The Nature of Rights

[Chuck Dye]

I have long thought that there is one and only one right: the right of the organism to do as it pleases to the extent that it is able with whatever abilities, powers, and resources it has or can garner from others. All else is privilege obtained by the exercise of that right.

Our political systems are all about the "garner from others." The great problem, no matter which side of any issue you are on, is the number of people who contribute their abilities, power, or resources to others without critical thought.

 

[Werewolf]

dischord claims:

They are priviledges only if you willingly submit to the consensus of the group. Thus my earlier statement: While logical discipline is useful in protecting our rights, ultimately, we will not win with "QED" but with "I demand."

It seems we're back at your premise (group paramount) versus my premise (individual paramount). "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves.

It seems to me that group-paramount vs individual-paramount is essentially irrelevant when one considers that in reality any conflict between the desires of the group and the desires of the individual that the group will always prevail. That essentially makes the desires of the individual meaningless.

I believe the key factor in your conclusion is the "we" part of we will not win... It is only when many individuals create a sub-group that the common desires of the individual can prevail over that of the group either by consent or force (the common attitude change towards slavery in the 19th century is an example of attitude change implemented both thru consent and force).

Whether one submits willingly or not to the desires of the group is not relevant - the end result is the same - the group wins. Thus the rights of the individual exist only to the extent that the group permits them to exist and are therefore priviledge and not right.

FWIW I'm not sure that we disagree all that much - our philosophies are not diametricly opposed - maybe just a 45 or so angle.

 

[palehorse]

dischord: You have some very interesting thoughts on this subject. I agree strongly with much of what your post contains.

To further complicate this issue, I will propose the following thought: "Man(kind)" has absolutely no rights [ noun. 1) That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.] whatsoever.

Everything that we claim, even life, is a priviledge. ie, how much more likely are we to protect and defend that which has been loaned to us, as opposed to that which we say is ours?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Dischord said'

It seems we're back at your premise (group paramount) versus my premise (individual paramount). "What the thinker thinks, the prover proves."

Sounds like anarchy to me

 

[dischord]

Werewolf: It seems to me that group-paramount vs individual-paramount is essentially irrelevant when one considers that in reality any conflict between the desires of the group and the desires of the individual that the group will always prevail.

A) That is not always true. The individual can prevail, or at least avoid the will of the group. Stop thinking in absolutes and false dichotomies.

B) You seem to be confusing right with liberty(*).
Right: Activity that ought to be permitted.
Liberty: Activity that is permitted.
(See, pax was correct about defining terms.)

Thus, even if the group does prevail, it can take only liberty. The right remains even if the liberty does not. This was Molon' Labe's point earlier in the thread with: "It is impossible to take a right from someone. You can only forbid them from practicing a right."

(*)A third related word, freedom, has a still slightly different meaning: Activity within the doer's ability. People in Japan have the freedom to own handguns due to the blackmarket, but not the liberty. A poor man in Texas has the right and liberty to own a $5,000 gun, but not the freedom. To Molon Labe's statement, I would add: "Even if you forbid them from practicing it, they still might have the freedom."

Werewolf: It is only when many individuals create a sub-group that the common desires of the individual can prevail over that of the group either by consent or force

Again with the absolutes? No, the individual can prevail alone. The odds might be stacked against him. It is easier with allies. But it is possible. Even men in prison make weapons with no help from others.

cropcirclewalker: Sounds like anarchy to me

That's because you're making the mistake of taking an imperfect model and interpreting it as an absolute and immutable truth.

palehorse: Everything that we claim, even life, is a priviledge. ie, how much more likely are we to protect and defend that which has been loaned to us, as opposed to that which we say is ours?

A) That sounds like a religious discussion, which is a forbidden topic on THR

B) I don't entirely disagree, but I do see it as an imperfect model that works better when discussing god-to-man interaction than when discussing man-to-man interaction -- but further discussion/clarification would violate the THR rules of conduct.