if I do not have the right to jump up and down on your property, where do you derive the right to keep me from doing so? Suppose I change the example to an action that harmed you (even though you had not violated the “non aggression principle”), but saved my life. Do I not have the right to protect my life? Whose right then is supreme? I submit that what makes us human (among other things) is that we have the right to choose our actions, whatever they may be. We can think and we can define consequences for our actions. From that we can make a decision to do or to not do a certain thing. At the bottom line however, we have the right to act as we desire, and we have the responsibility of living with the consequences.*


Yes. If you choose to enter an agreement to voluntarily refrain from exercising your rights, you still retain the rights, you simply cannot exercise them according to the terms of the agreement. I agree. If an elected gov’t (that I choose to submit to) places restrictions upon a right I possess, do I still retain that right? By extension, can an elected gov’t (that I choose to submit to) ever take away a right?

* As society has lessened the responsibility an individual has for what they do, freedom and liberty have suffered. A free society cannot exist without the ability to act as one chooses (with perhaps agreed upon restrictions) and the responsibility to suffer the consequences.

[ahenry]

Beer, I'm simply stumped as to your nick. I have cartoonish visions of a horse at bar with you raising a glass, dancing, carousing and in general trying to defy nature by becoming an ***. Then sort of doing a horsey-stagger on the way home. I assumed it was for a fantastic C&W song by Toby Keith and Willie Nelson. The lyrics are great, and sorta go along with this thread (at least the points I’m making).

[Beer for my Horses]

I assumed it was for a fantastic C&W song by Toby Keith and Willie Nelson. The lyrics are great, and sorta go along with this thread (at least the points I’m making).
I'm glad someone listens to good music. ;)

[Beer for my Horses]

This thread has now become a debate over the meaning of the word "right." A "right" (for purposes of this discussion) is not simply the mere ability to do something as several have recently posted. A "right" is a protected or guaranteed ability to do something. At least that's what a fundamental, inalienable right is. That's where this thread started out.

Thus, I have the ability to jump up and down on your property all I want, but I don't have the "right" to do so.

[Chipper]

Ahenry,

I beg to differ. I have the right jump all I want on your property. I also “have the right” to deal with the consequences. According to you, if I do not have the right to jump up and down on your property, where do you derive the right to keep me from doing so?

Excuse me for for my most wicked act of assuming. Assuming that most people prefer to avoid consequences. Perhaps this aversion to consequences is partly a basis for society also. If you wish to go this route then I will flatly proclaim you have NO right to jump up and down on my property and promptly relieve you of the burden of ever exercising your rights. Why? Because you have aggressed against me, my rights and my property. By exercising your right you have transgressed a natural, though in this case a highly suspect, limit on the exercise of that right by doing so on my property.

Suppose I change the example to an action that harmed you (even though you had not violated the “non aggression principle”), but saved my life. Do I not have the right to protect my life? Whose right then is supreme? I submit that what makes us human (among other things) is that we have the right to choose our actions, whatever they may be. We can think and we can define consequences for our actions. From that we can make a decision to do or to not do a certain thing. At the bottom line however, we have the right to act as we desire, and we have the responsibility of living with the consequences.*

Or not living with the consequences as the case may be.

Then, according to you, if there exist no natural limits then what is the point of even having rights? We are then reduced to nothing more than animals in a jungle or wild beasts of the field. We simply accept the consequences of whatever it is that we do and that is the end of that. Then Hobbes was right and life is nothing more than a war of all against all. There is then no need of law for there is no standard and therefore no need of justifying actions. In short, all of society is a sham because our individual rights trump all. As a matter of fact, rights do not even exist. I simply cannot accept that. It is illogical. It denies the nature of man and makes little more than highly evolved apes.

* As society has lessened the responsibility an individual has for what they do, freedom and liberty have suffered. A free society cannot exist without the ability to act as one chooses (with perhaps agreed upon restrictions) and the responsibility to suffer the consequences

Your footnote does not bolster your argument. You can't have it both ways. You either have rights and their natural limits or you don't. The rights and the natural limits to the exercise of rights are antecedent to any agreed upon restrictions. Agreed upon restrictions are the artificial limits agreed to by those who enter into a contractual relationship. The agreement in effect provides a de factodefinition of your rights simply by agreeing to the stated limits on your actions. According to your arguments, you are still left without rights outside the limits of the agreement. So what's it going to be? We have rights and their natural limits or we don't.

And as far as the choice of music, if I listen to C & W, it is the old school stuff, Merle Haggard, Ferlin Husky, Porter Waggoner, Lynn Anderson and so on. I really don't care for this newer "wish it could be pop rock" stuff.

Chipper

[labgrade]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could we agree that I never had a right to murder someone?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, we can agree. But you also have a right to life, UNLESS you murder someone. That, on its face is an exception to the right to life, meaning that the right to life cannot be absolute. An "absolute" right by definition cannot be subject to conditions, exceptions, or restrictions; it must be unconditional. I don't see why that's so hard for some people to understand.
__________________

Beer,

But Sir. My right to life is with that assumption that I would never deprive another (of course). Each comes with it's own responsibility.

A willy-nilly "exercize" of my rights (in your instance) would indeed deprive me of my heretofores because I never did have that "right" to begin with.

Very simplistic, very easy on the brain.

I have basic rights that [U]are[/I] absolute, but with that comes an undertsanding also that I cannot infringe upon anothers'.

Interesting tidbit that I missed today that The Wife passed on - a midrash on a Torah portion that stated that we have no rights - only obligations ..... I missed a good one.

[Edward429451]

No rights thread is complete without seeing what the scripture says about the issue.

1 Corinthians 10:29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?

Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Psalms 119:45 And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.

Jeremiah 34:16 But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom ye had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.


1 Peter 2:16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

So its not as if its a free for all when you mentally dispose of mans law, we're still accountable to God and his law.